Do Enthought, numeric Traits support a unit of measure attribute?
I could not find this discussed in the documentation.
Thanks.
It does not. You may find Enthought's scimath.units helpful, however.
Related
In Scala 3 it is possible to get the compiler to derive instances of certain typeclasses using the derives TC syntax.
The documentation page here https://dotty.epfl.ch/docs/reference/contextual/derivation.html gives an example of deriving from typeclasses Eq Ordering and Show, saying that these typeclasses are "common examples".
Is Show in the library somewhere?
If not, is there a typeclass for pretty printing in the standard library?
Have I been spoiled by Haskell?
I guess no. At least not so far. It's easy to define it yourself. And it's easy to define many custom flavors of it (for any necessary use case).
I guess no.
Probably you are :) As well as by cats, scalaz etc.
https://typelevel.org/cats/typeclasses/show.html
https://github.com/scalaz/scalaz/blob/series/7.3.x/core/src/main/scala/scalaz/Show.scala
I failed to find a simple way to print out how many parameters in the model and proposals to print it in release notes did not find the warm welcome:
https://github.com/mozilla/DeepSpeech/issues/344
https://github.com/mozilla/DeepSpeech/issues/3392
How many parameters in DeepSpeech 0.8.2 and 0.9.0 models?
PS: thread on discourse.mozilla
Great question, but just for reference, as many people look at the answers first:
The English models have 47224861 parameters and the Chinese model in 0.9.0 has 47689984 parameters.
Expanding on that, DeepSpeech can best be measured by the n_hidden value which indicates the layer width of the model and the number of hours trained.
Usually, you get faster and better answers for DeepSpeech on their Discourse.
PureScript have lots of functions available like filter lenth and more. But how can we find the function that we need and its examples with implementation? I am facing problem solving exercises of the book purescript by examples. Any tips how show I go about solving those? Example in the book does not explain everythin.
Really, the most straightforward way would be to use the tooling that comes with the compiler through an editor plugin. You can use ?typehole to get the type of the type hole and get search results for relevant functions.
I also quite often type in a partial identifier and use the completion to look through the implementations, e.g. fil <complete to find various filter definitions.
For all newbie to PureScript who are following PureScript by example book this github link has all the solutions with updated libraries
https://github.com/kvsm/purescript-by-example
In hist recent talk at Strange Loop Martin Odersky shed the light on his vision of Scala's future version called Dotty. I understand this is work-in-progress and it even may not flow into Scala (at least not very fast) due to many possible backward-compatibility issues. But if it happens, how should we program in Scala today to be forward-compatible with Dotty? I didn't get all the ideas from the talk so I'd like someone more profound to summarize the changes and describe how can we prepare to them.
The only other advice I would give is to also stay away from structural types containing a type members. Those type members are the elements that make type-checking in Scala turing complete, and I am not yet sure whether we want to support that in Dotty. Structural types that contain only vals and defs will likely stay supported.
Towards the end of the talk, he says "if your program is compiled without any language feature imports for higher-kinded and existentials then you should be ok".
So if I understand it correctly the only thing you would need to be aware of is any possible usage of existential types or higher-kinded types in your code.
Is there a Scala (or Java, I guess) equivalent of criterion? I'm not just talking about a benchmarking library: check out what criterion does for HTML results.
No. As far as I can tell as of 2012-Nov-26 Criterion has not been ported to any other language ecosystem. There's no fundamental reason for this.