Logs: liberachat/#xmonad
| 2022-04-12 10:53:10 | <thonoht[m]> | Although I still only do recreational programming in Haskell |
| 2022-04-12 10:53:36 | → | geekosaur joins (~geekosaur@xmonad/geekosaur) |
| 2022-04-12 10:53:47 | <Solid> | indeed, I'm not a professional programmer either |
| 2022-04-12 10:54:06 | <Solid> | I guess having a background in maths makes my tajectory not so unusual |
| 2022-04-12 10:54:11 | <Solid> | s/ta/tra/ |
| 2022-04-12 10:54:18 | <thonoht[m]> | I am a professional programmer. And nowadays even functional, with Elm and F#, just not Haskell :P |
| 2022-04-12 10:54:33 | <Solid> | oh I see |
| 2022-04-12 10:55:23 | <thonoht[m]> | But writing a production scale webserver in F# with all of the OO libraries behind it is a lot less daunting than doing it all in Haskell I have to say, even if I technically understand most of the concepts used there (I think) |
| 2022-04-12 11:08:25 | liskin | thought that learning enough Haskell, politics and people skills to maintain xmonad would make getting a Haskell job easier but turns out that's not really the case :-/ |
| 2022-04-12 11:08:54 | <liskin> | On a bad day I might even be tempted to say that Haskell jobs suck :-) |
| 2022-04-12 11:09:11 | <thonoht[m]> | What's the problem then, I would assume it's not your skills |
| 2022-04-12 11:09:39 | <thonoht[m]> | * your skills? |
| 2022-04-12 11:11:14 | <tdammers> | Haskell on "not Linux" sounds painful |
| 2022-04-12 11:12:08 | <thonoht[m]> | As long as you're doing small toy projects it's perfectly doable on Windows |
| 2022-04-12 11:12:21 | <tdammers> | IME Haskell jobs don't suck any more or less than your average programming job; it's just that there is not a lot of them |
| 2022-04-12 11:12:48 | <thonoht[m]> | I've seen some remote offers come by the Haskell channel, but it appears to all be blockchain related |
| 2022-04-12 11:13:22 | <tdammers> | well yeah, crypto is currently probably the only industry with a fast-moving job market for haskell devs |
| 2022-04-12 11:13:54 | <tdammers> | haskell jobs in other fields exist, but they are smaller, slower moving, and often flying under the radar |
| 2022-04-12 11:14:34 | <davve> | its pretty popular with mathematicians |
| 2022-04-12 11:14:42 | <thonoht[m]> | I also wouldn't really know how to look for them, especially since I would like to stay local |
| 2022-04-12 11:15:26 | <tdammers> | if you're not into remote, then that's going to be a challenge |
| 2022-04-12 11:17:12 | <abastro[m]> | Uhm, what is popular with mathematics? |
| 2022-04-12 11:17:39 | <thonoht[m]> | Python, as far as I see :P |
| 2022-04-12 11:18:19 | <abastro[m]> | Yep |
| 2022-04-12 11:18:30 | <abastro[m]> | Tbh I don't know how it came to be like that even |
| 2022-04-12 11:19:15 | <thonoht[m]> | I do think with non-programmer mathematicians, the dynamic typing is quite popular. Also it's very accessible, being interpreted and all |
| 2022-04-12 11:19:34 | <tdammers> | Simple - Python has usable bindings for number-crunching libraries, and a reasonably intelligent person can learn it in 1-2 weeks. |
| 2022-04-12 11:19:46 | <liskin> | thonoht[m]: I don't know exactly what the problem is. Could be me, could be the jobs suck, could be random circumstances. |
| 2022-04-12 11:19:53 | <abastro[m]> | Hm yeah, accessible, right. |
| 2022-04-12 11:20:04 | <abastro[m]> | Well though, to be fair, most mathematicians won't ever touch programming in their entire life |
| 2022-04-12 11:20:12 | <abastro[m]> | Other than latex, that is. |
| 2022-04-12 11:20:42 | <abastro[m]> | (Most mathematicians doesn't need number crunching) |
| 2022-04-12 11:20:44 | <liskin> | And R and Matlab and... :-) |
| 2022-04-12 11:20:55 | <Solid> | most mathematicians are nerds and thus have at least minimal exposure to nerd stuff :P |
| 2022-04-12 11:21:02 | <abastro[m]> | M a t l a b sigh |
| 2022-04-12 11:21:14 | <abastro[m]> | Are they really nerds tho hmm |
| 2022-04-12 11:21:19 | <tdammers> | Also, for weird historical reasons, academia is largely still stuck in an imperative model of computation. I have worked with a mathematician once; she would develop a nice declarative mathematical theory, prove it all, and then turn it into an imperative algorithm, which I would then implement in Haskell. Of course that last step involved untangling the imperative loops and expressing it all in |
| 2022-04-12 11:21:21 | <tdammers> | terms of maps and folds and such... |
| 2022-04-12 11:21:25 | <thonoht[m]> | I would love to try an explain Haskell and its elegance to one of my mathematician friends one day, and see if I can convince them. But I'm afraid they won't really care |
| 2022-04-12 11:21:30 | <Solid> | I'm working in a very pure field and at least all PhD students know one or more programming languages |
| 2022-04-12 11:21:49 | <abastro[m]> | Mathematicians ofc won't care |
| 2022-04-12 11:21:50 | <tdammers> | but at least writing the code in Haskell made it easier for her to verify that it did in fact capture what the theory said |
| 2022-04-12 11:22:04 | <abastro[m]> | Oh, very pure field? |
| 2022-04-12 11:22:05 | <abastro[m]> | Hmmm |
| 2022-04-12 11:22:06 | <Solid> | many of the profs as well, though it's more spotty there (it may be a function of age :) |
| 2022-04-12 11:22:20 | <abastro[m]> | Well I mean, at least professors don't know programming :P |
| 2022-04-12 11:22:37 | <amenonsen> | do people in very pure fields find it hard to make any impact on the outside world? ;-) |
| 2022-04-12 11:22:47 | <abastro[m]> | Academia of CS is indeed stuck in imperative model I think |
| 2022-04-12 11:23:03 | <Solid> | amenonsen: we don't care so no, we don't find it very hard :D |
| 2022-04-12 11:23:11 | <abastro[m]> | Like, it has been dominant for so long years |
| 2022-04-12 11:23:20 | <abastro[m]> | Which pure field, btw? |
| 2022-04-12 11:24:12 | <Solid> | I do (applied) category theory (where the applied should be read as "lift ordinary maths into the categegorical language and then do cool stuff") |
| 2022-04-12 11:24:24 | <thonoht[m]> | Hey, I and some colleagues have introduced Elm and F# at our company. That was the easy step. But I imagine I could at least sneak Purescript in there at some point if I stay long enough. So to me it seems FP does seem to be getting some traction |
| 2022-04-12 11:24:54 | <abastro[m]> | Oh, applied category theory |
| 2022-04-12 11:25:10 | <abastro[m]> | Interesting, I guess the field would be closer to programming |
| 2022-04-12 11:25:20 | <amenonsen> | i'm familiar with functional programming from before, just not so much with haskell |
| 2022-04-12 11:25:32 | <Solid> | most of the colleagues do similar things or are into representation theory/Hopf algebras and their generalisations |
| 2022-04-12 11:25:48 | <abastro[m]> | I heard category theorist takes dedication to work in. |
| 2022-04-12 11:26:13 | <Solid> | just like any other field if you go deep enough, really |
| 2022-04-12 11:26:22 | <abastro[m]> | Like, e.g. there are not so many profs working on it |
| 2022-04-12 11:26:38 | <abastro[m]> | Well, a prof did say that it is going to be harder than other subfields |
| 2022-04-12 11:26:44 | <abastro[m]> | Because there are less ppl doing it |
| 2022-04-12 11:27:06 | <Solid> | less people also means more things to explore :) |
| 2022-04-12 11:27:24 | <abastro[m]> | Well yep, but you need to learn the subject first |
| 2022-04-12 11:27:28 | <Solid> | but really, any topic you could choose to do a PhD in will only have a handful of people who care about _exactly_ what you do |
| 2022-04-12 11:27:33 | <abastro[m]> | And that learning is harder |
| 2022-04-12 11:27:47 | <abastro[m]> | Well yeah, only handful would care indeed |
| 2022-04-12 11:27:49 | <Solid> | there are many good books introductory on the subject |
| 2022-04-12 11:27:56 | <Solid> | so it's really not a problem |
| 2022-04-12 11:28:24 | <abastro[m]> | I feel like Category theory introduction would not be enough |
| 2022-04-12 11:28:27 | <abastro[m]> | Or it isn't? |
| 2022-04-12 11:28:37 | <Solid> | you learn the rest by osmosis :> |
| 2022-04-12 11:28:49 | <Solid> | obviously your advisor will guide you to other resources |
| 2022-04-12 11:29:25 | <abastro[m]> | Wait, even though advisor is not majoring in CT? |
| 2022-04-12 11:29:48 | <abastro[m]> | So.. different subfiled but can still guide you? |
| 2022-04-12 11:30:28 | <Solid> | nono, they are also doing work in the field |
| 2022-04-12 11:30:32 | <Solid> | among other things |
| 2022-04-12 11:31:12 | <abastro[m]> | Yea, I mean searching for such ppl won't be easy |
| 2022-04-12 11:31:21 | <Solid> | most profs won't take you if you don't at least do something they are tangentially interested in (which is a good thing; you don't want a desinterested advisor) |
| 2022-04-12 11:31:37 | <abastro[m]> | Because doing CT is like doing lie group theory, I heard |
| 2022-04-12 11:31:50 | <Solid> | Well I didn't have very many problems (survivorship bias etc., I know) :] |
| 2022-04-12 11:32:12 | <abastro[m]> | Woah |
| 2022-04-12 11:32:30 | <abastro[m]> | It is true that many ppl don't do much CT, right? |
| 2022-04-12 11:32:38 | <abastro[m]> | While it does serve some basis |
| 2022-04-12 11:32:52 | <Solid> | not many people do mathematics in general |
| 2022-04-12 11:32:52 | <geekosaur> | CT is so pervasive and so fundamental that lots of folks "dabble in it" |
| 2022-04-12 11:33:11 | <Solid> | and yeah, you basically can't learn about higher algebra without needing at least basic concepts |
| 2022-04-12 11:33:13 | <abastro[m]> | I mean among mathematics folks |
| 2022-04-12 11:33:31 | <abastro[m]> | geekosaur: My impression is that many folks don't dabble in it |
| 2022-04-12 11:33:33 | <geekosaur> | I am not a mathematician, but have some interest in physics — and it's surprising how much advanced physics involves CT |
| 2022-04-12 11:33:53 | <abastro[m]> | Somehow FP-ers get in to some CT it seems |
| 2022-04-12 11:33:57 | <geekosaur> | of course, these are not everyday bategories, but. |
| 2022-04-12 11:34:23 | <abastro[m]> | But e.g. many mathematicians don't care much about CT - at least that is my impression |
| 2022-04-12 11:34:38 | <abastro[m]> | Except for absolute basics, that is |
| 2022-04-12 11:34:41 | <geekosaur> | most mathematicians are focused on a very specific area |
| 2022-04-12 11:34:56 | <geekosaur> | unless that area happens to be CT itself, they won't be interested |
| 2022-04-12 11:35:06 | <geekosaur> | but they'll still be using some CT concepts |
| 2022-04-12 11:35:14 | <abastro[m]> | Indeed |
| 2022-04-12 11:35:28 | <abastro[m]> | Well, only some of the CT concepts |
| 2022-04-12 11:36:01 | <abastro[m]> | CT is a bit regarded as fundamental theory, which is not revisited and researched by much |
All times are in UTC.