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

Pages: 1-4041-

Re: Have you read SICP

Name: Yakk 2014-07-28 7:45

Why should I believe you, or follow a link from someone in their first 10 posts? Why is that book worth reading? What does SICP stand for?

Hmm, at least the link seems to be honest (pointing where it appears to point).

Thanks.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-28 11:06

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-28 12:13

Sure it's crap, but is it Abelson crap?

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-28 13:34

LEARN HASKELL

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-28 14:25

>>4
Teaching a dead dog would be more useful

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-28 14:39

>>5
OK, here's my cut and past for all you Lebron Jockers out there that think he would have shut down Bird, try to remember that athleticism wasn't invented yesterday. Scottie Pippen, Dr J, Dennis Rodman, Dominique Wilkins, Clyde Drexler, Hakeem, Ewing, Michael Jordan, James Worthy were all supreme athletes and Bird schooled them all at one point or another. Are you seriously trying to say Lebron was a better defender than Rodman and Pippen? Hell, statistically, even Larry Bird is a better defender than Lebron James. Larry Bird currently leads Lebron James in every defensive stat. Bird has 1.73 steals per game to Lebron's 1.71, Bird has 0.84 blocks per game to Lebron's 0.80. Bird leads Lebron in Defensive Win Shares, Defensive Rating and Defensive Rebounds per game. Bird also leads Lebron in steals per game and blocks per game in the playoffs. No doubt, Lebron gets some flashy blocks, but statistically speaking, Bird leads Lebron in every Defensive (per game) statistic. Bird also had to guard all time great offensive players in the Eastern Conference like Wilkins, Bernard King, Dr J, Charles Barkley, Adrian Dantley. What offensive greats has Lebron guarded in the East during his career besides an old Paul Pierce? Luol Deng? Tashuan Prince? Lol. There is little doubt Bird was a better team defender than Lebron, and basketball is after all, a team sport.

I'm pretty sure Bird would have no problems handling the likes of Kevin Love, Marc Gasol, Pau Gasol, fat-boy Raymond Felton, Ron Artest with his one inch vertical. These players do just fine in today's so called, "best athletes ever" age, and they're not great athletes by any stretch of the imagination. Phil Jackson called Dennis Rodman the best athlete he ever coached, not Kobe Bryant, Phil's won 11 rings coaching through the 80s, 90s, 00 and 10s, so I'll take him at his word. Darrell Griffith had a 48 inch vertical, there's no one in the NBA close to that today. Wilt Chamberlain and Dennis Rodman could both bench more than Dwight Howard's max bench of 365. Athletes weren't invented yesterday, the 80s had higher IQ players and were just as good if not better athletes, they would roll over today's gimped offenses.

And anyone that says Lebron is stronger and more physical than Bird is full of shit. Bird routinely had to keep monsters like Oakley, Barkley, Rodman, Buck Williams, Rick Mahorn, Jeff Ruland, Karl Malone off the offensive boards. I saw him hold his own in the post with physical centers like Hakeem, Ewing, Kareem, Moses Malone, Darryl Dawkins, Laimbeer without giving an inch and you're trying to tell me that Lebron, the same guy that cried that kirk heinrich was playing too rough with him, is more physical than Bird? Pleeease. Bird loved to mix it up in the post and would take elbows and cuts to the chin, pouring blood, without complaint. Lebron is rarely seen in the post and he isn't the rebounder Bird was. Could you imagine if Lebron pulled that flopping crap with Laimbeer, Mahorn and Rodman? The first time he did that would be his last, they would hit him so hard that Lebron would be crying on the floor and his momma would have to come out and pick up all the teeth he lost. The 80s was a much rougher place than these pussified games today with their flagrant fouls, no hand checking and defensive 5 seconds rules. If you think Lebron is more physical than Bird, you obviously never watched Bird play, too many of these kids on here think that Bird just sat at the 3 point line and chucked up 3s all game long, call me when Lebron can average over 15 rebounds a game in the finals against the likes of a legendary monster rebounder like Moses Malone, as Bird did in 1981. 

Kids post on my videos all the time saying Larry Bird was guarded by a bunch of losers during his career compared to Lebron, pleeeease. Fact is Bird had to go against much better defenders in the Eastern Conference, while Lebron has been guarded by lesser talent and cakewalks every year in the East.

Don't take my word for it, here's statistical proof: Larry Bird was guarded by no less than 12 defenders that rated in the top 100,ALL-TIME, in Defensive Win Shares in the Eastern Conference during his career:

Scottie Pippen(#16th), (Hall of Fame)
Charles Oakley(#21st),
Buck Williams(#23rd),
Dennis Rodman (#33rd) (Hall of Fame)
Charles Barkley (#35th), (Hall of Fame)
Horace Grant (#45),
Kevin Willis (#53rd),
Terry Cummings (#54th),
Larry Nance (#58th),
Doctor J (#60th), (Hall of Fame)
Rick Mahorn (#78th),
Anthony Mason (#84th)

Do you know how many defenders in the top 100 ALLTIME Defensive Win Shares Bron Bron has had guarding him in eastern conference during his career? Just one, an over the hill Paul Pierce who is 27th all time in defensive win shares. Oh wait, my bad he had to face Ron Artest (82nd All Time) for One year 2003-04 when he was with the Pacers (Never faced in playoffs), my bad.

Larry Bird played against the best defenders ever and schooled them all, throwing (a healthy) Larry Bird in today's league would be like throwing a piranha into a tank with a bunch of gold fish, he would eat them alive. Lebron on the other hand is guarded by scrub defenders that have no chance of getting in the Hall of Fame. Lebron needs hand checking, defensive 5 seconds rules and preferential treatment by the refs to go to the FT line massive amounts and pad his stats.

Larry Bird was also guarded by 2 Defensive Players of the Year in the playoffs during his career, Dennis Rodman and Michael Cooper, Lebron has yet to be guarded by a defensive player of the year in the playoffs.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-28 14:54

Conway's Game Of Life in just a dozen readable lines with comonads:
http://blog.emillon.org/posts/2012-10-18-comonadic-life.html

Using indexed free monads to QuickCheck JSON:
https://ocharles.org.uk/blog/posts/2013-11-24-using-indexed-free-monads-to-quickcheck-json.html

Optimization through fusion, thanks to purity:
http://www.haskellforall.com/2014/01/stream-fusion-for-pipes.html

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-28 15:08

>>7
Is the new hip thing to pretend every idea developed with Haskell is exclusive to it?

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-28 15:23

>>8
Because in most other languages these things would look like shit. Because most other languages are incapable of abstraction.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-28 15:48

>>9
That's because ``most other languages'' includes shit like PHP and FIOC.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-28 15:59

>>10
So what? Obviously PHP and Python deserve to be included in any sane "most languages" because of their significant market shares.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-28 16:04

>>11
It makes the statement or implication worthless. Most languages are shit and most programmers wouldn't appreciate soundness if it lovingly bit them in the ass, who would have thought after the success of FIOC. What's the point of writing these posts?

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-28 16:22

>>12
No it doesn't.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-28 16:24

>>13
Contradiction without reason is just as worthless.

Why do you continue to make worthless posts?

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-28 16:26

>>14
I make V.I.P. quality posts, you are full of shit.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-28 16:51

One thing I’ve really always appreciated about Haskell is that all “statements” in Haskell (or at least, what would be statements in other languages) are first-class members of the language. That is, (imperative) statements are literally just normal objects (no different from numbers, or lists, or booleans) — they can be saved to variables, passed to functions, transformed using normal functions, copied, etc. Haskell doesn’t have statements — everything is an expression, representing normal data! This really opens up a whole world of possibilities for not only reasoning about your code, but also for new ways to frame ideas in contexts of parallelism, concurrency, exceptions, DSLs, and more!

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-28 17:08

>>14
He makes V.I.P. quality poasts, you are full of shit.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-28 18:16

Do you understand why Lisp's syntax is the way it is? Because you should.

Lisp is a truly multi-paradigm programming language. It has features for functional programming, declarative programming, OOP, imperative programming, and it is easily extensible.

While in Haskell you have the purity of functional programming, in Lisp you have told top make the language be whatever you want. Do you want lazy evaluation? The language does not offer it in the standard, but you can easily implement it. While in Haskell you have implicit typing, in Lisp you have other powerful typing features (like multimethods, change-class and compiler hints).

You'll only understand what is so awesome about Lisp if you try to hack it foot some time.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-28 21:45

>>16

what i've always appreciated about Haskell is something that's already in every good language including Lisp

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-29 3:39

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-29 3:56

>>18
multi-paradigm
No, Common Lisp is not multi-paradigm, it's a unityped OOP language with almost first-class functions, much like Ruby.

Do you want lazy evaluation? The language does not offer it in the standard, but you can easily implement it
The "could be done" curse is one of the things that killed Lishp. In Haskell everything works out of the box, you just turn extensions on and off. No need to make your half-assed, non-standard, incompatible, badly tested extensions to the language.

>>19
How about a powerful type system in a Lisp? Nope? Thought so. Haskell has all the good things of Lisp plus a whole bag of modern and advanced features.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-29 4:02

>>21
0/10

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-29 4:04

>>19
Can't bullshit me, Lispie boy. Lisp does not have this feature, it only allows manipulation of imperative statements via macros which are type-unsafe. So in Lisp it is possible to e.g. mix I/O actions together with STM actions and the code will compile. Haskell 1, Lisp 0.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-29 4:24

>>23
Even if Lisp looses kikes still win!

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-29 5:42

>>24

Yeah. Kikes invested everywhere and keep humanity divided. Only when we will cease all wars and pick a leader, only then kikes get defeated.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-29 6:51

I thought LISP was cool. I didn't really know it. I had read some SICP and knew basics of Scheme, which seemed pretty neat.

Then I tried EMACS and elisp that came with it. In elisp, when you created anonymous function, you have to do something like (FUNCALL some-shit-fun). Uhh, right? Why can't I just use them like other functions? Ok, then someone says Common Lisp does the same. So that you can't call functions stored in variables directly. Basically functions are not first class citizens then. I can't understand why people think COMMON LISP is such a great language??

Nowdays I think LISP is just like any other scripting language, but just more limited (=worse). And that's all beacause of COMMON LISP. Also, GC is shit.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-29 7:18

>>26
Common and ELisp are shit

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-29 7:18

>>26
I can't understand why people think COMMON LISP is such a great language??
Keeping funcs in a separate namespace helps reduce unwanted name capture in macros (and thus eases wanted name capture). Read "On Lisp" for a full discussion of why Common Lisp is beautiful and Scheme is shit.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-29 7:52

>>20
Every other post in this thread is reposted from somewhere else, just ignore the retard.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-29 10:14

>>29
There are more than one of us.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-29 10:30

>>30
That's sad.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-29 10:33

>>31
Have you read your TAPL today?

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-29 12:20

>>28
Keeping funcs in a separate namespace helps reduce unwanted name capture in macros
No, that just means the language designers are incompetent.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-29 13:34

>>33
Of course you would be more knowledgeable on language design than Guy Steele the ANSI Common Lisp Committee. Tell me, how many popular languages have you designed?

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-29 13:46

>>34

I've developed anus.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-29 15:37

>>35
I believe anus is far more popular than Common LISP

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-29 18:56

My military job filled with Ph.Ds and IQs above 160 all prefer and use lisp.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-29 19:01

I’m a big fan of OCaml and other ML derivative languages, ie. fast and useful functional programming that’s very practical. There are some real problems with Haskell which make it less than useful as a real programming language.

Significant whitespace. It’s not just very difficult to understand how the whitespace works (far more so than Python, where it’s merely annoying), but it also makes it almost near impossible to automatically generate Haskell code, which is what we do in libguestfs.

The IO monad. Most Haskell examples use the IO monad, which serializes everything, making the code the same as more ordinary languages. The disadvantage is that monads are obscure and hard to understand. The advantage is .. unclear: your code is all still serialized, mostly, as well as being slow because of the overhead, so it’s not clear what the point is.

Unexpressive FFI. After dealing with a lot of FFIs I think I’m qualified to talk about this one. Haskell’s is terrible: The documentation is obscure verging on bad. The examples are rare (for anything that’s more complex than calling “sin”). There’s a great deal of brokenness in major features, eg. passing or returning structures. A lot of stuff is simply not possible without delving into the depths of compilers. It would have been much better to define a C API and write FFIs in C.

Laziness .. should not be the default. It’s not how any real computers work, or have ever worked, or are likely to work in the future.

Lack of optional/labelled args. Everyone else has them. Haskell has a huge hack. (If you try to implement this huge hack in reality you’ll see it’s not practical if you have a large number of functions that want optional args).

Also I get the impression from reading online that Haskell is widely studied and often pimped, but not used very much in reality.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-29 19:20

>>38
Significant whitespace is optional in Haskell, you dumb nigger.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-29 19:47

>>39
leleleleleeeeeeeeeeelelele le lisp sucks XD
lelelel i am from le /g/ lelellele le lisp is poopy butt :D

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-29 20:12

Dear lel-kun
I would like to inform you that >>39-kun said nothing about lisp sucking nor about disliking lisp
Thank you for your attention and have a nice UTC night

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-29 20:34

>>41

*lel-kunt

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-29 21:17

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-29 22:03

>>43
I'm the nigger of that thread and curse you fuckers

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-30 6:49

>>44
`>44
>dubs


nice :^)

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-30 7:26

>>37
IQs above 160
Doesn't mean anything.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-30 11:24

>>38
OCaml
Half-baked shit on so many levels I don't even want to elaborate.

ML derivative languages
Shitty superfluous syntax. fun fun fun val | +| val fun &| | |

Significant whitespace
Is excellent and help keep syntax concise. You're free to use curly-brace shit, though.

The IO monad
At least a basic level of side effects control. Most languages don't have even that.

the IO monad, which serializes everything
What the fuck are you stupid whore blabbering about? Do you even know what "serialization" means?

The advantage is .. unclear
Clean and concise expression of common computational patterns (e.g. "computations that can fail" are very cleanly expressed in the Maybe or Either monads). Also control of the effects any particular piece of code can and cannot invoke.

Unexpressive FFI
Don't know about that, but Haskell has most of things needed from C (like mutable unboxed arrays) built in.

Laziness .. should not be the default. It’s not how any real computers work
Why should the programmer give a shit how "real computers" work? Computers should serve people, not the other way around.

Lack of optional/labelled args
Just use Maybes.

Haskell is widely studied and often pimped, but not used very much
Just go to Hackage or Planet Haskell, you'll see that Haskell is used heavily, in industry too. The ecosystem is quite mature, and people use Haskell for anything from databases to games to websites to you name it.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-30 13:13

>>47
Can't reply to more than a dozen words at a time?

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-30 21:43

Haskell is used by retards and lisp by people who know what they are doing. Haskell is the functional equivalent of java (shit).

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-31 3:23

>>49
The sheer number of research papers centered around Haskell and the absence of corresponding Lisp papers proves the reverse.

Oh and Lisp isn't even functional. Lisp is the stillborn equivalent of Ruby (shit).

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-31 3:32

>>50
Actually the only Lisp that is used today is just a Javashit library, not Ruby.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-31 5:05

>>50,51
The lisp envy is strong.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-31 5:08

Ruby version
f = get_some_anonymous_function
f.call


Common Lisp
(let ((f (get-some-anonymous-function)))
(funcall f))))))))))))))))))))))))))


Similarities
- Functions are no first class citizens (you can't call anonymous functions directly)
- Both suck
- GC

Differences
- syntax))))))))))

They are pretty much the same.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-31 5:23

>>53
No life loser ;). Go to bed. Your lisp envy is strong.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-31 5:26

>>54
Go to bed.
It's morning here now you prick.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-31 5:55

>>55
Up all night? First thing you do is go on here? What a life. lisp envy ;)

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-31 6:54

>>52
shit envy
Not everyone is a coprophile like you.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-31 17:08

Lewin reported that "... consumption of fresh, warm camel feces has been recommended by Bedouins as a remedy for bacterial dysentery; its efficacy (probably attributable to the antibiotic subtilisin from Bacillus subtilis) was confirmed by German soldiers in Africa during World War II".

Name: Anonymous 2014-08-01 0:37

I read the first chapter, am I an expertprogrammer?

Name: Anonymous 2014-08-01 7:29

>>59
So you can now add two numbers together with Scheme? Sure... that makes you an expert programmer.

Name: Anonymous 2014-08-01 21:52

I made a 2-bit adder out of relays, LEDs, switches, and a 9-volt battery. Try doing that in Scheme, you know-nothing little cocksuckers.

Name: Anonymous 2014-08-02 5:11

>>61
I made millions of 2-bit adders in Scheme. Try doing that with relays, LEDs, switches and 9-volt batteries, you know-nothing little cocksucker.

Name: Anonymous 2014-08-02 11:23

The fact is Haskell is (currently) not a good platform for a web application. Modern web applications today are typically fairly thin 'proxies' between the data and heavy logic - Haskell is not ideal for this due to the ghastly interfaces to persistence available, purity, performance.

What happens on a GET request for some REST API endpoint in a haskell web application?

Haskell cheats on purity for read -> cheats on types for json to haskell -> cheats again on types for haskell to persistence -> cheats again on purity for read from persistence -> does the same thing again backwards. Point? You end up ignoring most of what makes Haskell awesome anyway.

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