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

Pages: 1-4041-8081-120121-160161-

GridWorld

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-24 23:45

May someone give me a good overview of GridWorld, I seem to not understand certain aspects of it?

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-24 23:59

And everybody else went and chased static. And they've been doing it like crazy. And they've, in my opinion, reached the theoretical bounds of what they can deliver, and it has FAILED. These static type systems, they're WRONG. Wrong in the sense that when you try to do something, and they say: No, category theory doesn't allow that, because it's not elegant... Hey man: who's wrong? The person who's trying to write the program, or the type system?

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 0:09

>>2
The person who writes the program.  We suck.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 0:11

>>3
justify.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 0:12

Myth: Type-checking is a substitute for testing.
---
Again, absolutely not true. Although some people may use type-checking (static in particular) for testing program correctness, this is neither its intended purpose nor its limit of use. Type-checking is more about ensuring meaningful, well-defined execution than ensuring correctness. Even though you may hear strong static-typing advocates say, “When your program type-checks, you’ll often find that it just works”, this is simply not true for large, intricate programs. Although type-checking may help you find errors, it is not the same as testing. Thus, it is not a suitable substitute for testing.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 0:13

>>5
define "meaningful"
define "well-defined"

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 0:14

>>6
http://dictionary.reference.com

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 0:15

>>7
cant find definition

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 0:28

>>4
We've all been very bad boys and we need our tools to punish us accordingly.  All those languages that try to be gentle and obedient just don't understand us.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 5:35

>>9
This might surprise you, but when you tell your obedient language to dereference this pointer even though it might be null, and it eagerly obeys, somehow you still end up hurting yourself.

This is the nature of having BDSM relations with imaginary concepts!

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 5:43

>>10
Writing code where the possibility of dereferencing a null pointer is true is the fault of the programmer not the language. Those who continually run into problems of null pointers are like the chumps who continually get played and laughed at by women. They never learn.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 5:53

>>11
My previous experience with people expressing such statements supports a conclusion that they generally avoid writing code where the possibility of dereferencing a null pointer is true by not writing any code at all, except maybe for the most trivial fibs and facs once in a while.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 6:07

>>12
Well, your experience is a shallow one indeed.

I take it you have never heard of invariant rules? Or class invariants? (I'm not an OOP fanatic, I think OOP is overrated, but class invariants are an often overlooked yet useful aspect of OOP that can be applied outside to other paradigms).

I program defensively, enforcing invariants in procedures and methods, using things like smart pointers, RAII, and applying runtime sanity checks in the form of asserts.

In fact, by correctly enforcing the invariant that a given pointer can never be null, I can write correct code without the bloat of runtime checks. Yes, this is extra stuff I have to keep track in my head, but given that my intellect is sufficient enough to do so, I take great pleasure in writing correct code without guiding rails.

If you want to program in your watered-down language with training wheels to stop you from catastrophic failure, go right ahead, I won't stop you. But I expect you to at least afford me the same freedoms.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 6:24

I take it you have never heard of invariant rules? Or class invariants?
That's the point of static typing -- to allow you to express your invariants explicitly and enforce them automatically.

In fact, by correctly enforcing the invariant that a given pointer can never be null, I can write correct code without the bloat of runtime checks. Yes, this is extra stuff I have to keep track in my head, but given that my intellect is sufficient enough to do so, I take great pleasure in writing correct code without guiding rails.
Yes, yes, and then you go and insert your penis in your nonimaginary waifu's real female vagina. Tell me more about your glorious life.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 6:28

>>14
(define real-female-vagina your-anus)

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 6:37

>>15
Not even that language is powerful enough to pull that off.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 6:38

>>14
That's the point of static typing -- to allow you to express your invariants explicitly and enforce them automatically.

Yes, but only compile-time invariants. Static typing does not guard against all runtime invariants, such as is the case with the potential for a null-pointer dereference. Here, the responsibility falls upon the programmer. It was never the intention of static typing to handle such cases, and those who believe so are misguided. That said, when required, I do find that I have to write less rigorous regression and/or unit tests for statically typed code than I do with dynamically or ducked typed languages.

Yes, yes, and then you go and insert your penis in your nonimaginary waifu's real female vagina. Tell me more about your glorious life.

I'm just a nobody 29 year old virgin university drop-out, who leads a somewhat socially isolated life, but has managed to claw his way up to making a six figure income as a software developer, working outside of the rat-race known as ENTERPRISE development. I am also responsible for the proggles~ meme. Furthermore, I wish death upon who ever is trying to force farting as a meme.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 7:47

>>17
Static typing does not guard against all runtime invariants, such as is the case with the potential for a null-pointer dereference.
Static typing is not all-powerful, but it most definitely is capable of guarding against null-pointer dereferences.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 9:41

>>17
``proggles'' is awful and not entertaining at all. you should be ashamed.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 10:31

/progwarts/

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 10:47

>>19

　　　　　　　　　　　　 　　_∧
　　　　　　 　　_,,. -‐::'"´＜ ,.＞──-..、
　　　　　 ,..::'":::::::::::::::::::::::／:::::::::::::::::::::::ﾉ
　　　　 /:::::::::::::::;: -‐'''"´￣￣￣｀"'＜
　　　　 {:::::::::::／　　 _」_　 　　 ハ　　 ｀ヽ
　　　　 ,ゝ-イ 　'　/ _」__ﾊく￣＼」＿」ノ7｝
　　 　 /　 　　/　ｧ'´fてﾊ ﾚ ｀' ､.,___,,. イ ﾊ
　　　./　 /　f7　 {　弋zり　 　　ｧtﾉノ　,ｌ　}
　　　;　　{ 　 {　⊂⊃　　　　　, りﾊ|ノ ﾉﾚ'
　　/ ､　八 　 ､__,.＞　　　. -､　⊂ヽ（
　 （　 ∨　 ） " ﾊ｀ヽ 　　〈　 ｿ 　人 ｀            PROGGLES~
　　｀ン　イ　,. -─-､＞ ､.,__ 　イハ_,.＞
　　（ｒ‐''7 ／　　 　/::/ア"''┴ -= .ト､＿＿＿＿_　_,,..　 --─- ､
　　　 　 /　　　 　;:::;'ｒ >　　　　　　　　　　　　 　 ｀￣｀ヽ　ｒ-､　l｝
　　　 　;　　　　　.{:::{ く.,＿＿＿＿＿,,,,,......　 ､　　、 l l l｝､_つﾉノ
　　　　 ヽ　　　、 ヽヽ」／] 　 　 ＆「r‐　''"´　｀￣ｒ'ノﾉノ　 ￣
　　　 　　 ＼　 　￣}:::} r┘ 　 　　 |7　　　　 　　 ｀￣
　　　　　　　 ヽｰ-､_∨'　　 　 　.＆|
　　　　　　　　　＼　　 　　 　 　 　 |
　　　　　　　　　,r'ヽ.　 　　　　　 ＆|
　　　　　　　r／/|　　　　　＿,,,.. - 」
　　　　　　く∧/ に二ニニ　-‐　''"|
　　　　 　／└ﾍ┐:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::_,r'7、
　　　　 /:::::::::::::::＼┐:::::::::::::::::::/r':::ﾊ/、

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 12:07

>>20
I chuckled somewhat.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 13:20

>>17
fuck you fartistic faggot

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 13:25

>>23
Why do you insist on forcing this shit? It's terribly obvious that you're the only one posting it.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 13:34

>>24
It's terribly obvious that you're fartistic.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 13:35

>>25
No.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 13:37

>>26
enjoy your fartism, fagboy

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-25 13:37

>>27
No.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 8:02

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 8:05

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 8:12

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 8:18

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 8:23

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 8:28

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 8:34

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 8:39

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 8:44

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 8:49

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 8:55

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 9:00

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 9:05

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 9:11

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 9:16

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 9:21

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 9:26

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 9:32

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 9:37

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 9:42

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 9:47

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 9:52

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 9:57

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 10:03

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 10:08

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 10:13

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 10:26

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 10:31

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 10:35

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 10:40

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 10:45

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 10:50

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 10:54

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 10:59

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 11:04

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 11:08

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 11:13

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 11:18

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 11:22

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 11:27

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 11:32

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 11:37

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 11:41

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 11:46

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 11:51

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 11:56

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 12:00

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 12:05

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 12:10

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 12:14

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 12:19

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 12:24

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 12:29

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 12:33

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 12:38

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 12:43

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 12:47

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 12:52

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 12:57

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 13:02

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 13:06

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 13:11

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 13:16

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 13:20

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 13:25

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 13:30

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 13:35

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 13:39

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 13:44

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 13:49

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 13:53

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 13:58

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 14:03

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 14:08

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 14:12

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 14:17

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 14:22

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 14:26

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 14:31

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 14:36

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 14:41

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 14:45

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 14:50

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 14:55

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 15:00

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 15:05

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 15:09

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 15:14

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 15:24

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 15:28

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 15:33

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 15:38

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 15:42

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 15:47

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 15:52

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 15:57

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 16:01

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 16:06

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 16:11

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 16:16

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 16:20

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 16:25

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 16:30

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 16:35

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 16:40

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 16:44

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 16:49

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 16:54

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 16:59

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 17:03

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 17:08

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 17:13

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 17:18

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 17:23

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 17:32

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 19:03

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 19:07

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 19:12

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 19:16

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 19:20

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 19:34

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 19:39

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 19:44

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 19:49

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 19:53

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 19:57

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 20:02

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 20:12

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 20:16

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 20:20

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 20:25

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 20:29

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 21:34

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 21:38

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 22:01

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 22:44

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 23:28

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-26 23:40

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-27 0:03

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-27 0:57

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-27 1:37

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-27 1:48

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-27 2:01

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-27 2:05

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-27 2:09

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-27 2:14

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-27 3:09

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-27 3:14

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-27 3:19

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-27 3:31

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-27 3:35

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-27 3:40

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-27 3:44

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-27 3:47

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 -