A Great Idea

Hey /prog/, I just had a great idea. Let's use a double space (space space) as the delimiter between identifiers so we can have identifiers with spaces in them.

An example:
(defun  add to deck  (card  deck)
  (cons  card  deck))

Haven't we learned this lesson enough from Make and FIOC?

what a delightful new way to obscurificate your code

>>2
This is different and doesn't have the same potential for going all to hell.

>>3
Obscurificate? What's obscurific is using some bizarre and arbitrary workaround for not having spaces. You'dPreferACamelCase?

>>5
no, i prefer this:
variable_name
it serves the same purpose as a space but doesn't make your code harder to read

>>6
That's the most hideous thing I've ever seen! At least use variable-name like a normal person. And I have no idea why you think it doesn't make your code harder to read. I don't even know how to pronounce “_”.

>>7  see http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/underscore



__________________________________
http://xs135.xs.to/xs135/09042/av922.jpg
Velox Et Astrum gamedev forum: http://etastrum.phpbb3now.com
There are two kinds of scientific progress: the methodical experimentation and categorization which gradually extend the boundaries of knowledge, and the revolutionary leap of genius which redefines and transcends those boundaries. Acknowledging our debt to the former, we yearn, nonetheless, for the latter.

>>7
i cracked up laughing when i read this

>>3
i stick with perl for now

>>3
By the way, I really like the notion of being “obscurific”.

>>9
Is it because “_” looks like an emoticon?

Why don't keyboards have a left quote key and a right quote key? I need them.

>>12
No, you need to become accustomed to "typewriter quotes"

>>13
Either that or use ``faggot quotes'' or ``greater faggot quotes´´.

soup dawg i put spaces in you're spaces so you can space out while spacing

>>15
gb2/reddit/

>>16
it's actually a /jp/ meme, just like brofist and some others

>>17
The yo dawg thing stopped being funny last year, which was about when I noticed it on reddit. They also tend to be the only ones who still find it funny. Also I'm pretty certain it started on /b/

>>17
lol, whut?
it's actually more of a /b/ meme

>>19
/b/ memes are shit anyways , so it could be a /jp/ meme .

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Pimp_My_Ride
  The Meme

A new /b/ and 4chan meme with so much potential lulz that it will make your head explode with epic delight. Behold:

SUP DAWG, WE HEARD YOU LIKE[D] ______, SO WE [PUT] _______ ______ IN [YOUR] _______ (SO YOU CAN ______ WHILE YOU _____).

Using the above formula, one can fill in the blanks to create a "Mad Xzibs" as they have been dubbed (from the word game Mad Libs).

Based on Xzibit's catchphrase from the show, the meme sets the lulz trap by letting /b/tards fill in the gaps where the car owner's "hobby" and the resulting pimped-out ride's modifications are left open to the /b/magination. It has generated much original content and the average /b/tard's response to a SUP DAWG thread is usually something along the lines of, "Oh exploitable".

There will always be one asstard who posts "SUP DAWG, WE HERD U LIEK MUDKIPZ...", but this is inevitable.

PROTIP: The original and correct format is "SUP DAWG". Don't be a faggot by putting "YO DAWG".
The Comeback

The meme originally became very popular in mid-2007, then eventually took a back seat to newer memes, popping up every now and then, as is the way of chan memes. However, a rather sudden surge brought it back to life in full force in late 2008. This has had both good and bad results. The good is a surge in quotes and a bunch of new photoshops, providing some decent new content. The bad is that /b/ doesn't age well, and so most of the new content is complete shit and the dumbfucks perpetuating the revival of the joke don't know how to do it right. While they don't seem to understand any of the popular memes 4chan's /toy/ never the less tries and somehow manages to not only make them their own but endear themselves to each other as only /toy/ can. It's also worth noting that while the original incarnation didn't have a very strict template to follow, all new uses of the meme seem to repeat the subject at hand, à la "PUT A CAR IN YO CAR." For example:

   1. (NORMAL) SUP DAWG, WE HEARD YOU LIKE GAMES, SO WE PUT A GAME IN YOUR GAME SO YOU CAN PLAY WHILE YOU PLAY.
   2. (PRO) SUP DAWG, WE HEARD YOU LIKE DICTIONARIES, SO WE PUT A DICK IN YOUR CANARY BECAUSE THE LIBRARY WAS TOO FAR AWAY.


_______________________________
http://xs135.xs.to/xs135/09042/av922.jpg
Velox Et Astrum gamedev forum: http://etastrum.phpbb3now.com
Peace is a resistance to the terrible satisfactions of war.

>>13,14
Uh, no. Use proper quotes.

>>21
Proof it's a /jp/ meme:

http://i27.tinypic.com/2hg90r6.jpg

>>23
One picture doesn't override the >100 one's I've already seen that came from /b/.

>>24
I haven't seen any, so they don't exist.

Hey you idiots, less shitting on the thread: more posting on topic. Summer.

>>26
You haven't been around here very long, have you? There is never a /prog/ thread that stays on topic and we've already said the idea is stupid and that it has been implemented poorly before.

>>27
You haven't been around here very long, have you?
Long enough to know that /prog/ can do better than /b/ 2.0.

we've already said the idea is stupid
For no reason I can discern.

and that it has been implemented poorly before.
Completely false. Provide an example. And even if it were true, I'm not suggesting implementing it poorly.

>>28
For no reason I can discern.
Common fucking sense. If you don't get that, you're not worth explaining (nothing personal).

>>29
Common fucking sense.
Lolwat. “I can't explain myself, so I'll pretend my irrational biases should be universal.”

If you don't get that, you're not worth explaining (nothing personal).
No, please. I would love to be explained.

>>30
Here's a   thought,  how are you as     a human being parsing
the text      that I
 am reading? You are delimiting the words by space, are you giving much thought to the amount of spacing? Since, in a large number of languages (both formal and natural) we give little to no meaning to space, it would require quite a large amount of personal discipline to get used to a seperate system. Not to mention it would fuck with your typing as a larger percentage of the time, you would be having to press space twice. Even if you provided some sort of editor support for this, I don't see it ever catching on.

>>31
I, of course, meant writing.

>>31
Here's a   thought,  how are you as     a human being parsing the text      that I  am reading?
I'm wondering what your strange spacing means. I'm also noticing that you're using three and more spaces between words, and wondering how I'm supposed to accurately discern the difference between those, while it's easy to differentiate one and two spaces.

it would require quite a large amount of personal discipline to get used to a seperate system.
So you imagine based on five or six seconds of experience? I seriously doubt there's any way you could fail to parse this automatically after even only a few days of practice.

Not to mention it would fuck with your typing as a larger percentage of the time, you would be having to press space twice.
Oh, noes! Other things to eliminate: al double leters.

>>33
And just let me point out that visual separation is the clearest way to indicate syntactic separation. Unlike “_” or “-”, which are the exact same length as the delimiter usually used with them (and are therefore indistinct and must be examined closely), a single space is no more than [b]half[b] the width of a double space — it's essentially impossible to confuse the two. Single spaces will be scanned over by the human reader, while double spaces will stick out like sore thumbs.

>>34
Don't make me laugh, they stick out, but not in a way that gives them meaning. They just look wrong. Besides, you haven't shown any practical benefits to this over _ - or CamelCase. Until you do, there is no way that you could convince anyone this is a good idea and not just "let's fuck with an already working formula".
Also, what about the case of 3 or more spaces? I'd imagine they should have the same meaning as you give to 2, or do you plan on giving them different meanings too?

Actually, I can think of one benefit, it'd fuck with those idiots who use proportional fonts when programming. But it's not worth it

>>34
Lol monospace.

1

And yet you still use unnecessary parens.
defun  add to deck  card  deck
  cons  card  deck

>>38
picard_facepalm.jpg

>>1
You can have any symbol for an identifier in CL.
And symbols can contain almost any character, if you want to use spaces, you can quote the symbol:


(defun |add to deck| (card deck)
  (cons card deck))
Simple isn't it?

>>6
Nasty. _ is considered bad style in Lisp, use -
- is more readable and easier to type.

>>40
- is more readable and easier to type.
That's subjective.
Someone coming from a language with operator precedence might prefer the underscore.
The underscore on some keyboard layouts is next to the right shift.

>>35
I have shown benefits. It's more attractive and easier to read. And one man's “just look wrong” is another man's “just perfect”. Look at all the idiots who won't use Lisp because of the parens, but love FIOC. 3 or more would be synonymous with two (as would newlines and tabs, obviously).

>>38
I'm sorry, which did you mean:
(defun  add to deck  card  deck
  cons  card  deck)
((defun)  add to deck  card  deck
  cons  card  deck)
(defun  (add to deck)  card  deck
  cons  card  deck)
(defun  add to deck  (card)  deck
  cons  card  deck)
(defun  add to deck  card  (deck)
  cons  card  deck)
(defun  add to deck  (card  deck
  cons)  card  deck)[/m]
Or something else?

>>40
You're missing the point. You can have spaces, but you can't practically use them without putting bars around everything. So we get a bunch of unreadable “-”s instead (better than “_”, but still). I've never seen:
(defun |LOAD DECK| (path)
  (let ((|*READ EVAL*| nil))
    (|WITH OPEN FILE| (f path)
      (read f))))
Terrible! Not to mention it fucks with your readtable case.

>>41
You mean someone coming from a language with insane tokenizing rules, right? Operator precedence has nothing to do with it.

Are there really keyboards with unshifted “_”?

>>42
You'll have to redefine most standard symbols to do that.
What I had in mind for OP was that if he wanted to have some specific function named like that, he could just quote the function name. In your example, you are quoting *read-eval* and with-open-file, why?

Usage would be like this:

(defun |add to deck| (card deck)
  (cons card deck))

(defparameter *a-deck* nil)
(|add to deck| 'king *a-deck*)

(defun |load deck| (path)
  (let ((*read-eval* nil))
    (with-open-file (f path)
      (read f))))

>>43
You mean someone coming from a language with insane tokenizing rules, right?
No, I mean a language where '-' is an operator and can be between two identifiers without mandatory whitespace.

Are there really keyboards with unshifted “_”?
Maybe, but I was talking about keyboards where the row above the space bar looks like (first unshifted, then shifted)
shift [< >] z x c v b n m [, ;] [. :] [- _] shift
Using such a keyboard, using dash or underscore takes the same effort.

>>5
You'dPreferACamelCase
No, I'dPreferAHaskal
:(

>>44
I'd want to fix up the names of standard functions as well. There's not much point to only doing my own function names. Also, your suggestion requires ugly “||”, which also require extra work to type and require backtracking if you forget to begin with them.

>>45
No, I mean a language where '-' is an operator and can be between two identifiers without mandatory whitespace.
So... a language with insane tokenizing rules. Don't make the stupid assumption that being an operator (and having a precedence) means you don't need space around it. Everybody always says that it's best to put spaces around arithmetic operators. It's best to require spaces to enable something people actually want to do (flexible names) rather than not requiring them so you can write in a style everyone agrees is bad.

>>45
Using such a keyboard, using dash or underscore takes the same effort.
Except for the part where it takes a whole extra key to type “_”?

>>47
It's best to require spaces to
Just like it's best to require indentation, right?

a style everyone agrees is bad
Again, subjective. I train my eyes by never using whitespace around operators other than boolean ones no matter how complex the expression becomes.

Except for the part where it takes a whole extra key to type “_”?
Please.

The more I read this thread, the more I think that OP is Mr. Void. By the power of JS, thread away!

>>1 Just start every token woth a $

($defun $add to deck ($card $deck)
  $etc.)

>>51
It's like this is PHP.

Serious answer:
Adding $ or double spaces increase the amount of characters/keys you need to type and decrease readability. It would probably not require too much changes to the reader to implement, but why? Did you just start learning CL that you're so bothered by this? Escaping symbols with |...| is easy if that's what you want, no different from using (). Just rebind the || keys to something else if you use them to often, and make Emacs dim the || and () characters, so you wouldn't pay that much attention to them.

>>49
i was thinking the exact same thing.

>>48
Just like it's best to require indentation, right?
Sigh. No. This is a trade-off, and only an idiot would wreck all variable names in favor of a style that everybody (including me) recommends against.

Again, subjective. I train my eyes by never using whitespace around operators other than boolean ones no matter how complex the expression becomes.
Look at you: willing to train your eyes to do something completely stupid just to justify misfeatures, but unwilling to train them to do something for a good end.

>>51
Escaping symbols with |...| is easy if that's what you want, no different from using ().
If that were what I wanted, would there have been any need for this thread? Maybe you just started learning CL, but that messes with a symbol's case. Plus it's even uglier than using non-spaces to do a space's job.

>>49,52
Ouch. FV doesn't even know how to quote and can barely write in English. Of course, I wouldn't expect someone too dense to see the brilliance of this idea to have noticed.

brilliance of this idea
:)

>>53
but that messes with a symbol's case
A symbol is upcased by default ,because the value of (readtable-case *readtable*) is :UPCASE.
Hyperspec section 23.1.2 describes other values possible for this accessor.
Quoting a symbol's name with || does not affect its case, so all one has to do to use the symbol is to just provide it quoted as it was first defined. What is the problem with that?

I did start to learn CL recently, but I don't see any problem with the way I understand how the reader treats symbols, do you believe I misunderstood something?

I might have used a wrong term here(quoting), I simply meant the || special syntax for denoting symbols.

>>53
This is a trade-off
the brilliance of this idea
It's a trade-off almost no one is willing to make, and it's a stupid idea. Requiring a minimum amount of whitespace around tokens is the worst possible turn any language definition can take. Tomorrow, some idiot will come and say "I want to have identifiers with two spaces". If you're not willing to increase the minimum, it proves that the definition is flawed. Why the arbitrary limit? Why two spaces but not three? Why n but not n+1?
It's a worthless feature and your users will hate you for forcing them to always hit the space bar one more time than necessary (because no one in their right mind would put a space in the middle of an identifier).

Look at you: willing to train your eyes to do something completely stupid just to justify misfeatures, but unwilling to train them to do something for a good end.
Less whitespace==more code on screen.
More whitespace==more clarity
Optional whitespace==I have the choice to add code or add clarity
Mandatory whitespace==I have no choice but to add whitespace even if it's clear

>>57
It's a trade-off almost no one is willing to make, and it's a stupid idea.
Apparently it's a trade-off everyone is willing to make, but I agree it's stupid.

great idea bro you should do it

>>59
Thanks man; I think I will.

HEY GUYS, IM A NEWFAG HERE TO DESTROY 4CHAN

HEY GUYS, IM A NEWFAG HERE TO DESTROY 4CHAN

test

replace () with []

>>64
Would look uglier. Better idea which most Lisp programmers use:
rebind [] to () and use paredit-mode, with some chords adjusted to match new rebinded keys.

<-- check em dubz