Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

Io Thread

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-04 17:29

Discuss Io here.

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-16 16:17

>>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.

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-16 17:36

I like the way >>41 thinks.

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-17 3:25

>>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: Anonymous 2006-01-17 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: Anonymous 2006-01-18 3:16

>>44
Quite true. So I guess the answer is just to use the HLL and forget about C.

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-18 3:57

>>45
That reasoning is a bit limited...

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-18 12:44

>>45
That reasoning is what noobs use to consider themselves programmers

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-18 13:22 (sage)

>>47
Stop talking, come back when you actually are a programmer.

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-18 19:39

Nobody's a programmer here...
Reasoning: if you were a programmer, you wouldn't be wasting your time by posting here

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-18 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: Anonymous 2006-01-19 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!!!

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-19 7:18

>>51

You have comments?  You're lucky.  I just have uncommented, undocumented template metaprogramming with type names like "A".

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-19 19:05

>>52
At least you have a screen and a keyboard. I have to use a printer and punch cards.

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-21 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: Anonymous 2006-01-21 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: Anonymous 2006-01-23 4:30

>>55 Good thing I'm not a *real* programmer then...

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-23 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.

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-25 15:19

>>55

Lol, that's me!

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-25 15:21

>>57

I'm a real programmer, and geeks really piss me off.

Especially with all this 'geek culture' bullshit. FUCK YOU

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-25 17:15

>>59

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: Anonymous 2006-01-25 18:13 (sage)

>>60
lol @ all the over-reaching generalizations in your post

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-25 19:11

>>60

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.

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-26 3:18

>>59
You may think you're a real programmer.

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-26 3:50

>>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.

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-26 17:38

>>64

That means you aspire to be a real programmer.

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-26 19:40

>>60 didn't say Real Programmer if and only if you have gay sex with horses. He said, he is a real programmer and he has gay sex with horses.

So >>64 isn't aspiring to be a real programmer, he is aspiring to have gay sex with horses.

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-29 7:46

>>66
I want you to write my "if" statements in my program

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-30 6:54

>>66

Yes. Real Programmer implies Gay Sex With Horses, but Gay Sex With Horses does not imply Real Programmer.

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-31 10:15

I still don't know what Io is, but I like this thread now.

Name: Anonymous 2006-02-14 16:10

>>38

#define real_programmer "someone who prefers C/C++"

Amazing insight. Let x = x, indeed.

Name: Anonymous 2006-02-14 17:53

>>70
#define noob 70

Name: Anonymous 2006-02-14 21:46

delete[] javascript:quote(71,"post1");

Name: Anonymous 2006-02-14 22:55

Io is a pretty cool moon.

Name: Anonymous 2006-02-28 17:27

thought this was supposed to be a discussion on Io?

Name: Anonymous 2006-03-01 3:37

I/O is boring FYI.

Name: Anonymous 2006-03-01 7:29

sup

Name: Anonymous 2006-03-02 7:48

I/O I/O I/O I/O I/O I/O PREMATURE EJACULATION

Name: Anonymous 2006-03-02 9:28

>>77

Six I/O? Premature my ass.

Name: Anonymous 2006-03-06 9:01

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.

Name: Anonymous 2009-09-27 10:33

Test [b]test[/b]
Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List
All trademarks and copyrights on this site are owned by their respective parties. All comments and posts are the responsibility of their own posters.
- Tinychan + 2ch Mode -