/prog/ - Lets see you do this in

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-02 4:28

Lithp, lithpfags:
http://weegen.home.xs4all.nl/eelis/analogliterals.xhtml
~loling at lithpfags

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-02 4:35

Hard mode:rewrite in plain C

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-02 11:29

lisp.... it'll killusawl!!!

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-02 12:14

>>1
So, C++ is like Perl. Nothing new.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-02 13:02

I daresay this would be EASIER to implement in Lisp.

Or really, any language with string processing.

whereas in C++ oh god are those overloaded operators? my eyes my eyes.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-02 15:40

>>5
No, all you can do in Lisp is parentheses and parse code full of parentheses.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-02 15:42

>>6
I can use parentheses instead of operators.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-02 15:43

>>7
I can use operators instead of parentheses. At least I can look at my code afterwards without puking.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-02 15:46

>>8
Then go program in Perl 6.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-02 15:57

parentheses in C are used when you have to fight the language. Either you are type casting because the type system is shit or you are using them because the horribly complicated precedence chart caused you to miscalculate order of operation. Parentheses in C++ are associated with pain and ugliness because they represent the language failing at its promise to anticipate your needs.

This kind of codependent, abusive relationship does not exist between Lisp and a Lisp programmer.

At any rate, it is far more sane to do this with strings than with operators. Godddamn.

(+ (anus "|-----|") (anus "|----------|"))

C++ operator overloading is for nerds who don't know the difference between syntactic cleverness and semantic beauty.

Name: dubzbot-ng 2011-07-02 15:57

_{_{_{:GJS1M 67dcbdbce4a0b67c4b48e86a6ae29205a95e4b83024a9d947213d1231800e8d9

:41 49523b3ddf9c2fd46fc0778722f57875

:1309595335 1309636648}}}

>>5
<-- check 'em

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-02 16:08

>>10
Yeah, so let's trade all traces of usability for the holy grail of semantic beauty. Yeah, no thanks. Now take your shitty language and fuck off.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-02 16:18

>>12
too bad thematicth are for fucking faggotth

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-02 16:22

>>10
I totally agree with you. Operator overloading is a kludge for genericity and it really shouldn't be used lightly.

Lets see you do this in

1 Name: Anonymous 2011-07-02 4:28

2 Name: Anonymous 2011-07-02 4:35

3 Name: Anonymous 2011-07-02 11:29

4 Name: Anonymous 2011-07-02 12:14

5 Name: Anonymous 2011-07-02 13:02

6 Name: Anonymous 2011-07-02 15:40

7 Name: Anonymous 2011-07-02 15:42

8 Name: Anonymous 2011-07-02 15:43

9 Name: Anonymous 2011-07-02 15:46

10 Name: Anonymous 2011-07-02 15:57

11 Name: dubzbot-ng 2011-07-02 15:57

12 Name: Anonymous 2011-07-02 16:08

13 Name: Anonymous 2011-07-02 16:18

14 Name: Anonymous 2011-07-02 16:22