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 2009-10-17 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.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-17 19:19

>>40
Dear Anon,
You have the conversation skill of an oaf.
Signed,
Different Anon

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-17 19:20

>>40
It depends on who is using it
with less code
I find writing Lisp code pretty easy, even if I have to type slightly more in some cases. Parens never bother me since I use Paredit, not only that but it makes a lot of things much easier to code, like structured editing.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-17 19:29

>>41
Coming from you, that must be a complement, diffy.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-17 19:34

>>42
Rewrite some of your programs in dead dog and you'll change your mind about that "slightly" really fast.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-17 19:46

>>44
Not really, I've rewrote some of my programs in Haskell before, with rather insignificant results.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-17 19:55

>>44
Will try it sometime when I actually know Haskell well.
I know Haskell isn't ML, but I know ML, and I find it faster to write Lisp code than ML code. Another thing to keep in mind is that while some funtions/macros have long names, or the fact that you nest a lot of parens, are actually irrelevant things since:
- long function names can be autocompleted: I type m-v-b<TAB> -> multiple-value-bind
- parens - I type [ and paredit inserts balanced parens () in the code. What if I want to change the structure of the code somehow? For example, I've incorrectly written the else clause before the then clause in an IF:

(if predicate else-clause then-clause)
;;; I just press C-M-t and get
(if predicate then-clause else-clause)

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-17 20:08

>>45
You're probably doint it wrong, then.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-17 20:14

>>46
Well, no surprise there, since ML is sorta clunky when compared to both Lisp and Haskell.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-17 20:20

>>47
Or it could be the problem domain, but whatever, keep telling yourself that Haskell is the solution to all the worlds ills.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-17 20:28

>>49
I never said it was a panacea, I said whatever you do in Lisp you can do it in fewer lines of Haskell. There's a difference, you know.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-17 20:33

>>50
And I still say that's bullshit, even with do Syntax, IO is still a lot easier in Lisp and shorter too. The only real difference between haskell and Lisp (as far as my program lengths are concerned) comes down to the pattern matching syntax stripping off a few lines here and there.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-17 20:42

>>51
Then you're definitely doing it wrong.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-17 20:48

>>52
lol whatever, The brevity of your code owes more to how good you are at expressing your problem and choosing appropriate abstractions. If it's so hard for you to imagine that I can write short Lisp code, then it's just as likely you can't write good Lisp ,as it is that I am coding Haskell wrong.
I'm leaving it here, this argument is a waste.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-17 20:54

>>53
You don't believe me? Show me your code and I will show you how you're doing it wrong.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-17 22:01

>>54
I don't feel like continuing this discussion with you any further. Good day.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-17 22:05

>>55
Wait, why are you impersonating me? Fucking Anonymous!!

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-17 23:00

>>55
Pussy.

Name: >>54 2009-10-17 23:06

>>55
It's okay, you probably were doing it right.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-17 23:08

>>58
He really wasn't.

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