ML = the language of the ignorant
1
Name:
Anonymous
2015-10-03 20:17
Their ``superiority cult'' is founded on misconceptions and outright falsehoods.
41
Name:
Anonymous
2015-11-03 20:19
>>40 That's some shitty blog writing there, and I'm judging by blog standards which are pretty low to begin with.
42
Name:
Anonymous
2015-11-03 20:28
>>40 I hereby certify this blog post
Really Fucking Dumb™
43
Name:
Anonymous
2015-11-03 20:32
>>40 So these triumphant mathemetical pure people, again, are just autistic and solipsistic. LEL'd.
44
Name:
Anonymous
2015-11-03 21:10
>>41-43 I was thinking of accusing someone here of writing it, but I guess it is too stupid for even this shitpost haven.
45
Name:
Anonymous
2015-11-04 9:54
>>40 Haskell is popular enough that there are now blogs with hate agendas against it, heh.
46
Name:
Anonymous
2015-11-06 19:39
So wait, are we talking about MetaLanguage or MatLab?
47
Name:
Anonymous
2015-11-06 20:07
48
Name:
Anonymous
2015-11-06 20:10
49
Name:
Anonymous
2015-11-07 5:03
50
Name:
Anonymous
2015-11-11 5:30
Are ML's just Lisps for retards?
51
Name:
Anonymous
2015-11-11 8:29
52
Name:
Anonymous 2015-11-11 15:18
ML : M isunderstood L anguage
53
Name:
Anonymous
2015-11-11 22:57
JSON makes Javascript the "acceptable Lisp."
54
Name:
Anonymous
2015-11-11 22:59
XML : eX tremely M isapplied L anguage
55
Name:
Anonymous
2015-11-12 23:26
sexprs make lisp the "acceptable lisp"
56
Name:
Anonymous
2015-11-13 7:36
I don't get it.
57
Name:
Anonymous
2015-11-13 8:21
58
Name:
Anonymous
2015-11-23 19:41
ML is the M oney L aundering component of the bizarre grant embezzlement scheme .
59
Name:
Anonymous 2015-11-23 21:12
What a bizarre, incomprehensible rant.
60
Name:
Anonymous
2016-02-09 0:18
How do you make the ML not be the language of the ignorant?
61
Name:
Anonymous
2016-02-09 16:49
Machine Learning is for ignorant people, I agree.
62
Name:
Anonymous
2016-02-09 18:21
Metherlands.
63
Name:
Anonymous
2016-02-09 20:43
Julius Caesar first declared the start of the development of ML back in 43 BC.
64
Name:
Anonymous
2016-02-09 23:58
>>6 Without taking the types too it's just some syntax sugar. Just write some functors and you're done.
65
Name:
Anonymous
2016-02-10 19:39
>>64 Interestingly, ML modules are just syntax sugar for structs. 1ML is a dialect that unifies them into one syntax.
66
Name:
Anonymous
2016-02-11 0:25
>>65 True, but it's not really that interesting.
67
Name:
Anonymous 2016-02-11 3:40
>>66 hey, I checked your dubs for you, those are some really great repeating digits, keep up the good work!
68
Name:
Anonymous
2016-02-11 19:32
>>65 This is really awesome news. I'll definitely look into this.
69
Name:
Anonymous
2016-02-11 19:34
>>66 Just like... your mother! Ha!
70
Name:
Anonymous
2016-02-14 3:06
>>69 I'm okay with that.
Not trying to be shitty about 1ML btw, which is a fine thing. The module thing is just a DSL in scheme but the types are where it's at. The types are _why_ ML got the module system it did, scheme didn't have that perspective so it landed somewhere else. It helps to remember: MLs have the lambda calculus too, it's in the type system.
71
Name:
Anonymous
2016-02-14 16:21
>>70 just a DSL in scheme That's kind of the problem. RnRS is taken more as a suggestion, and each Scheme does everything in its own subtly different ways. The result is that the most portability you get is about thirteen RFIs.
This module DSL would therefore only work in one Scheme; as part of a RnRS it would at least have more luck as a standard that more than one implementation could use.
Newer Posts