Next, try parallelizing this. The easiest step towards this goal might be to evaluate a layer in parallel.

I would be interested in implementations that use Scala’s actors, where each neuron receives and sends messages. Perhaps Akka.io has some interesting features as well.

http://bittorrent.org/beps/bep_0005.html

But the article here gave me a better understanding of the reasoning behind k-buckets.

It’s five years later. So much for that prediction.

To @CD-Host i’d say 1. It’s rude and impolite to say “Muri’s point is frankly silly”. 2. You are missing the point if you don’t see a problem here. Natural language (like English) use same words to refer to different enough phenomenons and concepts. Those concepts may be somewhat related (that’s why they share the name), but still different. Then we naturally borrow those names from English to our program in some PL. We borrow (ambiguous) words from natural language because we need to remember them somehow and we want other human being understand what we’ve written. And then we have a potential conflict. The question is: does the PL provide tools to resolve the conflict gracefully, or does it get in the way. I don’t know Haskell that well, but I see that in this particular case Haskell get in the way. E.g. we might want length of String to return Integer and length of Vehicle to return (Float, Unit) pair. So I don’t see how type classes can easily resolve the problem.

Summarizing: 1) it’s valuable feature of a programming language to borrow ambiguous names from natural language and provide some means to resolve ambiguity 2) Haskell is not that good in this respect as typicall OOP languages.

On the other hand, and that’s what @Muri misses: any language has advantages and disadvantages. In any language you have to work around some limitations. E.g. in C++ you have those duplication between h & cpp files, you have to manually manage memory and so on. And what the article author says is that benefits of Haskell overweight the limitations.

“I don’t want to make 500 little files in a codebase just because of one ridiculous language flaw.”

However you seem pretty comfortable maintaining duplicate code in .h and .cpp files.

Frequently claimed, but I don’t get it. Somebody adds a new method to an interface. In a statically typed language, you get compile-time error messages indicating the 47 classes that haven’t yet implemented the interface. Duck typing, you run it ’till it breaks, possibly never running into a class with a missing member until one of your users finds it in the field. How could this possibly be safer? Somrbody s’plain it to me please.

@antoine thanks man, will try.

@dan good thing when you’re on top of something like mongo is that you tend to abuse the ORM a little less (you’ve basically thrown away the R already). Your point still stands though.