If you wanted to multiply two polynomials f and g of degree n, you could do distribution and the do n squared multiplications. Instead, evaluate the two separate polynomials at 2n special points, multiply the results pointwise, and then interpolate. The magical part is there are some specific points which speed up the evaluation and interpolation steps using a divide and conquer type algorithm.
There is a bit in a PG13 movie where the guys says "Do you know that unless you’re willing to use the R rating, you can only say the ‘F’ word once? You know what I say? Fuck that. I’m done." I think the same is true for `from X import *` and code quality.
It is not functioning as a garment, it is a device used to enforce modesty and mark someone as second class citizen. It is more similar to a straight jacket or a yellow star than a hat. What complicates it is some people of faith want to wear it and are persecuted for that.
Making it simply a choice of clothing is reductionism and you know it.
3% and 6% of improvement doesn't seem like much, but at the level of rustc those big wins
Performance of Rustc must be continously tracked (here https://perf.rust-lang.org/) because if you don't proactively fight against bloat, the tendency is that the code will become slower over time (due to new features etc)
Category theory has very hard definitions and not many theorems. Would not recommend. It has Grand Unified Theory vibes so pseudo intellectuals have a hard on for it.
Don't waste your time trying to understand people who write to make themselves sound smart. You aren't missing out on anything.
Here is a recent article from TOPLAS, imo a top programming language journal. No category theory here...
In my sole experience working at a company (startup) that embraced those who understood category theory, those types were not the ones producing any discernible value for the company. They instead attempted to browbeat certain thinking into others at the expense of their focus. I'm a fan of "sane FP," but the pseudo-intellects left a horrible taste in my mouth on the subject of the underlying math that I very likely will never recover from.
I want to clarify, I am not trivializing the work of category theorist. It is a field of mathematics which provides a useful framework for algebraic geometers and algebraic topologists, and has even been fruitfully applied outside of math.
A personal favorite of CT generalizing an existing idea is in knot theory the khovanov homology detects the unknot, which is an amazing feat for a knot invariant. Bar Natan covers the construction well: https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0201043
However for some reason this particular field of math is a lightning rod for quacks. I don't really know why, but that is the way things are now.
Agree 100%. CT is fun if you like abstract mathematics. But it is not a practical useful tool for developing software. A much better choice would be “Software Foundations”. Now that is also hyper abstract math but useful for developing real world software. As demonstrated with the CompCert and seL4 projects. Even pro mathematicians are starting to dive on (see the LEAN mathlib project for example).
Whoops I meant to write 11, not 9. I haven't actually heard of an 11-bladed screw, though here's a picture of an 11-bladed pumpjet.https://youtu.be/ugSEIiTZ1Pg?t=386
