Useless Non-Programmers Who Love Programming

Has anyone from this board actually written anything of note
? I, for example, am the inventor of Haskell, and have been a longtime /prague/ lurker. What have you ever done?

I wrote fibs in assembly

I am the inventor of Pugs

I wrote some failed incomplete apps and games.
I've also been trying to learn cs on my own (I'm the author of the genetic programming thread), but right now I'm just studying some inane shit for my university entry exam.

>>4
Soooo... nothing at all?

i made a very popular iphone game.  some random flash games.  helped with a website to track player stats for a pc game i like.  did some random financial software stuff back in the day that was probably useful to somebody.  made some graphing calculator games.     and half finished a bunch of projects that are notable for how awesome they would be if they are ever finished.

wew

I wrote a perl script like 3 years ago that i know that has been used by at least two other people besides me. I know because i saw my script mentioned on two README files.

>>3
What are you working on now. What do you think of perl6 running on the JMV?

>>7
>le pedophile sage

cehck my duobels

GHC originally started in 1989 as a prototype, written in LML (Lazy ML) by Kevin Hammond at the University of Glasgow. Later that year, the prototype was completely rewritten in Haskell, except for its parser, by Cordelia Hall, Will Partain, and Simon Peyton Jones. Its first beta release was on April 1, 1991 and subsequent releases added a strictness analyzer as well as language extensions such as monadic I/O, mutable arrays, unboxed data types, concurrent and parallel programming models (such as software transactional memory and data parallelism) and a profiler.[3]

Peyton Jones, as well as Simon Marlow, later moved to Microsoft Research in Cambridge, England, where they continue to be primarily responsible for developing GHC. GHC also contains code from more than sixty other contributors.[4] Since 2009, third-party contributions to GHC have been funded by the Industrial Haskell Group.

Which of them are you and how you justify this autistic BDSM monstrosity?

I do some jQuery.


$(document).ready(function() {
    $('OP').suckMyCockWhore('vigorously');
});

FUCK YOU OP


$('#nigger').getEnslaves({
  by: 'whites',
  because: 'not human beings',
  release: 'never'
});

Haskell is a strongly typed, purely functional language. It is also strongly hyped, purely fictional language.

Haskell is purely fictional:

The vocabulary of design patterns in Haskell inaccurately borrows from the vocabulary of category theory. This is very irritating for both programmers and mathematicians, but great for cargo cult programmers who get off on sounding smarter than everyone.

And if what passes peer review is anything to go by, it is also a curios case of people starting to believe their own lies.

Haskell programmers trying to write interactive graphical applications try to do so using the "functional reactive programming" paradigm. "Functional reactive programming" is just a fancy way of saying "Dataflow programming in Haskell". The entire "science" behind it is in figuring out an appropriate data structure for a data flow graph, and an appropriate function interface to that data structure, such that Haskell's compiler won't complain. However, this has proven to be very difficult, and many efforts have been made (e.g. Hudak's Yampa, Conal's Reactive, Apfelmus' ReactiveBanana etc.), but none of them are very good; They all make writing programs very difficult, and also the programs that are written are very tricky to analyze asymptotically. The plus side is that there is now a lot of busy work to be done by people interested in this.

Over the years many algorithms have been devised and discussed. Most of these were written for and implemented in languages such as Algol, Fortran, Pascal, (some) Lisp and both fictional and real assembler languages. Most of these algorithms were not and are not directly implementable in Haskell. A very intelligent person wrote a very good book called "Purely Functional Datastructures". This book described many new algorithms to solve old problems, with the difference being that these can be implemented in Haskell and mostly have worse performance characteristics. I think this was a gargantuan effort, and a very good mental exercise.

Writing Haskell programs is similar to writing programs for a Turing machine simulator. They are great mental gymnastics, and may be useful in proving some property about the program. However, just like programs for a Turing machine simulator, programs for the Haskell compiler are not very concise are understandable.

Haskell is strongly hyped:

Many intelligent (and honest) programmers, frustrated with complexity and endless change (sometimes due to others, sometimes due to themselves), look for a solution to all their problems at the language level. Haskell promises many such solutions. If trendroid fashionista web discussion is anything to go by "Haskell is an impliclitly parallel programming language" and "If it compiles in Haskell, it doesn't have any bugs".

Also, to the naive observer, the language employed by Haskell programmers implies great rigour and care. This is not the case at all. After wasting much time figuring out the true meaning of the Haskell vocabulary, most intelligent people will be very uneasy at how very *un*rigorous it is, and how in practice, it is used in an even more sloppy manner. Unintelligent people will however really like the "magic" of not quite understanding Haskell's vocabulary, and the way this makes them sound smart and receive attention when they jumble a bunch of words together in a way that makes no sense.

A lot of money is poured into Haskell research, mainly from Microsoft. Much of the work in Haskell makes its way to C# or F# or other Microsoft products, and some Microsoft employees do Haskell research and some Haskell researchers are Microsoft employees.

All technology will have people whose enthusiasim outshines their understanding of that technology, but this is especially the case with Haskell.

Conclusion:

Haskell isn't all bad. Other languages in the ML family are better. For "disciplined" languages (appropriate for large or less skilled teams) I would recommend a Wirth flavored language from the Algol family (e.g. Modula-3 or Oberon).

Almost none of the algorithms or datastructures you learn from in say the EXCELLENT book "Introduction to algorithms" can be implemented in Haskell without much much modification.

The same applies to Knuth's "Art of computer programming" and countless other great books.

From rosetta code:

data Fifo a = F [a] [a]
 
emptyFifo :: Fifo a
emptyFifo = F [] []
 
push :: Fifo a -> a -> Fifo a
push (F input output) item = F (item:input) output
 
pop :: Fifo a -> (Maybe a, Fifo a)
pop (F input (item:output)) = (Just item, F input output)
pop (F []    []           ) = (Nothing, F [] [])
pop (F input []           ) = pop (F [] (reverse input))
 
isEmpty :: Fifo a -> Bool
isEmpty (F [] []) = True
isEmpty _         = False
LOL reverse input. Amortized constant time LOL

>>17
that's a zipper, nigger

>>18
^* African American

i wrote one of the modules listed here:

http://modules.perl6.org/

>>20
perl6
NO THANK YOU

I created the C programming language.


spooky

>>18,19,21
>le pedophile sage

>>21
NO YOU'RE WELCOME

>>24
But Perl is an troll language!

>>25

Haskell is a troll language.

Perl is a shit language.

>>26
Haskell is a troll language
It's a reference language, like LISP.
Perl is a shit language.
Agree. Only decent software that I know of that still deals with Perl is Irssi, and I wish it would switch to something else already.

>>27

Haskell is not a reference language. Standard ML is. Haskell is a troll language.

>>21,25,26,27

Perl6 != Perl5

Just see some of the modules... Those two are rather simple

https://github.com/moritz/json/blob/master/lib/JSON/Tiny.pm

https://github.com/shinobi/Date-WorkdayCalendar/blob/master/lib/Date/WorkdayCalendar.pm

http://perl8.org/

I invented fibonacci BUTTSORT

u mad?

u mad?