func say($s) { echo $s, "\n"; }
class :open Thing {
var :pub=r :priv=rw $thing;
func :pub :pure hai() {
return func () { say "Hai."; }
}
func :priv die() { die(); }
}
class :open Thing {
func hai() {}
}
class :open String {
func :pub :uses=$var makeAwesome() {
$var = "Awesome!"; # Or somesuch.
}
func __toInt() {
return 5;
}
}
Thing::hai()();
(new String("Hai!") == "Hai")
say "Lol"->makeAwesome(); # "Awesome!"
say "Num" + 5; # "10"
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.