Conversation
7
1
2
nemesis@layer02.net
nemesis@layer02.net
@sun @lucy @snacks @prettygood what kind of lists? linked lists are really inefficient whereas arrays are basically the fastest data structure 
c.f. https://rust-unofficial.github.io/too-many-lists/
c.f. https://rust-unofficial.github.io/too-many-lists/
1
0
2
casey is remote
realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social@sun @lucy @snacks @prettygood Oh true, I forgot about lists
0
0
0
Snacks
snacks
@sun @lucy @prettygood the only time i've ever used a list was when uni wanted to teach memory management in c and i had to implement a destructor for them. Annoying, slow data type most of the time
0
0
1
@sun @prettygood @lucy @snacks arrays? lists? objects? dont care just tell me where the memory address is
0
0
2
nemesis@layer02.net
nemesis@layer02.net
@sun @lucy @snacks @prettygood ok but the implementation matters, you need to know how fast collection types are, it affects what algorithms you write. there's a reason the big-O cost is part of the documentation for java collections for instance ( https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/util/Collections.html)
1
0
2
1
0
1
@sun @lucy @snacks @prettygood whats a good functional abstraction you can use with linked lists but not arrays? you can use map-reduce-filter with arrays, you can even do recursive algorithms by implementing them using array-views, which under the hood are just pointer arithmetic, without the huge cache non-locality cost that linked list traversal has
in lazy FP languages (i.e. Haskell), linked lists are great because you can use them to structure control flow and deforestation means the linked lists will rarely actually be produced in practice. but that doesn't make them a good way to store and query lots of data
in lazy FP languages (i.e. Haskell), linked lists are great because you can use them to structure control flow and deforestation means the linked lists will rarely actually be produced in practice. but that doesn't make them a good way to store and query lots of data
2
0
2
@sun @nemesis @lucy @prettygood you also don't need lists and "better" is very situational. Dictionaries are often even more ergonomic than lists for example
1
0
1
nemesis@layer02.net
nemesis@layer02.net
@sun @lucy @prettygood @snacks linked lists are easier to use nondestructively, but if you want that just using some consistent structural sharing implementation (like clojure's bagwell tries) is better than doing it ad hoc with linked lists.
0
0
1
nemesis@layer02.net
nemesis@layer02.net
@sun @lucy @snacks @prettygood they are common in functional languages but I think that's more a historical coincidence than anything else. linked lists (especially if you represent them with lisp-style cons cells) arent really any more abstract than arrays, and low level linked list details have been a persistent factor in making FP more annoying than it could be. c.f. http://xahlee.info/comp/lisp_cons_problem.html
1
0
1
Paulajak
Paulajak@boymoder.biz
@lucy @snacks @sun @prettygood very good
im going out to eat dinner tonight
not the best decision bu oh well
im going out to eat dinner tonight
not the best decision bu oh well
0
0
2
@sun @lucy @snacks @prettygood eh, you don't need lists if you've figured out exactly what you need for your program and you don't need the performance of arrays if you haven't
0
0
0
Khamenei's Top Guy Katze Kattepus 
nerthos@shitposter.world
@lucy After the Giza Autism Array this is a good idea, but too late
0
0
1