>>7
Honestly, I thought the C++ one was pretty good.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-06 18:29
>>9
I think you will have to turn in your /prog/-access card.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-06 18:36
>>10
No read it again it makes sense. C++ is a more complex, slightly slower version of C. Its a good analogy to think of how a Barbarian is much more effective in combat, but doesn't work as well in big groups. Big groups of course implies 'enterprise level' stuff. It makes perfect sense to me. o_0;;
>>22
There seems to be a butthurt individual who never understood Lisp trying to put it down because us Lisp weenies are laughing at his kind.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-06 21:29
Wizards are the ones who have to prepare their spells beforehand, right? That sounds more like Haskell than Lisp to me. Disclaimer: I don't play loser games like this. I only play real games that are actually enjoyable and require an unreasonably expensive graphics workstation.
>>1 Paladin - Python -Easiest to play, but forces you to play a certain way.
What the fuck? Python makes more programming paradigms available to you than any other language on that list. It's the complete opposite of what you said. Yet somehow forced indentation of code makes it seem restricted to you, because a minor unconventional syntax restriction is SO much more important than the actual language semantics. Dumbass.
Honestly in your list I would have swapped Python with Java. Fucking checked exceptions? Forced classes? No RAII? No preprocessor? Generics, the retard stepchild of templates/macros? Nothing even *remotely* functional? Java is the opposite of versatile my friend. Only an idiot would think it more versatile than anything else on that list.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-07 4:00
>>35
java is awesome.
quit being a hater, bro.
you're just jealous that pathon is less ENTERPRISE than java.
>>35 What the fuck? Python makes more programming paradigms available to you than any other language on that list.
The list contains Lisp because a minor unconventional syntax restriction is SO much more important than the actual language semantics
I can't believe that anyone is this much of a fucking idiot that they still get trolled by this HIBMT?
Swapping python for Java as the beginners one may be a good idea though.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-07 4:36
>>37
lets see you do imperative programming that mimics python with lisp.
now i don't know either languages, but i have already seen python users prove that python can do functional programming, so to make a claim like that you need to at least prove lisp equivalent.
start with something simple like this:
int i;
for(i = 0; i < 10; i++){
puts("whatever");
}
no functionally equivalent code - it needs to be imperative; that means variable declarations, iteration, and no recursion.
>>38
I'm no expert, but I think that's what the Loop Macro is for. A Common Lisper is probably going to kill me, but something like this (loop for i from 1 to 10 do (print i))
And to say that python is adequate for functional programming is bullshit, as it's well known that Guido ‘the benevolent dictator’ van Rossum hates functional programming and attempts to cripple it at every opportunity.
>>38
You're ufcking retarded.
Comparing lisp to python is LAUGHABLE. FUCKING LAUGHABLE.
Python will NEVER be even close to being a good language unless it becomes something taht does no longer resemble python.
>>44
why should i leave just because i don't like your flavour of the month toy language?
you leave. silly fanboys can't take even an ounce of criticism.
you're just like apple fanatics.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-07 9:08
>>45
why should i leave just because i don't like your flavour of the month toy language?
you leave. silly fanboys can't take even an ounce of criticism.
you're just like apple fanatics.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-07 9:25
>>46
you are mistaken.
i am not a python programmer, so i couldn't care less what you say about the language.
you lispers on the other hand go apeshit when someone says even the slightest thing bad about lisp. it's very funny to watch.
most of the time i can't tell if you're trolling or just completely insane.
>>45 flavour of the month toy language?
If I may, I'd like to direct you to the vast archive of /prog/ threads on Lisp available from the link "All Threads" beside the Thread list.
"let's just associate our impression of a programming language with descriptions of game characters"
tHEN YOU GOT "C IS SIMPLE, BUT POWERFUL" WHICH IS PLAIN WRONG. bOY I HATE THESE KINDS OF THREADS, IT'S LIKE I'M A HISTORIAN WATCHING PERL HARBOR (TEH MOVIE).
>>47 i am not a python programmer, so i couldn't care less what you say about the language.
oR: iMPLIES THAT IF YOU PROGRAM IN A LANGUAGE YOU SHOULD CARE FOR THE THINGS OTHER SAY ABOUT IT
tHAT'S MIGHTY SMART OF YOU TIMYM. FUCKOFF!!
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-07 10:05
>>50
you are mistaken.
i am not a python programmer, so i couldn't care less what you say about the language.
you lispers on the other hand go apeshit when someone says even the slightest thing bad about lisp. it's very funny to watch.
most of the time i can't tell if you're trolling or just completely insane.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-07 10:14
>>48
yes.
in all my years on /prog/ i have seen a lot of lisp threads.
however, only recently has the amount of Lisp weenies reached such a huge amount.
until very recently you were also able to act like normal human beings, not shitposters. now, suddenly you're a bunch of bitching little babies who make sure that every thread is filled with "hay, OP. ur langage is shite lolololol XDDDDD LISP IS BETTAR BECUS MACROS N SHIT lolololo LISP IS BETR TAHN EVERETHING"
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-07 11:17
Lisp is too hard. :(
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-07 11:22
>>49
OP here. I'm a C/Lisp programmer. C is simple, powerful, and oh wait... IHBT
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-07 11:32
DANGEROUS EROTIC SHITS
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-07 11:32
>>52
Sounds like someone is upset they fucked up when they spent 5 years learning useless languages like ENTERPRISE, FIOC, and of course, the worst of them all: DEADDOG, when they could have learned just ONE language that could have solved anything the previous languages could better, faster, and easier than the aforementioned (not to mention being able to solve problems outside of the previous languages' capabilities).
>>58
OO is not something you need compiler help to accomplish. Most of C++'s OO support is just syntactic sugar; indeed C++ started out as just a preprocessor to C code. Most well-written C libraries tend to drift towards an OO model anyway, where structs represent object state, and a series of functions taking that struct pointer as the first argument behave as methods. Take a look at any good floss C library like sqlite, zlib, libpng, etc; they are all very object-oriented (some use even more high-level constructs, for instance libpng has C++-style exception handling with longjmp!)
Polymorphism and inheritance are quite easy to accomplish with C code in a variety of ways. Unfortunately they are massively overused which makes C++ seem far more necessary than it actually is.
This is why people that try to be serious on /prog/ just make themselves out to be such fucking idiots. Which language is more complicated? Assembly or C? Assembly doesn't have a compiler, but C is basically a higher-level (easier) version of Assembly.
Hell, even most OO languages compile into bytecode, which is much simpler than compiling into Assembly.
>>66 Most of C++'s OO support is just syntactic sugar
What OO principles does sepples support? Encapsulation? No. Reflection? No. C++ is less OO than Lua.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-07 20:43
>>68
So Smalltalk > Python > JavaScript > Lua > C++ ?
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-07 21:01
>>69 Smalltalk is less than everything else because it has a stupid name and I've never used it.
>>69
Nice job ordering languages that, for the most part, have different problem domains. Also, bonus troll points for putting the language designed for teaching rather than being useful on top.
>>68
Um, I agree on reflection, which is what I mean why I say you don't need compiler help for it. That was sort of my point; these people saying OO compilers are more complex than C compilers are crazy, because it's a nonsensical statement to begin with. The most reflection C++ actually supports is dynamic_cast<>, which imho is a bad thing because it poses some fairly serious overhead.
But how can you possibly say OO doesn't support encapsulation? You make variables private, inline accessors/mutators, provide factory classes that return implementations of pure virtual interfaces...
>>73
I assume you meant "[H]ow can you possibly say sepples doesn't support encapsulation?" Well, I suppose in some obscure, sepples-land technical sense, it supports it because it has the private keyword, but heaven forbid you actually change a private variable (or add a virtual function), then it is lolrecompilan. Why? Because C++ isn't OO. If you have to recompile when I change an aspect of my class that you know nothing about, then my private members are suddenly somehow very public.
>>74
Why do people care so much about recompiling? And what does recompiling have to do with language semantics anyway?
Encapsulating stuff like member variables and the vtable is certainly possible in C++. You just provide a pure virtual interface, and have factory methods that return instances of it. If you want to add virtual methods, just subclass the old interface with a new interface that adds the methods you want. That way old code still works, and new code uses the new interface (and new factory function). This is not just a hack; according to some, this is the proper way to design large, scalable applications.
The reason people don't do it though is because it entails dynamic runtime function calling for everything. All that function call indirection is very costly. This runs directly counter to *speed*, which is one of the main reasons programs are written in C++ at all rather than higher level languages. Design arguments for this paradigm are largely academic and just don't relate to the real world.
If I have to recompile my app to use a newer version of a library where a class's private variables have changed, so be it. I'll gladly trade that for the speed it needs to be fast and responsive to the user.
>>78 Why do people care so much about recompiling?
They don't want to break production code when the semantics haven't changed? extern "C" is how you solve a massive fucking problem with C++ everything is fine ignore the man behind the curtain.
If I have to recompile my app to use a newer version of a library where a class's private variables have changed, so be it.
Thankfully most vendors don't agree with you and provide C interfaces which, unlike sepples, can actually manage to behave in a sane manner.
OIBTTWVIWOOIHBTITTIFTOIWRC(Overall I Believe This Thread Was Very Informative, While On Occasion I Have Been Trolled In The Thread I Feel That Overall It Was Rather Civil).