>>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.))