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

Pages: 1-4041-

programming languages

Name: Anonymous 2015-01-25 13:24

Im looking for a programming language, it cant be Sepples (thats is pig disgusting++) or any form of C. It has to be multi-threading capable out of the box(without any external libraries or imports) and has be be open-source. And has to be really fast (to run and to compile). Also It must have generic programming support with operator/function overloading. And you have to post projects done in it first (i want to make sure it's syntax is sane). And it would be nice if it came with multiplatform optimizing compiler (WITH windows 64-bit support). OH! and it CANNOT have any garbage collection, or forced reference counting schemes. It has to be made of stable APIs, or something that doesn't require changing my code when i update the compiler. Also it would be nice if it was LLVM-based and not some arcane backend like "it compiles to C then uses platform C compiler". I have found some new languages that claim to be as fast as C,as safe as Java and as easy as python, but it was just a marketing trick, and i don't want to waste my time to check such lies and get disappointed again.

Name: Anonymous 2015-01-25 13:27

You're quite close to realizing that awful truth: that all existing programming languages are shit.

Name: Anonymous 2015-01-25 15:38

I have what you're looking for, but I'm not going to tell you what it is. I'm taking my blue, three compartment bento box and leaging this thread forever.

Name: Anonymous 2015-01-25 15:41

Rust

Name: Anonymous 2015-01-25 15:45

This,
>>2
then this,
>>4

Name: Anonymous 2015-01-25 17:57

>>1
http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html

Name: Anonymous 2015-01-25 18:22

>>4
Its something like Haskell-lite.
Can't write a single line without fighting the compiler and discovering strange new "features".

Name: Anonymous 2015-01-25 18:22

>>6
Why are all the links dead? It's like the only document in that domain that actually exists.

Name: Anonymous 2015-01-25 18:37

>>7
It's because you're a low-intelligence nigger.

http://rustbyexample.com/hello.html

Name: Anonymous 2015-01-25 18:59

>>9
Nah take your type-fucking and daily syntax changes bullshit back where it belongs, the trash can. Enjoy the companionship of Haskell the dog.

Name: Anonymous 2015-01-25 19:07

>>10
So you are a low-intelligence nigger then. Thanks for reminding us.

And thanks for these sweet dubs.

Name: Anonymous 2015-01-25 19:16

low-tolerance for bullshit != low intelligence
I predict your Rust/Haskell/OCaml/etc enthusiasts/masochists will whine another 10 years about how no one uses their precious language and how it solves the worlds problems.

Name: Anonymous 2015-01-25 20:08

as safe as Java

Name: Anonymous 2015-01-26 4:33

>>13
Not everyone has high standards for safety.

Name: Anonymous 2015-01-26 5:09

EGIN WIN

Name: Anonymous 2015-01-26 5:44

¡no fumes marihuana!

Name: Anonymous 2015-01-26 13:16

Beware of the Turing tar-pit in which everything is possible but nothing of interest is easy.

Name: Anonymous 2015-01-26 13:30

cool thread

upboat =D

Name: Anonymous 2015-01-26 18:57

>>17
I prefer the other ones. The ones where most things are easy even though it's a tar pit. These are usually the calculi.

Error: get fucked less often.

Name: Anonymous 2015-01-26 19:18

>>17
Like LITHP.

Name: Anonymous 2015-01-26 22:40

Let's take a very simple (and very artificial) example:
a + b

The + operator for integer as implemented in your hardware is perfectly understood. You know it is commutative. You know what is happening when you add 1 to the maximum representable positive integer etc ...

And yet, in spite of the fact that you perfectly understand this operator, you can't answer simple questions like:
f(x) + g(x) = g(x) + f(x) ?
f(x) + f(x) = 2 * f(x) ?

It may be true or wrong. You need to look at the code of f and g to be sure. And this is due to side effects in general (IO; shared state ...)

Side effects are making programming anti modular unless they are controlled and do not break composability. What composability means is that you can understand the meaning of your complex expression from the meaning of its parts. And so, you can progressively build more and more complex expressions and increase the level of abstraction and reuse. Because the semantic of the expression remain understandable and manageable due to its composable nature.

Haha, imperative chimps are so stupid.

http://www.alpheccar.org/content/104.html

Name: Anonymous 2015-01-27 4:11

Beware of Turing's tar-pit in which everything is slippery but nothing of interest is sanitary.

>>21
Think of every procedure taking an environment variable, and returning a new environment after every call. So translate:

void a() {f(); g(); h(); }

to

env a(env p) { return h(g(f(env))); }

It's just different. You can still prove things about these programs.

Name: Anonymous 2015-01-27 19:00

>>22
But it's unnecessarily hard and convoluted. It's really retarded to have to carry around around all of environment in every function, because you can't tell what is in the environment by looking at the function's code, and because environments can get huge.

Name: Anonymous 2015-01-27 22:05

>>23
because you can't tell what is in the environment by looking at the function's code
Yes you can. Just look at what the function refers to, and the code of all functions it calls. You can build these dependencies in a hierarchy and share the information.

and because environments can get huge.
Sometimes reducing complexity reduces too much expressive power. Find a way to analyze it rather than eliminating it as much as possible.

Name: Anonymous 2015-01-30 17:35

>>24
Just look at what the function refers to
But that would mean looking at the function's code, retard.

Name: Anonymous 2015-01-31 0:55

>>25
Not if you include what it refers to in the type signature, or generate it.

Name: Anonymous 2015-01-31 10:14

>>26
Types can't do that. Or can they? I've seen the Idris dependently-typed effects but Kmett says they are limited because they can't do continuation effects.

Name: Anonymous 2015-01-31 10:42

>>27
Hindley-Milner is not the only type system, gayboi.

Name: Anonymous 2015-01-31 12:23

>>28
No, it's not. And Idris doesn't have a HM type system. Did you mean to say something? Or just shitposting as usual?

Name: Anonymous 2015-01-31 12:46

>>27
Kmett says

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA FAGGOT

FUCK OFF

Name: Anonymous 2015-01-31 15:37

>>28
It's encodable in an ML as a collection type ('pure, 'assoc, ...) func of properties of the function's environment and its effects thereon.

Name: Anonymous 2015-01-31 16:56

>>21
You see, it's entirely possible to write pure functions in imperative languages. In fact, any programmer worth his salt will write in the functional style wherever possible. So chances are, f(x) + g(x) really does equal g(x) + f(x) if that makes sense.

The only advantage of purely functional languages is that they actually enforce purity by the type system (although Haskell doesn't, because it has unsafePerformIO). But this slight improvement (slight because good programmers will not benefit from it) comes at too much of a price, because now you're in the monad hell, or worse - monad transforme hell, or linear/unique type hell, etc. The cost is simply too high for such a small improvement. That's why purely functional languages are useless.

Name: Anonymous 2015-01-31 20:05

Algol 69

Name: Anonymous 2015-01-31 22:57

HolyC
http://www.templeos.org/Wb/Doc/HolyC.html

Name: Anonymous 2015-01-31 23:03

>>1
it cant be Sepples (thats is pig disgusting++) or any form of C.

Guess what? Whatever language you choose, its compiler/intrepeter and VM will all probably be written in C or Sepples.

Name: Anonymous 2015-01-31 23:06

>>4,5,9
Anyone who says "Rust" is a faggot who needs to go back to hackerjews.

We don't use SJW languages here.

Name: Anonymous 2015-01-31 23:11

>>35
Probably not if it's a compiled language.

>>36
Encouraging anti-SJW behavior makes you an SJW.

Name: Anonymous 2015-01-31 23:30

>>12
Like Lispers?

Name: Anonymous 2015-02-01 0:21

>>38
Lispers don't try to make their shit mainstream. Or force acceptance. With the exception of clojurists, they just lisp in their basements.

Name: Anonymous 2015-02-01 7:59

>>39
Actually, LITHPers do try to make their shit mainstream and force acceptance of it:

http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/
http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html
http://landoflisp.com/

Name: Anonymous 2015-02-01 8:08

>>40
A few educational books and a blog post from 2001 is not the same as the haskell faggots blogging on reddit about haskell jobs and how it will completely change the modern face of software engineering.

Name: Anonymous 2015-02-01 8:18

>>41
That's because LITHP has no new jobs and will not be able to change anything. The only thing they can do to proselytize LITHP is to give introductions to it. They don't brag about LITHP simply because there's nothing to brag about! (Graham tried to brag but obviously couldn't convince anybody)

Name: Anonymous 2015-02-01 8:21

>>42
There is no reason to brag about anything once you've found peace. With lisp you achieve satori. With satori, there is no more need for anything. The world adopting lisp is insignificant compared to satori.

Name: Anonymous 2015-02-01 8:29

>>43
Then why are they trying to popularize LITHP?

Name: Anonymous 2015-02-01 8:46

>>44
To spread wisdom. The only people that push lisp in the business world are clojurists, which are just as bad as haskellers.

http://landoflisp.com/ has a fun comic on the front page.

Name: Anonymous 2015-02-01 9:19

>>45
But Clojure is not a Lisp.

Name: Anonymous 2015-02-01 9:30

>>46
Exactly.

Name: Anonymous 2015-02-01 18:42

>>46
But Clojure is a Lisp.

Name: Anonymous 2015-02-04 16:01

>>48
No, it isn't.

Name: Anonymous 2015-02-11 0:47

>>49
Yes, it is.

Name: Anonymous 2015-02-11 0:51

>>50
Thanks for bumping this thread, I wouldn't have wanted to miss your contribution.

Name: Anonymous 2015-02-11 1:10

>>51
You're welcome.
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List
All trademarks and copyrights on this site are owned by their respective parties. All comments and posts are the responsibility of their own posters.
- Tinychan + 2ch Mode + RSS -