???????????????? ????????????????????????
1
Name:
2012-11-25 16:29
???????????? ???????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????? ( ???????????? ????????????????????????????) ???????????????????????????????? ???????? ????????????????? ????????????????????????????????, ???????????? ???????????????? ???????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????? ???????????????????????? ???????? ???????????? ???????????????????? ???????????????? ???????????????????? ???????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????? ???????? ?????????????????????????????????????????
2
Name:
Anonymous
2012-11-25 16:35
how do you write like a faggot like that?
3
Name:
Anonymous 2012-11-25 16:52
/polecat keHogwarts
4
Name:
Anonymous 2012-11-25 17:16
All I see are Unicode squares.
5
Name:
Anonymous
2012-11-25 17:20
Since im on mac everything is SOOOOOOOOOOO EASY
6
Name:
Anonymous 2012-11-25 17:21
>>5
I see squares because I haven't installed a good Unicode font.
Good for you, OS X has a preinstalled Unicode font.
7
Name:
Anonymous
2012-11-25 17:27
>>4-6
Unicode is a western plot to subjugate countries who know a real language.
Murderer.
8
Name:
Anonymous
2012-11-25 18:04
>>1
I think you'll need a type system or at least some sort of multimethods.
10
Name:
Anonymous 2012-11-25 18:33
elegantly
11
Name:
Anonymous
2012-11-25 18:43
>>10
Sometimes you just need to pull a macro because the same pattern repeats over and over.
12
Name:
Anonymous
2012-11-25 18:58
䍷砒怦桃䐠㠤ŵ瞉夡䅩ᆔ閂戃ह妁ဴᅘ䆒啅杶餣醗摥夙㞀剠ᥐᑢ钅e⦃ҁ頡儸芃鐃呓癖ㅖ⠱㜰片䦇蘘錖掗ݗ慹≩脸椅䝰聄ፙㄱⁱ逤㜘ر褨䈗垁Ѣኑ≸嚓㤧⍥硕餣ᘨ吤戗剡䍖慦᜔⑩酤㤹㆐䦘Ȅㅈ⒂杂㤆✗掖獃ؐ⤗偀睐╀㑂㡳虤㙧㙑ᐦ牧斀ᔵ耷锕銁т奵͐╰✣ㅴ䌈䕘⍄ٲ襵ᝑ鄤焘舥圦墉㢙〴⊕蔳塴顔䖅⤐腆镁衧≃舖ᤙ鉈ᕐ攒ĖቒѶ唇膒蔀癗們យ覄恱陲Łᐴ㌲虧剒蘳錂䀉ᘵ锩鄢䜓ሄ♂逡䆁抁䘢塓蘗呑祑钔⍤匥ᑲ蠨ပ⒐椨瘲ݲ᠙戔灶斘戶②ᑡ腑⒓႖蕹ऄ礖㕃劘顳鐹㡆鄥∈ᅕ夳䦈䖆䔈⤅ॆጡ䠹范炅ጐᒆ❡扉ʅ㖒荗ሔ妄玙ፅ㝆閖螉儵覑奧搴㥧鍢㤠瘨㕷ᑨ靘ॄ陗脶ࡣ慣錤䙓獃䈤≑蝖蝗嘙㈦礀ፀ蔣霸墇鍹て煑厂⤹⌁蚘瀀え䠩衵ᥤ朄⒒㕇ᒂ顖ጷ楆〈啶卢虣҅䐅ᝈ㢄㠑饳攗茘邉鈁ᥥɡ╙䀤9腧唡匡肓蒂爰㥙䘥呰蔂ᠩ杒坣䡖䙅ᅐ蠖蔶呹嘙㠹⢖暈鐑م堉腆ᐓ傒技ځ䔷坰瀑䍤䐧耴挲饖҃奀瑂ሑ逥ѧ㑡睗᎘㔴蚄〳熘ᅵ煒堉遷㡙鞒᎓㆙ࠧ慅震㙷琀衆㑣䉐ᅃ鍣匇ᖀ褰邂ф須茈ゐ顃҂Հ祴䡁䅨ٶ瘰ጂ㜸蚔㜦怀㌅▓㙢餕题祸Ζ㈁颗㡂ࠤ甴锖焆全錵ၦ㦓傗Ԩ➕⌡㔡ᙦ閔葠指⚕値㊈鈹嚗‒灈椵顨₀螑昘偣硒艖╄聣犐灀⁁喁䑨獱ቹ❦嘶蘐⠃㘐鄘ᐔ⁀摱㈁䢙祘酕䜱ᥑ㔡䜅莓ᠲ蕲㉧昄ဳ㦙瘕塢锥嘕䎉ڐᑨ㔈⠅ܖ蘵ᔕ蕤昨ᐵ䢇ᅱ焒™Ȩ♰Ŧ蕵慐䡆
13
Name:
Anonymous
2012-11-25 19:29
䜉䢑玆萴ᐥ蜙脸砇蚔ぇ蝥摑愣䚓锇朁┐皇鞀猘憓遘单頠愔鄗᐀✰逘剦搇Ű䚈礘㡥顃倷栨ℙ卨戲褔တ眰芄ф喃栄└❆墇䌩㉳薕獢阂蔩鉈㑒и悑杖呵ࠣあ昢酦ᆒ㌔ᙀ摅鉃衆祶ᕢ礖ℴ䠹晶⢅昱ԙœᕒ愧耲䅥桁琢吧甀鉦獉➕冐ࠥ䐖疇艦䠈嘈ɸ鐀☵靱㘆陷䌶爧剠⍈ʔ葱儢虲ᠹነ撖ᑵ奸嚖呶颂劒㆔阆聕ㅙ刣܆椨䠆∇✤脄倠礦✉ᤴ坐㥳腕夤ᅃ扁䀡砉ᝓ鑳䙇礗⍠╴禁皙⥳㜗劃ᡄ䙴Ȅ㞈㘲ॕⅲᔓ䜨㐖㕱㑩ᐙ䀣噔ࡁ遠硦䂒․隒ࡒ蒗猗㞖慧⤤❨蠃螓獁ॶ犒䁑䈤㦃ѵ鑉艗億愇蘤呈傕Ŕ戓Ѵ隁㠂ᡐ怘塹ᝣ嘕蘹送㘘ᝄ㎀㕠ℐ酃阡㐡Ĩ࠱舂梑➄⊑兓灘鈥茙ょ最慂ⅸ砀悄Ȧ匓ᑁ፤∤碑遗㙖锧ᕥᡗ視甑䠨閆墓✱噄肃瑰餒錓㘄ፙŔ颇楴䘃ፅ䤩や敆虩甔䘹兔錈Uሡ恸䥴ᐲᐐ䉐⅂夀ᙹ坴∴厃Ѩ煇㈈┧陧攩ㅅ蔣奅遗䑖蔸嘉⥶鄶㕘ᐣ₉栓䎖畄ᑔᥤ焷熈厀逴ͣ桐偢脐ݡ针楩䙢ѵ㞒䡈ᑶ⑲㠈㕖႗⡩Ȥ荦栳酃蔅㚖偤酦茄猑ぁ㙁蔨慶ㆂ䎅刐蘇噔钀ᢗɃ楧坧ᅵ頄ĩᖙ㍧椆瘕膐⊇Љ₈ㄓ瑳㉀木ᥔ腩↙䡙ᢘ昩喁⌤䡰㝱睨⥆十㐑睇ȹ阹鈐挧荒⠄喅砠悈杘荹Ԣ㙕㝥ॉᐠ瘹瘂䢉㔕䞂硕咐䘷ႄ〨ㄱ蔷隒䜗䄕ऄՓ逩肒嚓枉ᘘ撔璅眀ぶŠ㤒襸敐犀匶獕❲ࠧ砦唂✢餣㢄㉃ᥱ䍗▃ᜦ鎃䈇Ↄ㐕犗邃✖餉爦儂噢挤☖猤具瀈⡄呰⌃蝄蔕⢖兠ↄ䅣㍆逵㒖㔴ا邗椢镱䘨硵䈴睑ᑧኗ癅☔畢ម堷耳炕㜐␂
14
Name:
Anonymous 2012-11-26 2:50
15
Name:
Anonymous 2012-11-26 2:50
16
Name:
Anonymous 2012-11-26 2:50
17
Name:
Anonymous 2012-11-26 2:51
18
Name:
Anonymous
2012-11-26 2:51
Bump because on-topic.
19
Name:
Anonymous 2012-11-26 3:48
>>1
Monads are useless in lisp.
20
Name:
Anonymous
2012-11-26 3:55
>>19
Why? I feel extremely lonely and I'd really like to talk to someone about these things. Does untyped lambda calculus, coupled with mutation, macros, and multimethods, really fill every possible ``use case''?
21
Name:
Anonymous
2012-11-26 4:06
>>19
Not really. You can design computations that remain purely function using monads.
22
Name:
Anonymous
2012-11-26 5:00
>>19
You can kiss mo nads.
23
Name:
Anonymous
2012-11-26 9:53
桖瀴牒㜧兑⠩脤䤁眷▒鐳圈ၲ餐垉煘Ԓㆈ☐ڃ瘅榅摨瑗㡉杠蜢㍂⠑䔵䝖䝑㢅㝡妁چ夐咂顷᥇㡸Բ蜁ሆф犘ㅴ啥煁ᖉ焲荤饖獓顰ࡒ‒摩靗㡅䒐顀‷瘇⅘䠷顱錙䖗䆇荳钐⒈鑕蕷钃㔂ㄶう⌡塃ըᑷ㝤饀䌠᠈㝀熉枀ᜨ蘴␢鄐垑蝳虉䒇ሆ႑餑㘢ⅵ〷錈╔時芀㘶ࡲ㈓斃䔖㈦圙茤夃祐㕠腠薓むڃ硃㤙㠐ㅢ甀顁銂鉗饧舃醆܅灗萦遈≃邗暗蘐ᄑᅁ酸⅘衸虰⍵鈳鄠㚇⅄␉刐艕▆閔䘣犂∵⁷ⅅ⌲瀸塂祴䆓閗ȃ灳獀㡅䀇銖刈ቹ⑤瑁⍖┇嚗∧桲䑗芉镣呡㚄ᅹ灗ᚕ钄™妈҉ᙄ堥㒐ॖ捶扑㊈朸肈镕㥴奃吢を≥䍓唆䒙璈䒒䔥㆑蘐䤣〔卶儱ぅ⦐剂煒皔硉割疆䁢偈鈳㕁䥠ږ㝀┈恀䦗聐衤噅墂萆⡂Ո٦選夓䁶悈锃㍈颗墖煗⑧㝀膖䈓┶䑄㥴扔鐒Ƃሤ㉦甡Ă䉴ᑐᤇ炒ᅅ砵襥酅ፖ饣䔴舐䚀㍱玑䝕选螙圳杤蚃猠酑瑦␘䄗摇䤤牱卐蠉ٗ搄褦鐓ृ禕㎇處眀䜆䡲ɴ戔靷锶鄁ቃ堢椓蘤蜧❓鞂䤡鞉鉢焃䠴䈳畖猑钘ℐإ桷ƕ堈㤰奨恱㍔㑄抖ᄘॗ敦鑣䈒爈蕱㦃㜥ᔕ蠨器ᄢ䍅卓炗荓鍈悙村饶ᠡ逅䘳⡙葕❸噳猄┠挴䠃塢荙搐̘捁塸㜐ᕇ馀嘴ܲ堩覆䍆灑䕧⦂皔㐥☳蔦錂挄甓啢錸冖⤥劗灔⅙锦㉐㜓㔹墆㤩ᘨ२脖ᤧ霄逓䤂ᘨ构耥鍧錖捉ፖ瘐㕔瑱ᔶ㌲蜔㍖䀄葤䅱刲➐礔գ咒㘶ㄱ☀灐锠醃碆➓䡖抄ƒ醕ᖄ昂挆匲䜱蒅ᅰڄ陶恵͇䍲♡脥ဳ邂ጲ呃〗焀酳吵㜑䥤࠲㔀㡥襰㒘效Ȁ͖ᔹ栧鞐䞔傖
25
Name:
Anonymous
2012-11-26 16:56
Programming-related.
26
Name:
Anonymous
2012-11-26 17:06
☯
27
Name:
Anonymous 2012-11-26 17:20
28
Name:
20
2012-11-26 18:46
Anyone?
29
Name:
Anonymous
2012-11-26 22:59
30
Name:
Anonymous 2012-11-26 23:01
Lisp can't into functional programming, so Lisp can't monads.
31
Name:
Anonymous
2012-11-27 0:32
>>30
I very much disagree.
32
Name:
Anonymous
2012-11-27 0:35
>>1
No.
Lisp is not a purely functional language. It is multiparadigm, it is up to the programmer to use the language as he wants. It doesn't force a programmer to think in a particular way(Unlike your shitty "Haskell").
33
Name:
Anonymous
2012-11-27 1:33
>>32
My question is whether monads can be used to emulate all side-effects in a non-Haskell non-pig-disgusting manner.
34
Name:
Anonymous 2012-11-27 5:56
square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square square
35
Name:
Anonymous
2012-11-27 8:30
36
Name:
Anonymous
2012-11-27 11:41
37
Name:
Anonymous
2012-11-28 4:03
38
Name:
Anonymous
2012-11-28 7:44
Come on.
39
Name:
Anonymous
2012-11-28 13:39
This is a rhetorical only question.
40
Name:
Anonymous
2012-11-28 13:50
41
Name:
Anonymous
2012-11-28 17:02
42
Name:
1,20,33
2012-11-28 17:28
43
Name:
Anonymous
2012-11-28 17:35
???????????????????????????? ???????? ????????????????
44
Name:
Anonymous
2012-11-29 0:24
please reply, at least some links would be helpful.
45
Name:
Anonymous
2012-11-29 1:10
Check out Qi lisp. It has several horrible design decisions, but I think there are some things to be learned.
46
Name:
Anonymous
2012-11-29 19:39
47
Name:
Anonymous
2012-11-30 13:47
48
Name:
Anonymous 2012-12-01 13:52
>>43
???????????????? ???????? ???????? ????????????????????.
???? ???????????????? ???? ???????????? ???????????????? ???????????????? ???????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????.