lel butthurt nerds jealous there will never be a movie made about them staring ashton Kutcher, face it, its not easy to find an actor that would fit into a xxxl anime teeshirt with cheeto stains, lel goo back to reading your precious little sicp, lisp is of no use in the REAL word faggotz, no one will ever care about your toy metacircular interpreter
>>11
Dijkstra was an arrogant jerk and architecture astronaut. And he invented nothing new, because LISP already allowed defining new constructs through macros.
Dijkstra basically stated the obvious: Fortran was a crappy language.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-22 0:31
>>12
I.e. compared to achievements of Steve Jobs, who spawned a cult of minimalism and simplicity, Dijkstra is nobody.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-22 0:32
>>12 >>13
The trolls are a lot better here than they are on /g/.
But still too obvious.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-22 1:34
I can't imagine what it must be like to have a your own biopic, where rehashed and otherwise mundane tidbits of your life are dramatized in grandiose fashion and set to intense music. You can go your whole life without ever raising your voice at anybody, but if a movie is made about it expect the actor playing you to be screaming at somebody in the trailer.
>>14
That aint trolling. Dickstra was highly critical of BASIC, which in practice helped to bootstrap the whole home computing thingie. BASIC was so simple, it could be packed under 2 kb of memory, together with line editor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiny_Basic). Learning BASIC took a single evening, even for kiddies. People easily did accounting and fun games.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-22 14:28
>>16
BASIC was much more important than any of your obvious algorithms, which he probably overheard from more practical engineers anyway (because I doubt Dickstra wrote a line of production code in his life, he was too afraid of gotos).
>>18
It's very likely that learning that shit language did make it harder to teach people proper programming principles afterwards, just like it would with people getting their brains rotten by PHP today, or imperative programming throughout history.
>>19
He made a practical and novel OS back when the commercial offerings were shit. Believe it or not, the man actually wrote programs and was fond of engineering, thus his distaste for the shit everyone was always trying to pass for such.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-22 14:45
>>20 He made a practical and novel OS
His "OS" was basically a crazy Algol compiler running baremental on expensive hardware with megabytes of memory, while Tiny BASIC ran under few kbs. Guess why both Algol and Haskell failed?
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-22 14:47
>>20 It's very likely that learning that shit language did make it harder to teach people proper programming principles afterwards
Most BASIC kids became top programmers, like Linus Torvalds, who learned programming using C64 BASIC.
>>22
Linus is not most BASIC kids.
Algol and Haskell have never failed. Algol is even still alive, that's remarkable enough for an ancient language.
And Dijkstra's contribution to COMPUTER SCIENCE/ is more important than the accumulated shits you BASIC kiddies ``contributed''.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-22 15:09
>>23 Linus is not most BASIC kids.
What makes him different?
Algol and Haskell have never failed.
Algol was superseded by C/C++ (which is basically a practical version of algol, without lazy evaluation, garbage collection and other academic crap). Haskell is an INTERCAL v2.0, a joke of a language - the epitome of all what is wrong with academic languages.
Algol is even still alive, that's remarkable enough for an ancient language.
Tell that to Visual Basic or even to QBasic, which is still being taught in a lot of Russian schools.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-22 15:10
>>23 And Dijkstra's contribution to COMPUTER SCIENCE/ is more important than the accumulated shits you BASIC kiddies ``contributed''.
BASIC is a cultural phenomena like Lady Gaga, while your computer sciences is a bunch of useless papers, no real programmer cares about.
Tell that to Visual Basic or even to QBasic, which is still being taught in a lot of Russian schools.
Doesn't mean it was harmful or shit or a grand achievement of humanity, just that it's still alive, and it didn't fail, like Algol. Haskell is an INTERCAL v2.0, a joke of a language - the epitome of all what is wrong with academic languages.
Yeah, keep telling yourself that. Haskell is not even that ACADEMIA QUALITY, but it's still too much for normies to handle, I guess. What makes him different?
But you are supposed to explain why he is your typical BASIC kid. So why is he your typical BASIC kid?
BASIC is a cultural phenomena like Lady Gaga, while your computer sciences is a bunch of useless papers, no real programmer cares about.
Yeah, no real programmer cares about finding shortest path in graph, because wait a minute, EXPERT ENTERPRISE PROGRAMMER needs no graph! And holyshit who needs concurency in this modern computing world, because [b][o]SEMAPHORES[/o][/b] and MUTEXES are just ACADEMIA bullshite!
But in the end you're right, BASIC is like Lady Gaga, it had it big, it hit the society hard, and it's equally disgusting.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-22 15:19
>>20
Yeah, a crazy Algol compiler with its own memory (and at this time programmers were still paging by hand) and which had to control devices down to the metal. Kind of like an OS.
megabytes of memory
The system has been designed for a Dutch machine, the
EL X8 (N.V. Electrologica, Rijswijk (ZH)). Charac-
teristics of our configuration are:
(1) core memory cycle time 2.5usec, 27 bits; at present
32K;
(2) drum of 512K words, 1024 words per track, rev.
time 40msec;
Well, it did cross the Mega-octet barrier, but the drum seemed to be secondary storage.
>>22
Most? Well, I guess that it was a pretty self-selected crowd then. Would you sing praises to Javascript or PHP now? And it doesn't detract from my point.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-22 15:22
>>25
>computer sciences is a bunch of useless papers, no real programmer cares about
You take that back!
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-22 15:23
>>26 But you are supposed to explain why he is your typical BASIC kid. So why is he your typical BASIC kid?
Yeah. Linus isn't even a typical nerd, because he has a GF. He is plainly bad example.
>>29 Well, it did cross the Mega-octet barrier, but the drum seemed to be secondary storage.
Tiny Basic ran on machines which had no secondary storage, while Algol compilers were frequently multistage (like 10 stages, each being separate program), because monolithic compiled would required megabytes of RAM.
>>34
His OS was impractical and had no cultural impact, while the "shitty language" did MSDOS and Windwos. Without BASIC we would all today used Unix without GUI. BASIC was the first step in making computing accessible.
Without BASIC we would all today used Unix without GUI
X server predates Windooze.
Graphical interfaces in general predates your shitty excuse of an operating system.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-22 15:44
>>37
X server was definitely not user friendly, while Windows is all GUI down to metal. And today we have friendlier interfaces, like those of IPhone, which doesn't even use keyboard at all, speaking with user in pictogramic language.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-22 15:45
IPhone is the second most important innovation after BASIC.
That is why /prog/ venerates Steve Jobs.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-22 16:18
>>39
I loved Steve Jobs. He sucked a mean dick. I sure do miss his ``jobs'' if you know what I'm saying. ;)
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-22 16:42
`
>iphone
>an important innovation
>basic
>an important innovation
>this is what /g/tards (who don't know what LISP or Motorola are), actually believe
>mfw
>lel
>>38
You’re just admitting that you are a idiotic mongoloid.
Shove your friendliness up your ass, kid.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-22 20:48
>>36
Fuck off you stupid technophile, Dijkstra’s work made your shitty accessible computing technically possible. Fuck modern culture, any decent human being has no respect for it and nor do they want to impact it in a way that would continue its existence.
I actually thought /prog/ was going to be more of the unix and academic type but nope. Really is filled with idiot worker type of programmer. Imbeciles, back to /g/ I suppose.
>>54
HALP! I'm trying to translate (if t (lambda (x) x) (lambda (x) (first x))) into Haskell, but GHC gives me the following error: Prelude> (if True then (\x -> x) else (\x -> fst x))
<interactive>:1:36:
Occurs check: cannot construct the infinite type: a = (a, b)
Expected type: (a, b)
Inferred type: a
In the expression: fst x
In the expression: (\ x -> fst x)
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-23 8:10
>>55
Bill Gates is 1/2 Jewish. He father looks very ashkenazi.
>>59
Even the kikes would cast him out, he is not halakha. Khazar ethnocentrism extends so far as to consider children like Bill Gates as mutant abominations, not having an actual soul ``blessed by hashem''. The crazy kike kunt in that video laid that out perfectly plainly, if you'll remember.
>>74
In my dictionary, the preferred definition of science involves discovering properties of the natural world. Engineering involves the application of those properties to solve practical problems. By those definitions programmers are neither scientists nor engineers. The principal objects of their study are manmade, not natural. -- William A. Wulf, Professor of Engineering and Applied Sciences
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-23 17:57
>>75
Computer science is not about Science and it's not about computers. -- Hal Ableson
>>77
Actually, any fantasy that doesn't involve time travel could be accurate. I.e. physics doesn't stop you from genetically engineering a fire-breathing dragon, although commons sense says such creature would be inefficient at hunting pray.
>>96 struct cons void pointer car void pointer cudder void pointer ess void pointer ecks return ecks void pointer ee void pointer ecks struct cons pointer x pointer arrow car void main void pointer pointer ei void pointer equal tee question mark ess colon ee
And people wonder why no one takes C seriously anymore.
>>96
Haskell doesn't have void pointers. You can't port such code to Haskell.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-24 11:38
>>99 So your function is if True then id else tail.
No. My function is (if True then (id | tail) else (id | tail)). I.e. a union of types. Like void pointer has type of union of all types.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-24 11:40
>>105
It's dangerous bullshit that allows error-prone code.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-24 11:41
>>106
And everybody else went and chased static. And they've been doing it like crazy. And they've, in my opinion, reached the theoretical bounds of what they can deliver, and it has FAILED. These static type systems, they're WRONG. Wrong in the sense that when you try to do something, and they say: No, category theory doesn't allow that, because it's not elegant... Hey man: who's wrong? The person who's trying to write the program, or the type system?
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-24 11:42
>>107
Obviously the idiot who's trying to make a buggy program is wrong.
elegant system is shit compared to working system.
Theory and practice sometimes clash. And when that happens, theory loses. Every single time. -- Linus Torvalds
"pi = 3.14" is (a) infinitely faster than the "correct" answer and (b) the difference between the "correct" and the "wrong" answer is meaningless. And this is why I get upset when somebody dismisses performance issues based on "correctness". -- Linus Torvalds
It's what I call "mental masturbation", when you engage is some pointless intellectual exercise that has no possible meaning. -- Linus Torvalds
You should deal with reality, not what you wish reality was. -- Linus Torvalds
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-24 11:46
>>109
Barely working system is shit compared to an elegant, correctly working system.
Only an idiot would say that the difference between \pi and 3.14 is "meaningless".
>>110 Only an idiot would say that the difference between \pi and 3.14 is "meaningless".
in most practical appliances it is meaningless.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-24 11:54
>>110
Only if you're a code monkey who cannot into science and thinking. That's precisely the kind of people who say that "Haskell is impractical", "Haskell is a failure" and the like. Anyone with a brain can see the advantages of real FP over all the chaotic barely working shitcode spewed by imperative imbeciles. >>112
You've got statistical proofs? I'd say that most mathematical applications require at least 2 decimal points of precision, which means that \pi must have 4 or more.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-24 12:03
>>113
>You've got statistical proofs?
look at plants, which have 'round" stalks, but rarely accurate to 3.14
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-24 12:05
>>113 That's precisely the kind of people who say that "Haskell is impractical", "Haskell is a failure" and the like. Anyone with a brain can see the advantages of real FP over all the chaotic barely working shitcode spewed by imperative imbeciles.
With Haskell it is easy to make a mess of arrows, monads and Type-classes - so that the devil himself would break a leg, handle it good to be very careful. The type system is a complex curve as you will understand in taypklassah, rising to the PhD. Tell us why in Haskell can not even function properly implement the construction of the power, and the reason why it became numeric types? Why, for example, in Haskell you have at least 3 fukntsii exponentiation? Why, for example, that there is a common code:
[code = haskell]
Prelude> (-1) ** 2 :: Double
1.0
Prelude> (-1) ** (2 + 1e-15 - 1e-15) :: Double
NaN
[/ code]
But it is the fault can not Haskell, and implement floating point arithmetic? A word from the developers Haskell:
"The problem cannot be fully solved, especially not within the Haskell 98 numeric type classes. There is no satisfying implementation of (**) even for Float and Double." - Thank you, we thought so, you have a defective system types.
Fortunately, FP-bigotry disappears immediately after attempts to use pure FP-harsh language in real life.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-24 12:10
>>109
You should not cite one of the most stupidly hackerish types out there if you want to discuss actual programming. For every system requiring an approximation of pi —or any other value—, at least some basic kind of intuitive numerical analysis should be performed in order to find about how much accuracy is needed. Using evidence from the vegetal world is obviously not adequate when it comes to designing programming systems.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-24 12:12
>>116
look at "round" plant stalks, which rarely accurate even to 3.14
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-24 12:14
>>115
No, you would break a leg, because you're too stupid to learn Haskell.
And no, everything's fine with the Haskell power function, we already discussed that.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-24 12:21
>>116 one of the most stupidly hackerish types
Go rewrite a Linux kernel in Haskell.
Talk is cheap. Show me the code. -- Linus Torvalds
>>121 You should define pi as the way to compute it
Symbolic computation everywhere is unnedeed and impractical. Lousy approximations are unneeded, impractical and harmful. They corrupt the art/engineering/magic of Computer Science into arcane superstition. See http://www.loper-os.org/?p=41
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-24 12:53
>>122 Why would anybody want to do that?
To prove that Haskell can at least act as a substitution.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-24 13:04
>>124
Haskell isn't meant to be the language for everything on Earth, particularly not for low-level, high-performance infrastructural stuff.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-24 13:10
>>125 Haskell isn't meant to be the language for everything on Earth,
That is why Haskell is inherently worse than Lisp or even C++.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-24 13:19
>>126
You're wrong because
a) Lisp isn't a single language, it's a LOT of languages
b) C++ isn't good for everything, it isn't used for everything, it loses out to other languages in a lot of areas
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-24 13:26
>>127 Lisp isn't a single language, it's a LOT of languages
Lisp is a single language, which can be adapted to any domain, including '(bare words english language).
C++ isn't good for everything, it isn't used for everything, it loses out to other languages in a lot of areas
Yet C++ has more practical value than Haskell. At least C++ can be self hosting.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-24 13:29
>>128 Lisp is a single language, which can be adapted to any domain
Bullshit. (defmacro) or (define)? (defun) or (fn)? Is there CLOS or not? How about Racket, where you can switch languages, choosing any one of different Rackets? Can you do sequent calculus in Scheme like you can in Shen? Etc etc.
What's the advantage of being self-hosting? Haskell is a more high-level language and doesn't have to be self-hosting to be useful.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-24 14:20
linux is superior to windows and mac os x that's for sure
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-24 14:38
>>129 Bullshit. (defmacro) or (define)? (defun) or (fn)?
different names for same concept.
Is there CLOS or not?
CLOS is a library.
How about Racket, where you can switch languages, choosing any one of different Rackets?
That is a bad feature. Racket is a little bloated.
What's the advantage of being self-hosting?
It proves that language is general enough and doesn't need any external tool.
Haskell is a more high-level language and doesn't have to be self-hosting to be useful.
There is nothing Haskell can do to be useful. Although you can write a postmortem obituary on Haskell.
It continues to amaze me how bad Haskell is at processing strings. One of the reasons I wanted to learn Haskell was to be able to write short, dynamic-language-like programs that execute fast once compiled. Somehow rather, Haskell has failed to deliver on its promise of bare metal speed. (http://honza.ca/2012/10/haskell-strings)
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-24 15:05
>>131
But they're still different fucking languages. Just like Java is different from C# even though they have a lot of common concepts. E.g. Racket's (define-syntax-rule) and (define-syntax) work differently from CL's (defmacro).
No, CLOS is not a library, it's a part of the language specification.
Wait... you're Goldenberg, aren't you. Go fuck yourself.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-24 15:08
>>135 Java is different from C#
Java and C# are just DSLs on top of JVM and CLR, which are pretty much the same.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-24 15:09
>>135 Wait... you're Goldenberg, aren't you. Go fuck yourself.
No it is you who are a Jew, because you defend Jewish language Haskell and harmful features, like lazy evaluation and algebraic types.
>>135
In LISP, things you'd expect to be part of the language can just be libraries. Once you have defmacro and vector, you are ready to implement CLOS.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-25 5:04
>>139
What a piece of shit. Instead of creating solutions and making money you have to implement a language yourself because lishp is a good-for-nothing pile of shit-bricks you can build a shithouse from.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-25 5:07
>>140
That's scheme. CL has more in it than you would want to use.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-25 5:10
>>141
CL doesn't even have concurrency and static typing.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-25 5:14
>>142
The lack of concurrency in the standard is unfortunate. Just use sbcl. It has threads and type inference.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-25 5:21
>>143
SBCL doesn't even have a good REPL. It can't even repeat the previous command like any linux console can.
>>144
I still think CL is shit though. It's almost impossible to separate a lisp program from the full lisp system. Not every lisp implementation is an interpreter, but every one can do compilation of some sort at run time. It's not easy to ship a binary that doesn't contain a lisp compiler. Trying to make CL suitable for real work is kicking a dead horse. It's probably possible to get it there, but not worth the effort considering the alternatives that are available now.