So I heard that Lucas is producing some new movies, a kind of isomorphism against Star Wars. The titles are:
Ep.I: The Haskell Menance;
Ep.II: Attack of the Sussmans;
Ep.III: The revenge of Frozen Void;
Ep.IV: A New Troll;
Ep.V: Sepples strikes back;
Ep.VI The return of the Haxus.
>>2
How is a thread linking to an article with famous programmers confirming that Sepples is rubbish, not related to programming? >>3
Why did I lol?
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-17 8:34
that was more interesting to read than i expected.
sepples is a funny language.
everybody who has never done any programming before thinks it's excellent, but most people with programming experience seem to hate it.
>>5
You know, whenever someone comes up to me and tells me "sepples is a powerful language." I immediately know that he's either a C++ expert or some newb whose mental immortality was lost long ago and now he's a thinking zombie(1). Here's how: C++ IS a powerful language. Yeah, objects, you all know, templates and then something that is turing complete. Visually, C++ is a mess. Semantically, C++ is a mess (These are preconditions, not the even argument itself, ie don't argue about this because I won't bother with you). Yes, C++ is powerful. C++ programming is not. Or, in other words, in theory, much can be done with C++, but in practise, you'll find people who can't put everything together AND make it good, to the point mathematically-unchecked programs are de facto and patches are preferred to proofs. Is C++ powerful? Yes it is. The difference between my answer and yours lies in the person answering (and in case you're too thick, I'm talking about (1)).
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-17 8:53
>>5
IMHO that's because
1. C is good;
2. Bjarne Stroustrup is (or was) known as a good programmer;
This gave C++ a good reputation from beginning, and for that reason a lot of project managers (and equally awful uman beings) required the applications written in C++, increasing the (undeserved) good reputation.
In the meanwhile real programmers, the one who are actually writing code, noticed that the programming language SUCKS A LOT OF HUGE AND JUICY COCKS.
Unfortunately nobody listened to them, since code monkeys, who actually works without saying Data Centric, Gantt chart or Use Case, are not very interesting.
>>18 int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
bbcode x = b <<< i <<< o <<< u <<< "EXPERT PROGRAMMER";
printf("%b\n", x);
return 0;
}
Output: EXPERT PROGRAMMER
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-17 11:40
>>19 An incantation to always be friends with Mama ;;
Sepples doesn't seem to bad to me. Then again, I only make toy programs with it.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-17 12:49
>>30
Kinda like why some crazy people like Haskell! I read that "confusing parts" guide today. Do you guys rhyme it with "rascal?" I always thought it was "ask Elle" because of the people writing HASKAL here.
>>42
But then you'll have a dry anus. And let me tell you, if your anus gets so dry it cracks... boy, I wouldn't want to be you when you take it up the ass a shit.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-17 16:26
EXPERT?PROGRAMMER
{-# LANGUAGE MultiParamTypeClasses, TypeSynonymInstances #-}
module Main where
data BBCode = Str String
| Tag String BBCode
| Cons BBCode BBCode
| Quote BBCode
sup = Tag "sup"
sub = Tag "sub"
u = Tag "u"
o = Tag "o"
s = Tag "s"
b = Tag "b"
i = Tag "i"
m = Tag "m"
code = Tag "code"
spoiler = Tag "spoiler"
q = Quote
expert = b.i.o.u
infixr 7 +++
infixr 5 <<
class Bbb a where
(<<) :: (BBCode -> BBCode) -> a -> BBCode
instance Bbb String where
f << a = f (Str a)
instance Bbb BBCode where
f << a = f a
class Bb m n where
(+++) :: m -> n -> BBCode
instance Bb String String where
(+++) f = Str.(f ++)
instance Bb BBCode String where
a +++ b = Cons a (Str b)
instance Bb BBCode BBCode where
(+++) = Cons
instance Bb String BBCode where
a +++ b = Str a +++ b
instance Show BBCode where
show (Str s) = s
show (Tag t s) = "[" ++ t ++ "]" ++ show s ++ "[/" ++ t ++ "]"
show (Cons a b) = show a ++ show b
show (Quote q) = "> " ++ a ++ "[o]" ++ b ++ "[/o]"
where (a, b) = break (=='\n') (show q)
>>1
I'm actually tickled; Guy Steele has the same opinion about C++ that I do. I've used C++ for about a year and a half now and it seems that I would give it a better direction than that nuisance of a committee (under the assumption that Guy Steele > Bjarne in language design, I think that's essentially a given).
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-17 20:33
Seems like a good place to post this:
Templates are my favorite C++ feature, and if it wasn't for templates C++ would just be a shitty object-oriented dialect of C.
— Slava
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-17 20:39
>>53
Nobody actually takes Slava seriously. People choose to just laugh at him behind his back only so he keeps entertaining them.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-17 20:49
>>54
I thought that was the point of this thread. Don't tell me you guys actually believe those jokers.
>>64 STACKROBATICS LOLOLO
Yeah, I figured you were an idiot.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-18 16:56
>>66
There's no argument for stackrobatics, especially if a language forces you to use it (i.e. doesn't allow local variables (come on, even Forth has local variables)).
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-18 17:44
>>67
There's no argument against it either, especially when a language allows combinators and local variables (come on, even Factor has local variables).
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-18 18:00
>>68
There is at least one argument against it: it's inherently criptic and unnecessary.
>>79 /prog/ does not like to talk about Factor. Those are just shitty reddit/xkcd/slashdot users who have unfortunately found /prog/.
IBHT
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-19 10:16
>>76
Haskell can suck all it wants, it doesn't make stackrobatics any less shitty.
>>80
Insulting trendy/hyped languages and its supporters is the bread and butter of /prog/. Now please, stop dropping Randall's shitty webcomic's name all over the board, you damn faggot.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-19 10:21
>>81 Not backing up the claim that it's criptic [sic], and ignoring Factor's local variables.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-19 10:49
>>82 criptic [sic]
Now you're just being petty, I corrected that. And I said stackrobatics is cryptic. It just so happens that Factor users tend favor it over local variables as much as they can.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-19 12:52
>>83
really? the tendency i've noticed is to use lots of combinators to avoid both local variables and stackrobatics whenever possible...
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-19 15:29
>>84
Combinators are to stackrobatics what a transexual's vagina is to a penis: you can fuck it and you might even somewhat enjoy it, but it's still just an inverted penis.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-19 22:02
>>85
Combinators are a prime advantage Factor has over whatever lame variable language you like. ♥ combinators.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-19 22:04
>>84 really?
No, not really. Where did you get the idea he knows anything about Factor? Was it the inaccurate statements about language features?
>>90 I couldn't even tell if you were being sarcastic or not.
>>91 There were no inaccurate statements on my part.
Like your “no local variables” gaffe? I suppose you'll pretend that wasn't you.
Are they? Why is that?
Less obfuscation of data flow and fewer wasted characters than variables.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-20 15:20
>>92
I didn't say Factor has no local variables. I said stackrobatics sucks especially if a language forces you to use it, and mentioned that even Forth (whose supporters/developers are notorious, rabid stackrobats) has local variables, which wouldn't be needed at all if stackrobatics was really such a good idea. I did not say Factor doesn't have them.
And how the fuck combinators are fucking less of an obfuscation to data flow than variables? With variables you fucking see where the data is going to and coming from, you don't need to build a flow model in your head. Take away mutability and variables are clear as fucking day.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-20 16:00
>>93
With combinators you see where data is going to and coming from. They say exactly what is happening. With variables you can map it out if you're motivated. Add combinators, and you don't even need to take away variable assignments to write clearly.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-20 16:49
>>94 With combinators you see where data is going to and coming from.
No you don't, you have to keep track of the stack transformations mentally, so you don't really see anything. Their only advantage is over stackrobatics, because there's less transformations to think about. Don't you see? A stack is like a big fucking array of mutable variables. Unamed mutable variables. So, if you say mutable variables are an obfuscation, there's no (logical) way you can say combinators are any improvement.
>>95
You don't see anything with variables either. You laboriously trace where each is used, rather than having a simple combinator that spells it out for you.
Let's take a random simple example from the Factor codebase1.
: find-last-integer ( n quot: ( i -- ? ) -- i )
over 0 < [
2drop f
] [
[ call ] 2keep rot [
drop
] [
[ 1 - ] dip find-last-integer
] if
] if ; inline recursive
Even in this trivial case the stackrobatics are quite overwhelming. Now let's try this with cond and locals.
:: find-last-integer ( n pred: ( i -- ? ) -- i )
{ { [ n 0 < ] [ f ] }
{ [ n pred call ] [ n ] }
[ n 1 - pred find-last-integer ] }
cond ;
That's a whole lot clearer. For some reason Factor coders seem to avoid this style, maybe because they might just as well use a Lisp?
(define (find-last-integer n pred?)
(cond
((< n 0) #f)
((pred? n) n)
(else (find-last-integer (- n 1) pred?))))
I gave Factor a fair chance; I even submitted a small patch to the implementation. But idiomatic Factor code is hard to read and hard to modify. Pointless style is great if you're a wanker like Slava, but if you want to quickly write some readable code, just use some variables.
>>97 You laboriously trace where each is used
Really? Laboriously? How long and convoluted are your procedures that they make you lose track of your variables?
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-20 18:17
>>97
If you're not seeing where they're being used, how the fuck is it spelled out? What the hell have you been smoking, man?
>>101
Combinators always do the same thing. Variables could do anything. Don't trust them!
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-21 9:12
>>102
I've noticed your arguments are getting vaguer and vaguer. I don't even think you're the original Factor user anymore, just a troll who took his place. And seriously, there's nothing you can say that would stand against >>99's excelent showcase of the superior readability of variables over combinators/stackrobatics.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-21 10:26
>>103 >>99 didn't even post an example with combinators.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-21 10:34
>>104
Yes he did. There's a dip and a 2keep in there. You'd have seen it if you had cared to read the damn thing or if you weren't just an oportunistic troll pretending to be a Factor user.