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

Order Programming Language

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-22 14:52

C macros aren't turing complete..
https://github.com/polytypic/order-pp

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-22 18:25

Those aren't C macros. That's a completely different language.

However, there's no reason why C macros should be as shit as they are. Assemblers have long had full metaprogramming in their preprocessors, including variables and flow control structures.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-22 18:29

Those aren't C macros. That's a completely different language.
OrderPP is written in C macros.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-22 18:54

JAKCSON 5 GET:

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-22 18:59

Whom are you quoting?

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-22 20:10

http://blog.robertelder.org/7-weird-old-things-about-the-c-preprocessor/

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-23 0:03

What an absolute mess. Don't these idiots know that there are real programming languages out there? Even code generators written in C would be better than this preprocessor shit.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-23 0:27

LELLLL le WHOM are you le quoting hehe xDDDDDDDDD

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-23 1:16

>>8
It was a honest question you dick.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-23 2:59

>>7
Its a counterexample to autistic Lispers who firmly believe their Lithp is the pinnacle of abstraction power.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-23 4:33

>>11
What's the point? Lisp has a step for processing input in its own programming language. Other languages have annotations, introspection, or separate code generation for manipulating code in their own programming language. This is just garbage in a non-programming happenstance language.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-23 4:40

>>8
Who are you quoting?

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-23 4:44

. LELLLL le WHOM are you le quoting hehe xDDDDDDDDD

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-23 4:56

I like how /jp/ immigrants will bitch and moan about people's usage of the quote feature, but you won't hear a peep from them when people say completely idiotic reddit-tier shit about ``hurrrr durr lisp too many brackets''. I guess since they're not capable of complaining about the actual meaning of something they have to resort to complaining about its syntax.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-23 6:43

>>11
The point: Lisp can be recreated within "primitive" C macros. Now, with some improvements like adding _TokenOf(expr) it would be much cleaner/terser, without the overhead of Lisp.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-23 6:49

>>14
You made your point clear in >>8 and again in >>13. Tell us who you are quoting now or let us be.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-23 7:32

too newfag to greentext

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-23 8:20

>>15
43 gigabytes of C preprocessor repetition running through an interpreter are somehow low overhead?

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-23 8:32

>>18
C preprocessor is built for speed.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-23 8:51

OrderPP does have some complexity over void.h, its a bit inelegant but it more closely replicates the functional paradigm.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-23 9:22

>>20
Are you crazy? OrderPP is a complete language with hundreds of features that don't have any equivalent in your shitty headers.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-23 9:27

>>21
What specific features? what ever it does can be built with handful of macros in void.h

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-23 11:04

>>19
Is it compiled? If not, then no, it's not built for speed.

Interpreters will have quicker startup, which can yield overall faster total runtime for tiny jobs, but we're talking about tons and tons of layers of recursive raw string evaluation here.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-23 11:09

>>20
It would be better to write a functional language interpreter in C, than to write one in preprocessor hacks.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-23 11:10

>>23
Is it compiled?
C is actually a GC stop-the-world interpreter that interprets macros and nothing else, its slower than Lisp and these macros can never compile down to machine code because C is a shitty script language thats inferior to LISP in all aspects. Don't believe the C retards claims of speed its all rigged benchmarks and corporate shills eager to sell C Processing Units and PCs (Personal C) instead of Holy Lisp Machines.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-23 11:22

I'd love to see how long it takes this mess to perform a single generic function dispatch.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-23 11:27

Ooh, ooh, give it Scheme continuations!!!1!

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-23 11:28

>>26
What do you mean by "generic function dispatch"?

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-23 11:53

C is actually a GC stop-the-world interpreter
Who told you that? This is wrong.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-23 11:56

>>29
It was written in a Lisp book from ancient times. Anyone doubting this is a heretic that should be GC'ed.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-23 12:02

>>28
Do you even (((Lisp))), bro?

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-23 12:31

>>31
Provide a single usecase in C where i need "generic function dispatch".

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-23 15:09

>>32
Any and all of them less trivial than a fibs generator.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-23 21:08

>>32
It's the multiple-dispatch OO model. Provide a single usecase where I need "OO dispatch".

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-24 5:01

>>34
OO dispatch is just selecting a function pointer at runtime(array[F](args)).
You can write a function that handles all cases of the "dispatch" using a state machine without writing redundant OOP code for every case (and they grow fast:10 args and you'll start writing factorialof(10) functions to satisfy the OOP gods).
In terms of code size and speed this is actually more efficient, as the single function doesn't duplicate any redundant structures or require special handling to call/select:
a state machine is always faster.
Of course you can just use _Generic at compile time to make a macro for this, if the "dispatch" is actually constant at the call site of the function.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-24 5:07

>>35
Also if you use C++ templates the
factorialof(10) is implicit bloat in the exectutable, since you can't prove one of the functions won't be dispatched at runtime:Sepples compilers take the safe path and write all versions of the code that can possibly run.
Such is life in OOP world.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-24 10:13

Sepples compilers take the safe path and write all versions of the code that can possibly run.
Are you serious? I had to explicitly declare an instance of C++ template code the last time I used it. How do you get the compiler to generate all versions of the code that can run?

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-24 10:27

>>37
Templates don't cause the code bloat by themself.
Its OO dispatch: which of the functions isn't run? The problem with late binding and dynamic dispatch is just this,
you need to answer all cases that can occur at runtime.

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-24 11:30

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2436165/emulating-dynamic-dispatch-in-c-based-on-template-parameters

Name: Anonymous 2016-01-29 11:57

Its like a real Turing Machine inside a Turing Tarpit jammed with broken and burning Turing Machines.
Newer Posts
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 -