>>16
No, but he'd better explain why is this useful because no one gives a fuck about it. He should remember: "the right tool for the right job" (sadly Io is not a right tool for anything at all, it can be replaced by cleaner scripting languages...)
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-07 11:24 (sage)
Io is gay. srsly. it is made purely for noobs.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-07 14:43 (sage)
>>18
function(args) contains more parentheses than (function args) amirite
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-07 14:44 (sage)
>>21
wait that was supposed to be the other way round. My sarcasm still stands though.
Actually, let me explain that further. Haskell does use parenthesizes, just not for arguments, because hey, it's a functional language so we're going to invoke functions a whole fucking lot, so why make it harder than necessary.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-10 6:54
>>21
Yes, but (and 1 2) is just as readable as 1 and 2 am i rite?
Besides, (function args) is butt ugly, and ending a function with )))))))) is even uglier.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-10 7:38
>>25
C:
a(b(c(d(e()))));
Lisp:
(a (b (c (d (e)))))
The only reason you don't tend to see that kind of stuff in C is because C simply isn't capable of it; as soon you start dealing with complex data structures you have to mess the code up with memory management and it becomes a column of statements.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-10 9:55
lsip sucks tho
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-10 10:46
Hey, any web tutorials/boards on Io? I've never heard of it before :(
przteachmekk?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-11 5:01
>>26
I agree that there's not much difference between (a(b(c))) and a(b(c))) although one would be more used to the later. But what about operators, lack of? Prefix notation is like a kick in the balls.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-11 5:11
>>29
It's a minor loss compared to what you get in return.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-11 6:50
>>30
C's manual memory management is a minor loss compared to the libraries, performance and low-level access you get in return. Out of the software you're running *right now*, how much of it is written in LISP, and how much of it is written in C?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-11 6:52
>>31
Far too little and far too much, respectively. Yes C is great for low level access, but my web browser is not a device driver.
>>33
and my device driver is a web brower sometimes (I installed The Hurd yesterday :D )
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-16 4:35
>>32
Yes, but your web browser needs to be fast. Why? Because if it were slow, you'd be wasting millions of people's time and making the intarweb less responsive for everyone.
Remember that Java based browser? Not even Java consultants use it.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-16 4:48
>>35
Nobody said you shouldn't write a small graphics-lib in C... I could most likely write a browser in ruby/python/scheme/whatever with QT/GTK bindings and it would be faster than the java browser.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-16 13:01
>>36
It could be faster than the Java browser, but it'll sure as hell be slower than a pure C browser. Since a browser is serious business, and everyone runs them all the time, even on ancient hardware, you want it to be fast. Not as fast as possible, but pretty damn close.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-16 14:54
>>37
agreed. Most programs written in C are much faster than ones written using higher level languages (99.999% of the time). The problem is that most noobs who swear by ruby/python/lisp and other languages actually consider themselves programmers. Nowadays *everyone* thinks they're a programmer because they made their own webpage in HTML. LOL
Real programmers have used languages from different "levels" but can all agree that nothing compares to C or C++. Noobs ALWAYS argue that "WAAH I DONT FEEL LIKE WRTITING 10000 LINES FOR SOMETHING I CAN DO IN 10 USING MY PRECIOUS PYTHON". In other words, C/C++ is not for noobs who "think" they know how to write a good program.
Programming is becoming a lost art.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-16 15:49
>>38
ok, I'll bite.
I don't know a single noob who knows lisp...
And even tho I'm able to program in C doesn't mean I need allways a 50 times faster program when I have to trade it against 5-20 times longer dev-time.
(oh, and Ocaml is actually in some cases faster than C (and allways much more expressive/elegant.))
>>38-39
I don't feel like writing 10000 lines of code I can do in 100 of Python or PHP when I want a script, a web application, or a quick hack. Yet I'm willing to afford 5-20 times longer development time for a 10 times faster application millions will use. It's just a matter of time:
- Count development time
- Count execution time of all of its users together
If the first is longer than the second, go for scripting languages, unless you need it to be fast for a good reason. If the second is longer than the first, go for C, unless you don't care if it's slow for a good reason.
It's a matter of the right tool for the right job, and IMO the right tool for a web browser, >>36, is C.
>>41
Or you could take the best of both worlds and prototype in a HLL and then rewrite in C once you've got it working right. In most cases anything else would be a premature optimization, and in many cases you'd find that the prototype was good enough anyway.
I'm gonna concede that a web browser does need to be reasonably fast. However looking at the popularity of Firefox (hueg lol) versus Opera, it's clearly not the number one concern.
I'm also gonna concede that >>38 is a dumbass who has never written a >1000 line program in his life.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-17 18:31
prototype in a HLL
I find this doesn't work all that great, since most HLL languages are HLL languages because they let you do things you can't do in something lower without much difficults.
I can just see someone translating coroutines, list comprehensions, closures, mappings, etc to C. Yay.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-18 3:16
>>44
Quite true. So I guess the answer is just to use the HLL and forget about C.
>>45
That reasoning is what noobs use to consider themselves programmers
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-18 13:22 (sage)
>>47
Stop talking, come back when you actually are a programmer.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-18 19:39
Nobody's a programmer here...
Reasoning: if you were a programmer, you wouldn't be wasting your time by posting here
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-18 23:33
Or we waste our time here when we're tired of banging our head against a sprawling framework.
I think stupid flamefests like this are what save my sanity.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-19 3:19
>>50
You have a framework? You're lucky, I just have a gazillion lines of ancient spaghetti code interlaced with comments such as: 'This has to be the most shocking program I have ever had the mispleasure to cast my eyes over, in my
'entire 21.5 years on this planet!!!
You have comments? You're lucky. I just have uncommented, undocumented template metaprogramming with type names like "A".
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-19 19:05
>>52
At least you have a screen and a keyboard. I have to use a printer and punch cards.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-21 7:56
>>49 Oh come on. Real programmers waste time just like everyone else. They aren't magical people who are perfect in every way and score all the chicks.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-21 17:02 (sage)
>>54
Real programmers never "score" with any chick. They are monkeys you can lock in the basement of your company and rest confident that they will finish the job since they have no life. You can thow loads of money at them too but it's not like they actually spend it on anything useful or have families to support etc.
Unfortunately this is a sad truth.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-23 4:30
>>55 Good thing I'm not a *real* programmer then...
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-23 5:37
>>55
You meant geeks. Geeks are usually real programmers, and real programmers are usually geeks, but not always either way. And no, you should pay geeks well because they're the ones making stuff works. They have stuff to buy too, like new hardware. Ah, I get turned on by the smell of new hardware, it's the best smell ever after girl pussy. To geeks, it's your stuff -clothes, music, jewels- what's a waste of money. Some might even have families, you never know.
Real programmers don't get pissed off b/c of other people, unless they're interrupting us, because we're too busy programming. We tend to take more level approach to life than "FUCK YOU" too, as we understand that proper design is a series of tradeoffs and that over-reaching generalizations are not just wrong, they're dangerous to the dev't of good, robust code.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-25 18:13 (sage)
>>60
lol @ all the over-reaching generalizations in your post
I am a real programmer and I have gay sex with horses. Therefore all other real programmers do the same. If you do not, then you are not a real programmer.
>>62
I do not have gay sex with horses... does that mean I'm no real programmer?, even though I would have gay sex with horses if I had the opportunity.
I have kept my eyes on Io for some time now, it's kind of nice, but unfortunately they have made some really terrible decisions.
Most of all I hate that control structures are defined on Object, which is inherited by all objects, that's just brain-damaged. Seriously, who thinks that String responding to #if or #while is a good idea ?
Another thing that bothers me is the lack of True and False objects, Nil is False and everything else is True. Very ugly.
Besides, standard library is pitifully week. I mean, they don't even have streams or decent data structures...
Someone really should fork Io and make it more like Smalltalk.