>>1 GOTO or GTFO
If you structured your programs properly you wouldn't even need to use a GOTO statement.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-24 20:42 ID:UdJRrUI8
>>2
The GOTO thing was just my way of supporting procedural over functional paradigm.
PROTIP: If, While, For, and other type of conditional operation are essentially gotos.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-24 21:12 ID:cMLfGxkz
>>3
PROTIP: Any kind of control is "essentialy goto", so what?
Also, lambda is the ultimate goto, so by supporting goto you support functional programming too.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-24 21:14 ID:0tk6oe76
wtf
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-24 21:16 ID:OAQVmzUX
Functional languages are awesome, not so much for use (fuck, who does?), but for ideas. If it wasn't for functional languages we'd probably be writing in BASIC.
Also, it'll be interesting to see how many procedural languages survive the transition to highly-concurrent systems. There's a reason why Erlang is functional/has a GC/uses a VM. <- zOMG EVIL!!1!
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-24 21:16 ID:h0r0NAaL
>>4
no it isn't, this is how learning to code in BASIC ruins your life.
Yes, interesting. The various papers describing work on HiPE are a really good read.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-25 11:37 ID:LQoAtWqG
Most functional programming won't perform well until GCs and OSes work together properly.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-25 13:13 ID:5dKGp3lP
>>19
Uh, maybe you're a little out of the loop, but GCs have been working just fine for many years.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-25 15:30 ID:LQoAtWqG
>>20
If you say something this fucking stupid then you're out of the loop. GCs get RUINED by the OS. A GC that attempts to be OS aware and try to map better to in memory pages will do way better than an unaware GC.
Grow up, you're outclassed, get out of prog
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-25 15:54 ID:5dKGp3lP
>>21
Is this why all languages with a GC are pig slow?
>>25 WELL, LET'S SEE WHAT THIS XMONAD THING CAN DO. Too bad darcs is slow as fuck.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-25 21:27 ID:jLVwFKIi
>>26
But it is simple as fuck easy to set up as fuck and distributed as fuck to save all project files and all history of changes even if main server and all but one developers were hit with a 5-Mt N² bomb.
But, yes, it is slow under heavy loads. Also, locks. If you have a team of 1800 developers you would probably prefer GIT or SVN.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-26 4:09 ID:WV3GzenN
>>27
If you have that many developers you'd probably want a development model like Linux or Wine -- where developers send in patches which are then applied.
And for such a large project -- Darcs would perform horribly, because it doesn't really handle too many and too large patches very well.
Use GIT ;) Sure, it's confusing and has way too many oddly named commands and concepts, and it doesn't have the nice CLI of Darcs, but it works well.
Name:
Haha2007-08-26 9:40 ID:K9dci/QF
Ocaml, as a partially functional programming language, can outdo C in performance and Haskell just takes programming toa whole 'nother level.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-26 10:21 ID:5oZWyF7X
>>29
Only in rare cases can OCaml beat C. OCaml boxes all their floats, can't do concurrency well, plus doesn't do a heck of a lot of optimization to begin with! Even worse if you want to interact with other libraries not written in OCaml you have to marshal ocaml types