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

Pages: 1-4041-

I don't want OOP and static typing

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-02 19:08

What should I do?

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-02 19:10

Stop making stupid threads.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-02 19:11

>>2
define "stupid"

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-02 19:15

Stupid, in the context of this forum, is someone that says people need to read SICP on a regular basis.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-02 19:19


use perl;

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-02 19:20

HAVE YOU READ YOUR SICP TODAY?

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-02 19:21

>>5
Perl has OOP and static typing. Perl has everything.

>>4
what's wrong with SICP?

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-02 19:24

>>7
SICP explains relatively complicated things in an accessibly manner.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-02 19:32

accessibly manner

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-02 19:32

>>7
Perl has operators.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-02 19:36

>>7

Perl has .+

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-02 19:48

>>9
accessible?

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-02 23:51

Static typing is superior to dynamic typing.

Static typing means less runtime errors as all identifier names and type resolutions are evaluated at compile time. Static typing is fast, as it doesn't have to do string compares and associative hash map lookups at runtime.

Dynamic typing is for toy languages and shell scripting replacement languages.

I concur that OOP teaches bad habits, the way it is taught at most universities and colleges. That's not to say OOP isn't completely invalid, but it's certainly not the great panacea some people like to think it is.

Use C or C++, and avoid overuse of OOP techniques like class polymorphism.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-03 0:04

>>13
o/1o

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-03 0:05

>>14
NaN.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-03 8:54

>>15
o/(1o)
o/o
1

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-03 12:06

>>13
Static typing means less runtime errors
It catches only naive errors, like mistyped identifier names. Unit tests will catch them as well.

all identifier names and type resolutions are evaluated at compile time.
Inconvenient as it prevents late-binding and interactive development.

Static typing is fast, as it doesn't have to do string compares and associative hash map lookups at runtime.
Premature optimisation is the root of all evil. Besides, Common Lisp is fast enough, even if you use only lists. And Lists can handle anything with easy. Why defining struct Verbose {int crap; float more crap;}; when you can just (list 123 0.5)???

Static typing is superior to dynamic typing.
Dynamic typing is for toy languages and shell scripting replacement languages.
No. It isn't.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-03 12:13

>>17
like mistyped identifier names.
Decent dynamic typed programming languages (Lisps) catch that at compile time too.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-03 12:15

>>18
Only if you provide them with type signatures. Like these `defvar` and `defun`, you are forced to use, instead of setf.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-03 12:16

Pythonn

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-03 12:18

>>17
struct Verbose {int crap; float more crap;};
I think you meant float more_crap!

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-03 12:21

>>19
> (set! x 3)
set!: cannot set undefined variable: x

1 ]=> (set! x 3)
;Unbound variable: x

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-03 12:22

>>17
(list 123 0.5)
That's too verbose, write '(123 0.5) instead.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-03 12:30

>>20
Python is 100% OOP. You can't do a fuck without classes in Python.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-03 12:31

>>23
Thanks. But I write [123 0.5]

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-03 12:33

>>22
In Scheme terms, "defined" means that it has statically typed signature. So, Scheme is a statically typed language.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-03 12:33

>>25
Thanks, But I write (cons (quote 123) (cons (quote 0.5) (quote ())))

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-03 12:34

>>26
> (define x 2)
(set! x "hax my anus")
x
"hax my anus"

1 ]=> (define x 2)
;Value: x
1 ]=> (set! x "hax my anus")
;Value: 2
1 ]=> x
;Value 11: "hax my anus"

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-03 12:38

>>28
So?

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-03 12:40

>>29
> (number? 2)
#t
> (number? "hax my anus")
#f

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-03 12:42

>>30
So?

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-03 12:43

>>31
> (= 2 "hax my anus")
=: expects type <number> as 2nd argument, given: "hax my anus"; other arguments were: 2

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-03 20:15

>>31
THEY HAVE DIFFERENT TYPES, MORON.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-03 20:49

>>33
YHBT

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-04 0:56

>>33
Dynamic typing means that everything have the same type. So, Scheme is statically typed. BASH, on the other hand, is dynamically typed, because of everything is a text design.

See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimalism

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-04 1:08

>>35
BASH, on the other hand, is dynamically typed, because of everything is a text design.
No, everything is a text, so it's the same type. So, BASH is dynamically typed. Scheme, on the other hand, is dynamically typed, and has two interchangeable types: atoms, lists.

See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimalism

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-04 1:09

>>36
s/BASH is dynamically/BASH is statically/
I guess I'll go back to /bed/, now.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-04 4:28

>>35
weak trolling

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-04 5:52

>>38
Scheme is no better than Haskell. Deal with it.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-04 6:46

>>39
Still weak. Try again.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-04 11:25

Is x86 dynamically typed?

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-04 11:52

>>41
Getting there, getting there...

Name: RICHTARD STALLMONT 2011-04-04 12:46

>>39
YOUR TROLLING IS AS WEAK AS YOUR TYPE SYSTEM. MANKIND ILL NEEDS A TROLL SUCH AS YOU!!!

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-04 13:48

>>43
It is better to have 100 functions operate on one data structure than 10 functions on 10 data structures. -- Alan Perlis

Name: RICHTARD STALLMONT 2011-04-04 13:57

>>44
FUNCTIONS? YOU STEAL DATA STRUCTURES' OPERATIONS AND MAKE THEM POLYMORPHIC

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-04 14:01

>>45
define "POLYMORPHIC"

Name: FIOCULA 2011-04-04 14:04

>>46
WHAT IS A POLYMORPHISM? A MISERABLE LITTLE PILE OF TYPES.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-04 14:07

>>44
enjoy your inefficiency and O(n2), faggot

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-04 14:08

>>47
define "types"

Name: RICHTARD STALLMONT 2011-04-04 14:10

>>49
TYPES RISE BUT ONCE IN EVERY CENTURY, AND MY TYPE SYSTEM'S ROLE IS OVER.
IF I COULD HAVE DYNAMIC TYPES, THEN THE TYPECHECK WILL LAST FOR ETERNITY

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-04 14:12

>>50
define "typecheck"
define "eternity"

Name: Maria Retard 2011-04-04 14:14

>>51
Wait a moment, you seem a jew and yet, what do you here?

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-04 14:16

>>51
define "eternity"
Now I understand Symphony of the Night. Dracula is the evil jew and Richter and Maria are the righteous aryans who try to stop him from stealing (typical jew) men's souls.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-04 14:16

>>53
define "soul"

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-04 14:19

>>54
import soul
xD

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-04 14:21

>>55
$ ghci
GHCi, version 6.8.2: http://www.haskell.org/ghc/  :? for help
Loading package base ... linking ... done.
Prelude> import soul
syntax:  :module [+/-] [*]M1 ... [*]Mn

Name: FIOCULA 2011-04-04 14:21

>>54
For what profit is it to a man, if he gains the world, and looses his own soul?

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-04 17:10

>>57
The interesting thing about this quote is that it is often rendered like this:

because what profit will a person have if he gains the whole world and forfeits his life? Or what can a person give in exchange for his life?
It seems that at the time (and in the language used) when the New Testament was written, there was no concept of "soul", as it is. In other words, they had a single word denoting both "soul" and "life".

So when Jesus spoke about this stuff, he used much more pragmatic words, that send the message across much clearer: first, you are not going to sell your life for any amount of gold, right? Because that would be pointless. Second, I tell you that your life here might continue eternally in God's domain, so doing stuff that might endanger that continuation is just as stupid.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-04 17:29

>>58
That's... actually interesting. +5 Insightful

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-04 17:45

>>58
You actually changed the whole concept I had of ``soul''.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-04 17:49

The Bible is actually gzip-compressed, but people have been trying to read it as-is for thousands of years now!

Name: >>58 2011-04-04 18:10

>>61
I disagree it's the opposite case.

If you read the Gospel of Matthew straight through, it's pretty clear and unambiguous. More than that, it implements the closest thing they knew to CRC32: first Jesus explains what should be done in a way of true faith, then he goes on with a parable of a house built on sand (meaning people who repeat out of context teachings but don't follow them in real life, and he explains it just like that then), then the quote of ultimate badassery:

Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’

Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

So it's the other way round: the New Testament is actually quite clear, but the clergy try to gunzip it.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-04 18:21

>>62
Why did I click on the >>58 in the name field and think it would take me somewhere?

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-04 18:36

>>63
That may be a good idea for a /prog/ userscript.
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 -