in the order you studied them and rate your experience with it.
C - too much focus on the language itself rather than the goal
Java - never again
C++ - it's like C and Java had sex together and Java commited abortion
Ruby - it was pretty much enjoyable despite the limited time I spent on it
Python - too easy, too slow
Scheme - too complicated for my shallow mind but I like it
``> C++ - it's like C and Java had sex together and Java commited abortion"
Then you don't know the language very well.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-02 9:59
C - nice for writing a little high-performance lib, but never a full-fledged app.
C++ - a terrible, archaic, dangerous mess.
Java - excellent, simple and beautiful OOP.
Ruby - nice simple little language for minor scripting
Python - a shitty, inconsistent, ugly cousin of Ruby
Haskell - you spend more type conjuring type-foo and fucking with monad transformers than actually coding
Common Lisp - a very unique, dynamic language with the most powerful OOP system ever
Scheme - a simplified, shitty version of Common Lithp
ATS - tried to learn it but was buried under heaps of hard-to-understand foo
Ada - what C++ should've been; a nice imperative OOP generic concurrent language, albeit with a very verbose syntax
Clojure - if you want to Lithp AND devour loads of memory while using shitty Javalibs, it's for you
Scala - people wanted to do type systems research and didn't find a better place to tack it on than JVM; the result is a sad shitpile of unreadable and unwritable boilerplate
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-02 10:16
BASIC various flavors: Apple, Atari, TI - ok for a beginning language I guess
TI 99/4A assembly - now this was interesting, made a few games
Fortran - didn't like very much
C - better than fortran at least
MATLAB - nice language though rather domain specific, has a few quirks
x86 assembly - good for register level control interface stuff, plus part of CPU design course
AHDL - good for application specific logic
ladder logic - holy shit, not doing that ever again
TI DSP assembly - hey, let's make some signal filters
Perl - great for mangling text
QBasic - does that count?
Visual Basic 3 - Easy to learn, painfully slow even for the time.
C++ - At this point it seemed like a breath of fresh air
C# - Very easy. I know it gets disparaged or ignored around here, but it's by far the most powerful language when you factor in dev time.
JavaScript - I love JavaScript. Sorry. It will blow up in your face, but that's because it's the only language where "run anywhere" is actually enforced in practice. Also because of its terrible scoping.
Python - I don't get why this is so popular. It seems fussy and weak. Fast to develop compared to C, maybe.
Java - A fucking mess maintained by space cadets with no concern for the language's users.
Octave (Matlab clone) - Very powerful. I am spoiled by IDEs, but this is the best language for a lot of tasks. Probably underused.
Ruby - Yet another.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-02 11:53
>>11 here
Sorry, obviously some C in there too. In practice it is tough to maintain a large codebase in C. You're fine as long as all your coworkers are really smart. Still slow to get anything done.
Also does bash count? I like bash.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-02 11:57
>>11 again
Also x86 assembly. I don't work in hardware so obviously I haven't done more than just mess around, but it's kind of cool. A good extreme example of easy to learn, hard to master.
>>5 Java - excellent, simple
Ruby - nice simple little language for minor scripting
Python - a shitty, inconsistent, ugly cousin of Ruby
What?
Java is not simple at all. Funny how you think Ada is verbose but Java isn't.
Ruby is not simple at all either. It has an ambiguous as fuck syntax. FIOC might be shit but at least it's somewhat consistent and there aren't Perl-like operators or shit like that.
>>14
Can't we have one civil discussion about programming without someone being told to go back to something? Are you 13? Do you need the group's approval?
You're quite right, though, Java is only simple in that it lacks important features.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-02 13:00
>>14
Agreed. I found Ruby harder than C/C++, which had only templates as the most complicated part.
>>19
E/G/IN MEME LE /G/ROSKI XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
>LE MEME FACE.JP/G/
XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-02 14:25
C - Good for small libs/modules.
C++ - Insanely powerful language, from which you only use 20%.
Java - I am quite sure the creator of java will write a article about how far programmers can be pushed before they take out a whole office.
Scheme - Elegant, consistent, nice, clean semantics, but not too useful for normal work.
Lisp - Less elegant, clean semantics, consistent, but actually useful for normal work.
Perl - For all things, which are boring and are in CPAN.
PHP - This is not a general programming language, but a broken template language. Never use for real work.
Haskell - Elegant, simple, powerful and easy to use. Unfortunately not yet usable for the real world. Fine for web applications or financial stuff. But don't try to make a desktop application. GUI libraries are quite unusable.
Javascript - Like it less than lua, but ok choice for an embedded scripting language.
Lua - Good choice for an embedded scripting language.
Python - This is a mess, inconsistent and threading doesn't work in 2.7 and they won't fix it.
it is easy to implement as scripting language in your programs. You don't need to like it, your users needs to like it. I don't like it too much myself. I don't have much love for weakly dynamically typed languages. And every idiot can write simple javascript or lua.
Lua is more consistent.
If you need to program in javascript, coffeescript makes it more bearable.
Some people don't have a rich Russian oligarch dad and need to work for their food. I am not coding javascript in my free time. Mostly haskell, intercalated with C. Sometimes typed racket/racket, which are scheme dialects.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-02 15:43
>>24
Then write a macro to expand it at compile time.
Name:
L. A. Calculus!!wKyoNUUHDOmjW7I2013-06-02 15:50
NONE OF U KNO C COS NONE OF U HAVE RED DA FUCKIN STANDARD.
>>31
Who said you have to program for a living? You can even lift crates and make a living with that. You probably live alone, so you shouldn't waste much.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-02 15:54
>>34
Hardly, have a wife and 3 kids and a shitload of responsibilities. I have to lift crates 40 hours a day to supply the money I need. Otherwise I would do it without a second thought.
You didn't learn linear algebra, lambda calculus, discrete mathematics and what else you need for programming. In the end programming is applied mathematics, whether you like it or not. Especially if you want the big money.
>>35 Hardly, have a wife and 3 kids
Your own fucking fault. Don't complain about the choices you made yourself.
Back to Reddit, neurotypical fagstorm. Might as well fuck off back to your favorite parenting, sexuality and celebrities gossip site, but I guess Reddit has subre/g/g/its for that.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-02 15:57
calling programming ``coding''
only people born in the 90s do this
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-02 15:58
>>36
The big money is where Jews are at, that is, web shit.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-02 16:00
What kind of idiot would work as a programmer (oh wait, i mean ``code'') ? You deserve all the shit you get.
Right, I forgot to make clear you don't need to know math if you want to make le cloud apps, but I think that's rather obvious, so this comment is probably redundant.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-02 16:01
>>35
Just pay for their food, water, and minimal shelter, and tell them if they want more they'll have to fund it themselves.
Making a permanent hole in your wallet, having to bear the rants of a aging menstruating monster and raising 2 annoying faggots who do nothing but shitting and yelling, in exchange for getting your dick wet for 1 hour (at most).
Terribly sound investment, would upboat on Reddit.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-02 16:10
>>46
Who the fuck cares about a shitty startup after you die? You're truly retarded, man.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-02 16:11
>>38
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
I'M SUCH A NEET XXDDDDDDDDDDDDD
>NUEROTYPICAL FAGSTROM
PEOPLE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ENJOY MAKING MONEY PROGRAMMINGS LEL
I WRITE FIBS IN HASKELL BECAUSE I'M BETTER THAN YOU
>OMG SO LONELY
AT LEAST MY 2HU UNDERSTANDS ME XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
>E/JP/IN
>>55
I'll add an obvious comment, he didn't program in Javashit, Ruby nor web technologies.
I don't understand why you're implying getting married with children == being a successful programmer, though. Also, as far as I know, having friends doesn't mean you'll get married.
Please take a course on foundations of mathematics.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-02 16:22
>>58 Please take a course on foundations of mathematics.
Are you trying to sound smart or something? This has nothing to do with what you posted. Yes you can do babby set theory, big whoop.
take a course
You obviously aren't bright enough to teach yourself with just books, retard.
>>59
Way to change the direction of the discussion.
My post has to do with this because that's not how logic works. You can be single, have friends and be a successful programmer, even it it's researching Haskell, Lisp or anything academic.
You, on the other hand, retort to Reddit-level insults such as "lel enjoy dying alone XD", which don't have any meaning here. You would know that if you really were here since 2004 and didn't come from /g/.
The age I hit puberty is so far away from me now, that I hardly could comprehend your reply. Somehow I model the peer groups around me as typical 30 year olds with reasonable needs. That this model faults on this site, tells me I am probably to old for being here.
>>64
I didn't use words such as "fallacy", "burden of proof" or that kind of crap pseudointellectual redditards love to use. I'm not going "back" there.
>>67
I hit puberty about 30 years ago, which is why I stopped caring about women already.
I don't know what kind of weird expectations you have about this site or what caused them, but you sure are wrong about them. I seriously don't understand you.
Threads like this remind of what a bunch of losers /prog/ is. Not just because you have no jobs and no girlfriends, but that combined with the fact that you know a handful of lexical grammars and pedantically distinguish between words like ``apps'' vs ``programs'' or ``coding'' vs ``programming'', yet know nothing of semantics, nothing of efficiency, nothing of problem solving. You talk big about mathematical purity and how mathematical your shitty little language is, yet you never talk about artificial intelligence, which any third year math student could easily understand. You're not just a neet because it's what all the cool kids on /jp/ are doing it, it's because if you walked into an interview with me with that shitty little list of programming language for which you have a passing familiarity with the syntax, I'd make you eat it, shit it, then eat the shit.
>>71
I behave like an autist and I'm a virgin, yes.
>>72
Go tell your Reddit/g/ros about it, I'm sure they'll comfort you. Not having sex is truly the worst thing you could ever experience after waterboarding and starving in an African desert. You ought to do something about that.
Now, slutting some goyish goily out to catch the cum of a wild pack of niggers while she's horned out on E and filming it to sell to porn sites, and laughing when she finds out she has ghonorreAIDSyphyllamydia and then slutting her out more because now her life is ruined and giving all the niggers all that disease? Well, that's for sure something you're missing out on.
>>82,83
There's a huge difference between not giving a shit or being content with your place in life, and trying to pass off your situation as the ideal one, despite the fact that nobody wants it, but only because they're not on your hefty level, obviously.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-02 17:19
what a bunch of weirdos
none of you are even known internationally as programmers
>>84
I don't give a shit and I'm content with my place in life. My situation is indeed the ideal one for someone like me, and I understand a normal person would probably die out of boredom if they were in my shoes, but the thing is that people choose their own life and come regret about it here, instead going to a more adequate place like Reddit or the ima/g/eboards.
>>11 again
Also x86 assembly. I don't work in hardware so obviously I haven't done more than just mess around, but it's kind of cool. A good extreme example of easy to learn, hard to master.
>>86
The difference between Reddit and /prog/ is that Reddit is where people go to find a like-minded hive. /prog/ is where people go to clash personalities. You seem to think this is your subreddit and we're you're friends. If you want that, fuck off to /r/neet, faggot.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-02 18:14
>>89
What the fuck am I doing right now? Clashing with your autist ass.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-02 18:15
Something like this:
95 Pascal: read a book at age 7, I didn't have a compooter
02 VBA (MS Office 97): actually good, batteries plus docs, I even managed to do some board games!
02 C: plus allegro2D and opengl at the time, and yay! now I have board games outside .doc!
03 C++: overly complex, but actually fun, sort of hackish
06 Pascal: CS intro to prog
07 Delphi: CS intro to OOP
07 Java: CS intro to enterprise prog
08 JS: +HTML+CSS: CS intro to web prog
08 C#: alternative Java for a CS homework
09 Ruby: for rails and hipster web apps =p
09 Bash: moved to linux, and much better than cmd .bat haha
09 Python: for the lulz, looked ok at first, but the my first app was a complete failure
09 Effective C++: haha, cool, but not fun
09 Groovy: enterprise rails
10 Scala: decent language, interesting
11 More Effective C++: bored, C++ anymore =\
11 SICP: /prog/
12 CL: /prog/ strikes back
13 OCaml: revisiting spoj.pl
Name:
912013-06-02 18:26
I forgot Lua + love2d, and a miriad of languages I learned only to make toy programs and come back to C++, Bash or Python (my main development languages)
"CS" isn't actually CS, I did some sort of IT bachelor's, a.k.a., CS without math, AI, CG, PL and LP.
Things I would have liked to learn, but don't care today:
Ada
Fortran (I have a 60s book with punch card templates)
Haskell
May learn soon:
x86
Erlang
My mind is confused, goodbye /prog/
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-02 18:55
C - great for small fast things
C++ - not better than C for small things, not better than Java for OOP
Java - Standard language, ok OOP. Terrible exception system, swing is a mess.
Scala - Java with a very nice flavor of functional programming and lot less boilerplate.
PHP - clusterfuck
Javascript - Who the fuck designed this POS? seriously?
Ruby - A bit strange, but actually nice
Python - language of the gods. Prototyping is lightning fast, the standard library is somewhat sane (and saner on 3.0), no delays with compiling, linking, or breaking makefiles. Amazingly fast for number crunching with numpy - faster than native C
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-02 18:57
C - great for small fast things
C++ - not better than C for small things, not better than Java for OOP
Java - Standard language, ok OOP. Terrible exception system, swing is a mess.
Scala - Java with a very nice flavor of functional programming and lot less boilerplate.
PHP - clusterfuck
Javascript - Who the fuck designed this POS? seriously?
Ruby - A bit strange, but actually nice
Python - language of the gods. Prototyping is lightning fast, the standard library is somewhat sane (and saner on 3.0), no delays with compiling, linking, or breaking makefiles. Amazingly fast for number crunching with numpy - faster than native C
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-02 19:13
>Python. Generally like it, but I wish it used brackets and semicolons instead of whitespace
>???
I need to learn something new
>>101
Fuck my tiny 9 year old pussy and so that I may rupture my vaginal walls during childbirth.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-03 3:55
>>14
Java is dead simple. No memory bullshit, no pointers, no functional shit, no multiple inheritance. Just straightforward OOP. Lots of boilerplate? Yes, but it's readable and not loaded with information.
And if you're one of those idiots who don't dig Ruby syntax, well — it sucks to be you.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-03 3:58
>>16
"Only" templates? C++ is made of templates. If you don't need templates, you don't need C++, better stick with C.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-03 4:32
>>91
Bash, SICP and CL aren't programming languages
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-03 4:39
>>103 why does it suck to not like Ruby syntax? >>104 C++ isn't made of anything. It's a bundle of toothpicks glued to the sculpture that C is.
>>106
I meant that templates are the only distinguishing characteristic of C++.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-03 5:09
>>108
They are buggy and hella weak compared to Haskell classes.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-03 5:16
>>109
You forgot to mention unreadable, undebuggable, code-bloating and unnecessarily powerful. However they have native-code efficiency without any runtime dynamic faggotry.
I wouldn't say that C++ templates are anywhere near as simple as Java, though.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-03 6:28
>>110 However they have native-code efficiency without any runtime dynamic faggotry.
Lisp Macros give you the same, but with more control. It is just hard to express anything using templates.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-03 6:34
>>111
No, Lisp is a dynamic language and obviously does not have the performance of native C++ code.
When you write a C++ template foo<T> and instantiate foo<int> and foo<double>, the compiler actually generates two functions (hence the code-bloat): one function for the ints and one for the doubles, no introspection or casts required at runtime.
>>112 When you write a C++ template foo<T> and instantiate foo<int> and foo<double>, the compiler actually generates two functions
If Lisp compiler know types, it does the same.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-03 12:38
>>113 >>114
The benchmarks show CL's still several times slower than C++. And Clojure is even slower and much more memory-hungry, thanks to the JVM.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-03 12:44
>>115
That is compiler related and has nothing to do with language.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-03 12:50
>>116
Is there a compiler that can make Lisp code as fast as C++?
>>118
Lolno.
And if there are no compilers, then it must be language-related.
Not that performance is always a major factor, but when it is, C++ with its templates is clearly better than Lisp.
>>121
And stuff like ((lambda (x) (+ 1 x)) 2) gets reduced to (+ 1 2) at compile time.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-03 13:35
>>121 >>122
You can always count on a lisp-retoid to screw up even the most basic programming concepts. No wonder they advertize their turds so much — they just don't understand jack shit in any other programming langueage.
>>123 $ sbcl
This is SBCL 1.0.57.0.debian, an implementation of ANSI Common Lisp.
More information about SBCL is available at <http://www.sbcl.org/>;.
SBCL is free software, provided as is, with absolutely no warranty.
It is mostly in the public domain; some portions are provided under
BSD-style licenses. See the CREDITS and COPYING files in the
distribution for more information.
* (defun foo (x y) (if (= x y) (sin x) (* y (cos x))))
>>130 ; 73: 488B054EFFFFFF MOV RAX, [RIP-178] ; #<FDEFINITION object for SIN>
Functions like sine and cosine are implemented in microcode inside microprocessors. Intel chips, for example, have assembly instructions for these. Yet SBCL calls some inefficient pointer.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-03 16:38
>>130
That is some bad and inefficient code. It is so bad, that even a good interpreter would probably be faster.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-03 20:37
>>131
Prove me you ain't no toilet scrubber: If you know "microcode inside microprocessors" so well, why do you think it's done like this?
>>130
No it's not a template, you idiot, it's relies on runtime casts depending on the types of x and y. And deforestation has nothing to do with templates, you moron. Just go fuck yourself.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-04 2:42
stop talking like that about templates. Anything that can be trivially emulated using the c preprocessor doesn't deserve mention.
>>135
C preprocessor is just text substitution, it doesn't do any typechecking at all. Better to have unreadable multipage error reports like C++ templates give you than nothing.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-04 3:34
>>136
Yeah, compilers are so stupid. Everybody who isn't writing hand-coded x86 assembly is a moron. You and Terry A. Davis are the only smart programmers in the world. Oh, wait, Terry wrote a compiler in 64-bit assembly, so I guess he's a moron too. Congratulations, you're the only smart person on earth! Too bad you've never created jack shit!
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-04 4:00
>>137
the error messages I get from my template implementation are just as informative to me as what I would get from gcc or msvc. I guess the distinction between different constant types and typenames is a form of type checking that can't be done with the cpp alone, but that isn't that much of an improvement. You can't place constraints on classes in template arguments using c++ templates.
>>138
We should certainly be putting a lot more effort into more intelligent compilers. A human can still easily beat one today, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be using compilers --- they're many orders of magnitude faster, and when you just want to ship product that works, the value tradeoff is obvious. I'm hardly an "Asm or nothing" fundamentalist. It's a similar deal with machine translation, and you can definitely say I'm NOT a fundie there!
U MAD?
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-04 5:23
>>139
I laugh at the suffering of the poor programmers who still have to deal with C++. Just as the C++ committee laughs at them as it gives them a glimmer of hope that at least C++11 will have concepts, modules and relection, and then don't include them so the poor dopes will still have to deal with this archaic, monstrous and dangerous algol derivative that is C++.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-04 6:48
>>141 I'm hardly an "Asm or nothing" fundamentalist.
Yeah. You're "x86 or nothing" Jew.
Why do you hate RISC so much, Cudderberg?
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-04 6:53
>>142
C++11 added auto keyword, which GCC and MSVC supported for years in the for of typeof. At least now you can use it officially.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-04 7:27
>>144
Ooh, that changes everything! What next, elementary type inference that D has had for ages? Ahahahaha poor schmucks.
I'm waiting for C++14 to see what features they'll promise and not include this time.
>>143
I don't hate RISC, I hate the idiots who think it's the ultimate solution for performance. It's for low-end, ultra-low-area low-power applications.
"The instructions are simpler, so we can increase the clock frequency higher. Memory bandwidth is no issue, caches always work."? Even Intel bought into that shit --- and Netburst was the result! Ultra-RISCy microarchitecture, and even with a memory bandwidth/code density advantage over "pure RISC" with its x86 decoder, and with Intel's superior process tech they still couldn't get to the clock frequencies they wanted. Fortunately they learned from that mistake and went back to their ways with the Core.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-04 11:12
>>148 still couldn't get to the clock frequencies they wanted
say thanks to x86
>>154 Negative numbers appeared for the first time in history in the Nine Chapters on the Mathematical Art, which in its present form dates from the period of the Chinese Han Dynasty (202 BC – AD 220), but may well contain much older material.[2] Indian mathematicians developed consistent and correct rules on the use of negative numbers, which later spread to the Middle East, and then into Europe
Very Jewish indeed. Of course, you can't strap a negative number of dynamite rods to your ass.
>>159
All the electrons that couldn't tell what charge they were were eaten by protons, so the electron evolved the ability to detect it's own charge.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-04 22:09
>>159
It asks Jew for his charge. Jew steals innocent Muslim proton's charge, being the Jew he is. Then proton becomes electron, that is how electron knows what charge is.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-05 0:09
So we've learned is that jew literally means all things negative.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-05 1:05
>>161
A proton without charge is a neutron you fucking moron.
>>158
Personally, I never really stopped believing in the phlogiston theory.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-05 9:52
>>164
LLLLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
>LE MUH
XDDDDDDDDDD
>LE MUH MEME IS LE BEST MEME OF LE /G/ XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLLL
E/G/IN WIN /G/RO! XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD