People who hate C++ are only doing so because it's hip and cool to hate on something that seems too complex at first glance. You want to be seen as cool and edgy, as someone who goes against the grain, when in reality you're just another annoying undergraduate that will probably have a hard time finding a job in the field.
C++ is not perfect, but no language is. Get over it.
People who hate Java are only doing so because it's hip and cool to hate on something that seems too verbose at first glance. You want to be seen as cool and edgy, as someone who goes against the grain, when in reality you're just another annoying undergraduate that will probably have a hard time finding a job in the field.
Java is not perfect, but no language is. Get over it.
People who hate Python are only doing so because it's hip and cool to hate on something that seems too verbose at first glance. You want to be seen as cool and edgy, as someone who goes against the grain, when in reality you're just another annoying undergraduate that will probably have a hard time finding a job in the field.
Python is not perfect, but no language is. Get over it.
>>3
You were rather lazy in augmenting your transcription. You should spend more time studying your lispcraft. Minus ten /prog/-points for House Pythonpuff.
People who hate Scheme are only doing so because it's hip and cool to hate on something that seems too verbose at first glance. You want to be seen as cool and edgy, as someone who goes against the grain, when in reality you're just another annoying undergraduate that will probably have a hard time finding a job in the field.
Scheme is not perfHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
PEOPLE WHO HATE COBOL ARE ONLY DOING SO BECAUSE IT'S HIP AND COOL TO HATE ON SOMETHING THAT SEEMS TOO VERBOSE AT FIRST GLANCE. YOU WANT TO BE SEEN AS COOL AND EDGY, AS SOMEONE WHO GOES AGAINST THE GRAIN, WHEN IN REALITY YOU'RE JUST ANOTHER ANNOYING UNDERGRADUATE THAT WILL PROBABLY HAVE A HARD TIME FINDING A JOB IN THE FIELD.
COBOL IS NOT PERFECT, BUT NO LANGUAGE IS. GET OVER IT.
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-02 7:50
PEOPLE WHO HATE F77 ARE ONLY DOING SO BECAUSE IT'S HIP AND COOL TO HATE ON THINGS THAT ARE ALL UPPER CASE AT FIRST GLANCE. YOU WANT TO BE SEEN AS COOL AND EDGY, AS SOMEONE WHO GOES AGAINST THE GRAIN, WHEN IN REALITY YOU'RE JUST ANOTHER ANNOYING UNDERGRADUATE THAT WILL PROBABLY HAVE A HARD TIME FINDING A JOB IN THE FIELD.
F77 IS NOT PERFECT, BUT NO LANGUAGE IS. GET OVER IT.
>>15 C ONE WORD
C THE FORCED
C FORMATTATION
C OF CODE.
C THREAD OVER
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-02 13:49
I hate C/C++, because it's statically typed and derives from jewish Set Theory.
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-02 13:51
I hate C/C++, because they are not Turing-complete and inferior to Turing-complete languages.
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-02 13:51
>>1 you're just another annoying undergraduate that will probably have a hard time finding a job in the field.
I don't even have a school education. Where is your "Infinity" now, jew?
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-02 13:55
>>1 have a hard time finding a job in the field...
of C/C++ programming. But I'll also get a hard time finding a job in fields of theology and gay sex. Why should I want such a cocksuckin job anyway?
PEOPLE WHO HATE BINARY ARE ONLY DOING SO BECAUSE IT'S HIP AND COOL TO HATE ON THINGS THAT ARE ALL ZEROS AND ONES AT FIRST GLANCE. YOU WANT TO BE SEEN AS COOL AND EDGY, AS SOMEONE WHO GOES AGAINST THE DUALISM, WHEN IN REALITY YOU'RE JUST ANOTHER ANNOYING UNDERGRADUATE THAT WILL PROBABLY HAVE A HARD TIME FINDING A JOB IN THE CIRCUIT.
BINARY IS NOT PERFECT, BUT NO LANGUAGE IS. GET OVER IT.
People who hate Python are only doing so because it's hip and cool to hate on something that seems too complex at first glance. You want to be seen as cool and edgy, as someone who goes against the grain, when in reality you're just another annoying undergraduate that will probably have a hard time finding a job in the field.
Python is not perfect, but no language is. Get over it.
Name:
Anonymous2011-07-01 9:07
<-- just got myself some nice dubz, suckers
Name:
Anonymous2011-07-01 9:24
People who hate [o][b][sup]B[/sub][sub]B[\sub][/o]Code[b/] are only doing so because it's hip and cool to hate on something that seems too complex at first glance. You want to be seen as cool and edgy, as someone who goes against the grain, when in reality you're just another annoying undergraduate that will probably have a hard time finding a job in the field.
[o][b][sup]B[/sub][sub]B[\sub][/o]Code[b/] is not perfect, but no language is. Get over it.
People who hate cement are only doing so because it's hip and cool to hate on something that seems too complex at first glance. You want to be seen as cool and edgy, as someone who goes against the grain, when in reality you're just another brick in the wall.
Cement is not perfect, but no mortar is. Get over it.
>>1
I would take your commentary more seriously if I had ever met someone who liked C++, thoroughly understood C++, and thoroughly understood several other languages.
Name:
Anonymous2011-07-01 13:00
C++ is a pile of shit. Superior alternatives are C99, Objective C, or just fucking C. The subset of C++ that is useful is very small.
I know lots of guys who like C++. I know only a couple who really understand it and understand other languages and STILL like it. And it's only because they have an unhealthy obsession with performance.
People who hate Lisp are only doing so because it's hip and cool to hate on something that seems too complex at first glance. You want to be seen as cool and edgy, as someone who goes against the grain, when in reality you're just another annoying undergraduate that will probably have an easy time finding a job in the field.
Lisp is not perfect, but no language is. Get over it.
what you mean is, "where a GC'd language with powerful semantics and minimal bullshit is forced no the programmer makes the most sense."
The only thing Java has of that is GC.
Name:
Anonymous2011-07-02 16:12
After spending over three years programming Java, Python, and Delphi every fucking single day at Kodak, I've come to the conclusion that all three languages need to die a slow and horrible death.
Name:
Anonymous2011-07-02 17:00
>>51
Kodak will fire you, if they learn that you wish to ruin their whole business.
Name:
Anonymous2011-07-02 17:37
>>49
So what kind of stuff do you need to code for businesses?
Name:
Anonymous2011-07-02 18:01
>>50
no, the biggest advantage java has over something like C++ is full stack trace availability any time an error occurs. that and it rules out entire subclasses of problems. the type safety is also a huge factor. eclipse and other tools let me see every single place a variable is referenced very easily. a type unsafe language like javascript just can't do that.
typical business programming is to be given 100k line program, be told, "hey we want this bug fixed or this feature added", and to do it as quickly as possible and safely as possible. that is very difficult with C++. even if you don't create a new bug, rearranging variables in memory could expose old memory smashing bugs. things like valgrind are nice, but if a bug only occurs at high transaction rates, then it's not going to help you.
if it weren't Java it WOULDN'T BE 100K LINES. It would probably be a fifth of that in a "scripting language" or Lisp.
Java necessitates itself in the most sadistic ways. I'm "glad" the type system is set up so that Netbeans can write get and set function for me. This shit feels like Stockholm syndrome.
Name:
Anonymous2011-07-02 20:25
>>56
I've been coding for 15 years in a variety of high and low level languages. I'd like to hear you explain why javascript is type safe.
'7' + 4 = 74
'7' - 4 = 3
>>57
scripting languages become unwieldy as projects grow in size. they are also slow, much slower than java on average. ruby and python are the worst offenders here. and i wouldn't even think of writing a large project in perl.
Name:
Anonymous2011-07-02 20:28
>>58
Do you know that in some languages, while the variable type is immutable, the actual value isn't?! I know, isn't that shocking.
>>59
Did you know that implicit conversion is a violation of type safety? Even C is considered weakly typed.
Name:
Anonymous2011-07-02 20:47
>>61
How do you figure? The the conversion is done for the values, and for variables, which have immutable types.
Name:
Anonymous2011-07-02 20:49
>>58 scripting languages become unwieldy as projects grow in size.
depends on what you mean by size. Scripting languages can prevent you from NEEDING to grow the project, in many dimensions. If you do it RIGHT, you cut down on all the "accidental, intermediate" complexity and are just stuck with the complexity of the problem you're solving, which is usually not very substantial in the end.
they are also slow, much slower than java on average.
but with a scripting language you can usually profile and write the bottlenecks in C. The solution to performance is to have easy interop with C, not to try to sacrifice the simplicity of your VM, syntax, and semantics for petty short-term performance concerns.
Name:
Anonymous2011-07-02 21:01
>>61
"type safety" as it is commonly used, is a spectrum, not an all or nothing thing. the more contexts and cases a language exhibits type safety, the more type safe it is. java is more type safe than most scripting languages and also lower level languages like C.
>>63
some projects are just large no matter how you code them. there are plenty i have to deal with at work. and once you are over say 10000 lines of code, no matter what language, you start needing to find references to variables in files you didn't even know about. a scripting language isn't going to magically turn 100k line project into 3k lines of code. that type of reduction is not possible, unless the project was coded in an especially asinine way.
i agree that performance is not always an issue, especially in DB limited applications. however, performance often IS an issue. users do not like slow. and a project that starts and ends in the same language is easier to maintain than one that uses two or more languages.
>>60
yes of course. java is fine but javascript sucks for the same reason that most scripting languages do.
>>61 <-- that's cool and all, but check my doubles over there
Name:
Anonymous2011-07-02 21:13
>>64
You still aren't making the distinction between a variable type and value type when it comes to your loser languages like C and Java.
Name:
Anonymous2011-07-02 21:16
>>64 a scripting language isn't going to magically turn 100k line project into 3k lines of code. that type of reduction is not possible, unless the project was coded in an especially asinine way.
I have seen very little written in Java that wasn't written in an especially asinine way. 97% reduction isn't realistic, but over 50% is, with the way I've seen Java written. I'm talking about shit like this, which can be found in Sun's own code: http://harmful.cat-v.org/Blog/2009/08/05/0-java-factory/
Scripting languages make this code look as dumb as it is. Java dresses it up and enshrines it.
I also think you are overestimating how important the type system is. Many of its strengths make up for its own weaknesses. You don't need your IDE to "refactor" a class name-change in 100 different files in Python (for instance) simply because in Python you aren't tagging things with class names all over the place. (Duck-typing is a great way to decouple things, and it's basically what Java interfaces aim to do, but without having to make 1 or 2 new files every time you write a new class.)
Really, the biggest advantage of Java is that you can do nothing and pretend to yourself or others that you're being productive.
Name:
Anonymous2011-07-02 21:40
>>67
i don't see why i need to distinguish between lvals and rvals when discussing type safety in general. anyway, related: http://i.imgur.com/f0FE8.png
>>68
java is not without some dumb stuff and i always hated factories. however, i'm entirely not convinced that scripting languages are as magical as you make them out to be. also, i have always despised duck typing. if an api chose not to implement an interface, then you probably shouldn't be throwing objects from that api into another api just because the function sigs match up.
anyway, open up the error console in FF and load news.google.com. tons of warnings. no one cares. this is scripting, if we can slap it together and it doesn't fall apart, our day is done.
Name:
Anonymous2011-07-02 21:58
>>69
I was talking about your failure to make the distinction between the variable type and the value type in your loser languages like C and Java. At no more and time was I talking about lvals and rvals. Wtf? Are you some tech monkey that does some kind of moderate scripting for your job? Just curious because I find it hard to believe that anyone who has been programming for over 15 years (for a living) can be this fucking dense.
Name:
Anonymous2011-07-02 21:59
*At no point and time*
Name:
Anonymous2011-07-02 22:42
>>70
rvals are for all intents and purposes the same as what you call "values". and "types" and "variables" are very different things. variables, when assignable, are "lvals". so any distinction you can make between "values" and "variables" will be the same as the distinction between lvals and rvals. however, that distinction is not germane to type safety. whether something is an lval or an rval is just another attribute of a token in an expression. rvals can't be on the left side of an assignment, or passed in to a function by reference. other than that, they are pretty much the same. for discussions of type safety or casting, lval vs rval isn't very interesting.
anyway, you give away your own youth with your immaturity.
>>40
No C++ would mean `vidja' programmed in saner alternatives, which would in turn increase support for `vidja' development in other languages.
Name:
Anonymous2011-07-02 23:46
>>73
yeah, this is a board for talking about how awesome SICP is and calling one another faggots
Name:
Anonymous2011-07-03 0:05
>>72 rvals are for all intents and purposes the same as what you call "values"
Incorrect. Often times an rvalue is a variable.
You don't seem to have a real clue as to what is going on. In your langauges like C and Java, the variable has a type with is immutable. That is, once you compile the code, the type of the variable, for the most part can't be changed. However, the value, which also has a type, can be changed.
And for a more precise and accurate defintion, please refer to the appropriate language specification instead of relying on google or whatever lame laymans textbook that you got your nonsense from.
Name:
Anonymous2011-07-03 5:50
C++ is a language designed to solve the problems of C++.
Name:
Anonymous2011-07-03 6:27
Some languages are less perfect than others.
Name:
Anonymous2011-07-03 6:40
>>72 rvals can't be on the left side of an assignment, or passed in to a function by reference.
Huh? #include <stdio.h>
#include <string>
void f(const std::string & s) {
printf("%s\n", s.c_str());
}
void main() {
f("abc");
}
>>81
if i'm understanding that correctly, the "abc" constant is passed to the constructor to string, which creates a new string object, and then the string object is passed to f(). that variable is passed by reference but then thrown away after the call completes. so the rval is automatically cast to an lval which then goes into the function.
>>76
yes of course rvalues can be variables but i guess i was confusing your point, i thought you were talking about the difference between literals and variables. a variable, when used as an rval, is for all intents an purposes the same as a literal.
and yes, C and Java generally do not allow the type of a variable to be changed after compilation. that's the way it should be for maintainable code. otherwise static analyses, such as finding all the references for a given variable, don't work. if you can change and repurpose variables willy nilly that pretty much throws the advantages of type safety out the window.
Name:
Anonymous2011-07-03 10:48
>>83
Some of us programmers actually believe in following the corresponding language terminology instead of inventing our own defintions.
Name:
Anonymous2011-07-03 10:54
>>83 that variable is passed by reference but then thrown away after the call completes
No. The variable doesn't get thrown away after the call completes you fuckwad.
so the rval is automatically cast to an lval which then goes into the function.
Wrong again pee wee. There is neither an explicit nor an implicit cast in that piece of code.
Name:
Anonymous2011-07-03 10:59
The following statement that you made also irks me..
if you can change and repurpose variables willy nilly that pretty much throws the advantages of type safety out the window.
Geeze, have you ever written a single line of code in your entire life? Just curious, because at Kodak, we have several pieces of production level C code that has the following patterrn...
int lock = 1;
/* Do some stuff */
{
int lock = 0;
/* Do some more stuff */
}
>>86
What are you talking about? Those are different variables. (And that does look like a template for less than awesome code.)
Name:
Anonymous2011-07-03 11:41
>>89
No you idiot. The code simulates re-biding the variable. Cripes. Why don't you just shut the fuck up, write a few hundres lines of actual code, read one of the language standards, and then come back when you have a clue.
Name:
Anonymous2011-07-03 12:08
>>86
those are different variables as far as i'm concerned, since they are in different scopes. what i was talking about is changing the type of a variable within the same scope. a scope is essentially an anonymous part of the variable name, an anonymous namespace if you will.
Name:
Anonymous2011-07-03 12:10
>>85
i'm certain you are wrong. if you change the signature of string::string(const char *str)
to
explicit string::string(const char *str)
then your code will not work. you can also verify by putting a break point in the constructor above.
const void vi_vi_vi_function_of_the_beast(int *ptr) {
puts("suck my cock, faggot");
exit(*ptr);
}
int main(void) {
auto volatile int MisterFister69 __attribute__ ((aligned(128), nocommon, unused, deprecated, cleanup(vi_vi_vi_function_of_the_beast))) = ~-1;