Okay

Do we actually program, any of us, here? or is this just a troll board for people to get mad at each other "EAT SHIT AND DIE LISPFAG" without actually having ever used lisp or understood it...

The only troll here is the one hating on lisp.

Lisp is shit, parenthesized.

>>2
Go fuck an autistic nigger.

lets be clear on this, Lisp, ML, Haskell, etc are all good for what they were designed for, to be information processing languages. Were talking extraction of information out of data. People who say "Lisp is superior" are academics talking out of their ass because they have never used a programming language for business or commercial applications where you have to constantly maintain state. Im getting sick of AbleSuss trolling /prog/ and /g/ with their "Lisp over all" attitude. Yes its a powerful language, yes it is still probablly the most powerful language for what it does. But its just a tool in the toolbox, other languages are equally valid and probably more useful for common programming tasks.

>>4
and to add to that, Sussman should take a look at Guy Steele (with whom he designed Scheme with) and see all the different languages he uses and has been a part of designing (he has been on standards committee for C, CL, Java, Fortran, etc)

People in the 1980 saw lisp as an unusable, inconsistent, annoying pile of shit, while they were creating languages like the ML family, C++ etc.

When we dump C++ for Haskell, we move forward.  When you dump C++ for lisp you are not moving forward like you love to think, you are moving backward from the 1980 straight into the 1960s.

>>4
What do you think about FRP for an expressive kind of state management?

>>7
I say that programmers dont work in a purely functional world, that the whole idea of pure functionality is a lie. These are not my words, watch this video by people whos job it is to build functional programming tools:
http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Lang-NEXT/Lang-NEXT-2012/Panel-Web-and-Cloud-Programming

>>8
I know, but neither do we live in a world with infinite memory in computers. We also don't live in a world with true parallelism (meaning there's no guarantee that all threads actually run in parallel). However these abstractions are useful to make development faster and easier to do/understand.

So I ask again, what do you think of using FRP to do expressive state handling?

>>8
Logic states purely functional programs cannot be interacted: we cannot enter new data into the system nor can we ever receive data from it. Therefore, not all parts of the system can possibly be purely functional if it is intended to be practical. That doesn't mean we should dismiss functional programming altogether.

>>9
I agree that the smalltalk style of object orientation has been completely neglected (not withstanding languages like Obj-C and Ruby which use a superficial smalltalk style). As far as state handling: this kind of OO encourages self modifying code and a lot of other things. Smalltalk is on my list of languages to learn.

>>4
Lisp can implement any of your shitty languages easier than you can use your shitty languages to implement Lisp.

>>12
Why would I want to implement Lisp? why would Lisp want to implement my language?  you're crazy-talking.

>>13
That's true, there's no reason why a Lisp programmer would want to implement something as horrendous as C++.

>>12
Lisp can implement any of your shitty languages easier than you can use your shitty languages to implement Lisp.
Im fully aware of that. Lisp is a metaprogramming language that creates languages. So what? The fact that you have to build everything bottom up is still something most programmers do not need to do to accomplish common tasks. Youre suffering from Tesla syndrome, you try and impress people with academic parlor tricks that have no value for common problem solving.

>> 4

Lisp isn't particularly functional or has any problems "maintaining state". It's really normal except for a quirky syntax and macros, all of its weird academic features were sucked up by mainstream languages long ago.

Why people still swoon over it is mostly because the contenders in the same category (python,ruby,perl) suck balls.

>>16
Maybe it's because it's a powerful and elegant language.

>>17
math is powerful and elegant, the question is do you just sit and gawk at its beauty or do you use it for something. A smart person learns Lisp, learns lessons about metaprogramming and adapts that to other areas of programming, like statically typed ML, or the best use of templates in C++, mixed functional/OO programming in Scala or Smalltalk or whatever.

>>17

Maybe, but what I mean is you could probably get most of what makes lisp good without sexprs. It just happens that the attempts so far have been kludgy basement hacks that happened to become popular.

>>15
Tesla syndrome
gb2 sucking edison's rotted cock, ``faggot"

>>15
>you try and impress people with academic parlor tricks that have no value for common problem solving.

If you don't know how to use the features offered in lisp for practical problem solving, then you are simply not a competent  lisp programmer. It isn't hard to find a solution for something in lisp where other languages fall short, although these applications are usually very special purpose and narrow. Nevertheless, they still seem to always come up. But one could argue that lisp always falls short with its syntax and readability.


>>19
All you need is a consistent grammar and the ability to manipulate the syntax tree. So it actually isn't that hard to implement. It might even be easy to use.

>>21
Im starting to like the shitposting on /prog/ better than the lispfags, at least shitposters come up with original ideas instead of droning out the same shit over and over. OK, lets try this AGAIN
If you don't know how to use the features offered in lisp for practical problem solving, then you are simply not a competent  lisp programmer.
wow!! no shit sherlock!! you have to know the features of a language in order to be competent in that language....WHO WOULD HAVE KNOWN?!?!

>It isn't hard to find a solution for something in lisp where other languages fall short, although these applications are usually very special purpose and narrow.
Lisp is a metalanguage...SO FUCKING WHAT?? BNF is a metalanguage, regexps are a metalanguage. People use metalanguages when they are required. The fact that you think that Lisp is superior to all other languages because it can emulate all other languages shows what a dipshit you are.

But one could argue that lisp always falls short with its syntax and readability.
Yeah, you could argue that, because most people understand that using a metalanguage requires constantly building scaffolding and making everything from scratch. That doesnt make it a better language, that just means its more adaptable and composable in regards to syntax.

Im sick of hearing people rattle on and on about Lisp like it is the ultimate programming that humans could ever attain. The fact is that you are nothing but a parrot squaking about what competent programmers already know, you somehow think the power of Lisp is your little secret that no one understands. Just fuck off already

>>22
All I'm asking is that you try using lisp for a practical problem before declaring that it can't be used for practical problems.

you falsely insist that a langauge with features for meta programming must lack other features. This isn't true, and common lisp is in fact a cluster fuck of disorganized features. That does apply to scheme though.

If you dislike contact with lisp users so, then why are you on an BBS for programming? Don't you know, this is the only place where we thrive? And by thrive, I mean do nothing productive, ranting about the flaws of popular languages and convincing people to waste their time with our dead langauge.

And by thrive, I mean do nothing productive, ranting about the flaws of popular languages and convincing people to waste their time with our dead langauge.
well that clears things up, I wish someone would have said that in the beginning

I code Lisp and troll this board before bed.
>>22
リスプ isn't even a metalanguage, its an austere version of XML that for some chunks of it happens to be executable.

>>25
another fucking idiot who thinks he has higher knowledge of Lisp
リスプ isn't even a metalanguage, its an austere version of XML that for some chunks of it happens to be executable.
well XML is a metalanguage, so you think Lisp is a metalanguage that executes, but you think Lisp is not a metalanguage because youre a fucking Jap idiot

any other Lisp geniuses out there want to tell me something about Lisp you think I dont know?

>>27
lambda calc ya ass

>>25
Assuming you were >>22 you were lumping in Lisp with BNF and regexp. The point is that Lisp is more analogous to a plain text file with lines that happen to have BNF code upon it, than BNF itself. In other words, it is a structured storage mechanism for which you could store anything you want.

Also, a metalanguage is by formal definition a language about a language. BNF and regexp can only pretty much do things like that. A subset of XML (that Lisp doesn't have, remember, austere) does this declaratively for that purpose through its SGML heritage. Lisp can store a metalanguage but none is specified in plain Lisp syntax, that's the job of the Lisp subfamily or implementations with actual form definitions.

Jap idiot
Lol! You even made a new thread over this. I like the vigor.

>>29
I'll admit I shouldnt have used BNF and regexp as an example of metalanguages, but the rest of your broken english gook babble isnt worth commenting on

Three years and I'm still amazed at how easy this board is to troll.

I'm going to let someone have them dubs.

>>32
thanks bro

>>32
2012-06-07 14:33
You sure about that?