why haven't you grown out of haskell yet?

why haven't you grown out of haskell yet?

I haven't grown into Haskell yet, I learn something new every day.

because the Sepples committee hasn't imported all of Haskell in the standard. Yet.

main :: ()
main = putStrLn "OP is a fag" >> return ()

return ()

One can always see an imperative idiot from afar.

main :: ()

I thihnk you mena

main :: IO ()

>>5-6
YHBT

Think about haskell. haskell uses normal order evaluation (evaluate from the outermost parens) and CL is believed to use applicative evaluation (evaluate from the innermost parens). Not actually.

Evaluation is all about rewriting and transformation. Then remember that CL macros expands from the outermost parens. Thus, it can be said that CL supports normal order evaluation in a form of macro, which runs in compile-time only, while in runtime it uses applicable eval with functions & special operators. Haskell, on the other hand, also use normal order eval in compile time, but hides every runtime clutters inside the (fog of) monads and lazy evaluation.

never grew into it!

>>8
Think about lisp. lisp uses normal order evaluation (evaluate from the innermost parens) and GHC is believed to use lazy evaluation (evaluate from the direction of innermost monad). Not actually.

Evaluation is all about composition and transformation. Then remember that GHC control flow expands from the outermost endofunctor. Thus, it can be said that GHC supports normal order evaluation in a form of strictness analysis , which runs in compile-time only, while in runtime it uses applicable eval with functions & special operators. Lisp, on the other hand, also use normal order eval in compile time, but hides every runtime clutters inside the (fog of) parens and deferred macro evaluation.

GHC control flow expands from the outermost endofunctor

stop talking

>>11
I'll stop talking when I'm done farting.

>>11
Quit picking on people over simple typos.

We all know he meant GC collection marks from the outermost mutator.

>>11
GHC control flow expands from the outermost endotensor.

>>5
main = getLine >>= (\x -> return $ x ++ " (you) are a fucking retArd")

>>5,15
Without GCHi, tell me, what's :t main?

>>16
IO a

>>16

le standards memorizing face

fucking kill yourself
or stay in ##c

trying to be superior to people for memorizing arbitrary rules in programming docs is beyond pathetic

>>18
This is [u][i]STANDARD PRACTICE[i/][/u].

>>19
are there really people on /prog/ that don't autistically preview their reply 20-30 times before posting to make sure it is completely optimized from a technical and comedic point of view?

Brave HUSKARL defending Haskell's honor with skill and fortitude:

Having submitted the highest ranked Haskell code, I will get a T-Shirt. I also defended Haskell’s reputation as an efficient programming language, ranked third in the contest, after C++ (rank 1) and Java (rank 2), but before PHP (9), C# (10) and Python (11), listing only those that had a 100% solution.

http://www.joachim-breitner.de/blog/677-Fifth_place_in_Godingame_World_Cup

DUBS FOR IRELAND

>>21

defended Haskell’s reputation as an efficient programming language, ranked third in the contest, after C++ (rank 1) and Java (rank 2),

I get the feeling "efficient programming language" means something very unusual in this context.

>>21
So what was the complete ranking?
Also, coming in after Java is nothing to brag about. The only thing odd is that C# placed so lowly. I would have figured it more efficient than Java.

>>24

So what was the complete ranking?

Fucking /prog/ retards too stupid to follow hyperlinks?

http://www.codingame.com/leaderboards/challenge/there-is-no-spoon/

>>24
That's because the Java solution was from a Russian man. In a Russian man's hands, even Java can be faster than Sepples (the 3rd and 4th places were written in C++ and beaten by the Java solution).
And the C# solution was from a frogger, so it was beaten even by PHP.

>>25

Fucking /prog/ retards too stupid to follow hyperlinks?

Is that a question?

Anyway, what the fuck am I reading? Is he defining efficiency from what it appears is the amount of time that it took to write the program? This whole site is retarded in that it gives the impression that it's going to have lots of information in it's table, but it really doesn't. It may as well be a list of random numbers labeled with stupid Twitter-age names.