I don't want OOP and static typing

What should I do?

Is x86 dynamically typed?

>>41
Getting there, getting there...

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

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

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

>>45
define "POLYMORPHIC"

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

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

>>47
define "types"

>>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

>>50
define "typecheck"
define "eternity"

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

>>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.

>>53
define "soul"

>>54
import soul
xD

>>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

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

>>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.

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

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

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

>>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.

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

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