POLL: What's your favorite language?

One vote per person.  Posts that appear to be bot generated or same person will not be counted.

I'm going with java(and by that I really mean java+eclipse).  Programming without eclipse is like putting a screw into hard wood without pre-drilling a hole.

And programming in Java is like sticking your dick into a very slow-cooking toaster.

I'm going to assume you mean of languages that compile to an intermediate binary or a native binary, given the nature of your conjecture.

You also didn't specify a purpose for which the language will be used (which is where the positives and negatives of a given language really shine), so I imagine you mean for recreational use.

If that's the case, See Octothorpe for me.

C (probably because it's the only compiled language I properly know).

I'm going with java(and by that I really mean java+eclipse)
IHBT

Scheme

I'm going with Lisp (and by that I mean Common Lisp). Factor looks nice, but isn't mature enough for my taste yet. Haskell is kind of cool, but it's filled with syntax (why otherwise smart people would put themselves through that, I'll never understand). APL is a PITA at this time with regard to free implementations. Same with Forth. Smalltalk is neat, but I'm not an all OO all the time kind of guy.

So Lisp.

pascal.
fuck all your unneeded features.

>>6
Oh, and Scheme is gay as hell. They gimped out all the useful features, invented unhygienic namespaces because lolminimal, and threw in a functional programming fetish.

Programming without eclipse is like putting a screw into hard wood without pre-drilling a hole.
I have been, like, trolled. Programming with Eclipse is like forcing a screw through concrete by sitting on it.

JS it's the only one I know :3

C. Been programming in C forever and it never gets boring. C++ on the other hand is pure shit.

I like ANSI C very much! But if I just want to code something real fast to get the job done I will probably use PHP for its simplicity! PHP gets the MILKRIBS4k seal of approval!

>>12
You're an anus!

I like Haskell, because I'm more of a mathematician that of a programmer.

>>12
PHP is one of the worst designed languages ever. It's a total mess and I'm not even trolling on this one.

In order of preference:
(Common) LISP - favorite so far, I haven't had more fun coding in any other language as I've had in LISP.
C - for low level programs, or when speed is the most important thing
Ocaml - For those cases when everything is fully understood, defined and well-typed
In the past:
C# - for when I feel braindead.

Perl, because I mostly do sysadmin stuff, otherwise Haskell.

Haskell, though I wouldn't use it for a lot of purposes, e.g. GUI programming or game programming.

Common LISP for my normal coding needs, Perl for sysadmin stuff.

>>15
It gets the job done, and easily! I agree though that it is shit! If perl was only easier! ;_;

Ruby, I feel strong bonds with the community because I too am mentally unstable.

PLT Scheme for things that need a GUI and Haskell for everything else.

Visual Basic. It gets the job done and it's pretty cool over all.

ocaml

C. High-level enough to be ported, low-level enough to be competitive with raw Asm.

bbcode

Assembly.. It has everything I Need and nothing more. There references are also far better than any other language I've used.

Don't be scared, give it a try!

Java

Japanese

python! ^___^

http://blog.desudesudesu.org/?p=1053

scheme

lisp is for C programmers

Why does Sussman hate on C so much? Not enough parenthases to make his code look like a penis?

Java.

日本語

OP's question is like "What is your favourite tool?" -- there are times when you want a hammer, but other times a chisel might be better suited to the task at hand.

For the hammer, at the moment, I'd say Scala

Common lisp and haskell? You're all a bunch of faggots.

>>32
You can code purely functional code just as well in LISP as you would in Scheme. A good compiler will optimize tail-recursion just as well, even if it's not required in the standard.

>>37
1) It took 50 years to get a compiler as fast as JAVA.
2) Optimized lisp looks like shit.

>>38
1. Java doesn't even have tail recursion yet.
2. All Java looks like shit.

>>38
Do you claim optimized Scheme looks a lot better?
There are many ways to optimize LISP and still keep it clean.
Do you claim highliy optimized C looks beautiful? What about optimized asm?
It will look as nice as you're willing to make it. Lisp offers you ways to write nice and clean code, and offers enough abstraction facilities to hide uglyness in optimization if you so desire.

C

>>8
invented unhygienic namespaces
Are you high or just tollan?

>>39
Who gives a shit about tail recursion? I don't.

>>43
He doesn't care. Neither do I.

>>44
He doesnt care, but I do.

>>45
He cares and therefore is retarded by induction.

>>46
He expressed no indication of caring or otherwise and therefore has avoided being judged as he has another.

>>43
OO programming lends itself to placing calls in a proper tail position quite naturally. It is a shame OO languages still haven't caught up to 1975.

I really, really, really like python.  more than any other language.  Its fun and great.

>>48
That's why 1975 is used so much in production environments, right?

Oh yeah, and let's not forget that even academia is moving on to other languages.

That's why 1975 is used so much in production environments, right?
Whether it is or not has no bearing on my comment. I am not suggesting Scheme be forced on everyone in all environments. I am suggesting that tail call elimination fits well with OO code.

Factor. Because LISP hasn't caught up to 1958 yet.

>>42
All right, that was a bad wording. I'm sure Scheme didn't invent unhygienic namespaces, but as far as I know, no significant Lisp dialect at the time had such a brain-dead misfeature. Perhaps I should have said it imported unhygienic namespaces, or that it brought them to Lisp.

I both agree and disagree with >>35. It's true that a programming language is just a tool, but unlike a literal tool, a programming language (like a human language) allows you to convey ideas, so it's not strange that someone will have a language they like more simply because it lets them to better convey their ideas.

My personal favorite is C++. What can I say? I like it. If I had learnt C first, I would probably have liked C better, but I didn't.
I've read the arguments on C++'s bad design, but I don't really agree with most of them, and I think the benefits outweight the costs.

C++ was designed for large code projects, with code reuse and forced abstraction layers(Forced Objectification of Code) to
make programs more enterprisey/flexible. They failed miserably and most C++ code is just C with couple of nice features tacked on, like operator overloading.


_______________________________________________
http://xs135.xs.to/xs135/09042/av922.jpg
Only the dead have seen the end of war.

Sage for ignorant ass FV

"Any language with regular expressions" > COBOL > C > *

Regexp are the only thing that come close to the stuff you can do with variable declarations in COBOL.

>>57
C structs can do a lot more than COBOL's variable declarations can. Or were you counting on nobody actually knowing COBOL here?

>>55
C++ was also designed to give the programmer choice, even if it meant that he could choose wrong. With that in mind, I think it's safe to say that it's the users' fault.

>>57
That's one stupid argument. You can add regexes to any language just by using a library. What does it matter if the language already has them?
In any case, just the fact that you think COBOL is better than C renders all your arguments invalid.

>>59
I ENJOYED using COBOL more, look at the thread title - I never said COBOL was better. Regexps trump the thing I loved most about COBOL. So I could finally "lay it to rest" in my mind.

Since COBOL is "too old" to be good, any language "that makes use of regexp either built-in or through an external library" is more enjoyable (in my mind).

>>59
It's all well and good to look back after you have finished something, and say that you with your infinitive wisdom intended for it to turn out exactly like that from the start. As much as I like Dennis Ritchie, don't think for a second C++ was designed to give the programmer choice.

>>57
Some people, when confronted with a problem, think "I know, I'll use regular expressions." Now they have two problems. ...

>>54
Some languages are tailored for a specific part of problem space.  If I'm writing something headless, distributed and networky, with a bit of database on the side, I'd much rather be doing it in Erlang -- but even though it now has a wxWidgets binding, I wouldn't think of doing UI programming in it, given the choice.

>>58
Forgotten about the joys of level 88? Let me preface this by saying that maybe I need to look deeper into structs, and I haven't used COBOL for a while.

In COBOL I can declare a variable called "CUST-ID" that I want to be a single character followed by 4 digits (i.e. C1234) as part of that declaration I can create a boolean variable called "CUST-ID-CHECK" that is automagically true ("Y") if data entered into "CUST-ID" is the correct format.

But you already knew COBOL so you already knew this right? How do I do it with structs?

Makes input validation easy & keeps the code "cleaner" imho. But I had to "move on" so now I like using Regexps,

>>62
You realise you bashed the use of regexps just before basically saying "the right tool for the job".

Which is kind of the problem with this whole thread, people code different types of programs, and have to balance resource usage/speed to code completion/maintainability/etc, the other problem is bias towards whatever language you started with. Start with a low-level language and go to an "easy" higher-level language which will be your favourite?

D

>>53
I'm not really sure I understand this criticism. Can you elaborate on why this is a problem?

>>66
I'm not >>53, but his issues are probably with the duality of symbol values. In Common Lisp, a symbol can have a functional value and a normal value, when you call a function such as (symbol params), it will work, but if you pass it as a parameter, you have to get the symbolic value located in the parameter/local variable/binding, so you would use (funcall symbol params). Some Common Lisp programmers actually like this duality, while other prefer the way Scheme implements it. He may also be talking about how packages and symbol import/export works in LISP vs modules in Scheme, but I don't know how modules work in Scheme, so I can't talk about that.

>>34
Japanese is not a programming language.

>>68
OP never specified that he meant a programming language. ＮＩＨＯＮＧＯ is a language.

>>69
It's implied, seeing as this is a programming board. And since you're using the English alphabet, why not use the English translation? Or were you implying that I did not know 日本語 translates to Japanese?

>>68
I dont see why it coulndt be.

>>2
And programming in Java is like sticking your dick into a very slow-cooking toaster.
That sounds sort of nice. I think i'll try that. The slow-cooking toaster, that is.

>>66
Yes, >>67 has the right of it. Common Lisp has separate namespaces for functions and variables, or said another way, a symbol has both a function cell and a value cell. If I bind a symbol to a value using “let”, or “defvar”, or if it's a parameter to a function, then that symbol's value cell is bound. If I define a function with “flet”, “defun” “labels”, or run “(setf (symbol-function 'foo) (lambda ...))”, then the function cell is bound.

Variable lookups use the value cell, and function lookups (for example when a symbol appears in the car of list to evaluate — a function call like “(foo)”) use the function cell. So for example, the following causes no collisions.
* (setf (symbol-value 'foo) 3)

3
* (setf (symbol-function 'foo) (lambda () (print 'something)))

#<FUNCTION (LAMBDA ()) {ACBA5C5}>
* foo

3
* (foo)

SOMETHING
SOMETHING

The upshot is that I can use names like “list” and “floor” for variables without clobbering any functions, which is absolutely wonderful. And even better, it means that I don't have to worry about accidentally clobbering functions that a macro I'm using relies on.

Scheme, for no reason at all, failed to copy this feature, and it's led to no end of trouble. Ugly variable names and bizarre “hygienic” macro systems are the big warts. Hey Scheme, maybe if you hadn't put your toilet in your kitchen, you wouldn't be freaking out over “hygiene”.

>>73
I guess I don't see what the problem is. I've never come across a case where I needed a variable and a function to have the same name in the same lexical scope. I've noticed myself shadowing list a lot but I've not yet run into any problems. Usually when I need list, a clearer variable name is already in place.

Can you give a non-foo example? Or is this just one of those "preference" issues without major substance behind it?

Macros, like I said. I don't have any particular example in mind, except for “list”, which I have used plenty of times. The point is that it's not necessary to think about whether you're punning a name. Probably for slot accessors I've used functions and variables with the same names in the same scope.

These threads always devolve into language aspects v. other language aspects very quickly. Saging my own post because it's worthless.

I've been getting depressed lately because I think I have no favorite language anymore.

C just needs too much boilerplate for a basic object-oriented framework (which is what all large projects boil down to anyway). You lose the logic in the thousands of lines of code. Same goes for all the old languages, e.g. Fortran, COBOL, etc.

C++ is too god damn huge. This is the depressing part; any attempt to wrap up the boilerplate of C results in incredibly complex rules on construction/destruction, etc. Then there's STL, which is fucking horrible, but it would hardly matter even if it was awesome because everyone writes their own anyway and it still sucks.

Java is horrible. Horribly, horribly god damn needles-in-my-eyes fucking HORRIBLE. Worst language on this list, bar none. I won't even bother describing why. Feel like finding out on your own? Try, say, making a generic array slice function (then try doing it in J2ME). Go for it. Failed yet? Not only is it not high-level, it's not even low-level. It's just fucking trash.

C#, D are somewhat better than Java, but still have many of the same problems. They're quite similar under-the-hood, which is where many of the problems stem from.

Objective-C is a horrible language. It's just C with an external object-oriented framework stapled on with bizarre syntax. Runtime method dispatch through a hashtable? God damn, that's slower than Java.

Lisp variants seem to have nice syntax, until you realize they're really just turing tarpits and you can't actually make anything scalable with them. The syntax also misleads you about how powerful they are wre introspection, reflection, etc. They aren't.

Haskell is, honestly, a joke. Let's make all functions pure. Great idea! Aw fuck, we have to interact with an *environment*, and take input from a *user*... What a hackish kludge of a language, where interactivity is barely a second thought.

bash->awk->Perl->PHP are all one and the same, freaking shell scripting languages, I don't care what anyone says. No one should ever have written more than a handful of lines of code in them, and the only reason they did is because CGI was built by hackers who didn't really like to program.

Python is closest, but I've slowly been drifting towards believing that python's raw power is actually a hindrance to the maintainability of code. *Everything* is a first class object, modifiable at runtime: runtime code compilation? of course check. modifying the function list in a module (as a simple dictionary)? check. changing the methods on individual instances of objects, including operators? check. trivial expansion of arguments, etc? check. trivial introspection of variable lists on objects? check. It's just crazyness. You know things people *shouldn't* do get done anyway because it lets you solve your problem in four lines of code instead of forty, so you end up with a huge mass of spaghetti.

Christ. Here I am thinking I made a terrible career choice. Fuck this shit.

>>78
Lisp variants seem to have nice syntax, until you realize they're really just turing tarpits and you can't actually make anything scalable with them.

Tell that to ITA. Lisp has been scaling for decades. I don't think it's going to stop for you.

>>76
But this problem doesn't disappear just because functions have a separate namespace. What about index variables? i, j, k... standard index variables in simple circumstances but it's the same problem, you are just accustomed to using i and j and not "list" and "rep[resentation]" or etc.

>>80
Yes, it would be nice to solve that problem as well. But you do need to consider that in most programs, all variables with generic names are local. Meaning in the case of a collision, any offending variables can be changed to coexist while still avoiding stupid names. You're not going to go renaming global functions to fix a naming problem in a three-line function.

>>81
Isn't it partially solvable using packages?

>>78
Solution: Ruby

>>81
But that's like saying "in most programs, functions are verbs and data variables are nouns so there's no collision."

>>78-chan, plz try using Scala and get back to me :3

There are plenty of languages better/more flexible then python, like javascript.
Unfortunately its too browser-centric.


___________________________________________
http://xs135.xs.to/xs135/09042/av922.jpg
Necessity is the step-mother of invention.

>>78's problem is likely that he never fully learned some of the mentioned languages, maybe he'd have better opinions of some of them if he knew them fully

>>78
So Visual Basic is your favorite?

>>79
Oh wow, you've found one company that uses Lisp for one application alongside C++ AND Java AND Python. You've completely proven me wrong!

I will grant that 'scalable' was not the right word. I admittedly don't have very much experience with lisp, so I'm not really making a fair comparison, but the language just feels extremely limited and not as powerful as modern languages.

>>86
Yeah, Javascript is nice and all, and I admit I have very little experience with it, but if it's such a good language why in all these years hasn't anyone made it standalone? Would it really have been so difficult to make a command-line interpreter, like every other fucking language in a typical Linux distribution? This leads me to believe that it's not actually as good as everyone says (along with the fact that I only ever hear this from web developers).

>>87
Yeah, bullshit. Been programming for over 15 years. Aside from lisp, haskell and D, I've used every single one of those languages *in industry*. I have the experience to back it up.

>>88
No. VB was gracefully left off the list. It does not belong in any comparison list for favorite language (then again, neither does Java).

Yeah, Javascript is nice and all, and I admit I have very little experience with it, but if it's such a good language why in all these years hasn't anyone made it standalone? Would it really have been so difficult to make a command-line interpreter, like every other fucking language in a typical Linux distribution? This leads me to believe that it's not actually as good as everyone says (along with the fact that I only ever hear this from web developers).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_JavaScript_engines

I found that ECMAscript is awesome once I learned what it really was: an Algorithmic-Language-Scheme-inspired language with C-inspired syntax. If you don't understand what this means, then you really don't have much hope understanding ECMAscript's potential.

Python is closest, but I've slowly been drifting towards believing that python's raw power is actually a hindrance to the maintainability of code. *Everything* is a first class object, modifiable at runtime: runtime code compilation? of course check. modifying the function list in a module (as a simple dictionary)? check. changing the methods on individual instances of objects, including operators? check. trivial expansion of arguments, etc? check. trivial introspection of variable lists on objects? check. It's just crazyness. You know things people *shouldn't* do get done anyway because it lets you solve your problem in four lines of code instead of forty, so you end up with a huge mass of spaghetti.
The problem here isn't the Python language, the problem is solely in the software developer's skills. If you're writing spaghetti code making use of all these features, I would be considering the coder's programming skills first as most system designs are never going to require such functionality all in the same system.

In my experience, it's the programmer that fails write code according to a formally designed system that leads to unmaintainable code.

>>84
No, it's not, because we're talking about scope. In most programs there are lots of global functions (the ones provided by default, at least), but not so many global variables with short, generic names. You're not going to go renaming global functions to remove name collisions, but local variables can easily be named to accommodate each other. Not to mention you're only going to have a few local variables, but will have potentially hundreds of global functions.

And look, I'm not saying that having the possibility for collisions is ideal. I'm just pointing out a few reasons that they're easier to cope with when local variables are the only thing you need to worry about.

>>89
Oh wow, you've found one company that uses Lisp for one application alongside C++ AND Java AND Python. You've completely proven me wrong!
I will grant that 'scalable' was not the right word. I admittedly don't have very much experience with lisp, so I'm not really making a fair comparison, but the language just feels extremely limited and not as powerful as modern languages.
So, let me get this straight. The fact that I was easily able to list a major company that has delivered a large-scale product you may have used yourself (via Orbitz) and is currently working on a reservation system (500,000 LOC, not including libraries — and these are Lisp LOC, not like in C where people write a thousand lines for no particular reason) for Air Canada, counts for nothing against your vague feeling that Common Lisp is limited and not as powerful as “modern languages”. Despite the fact that you, admittedly, have little experience with Lisp.

Did you have some particular power in mind that Lisp lacks?

ITT Shitty Trolling

>>93
I don't see why he would say it doesn't scale. What he probably meant was that a company would have trouble training some Java monkeys to use it, or that they'd have trouble finding new experiencedcoders to maintain the project.

feeling the the best best algorithm algorithm to to improve