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

rate your language

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-28 5:39

Scalability:x/10;
Performance:x/10;
Ease of use:x/10;
verbosity:x/10;

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-28 20:55

>>39
Huh, never knew that.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-28 20:56

>>31
I quoted you because you "quoted" >>16 with a meaningless statement, completely of your own devising.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-28 20:57

>>39
So it's like Python!
a <= b is not c in d or e

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-28 21:14

>>43
It's better than in python, because It doesn't have to be a special case in the parser and it works for most, if not all ,transitive binary relations

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-28 21:19

>>44
But you can't write what I just wrote in Lisp without cluttering everything with parentheses.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-28 21:37

>>45
What's your point? That's like saying you can't write anything sizeable in python without using indentation.
I prefer not to have to remember some arbitrary precedence rules, you on the other hand do.
Besides, I'm not even sure what your intended use case for that example is

Name: >>46 2010-07-28 21:45

>>43
a <= b is not c in d
Checking with the precedence table at http://docs.python.org/reference/expressions.html, I'd argue that such a statement is ambiguous and therefore Scheme is better as it isn't able to express such a statement

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-28 21:55

>>47
It's unambiguous. Read the paragraph directly above the table; those operators all chain from left to right.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-28 21:56

>>45
But you can't write what I just wrote in Python without cluttering everything with whitespace.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-28 21:59

>>37
U MENA BREAVITY

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-28 21:59

>>48
So it does, my bad.
Although, while I'm bitching about python
> 3 < {"bar" : "baz" } < "foo"
True
"Strongly" dynamic typed my ass. I don't care what you're view are on operator precedence, but surely that should be a type error

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-28 22:16

>>51
I'm disappointed that they didn't make comparison between vectors and scalars more useful. It's great for being expressive and readable, even in a language where it's mostly useless.

import qualified Prelude
import TruthyPrelude

main = print . length . filter id $ 3 < [1 .. 10]

-- Outputs 2

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-28 22:17

>Go
there should be "overrateness"

Name: >>52 2010-07-28 22:19

Gosh, I'm embarrassed. The <{/code] is a typo. I meant [code]>, of course.

Name: >>52 2010-07-28 22:19

Okay really I can't type for shit this morning

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-28 22:24

>>53
Go isn't rated. It's also hard to judge at this time (not that I have much hope in it.)

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-28 23:31

10/10
10/10
10/10
10/10

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-29 0:08

>>57
Java?

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-29 1:00

>>58
How did you guess???

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-29 2:06

>>59
Only ENTERPRISE-level code uses magic numbers such as 10.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-29 8:37

>>42
I see. So in a scale topping out at 10, giving something a rating of 10 does not actually mean nothing can be better than 10, even though, within that system, nothing can be better than 10?

God, why do I bother replying.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-29 8:49

>>61
For the witty retorts?

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-29 9:32

>>62
Zing!

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-29 10:03

>>52
At some level, I think I just don't like Haskell because of the use of $, which makes me think of perl.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-29 11:16

>>64
I don't like it either, and it's completely optional.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-29 11:38

>>64
That's irrational. You're irrational.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-29 11:58

>>64
I have a @@ operator in my ErstwhilePrelude. I find that this looks much nicer.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-29 14:11

Haskell=INTERCAL+Perl+APL

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-29 14:46

>>68
"Make a pure language," they said.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-29 14:49

>>68
Don't forget the IOC.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-29 17:08

>>43-48
For all the complaining people do about Lisp's parens, at least you don't have to refer to a goddamn precedence table to figure out what an expression does.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-29 18:53

>>71
Because no one has any idea that multiplication is supposed to happen prior to addition, etc.

Most of the stuff in that table is entirely logical, the rest being obscure operators that you're usually unlikely to combine with others, and in any case you would use parentheses anyway, so that's a moot point.

In Lisp, you need the parentheses even in simple cases where algebraic notation would be entirely sufficient (e.g. equations like 3*x**2 + 4*x + y + 4 are extremely annoying and unwieldy), but personally I'm not really bothered by that in the average case - generally, C code will be just as punctuated as Lisp, just sometimes in different places. My complaint about Lisp is the lack of infix notation which makes many expressions much harder to read and comprehend.
You say "3 times x squared", not "times 3 squared x" -- any more than you would say "ate I a hamburger". Infix is natural and sensible.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-29 19:04

>>72
Infix appears natural and simple because that's what you've been thought in school. What is simpler (+ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9) or 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9?

As for 3*x**2 + 4*x + y + 4, (+ (* 3 x x) (* x 4) y 4) is pretty readable to me. It's only confusing the first few days/week of looking at it. It becomes as natural as infix after you've used it for a week or so, moreso if you use a structured editing package like Paredit.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-29 19:21

EITHER THAT OR THE COMPILER PERHAPS

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-29 19:34

>>73
Infix appears natural and simple because that's what you've been thought in school.
I can still remember the look of disgust on my face when we were first introduced to BODMAS.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-29 19:43

>>75
You're so vain. I bet you think this thread is about you, don't you?

Seriously, why did you bring a mirror to math class?

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-29 19:53

>>76
That was a very literal interpretation of, what I had presumed was a fairly common expression.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-29 20:07

>>77
I don't think it is. FYI, I only responded so I could post those lyrics.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-29 21:05

>>73
Great, now change that 3*x**2 to 3*x**9. Oops more parentheses.

Name: Anonymous 2010-07-29 21:38

>>79
Simple enough (* 3 x x) becomes (* 3 (expt x 9)).
Please keep in mind that I usually break down into many lines and read by indentation instead of actually counting or matching parens, here's one of the most verbose ways to ident it(automatically of course):


(+ (* 3
      (expt x 9))
   (* x 4)
   y
   4)
I find this quite readable, however it is more verbose. As verbose as it may look, typing/indenting/editing/transforming this code around (with key chords or automatically) is very easy and effortless with a good editor. It's also easy on the eyes if you spend at a week or so writing Lisp and getting used to it. Just like order of precedence took a bit to get used to during elementary school for some people.
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 -