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

s-expressions considered harmful

Name: Lisp is unreadable!!1 2011-07-25 21:31

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-26 20:54

>>38
both of those are wrong.

XML is mostly vestigial structures from markup standards.
And homosexuality is the result of hormone imbalances in the womb.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-26 21:28

XML is mostly vestigial structures from markup standards.
Yes. It was inspired by SGML. Tell me the reason why they did that.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-26 21:30

>>22

in py7lisp6:

def dot(a, b):
  foldl:
    lambda (x, y, r):
      +:
        *:
          x
          y
        r
    a
    b


deal with it B)

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-26 21:40

>>42
for people used to html.
these were like the people in the early 20th century who wanted faster horses, except automobiles had been invented decades ago and forgotten about because of AI winter.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-26 21:41

>>43
SO MUCH MORE READABLE
MY EYES ARE HAVING AN ORGASM

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-26 21:45

>>43
That's somehow worse than all the Lisp versions.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-26 21:54

>>44
That's not what the designers said. I guess you don't know.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-26 22:52

>>47
The XML designers were fools. Why should I care what they have to say?

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-27 6:09

>>48
They rule the Earth.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-31 19:23

http://richardkulisz.blogspot.com/2011/07/what-are-lambdas.html

If you losers wanted to avoid explaining what lambdas are, couldn't you have named them oh I don't know 'meta-function'? None of you losers seem able to grasp things for WHAT THEY ARE. How long did it take to rename CAR and CDR as head and tail or CONS cell to Association?

It's like you stare at a plane and think "shiny metal thing with two giant outflying struts each with underslung fast-spinning rotors attached". Fucking autistics, ought all be shot. Or at least get declared as second-class citizens.
This guy must be an EXPERT /PROG/RIDER

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-31 19:28

>>50
So, an entire post to say nothing?

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-31 19:38

>>50
He seems upset that he isn't being spoonfed explanations that most of us take for granted.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-31 19:54

>>50
When you finally realize what they are, it's just beautiful. Lambdas are "the meta-relation 'relation'". Everything is a relation in functional programming, and lambdas are the meta-relation.
If you losers wanted to avoid explaining what lambdas are, couldn't you have named them oh I don't know 'meta-function'?
Lambdas are unavoidably meta. Their meta-ness stares you in the face when you know what lambdas are, because meta-ness is ALL they are.

There's nothing ``meta'' about lambdas. They're the same as any other function, except that they don't have a name. That's all a lambda is. Would this guy say that (lambda (x) (+ x 1)) is a ``meta-function''? Maybe I don't understand what he's trying to say, but it sounds like he's confusing them with higher-order functions or something.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-31 20:02

>>53
I'm sure it's something like Ruby rockstars or something. If it doesn't contain at least three ``meta'', it is not cool.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-31 21:39

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-01 3:42

>>55
Yeah, I've been reading through his blog posts.  Makes me wish I was into psychology.

http://richardkulisz.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-software-is-stupidly-slow.html
Nevermind that it is dysfunctional and fucking harmful
[m]unscientific and ultimately destructive

http://richardkulisz.blogspot.com/2010/12/why-linux-is-decrepit-donkey-crap.html

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-01 7:04

>>53 Haha, he replied to you in his blog!

You need a dictionary. No, you need a better brain if you think I'm using words exclusively as they're used by programmers.
YHBT SO HARD MY SON.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-01 9:06

>>56
Makes me wish I was into psychology.
I recommend Spent as a gentle introduction into evolutionary psychology. I disagree with a lot of the analysis in the book now that I've learned more of the subject, but that doesn't stop the book being useful for what it is. http://www.amazon.com/Spent-Sex-Evolution-Consumer-Behavior/dp/0670020621

I'm also surprised that can I agree with many of the Mr Dick's objections. However, I still cannot ignore that his attitude is distracting.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-01 9:41

>>58
Ditto. He often contradicts himself too: ``I want a Smalltalk OS'', ``Smalltalk is a failure as an OS''.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-01 11:11

>>50
I agreed with him at one point.
Lambda can be utterly important, and giving it a special syntax is in some ways just fine.
But lambda can be built from smaller things, depending on the semantics of the language... CL and Scheme use it as a basic building block, but other Lisps could conceivably not.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-01 12:04

lambda can easily be defined in terms of cons, SICP does it.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-01 12:06

>>61
Nope, other way around.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-01 12:30

>>60
Lambda can be utterly important, and giving it a special syntax is in some ways just fine.
What "special syntax" are you talking about, retard? In pure lambda calculus there's nothing except lambdas, idiot! It's what you might want to add later, all these lets and defines, are "special syntax", imbecile! Except not really so special, given that "let x y z" is equivalent to "lambda x z y" for example, moron!

IHBT by deranged autismal assburgers who don't know shit about shit but are convinced that their condition has a side effect of making them clever, again :(

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-01 13:42

>2011
>Still using Lisp
-_-

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-02 7:28

>>63
special syntax as opposed to no syntax, ie as opposed to s-expressions like (lambda (x) (+ 1 x))

because it is not ever terribly useful to abstract past "lambda", it might as well have syntax. Macros over lambda tend to just be sugar to avoid typing "lambda" anyway.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-02 7:31

>>64
Back to /b/, please.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-02 8:08

>>65
S-Expressions do have syntax. Look at ', the quote operator, for instance.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-02 8:46

>>66
nice dubz /b/ro

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-02 8:50

>>67
' is a special syntax used in Lisps, it has nothing to do with plain S-Expressions.
They do have a syntax, it's:
sexp ::= '(' sexp* [ sexp ' . ' sexp ] ')' | datum
datum ::= symbol | string | number | char | ...

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-02 9:06

>>67
there are bits of syntax in Lisps here and there, but they are for highly universal things like quote. And that's just it: it seems to me like lambda could do with the same treatment.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-02 9:15

>>70
No, because the special syntax is used mostly for quotations, the rest for comments:
'x (quote x)
`x (quasiquote x)
,x (unquote x)
,@x (unquote-splicing x)
#'f (function f)
in CL, (syntax f) in Scheme with syntax-case, (var f) in Clojure.
#`x (quasisyntax x)
#,x (unsyntax x)
#,@x (unsyntax-splicing x)


lambda is more than a trivial quotation, in terms of syntax.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-02 11:53

As a died in the wool Haskeller I wish Haskell had Lisp syntax. It's just easier to edit/easier to manipulate, more regular, more predictable (and therefore easier to read), easier to extend with seamless macros. The only thing I don't quite like about it compared to Haskell is that in Lisp syntax one tends to have a harder time keeping expressions within 80 columns.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-02 11:56

>>71
Modern lisps go with fn. Schemes let you use λ. lambda is about as annoying as JavaScript's function. I prefer fn.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-02 11:58

>>72
I meant dyed. But died in the wool conjures up interesting images, so I'll leave it in.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-02 12:13

>>73
Clojure also has a nice #(+ 10 %) shortcut.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-02 12:18

>>72
Qi.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-02 12:33

>>73
I only use λ for short procedures (i.e., (λ (x) (+ x 1))), lambda for the rest:

(with-anus
 (λ () ; too much wasted space
  ...1
  ...2))
(with-anus
 (λ () ...1 ; too much indentation, looks ugly.
       ...2))
(with-anus
 (lambda () ; ok for me.
  ...1
  ...2))


I prefer lambda/λ, because it's more likely to use fn/fun/proc than λ as variable name.

>>75
SRFI-26 does it without the need of some special syntax.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-02 13:42

>>77
cut is a keystrokes bloated ill-designed shit.

1) It uses TWO chars <> instead of ONE % and THREE cut instead of ONE again #. It's not forgivable for a mechanism the sole purpose of which is to safe typing.

2) It doesn't support permutation or duplications of arguments. In Clojure you can do #(hax %2 % % %3), with SRFI-26 (cut hax <> <> <>) means (lambda (x y z) (hax x y z)) and you can't do anything else with it.

Conclusion: SRFI-26 is shit.

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-02 14:59

>>78
That's why nobody uses it: use λ. If you need something more than what cut can do, you should probably use lambda directly. Hell, what is this, Perl?

Name: Anonymous 2011-08-03 5:31


Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List