["Why", "do", "I", "put", "a", "coma", "after", "each", "word", "?"] -- Haskell {"Why", "do", "I", "put", "a", "coma", "after", "each", "word", "?"} // C++ (Why do they put a coma after each word ?) ; LISP
Name:
Anonymous2014-09-10 23:31
You can't bring it back >>1-dono. That thread was lost forever.
Name:
Anonymous2014-09-10 23:32
vibrator = context.getSystemService(Context.VIBRATOR_SERVICE) #vibrator implementation works very well, thans tshirtman!
Name:
Anonymous2014-09-11 12:13
It's because you chose to present the data like that. There's no reason why you can't present that data as a single string.
Name:
Anonymous2014-09-11 15:02
hah! actually you are using the syntactic (faggot) sugar form: ("Why":"do":"I":"put":"a":"colon":"after":"each":"word":"?":[]) -- Haskell double-quotes are faggot sugar too
Name:
Anonymous2014-09-11 15:17
>>1 Are you in a coma or something? Can't understand you. Does your post have something to do with commas?
Name:
Ruby2014-09-11 16:32
why do I put an "end" after each codeblock ? end end end end end end end end end end
>>9 [qw(why do they put a comma after each quoted list element ?)]; }
Name:
Anonymous2014-09-12 1:58
>>9 hahahhah you're fuckin dumber than a pile of rocks
Lisp wins again.
Name:
Anonymous2014-09-12 2:06
Lisp, for me, has always been a place where anything is possible--a refuge, a magical world where anyone can go, where all kinds of people can come together, and anything can happen. We are limited only by our imagination.
['Do', 'I', ['really', 'need'], to ['write', ['a', 'parser']] to, ['input', ['structured', 'data']], '?'] # Python (Do they (really need) to (write (a parser)) to (input (structured data)) ?) ; LISP
Io> List forward := method(self clone append(call message name)) ==> method(…) Io> Lobby forward := method(list(call message name)) ==> method(…) Io> WRITING COMMAS IS FOR PROLES. WRITING FIOC IS FOR PLEBS. WRITING PARSERS IS FOR SCRUBS. ==> list(WRITING, COMMAS, IS, FOR, PROLES., WRITING, FIOC, IS, FOR, PLEBS., WRITING, PARSERS, IS, FOR, SCRUBS.)