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

Pages: 1-4041-8081-

Everything Is References

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-20 16:29

Is there a language in which variables, function arguments, etc, are always references by default?

For example:

int x = 5;
int y = x;
y++;  // x and y are both 6

If you really did want a copy of something, you'd have to use a keyword:

int x = 5;
int y = copy(x);

And pass-by-value would also have to be done explicitly:

void func(int z)
{
   int w = copy(z); // now w is effectively "local"
}

It would force programmers to at least be aware of the fact that they're making a copy.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-20 16:32

typedef int32_t int[1];

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-20 16:37

Java is like this if you use boxed primitives instead of primitives.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-20 16:57

>>3
They were kept, in the beginning, to get around early version performance issues; however, primitives are retained in Java because they remain immensely useful.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-20 16:59

>>3
So you're telling me that my idea was already done by Java.
This is possibly the saddest day of my life.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-20 17:16

>>5
It was also done by some toy esolang, but in the way you described (but with no call or similar).

It's also been done by Lisp and all derivatives. See lambda.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-20 17:21

Haskell

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-20 17:31

>>1
All Lisps are like this. Lots of other languages too, like Python and Smalltalk.

You don't notice it in Python (and friends) because many objects that look like value types are actually immutable references. So when you pass an integer to a function and it does "foo += 5", that's actually translated to "foo = foo + 5". This code means a new integer object is created which is the sum of foo and 5, and then the assignment changes the foo reference to point to the new object. This way it doesn't change the integer object you called it with.

In Lisps though (well except Clojure), there are no immutable objects. If someone passes you an int, you can set! or setf on it, and they get the change as well (since it's the same object). This makes it very flexible and powerful, but also difficult to compile efficiently. You need whole-program analysis to verify that a tree of functions will not modify your int in order to pass it on the stack or in a machine register; if the compiler can't prove that it won't be modified, then it needs to heap-allocate it and pass in a pointer (leaving it to be garbage collected later.)

>>5
No, your idea was already done in 1958 in the first version of Lisp. Don't feel bad though; it's a really good idea.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-20 17:47

>>6,8
Well, I was clearly implying doing it in C and no one has done that, right?

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-20 18:22

>>9
#include "void.h"
mainstart;
union xy{
int x;
int y;
} xy;
xy.x=5;
xy.y++;  // x and y are both 6
printf("%d",xy.x);
mainend;

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-20 18:53

>>1
Even worse.  The Mac game "Avara" had a particularly nasty scripting system.  Imagine you ran the following code:

[code]
x = 3;
y = x + 1;
x = 5;
[code]

The value of "y" is now 6.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-20 18:55

>>8
In Lisps though, there are no immutable objects. If someone passes you an int, you can set! or setf on it, and they get the change as well (since it's the same object).

Uh, no. That would be stupid. Especially considering that SETF operates on places, not values.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-20 19:36

>>11
Nasty? Sounds fun to me!!
But really, lazy evaluation in a scripting language?

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-20 19:41

>>7

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-20 19:44

In Lisps though (well except Clojure), there are no immutable objects.
and Scheme
If someone passes you an int, you can set! or setf on it, and they get the change as well (since it's the same object)
Wait, what?
* (defvar x 1)
X
* (defun foo (x)
    (setf x 2)
    x)
FOO
* x
1
* (foo x)
2
* x
1
Am I missing something?
I think you have made a slight misjudgement on your part, what you are saying is that any identifier can conceivably be modified, which is true, but that isn't to say that the identifier cannot be referencing an immutable object. It's funny that you made this mistake in regard to Lisp, as you didn't with python.

As for examples of immutable objects in Scheme, one can argue that all the non-aggregate types e.g. symbols, numbers and characters are immutable, certainly there are no defined mutators for them. As for aggregates, Record types in both srfi 9 and r6rs can have immutable slots, srfi 69 hashtables can be immutable, as can the return value of hashtable-copy. Anything returned from a quoted expression is allowed to be immutable, but I don't think this is a requirement. And the draft srfi 101 (random access lists) is purely functional.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-20 21:25

.NET languages like C# also support boxing.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-20 21:36

in BCPL, the language on which C is based on, all variables are pointers

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-20 22:12

>>15
Bah, a number was a bad example to use here. (I don't actually know Lisp terribly well.) So correction: a few primitives are value types in Lisp (mainly numbers and symbols). It's somewhat like Java in that regard. Almost everything is passed by reference in Lisp, including cons cells, so the caller can modify them (although some implementations, e.g. Racket, don't implement set-car! and set-cdr!).

I realize this doesn't fit the OP's definition of *everything* anymore so nevermind Lisp. Python, Smalltalk, Ruby, etc. are much better examples.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-20 22:20

>>1
What is the benefit of having this feature?

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-20 23:51

>>19
As he said, it's to make bad programmers aware that they're copying values instead of references — which is retarded, as is the concept of reference itself: inflexible syntatic sugar for idiots who don't know how to use something as simple as a pointer.

In this case, it also makes literals and variable names have totally different semantics, when they should obviously be interchangeable. For example, the statement 'y = 5;' means regular value assignment, as expected; but 'y = x;', despite looking much like the previous one, means changing the reference.

If they don't know that, they shouldn't be in this business of ``programming'' in the first place.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-21 0:22

>>20
which is retarded, as is the concept of reference itself: inflexible syntatic sugar for idiots who don't know how to use something as simple as a pointer. [..] For example, the statement 'y = 5;' means regular value assignment, as expected; but 'y = x;', despite looking much like the previous one, means changing the reference.
That's not true of all programming languages. It's not even true of most languages. In fact that's only true of a certain class of statically typed languages: C, C++, C#, Java, D. And most of those languages don't even have pointers!

In a language like Python, when you type a literal 5, an immutable garbage-collected object is allocated on the heap with value 5. The line "x = 5" assigns the reference 'x' to the newly created object containing 5. The next line "y = x" assigns the reference 'y' to the reference in 'x', which is the same object.

I guess since you don't know that, you shouldn't be in the business of programming.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-21 0:34

>>21
Excuse me, but I'm speaking about efficient languages and implementations, not toy dynamically-typed scripting languages.

when you type a literal 5, an immutable garbage-collected object is allocated on the heap with value 5

That's just so much more efficient than just moving a "five" to a 32-bit word in memory; also, GC. It's laughable that you attempted to make a point out of it.

Maybe you should keep yourself locked in the world of FIOC and Guido's S&M slave dungeon and not ever venture out of it again.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-21 0:46

>>1
int x = 5;
int y = x;
y++;  // x, y, and 5 are all 6

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-21 2:56

>>20,22
Oh, Ctards. Will you ever learn?

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-21 3:29

Hating on C++ is so old skool.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-21 3:39

In Perl 6 pass by ref is default. Also, immutable by default:

sub foo($x)         { $x++; } # error
sub bar($x is rw)   { $x++; } # ok
sub baz($x is copy) { $x++; } # ok

bar(2); # sorry no
baz(2); # ok

But assignment is still by copy. Except when it isn't.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-21 4:24

>>9
Well, I was clearly implying doing it in C and no one has done that, right?
Is there a language in which variables, function arguments, etc, are always references by default?

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-21 5:10

>>27
Other Perls did it too.
sub butt { $_[0]++; }

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-21 6:19

>>29
Yeah, although that's not idiomatic... except in the case where you explicitly want to modify the passed value and do little else. Thanks to the lack of proper signatures, Perl 5 subs tend to be written with an assignment right off the hop.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-21 6:24

>>22
Excuse me, but I'm speaking about efficient languages and implementations, not toy dynamically-typed scripting languages.
Efficiency does not matter for 99% of applications any more. It's 2010, there are more important considerations than speed.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-21 6:50

REFERENCES

REFERENCES EVERYWHERE

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-21 7:04

>>31
That what OpenCobalt developers think. As results its slower than Second Life and occupies twice the ram.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-21 9:01

>>33
OpenCobalt obviously falls into the 1% of applications where speed matters. It contains a 3D engine for fuck's sake, of course speed matters.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-21 10:41

>>31
Are you on the Crysis dev team?
>>34
1% of applications where speed matters
Well, the entire gaming industry somehow manages to squeeze into that 1% of the world's applications, along with all embedded software that controls absolutely anything important, along with all operating systems...  even web browsers compete to see who loads a page faster.  So what is this remaining 99% of applications?  iPhone apps?

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-21 10:47

>>35
More like use the right tool for the job amirite? Some program applications have high effiency demands. Others are not worth the extra effort for efficient management of resources.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-21 10:54

>>35
Surely you are trolling. Yes, all 3D games do fall into that 1%.

The vast majority of the applications on your computer are not performance critical. Just look at all the programs you have running right now. Look at your system tray. There are all sorts of apps and tools that just do not need to be written in a bare-metal language.

You are also forgetting that most software is actually internal business software; it is never made available to the general public. It's just software that businesses develop internally or have commissioned to be developed for internal use. Except for a few specific use cases (like high-speed trading), this shit does not need to be written in a bare-metal language; it is better off being written in something safe and high-level, because bugs are a far more important consideration than speed.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-21 11:14

>>37
Wow, you are the reason that it's been so easy for me to get unexpectedly high-paying jobs, and I had no idea until now.  I shouldn't even argue with you...  I should encourage all developers to think like that.

Just look at all the programs you have running right now


Name     | Efficiency matters?
---------+--------------------
Firefox  | Yes
My IDE   | Yes


Those are all the applications that I have running.

I'll assume that you intended to include low-level shit so let's take a look at those:


Name            | Efficiency matters?
----------------+--------------------
Windows         | Yes
Explorer        | Yes
Network shit    | Yes
Video drivers   | Yes
Sound drivers   | Yes
Mouse driver    | Yes
USB drivers     | Yes
Keyboard driver | No

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-21 11:19

>>38
Wait, I just launched another app.


Name    | Efficiency matters?
--------+--------------------
Winamp  | Yes

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-21 11:20

>>37
A lot of Financial software is written in functional languages nowadays, so writing to the bare metal may be getting less important (or Ocaml has better performance than I thought)

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-21 11:47

>>20
it's to make bad programmers aware that they're copying values instead of references — which is retarded
Sorry, but making bad programmers aware of bad programming is hardly "retarded" as a goal of a programming language.

it also makes literals and variable names have totally different semantics, when they should obviously be interchangeable
The fuck are you talking about?  So, what you want is this?

int x = 5;
int 6 = y;
I think you might be a good candidate for a language targeted at "bad programmers."

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-21 12:28

>>31
Holy fuck, I never thought someone could be this retarded. IHBT

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-21 12:33

>>40
Now you have two problems.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-21 12:41

>>41
The fuck are you talking about? >>20 means that int x = 5; becomes int x = y;.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-21 12:55

>>44
He said "literals and variable names ... should obviously be interchangeable."
That's simply impossible, and that's what my example shows.

Name: Touhou Master 1993 2010-08-21 13:49

>>38

Name            | Efficiency matters?
----------------+--------------------
Keyboard driver | No

Dad, I'm disappoint.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-21 19:27

>>45
I'm simply speechless. It might be the case that you're the person who knows least about programming in /prague/

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-21 19:30

>>45
Also, read the fucking example given in >>20 and/or stop trolling

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-21 20:41

>>1
Why not just use pointers?
int *x;
*x = 5;
int y = *x;

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-21 21:00

>>1
Wouldn't doing it the other way around be more appropriate? That is, every assignment copies the value, and you need special syntax to assign a reference.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-21 21:16

>>49
int *x;
*x = 5;
（　≖‿≖）

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-21 21:42

>>38
so easy for me to get unexpectedly high-paying jobs
0/10

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-23 1:40

>>47-48
I really don't know what to make of this...  It seems like a troll, but I think you're actually genuine, which just makes it depressing.

Here's the example from >>20:
y = 5;' means regular value assignment
but 'y = x;', means changing the reference

And his point was that the "semantics" of the two should be the same.  My point is that they obviously can't be the same.  Hell, it's not even "my" point, it's just common sense.  "5" is a literal and "x" is a variable.  You can't assign to "5" just like you can't assign to "hello world".  It resides int he code segment...  The variable "x" is a storage location on the stack or in the process's global space...  It's data, while "5" is a const that is part of the code segment.  When compiled, you're just going to get two very different things.  They're both going to end up as "MOV" instructions in x86, but one is going to be moving a literal and one is going to be reading a value out of the data segment, and these are completely different things in absolutely every language ever conceived.  A language where literals and variables had the same semantics would be a very fucked up (and probably useless) thing.  Is something about this difficult to understand?

I would guess that >>20 just misspoke.  He didn't really mean that literals and variables should have the same semantics.  He just didn't like the assumption that one copied by value and the other copied by reference.  You, on the other hand, just...  shit...  I don't have any idea.

I personally don't have a problem with that assumption and I don't think anyone who actually knows what they're talking about would have a problem with it, either, because they'd be aware that literals and variables aren't the same thing, so you shouldn't expect them to be handled the same, semantically.  Fuck.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-23 1:44

>>50
That's the way it normally works.  I guess it depends on your definition of "more appropriate."  As I stated from the beginning, I just think that making the "copy()" operation explicit would at least make new or bad programmers think for a second before passing that 50MB bitmap object into a function by value.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-23 1:45

>>52
I know it sounds like a troll, but it's true.  I'm in a position now where I hire new college grads, and the upshot of this thread is that I have some great new interview questions.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-23 1:55

>>55
I have some great new interview questions.
Bullshit. All trolling aside, any programmer can answer correctly all the questions asked in this thread (except those that are undecidable). I refuse to believe any of today's programming juniors will be filtered by your interview.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-23 2:02

>>53
There are in fact actual languages that real programmers use in which 6 := 2 is legal and will actually set the value of the symbol 6 to the number 2.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-23 2:03

>>56
I'm not really talking about right/wrong questions...  I'm just suddenly more aware of the trend toward esoteric bullshit.  Like the guy who says "lol performance doesn't matter anymore."

I'm going to make sure that A) the candidate understands why performance does matter, and B) how to go about achieving it.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-23 3:30

>Is there a language in which variables, function arguments, etc, are always references by default?
This is a bad idea and you should feel bad.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-23 3:51

>>57
Fortran, wasn't it?

>>54
Then you're just going to have the bad programmers accidentally modifying data that should have been copied. If you were going to do this and expect it to make things clearer, you'd have to make every argument take an explicit copy/refer marker. And you'd have to require them in both the function definition and at the call site.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-23 5:27

>>1,1-1
SPAWHBTC

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-23 9:02

>>60
Fortran is one of many.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-23 18:25

>>40
Does your company tells publicly they use ocaml?

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-23 20:19

>>53
In a single sentence: I don't think you understand what "semantics" means in a sense more abstract than the underlying assembly constructs. Get out and have good luck in your learning.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 7:41

>>38,39
I just want to point out how misleading your programs list is. All you pointed out were a list of drivers and the OS. Of course that stuff needs to be written low-level.

For an app like Winamp, efficiency definitely does not matter. The only parts that need to be efficient are MP3 decoding and database management, both of which should be handled by separate dedicated low-level libraries (something like SQLite or BerkeleyDB). In some cases these facilities are provided by the OS (for instance an iPhone provides CoreAudio decoders and SQLite as built-in libraries.)

Winamp got horribly slow around version 3, and the language had nothing to do with it. It was still written in C++.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 7:45

>>65
You know C++ is basically C with some useless syntactic sugar, right?

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 8:06

>>66
I consider C++'s "syntactic sugar" quite harmful.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 9:25

>>66
Uhh yes, what's your point?

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 9:31

>>68
My point is that obviously the language has nothing to do with this slow-down around version 3. What you're saying happened has no reason at all to be blamed on the implementation language.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 9:36

It's never C++, which is a perfect language. It must be the programmers, or the compiler writers, or the library authors, or the platform, or...

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 10:29

>>69
Uhh, that was my point too genius. Version 2 and version 3 were both written in C++. One was fast, the other was slow. Ergo, the implementation language had nothing to do with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_comprehension

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 10:43

>>71
COMPREHEND MY ANUS

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 10:52

>>71
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuck_off_please_and_see_someone_about_your_Aspergers

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 10:54

>>71
So why mention it? I thought you were being sarcastic about C++ being slow. You had no need to say anything about Sepples at all.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 10:55

>>73
Implying I have aspregers

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 12:32

>>75
You have asspreger's

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 13:22

>>65
For an app like Winamp, efficiency definitely does not matter. The only parts that need to be efficient are MP3 decoding

The only part of an MP3 player that needs to be efficient is the MP3 decoding?  Not even you know what point you're trying to make any more.

You should whip up an MP3 player (a.k.a. "MP3 decoder") in BASIC or whatever the hell it is that you use and keep it running in the background.  Make it so that it consumes 100% of your CPU(s) at all times, even when paused.  Hopefully the pain of using your PC at that point is too much to bear and you can no longer visit /prog.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 13:51

>>77
Surely you're trolling. Winamp does a hell of a lot more than decode MP3s.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 13:52

>>77
http://www.exaile.org/

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 14:03

>>77
The only part of an MP3 player that needs to be efficient is the MP3 decoding?  Not even you know what point you're trying to make any more.
Winamp provides a fully skinnable UI, a rich plugin architecture, an archive management system, etc.

The reason you think everything should be built in C++ is because you're unable to conceptually separate the computationally intense subsystems of the application from the whole application itself. Think about all of the features in Winamp; what percentage of Winamp code do you think is specifically for MP3 decoding? 2%? 1%? So why should you write the entire program in a comparatively low-level language just for that small percentage?

While the main function of Winamp is playing music, there is no reason this needs to even be part of the application code. Any modern OS provides decoding MP3s as a system service; for those formats it doesn't, you can use (foss or licensed) third-party libraries. If you do need to write something like this yourself, you can write it in a low-level language and link it in, and keep the other 99% of the program in a better language.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 14:05

>>80
Any modern OS provides decoding MP3s as a system service
Yes. Yes it does.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 15:05

>>80
what percentage of Winamp code do you think is specifically for MP3 decoding? 2%? 1%?

It's 100% of the code that I actually care about, and 100% of the reason I download and install Winamp, and 100% of the reason that Winamp was created.

I totally get you now...  You're just into writing fluff.  I am the guy that writes that 1% that you apparently don't care about -- the code that actually does work, while you slap together ENTERPRISE CLASS XML SKINNABLE INTERFACES.  Here's the thing:  People don't want that shit.  It's just the bloat that people are willing to put up with because they want the actual application hidden underneath all those layers of visual masturbation.

Your numbers are completely skewed, but you're right, that worthless shit doesn't need to be written in C.  In fact, it doesn't need to be written at all.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 15:25

>>82
Sadly, you're wrong in that those who want Winamp mostly want it for the other 99%.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 15:59

It's funny how there are reasonable arguments for both sides, but neither of the representatives of those sides in this thread is capable of producing any of them.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 16:04

>>83
They think that they want it, but it's only entertaining for the first five minutes that you use the app.  Eventually, you're going to want to just listen to MP3s.  And you're going to want your IDE to just compile programs, quickly.  And you're going to want your browser to just load web pages, quickly.  So you turn off "visual styles" and "file association monitoring agents" and you start removing those 60 icons from your system tray because you figure out that you actually want to use your own CPU cycles.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 16:09

>>82
Bullshit. If you don't care about extra functionality, why don't you just play your MP3s from the command-line? If you don't care what it looks like, why don't you just use Media Player Classic?

I'll tell you why, it's because you do want that shit. Damn right you want it. You're lying to yourself and to the rest of us to pretend like your enterprise coding job somehow differentiates you from the rest of us. Well I've got news for you: it doesn't.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 16:11

>>85
And you're going to want your IDE to just compile programs, quickly.
Again, total fucking bullshit. You can't possibly be so completely unaware of everything your IDE does. Look at how many goddamn buttons are on the IDE interface. How can you be so clueless?

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 16:46

>>85
So you turn off "visual styles"
You honestly think this slows your computer down?

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 17:02

>>86
why don't you just play your MP3s from the command-line?
I do, effectively.  I just double-click them, which launches Winamp with the filename as a command-line parameter.

If you don't care what it looks like, why don't you just use Media Player Classic?
Not a bad idea I guess...  That's what I use for video, I guess I could just as easily use it for MP3, also, and have one less app installed.  Thanks.

I'll tell you why, it's because you do want that shit.
The fuck I do.

pretend like your enterprise coding job somehow differentiates you from the rest of us.
Not at all...  I'm far more like the average programmer than the morons who need to change the color of their buttons or need an animated GIF as their desktop wallpaper.  They are called script kiddies.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 18:19

>>89,et al.
Would you guys terribly mind taking this somewhere else, like /g/ or /tech/ perhaps?

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 18:34

>>90
Fuck off.  /prog/ is for interesting discussions, not torrential shitspam.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 18:41

>>90
This is way more interesting than the shitposts. At least all this is vaguely programming related. Cinnamon rolls? Really? Grow up.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 18:55

>>92
It's tedious bullshit about what you like about application X, and no longer has anything to do with programming. If you find it interesting there are other boards more appropriate to its discussion. The only difference between what's been recently going on in this and shitposting is that you dorks actually seem to care about the trivial subjective garbage you're arguing. Seriously, some boards are down with that and would welcome you.

>>91
Yeah. That's what I said.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 19:18

>>93
Which would you prefer: actual discussion or mindless garbage?

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 19:43

>>93
I would 100% prefer Languages as Touhou Characters, fucking Cinnamon Rolls and How To Rape The World to be our only topics.

Ass.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 21:26

>>94
I would prefer programming discussion. If it's not that, it might as well go.

BTW, it's mildly hilarious that you try to pass off this winamp ``discussion'' as anything but mindless. It's completely inane and entirely predictable. It's not a discussion, it's mechanical degenerative bickering about nothing of any relevance.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 23:40

I'd just like to point out that the issue of performance should not be reduced to a simple dichotomy of whether it ``matters'' or not. The question we need to ask is: exactly how critical is performance for this particular task, and to what extent is it worth the potential tradeoffs? (in code clarity, maintainability, correctness, speed of development, et cetera)

(I apologize if someone else already expressed similar sentiments. I didn't feel like reading all of the angry quarrel above.)

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-25 6:31

>>96
This is the closest you're getting. If you don't like it, you can't change it by simply showcasing your smug, baseless sense of superiority (instead of trying to start actual programming discussion) and might as well leave.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-25 9:41

If I wanted to talk about programming, I'd call a meeting.

This flood of imageboard faggots has got to stop.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-27 6:07

>>99
I'll admit that I'm from the imageboards, but I'm curious -- what sort of content do you want to see on this board, if it isn't "talk about programming?"

JACKSON FIVE GETs?  They seem to be popular.  Nike spam?  There appear to be a couple of running jokes about SICP and Lisp, but the board would be pretty sparse if discussion was limited only to those.

Also, just to affirm that I'm from the imageboards, check these doubles

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-27 6:12

>>100
It's quite obvious that you are from the imageboards; you saw a bunch of idiots posting and generalised to "hey this must be what the board is about".

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-27 6:16

>>101
So what is it about, then, if not "talk about programming?"  Come at me, bro.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-27 7:58

>>102
It is about programming, it is not about mindless winamp bullshit. It is also not about bumping threads that have long since past their sell by date in a vague attempt to feel morally superior to the shitposters.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-27 9:14

>>102
If you want to talk about programming, call a meeting. Don't have a job? Get a programming job, then call a meeting.

Don't bring your reddit/stackoverflow shit here.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-27 15:21

>>99 - "Stop talking about programming"
>>100 - "What is /prog/ about then?"
>>101 - "You don't know what it's about."
>>102 - "Is it about programming?"
>>103 - "It is about programming."
>>104 - "It is not about programming."

I don't think /prog/ needs to worry too much about outsiders shitting up the place.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-27 15:33

>>105,99-104
The above is for my own convenience. Fuck activating multiple links like that.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-27 15:35

>>105
Many dudes in this thread are pretty new. Sentence composition and lack of awareness of certain norms gives them away. I think it's safe to call them outsiders.

Regardless, yes, insiders do shit up the place as well. They just do it differently. And they don't troll each other as easily--->minimal snowball effect.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-27 15:39

>>105
What makes you think that is not an outsider?

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-27 15:46

>>105
Anyway, the thing is, >>99,104 is full of shit. The kind of "talk about programming"ing that goes on in meetings isn't ever the discussion of programming techniques, paradigms, language/tool discussion or anything else like that. It's mind-numbing "THESE ARE OUR GOALS" "WHAT TURKEY STRATEGIES SHOULD WE COME UP WITH" "I HAVE ANOTHER BRILLIANT FEATURE IDEA YOU SHOULD INCORPORATE INTO OUR FLAGSHIP PROGRAM" that nobody wants to discuss out of the office (i.e. here).
And reddit and stackoverflow aren't all that dissimilar to /prog/, bar content (inane article linkage, stupid questions with rated answers as opposed to... Well, you know what it's like here) and presentation (onymity, karma).
Ultimately all three discuss programming, whether you like it or not.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-27 15:54

>>100,102,109
Programming is all about abstract bullshite that you will never fucking comprehend.

If you want to talk about something between lambda-the-ultimate and stackoverflow, you'd see that the discussion carries on relatively normally.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-27 16:09

>>110
Oh, I see, you're a Lisper. Never mind then.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-27 16:58

Can we all stop talking about talking about programming and just talk about programming instead?

Name: Anonymous 2011-02-04 11:34

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 -