The Truth

Lisp (scheme, common lisp) and C is all you need.

Try to prove me wrong.

.NET (C#, ASP.NET) and C++ is all you need.

Try to prove me wrong.

That shitter who always holds back the level of discussion to his own primitive level by bringing up the most basic irrelevant piece of knowledge that he still thinks everyone will be impressed of him knowing "hurr everything touring complete is equivalent"

>>3
*grabs duck*

>>1
You also need Forth, for variety
_{a bit of Lua would be nice too}

Lisp had a nice philosophy, sadly any language based on it is shit

>>6
faggot

>>7
NO U

>>8
Nice 4chan meme there, you should go back to where you belong.

>>9
le get le back to le gee xDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD LELELELELELELELE
no u is not a 4chan meme

Web development.

web punishment

penis development

developing penis

punishing development

>>12
it's funny because it's true

♫ ♫ ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE ♫ ♫

There are plenty of useful libraries that are written in C++ and do not have adequate C bindings. So why not Lisp and C++?

>>18
Well, why not Lisp and Fortran?

Why not Scheme and Rust?

https://github.com/kimhyunkang/r5.rs

This is out of date and doesn't compile :(

>>20

Scheme is usually compiled to C, so it makes sense to use C as an assembly to optimize tight loops and reuse stuff like OpenCV. Rust is slow and has no useful libraries, so it makes no sense using Rust as a host language.

>>21

Although it would make sense to use JavaScript or ActionScript, because they have larger install base than GCC or MSVC, and users trust javascript software more than some suspicious download.

>>21
Rust is slow?

http://i.imgur.com/Cd3ZBHT.png

Rust is kinda slow:
- Arbitratry precision is slow because GMP is under the thumb of the fascist software foundation and can't be mainlined. Another vote for the FORMULA TRANSLATING SYSTEM.
- Users will mostly write shared-nothing IPC. Even Go uses shared mutable state. Transferring ownership to another task in Rust does not copy, however.
- So many Option<T>s everywhere. That extra level of indirection is... optimized out when T is pointer sized, nvm.
- No TCO yet... except on sibling calls.

The sibling calls thing is nice. It's not great for Erlang-style state machines but you can write type-checked state machines instead.

why rust in the first place? it's a shity language written by known retardeds, homosexuals and feminists that does not have a stable version yet and changes almost every day, the implemetations right now are slow and buggy. The language itself seems like they put everything in it together randomly (think of C++), the creators of it seem like they forget all these years of rechearch
downboat from me

>>24
It's got
- no forced GC shit
- lifetimes static analysis
- uniqueness typing
- a nicer, more functional syntax than C

Can you name another language with all these properties?

a nicer, more functional syntax than C

the algol-syntax feels weird in (semy)functional languages like rust, the worst is the implict return of the function

uniqueness typing

rust has uniqueness typing? I never heard of it but it does not look like something useful since it is not a pure language

no forced GC shit

if it works just like D then it is horrible

lifetimes static analysis

sorry, never heard of it

>>26
If implicit returns are "worst" then you've got some weird shit in your head, so I shouldn't even comment the rest of your idiocy.

>>27
no, this is not what I am trying to say you shithead, I am trying to say that the algol syntax makes implict return look like shit

>>28
Does SML have algol syntax? Is SML a "semy"-functional language?

val x = (print "hi\n"; 3)

Does SML have algol syntax?

no

Is SML a "semy"-functional language?

this is how I call non-pure languages/languages that promote side effects/multi-paradigm languages, so yes

it feels like you hate me, is this right? because I do not hate you, I love you

>>30
Oh, so you deem only purely-functional languages functional. But that is highly unrational, as there are no purely-functional languages with any appreciable use. Even Haskell is only a semi-functional language by your standards.

computation is a temporal physical process happening in computer memory
wants to describe computation using expressions with non-temporal, non-physical algebraic semantics that enable equational reasoning

Aren't you the faglord. Even your fucking Agda or Mercury

pureFunction 5

will cause temporary physical effects in computer memory during its execution. If things could be kept purely denotational and algebraic, then we wouldn't need computers.

>>31
no, every functional programming language is functional even if it is not pure, I called them semy-functional because of multi-paradigm/promotion of side effects
strictly speaking haskell is not pure too but I did not implied that

also to add that you seem to have much hate inside you, relax dude

>>32
Everything is deterministic under the hood

>>25

- no forced GC shit

how do I use libs which use GC then?

>>35
Determinism is an illusion and the bastion of simple minds and the appearance of determinism of the physics of the computer means nothing regarding the computation being done within it as the processes of computation are non-deterministic things.

>>33
So a functional language can also be semi-functional? Nice.

>>38
why does every nigger like you misunderstands me?

(I haven't posted in this thread since >>23)

>>24
it's not put together randomly, that's why it changes so much. the idea is to stabilize it before 1.0

You're right in that it's unsuited for use today, but by the end of the year that should change. The language is nearly complete, libraries are being finalized. I think [m]std[/m] has been recently.

>>26
uniqueness (affine types) is the main benefit of the language, and it's used to forbid mutable aliasing, with no runtime overhead.

the GC is nothing like D. it was originally planned to work like that because they thought most people would make use of GC, but then the region system turned out way better than anyone thought and GC is entirely optional.

>>30

this is how I call non-pure languages/languages that promote side effects/multi-paradigm languages, so yes

Few others subscribe to a definition of it that doesn't even admit Haskell. If for no other reason, such a term would be valueless in common currency.

How about an actual problem for Rust in this area: higher-order programming is weak because closures are utilitarian at the moment. It's a shame, but there's a concrete plan to fix it.

>>36
By linking them and calling into them. At your option.

*hugs >>40*
oniichan, kimutchi!!!!!
1: touch
2: kiss
3: put it in (faggot)
4: kike dance

>>39

misunderstands

So English is not your first language?

>>42
;-;

>>41

I want to put it in

>>44
faggot