I hate the fucking language and I hate all the drooling fucking imbeciles who won't shut the fuck up about how awesome it is for no good goddamn reason because the only other shit they know is Java and mIRCscript, and they've never in their life tried using a real language.
Fuck.
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-16 16:19
lol hay guys, i'm a C# programmer
i'm a mad keen programmer who can use every built in class in C#, and i believe this makes me an EXPERT PROGRAMMER
what? what's memset? what are 8 bit data types? what are bits? what is a data address? take your philosophical mumbo jumbo somewhere else!
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-16 16:51
>>44
You can zero a buffer in c#, and you've got the byte type for 8bit data, and you can operate on pointers(addresses) in the unsafe mode, as well as run native code either via p/invoke or via one of the other lesser known ways to run native code in .net
Seems you're just a code monkey who can't understand the foundation on which his beloved language was built on and runs on as he uses it, nor does he understand that the language he uses actually has all those features, making this statement: who can use every built in class in C#
void.
IHBT
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-16 17:03
>>44
I believe that if you're still using memset and pointers in this day and age, then you're doing it very wrong.
Because there's a lot of demand for those jobs at the moment. Unless of course you want to work on an open source project, in which case enjoy your pointers, along with your unemployment
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-16 17:17
>>48
its not about demand. if thats what one is good at, that is what one does. programming isnt about the lcd
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-16 17:22
>>49
I think you're overestimating the importance of such professions. Any shit for brains can read about pointers and cpu architecture and get it, it really isn't that difficult. It's like proclaiming that you're good at arithmetic.
It takes skill to design a software based enterprise system.
I know mIRC script, Sepples, C#, and Lua. I haven't touched Java with a 10 foot dipole. However, I agree with >>59, I find that I dislike FOOP as well. C# would be the best ever if it was like Sepples in that it allows functional programming (which some cite as a weakness of Sepples, I know).
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-16 21:06
>>62 if it was like Sepples in that it allows functional programming
wat
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-16 21:08
C# would be the best ever if it was like Sepples in that it allows functional programming (which some cite as a weakness of Sepples, I know). wat
Also, what is FOOP?
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-16 21:09
Oh, I guess you didn't mean functional programming, but the lack of global variables/procedures etc.
And I guess FOOP has something to do with Forced Object-Orientation of something.
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-16 21:10
What the hell is FOOP? First thing Google says is Fooping is a mix between farting and pooping
>>61
"select" in C# only appears like an SQL statement, and in some cases it can be, but it's actually part of LINQ, or Language-Integrated Query. .NET comes with support for LINQ to IEnumerable (Array/List/etc.), LINQ to XML (better than DOM!), and LINQ to SQL (better than dealing with real SQL!).
Here's an example of LINQ to IEnumerable.
var list = new List<int>() { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 };
var query = from i in list
where i > 5
select i * 2;
foreach(var i in query)
Console.WriteLine(i);
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-16 22:19
>>66
I fooped a little in my mouth when I read that.
var list = new List<int>() { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 };
var list2 = new List<int>() { 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 };
var query = from i, j in list, list 2
where i > 5 and j > 13
select sum(i+j);
foreach(var i in query)
Console.WriteLine(i);
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-17 6:26
Objective C
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-17 6:28
i hate OOP in general
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-17 8:41
>>60
I'm not sure, but couldn't you use Console.WriteLine(r ?? "Nothing");
instead of Console.WriteLine(r.HasValue ? r.Value.ToString() : "Nothing"); ?
Oh god, not another damned "SOA FTW!" fags.
You're trying to reinvent the wheel if you think an enterprise system needs to be implemented any differently than any other smaller or older systems.
And I'd love to see you figure out how to deal with half of the compatibility/ general implementation problems coming from "software based enterprise systems" that system programmers will be tasked with correcting.
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-17 9:05
>>77
No, for two reasons: It's a Maybe<int>, so ??ing it with a string doesn't make much sense.
Secondly, ?? is for Nullable<T>, not this Maybe<T>. Nullable isn't useful here, because it's declared as struct Nullable<T> where T : struct, i.e. T must be a value type.
Unless ?? is overloadable. But I don't think it is.
>>79
Oh. That's the second time I encountered Maybe<T>, and I haven't used it myself, so I assumed it could work like Nullable<T> with the ?? operator.
What does Maybe<T> actually do? You don't have to answer if you don't want to, I can always google and msdn.
>>84
It's a lot like Nullable<T>. It's either a wrapped value, or a
IN-DEPTH EXPALINATION, HOLY SHIT:
1) Haskell doesn't distinguish between heap and stack variables; that's the compiler's job.
2) There's no null in Haskell, because then you would have to check for null values in every goddamn function, which is stupid. Better to have the type system check it at runtime.
3) Haskell datatypes are tagged unions, which means that depending on how you instantiate them they can have different "instance variables" of different types. In the case that a data constructor takes zero arguments, it's effectively an enumerated constant:
data Bool = True | False
-- ACTUAL DEFINITION IN THE HASKELL SOURCE CODE
(To fake this in Java, you would have to create a Bool class and then subclass it as True and False.)
4) So long as a datatype's constructor functions are in scope, you automatically get read-only access to the datatype's contents.
5) If the type name itself takes an argument, that type is automatically made into a template. The syntax is the same as function calls.
So now that you know what you're about to look at:
data Maybe t = Just t | Nothing Nothing is Haskell-ese for null. Just t is Haskell-ese for "an arbitrary value that isn't null." Because the actual value you want is hidden inside the Just function, any time you're dealing with a value that might be null, it's impossible to do anything with it unless you check whether it's null.
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-17 13:32
>>86
People who don't know C++ are the biggest losers
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-17 13:45
>>86
That's one messed up, shitty explanation. Either you're moron or you've just learned Haskell.
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-17 13:49
>>88
I accidentally a Java programmer for more than 15 years. Can /prog/ ever forgive me?
Better to have the type system check it at runtime
The type system works at compile time, fucktard. Do you not know the difference between AIDS and niggers?
If the type name itself takes an argument, that type is automatically made into a template. The syntax is the same as function calls.
I think your disease is that you're just retarded
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-17 14:08
>>86 Haskell doesn't distinguish between heap and stack variables; that's the compiler's job.
C#'s distinction between value/reference types is not about where they go, it's about the semantics, which is important when destructive updates are allowed (obviously this excludes Haskell). Using escape analysis types with reference semantics can be put on the stack, and by boxing types with value semantics can be put on the heap.
Perhaps you already know this, but in that case making that claim is unscientific and ultimately destructive.
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-17 14:17
>>86
There isnull in Haskell, dumbfuck. You use it when you work with pointers (which normally is as rarely as you can).
PS. Who did this: http://sequence.complete.org/ Anonymous: Haskell, the world's leading purely fictional programming language
Anonymous: I'd love to explain to you how to write hello world in Haskell, but first let me introduce you to basic category theory.
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-17 15:44
world's leading purely fictional programming language
I invented this meme.
Traits often considered important for constituting a programming language:
* Function: A programming language is a language used to write computer programs, which involve a computer performing some kind of computation[2] or algorithm and possibly control external devices such as printers, robots,[3] and so on.
* Target: Programming languages differ from natural languages in that natural languages are only used for interaction between people, while programming languages also allow humans to communicate instructions to machines. Some programming languages are used by one device to control another. For example PostScript programs are frequently created by another program to control a computer printer or display.
* Constructs: Programming languages may contain constructs for defining and manipulating data structures or controlling the flow of execution.
* Expressive power: The theory of computation classifies languages by the computations they are capable of expressing. All Turing complete languages can implement the same set of algorithms. ANSI/ISO SQL and Charity are examples of languages that are not Turing complete, yet often called programming languages.[4][5]
Some authors restrict the term "programming language" to those languages that can express all possible algorithms;[6] sometimes the term "computer language" is used for more limited artificial languages.
Non-computational languages, such as markup languages like HTML or formal grammars like BNF, are usually not considered programming languages. A programming language (which may or may not be Turing complete) may be embedded in these non-computational (host) languages.
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-17 17:21
>>106 exists
And that is the key. Fictional languages do not exist anywhere at all. At most the language might have a name, but even that is unlikely.
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-17 17:23
Its exists purely in the head of programmer thinking about it.
Man invented pen and paper thousands of years ago.
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-17 17:44
>>109
Let's put it this way, pseudocode is intended to be written down.
>>112
Tales are not intended to be written down, they are intended to be passed mouth-to-mouth.
The content of the tales themselves may or may not be real, that is irrelevant. The tales themselves are real.
Pseudocode that is written down is real. Whatever it describes is irrelevant.
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-17 17:59
STOP TALKING TO FROZENVOID, IT TOOK US LONG ENOUGH TO GET RID OF HIM THE LAST TIME. EITHER EXERCISE SOME SELF CONTROL AND IGNORE HIM OR GET THE FUCKING GREASEMONKEYSCRIPT FROM ONE OF THE OLD THREADS
>>119
I covered that in my last post, I suggest you read it again. I will reiterate it here: The tale itself exists, the contents of the tale may or may not be true.
Let's compare it to a car: A car exists if you can see it.
If you write a tale down you can see it and thus it exists (in written form).
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-17 18:10
>>120
There is nothing to be gained in arguing with someone who refuses to listen
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-17 18:12
>>120
plz dont argue with his posts. since no-one else sees them, it makes for a one-sided conversation
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-17 18:15
>>122 You have the knowledge of tale,but the tale itself isn't real.
Yet a difference with fictional programming languages: No one has any knowledge of them.
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-17 18:38
FrozenVoid, why do you have to be this way?
Though you do make /prog/ more lively, people feel bad because of you.
:(
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-17 18:40
>>125
I cannot see this FrozenVoid, ∴ he is not real. Please stop hallucinating. We're all worried about you.
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-17 19:55
>>125
Hello Taro, you emo-faggot you. Stop sucking his cock and go masturbate to cartoons or something.
>>127
Asuka is not a cartoon. SHE IS REAL!!! Can you splooge your seed all over a mere cartoon? Can you hug and kiss a cartoon in your bed when you go to sleep at night? I think not!Please consider other people'sfeelings before [sub]making such mean comments...
As you can see, that is pseudocode, it exists. This cannot be denied. Now we have established that pseudocode does exist. To prove that fictional programming languages do not exist is impossible, but one can safely assume that they do not exist unless evidence is posted to the contrary.
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-18 7:06
from __future__ import skynet
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-18 7:13
JavaScript
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-18 8:58
>>146
No, you can clearly see my code example there. It is real.
>>151
Do not respond to his posts, he is known for being a troll/retard for quite a while, and he used a very similar argument to say that non-x86 assembly languages(such as PPC, MIPS, various RISCS, virtual machine opcodes, and so on) are no assembly languages, because they're not run by most common PCs' CPUs. Don't even think of thinking of even discussing this with FrozenVoid, you'll be wasting your time!