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
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.