copergi

>Expect "Why I migrated from Go to Hack" articles soon enough

Why would you expect that? Obviously the bulk of people migrating to hack will be coming from PHP.

>I wish these extensions came by way of the PHP core rather than a language that is superimposed on PHP

Someone has to do it, and the PHP developers have proven time and again that they aren't going to. At some point the only options are to leave PHP altogether, or make your own PHP that sucks less.

>The fast development cycle -- edit php script, refresh -- is something amazing that you don't get in a lot of statically typed languages

You seriously think that? That's how we do haskell web development. Both yesod and snap do this out of the box. That's how every java developer I know works.

>It just has terrible ambassadors that give the impression that category theory and Haskell are synonymous

It isn't ambassadors doing that, it is detractors.

>This is a reasonable introduction to Haskell that does away with that Haskegorical nonsense

Note that one of the authors, Don Stewart is almost certainly the biggest haskell ambassador in the history of the language. Which reinforces my other statement quite nicely.

You might think of it that way, but it doesn't reflect reality at all.

Nah, I took it as an opportunity to educate him. He learned that I am not a linux guy, and that there's actually lots of unix operating systems. And then he learned that mysql isn't the linux database, it is just a database and that he should use postgresql instead.

>MySQL is fantastic for probably 90% of what you'd ever think to use it for

No, it is tolerable if you don't know any better. That's like saying a gremlin is fantastic for 90% of what you'd ever think to use it for. If you have a choice, and know other cars exist, then you wouldn't think to use it for anything. If you don't know other cars exist, then you can hardly be believed for claiming it is "fantastic". Mysql is a nightmare. It is incredibly crippled, full of limitations that force you to add complexity to your code to work around them, and offers nothing positive to make up for these downsides.

>but both will get you a very long ways before they are ever your main problem as a startup.

Haha, tell that to our SQL server guy who got stuck doing a PHP/mysql project. He didn't get through the first day without coming to me asking "how do you linux people function when your database can't do anything?". He ran into three separate mysql limitations in the first day he was using it.

This is just someone who doesn't appear to have much experience with any of the three, repeating "common knowledge" opinions that are largely misguided and/or outdated. If you want to say X is faster or Y has more "security options" (what?) then link to something to demonstrate that.

Innodb doesn't have fulltext search, it has "fulltext search*". Big difference.

Postgresql seems more popular from reading blogs, news sites, etc because it is moving up in popularity while mysql is moving down. So there is more talk about it, even though there is still less usage. All the people switching to postgresql from mysql and talking about how much better it is, all the people hearing that and asking about it, etc. Mysql is still more popular, notice how lots of the typical PHP turdware doesn't even support postgresql for example.

>If all you are doing is reading single rows from a single table using an index, then yes Postgres is overkill and other solutions may perform better

No, not really. Mysql will perform very slightly better if you are doing just simple selects and they are all with a single connection. But it is a pretty small difference, and it goes away if you have anything else happening at all. This notion that postgresql is somehow "overkill" because it isn't broken is silly.

Odd that they think they outgrew postgresql, while only dealing with a tiny 30k tps.

It won't though. Because it'll still be a decade behind haskell. People want more than just "ok, you can use multiple OS threads now". They want a concurrent IO manager, painless and seemless multiplexing of low cost green threads over OS threads, and high level concurrency and parallelism constructs. It is going to take a long time for ocaml to catch up to haskell in this department, and who knows what haskell is going to be offering by then.

>But its use of structural typing instead of nominative typing effectively means it takes half the compiler assistance you can get out of static type checking and chucks it out the window

It is quite rare for people to use objects in ocaml anyways, so it doesn't matter much.

>A language that doesn't do this is a language that can't be taught to understand the difference between 12 meters and 12 Newtons.

Sure it can. Make a type for meters and a type for newtons. Haskell won't think there is a difference between those if you make them both an int either.

You are acknowledging that you are wrong without even noticing. No, haskell is not an "ivory tower". It is a very practical, useful language. That is precisely the reason it has gained so much momentum and usage. Ocaml had more users than haskell back in the mid 00s. Now haskell absolutely dwarfs ocaml. The reason ocaml doesn't get more interest pigging backing off of haskell is that there is no reason to use ocaml over haskell.

But "someday we'll only be a decade behind haskell" isn't much of a reason to choose ocaml over haskell.

>My point was that neither OCaml nor Haskell have particularly strong implementations in this area (to my knowledge)

They both do.

I think fay uses its own FFI, but with haste you just use the normal FFI to call normal javascript functions the same way you would interface with C code from haskell. There's no need for special bindings or anything. You could certainly make a wrapper for jquery if you were crazy (and I'm sure someone has already done so), but this idea that you need some special DOM library to do things that javascript already does out of the box is kinda odd.

I think you misread something. He asked how to do it without manipulating the DOM.

Is that a trick question? I don't know how or why you would try to do that.

I write all my javascript in haskell, and haven't had any problems. What do you need/want "DOM bindings" for?

>because if they said anything less, then regardless of the truth of the matter, they'd be skinned alive.

I am amazed at how many people don't recognize this. Even if the entire thing were completely made up, this would still be the only acceptable response github could give.

It isn't the purpose of the contract, that's a complete non-sequitur.

I am fully aware of what they are, we stopped building them for a reason. They are hell to live in. You get the bare minimum air exchange as required by code. Try being in such a building for a day. Properly constructed passive buildings use thermal mass to maintain comfortable temperatures while allowing proper ventilation.

Violating the law doesn't automatically violate any random contracts you have entered into.

>But you want the air to be warm, not the walls.

No, you don't. Heating the structure is far more efficient, allows for proper ventilation, and is far more comfortable for the inhabitants.

>Also, passive houses do have proper ventilation:

Yes, but this is not a passive house, that's the point. This is just an airtight box of insulation. They have the least amount of ventilation allowed by code. The air quality in such houses is terrible, and they are very uncomfortable to live in.

>Without tricks like that, you'll have a hard time getting below 15 kWh/m² per year.

You can very easily get to 0 without "tricks" like that. South facing windows + thermal mass.

>That being said, I guarantee you were violating your lease when you used AirBnb

How can you guarantee that? Plenty of places let you sublet. Hell, in reasonable jurisdictions you can't legally prevent someone from subletting.

That strategy is successful everywhere. You already insulate anyways, you still need thermal mass. It isn't just about capturing heat during the day to release at night, it is about heating the house instead of the air inside the house. This lets you have proper ventilation.

>which is more about super-insulating a nearly airtight envelope

That last part is the problem. Insulation is a huge part in any passive home, but heating the air means keeping things airtight. Which means terrible air quality and living conditions.

No thermal mass makes for a horrible passive house.