On a scale from 0 to 1

How based are your arrays?

>>40
I'm describing how arrays work in C.

>>41
I know. I saw that as the point of the thread discussion whooshed over your head.

>>42
If you're talking about arrays in general, then you're right, they don't need to be pass-by-reference.

C is the absolute worst programming language. It's just puke, utter puke. I wish I never used it, as it distorted my brain to the imperative dogshit model beyond recovery.

C just had its lowest Tiobe rating ever, so at least we have that going for us.

What's so bad about imperative?

>>46
You have a long way to go before you even learn the problem is there.

>>46
With imperative programming, it's easy to tell when something doesn't make sense.

With a scam like FP, if something doesn't make sense, they blame you. They say you're just not intelligent enough to understand their scam.

This is why they like C. They get to say ``Imperative programming is not safe!'' and get more DARPA grants for ``secure'' functional programming.

If we used almost anything but C, their funding would be gone. There are much more secure computers out there that don't have anything written in C. They can't even run C.

Imperative is absolute shit for error handling and recovery, and you know it. That whole "80% of code is error handling" stat is a direct result of imperative requirements of explicitly managing things in exact order.

>>49
In my experience, only imperative programs even attempt to recover from errors. All out of memory and other errors violate ``referential transparency''. The common solution of functional programmers is to pretend these errors don't exist.

"80% of code is error handling"

If the code is used in a situation where a lot of things can go wrong, you want that much error handling. No amount of type checking or formal verification would prevent a hardware error. Sometimes you have multiple processors running the same code in case of an error.

imperative requirements of explicitly managing things in exact order.

As expected, you don't know anything about imperative programming.

Now you see why FP shills wanted C to become popular.

We went to lunch afterward, and I remarked to Dennis that easily half the code I was writing in Multics was error recovery code. He said, "We left all that stuff out. If there's an error, we have this routine called panic, and when it is called, the machine crashes, and you holler down the hall, 'Hey, reboot it.'"

They can't compete with proper error handling, but they can attempt to compete with C and Unix.

>>50
Who in the fuck said anything about functional programming than you, Mr. Strawman? You don't even know what the fuck you're talking about, nor what's imperative and what isn't. Ordering is a staple of imperative, unless you're braindead enough to think it has something to do with immutability or syntax or whatever strawmen pieces of shit like you love to put forward to try to make your e-dick seem non-micro sized.

>>51

Who in the fuck said anything about functional programming

You can't whine about ``the goyim'' without people thinking you're a Jew.

>>49,51
If you're attacking imperative programming but are not suggesting functional programming, what the fuck are you even talking about? Forth?

>>53
Declarative, mostly.

_{(this space left intentionally blank)}

>>53
most functional languages are also imperative

>>53
Forth is imperative programming.

>>56
Thank you. People like >>53 have no idea what anything is.

Haskal is declarative.

<<55
Why did you steal the doubles?

>>60

orangetexting

back to freech

My arrays have no base

>>62
ethereal arrays - they have no base, they just float across memory