/prog/ - What's bad about Python?

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-21 8:09

Because I'm learning it, almost done through the tutorial, and it looks great.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 4:35

C++ is just "C with classes and an enormous amount of random features from various languages, with a terrible syntax"

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 4:48

no, C++ is just "C with a giant pile of useless bullshit"

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 4:58

C++ is just "C with classes and an enormous amount of random features from various languages
like what exactly? could you please name a few of these random features as Im sure that the millions of programmers all over the world didnt notice them in the language

with a terrible syntax
whats terrible about it? Im sure programmers all over the world are eagerly awaiting you to specify what is terrible about C++ syntax and want to know what the correct syntax should be

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 5:06

>>163
Context-sensitive syntax considered harmful, [&,=](&&*(**(int a[]))[]){return a;} considered horrible.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 5:11

>>164
C is more context sensitive than C++ as C++ has higher abstractions. So basically you are saying C is worse than C++

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 5:22

>>165
How is C more context sensitive? (A)*(B) is valid C++ and C code, but in C it can only mean A times B or B dereferenced casted to the type A, in C++ it's also A.operator*(B). And C doesn't have template<... > > > (which is gone in Sepplesox)
So basically you are saying C is worse than C++
Yes, and C++ is worse than C.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 5:22

>>165
Also, higher abstractions my anus.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 5:28

>>164
[&,=](&&*(**(int a[]))[]){return a;} considered horrible.
Oh yeah, rewrite it in sexprs, baby, so we could something to compare with.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 5:38

>>168
that code is valid in both C and C++

>>164 makes a valid point that C++ overloads everything from C, but that begs the question as to whether you want the verbosity of a language that breaks with C to become its own separate OO syntax

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 6:55

>>168
(lambda (a) a)

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 8:49

that's nice, and all; but can CL do this:

guile> (((lambda (x) x) +) 3 4)

7

?

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 9:03

>>171
that's nice, and all; but can Scheme do this:
(defmacro ...)

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 9:14

>>172
who needs that? sexps are already perfect!
also, how could it possibly make up for a lambda calculus inconsistency?

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 9:38

>>172
Yes:
(define-syntax ...)

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 11:04

>>171
Constant fold that shit.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 11:08

>>175
Lisps are interpreted, ``faggot''.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 11:12

>>176
Low level troll.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 11:55

>>177
High level troll.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 15:22

>>162
no, C++ is just "C with a giant pile of useless bullshit"
C++ classes can be used as poor-man's lambda, while destructors is the only way for reference counting garbage collection.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 15:33

>>179
Both are bad.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 15:44

>>179
C++ classes can be used as poor-man's lambda
function pointer + struct works fine. All C++ does is give some syntactic sugar.

destructors is the only way for reference counting garbage collection.

no... this is not a good way to do it. Nobody in practice uses shared_pointer or smart_pointer because they simply aren't smart enough. Overloading the meaning of "}" in explicit and important ways is not a good idea. If I'm writing C, it's because I want control over my memory.

C++ just lets you pretend you aren't writing C with nerdy syntactic sugar.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 15:50

If I understand this thread correctly, C++ is terrible for low-level tasks and inadequate for high-level tasks. Therefore it sucks and should be replaced by C and a Lisp.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 15:50

go back cat-v faggot

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 15:55

>>182
Actually, C can also be replaced with Lisp.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 15:56

>>182
C sucks as much as C++ at low level tasks.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 16:11

>>184,185
I fail to see how one could program an OS kernel or a non-immediate-mode OpenGL program with decent performance in Lisp. Or does there exist a Lisp with static types and pointer?

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 16:19

>>186
*facepalm*

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 16:22

>>187
Instead of mocking me through mockable imageboardesque attitudes, could you please enlighten me, ``faggot''?

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 16:29

aah fuck, this thread really turned to shit after the continuations discussion

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 16:30

>>188
Lisp is in many ways a DSL for dealing with heap allocated cons cells. A cons cell is a struct with 2 pointers in it. So yes, Lisp has pointers. Even though a cons cell itself may be passed by value, what it points to does not. Regardless, what you use pointers for in C basically is to manipulate the heap. In Lisp, there is no practical difference between the stack and the heap anyway.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "static types." If what you want is the ability to dispatch functionality based on the types of arguments, then Common Lisp includes the most dynamic and powerful means of doing this ever devised: the Common Lisp Object System. It is not static typing, but this is a powerful feature -- you can change something's type at run time, for instance.

Name: Not >>188 2011-07-23 16:54

>>190
CLOS is a bloated piece of shit and you know it.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 17:31

>>186
One can write an OS in Python, if he wants.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 18:17

>>191
a bloated piece of shit that does something no other similar thing does. Kind of like C++.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 23:02

>>190
What if you implement lists using finger trees? Will it still be lisp?

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 23:17

>>194
I'm about to finger your anus. Bend over, faggot.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 23:24

>>195
gb2b

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-24 6:09

>>196
fuck you faggot

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-24 16:30

>>190

ooc does all that and more.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-26 22:55

>>101,112
Sorry for bothering you again (and for bumping this awful thread), but I would like to ask you something. If given the shift/reset primitives in your Lispy language of choice, how would you implement (make-generator f) such that:

(define g

    (make-generator

        (lambda (yield)

            (map yield '(1 2 3 4 5)))))



(g) ; should print 1

(g) ; should print 2

(g) ; should print 3

It's been haunting me for days now.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-27 0:06

>>199
you can do that with regular call/cc

What's bad about Python?

1 Name: Anonymous 2005-12-21 8:09

161 Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 4:35

162 Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 4:48

163 Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 4:58

164 Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 5:06

165 Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 5:11

166 Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 5:22

167 Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 5:22

168 Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 5:28

169 Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 5:38

170 Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 6:55

171 Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 8:49

172 Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 9:03

173 Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 9:14

174 Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 9:38

175 Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 11:04

176 Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 11:08

177 Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 11:12

178 Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 11:55

179 Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 15:22

180 Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 15:33

181 Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 15:44

182 Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 15:50

183 Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 15:50

184 Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 15:55

185 Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 15:56

186 Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 16:11

187 Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 16:19

188 Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 16:22

189 Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 16:29

190 Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 16:30

191 Name: Not >>188 2011-07-23 16:54

192 Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 17:31

193 Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 18:17

194 Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 23:02

195 Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 23:17

196 Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 23:24

197 Name: Anonymous 2011-07-24 6:09

198 Name: Anonymous 2011-07-24 16:30

199 Name: Anonymous 2011-07-26 22:55

200 Name: Anonymous 2011-07-27 0:06

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-21 8:09

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 4:35

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 4:48

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 4:58

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 5:06

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 5:11

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 5:22

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 5:22

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 5:28

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 5:38

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 6:55

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 8:49

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 9:03

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 9:14

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 9:38

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 11:04

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 11:08

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 11:12

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 11:55

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 15:22

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 15:33

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 15:44

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 15:50

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 15:50

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 15:55

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 15:56

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 16:11

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 16:19

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 16:22

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 16:29

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 16:30

Name: Not >>188 2011-07-23 16:54

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 17:31

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 18:17

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 23:02

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 23:17

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-23 23:24

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-24 6:09

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-24 16:30

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-26 22:55

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-27 0:06