I cant become a /prog/rammer til I learn the history of that meme.
Name:
Anonymous2008-08-23 20:52
Here's my implementation of >>1. It's the forced indentation of code, without statements and a couple tweaks. I call this language "Understatement", and I fap to it every night. No such thing as public or private access, and I'm guesssing what die does there.
say = print
Thing = class (object):
__init__ = lambda self, pub:
self.pub = pub
hai = lambda: #Static method if no self
lambda: say('Hai.')
die = lambda: die() #Note: this hangs, but doesn't run out of stack space
>>2
As you can see, the method hai in the Thing class returns an anonymous function.
class ProgPost
{
var :priv :pub=r $thread = "http://dis.4chan.org/post/prog";
var :priv :pub=r $post;
var :priv :pub=r :customAttr $name;
func __fromString(String $post) {
$this->post = $post;
}
func :pub post() {
$p = new HTTP()->setMethod("POST")->setURI($this->thread);
for $k => $v in $this {
if ($k->customAttr) $v = "Anonymous";
$p->setPOSTVal($k, $v); // class Attrib is converted to String.
}
$p->post();
}
}
((ProgPost) "Hello, /prog/!")->post();
It has static typing, but uses automatic type casting when the apropriate method is given. Type casts are performed when a function expects an argument of a different type, or implicit by (Class)-ish casts.
No special reason for the sigils, I've just gotten used to them.
Cute. You missed the rest of my code, though. (And I explicitly tried to make user-defined control structures the same as built-in ones, like Scheme, in mine.)
Name:
Anonymous2008-08-24 20:23
haskell = Dog('Haskell')
haskell.make_sound()
lolcode.DeadDogException
at <interactive>:2:9
Name:
Anonymous2008-08-25 2:57
I made a SNUSP-interpreter with function calls and brainfuck loops once.
Due to Haskell's lazy evaluation, make_sound only sounds if there's any human listening, just like if a tree falls in the forest, and no one hears it, it doesn't make any sound¹.
¹: Bullshit, though. The Universe is deterministic and objects exist without the need for the disgustingly anthropocentric observative/conscious bullshite; it's just observation what's not perfect, because it runs from within the system.
>>28 ¹: Bullshit, though. The Universe is deterministic and objects exist without the need for the disgustingly anthropocentric observative/conscious bullshite[citation needed]
I use my penis to sense this. It's as serious as any Wikipedia source, so here is it.
Name:
Anonymous2008-08-25 12:54
>>28 The Universe is deterministic
What's it like, being stuck in 1925?
Name:
Anonymous2008-08-25 13:34
>>31 [ 8=====> ]
What's it like, having a character sequence for a penis?
Name:
Anonymous2008-08-25 14:06
>>32
What's is like, being stuck in "since we can't measure it it doesn't exist, you fuqin angered an expert physicist, godfuckingdamn!" and in "let's keep the shit coming without acknowledging the current theories are broken so we can continue to get government money on this"?
>>34
The fact that you don't understand the uncertainty principle is not a limitation of our measuring devices but a fundamental limitation of the universe itself doesn't mean it's not true. That's the entire point of it.
Similarly, the fact that you heard some idiot on /sci/ rant about string theory doesn't mean quantum physics doesn't have immensely accurate predictive power, which is also borne out by experiment.
>>37
Uhhhhh except that's not true at all, since in Quantum Mechanics, the term observe has a different meaning to in the Classic lexicon. All double-slit proves is that we poke things when we measure them.
Name:
Anonymous2008-08-25 16:06
/sci/ is that way -->
Name:
Anonymous2008-08-25 16:15
>>36
Yet it's incomplete, and they are confusing objects with probability clouds, among other things. Of course the impossibility to measure everything absolutely is a fundamental limitation of the universe, because we're measuring from the universe itself. But unability to measure doesn't deny existence or determination, much less determinism.
>>37
Proves what? It proves when you measure things, you affect them, and that the wave-particle duality is a hack so that we keep seeing photons as things we understand when they are neither at the same time.
Name:
Anonymous2008-08-25 17:25
You fucktards apparently like putting in more punctuation than Haskell and Erlang combined!
Name:
Anonymous2008-08-25 17:35
But unability to measure doesn't deny existence or determination, much less determinism.
It doesn't confirm it either. Affirmation without proof is unscientific and ultimately destructive.
Name:
Anonymous2008-08-25 18:51
>>41 But unability to measure doesn't deny existence or determination, much less determinism.
Even in the presence of probabilistic quantum behavior, the universe can still be effectively deterministic at a macro level.
Name:
Anonymous2008-08-25 19:05
>>43
Probably so. Yet physicists are pretty much affirming the opposite all the time.
Name:
Anonymous2008-08-25 19:44
My ideal language would be constructed only out of anonymous functions, lambdas, as Alan Touring would have wanted it.
Name:
Anonymous2008-08-25 21:01
>>45
Well all I know is that a partially observable environment appears non-deterministic to any agents inside it. Thus, the possibility that that environment might be deterministic is irrelevant to those agents, because they can't act upon it. They are stuck with treating their environment as non-deterministic, so they might as well call it non-deterministic. Are you sure this isn't what physicists mean?
>>39
EPR paradox, you twit! Do you understand it's implications?
Name:
Anonymous2008-08-26 14:55
>>47 Well all I know is that a partially observable environment appears non-deterministic
No shit
Thus, the possibility that that environment might be deterministic is irrelevant to those agents, because they can't act upon it.
What the fuck. Even if they were as silly as to never theorize deeper than they could observe (a limitation by which they will never come up with a perfect theory of all), to affirm the Universe is what you can observe, negating whatever you can't observe is something I'd only expect from religion retards. The Earth was flat 'cause well, it looks flat and you cannot go farther because there be dragons. The Universe is non-deterministic 'cause well, it looks non-deterministic and you cannot tell farther because there be uncertainty principle.
>>52
Why don't you take your ideas to a philosophy board, or something?
Name:
Anonymous2008-08-26 15:27
>>53
/prog/ is about abstract bullshite, so this fits. And I haven't been lurking /sci, but if it's what it used to be, I guess I'm going to get better serious discussion here than there.
U know what I did and look where i am the father of the Java programming systems have flowered in the last few years since I did anything bad to me Maybe he was talking about C you are a lot of things that we still need to load a function for.