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

Pages: 1-

noob question

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-04 10:10

I'm a noob programmer, and i've noticed that some languages are referred to as toy languages, and are much maligned. I know a small amount of Haskell and C, and everything seems much quicker and easier to do in Haskell, so why do people make fun of it all the time?

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-04 10:16

Lol just kidding, I am a troll.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-04 10:30

Haskell is functional, functional languages suck, like Lisp. Lisp sucks.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-04 10:39

OP here, sorry I was drunk when I made this thread. Just ignore it.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-04 11:26

OP here, disregard this thread. And see you later, gonna go suck some big juicy dicks now

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-04 11:33

everything seems much quicker and easier to do in Haskell, so why do people make fun of it all the time?
It is a well-known fact that a large part of the /prog/ userbase consists of non-programmers. Some actual (but stupid and inexperienced) programmer, whose programming expertise was based on exactly one language, namely C/C++/Java/Pascal/BASIC, posted in a moment of exceptional arrogance, a month or so ago a /prog/ post denouncing the popular functional programming languages he has zero experience with, using the argument that they are toy languages. Soon the aforementioned non-programming crowd realized the trolling potential and rapidly picked up the troll.

Also, your troll failed. GTFO.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-04 11:52

It's not a troll, Haskell is a toy language that really sucks for practical use.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-04 11:57

>>6
everything seems much quicker and easier to do in Haskell, so why do people make fun of it all the time?
C fags who can't do Haskell bash it. They are 15 year olds worried that their sine wave intro runs as fast as possible on their 386SX; they followed a tutorial to add inline assembly routines to exchange variables and count from 1 to 10. Of course, none of what they say is correct, but they'll defend it because they're too stupid to understand FP, and they're too scared because they realize they can't, so they bash it hoping that it'll be less popular and their failure and those of their pitiful low-level languages will be less evident.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-04 12:20

>>7
Well -- it REALLY rocks for theoretical use, which is all Enlightened programmers need.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-05 0:28

>>1
Because no language can be as optimized as C.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-05 1:35

it's good to learn an easy language, to get some skills, and then you should think to move to somehing harder, c, c++, are easy to learn, and they can be very powerfull (not much, but the necessary for that coding level), yeah coding, in that level everyone is a coder that someday will become a programer, awww cute history ^^, now fuck off noob

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-05 5:51

>>11
Protip: there's no diffrence between "coding" and "programming". The former is a more informal, intarweb or demoscene version of the later.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-05 10:06

The worst thing about anonymous forums, i can't actually prove this, but i am the OP.
First of all the original post wasn't a troll, but a genuine question. My lecturer has talked about people hating Haskell and functional programming quite a bit, but i'd only heard his side of the story (he's pro-Haskell, did his thesis in it and all).
I have another question also, this one even more noob than the last. What is the definition of functional programming? as much as i've searched i've been unable to find a satisfactory answer.

in before Troll.
also sorry to those i offend by putting a serious question in a 4chan thread.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-05 10:33

>>13
>>1,13
Same person

Troll

I'm offended that you take world4ch seriously.

Formalities aside, here's my serious answer:

Unfortunately, there's no formal definitions for most programming language categories or feature names. You won't find a clear, single definition of functional programming, object-oriented programming, weak typing, polymorphism, etc. However, you eventually get a notion of every concept and an idea of what's everything good for.

Functional programming is based on Lambda calculus, and deals with some of the most advanced, abstract programming concepts. They aim at you specifying what you want to do, but not how to do it, although don't take this rigurously. Requisites of functional langauges include most notably first-class functions (functions must be values like any other, and you can store, copy, pass and return these values). Functional programming requires that you think on functions as any other value and pass them from one to another. A notable feature of FP, though not a requisite, is known as referential transparency. In some FP languages, all functions must/should be pure, which means that they have no side effects, and that they evaluate to the same result given the same parameters anytime. An example of a pure function is sin(x). An example of a non-pure function is time(): you call it with the same parameters every time, yet it returns different values. Another feature of many FP languages is lazy evaluation: if you use pure functions, it doesn't matter when you actually evaluate them, so they get called when necessary. FP is great for implementing complex algorithms and Maths, and it has an awesome productivity (think about 20 times better than C), although they are not so good for I/O, and they are harder to learn.

Functional languages include Haskell, Erlang or ML. Other languages allow you to combine different programming techniques to solve every problem with the right tool, which is the approach I recommend. They are not purely functional, not purely object-oriented, not purely traditional imperative, not purely anything, but you can do everything. Examples of these languages are Scheme, Python and Lua.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-05 19:53

Also, my other car is my CDR.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-05 22:12

>>12
False.

ProgRAMming.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-05 22:49

>>5
sounds delicious

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-05 23:18

Haskell - for people too dumb to use assembly language.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-05 23:32

Oh wtf.

Go buy a DVD rewinder.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-07 15:39

I'm an Satori level programmer. I don't talk with you chumps in ``#java'', I don't read your sun.com with new ideas I read in SICP forty years ago. I don't need to go to a board full of fat smelly people to watch Solaris lectures all over again. I've got fuckin' live feed torrents of the newest Lisp books you haven't even hear of, and books from said language being shipped to my house so I can masturbate on them. Go read your "Beginning Programming with JavaTM For Dummies®" from amazon.com, I'm downloading DrScheme and reading the fucking R6RS.

You keep wearing your Java shirts and shit, socializing with your Enterprise friends. I'll be walking by, Anonymous. You'll never know that the master of programming had passed you by, because I suppress my power level.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-07 15:40

I'm a Satori level programmer. I don't talk with you chumps in ``#java'', I don't read your sun.com with new ideas I read in SICP forty years ago. I don't need to go to a board full of fat smelly people to watch Solaris lectures all over again. I've got fuckin' live feed torrents of the newest Lisp books you haven't even hear of, and books from said language being shipped to my house so I can masturbate on them. Go read your "Beginning Programming with JavaTM For Dummies®" from amazon.com, I'm downloading DrScheme and reading the fucking R6RS.

You keep wearing your Java shirts and shit, socializing with your Enterprise friends. I'll be walking by, Anonymous. You'll never know that the master of programming had passed you by, because I suppress my power level.

Name: Anonymous 2010-11-17 16:52

Hi. OP here again. Plz I can has the codez for functional programming? U all R full of win! thx.

Name: Anonymous 2010-11-17 16:57

NB: THIS POST HAS RISEN FROM THE GRAVE

Name: Anonymous 2010-11-17 17:07

>>23
Y U NO LET SHIT THREAD BE FORGOTTEN?!

Name: VIPPER 2010-11-17 18:39

>>21,20
Great post. VIP QUALITY assured.

Name: Anonymous 2010-11-17 19:10

>>10
Assembly.

Name: Anonymous 2011-02-03 8:20

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List