Writing Clearly is Clearly Hard
Go is a Pretty Average Language
But OCaml is Pretty Great
A Most Vivid Dream
Deceptively Simple Is Deceptively Simple
Namespaces Are Useful
Or: How I Got Bitten by the Dot Import Gotcha
Do You Need Deep Learning?
How To Use Go Interfaces
I occasionally give free Go consults and code review on top of my daily work. As such, I tend to read a lot of other peoples’ codes. And while this is really more of a feeling *Now, you should go, really? You're a statistician by training ffs, I’ve seen an increase in what I call “Java-style” interface usage.
This blog post is a Go specific recommendation from me, based on my experiences writing Go code, on how to use interfaces well.
For this blog post, the running example will span two packages:
circus. A lot of what I write about here is about code at the boundary of packages.
Tuples Are Powerful
Over Chinese New Year clebrations, a friend asked (again) about the curious lack of a particular feature in Gorgonia, the deep-learning package for Go: tuples, which led to this tweet (that no one else found funny :( )
"I follow the teachings of Lambda Calculus turing times of hardship"— Chewxy (@chewxy) February 17, 2018
"I'm a follower of Church of Turing Machines"
are puns that should be considered the epitome of puns.
I may be a bit intoxicated. Just a bit
The feature that was missing is one that I’ve vehemently objected to in the past. So vehemently objected I was to this that by the first public release of Gorgonia, there was only one reference that it ever existed (by the time I released Gorgonia to public, I had been working of 3 versions of the same idea).[Read More]
Term Rewriting Chinese Relatives
Learn Chinese AND Functional Programming At the Same Time
I recently attended QFPL’s excellent Haskell course. Tony Morris was a little DRY*It's a joke. Tony kept mentioning Don't Repeat Yourself and being lazy but nonetheless was an excellent presenter *The course shook my confidence in my existing ability to reason in Haskell for a bit but it was for the better - I had some fundamentals that were broken and Tony explained some things in a way that fixed it... for now - I have no doubt some basics will be lost to the ether in the next few months. So for the rest of the week I was in a bit of a equational-reasoning mode.
Then my dad sent me a cute link to a calculator that calculate vocatives for Chinese relatives. Given English as my first language (hence not default mode of thinking), this kicked me off in to a chain of thoughts about languages and symbols (you’d find a high amount of correlation between my switching modes of thinking and blog posts - the last time this happened, I wrote about yes and no).
One of the difficult things that many people report with programming languages is that the decoupling of syntax and semantics. I’ve often wondered if we might be better off with a syntax that is based off symbols (rather like APL) - the initial hurdle might be higher, but once that’d done, syntax and semantics are completely decoupled. Then we’d not have flame wars on syntax, rather a more interesting flame war on semantics and pragmatics.
Another line of thinking I had was the hypothetical development of computing and logics in a parallel universe where Chinese was the dominant linguistic paradigms - it’s one that I’ve had since I visited China for the first time.
Combined, these trains of thoughts led to this blog post. So let’s learn some Chinese while learning some (really restricted) functional programming! Bear in mind it’s a very rough unrigorous version.[Read More]