deterministic

Don’t listen to the BS garbage coming from the tech bros. They have zero clue about how Ai will ultimately shape the future.

Not my experience at all. I have added multi-threading to very large C++ applications safely. One of them has been used in production for 5+ years without a single bug. The trick is to do it very carefully and use automatic tools (Valgrind etc.) to verify the code.

> the spec must be human readable

Usually I would agree with you but when porting code the source code is the spec.

And they’re 100% right about the vast majority of people.

All it takes to understand this is a little knowledge of history and psychology.

Progress has always been driven by a tiny minority who refuse to be amoral sheep. Without them, we’d still be living in caves, bashing each other over the head with rocks.

It’s unbelievable that some of Europe’s biggest banks still put all their eggs in one basket when they know things can break without warning. And with the obvious decline in US political reliability, depending 100% on US infrastructure is a huge mistake. If I were the CEO of one of those banks, I’d fire the CTO for sheer incompetence.

So humans care more about belonging to a group than discovering the truth, and use reasoning to justify beliefs they've already adopted.

Nothing controversial about that to me. I see people operate like that every single day. And history is a looooong list of people doing exactly that.

Because, in my experience, most middle managers don't know how to manage people effectively. Instead of focusing on outcomes, they focus on activity.

It's like measuring how fast the wheels are spinning rather than how far the car is actually moving.

The problem is not the other languages. The problem is Haskell not fully embracing dependent types.

I've managed everything from large-scale software projects to small personal projects using a simple, prioritized to-do list. Sometimes in a .txt file, sometimes in Excel. The format really doesn't matter.

It works beautifully, and I've never felt the need for anything more complicated.

I would love to actually try this but the black font on a dark background makes it unreadable.

There is no such thing as objective taste or an objective quality bar.

What you like will not be what I like.

I absolutely love this, especially the detailed explanation of how it was created using Opus 5.5.

I wish there were more posts like this on HN showcasing the creative possibilities of AI.

I used to be a big Haskell fan and had a lot of fun writing and using monads. And I agree that once you get them, the basic idea is quite simple. I’ve even used monads to prove a small compiler correct in Lean.

But in practice, I think monads are a poor tool for large-scale software development. I spent a long time trying to build a large game in Haskell and eventually gave up out of frustration with the complexity they introduced.

Monads make sense as a way to manage effects in pure languages like Haskell/Lean/Idris/Agda. But outside that context, I don’t think the additional abstraction is worth the cost.

Understanding how monads work is one thing. Understanding why they’re needed in the first place, and when they’re not, is another.