tome

Cool, my contact details are on the front page of that site.

Interesting, I have not heard of Spritely Goblins! But neither Bluefin nor effectful could be described as distributed capability systems/effect systems, so I don't think they're comparable.

On infection, I think it's a bit like being infected by mitochondria :)

I think nextaccountic is not technically fully correct, but he/she is at least correct in the most important part: Safe Haskell is not really practical.

But if you don't want an ironclad guarantee and instead you're content with making wrong code obviously wrong even if it's not formally verified, then I recommend Haskell with a capability system (what the Haskell world calls an "effect system"). As far is I'm concerned there are two practical choices in 2026, Bluefin (mine) and effectful (one of Bluefin's inspirations)

* https://hackage.haskell.org/package/bluefin

* https://hackage.haskell.org/package/effectful

Here you go! It's a complete document, but I'll continue to edit it over the next few days before I announce it. I'd love to hear any thoughts you have.

https://h2.jaguarpaw.co.uk/posts/bluefin-capability-system/

Yeah, I think they're basically identical concepts. I'm writing an article on that topic right now.

Yes! It started as an implementation of the effect system I always wanted: effects passed on the value level, rather than implicitly on the type level. Once I'd done that I realise that it was actually a capability system (and that was the better way of describing it, because more people already know what a "capability system" is).

People don’t say "Haskell makes it impossible to write bugs"! You may have heard "if it compiles it works" which is somewhat tongue in cheek, but also true for a sufficiently loose interpretation of "works" in a way it is not true for languages with a less strong and flexible type system.

Yeah you can write a capability that encapsulates exactly whatever effects that you like!

I'll blow my own trumpet and promote my own Haskell capabilities library, Bluefin: https://hackage.haskell.org/package/bluefin

Bluefin is used in production, and as far as I know capability is not.

> The Twitter experience is a highly algorithmic feed ... that is, things they want you to see.

Not on Nitter! Which is the point, for me at least.

It's fascinating to me that there's no one in this thread arguing that AI is a bubble and it's all going to crash soon.

Which provider do you use for artificial compassion?

> Aristocracy became useless around 1600-1700, when gunpowder meant that peasant armies took over instead of knights

Does this view rest on the claim that the only use of the aristocracy is warfare?

> so do most of the servers except the most popular 2

Are you sure? All three servers I regularly use, as well as all of the mirrors that I found with a quick search, are down. If there are other servers still working then can you please give a hint about how I could find them?

Are you sure? If I visit https://old.reddit.com/r/haskell/ in private mode (i.e. without my auth cookies) then I am asked to log in.

Yes, I'm sure about that. I said that it is a systems language, not that it is as fast as C! I don't mind if your terminology excludes Haskell from being a systems language, as long as it also excludes Go. They are both managed, garbage collected, fast languages.

> Like lazy evaluation and memoisation

Yes, that causes performance impact. If you don't want the performance impact then don't write code that uses those behaviors. Sure, that rules out large parts of the ecosystem, but I said Haskell was a systems language not that its ecosystem was generally suitable for systems programming.

> however Haskell manages memory

No, Haskell's memory manager is world class, with two (at least) tunable garbage collectors.

> But I’m not aware of Haskell beating rust in program performance & memory usage benchmarks

Nor am I!

> If Haskell were a viable systems language, I suspect the kernel would not have been converted to C.

I suspect they converted it to C because you can't write a kernel in a managed language with a garbage collector.

Haskell is a fast, compiled systems language like Rust (or rather, Rust is like Haskell).

I don't think that's actually what one wants in practice from an RDBMS, but if it really is then one can add UNIQUE to all your SQL queries and get it. SQL is not somehow lacking in that regard.

Sets and bags are trivially interconvertible so it's really not a big deal: https://h2.jaguarpaw.co.uk/posts/set-bag-irrelevance/

> Would you be willing to do free work for a corporate entity that explicitly financializes that work's benefits?

Yes, that was one of the things that I hope happens with the open source software I write.

> Would you be willing to do free work for a corporate entity whose entire business model is making sure they sit as a gatekeeper between your free work and others who would benefit from your work?

Sure, that's what doing SEO on one's own blog is, isn't it?

> For some it's demoralizing to know that your work will be broken down and atomized into language model mush, and the credit will go to the computer.

I think this is probably the crux: that writing is no longer discoverable because people aren't using search engines any more. It would be interesting to put some hard numbers on that. I reckon writing is still more discoverable (in absolute numbers) than it was when blogs first took off (over 20 years ago?)

I would be grateful if you could explain how that is related to my question.

Why are they gone?

Is he? Why? People never read blog articles any more, and only consume content generated by AI?

> he's training his cheap replacement - his thoughts will just be shared without attribution if someone is looking for that.

So? That's not a harm.

OK, and there's still some chance, right? I don't understand why you say it can't happen any more.

> The downside ... is implicitly supporting the LLM data ingestation pipeline by providing fresh content

I don't understand why that's a downside.

> It's not a direct harm in itself

I don't understand how it's a harm at all.

Is there some downside of that to you? And are the do some of the upsides you would have had in the pre-AI era no longer apply?

What is "un-distribution"?

It's easy to talk at cross purposes in discussions like this. There are two implicit claims

* Few bugs occurred due to type issues (which I think you are asserting)

* You can design your program with types so that what would be a bug due to a type issue doesn't compile (which IshKebab may be thinking)

Both of these can be true at once

Thought experiment: suppose company C does a small IPO. I'm rich and buy all their offering.

Scenario 1: I hold all the stock for decades until I die. Under your terminology, I am the sole "investor". Fine.

Scenario 2: 1 millisecond after my purchase I sell everything I bought in the IPO to thousands of market participants. Under your terminology they are not "investors". I can't be an investor either, since I hold no more of the stock. Does the company no longer have investors?

So it's not the stealing that was wrong, but what the proceeds were put to?