A coroutine is a computation that can `yield`, suspending itself and passing control back up to the caller. It can then be resumed at the caller's leisure.
An function with an effect (in this sense) is a function which can ask a handler to `perform` some effect for it. This suspends the function and passes control to whichever handler is in scope for that call, allowing that handler to resume the function at its leisure.
I suspect that you're misunderstanding what is meant by effect, because despite buzz about them and backend support for them in OCaml 5, they aren't yet implemented with syntax and type-level support in any mainstream languages I'm aware of.
Checked on a private window; it happens only when I say no to inessential cookies. Being in California might also have something to do with it, because according to the logs that sets something to opt in mode.
Not sure why but everything below the hero section on your homepage is displaying as just grey background to me on Firefox, even with enhanced tracking protection and adblock off. In the console the only error is `Uncaught ReferenceError: tippy is not defined`.
I have to say that I was a little disappointed by this article. It doesn’t really demonstrate Kap as solving any of the issues that spreadsheets have, and it doesn’t really address many of the reasons people like spreadsheets.
Spreadsheets are reactive and stateless and allow you to move seamlessly from data storage to computation on that data. This is really just a calculator REPL that can ingest tabular data easily. I’d be more interested if they’d innovated more with the interface — maybe something node-based?
(Sorry for replying late to this but) that seems kind of inconvenient! And what if I'm using two libraries which happen to export functions with identical ASTs, and one updates? I guess usually meaningful nominal types will ensure that that doesn't happen but it seems like a nightmare to deal with in the event that it does.
It's roughly the same, no? It emulates a non-deterministic Turing machine and gives the same results, just taking much longer. But runtime isn't everything! I think that if you're programming in a nondeterministic style, you're programming as if you have a NTM, whether or not you're actually running the code on one.
Also, surely NTMs are only physically unrealizable if P!=NP, and so whether or not NTMs could exist is an open question.
Assumed that this was like a modern Pidgin or something but it needs its own account, which is supposed to be a cryptocurrency wallet for some reason (they let you sign up with email but it’s weird and clunky and they still ask too to “sign” something). Then after that they tell you that you aren’t on the allow list but that they’ll let you in anyway if you just complete three steps, the first of which is enabling push notifications. Yuck. STEER CLEAR!
We know the costs and they’re ridiculous. Under the new pricing the average user of one third party app (Apollo) uses $2.50 worth of requests per month.
I'm pretty sure that this is demonstrating that you can (have to?) write your definitions after the main expression, then suggesting that this encourages a development style in which you first write what you want the main output to be, then later write implementations for everything. It then further suggests that this style can work well with intelligent tooling, presumably by having autocomplete automatically infer definitions for the types you used or by having AI write implementations.