Lisp

Is there a lisp with manual memory management? I.e. with the ability to choose between pass-by-value and pass-by-ref, to free and allocate memory, to choose what gets allocated on heap, stack, registers, to choose the memory layout of structs, etc?

>>34
That isn't how Ph.Ds work, faggot. And you're just making shit up. Gotta prove it somehow. No such thing as ``endotensor'' or something about it would show up on google that isn't a person's name.

>>35
I've already explained in this very thread how they work in the simplest terms possible. Can you try to articulate what it is that you don't understand so that I can help you, please?

Also, please stop with the irrelevant attacks based on grammar. If you think that there is a problem with the underlying math concepts, feel free to comment on it, but keep in mind that this is not a published paper or an academic environment where precise mathematical rigor is practical. Also keep in mind that I contribute to this board out of the goodness of my heart and that I gain nothing out of this, please respect that my time is valuable and appreciate the fact that I have elected to allot a portion of it to you.

>>34,36
I've only posted once in this thread and >>35-kun is not attacking your grammar. I was just making a pointless remark as a joke. Please stop taking every single post you read on the Internet as a personal attack.

>>37
I accept your apology.

>>36
I'm gonna find your paper when you publish it and post your name and university page here. And facebook/linkedin if you have them, motherfucker.

>>39
I do not understand: is that supposed to threaten me? Should I also be worried that you might call for /b/lackup and have dozens of pizzas sent to my house? Should I fear that my /prog/ students who I have so generously educated are going to find my phone number and full up my voice mail box?

No, I think not. I have nothing to fear from you. I do, however, think that you should return to /g/ and practice your ANONYMOUS IS LEGION bravado there a bit more. Or don't. It is never to late to improve yourself.

>>40
Why does one plus one equal two?

>>41
Because the accepted axioms applied to the real numbers concludes so. In Peano arithmetic, from which basic arithmetic gets it's theoretical underpinnings (which is itself derived from numer theory, set theory, and logic), the existence of a successor function, which returns the immediate value that proceeds the given value in the set of natural numbers, is presumed. The addition operator in the form of a+b is taken to mean that the successor of a is composed b times. With 1+1, the successor function is applied once to 1, which results in the immeditate successor, which is 2. Once this is derived from the natural numbers, it can be trivially extended to many other fields, such as C.

I hope that this has enlightened you a bit!

>>42
I thought endotensors in R always produced homomorphisms that remain hylomorphic in Q, ie, the commutative ring is the set of endofunctors such that all anamorphic catamorphisms are homoiconic in L. What you are saying suggests that the anamorphic catamorphisms are surjective instead of homoiconic.

>>43
Mother functor, you overloaded >>42 with your monads

>>42
NOT HIM BUT THANKS

>>43
Whoa, whoa, whoa! How did you get this far off base? Firstly, while it is true that the projections of all first class, ordered endotensors onto Rⁿ spans the set of of the contravariants of all such endotensors, but that in no way implies homoiconicity. Homoicinicity is unrelated to the study of endotensors, and quite honestly, I believe that it is harmful to the study of endofunctors as well, as it assumes the axiom of free choice when such an assumption is unnecessary for purely theoretical research.

Secondly, the set eigentensors of the endotensor identity matrix have infinite cardnality. This implies that it must be surjective. Granted, this is a proof by contraindication, but producing a formal proof has been shown to be NP-hard.

Lastly, you make a good point the hylomorphic properties of the catamorphic transformations. Indeed, it was one asked by my mentor early on. The solution lies in considering finite automata. The intersect of one regular language with another is itself a regular language. Since endotensors are not regular languages, nor are they even in the subset of context free grammars that do not forbid birecursion, they are not bound by this restriction. Thus, they are Turing complete yet also Godel incomplete. Hence the computability of the individual elements of the commutative field.

Interestingly enough, this property is the dividing difference between lambdas and closures.

>>44
No he didn't, I was taking a shower. Why is everyone always ready to assume the worst? Anyway, I have I go to bed. Tommorrow I will begin lecturing a summer course as a guest lecturer at MIT, and after that I'm going to give a talk about Touhou and it's place in Asian-American literature and why Reimu should take a more proactive approach to governance at Harvard the next day. I'll still try to answer questions here when not being bombarded with them by students in real life though.

>>45
Always feels great to eliminate a little ignorance in the world.

>>46
Now THAT is quality shitposting

>>47 Don't be such a cretin. >>46-sama is mostly right, but has he considered whether commutative monomorphs in R can also be considered adjoint endomorphisms in the set of all computable hylomorphisms, since according to the contraindication provided, the eigentensors that constrain the hylomorphisms remain surjective, thus remaining a preadditive eigenfunctor.

>>48
The fuck, you guys are making shit up.

eigenfunctor
endotensor

Where the fuck do these terms exist in the literature?

>>49
Come on man. The fact that you ask that question seriously proves that category theory is an unfalsifiable, incomprehensible cancer that has infected computer science.

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/dawkins.html

Thanks Haskell dickheads. Thanks.

>>50
Falsification is for simple minds (aka: atheists).

hurr i cant see or touch it then it must not be real!

God's existence is proved by the fact that we managed to discover particles with these retards hanging around.

>>50,51
You two are arguing like a pair of non-commutative anamorphic epifunctors, if you catch my drift. >>50-kun, open your eyes, and don't let privileged rape culture of so-called "falsifiable" statements be your only experience of computer science. The patriarchy has blinkered your vision. >>51, we must smash the non-eigenfunctor computing catamorphic hylocaust denying goyim field and force them to accept anamorphic diversity.

>>51
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
█ ___ █
█ // 7 █
█ (_,_/\ WORSHIP THIS █
█ \ \ YOUR THROBBING GOD █
█ \ \ █
█ _\ \__ █
█ ( \ ) █
█ \___\___/ █
█ █
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀

>>52
"Haskell hacker and intersectional feminist in training"

I lieralyl puked so hard

>>54
Please don't abuse the word ``literally''.

>>55
Please don't abuse the word ``abuse''. Think about the children who have been sexually abused, you chauvinistic white male PIG.

How do I implement endotensors in Haskell?

>>56
you forgot the thin, pedophile, cis scum

>>57
The same way you would implement an infinite reduction of an eigenfold.

>>59
Do you mean a heterogeneous eigenfold or the generalized epiflux form?

>>60
No, the epiflux form within a commutative endotensor under R.

>>61
I asked for tips on how to implement endotensors in Haskell and you tell me to use endotensors to implement them! is this supposed to be some sort of zen? Because I don't find it profound.

Fine, I guess it would be best to figure it out myself. This int exactly beginner work though. I'll try implementing the epiflux z-network for now. Using the inner Euclidian product seems better (faster, more efficient) at normalizing the nodes. Can you at least tell me of I'm on the right track here?

>>62
I made that shit up, I don't even know calculus.

>>63
Imposter! BACK TO /g/ PLEASE