Butthurt Bjarne

http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Lang-NEXT/Lang-NEXT-2014/Keynote

>>1

It is so sad you joke on Bjarne, because he has some form of megalomania and should see mental health professionals.

Without thinks like C++ we wouldn't know why we shouldn't do certain things. And I don't know why you hate him so much: without Stroustrup we would be using Java for absolutely everything. Remember that /frog/ies!

Whats up with low iq folk like bjarne, rasmussen and guodo sonehow crwating lowest common denominayor languages that ens up super popylar deapite being shittZ

C++ saves us from forced GC.

>>5
why not c then?

>>6
It doesn't have generics.

>>7

macros > generics

>>8
Don't be silly.

>>9
c macros are shit but generics as they appear in C++ are sort of a trivial exercise with lisp macros.

>>9

#define is good enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle

>>11
Now make me a type-safe dynamic array container in C, and keep it simple stupid.

Bjarne the Dinosaur

>>12

type science is a pseudoscience. type safety is a myth.

>>14
your moms a myth, fag

http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Lang-NEXT/Lang-NEXT-2014/Panel-Systems-Programming-Languages-in-2014-and-Beyond

He's much less complainy in this panel.

>>10
No they aren't. Macros are even less type-safe than Sepples templates.

what is type unsafe about macros? seems like fud to me

>>17
Lisp macros have the capacity to execute code and modify a global environment upon macro expansion. You could use a turing complete type system to check your macroed templates if you wanted. Not that you would in lisp, since it's all dynamically typed. I would normally grow impatient with having to remind people of these basic facts, but it appears most of the world is unaware of lisp and is unwilling to become aware of lisp even after conversations such as this. So I will have to defend lisp in the face of the horrible impression made by C's macro system forever because people aren't willing to expose themselves to lisp, but are willing to taint it's name based upon a loose understanding of something unrelated which is the closest thing to lisp they can relate to.

>>19
What is better? Common lisp macros or Scheme macros?
Are macros in racket, guile and chiken different?

>>20
CL macros, definitely. Someone pull up Nikita's comparison table, I'm too lazy to look for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-class_function#Language_support
Scheme's better

Clojure is better simply because I can actually use it for real world programming.

>>23
JVM though.

Clojure looks pretty cool apart from that.

>>20
r6rs's syntax-parse is as powerful as the lisp defmacro and its interface still provides for schemey variable capture. syntax-rules is good but not as powerful as defmacro.

>>25
how about r7rs's? I saw someone saying somewhere that common lisp can be implemented on top of scheme by using many macros and stuff

(offtopic https://bbs.progrider.org/prog/read/1398599419)

>>19

Not that you would in lisp, since it's all dynamically typed

How does having a degenerate type system prevent one from wanting a real one? Sure, typechecking is possible with macros, like a thousand other cool things are, but you'd have to reinvent those things from scratch. That's why no one really gets anything done with those macros even though everything could be done with them.

>>22
You fucking idiot, CL has first-class functions, it just keeps them in a separate namespace to reduce unwanted name capture, thus making writing unhygienic macros easier. Read the fucking LoL if you want to realize how shitty and ugly Scheme really is.

>>27

That's why no one really gets anything done with those macros even though everything could be done with them.

Baseless assertion. The challenges to writing an extensive macro system in lisp aren't different from the challenges in any other extensive project.

>>28
CL is a constipated shit and scheme a smooth turd.

cool story bjarne