Thinking outside the Bento box

Operator overloading is just a shortcut to using real functions.
Function overloading is merely generic function interface, saving the time to type the real function name.
Macros just produce code you could write yourself easily.
Classes don't have any advantage over structs. Their methods are less flexible than function pointers and arrays of function pointers are better than multiple dispatch.
Namespaces introduce complexity trading off the ability to use names globally for a restricted subset of it.
Module systems are rigid and inflexible compared to textual includes. What we need is binary resource includes.
Type-safety without escapes is useless: almost every language has a form of casting to another type.
Sometimes a generic type is the elegant solution, sometimes a specific type is needed. Having forced type-safety or forced dynamic types is counter productive.
Type inference is for programmers never bothering to specify a type.
Garbage collection overhead is traded for just not bothering to call free/delete or not using stack allocation freed at end of function.

Read SICP.

>>2
SICP - this book is intended for beginners, since those who are advanced enough will only be wasting their time reading this book.
If you're a beginner, starting with SICP is like discussing the next major physics theory without learning any physics. You'll learn to philosophize and throw around grand but meaningless ideas.
Starting with C and Assembler is a better way. You'll learn the internals first, find out what's behind the abstractions. You'll know how procedures are actually called, and what some of the issues are.
In fact, towards the end of chapter 4, the authors themselves admit that their simplistic view of computers and languages is severely deficient if they want to descirbe things properly, so in charter five they introduce register machines.
No wonder so many students I've talked with complained. They couldn't understand what all of this encapsulation meant, since they had no idea of the basic underlying process--simple pushes onto a stack and jmp instructions. The way they presented structures such trees and lists, with pairs, is also a very braindead approach. C pointers are much more intuitive and flexible.
Aside from the book's wrong approach, it's also terribly written. I tired to like it, but books can only be so boring before you start to feel aversion towards it.
The book promises to make a better programmer out of you, to teach you how to think about programs, but this promise is not kept.
Those things which it presents that are relevant to overall philosophy of programming are already widely known as it is. The other things they present are completely useless. In short, you will not gain any valuable insight and won't see any revelations or any radical and vastly superior methods of thinking about programs. It's just mundane drivel here.

>>2
SICP - this book is intended for beginners, since those who are advanced enough will only be wasting their time reading this book.
If you're a beginner, starting with SICP is like discussing the next major physics theory without learning any physics. You'll learn to philosophize and throw around grand but meaningless ideas.
Starting with C and Assembler is a better way. You'll learn the internals first, find out what's behind the abstractions. You'll know how procedures are actually called, and what some of the issues are.
In fact, towards the end of chapter 4, the authors themselves admit that their simplistic view of computers and languages is severely deficient if they want to descirbe things properly, so in charter five they introduce register machines.
No wonder so many students I've talked with complained. They couldn't understand what all of this encapsulation meant, since they had no idea of the basic underlying process--simple pushes onto a stack and jmp instructions. The way they presented structures such trees and lists, with pairs, is also a very braindead approach. C pointers are much more intuitive and flexible.
Aside from the book's wrong approach, it's also terribly written. I tired to like it, but books can only be so boring before you start to feel aversion towards it.
The book promises to make a better programmer out of you, to teach you how to think about programs, but this promise is not kept.
Those things which it presents that are relevant to overall philosophy of programming are already widely known as it is. The other things they present are completely useless. In short, you will not gain any valuable insight and won't see any revelations or any radical and vastly superior methods of thinking about programs. It's just mundane drivel here.

JACKSON 5 GET

>>4

Starting with C and Assembler is a better way. You'll learn the internals first

Why should I? I don't want to become a slave to von Neumann machines. I care only about abstractions and getting stuff done. I couldn't give any less fucks about ones and zeroes in some silicon chips, and any programmer worth his salt will tell you the same. It is only lowly byte-scrubbers who make compilers who need to care about hardware details. Not us, real programmers who come into the bathroom to take a piss.

>>6
Hey "theorists",

My name is John von Neumann, and I hate every single one of you. All of you are fat, retarded, no-lifes who spend every second of their day masturbating to abstractions of primitive lambda calculus. You are everything pretentious in the world. Honestly, have any of you ever gotten any FPGA expirience? I mean, I guess it's fun making fun of my architecture because of your own insecurities, but you all take to a whole new level. This is even worse than worshipping the spirits in your computer.

Don't be a theorist. Just hit me with your best lambda. I'm pretty much perfect. I was pioneer of quantum mechanics, and I've developed much of the computer science you take for granted myself. What the fuck do you do, other than "manipulate abstractions without thinkign about the hardware"? I can also use my memory any way I want, and have a really flexible code model (which I allow to self-modify itself; Shit was SO cash). You are all fantasizers who should just wake up. Thanks for listening.

>>7

All of you are fat, retarded, no-lifes

Ad hominem. You lose.

You are everything pretentious in the world.

Just bullshit. You lose.

I'm pretty much perfect.

Pathetic self-aggrandizement. So Jew-like, but... you lose again.

I can also use my memory any way I want

No, you can't. You're dead.

You lose.

Ad hominem. You lose.

Being fat and retarded is surely "winning".

Just bullshit. You lose.

Having these abstractions in your head doesn't make you any smarter than any asylum patient.

Pathetic self-aggrandizement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann

No, you can't. You're dead.

Of course, data is code, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_architecture

>>9
Better to be fat and retarded than to use ad hominem. You lose yet again. Please kindly fuck off.

check 'em

>>11
1*10^1 != 1*10^0.

>>11
This has to be a script, there's no way someone would spend so much time monitoring shitposting on /prog/ just to get all the dubs.

>>10
That was an euphoric moment.
*tips fedora**while wearing a fedora under that fedora*

>>14
Why two fedoras?

>>15
The freedom to tip a fedora while retaining the safety of wearing a fedora, my friend.

>>15
http://i.imgur.com/5Pmxv.jpg

>>3
Did this guy skip chapter 5?

>>14-17
http://4chan.org/g/
http://reddit.com/r/memes

My computer was designed after a bento box. So... >>1-san is wrong.

>>19
I remember /g/ from my youth, and the glistening crimson on fields of blue.
In life, I was but a fan for the Black Hand Stallman, but you have been named member of the FSF board. There is no higher honor.
I do so love /g/. I journeyed here in my youth. A troll took my purse... so I took his eyes. It was a fair exchange.
Perhaps we should find a random /g/ro to murder. Practice does make perfect.
You know, a good purification might be just what this Textboard needs...

>>21
I remember when there were four or five lolicon threads on /g/ at any given time.