theory vs pragmatism
vi vs emacs
x language vs y language
-works well with these (x,y) pairs
(java, c++) (lisp dialect, c++/java) (c, c++) (python, java) (perl, c/++) (perl,php)
CLI vs IDE
nix vs windows
microsoft vs linux
garbage collection vs managed memory
Name:
Anonymous2009-06-10 23:53
VMS!
Name:
Anonymous2009-06-10 23:54
why did you even start this thread
Name:
Anonymous2009-06-10 23:58
>>1
post a ``How to troll programmers'' thread on prog
Name:
Anonymous2009-06-10 23:59
PLEASE DONT READ THIS. ITS TOO LATE! IF YOU DONT POST ONE PAGE OF SICP PREFIXED BY THIS MESSAGE ONTO COMP.LANG.SCHEME IN 24 HOURS OF READING THING YOU WILL GO BLIND!!!!! OMG THIS IS SOOOOO SCARY!!!!!!!!
Garbage Collection vs. RAII is god tier. Especially when you liberally season it with the belief that reference counting is a legitimate form of garbage collection.
>>1
Add the following to the list:
- Calling the GNU/Linux OS simply "Linux"
- Using non-standard quotes
- Saying "Microsoft vs. Linux" (seriously, company vs. kernel? IHBT)
- Saying "garbage collection vs. managed memory"
- Humping academia languages even though they're vastly outdated and functionally useless for a lot of problems
There are some more, but I think I'm angry enough as it is.
Name:
Anonymous2009-06-11 2:26
>>8 Humping academia languages even though they're vastly outdated and functionally useless for a lot of problems
Year by year, other languages get closer and closer in power and expressiveness to 1975.
>>16
there are other implementations of ssh than openssh. and just because it's openssh, doesn't mean it's openbsd. they're both two standalone programs that just happen to be written by the same people. so bsd license maybe, but ur a huge fag
Name:
Anonymous2009-06-11 9:22
>>1
What about (imperative, functional), (oo, non-oo), (design patterns, heterosexuality) ?
>>18
I hope you're not saying design patterns==homosexuality.
This would imply that homosexuality is something bad, which isn't true.
Though I agree completely that design patterns are for faggots.
You can troll /prog/ without just about anything. We troll ourselves, really.
Name:
Anonymous2009-06-11 15:34
>>9 Year by year, other languages get closer and closer in power and expressiveness to 1975.
I often imagine what will happen when ENTERPRISE catches on to the “academia languages” and all the faggy neverending hype about convoluted development methodologies, OO bullshit and design patterns turns into hype about higher order functions, syntactic flexibility, referential transparency and lazy evaluation. Watching the same moronic ENTERPRISE pundits talk about that shit like it's just been invented will be the ultimate RAGE inducer.
>>9
i can see how you could make that mistake, since forth wasn't very well known until the 1970s, but it was actually in continuous development since 1958.
Name:
Anonymous2009-06-11 15:56
>>26
Didn't that already happen, to an extent, with Haskell?
Name:
Anonymous2009-06-11 16:15
>>26
Because being an enterprise language coder pays the bills and keeps food on the table, and academic languages do what again? Oh yeah, they're pretty useless in all practical terms.
Name:
Anonymous2009-06-11 16:22
Sure is trollan++ in here.
Name:
Anonymous2009-06-11 16:29
T1244687877 = 7.27 * 109VERY HIGH!!
Name:
Anonymous2009-06-11 16:31
>>29
That has nothing to do with the post you referred to.
>>34
trollan inna troll thraad, who'd have thunk it
no more rocket sugery for you, stick to brain science !
Name:
Anonymous2009-06-11 18:51
The idea of programming as a semiskilled task, practiced by people with a few months' training, is dangerous. We wouldn't tolerate plumbers or accountants that poorly educated. We don't have as an aim that architecture (of buildings) and engineering (of bridges and trains) should become more accessible to people with progressively less training. Indeed, one serious problem is that currently, too many software developers are undereducated and undertrained.
Obviously, we don't want our tools--including our programming languages--to be more complex than necessary. But one aim should be to make tools that will serve skilled professionals--not to lower the level of expressiveness to serve people who can hardly understand the problems, let alone express solutions. We can and do build tools that make simple tasks simple for more people, but let's not let most people loose on the infrastructure of our technical civilization or force the professionals to use only tools designed for amateurs.
>>36 Obviously, we don't want our tools—including our programming languages—to be more complex than necessary. But one aim should be to make tools that will serve skilled professionals—not to lower the level of expressiveness to serve people who can hardly understand the problems, let alone express solutions.
And then he made Sepples. Practice what you preach, Bjarne!