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

Dungeons and Dragons

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-06 17:29

Lets compare D&D classes with popular programming languages.
(#1 most nerdy thread ever)

Fighter - C++
-Very versatile but more complex and not quite as effective in melee as a barbarian.

Barbarian - C
-Very simple, very powerful.

Ranger - Java
-Easy to play, very popular, vast collection of abilities that help solve problems quickly.

Wizard - Lisp/Scheme
-Most powerful caster, highest intelligence.

Sorcerer - Haskell
-Slightly less intelligent than a wizard, but makes up for it in charisma.

Rogue - Scripting Languages
-Executes behind your back.

Cleric - SQL
-Revives players when they crash.
 
Paladin - Python
-Easiest to play, but forces you to play a certain way.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-06 17:33

>>1
Good show OP, I had a good lol.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-06 17:34

Shouldnt they all be wizards?

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-06 17:35

Bard - Sepples
- Stupid shit that is gay

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-06 17:37

Every "joke" about comparing languages to something is shitty. Why does it always like this?

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-06 17:43

>>1
Most powerful caster, highest intelligence.

U MENA HASKAL

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-06 17:54

Fighter - C++
-Very versatile but more complex and not quite as effective in melee as a barbarian.

stopped reading

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-06 18:11

>>7
And haven't lost anything worth reading

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-06 18:25

>>7
Honestly, I thought the C++ one was pretty good.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-06 18:29

>>9
I think you will have to turn in your /prog/-access card.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-06 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;;

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-06 18:48

Anyone who commented on this thread is a FUCKING IDIOT!

This thread is now sage-locked!

NO EXCEPTIONS

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-06 19:00

>>12
bampu pantsu~

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-06 19:01

Anyone who commented on this thread is a FUCKING IDIOT!

This thread is now sage-locked!

NO EXCEPTIONS

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-06 19:01

Anyone who commented on this thread is a FUCKING IDIOT!

This thread is now sage-locked!

NO EXCEPTIONS

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-06 19:40

>>15
do you really hate dnd that much?

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-06 19:45

Every ``if programming languages were x'' fails hard because they all make C the greatest.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-06 19:52

>>17

If programming languages were the greatest language, they would be C.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-06 19:58

>>17
No, barbarian is not the greatest class in D&D.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-06 20:03

Yeah, at max level Wizards are gods. OP is a lispfag.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-06 20:09

Dungeon Master - Assembly
- A cumbersome role, but no one can play without him.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-06 21:02

Bard - Lisp/Scheme
-The weakest caster with the highest level of pretentiousness.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-06 21:16

>>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: Anonymous 2009-10-06 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.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-06 22:40

>>24
Dwarf Fortress?

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-06 23:03

>>23
These seems to be a very lame troll trying his hardest to piss people off on /prog/ by acting like a Lisp weenie.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-06 23:06

>>24
atleast /tg/ type gamers have socials skills.
/v/ gamers have nothing except acne.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-06 23:13

>>27
And Halo 3.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-07 0:05

>>28
Oh, you're right.
Halo is even worse torture than being covered in spots.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-07 0:09

Too bad there is no DEAD DOG class.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-07 0:15

>>30
There could be!

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-07 0:17

>>1
I'm a fa/tg/uy and I loled.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-07 0:37

I'm a /b/fag and >>1 is EPIC WIN. Legendary thread is legendary.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-07 1:56

GRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH FUnCCCCCCCCCCTIONN POINTERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR ATTACCKKKKKKKKKKKKKK

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-07 3:49

>>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: Anonymous 2009-10-07 4:00

>>35
java is awesome.
quit being a hater, bro.
you're just jealous that pathon is less ENTERPRISE than java.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-07 4:09

>>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: Anonymous 2009-10-07 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.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-07 5:06

>>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.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-07 6:50

>>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.

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