Languages you hate

Fortransexuals

>>78
Did you know that           YHBT      ?

>>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.

>>82
It's not a standard thing. In this case it's like Haskell's Maybe, except defined for reference types too.

>>83
I don't know Haskell :( (yet!).
Can you please tell me what a Haskell Maybe does?
I believe this has something to do with monads.

I'm making a new programming language based on category theory called

Monadskell

>>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.

>>86
People who don't know C++ are the biggest losers

>>86
That's one messed up, shitty explanation. Either you're moron or you've just learned Haskell.

>>88
I accidentally a Java programmer for more than 15 years. Can /prog/ ever forgive me?

>>86
EXPALINATION
I see what you did there.

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

>>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.

>>86
There is null in Haskell, dumbfuck. You use it when you work with pointers (which normally is as rarely as you can).

>>92
There is null in Haskell
And it's called nullPtr.

*haskell = 0;

haskell = []
null haskell
True

why the fuck is haskell so popular -- it's like britney spears 30 years ago fuuuuuucking raaaaage

>>96
rur, it's so popular because all the haskellites are in /prog/.

Does dons visit /prog/?

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.

world's leading purely fictional programming language
I invented this meme.

>>99
that suprises me

also

100 GET

>>101
For it to be fictional it must not actually exist.

Fallacy: peyton `simon` jones
I also invented this meme. Huh.

>>103
That is not part of the definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_language#Definitions
Definitions

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.

>>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.

Its exists purely in the head of programmer thinking about it.
Man invented pen and paper thousands of years ago.

>>109
Let's put it this way, pseudocode is intended to be written down.

>>111
Excuse me, what the fuck are you doing?

>>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.

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

>>86
I understand it now somehow, thanks :) .

>>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).