Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

Python.

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-29 19:50

What's bad about Python?

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-01 18:42

>>32
coding
application
faggot, go back to your industry and keep ruining everything.

They don't even optimize aaa games.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-01 18:44

optimize
Fuck off burger-lover, the compiler is the one who has to do the optimisations

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-01 18:49

>>42
Yeah, and that's why the majority of code optimization is done by humans and not compilers in such top computing worlds as Intel and the military. Maybe you're just lazy? fucking shmuck noodle dick anteater dick

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-01 19:30

>>41
they do optimize, although gaming optimizations are more about choosing better data structures, pre-baking and faking stuff:
http://selmiak.bplaced.net/games/ps2/index.php?lang=eng&game=sotc&page=makingof

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-01 21:03

>>32
If you need an extension language for your C application,
I'd rather write my own DSL ``in Lisp'' for that purpose. Hell, I could come up with a better Lua that has a ``lightweight'' interpreter and isn't painfully slow in about 3 days.

with LuaJIT for speeds that Python can only dream of
There's PyPy too. That's not a valid point.

But I get what you're trying to say. Some people are too busy trying to churn out EPIC CODES as quickly as they can and that's where Python, Lua and (to a certain extent) Go are actually useful.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-01 22:14

>>45
Hell, I could come up with a better Lua that has a ``lightweight'' interpreter and isn't painfully slow in about 3 days.

Please do. Seriously, I'm interested in using it if it turns out any good.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-01 22:51

>>46
It'd be specific to the domain I'm working on, though. You might not care about a scripting language for my Tohosort, but I do.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-01 23:19

>>47
Is it actually a better Lua?

More importantly, is it TC, have prototype based oo and basic I/O?

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-02 0:29

>>48
have prototype based oo
what kind of fucked up world do you live where that's a good idea, nigger

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-02 1:48

>>49
yeah seriously what you want is trait based model with message passing and the receiver can ignore unsupported messages

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-02 5:29

>>50
Smalltalk is best. There's an unsupported message method that is invoked, and you can override it. You can sort of emulate this in lua.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-02 6:09

Self is best. It's like Smalltalk but better.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-02 8:12

Self is best. It's like Smalltalk bet butter.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-02 9:50

>>49
Are you one of those people who hears "prototypes" and thinks "javashit" or something?

>>50
You can build that and more with prototypes.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-03 4:06

>>54
But can it build my anus? I think not.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-05 11:17

I just found that the standard python interpreter (CPython) does not support tco (tail call optimisation)

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-05 11:48

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-05 15:21

>>57
Third, I don't believe in recursion as the basis of all programming.
Third, I don't believe in recursion as the basis of all programming.
Third, I don't believe in recursion as the basis of all programming.

I knew it but it's official now: Guido's a numbskull who doesn't know jack shit about programming. Enjoy your Python.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-05 15:30

I don't believe in "I don't believe in recursion as the basis of all programming" as the basis of all programming.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-05 15:31

>>57,58
Wow, since 2009. I wonder if he has changed his mind.
http://neopythonic.blogspot.com/2013/10/letter-to-young-programmer.html
NOPE, still in the ignore pile.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-05 15:47

>>58
Tail recursion elimination is necessary in functional languages with no side effects, like scheme
Because scheme is a pure functional language, without side effects and it does not support continuations.

>>60
What is so bad about that?

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-05 15:50

>>61
If you are being honest:
https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=problems%20with%20python

Else, you making yourself look silly.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-05 16:04

>>62
What is wrong with you dipshit? I asked what is wrong with this fucking post, not with python. Can't you read what I quoted? Fucking retarded nigger

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-05 16:05

Oh, I've found another pearl:

unfortunately Python's compiler cannot reliably determine whether any particular call is actually reference the current function, even if it appears to have the same name.

Holy fuck, it's defective by design. Python = PHP.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-05 16:17

>>64
Another one that I found on hacker/g/ews (copypasted)
derp = []
for x in [1,2,3,4]:
derp.append (lambda: x + 1)
print (derp[0]())

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-05 16:59

>>65
Faulty closures, haha. Common Lisp has the same.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-05 19:32

>>66
No it doesn't, haha.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-05 23:49

>>67
(funcall
(car
(loop
for x in (list 1 2 3 4)
collect (lambda ()
(+ 1 x)))))

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-06 1:52

>>68
That's not how you translate >>65 to Common Lisp!

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-06 21:36

(funcall (car (mapcar (lambda (x)
(lambda ()
(1+ x)))
'(1 2 3 4))))


This can't be done in Python.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-07 4:57

funcall

Why do you have to call funcall? Is it because you can't call anonymous functions directly for some retarded reason?

car, mapcar

Anyone who thinks this kind of car or cdr shit is readable code is retarded. Why not just call them `head` and `tail`. Also, linked lists suck. They are slow and inefficient and horrible.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-07 8:48

(define (caar x) (car (car x)))
(define (cadr x) (car (cdr x)))
(define (cdar x) (cdr (car x)))
(define (cddr x) (cdr (cdr x)))
(define (caaar x) (car (caar x)))
(define (caadr x) (car (cadr x)))
(define (cadar x) (car (cdar x)))
(define (caddr x) (car (cddr x)))
(define (cdaar x) (cdr (caar x)))
(define (cdadr x) (cdr (cadr x)))
(define (cddar x) (cdr (cdar x)))
(define (cdddr x) (cdr (cddr x)))
(define (caaaar x) (car (caaar x)))
(define (caaadr x) (car (caadr x)))
(define (caadar x) (car (cadar x)))
(define (caaddr x) (car (caddr x)))
(define (cadaar x) (car (cdaar x)))
(define (cadadr x) (car (cdadr x)))
(define (caddar x) (car (cddar x)))
(define (cadddr x) (car (cdddr x)))
(define (cdaaar x) (cdr (caaar x)))
(define (cdaadr x) (cdr (caadr x)))
(define (cdadar x) (cdr (cadar x)))
(define (cdaddr x) (cdr (caddr x)))
(define (cddaar x) (cdr (cdaar x)))
(define (cddadr x) (cdr (cdadr x)))
(define (cdddar x) (cdr (cddar x)))
(define (cddddr x) (cdr (cdddr x)))
(define (caaaaar x) (car (caaaar x)))
(define (caaaadr x) (car (caaadr x)))
(define (caaadar x) (car (caadar x)))
(define (caaaddr x) (car (caaddr x)))
(define (caadaar x) (car (cadaar x)))
(define (caadadr x) (car (cadadr x)))
(define (caaddar x) (car (caddar x)))
(define (caadddr x) (car (cadddr x)))
(define (cadaaar x) (car (cdaaar x)))
(define (cadaadr x) (car (cdaadr x)))
(define (cadadar x) (car (cdadar x)))
(define (cadaddr x) (car (cdaddr x)))
(define (caddaar x) (car (cddaar x)))
(define (caddadr x) (car (cddadr x)))
(define (cadddar x) (car (cdddar x)))
(define (caddddr x) (car (cddddr x)))
(define (cdaaaar x) (cdr (caaaar x)))
(define (cdaaadr x) (cdr (caaadr x)))
(define (cdaadar x) (cdr (caadar x)))
(define (cdaaddr x) (cdr (caaddr x)))
(define (cdadaar x) (cdr (cadaar x)))
(define (cdadadr x) (cdr (cadadr x)))
(define (cdaddar x) (cdr (caddar x)))
(define (cdadddr x) (cdr (cadddr x)))
(define (cddaaar x) (cdr (cdaaar x)))
(define (cddaadr x) (cdr (cdaadr x)))
(define (cddadar x) (cdr (cdadar x)))
(define (cddaddr x) (cdr (cdaddr x)))
(define (cdddaar x) (cdr (cddaar x)))
(define (cdddadr x) (cdr (cddadr x)))
(define (cddddar x) (cdr (cdddar x)))
(define (cdddddr x) (cdr (cddddr x)))

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-07 13:31

>>71
Why not just call them `head` and `tail`.
Because unlike taheheadadil, cdaar is understandable.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-07 13:48

>>71
Common Lisp has vectors:

#(1 2 3) ;; instead of '(1 2 3)
(vector 1 2 3) ;; instead of (list 1 2 3)


As for funcall, that has to do with parsing rules and the separate namespaces for functions and values. Your lambda expression has to be evaluated as a value instead of a function name, so it can't be in head position, but if it's not in head position you can't call it as a function. That's the problem funcall solves. I know it's ugly, but it's in the standard.

If these things bother you, go use Clojure.

However, the first function is not generic, so you have to access elements like so:

(elt #(1 2 3) 0) ;; get the first element

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-07 14:19

>>72
Holy fuck, lenses are so much better.
Also, why don't you just use "def" instead of "define"? The amount of visual noise is terrible.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-07 15:12

>>72
What the hell is that unreadable mess supposed to be?

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-07 15:39

>>72

Scheme has match and Common Lisp has destructuring-bind.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-07 20:47

>>75
Lenses are pig disgusting.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-07 23:23

>>71
Also, linked lists suck. They are slow and inefficient and horrible
LOOK AT MY LINKED LIST!!!!
#define car(x) (*(x))
#define cdr(x) ((x) + 1)


I am trying to say that the implemetation can select to use something else instead of a linked list, like an array

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-08 7:39

>>79
Answering to your spoiler text (why the hell would people put their message in spoiler tags?? totally retarded)

No it can't. What if I want to put shit in the middle of that array? It would be slow as fuck. If it's called "list", then it should be a list.

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List