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

Star /prog/ Movies

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-17 7:27

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.

...and here it seems we have a trailer for Episode V:
http://gigamonkeys.com/blog/2009/10/16/coders-c++.html

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-19 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: Anonymous 2009-10-19 10:21

>>81
Not backing up the claim that it's criptic [sic], and ignoring Factor's local variables.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-19 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: Anonymous 2009-10-19 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: Anonymous 2009-10-19 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: Anonymous 2009-10-19 22:02

>>85
Combinators are a prime advantage Factor has over whatever lame variable language you like. ♥ combinators.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-19 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?

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-19 22:13

>>86
What, Lisp?

Oops, no advantage to Factor in that comparison.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-19 22:14

>>88
Wut.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-20 9:34

>>89
Lisp is better than Factor

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-20 9:39

>>87
There were no inaccurate statements on my part.

>>86
Are they? Why is that?

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-20 14:14

>>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: Anonymous 2009-10-20 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: Anonymous 2009-10-20 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: Anonymous 2009-10-20 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.

Name: >>95 2009-10-20 16:55

*Unnamed

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-20 17:01

>>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.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-20 17:08

>>95,97
Lol, Stalemate

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-20 17:33

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.


1 http://gitweb.factorcode.org/gitweb.cgi?p=factor/.git;a=blob;f=core/math/math.factor;h=8ef4f38f9aeac470ed8f69aac54d00092b4730c8;hb=HEAD#l172

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-20 18:08

>>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: Anonymous 2009-10-20 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?

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-20 22:26

>>100
He thinks I never read anyone else's code.

>>101
Combinators always do the same thing. Variables could do anything. Don't trust them!

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-21 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: Anonymous 2009-10-21 10:26

>>103
>>99 didn't even post an example with combinators.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-21 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.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-21 11:02

>>105
It's opportunistic.

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-21 11:07

oportunistic

Name: Anonymous 2009-10-21 12:11

>>106
Even worse.

Name: ​​​​​​​​​​ 2010-10-22 3:45

Name: Anonymous 2010-12-06 9:29

Back to /b/, ``GNAA Faggot''
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 -