Horrible. Would’ve been much nicer if they’d reached for Scheme.

You say that, but people in OCaml keep bemoaning the use of mostly declarative s-expressions in the Dune build system. Imagine the reaction if MSBuild used an actual Scheme.

Why doesn't the OCaml build system use OCaml?

You don’t want a language with non-determinism, arbitrary IO, impure functions etc. for build configuration ideally.

I guess the answer to your question is OCaml has unmanaged side effects.

They don’t know how good they really have it :)

CMake was never declarative AFAIK?

CMake today is effectively an eso-lang / Turing tarpit with some “modern” declarative conventions that people try to push.

"Modern CMake" is more about scoping all properties to the targets that they belong to (including stuff like what you also need to link against if you link against target foo) than about language features. The CMake language hasn't changed much except correcting some early weirdness about "if" and the addition of generator expressions, which are fortunately not often needed.

You need unbounded recursion no?

Was the case against the goto statement so good we can't mention it?

More or less, I meant how this would be inlined in assembly with a goto that could goto back where the branching originated from.

None of those are close to peak HBO content sorry.

I would agree. However, I think Kaos, Sirens, and Sweet Tooth are as good as anything I've seen on HBO.

Ripley is HBO material but its miniseries that was probably bought as it is.

They already are?

All popular models have a team working on fine tuning it for sensitive topics. Whatever the companies legal/marketing/governance team agree to is what gets tuned. Then millions of people use the output uncritically.

Our previous information was coming through search engines. It seems way easier to filter search engine results than to fine tune models.

the way people treat Llms these days is that they assign a lot more trust into their output than to random Internet sotes

> Then millions of people use the output uncritically.

Or critically, but it's still an input or viewpoint to consider

Research shows that if you come across something often enough, you're going to be biased towards it even if the message literally says that the information you just saw is false. I'm not sure which study that was exactly but this seems to be at least related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect

Do the problems get harder each day?

Yes! With difficulty usually peaking on the weekends.

Oh… I’ve never done these “in time” and wondered why the next day problem felt so much easier.

I always put it down to overthinking and never arriving at a solution but maybe it was actually a much tougher problem!

Why the Copenhagenize Index when Copenhagen is not particularly bike friendly by Dutch standards?

It's even more hilarious to see Paris in top 5

They hold themselves in high regard but Copenhagen doesn’t hold a candle to most Dutch cities. And for that matter, very few cities can compare themselves to the Dutch biking infrastructure, without even mentioning the cultural aspects and acceptance by other traffic participants.

100%. Only a North American could consider Montreal bike friendly.

Montreal is bike friendly in comparison with Paris. Personal opinion of course.

Paris is not bike friendly (much better than a decade ago of course)

What’s a good way to include Unison code in a more traditional Git monorepo?

That depends. What are you wanting to accomplish more broadly with the integration?

I'll mention a couple things that might be relevant - you could have the git repo reference a branch or an immutable namespace hash on Unison Share. And as part of your git repo's CI, pull the Unison code and compile and/or deploy it or whatever you need to do.

There's support for webhooks on Unison Share as well, so you can do things like "open a PR to bump the dependency on the git repo whenever a new commit is pushed to branch XYZ on Unison Share".

Basically, with webhooks on GH and/or Unison Share and a bit of scripting you can set up whatever workflow you want.

Feel free to come by the Discord https://unison-lang.org/discord if you're wanting to try out Unison but not sure how best to integrate with an existing git repo.

> What are you wanting to accomplish more broadly with the integration?

For me that would be:

- not lose my stuff

- share with friends

- let others contribute

Use Unison Share, it's great for all that!

https://share.unison-lang.org/

It's open source, you can create a free account with GitHub OAuth, and you can push projects there and collaborate on them, open PRs, publish releases, etc. It's very quick to pick up if you're already familiar with GitHub.

I can say why I bounced off of Nix.

Lots of package combinations didn’t work and I was not skilled enough to figure out why.

The error messages are terrible.

They don’t provide enough versions of packages. I want Python 3.10.4 exactly. But Nix packages by default only provide 3.10.something

I would love to use Nix everywhere, but it’s just too cumbersome for me.

If the nix ecosystem moved entirely to flakes, you could just point at the flake in python's repo, pin it to the proper commit hash, and job's done. Might result in a lot of extra near-duplicate dependencies in the store, but that's unlikely to affect you at the level of Python. Otherwise yeah, you're stuck with whatever combinations were blessed by nixpkgs at the time, or with writing your own derivation.

And the error messages are ... well, yeah. I don't find the nix language as awful as some do, but it's still a functional language by and for functional programmers, and being lazy, a lot of errors surface in very non-obvious places. Ultimately Nix could use a declarative config format on top of everything, but I'd rather they ironed out the other issues first. Guix seems to be a bit further along there, but its platform options are more limited.

Tried Mise?