Comments for Xoltar http://www.xoltar.org How can we make this simpler? Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:00:10 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 Comment on Using MySQL with Linq to Entities by xoltar http://www.xoltar.org/?p=47&cpage=1#comment-74 xoltar Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:00:10 +0000 http://www.xoltar.org/?p=47#comment-74 @Torsten: Very interesting, thanks for sharing! @Torsten: Very interesting, thanks for sharing!

]]> Comment on Using MySQL with Linq to Entities by Torsten Grust http://www.xoltar.org/?p=47&cpage=1#comment-73 Torsten Grust Mon, 28 Jun 2010 07:19:17 +0000 http://www.xoltar.org/?p=47#comment-73 Hi Bryn, we're working on Ferry, technology that compiles LINQ-style program fragments into (small) bundles of executable SQL queries. A very capable and efficient LINQ to SQL provider has already been built on top of Ferry. This provider avoids the infamous 1+n query problem and employs a truly compositional compilation strategy that does not restrict the way in which you may combine the LINQ SQOs (of which the Ferry-based LINQ to SQL provider supports significantly more than the .NET-provided one). On top of that, we respect the order semantics of the LINQ data model. Laws like Concat(Take(n, e), Skip(n, e)) = e make sense again. Ferry is agnostic when it comes to the choice of back-end — any SQL:1999-capable RDBMS will do. LINQ to Entities is on the radar now. See www.ferry-lang.org. Cheers, —Torsten (Side note: The Ferry compiler is implemented in Haskell.) Hi Bryn,

we’re working on Ferry, technology that compiles LINQ-style program fragments into (small) bundles of executable SQL queries. A very capable and efficient LINQ to SQL provider has already been built on top of Ferry. This provider avoids the infamous 1+n query problem and employs a truly compositional compilation strategy that does not restrict the way in which you may combine the LINQ SQOs (of which the Ferry-based LINQ to SQL provider supports significantly more than the .NET-provided one). On top of that, we respect the order semantics of the LINQ data model. Laws like

Concat(Take(n, e), Skip(n, e)) = e

make sense again. Ferry is agnostic when it comes to the choice of back-end — any SQL:1999-capable RDBMS will do.

LINQ to Entities is on the radar now.

See http://www.ferry-lang.org.

Cheers,
—Torsten

(Side note: The Ferry compiler is implemented in Haskell.)

]]> Comment on Why Isn’t Cabal Installed with GHC? by Amy http://www.xoltar.org/?p=33&cpage=1#comment-58 Amy Sat, 05 Jun 2010 16:53:25 +0000 http://www.xoltar.org/?p=33#comment-58 > Are we supposed to use the new (beta) Haskell Platform instead of the regular GHC install to get this sort of tool support? Yes, that's precisely what you are supposed to do. The GHC developers don't want or need the burden of maintaining all the other tools for the community. That burden is happily carried by the Haskell Platform. The GHC download page even tells us so: http://haskell.org/ghc/download_ghc_6_12_1.html > Are we supposed to use the new (beta) Haskell Platform instead of the regular GHC install to get this sort of tool support?

Yes, that’s precisely what you are supposed to do. The GHC developers don’t want or need the burden of maintaining all the other tools for the community.

That burden is happily carried by the Haskell Platform.

The GHC download page even tells us so: http://haskell.org/ghc/download_ghc_6_12_1.html

]]> Comment on How to Measure Anything by xoltar http://www.xoltar.org/?p=25&cpage=1#comment-27 xoltar Tue, 23 Mar 2010 05:23:33 +0000 http://www.xoltar.org/?p=25#comment-27 Hi Anshu, I'd say it's very approachable for non-math people. There's not that much math in it, it's more about effective strategies for thinking about how to turn things you already know, or could find out without much effort, into measurements of the things you care about. It's worth a read just for the stories of people who came up with interesting and insightful ways of measuring things. Hi Anshu,
I’d say it’s very approachable for non-math people. There’s not that much math in it, it’s more about effective strategies for thinking about how to turn things you already know, or could find out without much effort, into measurements of the things you care about. It’s worth a read just for the stories of people who came up with interesting and insightful ways of measuring things.

]]> Comment on How to Measure Anything by Anshu http://www.xoltar.org/?p=25&cpage=1#comment-25 Anshu Sat, 13 Mar 2010 02:38:16 +0000 http://www.xoltar.org/?p=25#comment-25 I am intrigued by your post. How approachable is the book for someone who has a limited ability with numbers in general, and actively avoids all contact with programming? In other words, is this book for a math person like you, or is it also for non-math people? I am intrigued by your post. How approachable is the book for someone who has a limited ability with numbers in general, and actively avoids all contact with programming? In other words, is this book for a math person like you, or is it also for non-math people?

]]> Comment on Real World Haskell by Andrew W http://www.xoltar.org/?p=36&cpage=1#comment-23 Andrew W Sun, 07 Mar 2010 22:44:19 +0000 http://www.xoltar.org/?p=36#comment-23 I'd completely agree, I've been learning Haskell from this book and it covers most pertinent topics in just the right level of detail. There are some topics though where it is still worth reading more widely e.g. monads it took me several different articles before that penny finally dropped. I’d completely agree, I’ve been learning Haskell from this book and it covers most pertinent topics in just the right level of detail. There are some topics though where it is still worth reading more widely e.g. monads it took me several different articles before that penny finally dropped.

]]> Comment on Why Isn’t Cabal Installed with GHC? by Curt Sampson http://www.xoltar.org/?p=33&cpage=1#comment-19 Curt Sampson Sat, 27 Feb 2010 17:14:01 +0000 http://www.xoltar.org/?p=33#comment-19 Keep in mind that GHC, especially from version 6.12 onwards, is probably better thought of as a module for use by systems integrators than as something for end users to download. As others have mentioned, the Haskell Platform is what you're looking for. Within my company (I am a commercial Haskell developer), I build our own customized platform from (a modified version of) GHC 6.12 and various other tools. When doing this, it's best if GHC includes the minimum amount possible, because otherwise those become things that need to be ripped out and replaced when you're doing custom builds. Keep in mind that GHC, especially from version 6.12 onwards, is probably better thought of as a module for use by systems integrators than as something for end users to download. As others have mentioned, the Haskell Platform is what you’re looking for.

Within my company (I am a commercial Haskell developer), I build our own customized platform from (a modified version of) GHC 6.12 and various other tools. When doing this, it’s best if GHC includes the minimum amount possible, because otherwise those become things that need to be ripped out and replaced when you’re doing custom builds.

]]> Comment on Why Isn’t Cabal Installed with GHC? by xoltar http://www.xoltar.org/?p=33&cpage=1#comment-17 xoltar Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:02:33 +0000 http://www.xoltar.org/?p=33#comment-17 Thanks, everyone. That definitely answers the question! Much appreciated. I note that the GHC home page makes no mention of Haskell Platform, so that might be a small change that would help send people in the right direction. @Ganesh: It's in the page title on http://hackage.haskell.org/platform/, so while you don't see it anywhere on the page when you visit the site, it shows up pretty clearly for anyone who googles "Haskell Platform." @Ivan: Yes, cabal-install, which regrettably generates a tool called "cabal.exe." Hence, it gets called "cabal." Thanks, everyone. That definitely answers the question! Much appreciated. I note that the GHC home page makes no mention of Haskell Platform, so that might be a small change that would help send people in the right direction.

@Ganesh: It’s in the page title on http://hackage.haskell.org/platform/, so while you don’t see it anywhere on the page when you visit the site, it shows up pretty clearly for anyone who googles “Haskell Platform.”

@Ivan: Yes, cabal-install, which regrettably generates a tool called “cabal.exe.” Hence, it gets called “cabal.”

]]> Comment on Why Isn’t Cabal Installed with GHC? by Andy Gimblett http://www.xoltar.org/?p=33&cpage=1#comment-16 Andy Gimblett Wed, 24 Feb 2010 11:01:27 +0000 http://www.xoltar.org/?p=33#comment-16 In answer to the final sentence: yes. In answer to the final sentence: yes.

]]> Comment on Why Isn’t Cabal Installed with GHC? by Quentin Moser http://www.xoltar.org/?p=33&cpage=1#comment-15 Quentin Moser Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:49:17 +0000 http://www.xoltar.org/?p=33#comment-15 Yes, precisely. The fact that the Haskell Platform is still tagged "beta" is probably a weird joke, because it definitely is the stable, supported, batteries included version of GHC Haskell. Yes, precisely. The fact that the Haskell Platform is still tagged “beta” is probably a weird joke, because it definitely is the stable, supported, batteries included version of GHC Haskell.

]]>