If I only had a mathematical brain...

I'd love to program.  I really would.  But my mind isn't cut out for it.  I've seen people who think mathematically, and I'm not one of them.  I keep  getting stuck on Trig due the to stress from each lesson that adds on top of the previous lesson.  Inane equations within equations, combined with my short memory span and occasional absent-minded backwards thinking means I have to try three times harder than someone who has math "come naturally" to them.  Instead, I have a more creative mind, endlessly thinking and imagining.  I believe this the opposite end of some spectrum, as these math wizards I've met seem to be less creative and more mechanical in thinking.

I was thinking of Game Designer as a possible option, as I can appreciate programming and understand it overall, but can't do the code for shit.  But with creativity I could create a design that programmers can work with.  The only problem is I'll be trying to work in a computer field without a CS degree, and would get little respect for not knowing the details of what a programmer is talking about.

I would argue that programming isn't a mathematical skill-- it's a communication skill.

A game designer doesn't need programming at all. His job is to tell the programmers what the game should play like, not how to code it or how to do its architectural design.

I think the big hurdle to game design these days is the extraordinary number of people that are needed just to produce a game. Small shops just can't cut it anymore like back in the day with the Ultima games.

I'm not that great at advanced maths either but you really don't need to be to be a programmer, it's more logic than maths.

Logic ⊆ Mathematics

>>3
Listen to this guy. A game designer makes up the rules of a game, the programmers change those rules into code. What you need to know is game theory, and what kind of activities are inherently "fun".
You think the artists making game models and textures or sound effects all have CS degrees?
>>4
I disagree. There are still plenty of decent games made by small teams. Take Serious Sam, Live for Speed(just 3 guys somehow made one of the most realistic driving sims to date), or any one of the dozens of doujin game groups.
They may not be on the bleeding edge of graphics, but they can still make a buck and score the occasional hit.

>>6

Mathematics ⊆  Logic

Fixed

>>7 Or even the (for a long time) one-man effort X-Plane (x-plane.com), possibly the most accurate flight-sim available anywhere, to the point of serious aircraft designers using it as their production simulator.

"Corporate Games Programming Still Sucks".. I've an old friend who was apart of it, and he's livid to the point of his telling every kid they're delusional if they want to work for any 'brand' computer game company. He'd worked on 'so many awesome games' at OziSoft and elsewhere that got smashed in the skull with a ballpeen hammer by a retarded greasy/pointy-haired self-important MBAs in their 11th hour...

9<< addenum: Paul's Rule: "If you want /really/ improve your chances for getting a job at a corporate computer games company, be certain to mention that you're a coder desperate to support his starving family, and you would be complicit with /anything/ so as to not lose the job." (...who do you think were working at EA before the management recently decided that fresh naive grauduates were a better choice for slave labor..?)

I suck at Mathematics but pogramming isn't about Mathematics most of the time, and hell, as long as you can use a Calculator your fine, I have been programming C++, VB and scripting PHP and Java for years now and have only had to turn to my trusty calc a few times.

True. Although almost all programming problems boil down to mathematical algorithms, you'll probably be dealing with their interfaces. Designing the game's structure and class hierachy is more of an art.

In my experience it 'boils down' to converting a method concept in your head into a written artifact-- hence my calling it a communication skill earlier. (In that sense, a lot of formal mathematics work is a communication skill as well, however just rote formula usage is not something you'll spend a lot of time on in coding.)

Devising new algorithms requires a mathematical mind.
High level programming is mostly interfacing with libraries that implement all the algorithms you'll ever need.
Low level programming is mostly shunting bits around.

If you're interested in programming just do it; there's a lot you can do without needing any maths at all, and any maths you do need is almost all discrete; computers just aren't good at trig and calculus so the programmer doesn't need to use them.

The real trick to being a good programmer is not how to design new algorithms, but how to recognize situations where one of the well known algorithms is applicable. Particularly for searching and sorting, since most of these algorithms have pathological cases where they behave much more badly than the naive implementation (eg quick sort on an already sorted sequence).

This is why people are taught all those algorithms in CS classes -- so they will recognize when they need them.

WHY IS MY QUICK SORT TAKING A QUADRATIC AMOUNT OF TIME11111

I'm in ur quicksort, quadrating ur time...

or you bugged it

Actualy, qsort does have O(n^2) characteristics in the worst case.  Depending on the characteristics of your data, Merge sort might be better.  Ref: http://www.iti.fh-flensburg.de/lang/algorithmen/sortieren/algoen.htm .  In any event, for sets with n < 1000 or so elements, bubble sort usually works just fine. :P
Pedantry off.

Of course, #16 already knew that.

Yeah my post was in reference to:

>>most of these algorithms have pathological cases where they behave much more badly than the naive implemention (eg quick sort on an already sorted sequence).

Merge sort has the same average complexity as quicksort without the quadratic disaster (as my overly melodramatic algorithms lecturer put it).

Merge sort also has the benefit of being easily applied to lists as opposed to arrays - just the thing for a budding Lisp freak :D

In fact I might try that this weekend. See how many lines of code it takes.

>>19
Yes, referring to 17 in my post, I should have noted that.
>>20
Merge sort is ok if you can afford the memory, but note that in the best case its actual time spent is a constant multiple of qsort's.
In the end, the right algorithm to use depends on what your data is.

>>21
But since all Real Languages™ have qsort(*, size, size, func(a,b)) or similar, you'll end up using qsort unless you like coding sorting algorithms and your boss likes paying you for that.

>>20
Real Lisp Programmers use the builtin SORT function because it's always faster than anything the average programmer could write, and it works on any sequence, not just lists.

>>22
Note that Java uses Merge sort for its List's sort method.  So there (:

>>23
In a proper program I'd always use library functions for common algorithms because they're practically guaranteed to be optimal implementations within the restrictions of the language. I was only proposing to write my own as an educational experience. I'm still pretty new to Lisp and practice makes 1337 :-)

>>24
Oh but Java sucks. Think about bloatware and bloatsauce. You have to implement an interface to fucking sort. Needs less blOOat.

>>26
That's so that other objects know your custom list can be sorted. You don't _have_ to implement it; you can design half a dozen lists all with their own weirdly named sorting functions if you feel like it. Just don't expect to be able to use them where you could use other lists. "implements Sortable" is two tokens you lazy git, hardly constitutes bloat :P

People have some weird arguments against Java. Mine is simply that it's boooring. It's a language designed for mediochre programmers rather than smart programmers. That's why they teach it to the inferior students at inferior institutions such as mine. Most of the people I know are literally frightened of C.
"The assignment for this module will be in C."
"AAHHHH"
"Which of course means you'll be using Unix"
"AARRRRGGGH"

I can't see the point of learning to program at all if you're never going to try out new languages. Bah.

>>27
all with their own weirdly named sorting functions

Well, I'm used to write a oneliner and call a simple, small, lowercase function to efficiently sort my stuff. Then again, I'm not used to blOOatware. Same with files and many other things... I just like the do(stuff) style over the (new objectHappyWappyBinaryStreamProcessor(new abstractStreamSnafizzler(new stuffConsumer()))).doStuff(); style. Especially for building "small to medium" (< 10000000000000 lines of code) applications :P .

"The assignment for this module will be in C."
I know this reaction. Mine is rather "YAY... More power to me." but it quickly changes to "OMG the whole class will be bugging me about their crappy code failing for the next month".

>>28
Make that "More power to me and time for some REAL programming".

>>28
Please observe a difference between object-oriented programming(a style of combining data and operations on that data into cohesive units) and currently popular languages which 'support' the paradigm.  Java and C++ fail at OO, in my opinion.  A well-done language, with well-written code, lets one logically divide a problem space into a host of cooperating miniprograms.
>>27
As for arguments against Java, I hate it on grounds of axiomatic complexity.  Primitive types, reference types, arrays.  int and Integer, double and Double, &c... exception handling and threading as language features?!  Java is actually even worse than C++ when it comes to adding features to the language.
Note that in Io(iolanguage.com), exception handling could be implemented without modifying the VM or language at all, in roughly twelve lines of code.  Any control structure(if, while, for, etc) could be done in six or less in a purely object-oriented style.
There's power in this stuff.  But currently popular "OO" languages are too stuck in their procedural past to use it.  They end up with procedural code with objects, which is a bad fit.  People think UML will solve the problem -- they're dreaming.
OO is a tough paradigm to shift to if you're used to programming.  But good lord, is it ever worth it.

A well-done language, with well-written code, lets one logically divide a problem space into a host of cooperating miniprograms.

I believe people have been doing this since the 50s. It's called "functions". No need for OO... if you're a good programmer and know how to properly use modules, structures, and functions.

OO can be really really useful at times, but at other times it really makes simple tasks a chore. The problem with Java is it crams its OObsession down your throat. Even this wouldn't be so bad if it were consistent. ints are not objects... functions are not objects... zomg. Every time I approach some level of power in the language I hit the "statically typed" wall and have to implement some convolouted polymorphism to get around it.

Lisp is supposed to be a functional language and it does OO better than most of the supposed OO langauges out there.

No need to rip on OO - for some problems it works well, for others, good old functions are better suited. The fact that Java and the like have a horribly and unnecessarily overcomplicated standard object library is not really OO's fault.

>>32
Right, that's exactly what I'm saying.  OO is a useful idea, but many implementations of it are hideous because they miss the point, seeing it as 'a better old thing' rather than 'a new thing'.  Manifest/static typing is a beautiful example of how wrong Java gets it.  The best OO languages seem to use implicit, strong typing, as opposed to explicit, weak typing.  Smalltalk is implicitly typed(no need to declare types) and strongly typed(can't "cast away" any aspect of any object).
C is weakly and manifestly typed(casting, casting...), and C++ is strongly and manifestly typed -- well, stronger than C by a lot, but not as strong as many other OO languages.
Java is wrong.  It's a bad example of an OO language.  For examples, use Smalltalk(Objective-C is ok too) for class-based OO and Io or Self for prototype-based OO.  (:  These feature axiomatic simplicity and deliver on the promise of object-orientation.
>>31
:P if your functions are as powerful as my objects, you're using Lisp.  If they're not, I win, because I can (in Io, f'rinstance,) do:
function := method( /* do something */ )
and 'function' is an object that I can pass around and mutate and so on as easily as invoke, defined as a method on the current context(Lobby, if you're doing it in the interpreter).
Functions and modules and structures are an important step, in that they allow structured programming, but you'll end up with a 'doing stuff to things' design rather than a 'things doing stuff design'.  Your personal feeling on this is your own, obviously, but 'things doing stuff' tends to map a hell of a lot better to simulations, games, desktop publishing apps, &c... 'doing stuff to things' is fine for an image format converter; but then again, if you wanted to you could write a ThingDoer object which had a single 'main' method:
ThingDoer doStuffToThing := method(thing, /* manipulate thing; call other of own messages in dealing with it; &c */)
The point is that an OO program is a number of procedural programs running in the same space.  Objects were originally envisioned as small computers, and lend themselves well to a distributed design -- because objects should be behaviorally complete, they should be cohesive.  They should be easy as sin to create, define, use.  That's what the C-derived OO languages miss.  Io and Smalltalk and even Objective-C have it right -- to make a new object, send a message to another object.  Io has it best -- to configure an object('fields', 'methods' -- all really just 'slots'), send it messages.  Once everything is message-sends, then you have a reality of a variety of specialized-enough objects working in tandem to model a system.  Individual actions will follow procedural execution paths, but that's not what's important.
Blah, rant over, sorry for the length, but it's really vital to not discount a whole concept because of a couple of bad implementations.  Procedural programming is an implementation technique used on a small scale in object-oriented programs.  That's just how it is.

One can tell the people who post to this thread is more than just PC magazine readers and business decisionmakers (zOMG industry industry! Deploy deploy! XML enabled video drivers please!).

>>33
for some problems it works well, for others, good old functions are better suited

Certainly; that's why I prefer C++ over Java (in fact it's the only OO language I'd be willing to use [note: I haven't taken a look at Lisp or IO yet, can't tell if they're better and if I like them]). In C++ you can wittily combine OO with traditional programming and go as low level as you need to. Add a garbage collector for your objects so it's not a pain when you're thinking high level. Juggle your types with casts when you're thinking low level. I do both, but I must admit sometimes I'm annoyed I don't have a better control of how memory is used and how data is represented in higher level languages like Perl. I, for one, like pointers better than references (though it's nice to have both, as in C++), probably because I'm used to think problems top-bottom, but think implementations from assembly and upwards (yeah I'm such a low-level freak I'm often thinking how would this code compile exactly).

The fact that Java and the like have a horribly and unnecessarily overcomplicated standard object library is not really OO's fault.
I agree. (Wait, agree is a variant of assertion which is a particular case of humanMessage which is a particular case of communication [...] and thus a particular case of theUniverse.)


>>31
if your functions are as powerful as my objects, you're using Lisp
My functions' power goes from __asm{ ... } (lol) to perhaps struct{void (*doSomething)()} thing; [...] thing.doSomething(); //zOMG is this OO!11??.

I usually stick to the the principles of "what needs to be done today and tomorrow", "reasonably fast execution" and "reasonably fast development", so I rarely touch either extreme.

Unless 'things doing stuff by themselves in a hyperparallel system' (which is the curious and nice programming paradigm of CDIV, for example), I'd rather think of doing stuff (OO is more like 'doing stuff to things so they do stuff' anyways). More particularly, I think it's fine to character.kill();, but I cringe when I have to Math.sin() or x.equals(y), because that's conceptually wrong (functions are functions, and in an equals operation both operands have the same function so they should be treated equally; besides it's me who compares, not x or y).

Ultimately, anything OO can be implemented with a subset of C99. There's not much difference, besides syntax, between sound.play(100) and play(sound, 100). The fancy features languages could have, like operator and function overloading, optional parameters, etc. can always be workarounded, though it makes your life easier until it makes it harder: it's good to use it when it saves time, but not when it makes code complicated and harder to maintain because you have to understand what do + and - do, for example.

>>35
I want to add that new notation and language features are nice when used properly, and depending on what you do, you may want to do things one way or another. It's not smart to be obsessed with strictly, religiously following a particular paradigm, notation, and style.

For example, think about [1] comparing two things of the same kind, [2] playing a sound, and [3] closing a window.

For [1] we could do:
a) tng_compare(s, t)
b) s.compare(t)
c) s == t

For [2]:
a) snd_play(s, 100)
b) s.play(100)
c) s << 100

For [3]:
a) wnd_close(w)
b) w.close()
c) w--

I think it's pretty obvious you'd want to choose c) for [1], a) for [2] and b) for [3].

I was thinking about this while I was in the toilet halfway through my programming lab (guess what: Java).

I decided on a couple of rules of thumb for deciding when OO is being used inappropriately.
1) Wrapping a single value in an object.
This should never be necessary. I should never have to wrap an int in an Integer just so I can stick it in a list of Objects. Polymorphism is supposed to be a feature, not a bug.

2) Wrapping a function in an object.
There are so many classes in the Java API that exist only to do something to something. A prime example would be the old StringTokenizer class. Luckily they've fixed that and replaced it with String.split() but the problem is still endemic throughout the API. It's the main reason why Java code ends up a morass of instantiations for doing a simple task.

An object is supposed to be a discrete entity that is responsible for its own state. You call its functions and it changes its state and/or tells you something about itself. It's not a wrapper for a function or a variable; doing that is just a hack to get around stupid barriers put up by the language designers.

There are simple solutions to both of these and they're the same ones implemented by a dozen other languages old and new.

a) Everything is a pointer. Including functions, including variables.

b) Respect the programmer. It's not the job of the language designer to worry about letting the programmer do something stupid. All that will do is give the impression that your language is intended for stupid programmers and the smart ones will go away and program in something that doesn't make them jump through loops in the name of the holy Object.

rant.end();

Wrapping a single value in an object.

Oh, that is such a pet peeve of mine, and I see it all too often.

>>37
a) Everything is a pointer. Including functions, including variables.
I love you (no sarcasm, I love pointers, I for one think they are the simpler thing)

b) Respect the programmer. It's not the job of the language designer to worry about letting the programmer do something stupid.
This is another great policy. Real languages shouldn't be a programmers kindergarten. That's what Basic and Pascal are for.

>rant.end();
end_rant(); // :P

>>37
Christy McJesus gets the win again.  Nice usage of an example to unite all ranters under one banner (:  At least we can agree that Java is dumb.

>>39
>Real languages shouldn't be a programmers kindergarten. That's what Basic and Pascal are for.

Ugh. I "started" with Basic, Basic is a wonderful language for creating horrible programmers like me. I say "started" because I didn't really do anything until I learned C in high school.

>>41
I used QBasic all through high school. I wish I'd known about C back then. The most complex program I managed to write was a good old fashioned mandelbrot generator.

It did require me to teach myself complex number arithmetic though so it was useful as a mathematical exercise if not a programming one.

It was kinda fun... running QBasic from the DOS prompt and trying to figure out how to get this language that couldn't do *anything* to do stuff with no prior programming knowledge, no documentation, tutorials and especially no internet.

>>41
I used QBasic all through high school. I wish I'd known about C back then. The most complex program I managed to write was a good old fashioned mandelbrot generator.

It did require me to teach myself complex number arithmetic though so it was useful as a mathematical exercise if not a programming one.

It was kinda fun... running QBasic from the DOS prompt and trying to figure out how to get this language that couldn't do *anything* to do stuff with no prior programming knowledge, no documentation, tutorials and especially no internet.

I wouldn't be so harsh. QBasic was missing a lot of things, but for a beginner it did more than enough. It was also quite simple; compare using "screen 13" to setting up a similar drawing context in C.

And QBasic had a large amount of documentation and examples in the help file. It was better than any other "online" help that I saw around that time period (or was that QuickBasic?). If someone couldn't figure out how to use QB from that help file they were just plain stupid.

QBasic was cool because of the simple drawing and the PLAY command.

Ah, those were the days, when I was unaware of even the simplest programming constructs, and attempted to write a roulette game with thousands of consecutive IF statements.... :D

>>45
Sounds like me :D

you know you can compile qbasic programs into executable files right?
http://www.qbcafe.net/english/index.html?dl_pages/compiler/index.html~qbc_main

>>47
Yes. Point being?

DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS

The one thing that pissed me off with QuickBasic was that even compiled programs were slow.

If they'd put in a decent compiler, allowed embedded asm, and supported a flat memory model, QuickBasic could have gone far indeed. :'(

>>37

>rant.end();
you forgot to import java.util.Rant and set Rant rant = new Rant(new BufferedInputStream(new InputStream(myComment)));

point being, people were talking about compiling stuff and how basic basic is when it is slightly more powerful than they might think...

also you can embed machine code in basic, i.e. you have to write your asm in pure machine code hex. fun hey.
(google CALL ABSOLUTE)

Im not a supporter of qbasic btw lol

Just because a language compiles is no proof of power.

>>53
Indeed, compilation is irrelevant to power. Compiled code merely runs faster. A powerful language enables the programmer to run faster. Far more important.

>>53
no argument there, but
>more powerful
...relative to printing hello world on screen, making the speaker beep and drawing dots/lines.

Hah, true.

The odd thing was I never noticed a significant speed boost betwee QuickBasic compiled or interpreted. Perhaps it was a result of QuickBasic using BIOS interrupts for many things.

>>56
I used QBX but the concept of compilation didn't really mean anything to me in those days. Hell I didn't even know what a function was :)
I'm still not sure whether I was making my .exes by compiling or merely by packaging the interpreter up with the code. All I knew was that I could distribute my program without people bitching about being too dumb to open the file in QBasic.

I would like to bump this in order to reflect upon a bygone era in /prog/.

Thank you.

>>58
noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

This is why I still program in assembly. 

>>58
One word, the forced repressed memories of /prog/. Thread over.

Memories should never be repressed when they are good memories.

FREEBASIC OR GTFO

>>61
This may surprise you, but I actually invented that meme. `One word, the forced indentation of code. Thread over.'

>>64
This may surprise you, but I actually invented that meme. "I actually invented that meme."

This may surprise you, but THIS THREAD IS TWO FUCKING YEARS OLD. FUCK OFF.

awesome thread this was.

Has anyone else noticed that the old threads actually have discussion and stuff in them? Nowadays /prog/ is just like /b/ with even dorkier memes.

>>68

Yes, those were the good old days

Programming, or Computer Science in general, is not really a science. Maybe an engineering, or an art, or actually it's kind of similar to magic, but not a science. Also, Computer so-called Science is not really about computers; not more than physics is about particle accelerators, or biology is about microscopes, or geometry is about surveying instruments.

Read/watch SICP, the legendary programming course, and receive enlightenment.

Also, >>1 :
Don't think Maths people are necessarily less creative. The good ones are very creative. And I partly agree with >>2 : I think programming is also about communication skills; in particular, the skill to communicate processes.

If you want to become a game designer, you need communication skills, and you need a way to define and document game logic and rules, which go way beyond the obvious. To do this, you need to dominate formal languages, for which I'll still recommend you to read SICP.

>>9
retarded greasy/pointy-haired self-important MBAs
These individuals, if we can call them individuals, are a disgrace for the human species, wherever they are, wherever they go.

>>11
I suck at Mathematics but pogramming isn't about Mathematics most of the time, and hell, as long as you can use a Calculator your fine
For your average COBOL, Java or Visual Basic job, this is correct. But if you want to become a really good programmer and get to do the fun stuff, you better do it the right way.

And oh my fucking god, I've been replying to a 2 years old poster. Fucking bumping motherfuckers, wasting my time.

At least I got to read >>32, which stroke with truth like the fist of an angry god.

why can't /prog/ be more like this now :(

>>71
I was discussing seriously in >>70 until I realized it had been bumped, but see how a post like >>1's got me to post seriously. Just post seriously, and I'll post seriously. Post forced indentation of code, and I'll reply with SICP.

>>72
If I post forced indentation of SICP, will you post code?

>>73
I'll post this code:

10 PRINT "I'VE READ SICP"
20 GOTO 10


5.2.3 Recursion

    If you don't understand recursion, see 5.2.3.

>>70
Then why does it have science in its name‽

>>76
because computerology sounds gay

>>77
Watch sicp!

>>78
youre a retard

>>79
no, really, watch sicp (structure and interpretation of computer programs.).

>>80
.).
you're a retard.

>>81
Because I terminate my sentences with a full stop?

>>82
``Structure and interpretation of computer programs'' is not a sentence.

I'd love to program.  I really would.  But my mind isn't cut out for it.

Protip: EVERYONE is currently programming ABSOLUTELY WRONG

You can go ahead and make it however you want it to be, chances are, if you don't like programming the way it's done now, anything you invent would be far far better.

Maths == logic. Programming == logic. That is why programming is such a skill. It takes an ＥＸＰＥＲＴ　ＰＲＯＧＲＡＭＭＥＲ　to be able to manipulate logic to solve problems.

program gives the expected   output is not   impossible just nonsensical   You insist on   that approach lol.

Name: Anonymous : 2005-01-04 19:44

    >>7 Or even the (for a long time) one-man effort X-Plane (x-plane.com), possibly the most accurate flight-sim available anywhere, to the point of serious aircraft designers using it as their production simulator.

    "Corporate Games Programming Still Sucks".. I've an old friend who was apart of it, and he's livid to the point of his telling every kid they're delusional if they want to work for any 'brand' computer game company. He'd worked on 'so many awesome games' at OziSoft and elsewhere that got smashed in the skull with a ballpeen hammer by a retarded greasy/pointy-haired self-important MBAs in their 11th hour...

hack my butt

>>84
How should we be programming, oh hallowed master?

>>90
2007

There has to be some sort of combination of old /prog/ (actual intelligent discussion of programming) and new /prog/ (not using stupid smiley faces and LOL zOMG everywhere) available.

>>92
trollface.ascii

Just be patient, it happens every so often.

>>92
I propose we all start tripfagging and acting like 15 year olds on various forums.

>>94
fUCK yEAH tRIPCOEDS XD THAT wOULD bE aWESOME wE sHOULD tOTALLY dO tHAT!!! xd

>>95
No, that's how 11/12 year olds act. By 15 I meant the likes of Christy McJesus!DcbLlAZi7U and JoeOsborn, with all the helpfullness and :Ps.

>>37
b) Respect the programmer. It's not the job of the language designer to worry about letting the programmer do something stupid. All that will do is give the impression that your language is intended for stupid programmers and the smart ones will go away and program in something that doesn't make them jump through loops in the name of the holy Object.

Oh, but it's a good way to see the difference between a good place and a bad place to work at. (In multiple ways when for example your customers demand Java)

>>37

1) Wrapping a single value in an object.
This should never be necessary. I should never have to wrap an int in an Integer just so I can stick it in a list of Objects. Polymorphism is supposed to be a feature, not a bug.
I do this(box some value into another structure or object) in other languages, but for completly different reasons:
a) Allows me to tag data in various ways, so I could get the type easily in a tagged collection of sorts. (Telling apart integer 15 and a Index structure with the value of 15. Can be useful in both dynamically typed languages, and static ones as well. Have you looked at ML's typesystem, they have such a "boxing" pattern supported natively.)
b) It's one of the many ways of passing a value by reference, if the language doesn't have direct support for reference parameters.

2) Wrapping a function in an object.
There are so many classes in the Java API that exist only to do something to something. A prime example would be the old StringTokenizer class. Luckily they've fixed that and replaced it with String.split() but the problem is still endemic throughout the API. It's the main reason why Java code ends up a morass of instantiations for doing a simple task.
That's stupid, agreed. It's probably a Java problem. Shouldn't happen if the language has closures/first-order functions

툴긖힫육⋞旐ํ鉉徭⯹

This statement is false

Now I'm wondering if I was >>1-san.

>>93
Name: Anonymous : 2010-01-20 12:15
trollface.ascii
Just be patient, it happens every so often.
Scarily accurate prophecy.

>>91
Dude, that comment was posted on 2007!

>>1
Use Wolfram Alpha.

8 years later nobody here has a brain

when you learn to code you basically rape your brain untill it surrenders and becomes mathematical or rather algorithmical

>>108
Which is the way it was supposed to be in the first place.

>when you code
No, it is called "programming". You program, not code.

people who "code" are stupid fucking sheep who use java and not c, haskell, asm, or perl.

people who "check dubs" are stupid fucking sheep who haven't checked my trips

jesus fucking christ /procque/ was good once upon a time
what the fuck happened

>>112
Amy Winehouse died.

>>112
I don't understand. All I see in this thread is people talking about all the things I hate about programming, and I want to correct them on a few points but they all probably stopped browsing this site years ago.

>>112
JavaScript and Go overtook Scheme and Haskell as the languages of choice.

>>115
Go maybe. Everyone else except you dislikes Javascript.

>>116
Shalom!

>>117
Unlike you, I don't like loosely typed gas ovens, Chaim.

Also, I'm just wondering: have you guys ever craved cock so badly that you found yourself running around outside, howling at the moon for it? Literally ROARING at the top of your lungs, wanting nothing less than a dick's head churning against your glottal stop?

Tell me I'm not alone.

>>108
so that's why "feminists" are so illogical!

>>119
You are not alone; indeed I too crave that cock enough to behave in such a lupine manner.

Also, I'm just wondering: have you jews ever craved goycock so badly that you found your jewish self running around outside, howling at the moon for it? Literally ROARING at the top of your jewish lungs, wanting nothing less than a goydick's head churning against your jewish glottal stop?

Tell me I'm one of muh 6million.

>>122
I love all cock, Jew or Gentile.

http://www.mindpowermp3.com/Solfeggio-Harmonics.html

FOXTROT


Andrea : "HOW WAS THE BIG MATH TEST?"

Jason : "OUTSTANDING.

SHADES OF FALL '99 WITH DARING REMINDERS OF FINALS '01

IMAGINE THE PLAYFULNESS OF A MID-TERM '00, COUPLED WITH THE DIFFICULTY OF A LATE '97 OR '98."

Andrea : "YOU KNOW THERE'S A THIN LINE BETWEEN "CONNOISSEUR" AND "NUT CASE," JASON."

Jason : "I STILL HAVE AN OLD '98 UPSTAIRS. I REALLY SHOULD TAKE IT AGAIN."


www.foxtrot.com  twitter : @billamend


© 2013 Bill Amend / Dist. By Universal Uclick

Using OO and talking about C++ instead of C#... por que?

Forex is about to come of age with the first scientifically proven system to take money from the Forex market with mathematical precision : http://www.scientificforex.com

Using OO and talking about ___ instead of Smalltalk... por que?

test

est

derp

derp

>>132
>le pedophile sage