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

I would like to...

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-16 4:05

Learn Haskell. What about xmonad?

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-16 4:24

Yes, what about it?

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-16 4:30

Nothing about it, live it alon!

Name: TRUE TRUTH EXPERT !!TthtFzrtPXElUy7 2009-10-16 8:39

rEAD yaht (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Haskell/YAHT). xMONAD IS EASY TO SET UP. gET A HASKELL IMPLEMENTATION WORKING ON YOUR COMP (http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Implementations), THEN DARCS http://darcs.net/, WHICH IS ABLE TO INSTALL VARIOUS OTHER GOODIES TO YOUR COMP EXCEPT XMONAD, JUST READ THE DOCS. oNCE YOU'VE ACQUIRED XMONAD, READ (http://xmonad.org/documentation.html).

(i'D RATHER USE EMACS!)

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-16 12:31

Xmonad has the crippling weakness of not being written in C.

LINUX HERE, HASKELL IS A KATAMARI DAMACY

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-16 15:21

>>5
Or rather, it has the crippling weakness of being written by people who wouldn't use C to write a window manager. The language itself is incidental.

Name: TRUE TRUTH EXPERT !!TthtFzrtPXElUy7 2009-10-16 15:40

dON'T WORRY op, >>5 AND >>6 PROBABLY HAVEN'T EVEN INITIALIZED THE X SYSTEM FORM THEIR APPS DIRECTLY.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-16 23:53

urgh. haskell is such a painful language!

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-16 23:53

>>8
*raises eyebrow* Something wrong?

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-17 0:03

>>9
The syntax perhaps.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-17 0:13

>>8,10
Really, Haskell's syntax is just excruciating and constantly getting in the way. There is just NO REASON for it to have so much special-purpose syntax and so many different operators and keywords (even more than C++).

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-17 0:26

>>11
It's all sugar though, you don't have to use most of it.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-17 0:33

>>12
All of the crazy made-up operators are just sugar?

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-17 0:37

>>11
The purpose is to make things readable. It must suck to have deficient comprehensions skills like yours

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-17 0:41

>>14
It must suck to have deficient grammer skillz like yours

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-17 1:57

>>14
It must feel ｔｅｒｒｉｂｌｅ to make ad-hominem attacks like yours, instead of actually admitting that Haskell is a gay!!

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-17 2:03

>>11
Yeah, it's bizarre that so many otherwise intelligent people are willing to navigate Haskell's mazelike syntax. Back to Lisp, I guess.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-17 2:05

I'm still waiting to find a time to use my HASKELL SKILLZ!!!!  It's honestly a fun language with painful syntax that you will never use.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-17 10:22

>>1-18
U MENA HASKAL

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-17 12:46

As far as syntax goes, Haskell’s is hardly bad. If you want bad, see F# or Lisp¹. Infix operators make sense because that's how natural languages work.

¹ YHBT²
² Though I do think Lisp’s syntax is too simple. It’s nice that Lisp is homoiconic, but it sacrifices human-friendliness at the altar of computer-friendliness. Complex constructs become unwieldy for humans to read. “Get a paren-matching editor” is not an excuse.

Name: TRUE TRUTH EXPERT !!TthtFzrtPXElUy7 2009-10-17 13:00

Though I do think Lisp’s syntax is too simple. It’s nice that Lisp is homoiconic, but it sacrifices human-friendliness at the altar of computer-friendliness. Complex constructs become unwieldy for humans to read. “Get a paren-matching editor” is not an excuse.

yOU BEST BE TROLLING

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-17 13:25

>>21
Don't spoil a guy's spoilers like that, it's rude.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-17 14:10

>>20
Infix operators make sense because that's how natural languages work.
Oh balderdash, a natural language is a terrible model for a programming languages, since they've evolved lot's of ambiguity over time and accumulated historical cruft. Have you ever stopped and looked really hard at an English sentence? We violate common sense at virtually every turn and are consistent only in our inconsistency. Likewise, taking math as a syntactic basis is flawed, as it is just as bad in it's ambiguity (for instance sin-1(x) is arcsin(x), not 1/sin(x) ) and requires lot's of context and precedence rules to remember what any given operator means in a given equation.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-17 14:32

>>23
for instance sin-1(x) is arcsin(x), not 1/sin(x)
You're are loser.  f-1(foo) always means (inverse of f)(x), and never inverse of (f(x)).

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-17 14:38

>>24
It is syntactically ambiguous, since sinn(x) is (sin(x))n for all n > 2.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-17 14:41

>>23 never sat past high school algebra 2.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-17 14:41

>>24
What about I'm.... my... am.....

....FUCK

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-17 14:48

>>26
You got something to back that up with buddy? I've taken my math education a lot further than that, but I don't have to like the notation.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-17 14:56

>>24-chan
No, >>23-chan is correct. It's ambiguous. Therefore, math's is loser.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-17 15:57

>>20
Simple syntax is human-friendly. I know because I'm a friendly human. Are you friendly?

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-17 16:05

>>30
/prog/ is never friendly , especially to humans .

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-17 16:16

>>31
especially to anuses
Fixed you's post.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-17 16:20

>>32
i think the proper term is "ani".

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-17 16:22

>>30
Simple syntax is human-friendly solely in the sense that it makes it a lot easier to write macros, but in every other sense it's shit. So the value of Lisp's shitty syntax depends on how much one values macros or metaprogramming in general.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-17 16:24

>>34
s/Simple/Lisp's simple/

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-17 17:25

>>34
No, it's friendly in all situations.

Name: TRUE TRUTH EXPERT !!TthtFzrtPXElUy7 2009-10-17 18:13

>>34

hAVE YOU NOT THE SLIGHTEST IDEA WHAT "LISP IS" ABOUT? yES, METAPROGRAMMING. wHAT ELSE? sYMBOLICS PROGRAMMING. wHAT IS SYMBOLICS PROGRAMMING? pROGRAMMING CONCERNING SYMBOLS. sYMBOLS ARE FUNDAMENTAL IN LISP. iN SORT, YOUR CODE BECOMES A COLLECTION OF SYMBOLS WHOSE MEANING/CONTEXT IS LEFT TO UNDERSTAND WITH MEANS OTHER THAN SEMANTIC. hOW? cONTEXT WILL TELL YOU, YOUR EDITOR WILL TELL YOU, THE SYMBOL NAME WILL TELL YOU, INDENTATION/PLACE IN THE SEXP WILL TELL YOU (CONSISTENCY IN STYLE IS IMPORTANT). yOU PROBABLY DON'T REALIZE THE FREEDOMS OF THIS, BUT EVERY SYMBOL IN YOUR PROGRAM COULD HAVE ARBITRARY MEANINGS FOR ALL ASPECTS OF THE LANGUAGE - YOU CAN MODIFY ANYTHING.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-17 18:43

>>37
Whatever, it's still ugly as shit.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-17 18:59

>>38
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Even if I wasn't a fan of the much loathed parens, Lisps have a conceptual elegance not found in the "Mainstream" programming languages and personally I'll take conceptual beauty over superficial beauty any day.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-17 19:17

>>39
That conceptual elegance only really buys you enhanced metaprogramming abilities, but you still can do more shit with less code right out of the box with dead dog than Lisp. So there, fuck the beholder and his shitty blind eye.
Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List
All trademarks and copyrights on this site are owned by their respective parties. All comments and posts are the responsibility of their own posters.
- Tinychan + 2ch Mode -