/prog/ - or prefix postfix or

Name: Anonymous 2012-04-22 16:42

infix get out

Name: Anonymous 2012-04-22 16:52

>>1
prefix infix and shit are

fuck-off die and

Name: Anonymous 2012-04-22 16:59

Postfix is easiest to implement, prefix is easiest to read. Infix is just a huge mess.

Name: Anonymous 2012-04-22 17:28

God-Tier: (* (/ 20 4) (+ (- 5 2) (/6 9))) Backwards-Tier: ((20 4 /) ((5 2 -) (6 9 /) +) *) Retarded-Tier: ((20 / 4) * ((5 - 2) + (6 / 9)))

Name: Anonymous 2012-04-22 17:46

>>4
)))))))

Name: Anonymous 2012-04-22 18:01

>>4
Unreadable-Tier: (* (/ 20 4) (+ (- 5 2) (/6 9))) Retarded-Tier: ((20 4 /) ((5 2 -) (6 9 /) +) *) Irregular-Tier: ((20 / 4) * ((5 - 2) + (6 / 9))) Regular-and-readable-Tier: * {20 / 4} {{5 - 2} + {6 / 9}} ; sweet-expressions

Name: Anonymous 2012-04-22 20:00

>>5
As opposed to the vastly superior and much more concise language of XML:
</variable></add></operation></subtract></divide></divide></multiply></math></root>

Name: Anonymous 2012-04-22 20:08

>>4

S-exp-Tier:

(* (/ 20 4) (+ (- 5 2) (/ 6 9)))

RPN-Tier:

((20 4 /) ((5 2 -) (6 9 /) +) *)

Math-Tier:

((20 / 4) * ((5 - 2) + (6 / 9)))

Don't be a dick. They all have their uses

Name: Anonymous 2012-04-22 20:10

>>7
Java is vastly superior and much more concise language than COBOL. Does that make it good?

I rest my case.

Name: Anonymous 2012-04-22 20:20

>>8
Yes, they all have their uses such as keeping retards busy in various ways:
- mentally matching parentheses
- mentally matching functions and arguments
- writing tons of boilerplate because proper macros are fairly difficult to get when surface syntax takes over 10 pages of BNF to describe

Name: Anonymous 2012-04-22 20:50

Dubs

Name: Anonymous 2012-04-22 22:43

>>10
>2012
>still doesn't have syntax highlighting nor auto-paran complete from slime

Name: Anonymous 2012-04-23 2:04

>>12
I wouldn't like that Lisp-2 bullshit anywhere near my computer.

Name: Anonymous 2012-04-23 12:47

>>12
Yeah, fixing programming language flaws in the editor -- that's real smart. Go fuck yourself, faggot.

Name: Anonymous 2012-04-23 13:36

>>10
If you're programming in a functional language anyway, why not just redefine the syntax? Make your own Haskell prelude, remove the Lisp world and reinvent it, whatever fits your fancy

Name: Anonymous 2012-04-23 14:02

15 posts and no one mentions the fact that postfix has the advantage of being directly parse-able from left to right with nothing more than a simple pushdown automaton:

((20 4 /) ((5 2 -) (6 9 /) +) *) 20 4 / 5 2 - 6 9 / + * push 20 push 4 divide push 5 push 2 subtract push 6 push 9 divide add multiply

The parenthesis are not necessary because the left-to-right reading order already implies the order of operations. The result of the expression is the last value left on the stack.

Name: Anonymous 2012-04-23 14:29

>>16
Apparently you don't know what RPN means

Name: Anonymous 2012-04-23 14:31

>>17
Reverse Polish Notation. It's just a more offensive way of saying "postfix." Apparently YOU don't know what it means.

Name: Anonymous 2012-04-23 15:29

>>18
You didn't think it implicit that RPN-Tier came with all the benefits of, you know, RPN? Are you being deliberately dense?

Name: Anonymous 2012-04-23 15:46

>>19
Then I guess you should have thought it implicit that "postfix" came with all the benefits of, you know, "postfix." And the thread should have ended with >>1.

Toilets and midgets to you, my friend.

Name: Anonymous 2012-04-23 17:03

>>16
See >>3.

Name: Anonymous 2012-04-23 17:36

>>20
Yes, actually, it should have

Name: Anonymous 2012-04-23 18:37

>>15
Lisp might be unreadable (at least in its pure-sexpr form), but Haskell is somehow worse.

Name: Anonymous 2012-04-23 20:07

Perl6

infix
say 1 + 2;

rpn (kind of)
say [+]<1 2>;

Name: Anonymous 2012-04-23 20:13

postfix needs no braces, therefore it wins

and lisp loses by default

Name: Anonymous 2012-04-23 23:26

>>25 prefix also does not need braces, but noone seems to use prefix without braces.

Name: Anonymous 2012-04-23 23:49

リ
ス
プ
。

Name: bampu pantsu 2012-05-29 4:34

bampu pantsu

or prefix postfix or

1 Name: Anonymous 2012-04-22 16:42

2 Name: Anonymous 2012-04-22 16:52

3 Name: Anonymous 2012-04-22 16:59

4 Name: Anonymous 2012-04-22 17:28

5 Name: Anonymous 2012-04-22 17:46

6 Name: Anonymous 2012-04-22 18:01

7 Name: Anonymous 2012-04-22 20:00

8 Name: Anonymous 2012-04-22 20:08

9 Name: Anonymous 2012-04-22 20:10

10 Name: Anonymous 2012-04-22 20:20

11 Name: Anonymous 2012-04-22 20:50

12 Name: Anonymous 2012-04-22 22:43

13 Name: Anonymous 2012-04-23 2:04

14 Name: Anonymous 2012-04-23 12:47

15 Name: Anonymous 2012-04-23 13:36

16 Name: Anonymous 2012-04-23 14:02

17 Name: Anonymous 2012-04-23 14:29

18 Name: Anonymous 2012-04-23 14:31

19 Name: Anonymous 2012-04-23 15:29

20 Name: Anonymous 2012-04-23 15:46

21 Name: Anonymous 2012-04-23 17:03

22 Name: Anonymous 2012-04-23 17:36

23 Name: Anonymous 2012-04-23 18:37

24 Name: Anonymous 2012-04-23 20:07

25 Name: Anonymous 2012-04-23 20:13

26 Name: Anonymous 2012-04-23 23:26

27 Name: Anonymous 2012-04-23 23:49

28 Name: bampu pantsu 2012-05-29 4:34