My sincerest apologies for referring to programming as "coding". I didn't mean to cause offense.
Anyone else prefer to create their own live cod-sorry, "programming" environment to work in?
Examples of what I'm talking about include Squeak Smalltalk and fluxus.
Name:
Anonymous2014-04-17 0:16
>>3 You're totally right. No one should call it simply ``coding'', we're not 'coders', we're SOFTWARE ENGINEERS. We create SCALABLE SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS for an EVER EXPANDING MARKET.
Seriously, though. These hipsters making turds, soundboards and 1$ games for iToilets and Lagdroids can fuck right off. The difference between an 'app coder' and a 'programmmer' is the difference between a garden variety plumber and an aerospace engineer.
Name:
Anonymous2014-04-17 0:21
>>6 Even astronauts want apps on their space iphones now. The most common complaint is using a touchscreen while wearing a space suit.
>>9,12 You're not funny. Go back to the imageboards.
Name:
Anonymous2014-04-17 7:51
>>13 It's funny because only newfriends say ``back to imageboards/g/something'' to make themselfs seem like they were here long time ago but in reality they are from the imageboards
when I was child and learning C and Pascal I really though that creating programs was in some way creating universes. I remember that I used to philosophy if every system with a set of rules was a universe, and that would include maths and other formal languages, but in those cases we would be simulating universes in our brain (not sure how I reached that conclusion). I also was intrigued about how was possible that a small part of the universe was conscious of itself, and if the structure of our brains had an important role on that or if I could create a conscious program ("would that be simulated or real?").
>>18 Only if xhe wants to avoiding self-referential in it's sources
Name:
Anonymous2014-04-19 6:15
>>17 Actually you were right, math and formal languages are simulated universes in human brains. Mathematics has no existence outside of man, not even in computers, not even in the farthest reaches of space. There is no way to manifest e.g. a delta function, it is only an invention of the human mind.
Name:
Anonymous2014-04-19 7:03
>>17,20 That is exactly how I saw programming, and continue to see it. You carve out a new sort of space with every game or simulation you write, a space that is essentially its own universe that awaits exploration. Its up to the programmer to cast new spells to explore this new space. Its a magnificent sort of freedom that can never be taken away, similar to the freedom mathematicians have historically felt.
>>25 You don't know any quantum physics, that's what's laughable.
Name:
Anonymous2014-04-19 11:18
i've always wanted to have my own universe that i programmed, but i'm always too distracted to finish something. i program things here and there, but not a dwarf-fortress-style universe simulation like i've always wanted to.
>>28 Sorry for you. You do realize that an infinite mass density would cause problems with gravity, right?
Name:
Anonymous2014-04-20 7:16
>>25 There have been no experiments which prove that the electron has zero radius. They haven't even reached Planck's length yet.
Name:
Anonymous2014-04-20 20:35
>>30 Experiments are illusions. You cant touch, taste, see, and hear electrons. You have to trust instruments that run on non-existent things such as mathematics. No such thing as a Planck's length.