Computer science movie

http://youtu.be/yMSsf9szC2o

They're releasing a movie about the greatest computer scientist of our time.

>>77
Star Wars was accurate
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2332266/DIY-like-Jedi-Knight-The-real-life-lightsaber-cut-paper-cardboard-melt-ping-pong-balls.html

>>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.

>>81
Oh right, in the whole Science Fiction environment I totally forgot about Light Sabers, invited when lasers where ever so popular.

>>82
common sense
What common sense? Common sense is for people who cant argue.

>>77
Back to the Future was accurate.

>>85
physics proves time travel is impossible.

>>86
Well, depends we can always go with the flow of time. Isn't that slow time travel?

>>87
No. Universe is deterministic.

>>88
No. You don't know what you are talking about.

oh boy, here comes the pop-science reading kids

just let the physicists do the physics and you kids just shut up and stop trying to interpret it

let's  talk about lisp

let's talk about my anus

>>66
but what could that code possibly do?

>>93
The mole then said to the bird, "but what could those wings possibly do?"

>>93
if(t){return x}; else {return first(x)};

>>93
struct cons{void* car; void* cdr;}void*s(void*x){return x;}void*e(void*x){return ((struct cons*)x)->car;}void main(){void*(*a)(void*)=(t?s:e);}

>>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.

>>88
That's a nice assumption.

>>73

If a = (a, b) then (a, b) = ((a, b), b) = (((..., b), b), b) etc.

So you're really operating on a different structure: Data.Stream.

So your function is if True then id else tail.

(Or OPTIMIZED: id.)

zhekum droobs

>>100
niss dorbs gonksy

>>86
A 19th century Swiss watch has been found in a sealed 16th century Chinese tomb.

>>102
Is that a new headline?

>>96
Haskell doesn't have void pointers. You can't port such code to Haskell.

>>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.

>>105
It's dangerous bullshit that allows error-prone code.

>>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?

>>107
Obviously the idiot who's trying to make a buggy program is wrong.

>>107
Steve Yegge > Edsger Dijkstra

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

>>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
elegant, correctly
working
/0

>>110
Only an idiot would say that the difference between \pi and 3.14 is "meaningless".
in most practical appliances it is meaningless.

>>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.

>>113
>You've got statistical proofs?
look at plants, which have 'round" stalks, but rarely accurate to 3.14

>>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.

>>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.

>>116
look at "round" plant stalks, which rarely accurate even to 3.14

>>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.

>>116
one of the most stupidly hackerish types
Go rewrite a Linux kernel in Haskell.

Talk is cheap. Show me the code. -- Linus Torvalds

>>119
Linux is shit.