HTML

HTML is structurally superior to C, Perl, Java, Ruby, Python, Lisp, Haskell or any other language you can think about.

HTML is also faster to execute.

DSFARGEG

FGSFDS

The universe is written in HTML, and every other programming language is poorly derived from it which results in them having bad structure.

since it was relased in 2004, html has developed lunix and also the internet runs on html

html even beats c, even though c is a commonly used swear word by mexicans

The Windows operating system is written in C, which is why it is so slow and lacks structure.

for more than 22 hundred years html has reigned supreme

i aksed html for the structure of the tubes and it has spokened ...into a 140meg text file

>>6
Stop lying, everyone knows the internet runs on rainbows.

FUCK STRUCTURE
CPU'S DO NOT RUN ON STRUCTURE
THEY RUN ON FUCKING MACHINE CODE
ONE INSTRUCTION AT A TIME
NONE OF THIS HIERARCHICAL SHIT
SO STFU
GOTO OR GTFO

>>12
http://www.frank-buss.de/lispcpu/
http://www.clifford.at/bfcpu/bfcpu.html
http://www.robos.org/electronics/bfcomp/

>>13

http://www.madscientistroom.org/mippy/

www.opera.com

GOTO OR GTFO, THAT IS THE QUESTION.

>>16
IT'S AN INSTRUCTOR NOT A QUESTION
GTFO
GOTO GTFO

if not structures, what about classes

>>18
HTML doesn't have classes. If you understood the divine structure of HTML, you would know there is no need for classes.

You know, when I was younger I also used to wonder why there was no support for object-oriented programming in HTML. Back then, it seemed to me like OOP was the new cool thing that should be incorporated in every real programming language.

But then one night in 2004, as I was writing my third HTML operating system, I had a great revelation. I saw the Document Object Model unfold in front of me. I saw the beautiful patterns of tags and attributes – the structure. As I witnessed perfection in its purest form, I realized how foolish and naïve I had been, having thought HTML would have any need to implement such a primitive paradigm as object-oriented programming.

You might ask "so how do I accomplish [foo] in HTML then?", and the simple truth is that if you're thinking about the problem in object-oriented terms, your approach is the wrong one to begin with.

The marvelous structure of HTML transcends time, space and reality. It is not something you can simply explain with words, you have to be able to feel the very spirit of hypertext within you. I hope one day you will be able to experience what I did.

>>19

That gave me a hardon

C doesn't have classes. If you understood the divine structure of C, you would know there is no need for classes.

You know, when I was younger I also used to wonder why there was no support for object-oriented programming in C. Back then, it seemed to me like OOP was the new cool thing that should be incorporated in every real programming language.

But then one night in 2004, as I was writing my third C operating system, I had a great revelation. I saw the Function Pointers unfold in front of me. I saw the beautiful patterns of asterisks and ampersands – the structure. As I witnessed perfection in its purest form, I realized how foolish and naïve I had been, having thought C would have any need to implement such a primitive paradigm as object-oriented programming.

You might ask "so how do I accomplish [foo] in C then?", and the simple truth is that if you're thinking about the problem in object-oriented terms, your approach is the wrong one to begin with.

The marvelous structure of C transcends time, space and reality. It is not something you can simply explain with words, you have to be able to feel the very spirit of hypertext within you. I hope one day you will be able to experience what I did.

>>21
You can do anything in C++ that you can do in C. Operating systems are best written in C to ensure stability, however.

>>22
You can do anything in C++ that you can do in C.
nope :) fucking nub.

>>22
You can do anything in Malbolge that you can do in Brainfuck. Operating systems are best written in Brainfuck to ensure stability, however.

>>23
Elaborate?

C++ is (or was) a superset of C.

>>25
C++ has never been, and never will be a superset of C. Do we really have to have this useless discussion with clueless C++-tards every fucking week?

STABILITY ENSURED

>>26
Only if you're a pedant.

But feel free to argue with Stroustrup: "C++ is a direct descendant of C that retains almost all of C as a subset."

>>28
Only if I'm taking the only possible logical stance on the issue.

But feel free to argue with Stroustrup: ``In the strict mathematical sense, C isn't a subset of C++. There are programs that are valid C but not valid C++ and even a few ways of writing code that has a different meaning in C and C++.''

It is irrelevant. Both C and C++ are turing complete. Thread over.

>>30
turing complete
FUCKING CHRIST IF I SEE ANOTHER FAG MISPELLING THIS I'LL FUCKING KILL SOMEONE.
TOURING COMPLETE MOTHERFUCKER, CAN YOU SPELL IT?

>>30
1. You misspelled `touring complete'
2. HTML 3.2 is touring complete, too, what's your point

>>31
Stop shouting. You'll make Alan Turing sad. :(

>>31
It isn't misspelled. You should take intro to theory of computation where they discuss alan turing's life in more detail.

>>34
You can use the word `buttsecks' on /prog/. There's no need to be modest.

>>23
Examples please?
I agree that c and c++ are very different, but everything you can make in c you can also make in c++ (and the other way around)

>>36
You are right, he is wrong. No need for yet another function pointer epeniswankery.

>>29
As I said, if you're a pedant.

Oh, I'm sorry. People are machines!

#!/usr/bin/perl -l
use Quantum::Superpositions;
$html=all(tags,attributes);
$lisp=all(shit,fail,(((((parentheses))))));
print "GTFO" if $html<=$lisp;

>>36
Technically, no

int main(int argc,char *argv[])
{
int new;
return 0;
}

This works in C, not in C++.