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

Official Language Bashing Thread

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-03 13:52

I CHOOSE YOU MEGATROLL

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 1:54

>>28
Try to write an operating system in your precious PHP/Java/HAKSAL/FIOC. Notice something? Yeah, I'm sure you do.

Before you go off to rant about stuff you rather obviously don't understand, I recommend you to read a book. Or two. It wouldn't hurt.

Also, you may probably not believe it, but Python is written in C. Not in PHP, Java, HAKSAl, LITHP, SEESharp, HTML, or Lua, but in C.

Raw C.

ANSI C.

Woop-de-doo.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 2:01

>>28
2010,
If your calendar were written in C, it could have turned over an integer by now.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 2:12

>>29
>Implying I don't know C.
>Implying I would waste my time trying to write an operating system when GNU/Linux already exists. Good try aspergian Anonix developer.
>Interpreted languages are slow enough. It logically had to be written in C. Doesn't mean it was fun.
>>30
>No, because my calculator would have segfaulted.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 2:13

>>31
Ba-dum-tsk'

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 2:17

>>31
>Implying I don't know C.
You don't. Face the truth.

>Implying I would waste my time trying to write an operating system when GNU/Linux already exists. Good try aspergian Anonix developer.

I'm no ````Anonix'''' Developer, Mister Lolcow
 
>Interpreted languages are slow enough. It logically had to be written in C. Doesn't mean it was fun.
You keep comparing apples to pears. C is a System language. FIOC is not.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 2:20

>>29
Try to write an interrupt handler with your precious C/C++. Notice something? Yeah, I'm sure you do.

Before you go off to rant about stuff you rather obviously don't understand, I recommend you to read a book. Or two. It wouldn't hurt.

Also, you may probably not believe it, but Python also has a metacircular interpreter which is faster than the C one.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 2:24

>>29
HAHAHAHA
YOU THINK YOURE THOUGH UH ?
I HAVE ONE WORD FOR YOU
  THE FORCED INDENTATION OF THE CODE
GET IT ?
I DONT THINK SO
YOU DONT KNOW ABOUT MY OTHER CAR I GUESS ?
ITS A CDR
AND IS PRONOUNCED ``CUDDER''
OK YOU FUQIN ANGERED AN EXPERT PROGRAMMER
THIS IS /prog/
YOU ARE ALLOWED TO POST HERE ONLY IF YOU HAVE ACHIEVED SATORI
PROGRAMMING IS ALL ABOUT ``ABSTRACT BULLSHITE'' THAT YOU WILL NEVER COMPREHEND
I HAVE READ SICP
IF ITS NOT DONE YOU HAVE TO
TOO BAD RUBY ON RAILS IS SLOW AS FUCK
BBCODEAND ((SCHEME)) ARE THE ULTIMATE LANGUAGES
ALSO
WELCOME TO /prog/
EVERY THREAD WILL BE REPLIED TO
NO EXCEPTION

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 2:32

>>35
I know spells too.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 2:39

>>31
linux is not an operating system...

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 2:41

>>37
I know, it's a compiler.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 2:42

>>37
Exactly.
GNU/Linux, instead, is the GNU operating system on top of the Linux kernel.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 2:46

>>37
>>38
>>39
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.

There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux" distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 3:05

>>34
Lousely copy-pasta'd >>29-san
0/10

Python also has a metacircular interpreter which is faster than the C one
You and me, my friend, know this is complete and utter bullshit.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 3:10

>>41
Python
ONE WORD.

Note that >>29 didn't mention Lisp.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 4:09

>>42
Because Lisp is universal and you can write an OS in it. But C/C++ is the standard, like COBOL or Java. One may not like C/C++, but he really have no choice, but to conform.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 4:11

>>29
HAKSAL
U MENA HOUSE
http://programatica.cs.pdx.edu/House/

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 4:30

>>43
I like it how you imply that C and/or C++ weren't selected because they're well tested, but because they were "suddenly the standard". As if that happened as simple as that.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 4:44

>>45
C/C++ was selected because of hype. Just like Java and COBOL.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 4:50

>>46
Besides, many people love writing this endless `if ... then ... end` and "for (...;...;...) ..." boilerplate, because it makes them feel like they are doing a big amount of work. Unfortunately, most of their work is a useless struggling with their language.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 4:52

>>46
And Go.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 5:01

>>47
Control structures are the worst part about C. If they removed all those pointless ifs and fors the language would be much better!

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 5:02

>>48
No one really uses Go though.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 5:04

>>49
if could be replaces with pattern matching and for with usual map and fold.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 5:09


fac n -> n != 1 |> {true?  -> n*(fac n-1)
                    false? -> 1}
and no ifs at all.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 5:43

>>52
Is that ``in Lisp''?

>>49
If C had True macros, if and goto would suffice for everything. And you would also have unless, until, etc.
Seriously, why don't they put a decent preprocessor in C1x?

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 5:45

>>53
C/C++ cant have closures and continuations.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 5:46

>>54
Even crappy Pascal allows simple downward funargs, but not C/C++.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 5:52

>>54
Something like:
#macro while (cond) { block }
  @start: // @labels are hygienic.
    { block }
    if (cond) goto @start;
#endmacro
doesn't need closures nor continuations.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 5:53

>>56
garbage in, garbage out.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 5:57

>>56
Nigga wanted while, not do while

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 6:03

>>58
M-x transpose-lines

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 6:09

Disregard >>59, @start: if (!cond) goto @end; { block } goto @start; @end:

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 7:56

>>52

int fac(int n){
  return (n <= 1? 1 : n * fac(n-1));
}

no ifs at all

you 'mirin my parentheses?

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 8:17

>>61
"?:" is an if

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 8:22

To simulate >>52 in C, one would have to do

fac_branches[n<=1](n)

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 8:22

>>62
Don't tell me, tell >>52. Although if >>52 didn't use a boolean, a switch/case statement would've been more suitable.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 8:31

>>62
int fact(int n){
 return (n && (n*fact(n-1))) || 1;
}

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 8:39

>>65
There "&&" compiles to `if`.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 8:44

>>66
``Pattern matching'' compiles to `if'.
There is no x86 instruction called `if'.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 8:45

>>64
You should read about concatenative programming languages, bottom-up design and combinatory logic. Also, look at neural networks and ICs, they dont use the `if` concept. Historically `if` came from mathematics, because some old faggots wanted programming languages to look like math.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 8:45

>>67
It can compile to table lookup.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 8:57

>>69
int fact_0(int n) { return 1; }
int fact_n(int n) { return n*fact(n-1); }
int (*fact_t)(int) = { fact_0, fact_n };

int fact(int n) { return fact_t[n<=1](n); }

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 9:05


x.{positive? ->  1
   zero?     ->  0
   negative? -> ~1}

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 9:07

>>70
That int (*fact_t)(int) should be int (*fact_t[])(int).

Also, here's the Ackermann function, so you won't bitch about ``you can use it only with functions with one condition'':
int ack(int,int);
static inline int ack_00(int m, int n) { return n+1; }
static inline int ack_10(int m, int n) { return ack(m-1, 1); }
static inline int ack_11(int m, int n) { return ack(m-1, ack(m, n-1)); }

int (*ack_t[][])(int,int) = { { ack_00, ack_00 }, { ack_10, ack_11 } };

int ack(int m, int n) { return ack_t[m>0][n>0](m,n); }

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 9:08

>>71
As expected, see >>72.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 9:12

>>71
int f(int x);
static inline int f_00(int x) { return 0; }
static inline int f_10(int x) { return 1; }
static inline int f_11(int x) { return ~1; }
int (*f_t[][])(int,int) = { { f_00, f_00 }, { f_10, f_11 } };

int f(int x) { return f[x!=0][x<0](x); }

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 9:14

>>74
*f_t[x!=0][x<0](x);

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 9:18

>>72>>74
Writing code it such style would get you fired.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 9:22

>>76
I think the point is that this could be how some potential generated code for pattern matching looks. Generated code is rarely ever pretty, however I can't say his code is unreadable.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 9:26

>>76
What? It's pattern matching, it's superior style![1]

---
[1] >>51

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 9:41

>>77
Yes. Pattern matching usualy implemented as a state machine (switching on tables), but evil team leads would forbid using generated code as well as generating it from your DSL, using YACC.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 9:51

>>79
Say that to >>51,52,62,66,69,71,73.
Also, using goddamn ifs is saner.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 11:03

>>80
define "saner"

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 11:06

sanity defined by traditions and societal norms.
if it is traditional, then it is sane.
for example, believing in "God" is "sane".

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 11:11

>>81
http://www.google.com/search?q=define+sane
http://www.google.com/search?q=define+saner

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 11:17

>>83
how your links define "sane"?

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 11:23

>>82
10/10

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 11:30

>>85
=1

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 13:33

I read 4chan because I enjoy watching people who are depressed, suicidal, antisocial and socially abused talk about their life like they are normal and have no problems

there is your tl:dr in a nutshell

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 17:18

>>1
http://cdn2.knowyourmeme.com/i/000/045/281/original/babbyumad.jpg

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 17:56

Sorry to interrupt this highly interesting discussion but...

http://twitter.com/sicpsnake

Who is this faggot?

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 18:07

>>89
this faggot
The answer is inside the question.

Next.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 21:22

>>89
What the fuck are you talking about? It says right there on the page.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 21:26

Perl--can you read it?

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 23:02

HAKSAL is the Hipsters language of choice

HAKSAL will never be popular

HAKSAL is a pointless toylanguage

HAKSAL is ridicolously complicated (go away with your goddamn map fold)

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 23:11

>>93
Haskell complicated because of its typesystem. The same thing makes C++ and Java complicated.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-07 23:19

>>94
Bullshit. To both.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-08 0:34

>>95
Abstraction based on typesystem is hard, because you have to remember all the nuances of typesystem at every time.

On the other hand, Lisp, with its simple syntatic abstraction and dynamic typing, is easy, because you can forget about nuances and concenrate on solving the problem at hand.

"Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity." — Charles Mingus

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-08 9:34

On the other hand, Lisp, with its simple syntatic abstraction and dynamic typing, is easy, because you can forget about nuances and concenrate on solving the problem at hand.

"Where is Java and is where is your lisp now? Java - king and queen of ENTERPRISE programming, lisp - toy for students, not suitable for anything serious" — Anonymous

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-08 10:32

>>97
I dont know Java. It is to hard to learn and use it.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-08 10:49

Lambda: the ultimate abstraction.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-08 10:52

100 GET

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-08 10:53

>>100
Lambda: the ultimate GET

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-08 16:50

Neo to Cypher:
Do you always look at it encoded?
Cypher to neo:
No man! This is a new perl script im brewin'!

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-08 16:52

Perl: the ultimate obfuscation.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-08 17:00

Why Haskell's Forced Indentation of Code is optional?
Because it delays it until you force it yourself!

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-08 19:20

>>102
I laughed and felt bad about it.

Name: Darkr 2011-01-09 2:09

>>28

Every time I hear this argument, it's always from a programmer who never did much C.  As a beginner, it sucks.  Once you learn it, things are 100x better.

What's absolutely hilarious to me is the fact that nine times out of ten I can write programs just as fast as a Python/Ruby programmer and often times faster.  And of course I end up with a program that runs 50x faster and uses 3x less memory.  Manual memory management can be a pain, but it usually isn't if your program is well designed and uses proper data structures.

Time for a funny anecdote.  I have a friend who is big into Java.  He bashes C all the time for lacking GC.  For shits and giggles I ported a program he wrote in Java to C but I wrote it in such a way so that none of the memory allocated was freed.  All the memory was leaked and guess what?  It STILL used less memory than the Java program because of how bloated the JVM is.  It's like amputating your legs and bragging to your able-bodied friends about how you never get leg cramps or sore ankles.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-09 3:16

>>106
What is your opinion about Scheme, Herr Darkr?

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-09 3:19

>>106
No it never gets any better and you know it. You are either a troll or seriously deluded. Do you honestly like having to worry about whether your pointer arithmetic goes out of bounds. . . Having to write hundreds of lines for error checking just to ensure your unsafe function calls to the standard library don't corrupt your penis. The hundreds and thousands of things that can go wrong working on such a low level.

C couldn't get any more useless. I have to even fucking worry about formatting overflows just to print a string. A fucking string. Auditing my code 100s of times, making sure my socket code is perfect, my size allocations sane, and other bull shit. I'm getting stressed just thinking about it.  Help me Xarn.

It should all be about productivity. Using C today for anything more than very specialized low-level programming is strange and disturbing.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-09 3:24

>>106
Oh yeah, memory and speed today matter little at all. Stop coding in C you masochist.

Name: Darkr 2011-01-09 3:26

>>107

I haven't done enough Scheme to be able to comment on it in depth.  I can say two things about it though.  The first is that I really like the syntax.  S-expressions are elegant in their simplicity.  The second is that I'm not too thrilled with it being dynamically typed.  I've always preferred static typing because I think errors should be caught as early as possible during compile-time rather than runtime.

Name: Darkr 2011-01-09 3:40

>>108

Perhaps I'm being presumptuous, but it sounds like the C code you've written only used libc.  In that case, I'd agree with you.  C's standard library is terrible.  Use glib if you're going to use C.  You'll then see that things aren't so bad.

>>109

Memory and speed do matter.  Why do you think Torvalds wrote git?  Why do you think Google wrote Chrome and V8?  By improving the performance of these utilities, it literally changed the way they work.

It's true that performance isn't everything.  It's engineering.  Sometimes you make trade-offs.  But if I'm trading away performance, I want to get something in return.  What I don't get is why Rubyists are so willing to trade away so much performance and get so little in return.

Look at the D programming language.  It offers a lot of the high level features that Python/Ruby have but with the performance of C.  D is still under development and the libraries aren't 100% there just yet, but it's definitely a language to watch.  D does things the right way.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-09 3:45

>>111
You are just like the "Rubyists" you criticize only you gain what they lose and lose just about everything else.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-09 3:47

This thread needs more Xarn, Xarn.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-09 3:54

>>109
No. This is only true for one subset of all computing applications - applications that don't churn through a significant amount of data.

Name: Dee !Dee.heHMhc 2011-01-09 4:18

>>111
D does things the right way.
I totally agree with you.

>>108,110
Scheme is theorically beautiful, but you can't do much with just R5RS, R6RS should not exist.
Just use Racket, which offer native/bytecode compilation, a JIT compiler, static and dynamic typing or one of those Scheme->C compilers.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-09 4:38

>>115
fuck off you cock sucking spammer

Name: Anonymous 2011-02-04 16:37

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 -