Help?

I want to learn to program /prog/ what language should I learn? And don't say Lisp.

Lisp

Scheme

Lisp is the ultimate language. You must use it.

Ruby.

FIOC

Esperanto

Frame I/O Controller?

B^BC_ode

LISt Processing

Arc

OP here,
>>2,4
What has Lisp ever even wrote?

>>12
crash bandicoot

Trawling detected.

that Yahoo Store thing as well as the orbitz airline reservation

>>12
Emacs

MAXIMA

Jythonby

prolog

>>12
The better version of, Yahoo stores were written in Lisp.

>>20
No, Yahoo instantly rewrote it in Java after firing that essay faggot that also invented a crappy language called ``Arc.''

ASM

>>1
Haskell. It's the most sensible route. I've experienced like three bugs in 700 lines of code. It's also great for concurrency, which is important these days. There's a main implementation (GHC) which you can rely on, and you don't have to bother worrying about writing "portable" code to work across different implementations. New, useful stuff is added all the time to GHC. Haskell has a great and very active community--constantly growing; a good, fast compiler; lots of libraries; and a friendly and helpful IRC channel. It is compiled, and also can be interpeted. It supports debugging (stack trace and the like), and excellent unit testing (quickcheck). Haskell libraries and programs can be built out of composable parts which is great for software re-usability. People are using Haskell in Real Life™ in real commercial applications. It's became justifiable to my boss and my friends. It's taught by the elite universities. Prof. Dr. Edsger W. Dijkstra approved of Haskell. Also, read SICP.

>>1
Try this, http://www.diveintopython.org/

>>21
LIES. It was rewrittten in Sepples and became slower and more difficult to maintain.

хуихуи

>>1
Scheme. It's the most sensible route. I've experienced like three bugs in 700 lines of code. It's also great for cudders, which is important these days. There's a main implementation (PLT) which you can rely on, and you don't have to bother worrying about writing "portable" code to work across different implementations. New, useful stuff is added all the time to PLT. Scheme has a great and very active community--constantly growing; a good, fast compiler; lots of libraries; and a friendly and helpful IRC channel. It is compiled, and also can be interpeted. It supports debugging (stack trace and the like), and excellent unit testing (quickcheck(((())))). Scheme libraries and programs can be built out of composable parts which is great for software re-usability. People are using Scheme in Real Life™ in real commercial applications. It's became justifiable to my boss and my /prog/. It's taught by the elite universities. Prof. Dr. Gerald J Sussman approved of Scheme. Also, read SICP.

>>1
C. It's the most sensible route. I've experienced like three hundred bugs in 700 lines of code. It's also great for speed, which is important these days. There's a main implementation (GCC) which you can rely on, and you don't have to bother worrying about writing "portable" code to work across different implementations. New, useful stuff is added all the time to GCC. C has a great and very active community--constantly growing; a good, fast compiler; lots of libraries; and a friendly and helpful IRC channel. It is compiled, and also can be interpeted. It supports debugging (stack trace and the like), and excellent tripcode cracking (trip.exe). C libraries and programs can be built out of composable parts which is great for software re-usability. People are using C in Real Life™ in real commercial applications. It's became justifiable to my boss and my friends. It's taught by the elite universities. Prof. Dr. Dennis M. Ritchie approved of C. Also, read K&R.

>>1
C#. It's the most sensible route. I've experienced like three bugs in 700 lines of Vista code. It's also great for scalability, which is enterprise these days. There's a main implementation (Visual C#) which you can rely on, and you don't have to bother worrying about writing "portable" code to work across different implementations. New, useful stuff is added all the time to Visual C#. C# has a great and very active community--constantly growing; a good, fast compiler; lots of libraries; and a friendly and helpful technet page. It is compiled, and also can be interpeted. It supports debugging (stack trace and the like), and excellent unit testing (quickcheck(NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL)). C# libraries and programs can be built out of composable parts which is great for software re-usability. People are using C# in Real Life™ in real commercial applications. It's became justifiable to my boss and my friends. It's taught by the elite universities. Prof. Dr. Richard Hundhausen approved of C#. Also, read MSDN.

>>1
Arc. It's the most sensible route. I've experienced like three bugs in 7 lines of code. It's also great for brevity, which is important these days. There's a main implementation (ac.scm) which you can rely on, and you don't have to bother worrying about writing "portable" code to work across different Scheme implementations. New, useful stuff is added all the time to ac.scm. Haskell has a small and very active community--constantly growing; a good, fast macro; lots of libraries; and a friendly and helpful subreddit. It is interpeted, and also can be ASCII. It supports debugging (stack trace and the like), and excellent unit testing ((load "quickcheck.arc")). Arc libraries and programs can be built out of composable parts which is great for software re-usability. People are using Arc in Real Life™ in real commercial applications. It's became justifiable to my boss and my friends. It's taught by the elite universities. Prof. Dr. Paul Graham approved of Arc. Also, read http://ycombinator.com/arc/tut.txt.

>>29
C# doesn't have the NULL (all caps) keyword.

>>30
First good post in this thread.

>>32
Forced meme is forced.

>>23
Prof. Dr. Edsger W. Dijkstra approved of Haskell
[citation needed]

>>34
The human hand has five fingers^{[citation needed]}

>>35
Actually, it has four fingers and one thumb :)

>>36
[citation needed]

>>36
Looking forward to your explanation of how a thumb is sufficiently anatomically distinct to merit not being called a finger.

The thumb contrasts with each of the (other) four by being the only finger that:
* Is opposable
* Has two phalanges rather than three
* Has its inmost phalanx so close to the wrist
* Has much greater breadth and stubby proportions
* Is attached to such a mobile metacarpus (which produces most of the opposability)

>>39
And yet it's still obviously a finger.