>>24 The lame attempt of typed racket to implement the so called "type checking" as it is imagined by believers in so called "type checking" proves that 1) so called "type checking" never existed in other languages and 2) if implemented as it is imagined to exist, it is a total failure.
Name:
Anonymous2016-11-20 21:47
>>25 The lame attempt of JavaScript to implement the so called "higher-order functions" as it is imagined by believers in so called "higher-order functions" proves that 1) so called "higher-order functions" never existed in other languages and 2) if implemented as it is imagined to exist, it is a total failure.
Name:
Anonymous2016-11-21 8:58
The lame attempt of %LanguageName% to implement the so called "Feature" as it is imagined by believers in so called "Feature" proves that 1) so called "Features" never existed in other languages and 2) if implemented as it is imagined to exist, it is a total failure.
The lame attempt of Negros to implement the so called "civilization" as it is imagined by believers in so called "civilization" proves that 1) so called "civilization" never existed in other races and 2) if implemented as it is imagined to exist, it is a total failure.
The lame attempt of banks to implement the so called "fractional reserve" as it is imagined by believers in so called "fractional reserve" proves that 1) so called "fractional reserve" never existed in other institutions and 2) if implemented as it is imagined to exist, it is a total failure.
The lame attempt of the Titanic to implement the so called "compartmentalized hull" as it is imagined by believers in so called "compartmentalized hull" proves that 1) so called "compartmentalized hull" never existed in other ships and 2) if implemented as it is imagined to exist, it is a total failure.
Name:
Anonymous2016-11-21 14:38
>>29 that's really cool and interestin about the negro but you could try to post that sort of stuff in /lounge/ because it's not programming
Name:
Anonymous2016-11-21 15:48
>>11 Oh, okay, I get it, you mean it's kind of like doing var cons = function(first, rest){ return function(f) { return f(first, rest); }; };
var list = function(...atoms){ if(atoms.length == 0) return null; var lst = cons(atoms[atoms.length-1], null); for(var i = atoms.length - 2; i >= 0; i--) lst = cons(atoms[i], lst); return lst; };! Programming is fun!
>>15 If you're able to declare and use many types, it's multityped. If you're stuck with just one type, its unityped. For example, you'd be hard pressed to declare two different types in Python or Ruby.
Name:
Anonymous2016-11-27 9:35
>>43 Would I be hard pressed to declare two different types in Lisp or C?
Name:
Anonymous2016-11-27 12:13
>>4 Types in Lisp are runtime checks and types in C are the size and some syntactic sugar for choosing between signed, unsigned, floating-point, and pointer (to memory regions of a certain size) operations.
Name:
Anonymous2016-11-27 12:37
>>44 Why don't you think for yourself before asking stupid questions.
>>45 Depends on the Lithp implementation, though. SBCL actually checks types at compile-time.
Wow. Can you prove it? I need links and citations from Hyperspec.
C is multityped but with the ability to go untyped
So, with C I am able to declare and use many types, but still have the abitily to go get stuck with just one type? Does this imply that with C I am not stuck with just one type, but still have the ability to go being unable to declare and use many types?