>>1 Try to imagine, if you will, the amount of time and effort it would take you to write a bug-free, efficiently multithreaded real-time clock + infix calculator hybrid application in a language like C.
Watch and learn kids, this is not some measly fibs and facs hybrid application, it's a real-time clock + infix calculator hybrid application, yo.
I doubt it can be written in the in-lisp DSL even!
>>22
You wanna make this a beauty contest? I could swear, the amount of energy invested in complaining by ``æsthetics critics'' vastly exceeds that of creating languages by their designers.
I'm respecting your opinion, but what do you want to achieve with posting it here? We can't change how it looks, you know?
One more thing, are you also one of those Perl haters that thinks sigils are a crime against whatever doctrine you subscribe to? Fucking kids. IHIHBT
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-30 12:27
WHAT THE FUCK WITH \ ? They are everywhere! MY EYES!
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-30 12:33
>>24
Then why sigils are named after the nails, Christ was nailed to the cross? You've to endure them. The way christianity.
>>27
No. My DSL is based on LISP and BASH - two languages I respect. Perl isn't a list processing language, it is a text-processing language, that has unreasonably amount of complicated operators and it uses OOP-classes from Set Theory, which I hate.
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-30 14:19
By "list-processing" I mean that language is sharpened towards working with lists. For example, LISP hash quasiquote operator for List construction, which in Perl allocated for something less useful. Lisp dosn't require comas between list elements, but Perl requires them for disambiguation of "-" operator.
>>32
ML is all about purity and typeclasses, but my language ideally shouldn't have types at all, because types types make language complicated and distract from solving the problem at hand. Why types, when lists are enough for everything?
Well, at least in Haskell, types are important, if say, I want to calculate the factorial of 1000.
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-30 15:00
And I mean to get the *exact* number to the factorial of 1000. None of this approximation crap that some of your loser languages like Python like to pull on people.
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-30 15:02
>>37
That is why only PhDs can factorials in Haskell.