/prog/ - which languages have the most beautiful

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 7:13

... implementation of numbers?

scheme, with its numerical tower?
haskell?

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 7:41

C

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 7:55

>>2

Why would anyone use C in the 21st century?

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 8:30

I love Scheme's numerical tower, Haskell's Num typeclass is known to be fundamentally bad. Something like Numeric Prelude would be just perfect.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 10:21

As someone who uses it on a regular basis, Haskell is ugly as fuck. If only you could combine Lisp with the community and libraries of Haskell.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 10:33

>>3

Device drivers
Operating systems
Anything that needs to be fast...

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 11:01

>>6
Why not use PL/I? That's what Multics, CP/M and some IBM OSes were written in.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 11:03

>>4
Once again you don't know what you're talking about. Psstt...a few months ago some genius posted the one line Haskell program that could calculate the factorial of 1000.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 11:22

>>8
Haskell is shit, even brainfuck is better.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 11:26

>>9
It's kind of funny how parts of Perl 6 use Haskell instead of Scheme.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 11:37

<< check my implementation of dubs

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 11:40

>>4
as somebody who doesn't know, what is so bad about haskell numerical classes?

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 11:47

>>10
Perl 6 is also shit.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 13:07

No statically typed language can have beautiful numbers, because math isn't statically typed. The type of a number depends on its value, and value is run-time. So the same piece of code can produce numbers of different type based on the run-time inputs. This cannot be statically determined. For instance division of integers is sometimes int x int -> int and sometimes int x int -> ratio.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-21 10:37

>>14

14 you blew my mind

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-21 11:22

>>7
Ok, but is there any reason to use it over C?

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-21 11:31

>>14
But, for some applications, it's more feasible to use fast floating point approximations than precise math.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-21 11:39

Scheme minus syntax-objects.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-21 11:47

>>17
But, for some applications, it's more feasible to use fast floating point approximations than precise math.

Again, instead of giving your uneducated response on things, why don't you just shut the fuck up and write some code. Better yet, do us all a favor, and just go kill yourself.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-21 12:19

>>19
But how is <<17 uneducated?
And yours is anything but educated.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-21 12:33

>>20
go scrub a toilet

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-21 12:45

>>21
Nice answer, now everyone is a kodak-san wannabe.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-21 13:07

>>22
You should feel honored to have someone like me on this board. For real. You all learned more about C from me over the course of two weeks than what you probably learned over the course of two years.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-21 13:10

>>18
How the fuck are syntax objects related to Scheme's numerical tower. R5RS doesn't even have syntax objects, you goddamn 0chan-level retarded.

which languages have the most beautiful

1 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 7:13

2 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 7:41

3 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 7:55

4 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 8:30

5 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 10:21

6 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 10:33

7 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 11:01

8 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 11:03

9 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 11:22

10 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 11:26

11 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 11:37

12 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 11:40

13 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 11:47

14 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 13:07

15 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-21 10:37

16 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-21 11:22

17 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-21 11:31

18 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-21 11:39

19 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-21 11:47

20 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-21 12:19

21 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-21 12:33

22 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-21 12:45

23 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-21 13:07

24 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-21 13:10