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

Sepples

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-20 10:36

"I was a C++ programmer before I started designing Ruby. I programmed in C++ exclusively for two or three years. And after two years of C++ programming, it still surprises me."

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-20 10:50

And after two years of C++ programming, it still surprises
That's not a good property for a language.
It means it's bloated with shit you'll probably never use.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-20 11:12

Nice thread, ya Captains Obvious!

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-20 14:44

And after two years of C++ programming, it still surprises
That's not a good property of a programmer.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-20 16:20

>>4
I am sitting next to a guy who has been using sepples since 1990. He claims that he still gets better at it, after all these years. Admittedly he is the most powerful programmer I have met personally.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-20 16:40

>>2
After 4 years of programming HASKAL, it still surprise me.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-20 18:45

>>6
Haskell's complexity is in the language extensions and libraries. The core language is simple, it's pretty much typed lambda calculus. You take however much complexity you need. With Sepples, on the other hand, you are forced to learn every piece of the mutant monstrosity that is the language, because otherwise you won't be able to use a library that has a memory model you're not familiar with.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-21 1:27

lisp is untyped(means more freedom) lambda calculus.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-21 9:34

>>8
Lisp is unityped which means less freedom because you're forced to use only one type for everything. The whole of "dynamic typing" is just one library in Haskell:

http://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.7.0.1/docs/Data-Dynamic.html

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-21 14:15

>>7
ANSI C have around 20 keywords, Haskell on the other side have around 60, almost the same amount of C++. (not counting type related keywords)

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-21 15:22

>>10
Bullshit.

Haskell has 21 reserved keywords that cannot be used as names for values or types. This is a relatively low number (Erlang has 28, OCaml has 48, Java has 50, C++ has 63—and Miranda has only 10), and keeping it low was a priority of the Haskell Committee.

http://haskell.cs.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/history.pdf

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-21 15:42

Name: Totally not >>11-kun 2014-12-21 16:11

>>12
Many of those are only available in language extensions, and if you even counted special characters like that then C would also have way more than 20 keywords.
Compare that with C++'s monstrosity here
http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/keyword

Name: Totally not >>11-kun 2014-12-21 16:13

>>13
C++
I meant Seppurus

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-21 16:33

>>14
SEPPLESAURUS

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-21 16:34

>>12
Have you tried actually reading that? They count things like "=" and ">=" as reserved words. By that token, C is going to have 60 reserved words too.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-21 16:42

>>13
And this is not even counting things like weak_ptr and unique_ptr, which are pertinent to memory management and are used as reserved words in lots of libs.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-21 16:51

>>15
SEPPLESAURUS-REX©

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-21 16:56

SEPPLESAURUS++17

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-21 17:03

If it ain't LISP, it's shit.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-21 17:06

>>13,16
Sure you can remove ! ' " - -- - ; , =
But, you must include sugars like >>= and separate things like "if then else", then you will still have around 60 reserved keywords.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-21 17:08

>>21
sugars like >>=
>>= is just a function.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-21 17:11

>>22
It is an operator and it is fundamental to the language ability to do io, common.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-21 17:16

>>22
sorry I was going to say do instead of >>= (which is not included in the list)

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-21 17:22

OK faggots I've rounded up the real reserved keywords of Haskell:

module where
import let
in where
do case
of class
instance infixr
infixl data
type newtype
foreign deriving
if then
else


That's it, just 21. All of those others like "qualified" or "hiding" are not even keywords. I've used them for identifiers and they're legal.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-21 17:25

>>23
It is an operator
You must think + is a HASKAL operator too. Well it is, but it is also a function, and actually there's no function-operator distinction here. >>= is just another function of the Monad type class, and actually you could define a Monad instance with return and >=> too, so there's nothing special about >>=.
Well it can't be helped that IO is now tied to the IO monad, but HASKAL was once doing IO without Monad too you know. You can even get side effect with Applicative, but it was just decided that Monad was a better choice and we have to take >>= of IO monad as given. That's entirely different from >>= being somehow syntactically significant.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-21 17:36

>>25
whoa "hiding" not a keyword? what about \ fix rec? this thread is completely biased!

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-21 17:39

YO THE ONLY KEYWORS I NEED IN C ARE IF AND GOTO

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-21 18:03

>>27
> let rec = 22
> rec
22

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-21 18:13

>>29
> let 22 = 23
> 22
22

VALID HASKAL CODE

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-21 18:25

>>29
yes, rec is not a reserved keyword, so what?

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-21 20:41

>>30
UMENA PASKAL

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-21 23:31

check 'em
check 'em
CHECK 'EM
CHECK 'EM

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-21 23:51

>>33
Privilege status: Checked

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-22 0:09

Keywords in C
i;

fizzbuzz(n) {
(i % 3 == 0) &&
printf("Fizz");
(i % 5 == 0) &&
printf("Buzz");
((i % 3) && (i % 5)) &&
printf("%d", i);
printf("\n");
++i;
(i <= n) &&
fizzbuzz(n);
}

main() {
i = 1;
fizzbuzz(100);
}

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-22 2:36

>>35
This doesn't even print them in order. People are posting incorrect fizzbuzz solutions to /prog/

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-22 5:45

>>36
I don't know what you're talking about.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-25 8:47

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-25 14:50

>>38
virus don't click

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-25 17:43

>>39
I've clicked. There's no virus. There's no picture, too. Just some diseased bloatware that requires Javashit to run.

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