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

Pages: 1-4041-

Whats the big deal with Scheme

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-08 21:49

So some nerd was a fan of star wars and wanted to make a language that mirrors how Yoda talks. Over it, you should get.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-08 23:00

you are so bravely to change gender,i'm a programer too,but i have no brave

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-09 1:31

Forth you mean, if about Yoda-languages talking you are.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-09 2:18

>>3
Try no do only there is.
Not by half.
>>1
Actually, Yoda mostly spoke normally.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-09 2:44

>>4
I suppose, if one were to be asked the question ``How does Yoda speak?'', one would respond with Normally!

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-09 8:49

>>5
I chortled.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-09 8:57

>>1
So what you're saying is you don't know Scheme and you can't speak English.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-09 9:12

>>1 is obviously a troll, but for the record, Yoda spoke more normally in the original trilogy and there is no real difference between schemes function syntax and that of any other, except for parentheses placement.
Compare

(+ 5 5) or (map square '(1 2 3 4))

with

add(5,5) or map(square, [1,2,3,4])

also
Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back is a 1980 space opera film directed by Irvin Kershner[1]
Scheme was introduced in 1975 by Gerald J. Sussman and Guy L. Steele Jr [2]



--
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_Episode_V:_The_Empire_Strikes_Back
2. The Scheme Programming Language 3rd Edition http://www.scheme.com/tspl3/preface.html#./preface:h0

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-09 9:20

>>8
Guy L. Steele Jr
Who?

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-09 9:29

>>9
Son... I am disappoint.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-09 9:32

>>6
What the fuck is a chortle?

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-09 9:40

>>11
*shurg*

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-09 14:10

>>1
(get-over-it you scheme)

No one talks like that.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-09 14:13

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-09 14:24

>>14
Sorry, "language" is bound to "English" in this closure.

Name: HAXUS THE GREAT 2009-06-10 5:22

HAXUS THE GREAT

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-10 8:39

My Yoda's got amusing grammar.
How does he speak?
Normally.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-10 9:25

>>17
(excuse 'me (not (understand 'me 'you)))

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-10 10:52


be 'you 'gay

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-10 10:52



    My Yoda's got amusing grammar.
    How does he speak?
    Terrible!

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-10 10:53

>>19
(excuse me (not (understand you)))

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-10 10:59

>>18
A fatal error occured!
Please post less often!

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-10 12:01

gtfo

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-10 12:01

this whole thread is shit and forced content (>>23 here)

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-10 12:59

content
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/words-to-avoid.html

RMS Michael Stallman frowns at you.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-10 15:31

>>25
Robespierre Marx Stalin frowns at everyone.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-10 22:21

>>25
Very interesting link. I spent ones and ones of minutes reading it.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-11 0:03

A fatal error occured!
Please post threads less often!How do you pronounce IHBT? 1) Eye, Haich, Bee, Tee (faggot) 2) Ihibbit (faggot) 3) I 'ave bee tea 4) Ihibbit (massive faggot) Powered by Shiichan 3955 + 4chan 20080608.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-11 4:21

“Photoshop”

Please avoid using the term “Photoshop” as a verb, meaning any kind of photo manipulation or image editing in general. Photoshop is just the name of one particular proprietary image editing program, and there are plenty of free alternatives, such as GIMP.

If we called it "gimpshop" or "gimping" or something, I'm sure they wouldn't mind. It's a double-standard but I can see the point, why should you associate image manipulation with closed-source software?

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-11 6:52

“Hoover”
Please avoid the term “Hoover” to mean any brand of Vacuum based cleaning device. Hoover is just the name of one particular proprietary Vacuum based cleaning device, and there are plenty of free alternatives, such as YOU. YES YOU. YOU SUCK!!! LOLLOLOLLOLLOLLLLOLL

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-11 7:56

>>29
Too bad the GIMP is completely useless.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-11 8:02

>>31
I lol'd

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-11 9:42

If we called it "gimpshop" or "gimping" or something, I'm sure they wouldn't mind
You're missing the point slowpoke

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-11 10:49

>>33
They say that 'photoshop' should not be used as a general term because it's software. I said that they probably wouldn't mind 'gimping', even though it refers to software, because it's theirs and it's free. How am I missing the point exactly?

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-11 11:02

>>34
speculation about things that haven't happened and are extremely unlikely to ever occur
Sure is getting the point in here.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-11 11:40

>>35
Maybe you're missing my point, that they wouldn't mind you naming THEIR product, but they do when its someone elses. It's a speculation about the opportunistic strategy adopted by all named groups and individuals in business. To say that it does not occur and likely won't occur, is inaccurate.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-11 11:55

>>36
I have never heard RMS or anyone from the FSF or GNU project refer to editing images as "Gimping", running the GNU system as "Hurding", compiling C programs as "gucching" or booting a GNU system as "Grubbing". I'd even bet that these people would never use such terms.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-11 13:01

>>37
"Bashing"

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-11 13:04

>>37
"Emacsing"

Name: naming 2009-06-11 13:32

"stallmaning"

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-11 14:01

>>37
gucching
My favourite word now.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-11 15:01

>>36
Speculation is not a point.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-11 16:19

>>38
I "bash out" scripts all the time. Welcome to the wonderful world of system administration. Now if you'll excuse me I have to teach a cluster's worth of backup scripts to log their errors to a common file.

Also Scheme is as queer as a 3 dollar bill.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-11 16:25

Also Scheme is as queer as a 3 dollar bill.
That's a pretty big deal.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-11 17:22

>>34
They say that 'photoshop' should not be used as a general term because it's software. I said that they probably wouldn't mind 'gimping', even though it refers to software, because it's theirs and it's free. How am I missing the point exactly?
If only Ford ever built motorized vehicles, it would be right to call a car a ``Ford'', no matter how much you wish horse carriages were actual alternatives.
There is absolutely no alternative to Photoshop. Since you use the Gimp, you are an artless nerd, and therefore can't understand a complicated explanation, but take it from an EXPERT VISUAL ARTIST - your toy isn't even close to being as good as Paint.net.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-11 17:44

tl;dr Go tell someone who cares

>>45
Since you use /prog/, you are an artless nerd not an EXPERT VISUAL ARTIST. Now that we're done with the ad hominems, the Gimp is sufficiently useful for enough people and for certain kinds of Professional Work (although certainly not all -- lack's the correct colour support etc.). The fact is, most of the people who complain about the Gimp are not artists and instead are merely untalented faggots who wanted a free(as in beer) byte-for-byte clone of Photoshop. If the Gimp does not suit your needs no-one is forcing you to use it, not >>34, not rms, and certainly not me. If you don't like something tell the Gimp people along with your reasoning.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-11 17:55

>>46
Cite the name of professionals using the Gimp.
People making GNA/Lunix icons don't count.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-11 18:03

>>46
We don't hate the Gimp because it is a complete piece of shit. There are many complete pieces of shit we don't hate.

We hate the GIMP because of the shitty attitudes of its devs, the shitty attitude of its sycophants who always tout it as perfect photoshop alternative then get mad once you point out that it is a complete piece of shit.

Then they say "it's all right for most folks", disregarding that Paint.net is much easier to use for the everyman, and they use the open-source fallacy (just fix it you lazy bum), disregarding that there is absolutely no way in hell the gimp devs would ever accept an user-submitted patch (or even feature request) under any circumstances.

Or since you say you have trouble with reading: the GIMP is made by assholes and used by dumbshits.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-11 18:11

>>48
Then use Paint.net ffs, this is not the issue GIMP-haters make it out to be. The people who tout it as a perfect photoshop alternative are idiots, they both serve completely different purposes

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-11 18:49

>>45
I don't know why the fuck Paint.NET has such a good reputation. I kept hearing wonders about it, so I tried it... and it was one of the biggest pieces of shit I've ever seen. I could fill pages and pages with what's wrong with it. It reeks of the same mediocrity as MeGUI, which kinda confirms my suspicion that .NET attracts the kind of developers I'd rather have nothing to do with.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-11 19:27

>>50
I could fill pages and pages with what's wrong with it
Please do. I bet I can fill four times as many pages with what's wrong with the gimp's.
And it's not like Adobe's interfaces are good either.
Given how incompetent their competitors are, they have no incentive to raise the bar, so they can just charge for a few bugfixes every 18 months.
We really need a Firefox in the digital imaging world. What we have right now is a w3m, or a Dillo if you're feeling very generous.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-12 0:41

We really need a Firefox in the digital imaging world.
We need a large over bearing, over consuming piece of software that touts "new" features like they are the be-all end-all of the market when in fact all their competitors have had them for months if not years? Sounds to me like we already have a Firefox in the digital imaging world, namely, The GIMP.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-12 1:20

Why would any self-respecting artist use Photoshop when there's SAI?

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-12 1:58

WE FAN THE FLAMES OF THE INTERBUTTS WITH OUT TROLLS

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-12 2:29

>>52
What he meant is that on top of those things, the Gimp needs to be popular.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-12 5:05

>>55
Are you aware of any software that will not improve if it becomes popular? What shitty argument!

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-12 5:45

>>56
WHy not?

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-12 6:02

"I’ve known Daniel since first year in secondary school—he convinced me to learn PHP, my first real programming language."
http://collison.ie/blog/2009/06/app-school

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-12 6:10

>>51
s/Firefox/Opera/

inb4 PROPRIETARY SHIT

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-12 10:33

>>25
“LAMP” stands for “Linux, Apache, MySQL and PHP”—a common combination of software to use on a web server, except that “Linux” really refers to the GNU/Linux system. So instead of “LAMP” it should be “GLAMP”: “GNU, Linux, Apache, MySQL and PHP”.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-12 13:25

You guys do know that the Gimp developers develop mainly for themselves and their particular. They tout they nice features they implement despite the fact that other systems have had such features for a long time because the Gimp developers don't bother comparing the Gimp to anything but older Gimp releases. The people that claim Gimp is a Photoshop replacement are the sorts of people that are ignorant with the nuances of the free software community.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-12 13:27

>>59
Opera sucks sure there's an ebuild for opera but it just get dropped to /opt, it's statically linked, and it's CLOSED SOURCE, which means that it is a BINARY package.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-12 13:44

>>62
OH NOSE ITS CLOSED SOURCE. I CAN ONLY REACH ORGASM IF I HAVE THE SOURCE

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-12 13:47

it just get dropped to /opt, it's statically linked, and it's CLOSED SOURCE, which means that it is a BINARY package.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-12 13:48

SAGE GOES IN THE COMMENT FIELD

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-12 14:34

>>63
This is true, female orgasms didn't exist until GNU/Linux was invented

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-12 15:07

>>66
I think don't sage if you're replying to the thread. sage if you are saying 'fuck this thread, go to /r/' or whatever. idiot.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-12 15:15

This is a warning to everyone reading this forum.
>>67 is an internet troll! Watch out for this person.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-12 19:12

>>68
No Anonymous, you are the trolls

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-12 19:20

>68
If I reply to something, I probably want the conversation to continue and be seen by more people, no matter what my reply was (unless I'm trying to insult the thread and ensure its death). Hence why the only people who use sage are trying to kill a thread.

And saging a thread pushes it towards its max reply limit, and makes the preview of the thread meaningless.

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