Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-4041-

Open question to Xarn, Chris Done and co

Name: James 2009-03-29 19:12

I'm just wondering do you feel a little bit embarrassed about having supported and read a book which has been deemed by its authors to be no longer relevant? I am of course referring to "SICP."

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-29 19:13

" considered harmful.

Name: James 2009-03-29 19:15

>>2
I take it that you're Xarn then?
For eight months you actively encouraged members of the /prog/ world4ch bbs to read "SICP", the very same book which is now being condemned by its authors. You're thoughts on that?

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-29 19:17

>>3
What about his being thoughts on that?

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-29 19:26

>>1
Read SICP.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-29 19:50

>>3
Eight months? The first mention of Xarn by name was in early March last year1, and the first mention of #sicp, of which he was a founding member, is two months earlier than that.2
Are you suggesting Xarn predated /prog/'s discovery of SICP? Because if you are, you are wrong.3 There were 1,864 mentions of SICP on /prog/ that predate the founding of #sicp, which is the earliest confirmed sighting we have of Xarn.

Christopher Done came later than Xarn, but still earlier than eight months ago.4
You need to read up on your history, my friend!

______________________________________________
Notes:
[1] http://dis.4chan.org/read/prog/1204484081/45
[2] http://dis.4chan.org/read/prog/1201354906/35 5
[3] First mention of SICP: http://dis.4chan.org/read/prog/1128844752/16
    First mention of ``read SICP'': http://dis.4chan.org/read/prog/1162438363/5
    First mention of ``have you read your SICP today'': http://dis.4chan.org/read/prog/1191887672
[4] http://dis.4chan.org/read/prog/1208599210/
[5] Defunct. The channel moved some time ago.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-29 19:51

>>6 is the OP, and we have been trolled constantly. Sage this thread please.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-29 19:55

>>7
The OP clearly hasn't even mastered the basics of bbcode. I doubt he has what it takes to be an EXPERT /prog/ HISTORIAN.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-29 20:07

There were 1,864 mentions of SICP on /prog/ that predate the founding of #sicp
[citation needed]

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-29 20:17

>>9
http://sprunge.us/JjdF

Ordered by time of posting and everything.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-29 22:31

>>10
Your such a cunt, whoever you are.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-29 22:58

>>11
Jealousy doesn't become you, Anonymous-kun.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-29 23:14

>>12
back to finland, please

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-30 4:49

>>11
Judging by the choice of pastebin, probably Xarn.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-30 9:02

SICP's presentation of certain fundamentals are outdated in today's context. That doesn't mean SICP is irrelevant.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-30 10:44

>>10
Oh wow. I was the fifth (or less) person to mention SICP on /prog/. Also http://dis.4chan.org/read/prog/1174926405/35 which seems to be the definite turning point for SICP exposure, was posted by me.

This may surprise you, but SICP is still relevant.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-30 15:51

>>16
I'm sorry, but you didn't structure your post starting with the phrase "This may surprise you, but", thus your claim to have made the post you referenced is dubious at best.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-31 0:32

[00:21]    <littledan>    slava, this channel is logged. Don't offend the wrong people!
[00:21]    <slava>    littledan: offend who?
[00:21]    <littledan>    the mightly schemers, I mean
[00:21]    <slava>    unemployed freaks who write 'sum-list' functions in their shitty scheme implementations?
[00:21]    <slava>    fuck them all
[00:21]    <slava>    they don't know anything about programming
[00:21]    <slava>    there
[00:21]    <slava>    I offended them
[00:22]    <slava>    seriously, I don't understand people who call themselves hackers and claim programming is art
[00:22]    <slava>    programming is engineering, plain and simple
[00:23]    <slava>    its a very precise process and if your code is too slow, or doesn't have the right features, then it plain sucks, who cares if it looks elegant or not
[00:23]    <slava>    that's why scheme is useless

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-31 0:52

>>18
Isn't that the douche who made Factor?

unemployed freaks
Yeah, because you can more easily get a job writing code for a completely experimental language that practically nobody supports than for a real one that is available everywhere.
What a fucking tool.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-31 1:06

>>19
This was in #sicp earlier this week

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-31 2:58

>>20
I consider this to be somewhat unlikely. #sicp only talks about tripcodes and Unix.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-31 3:24

>>19
Did you just call Skiim "a real [language] that is available everywhere"?

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-31 3:47

>>19
http://tinyvid.tv/ is written in factor.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-31 3:52

>>19
whether his language is popular or not doesn't change the reality of what he's saying. how popular is the language you wrote? oh wait...

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-31 3:56

who cares if it is relevant?
you should read books simply because you want to learn, faggot.
programming is all about irrelevant ``abstract bullshite'' that you will never comprehend.
i have read SICP.
if it's not done you have to.
BBcode and Scheme are the ULTIMATE LANGUAGES.
ALSO WELCOME TO /prog/,
EVERY THREAD WILL BE REPLIED TO
NO EXCEPTION

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-31 4:21

>>20
actually it was in #concatenative

>>19
http://tinyvid.tv/show/1cn4p0go9bhdt

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-31 10:04

Jesus FUCK.

I looked at that tinyvid, first off it's basically Youtube but (a) ugly as fuck, and (b) completely retarded; and second, the FIRST FIVE VIDEOS in the list were all Kanye West.

Fuck Factor. I will never touch that pile-of-shit language.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-31 10:35

>>27
Youtube is already (a) ugly as fuck, and (b) completely retarded;

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-31 12:15

>>28
Typical Factorfag who wouldn't be able to identify a well-designed site if it was a flaccid dick hitting him in the face.

Name: Haxus the Great 2009-03-31 12:33

Haxus the Great

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-31 13:16

>>29
I don't code in factor. I just find most video sharing websights stupid.

Try again next time.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-31 13:40

>>31
Looks like websights aren't the only stupid things around here.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-31 20:41

>>32
Ho-ho, you're a bit new here, huh? spelling website as "websight" is a sarcastic way of spelling it that is nearly as old as 4chan itself.

IHBT

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-31 22:27

like this:
 http://portal.acm.org/ft_gateway.cfm?id=36194&type=pdf&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=15151515&CFTOKEN=6184618
 
 
 Change to CFID=15151515&CFTOKEN=6184618 in the download link, works every time (that's how Google can access them BTW)

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-31 22:31

>>33
That's dumb.  Your dumb.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-31 22:34

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-23 18:51

bump for mentionning my #sicp friends

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-23 20:26

Christopher isn't a #sicp person. He's gone on record as opposing it.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-23 21:58

Does Xarn actually actively visit this board?

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-23 22:06

It's not the 80s, Scheme and SICP are completely obsolete. Enjoy being 25 years behind today's knowledge.

Name: Xarn !!xGIX62dlJesBTK+ 2009-05-23 22:08

>>39
Hi.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-23 22:09

>>40
Enjoy not understanding the basic fundamentals of programming. You're a Terrible! programmer if you don't ever delve into the real nitty gritty stuff.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-23 22:13

>>40
computer science hasn't really changed all that much in 25 years despite what you think.also the second edition came out in 1996 so it would be 13 years

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-23 22:18

What does /prog/ think of this?
http://web.mit.edu/alexmv/6.001/
I think it'd be a good way to encourage young /prog/riders to read their SICP if they haven't already done so.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-24 1:52

>>43
Scheme has been obsolete since 1958.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-24 7:51

>>45
C has been obsolete since 1957.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-24 14:39

>>46
The antidote to 1972 is 1957.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-24 17:14

>>46
Jesus has been obsolete since 1957.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-24 18:25

>>48
Jesus has been obsolete since 1AD

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-24 18:55

Arabic numerals have been obsolete since XXVIIIJ.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-24 23:49

>>46-48
nothing of consequence happened in 1957.

Name: Anonymous 2010-12-28 15:21

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List