MustardTiger

How dare they remove the code for a "feature" that hasn't worked in several years! The horror!

Not supported, "supported". Big difference.

No it doesn't. A small amount of very flawed research did. If you smile more you may become happier. But this is because other people's reactions to you change if you smile or not. People being nice to you makes you happy, not your own smiling. Either way, how does that apply to racism? We've clearly seen that silencing racism does not make people less racist, it just makes them form little racist clubs to be racist in.

It is a derogatory term. Just like I use the term "racist" as an implicitly derogatory term. Because it is.

Seriously, read the book instead of repeating nonsense: https://realworldocaml.org/v1/en/html/functors.html

>The reason you can't show me the map from F(A) to F(B) is that it's not there.

That is literally the functor. Seriously, read the chapter on modules.

I can't teach you ocaml on hn. If you want to learn, try this: https://realworldocaml.org/

>My point was frameworks are functionally no different than a large complex library

You'll have to forgive me for not guessing that given that nothing in your post came anywhere close to even suggesting anything of the sort. I am limited to reading what you write, and can not read your mind.

Yes, frameworks are different from libraries. Boy, that was productive.

>However, if F is an ML functor, then there are no "maps" between the modules F(A) and F(B).

Yes there is, the functor. Just repeating a false statement won't make it come true.

>In OCaml and ML, Functors represent parameterized modules

No, functors represent functions from a module to a module. Oh hey, that sounds just like the standard definition of a functor. As I said, the behavior is different because the languages are different, but both are named after the category theory functor, because they both emulate it.

>I wasn't under the impression we should be limiting this to frameworks

The discussion is entirely and solely about frameworks..

>What's the difference between a framework and a library for the purpose of this discussion?

Wikipedia exists.

>See above

Above what? Nothing you said above answers my question.

>And I've been sticking with the same examples since the first comment. Why is this all of a sudden not making sense?

Because it has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said, like I clearly stated.

>Integers are not monoids. As I stated in GP, the combination (Integer, +, 0) defines a monoid

This is simply being pedantic. We're all well aware of the meaning of what I said, as it is how it is almost always said.

>Both of these approaches are workarounds for the problem that typeclass instances

That's not a problem, it is the point. That is what typeclasses were intended to be.

Curl isn't a framework.

>Do we really need to also be responsible to dealing with already solved problems as well as the problems specific to our domain?

No? What does that have to do with anything?

>Do we really want to also deal with the not-fully-compliant HTTP client or making sure we support HTTP/2, or do we want to use widely accepted solutions for those so we can focus on the real problem at hand (which is usually not the intricacies of HTTP negotiation, or some other well understood and supplied need).

Did you reply to the wrong comment by mistake or something? What does any of this have to do with me or what I said?

What? The statement is true in reality, it is not true in haskell. Haskell does not provide a Monoid instance for Integer, you have to use Sum or Product.

>The key operation that defines a monoid is the append operation

No, it is the sole monoid operation. It is named mappend in haskell, but that does not make everything it encompasses into appending. Ask someone what operations can be done on "appendables" and you will get lots of answers like looping, sizeof, etc. Append always refers to collections in other languages, so the argument that it would help people to call something different "appendable" for those people is silly.

>So the name `mappend` is "completely wrong" in your opinion?

No, it is partially wrong, as I said. Appending describes a subset of monoids, not monoids.

>It's such a Haskelly response to say that I am not allowed to use a concept for what it was designed for

What on earth are you talking about? I am not a haskell person and I said nothing even remotely resembling that.

>People who know Haskell can cope with much more indirection than a type alias.

People can cope with all kinds of bad things, regardless of whether or not they know haskell. That is not an argument in favor of bad things.

>I know you can use them to, like, multiply using abstract nonsense

What? There's nothing "abstract nonsense" about it. Integers are monoids. Things that can be appended is a subset of monoids, not a description of them.

>In OCaml, “Functor” is a well-defined term with a completely different meaning

No, it has the same meaning. It does not behave identically because the languages do not have identical designs.

>But I would know what a “Mappable” should be, regardless of PL.

Lots of people wouldn't, and would be wondering what cartography has to do with anything. And even for people familiar with the functional "map", now they would just have an incorrect idea of what Functor is. Lots of Functors are things most people would not think of as being "Mappable".

And now you would helpfully give everyone reading your code either a huge pain if they know haskell, or a completely wrong impression of what that class actually is if they don't. Great!

This whole argument is based on two false assumptions. One, that shitty broken web frameworks like cakephp and zend are "well known, well documented project with thousands of eyes fixing bugs and adding features" rather than the horrible messes they actually are. And two, that web apps are the only software to share any common aspects. Every lame VB+Access app I ever saw had more in common than two randomly chosen web apps. Yet nobody needed a "framework" to enforce worst practices and ensure that everything was done inefficiently and unmaintainably.

> If you came upon someone's custom HTTP client, I imagine your response would be something along those lines.

No, why would it? What HTTP client framework am I supposed to be wishing they used?

I wonder why this mentality only exists with web devs. Everywhere else, someone writing software is considered normal, not some scary problem. Nobody sees any other kind of application written by a previous programmer and cries "oh no! I am entirely at the mercy of this previous programmer! If only they had used one of the dozen competing frameworks this tragedy could have been avoided.". It is just normal. Perhaps the low barrier to entry and corresponding low average experience of web developers plays a part in this mentality.

It is interesting how everyone wants to portray themselves as a victim. "I was persecuted for pursuing this very popular agenda, please ignore all the overwhelming support I got and pretend I am a victim". The idea that the British empire was an empire of evil and hatred has been the only acceptable view for decades, and is the standard story taught starting at least 3 decades back. You were not persecuted for supporting the majority view.

Yes, it works as expected. Again, what problem(s) did you have? Vague "its hard" replaced with an even more vague "it didn't work" comes off as trolling rather than a legit problem.

I'm genuinely curious here since opensmtpd has been by far the easiest to configure MTA I've ever seen. What problem(s) did you have? Virtual users through a relay host is literally one simple line:

    accept for domain "example.com" virtual <users> relay via relay.example.com

I don't see how anyone could conclude that is more difficult than postfix.

>use Postfix or Exim

Better yet, opensmtpd.

Yes, that's what I mean. It is called a roadwarrior VPN. As opposed to a point to point VPN.

>is there a proper technical term for this type?

Generally individual users connecting to a VPN are called road warriors, even if they're not on the road and always connect from the same place.

I work 12 hours apart in one day all the time. I work an average of 16 hours a week, from home. Stick to the actual discussion rather than trying to invent nonsense reasons to dismiss people's opinions.

The same CDN is serving thousands of sites, so they can track a ton of what users do. CDNs are perfectly placed to capture and sell user stats.

Yes, and an even better message is the reply to it, pointing out how almost all of their issues aren't really issues: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160727002711.GI4028%...