00:06:26 -!- CXI has quit (Connection timed out). 00:16:13 -!- CXI has joined. 00:23:00 The symbol is the identation... and some people (like me) space out blocks with a lot of carriage returns. 00:23:04 or "newlines" 00:23:18 I space out my code logically to make it readable. 00:26:46 Don't you see - exactly what the forced indentation was supposed to fix, it has caused, in a different form. 00:26:55 Oh? 00:26:55 Some of us prefer [{""}]. 00:27:52 It's supposed to enforce a sort of unified coding style, but because said coding style makes one part very fuzzy (ending multiple blocks), people do it different ways, causing a proliferation of different styles, which is exactly what they were trying to stop by doing it in the first place X_X 00:28:18 Seems to me it was used to limit the need to type a bunch of braces... to make the code easier to read... and to make it easier for the programmer. 00:29:05 Not sure it was for enforced code style... since technically I could call braces-to-end-keywords a coding style using your definition :D 00:29:49 They both serve the same function... they're just typed differently... like any other keyword. 00:30:35 For me anyways... I can usually tell when the code goes back a large number of blocks... since the length of the ident decreases a noticable amount. 00:30:44 Yes, but /how many/ 00:31:01 If you have a while in a for in an if in a sub and you lose six spaces ...? 00:31:21 * CakeProphet scratches his head, "I could see how that'd be a problem..." 00:31:34 I prefer Tcl's braces, because it makes it easy to see how it will be parsed. . . 00:31:36 After a bunch of idents it can start to get confusing which block a paticular bit is in. 00:31:57 There ya go. That's literally the /only/ problem I have with Python syntax. 00:32:01 It's infinitely cleaner than Perl. 00:32:08 Cleaner than Ruby (or Perl Jr.) 00:32:23 Yeah... Perl doesn't design for readability... so it's sort of expect anyways. ^_^ 00:32:35 Perl was designed to... uh... actually be instable... 00:32:41 Inside of [], and the block is replaced with the commands within. Inside of {}, and it's used literally. Inside of "", and variables and [] blocks are parsed. 00:32:44 Simple. 00:33:06 * CakeProphet didn't understand what you just said. 00:34:04 [this_is_a_command] {This is a literal string} "$this is a string with variables and [commands] being parsed." 00:34:33 -!- Sgeo has joined. 00:34:51 this [stuff {allows you to do} "crazy [stuff] that you can't {do in a single line} [of Python]."] 00:35:03 this_is_a_command; "This is a literal string". this ~ " is a string with variables and " ~ commands() ~ " being parsed." 00:35:16 pikhq: You just went from "had a point" to "ARGH MUST KILL" :P 00:35:30 Couldn't resist. Sorry. 00:44:35 Pretty neat actually. 00:45:51 "Using " + addition() + " to add" + variables + "to a string in " + " ".join(Python) + "can be kind of annoying." 00:46:26 I prefer using concatenation to putting variables in strings. 00:46:35 Even in languages that do interpolate, I usually use concatenation. 00:46:39 But I'd get tired of typing all of those damn parentheticals. 00:46:58 I think "blah" + variable is how you concatenate in Python... 00:47:00 .... 00:47:45 You sure you want to do [lappend "This is a list" $which "is being concatenated using lappend."]? 00:48:17 ?????? 00:48:29 Huh? 00:48:45 pikhq: Just because your language provides no decent means of concatenation doesn't mean ours don't :P 00:48:53 There are no strings in Tcl. It's all a bunch of lists. 00:48:59 * CakeProphet boggles. 00:49:05 That would get annoying after a while... 00:49:14 I mean... lists are great and all... but... uh... :D 00:50:35 I like the way Python slices stuff.... how do other languages slice? 00:51:34 string = "Oh wow this is a string" 00:51:36 D has awesome slicing. 00:51:58 somethingOfAnyArrayTypeIncludingStringsOfCourse[lbound..ubound] 00:52:03 And it's COW 00:52:20 string[1:4] would return "wow this is" 00:52:55 OK ... that's sort of lame actually ... 00:53:01 :D 00:53:14 What if you want by-char? 00:53:16 Yeah... I have to think about how it's going to slice a while before I do it. 00:53:19 Like, y'know, a sane person? 00:53:24 Oh... oops... yeah it goes by char.. 00:53:25 my bad :D 00:53:30 OK, not so lame. 00:53:52 string[3..14] == "wow this is" 00:53:56 If that were a list.. with each word being a list item... it would have returned "wow this is" 00:54:12 Nope 00:55:01 It's be string[2:13] I think. 00:55:28 Python slicing works like there's a bunch of little lines inbetween everything... 00:55:39 I was talking about D :P 00:55:43 OH. 00:55:45 :D 00:56:00 D apparently goes by the character number I guess. 00:56:05 Yeah. 00:56:08 It goes by the index. 00:56:17 >.> 00:56:37 Well... in Python... the index works just like slicing... so yeah... same here... just in different ways. 00:57:14 |o|h| |t|h|i|s||i|s||w|e|i|r|d| 00:57:28 That's how Python slices.... the first little mark is 0... and then you count up... 00:57:45 Yeah, that'd be what we call the index :P 00:57:54 >.> 00:57:56 Heh. 00:58:02 I thought it might be different with D or something. 00:58:20 "Oh wow this is a string"[3] == 'w' 00:58:27 "Oh wow this is a string"[3..4] == "w" 00:58:38 "Oh wow this is a string"[3..14] == "wow this is" 00:58:58 Hmmm... does D go before or after the index number? 00:59:36 -!- oerjanj has joined. 00:59:41 Left-inclusive, right-exclusive. 00:59:57 That is, it includes the first one and all elements up to but discluding the last one. 01:00:53 I don't feel like thinking... tell me how Python works. 01:00:58 >>> string = "oh wow this is totally a string omigod" 01:00:59 >>> string[1] 01:01:01 'h' 01:01:02 >>> string[2:5] 01:01:04 ' wo' 01:01:05 I typed that into IDLE... tell me how it slices... 01:01:08 * CakeProphet is so lazy... 01:01:21 Left-inclusive right-exclusive. 01:01:24 So, the same. 01:01:38 spoooooon feeding session 01:01:47 ivan`: Mmm, spoons. 01:02:12 cakeprophet: let me get this straight, you like python syntax but not math? 01:02:22 Yup.... 01:02:36 which makes me wonder what you think about haskell :-) 01:02:45 I also hate hitting the shift key... so any language I create myself will need absolutely no shift key unless you specifically want to capitalize something. 01:03:00 CakeProphet, try Whitespace 01:03:14 XD 01:03:28 Nothing irks me more than all those shift-key stuffs like ^ & * and crap... 01:03:31 CakeProphet: Y'know, you could just depress the shift key without actually "hitting" it. 01:03:35 alas nothing but letters is necessarily the same in all keyboard layouts 01:03:49 oerjanj: Even letters aren't necessarily the same :) 01:03:50 in python you do need : but it's mostly lowercase 01:04:15 CakeProphet: So, rather than +, you'll have ... "add" for addition? Or is numpad OK? 01:04:34 You need : and () for functions and {} for dictionaries (associative arrays) and [] for lists. 01:04:34 at least lower case english letters still don't need shift on a norwegian keyboard 01:04:35 CakeProphet: Also, why is it that you're one of the very few people on this channel who capitalizes? 01:04:39 but [] doesn't need shift. 01:05:06 Eh.... I'm fine with shifting while typing... I just hate having to find all those damn symbols... 01:05:10 [] needs Alt Gr on my keyboard 01:05:19 and I haven't gotten into the habit of using the numpad... so I use the + that's on the keyboard. 01:05:37 oerjanj: Yugg, deadkeys X_X 01:06:27 I rarely use the numpad for anything. 01:06:30 It's too out of the way... 01:06:32 :D 01:06:39 the only bracketing that doesn't need shift on my keyboard is <> 01:07:23 i suppose if you don't like to find symbols you don't like haskell syntax either 01:07:41 I suppose so. 01:07:54 I like the concept of Perl.. if only it didn't have those damn sigils... >.< 01:08:02 oerjanj: Funny, those DO need shift on an American keyboard :P 01:08:17 Which... I'm sure after typing them long enough... they get pretty easy. 01:08:18 CakeProphet: ... those symbols ARE THE CONCEPT OF PERL 01:08:23 actually > does but not < here, they're on the same key 01:08:32 oerjanj: Ah. 01:08:43 * CakeProphet ducks and dodge the gunshots. 01:09:35 -!- Sgeo has quit ("Ex-Chat"). 01:10:08 Meh... grumpy-pants ^_^ 01:12:09 Any language that's easy to type.... I'll love... 01:12:31 Anyone know any good languages that are easy to type and require bare minimum is thought to execute :D 01:16:10 um, the last point would seem to leave out most esoteric languages. 01:17:06 Oh no worries... I can handle complete nonsense with ease... by easy-to-type I basically just mean to shifts or out-of-reach keys. 01:17:43 so using just alphabetic letters, if it is to be reasonably multinational... 01:17:53 and numbers 01:18:11 ever heard of COBOL? 01:18:16 * oerjanj ducks 01:19:27 not that i know COBOL. 01:19:56 but there sure do seem to be a lot of letters in that 01:20:06 Well.. I'm using an american keyboard... so my shifts are different. 01:20:10 Ever heard of ORK? 01:20:13 * GregorR-W duskcs 01:20:17 Not that I know ORK. 01:20:20 i was just about to mention it 01:20:23 But there sure do seem to be a lot of letters in that. 01:20:26 Oh wait ... 01:20:29 I /do/ know ORK! 01:20:45 All numbers... letters... and [ ] ; ' , . / \ - = and probably some other stuff... I can deal with () and {} and + and _... 01:21:25 i suppose .gertrude would be nice, too 01:24:04 incidentally, my last two languages have been attempts at combining readability with esotericness... 01:24:21 seeing as most esolangs are highly encrypted 01:24:24 That's probably what I would do... if I could make languages. 01:25:29 lazy + weirdness + neat concept 01:25:40 lazy? 01:26:09 lazy as in me-having-to-do-less-shit-to-get-something-to-happen-by-any-means-possible.... not any sort of code terminology you might know/ 01:26:17 http://www.esolangs.org/wiki/ORK 01:26:51 ORK is the same, and Glass has the possibility 01:27:03 Wow... 01:27:09 I just... looked at ORKs Hello World program... 01:27:11 and... 01:27:15 I love it already... 01:27:44 -!- GregorR-W has quit ("Time to go home"). 01:28:00 I'm getting butterflies just looking at the code.. 01:28:02 This is... 01:28:04 awesome. 01:28:34 BRB 01:29:51 It has the possibility of both surrealness... functionality... and ease of use... and it sounds cool to read. 01:32:26 btw the reason i was mentioning COBOL was because i was thinking about making a language based on financial transactions 01:32:36 ... 01:32:38 ...... 01:32:41 That sounds so appealing to me... 01:32:45 er... unappealing. 01:33:11 basically the way to get an object in the language to perform an action is to pay it :-) 01:33:40 and only the MAIN BANK object or something can print money... 01:34:20 I was thinking of a "who stole the cookies from the cookie jar"-based event-oriented programming language :D 01:34:35 and naturally, for such a language a COBOL-inspired syntax would be appropriate 01:35:15 So the code would detect what triggered the event "stole" on the item "cookies" in the array/function/something "cookie jar" 01:35:20 hm, would that be a detective story language? 01:35:25 .... 01:35:48 seems like it would need to be a logic language 01:36:29 call it SHERLOCK :-) unless that is taken.. let me google 01:37:40 seems to be just some application with that name, nothing to worry about 01:38:08 or maybe some other detective name of your choice 01:38:39 Anything I make is going to be silly... detective-styled code is a huge turn-off to my idea :D 01:38:47 I'd prefer the name "cookie jar" 01:39:00 sesame street style then? 01:39:04 >.> 01:39:22 Well... I don't really want themes... themes kind of annoy me... except the cookie jar theme for some reason.. 01:39:30 * CakeProphet is so self-contradictory it's amazing. 01:39:57 * oerjanj is all for a language based on self-contradiction 01:40:07 Then.. I'm the one to do it. 01:40:19 If lol = true: lol = false 01:42:23 Hmmm... if I'm going for a language that actually -uses- an equal sign... I'd definetely mix it up. 01:42:32 So that the assigned value comes first... with the variable second. 01:42:37 "the string" = string 01:43:50 * CakeProphet wonders if you could possibly create a language that functions on the concept of unassignment. 01:44:08 string = "the string" actually makes that value -not- that string... but for everything else it is true. 01:44:21 It'd take a while to get used to... but if it's possible to create... it would be interesting. 01:44:39 even worse than my Reaper :-) 01:45:12 Hmmm? 01:45:33 What's reaper like? 01:45:53 it is based on replacement, a = b changes every reference to a into a reference to b 01:46:26 That sounds infinitely confusing. 01:46:26 i haven't yet got around to implementing it, alas 01:47:15 it's a destruction-oriented language 01:47:18 http://esoteric.voxelperfect.net/wiki/Reaper 01:47:22 Sounds cool 01:48:15 i noticed that Forte is somewhat similar, i am pondering a bit on implementing that... 01:48:35 it is even weirder because there you replace _numbers_ 01:48:59 Actually.. ORK is probably an excellent OOP 01:49:11 It's easy to follow. 01:49:14 And sounds cool :D 01:49:27 Unfortunately I'm noit very good with OO yet. 01:49:48 * oerjanj has a soft spot for functional languages 01:50:05 but then i am a mathematician 01:50:11 Ugh... 01:50:22 BOO! 01:50:26 I'm pretty much only capable of imperitive. 01:50:32 But... I can do OO... just not well,. 01:50:47 functions confuse and infuriate me... but only when I'm defining them myself... I can -use- them fine :D 01:51:51 Imperitive just makes sense naturally to me *nodnods* 01:52:00 It's more intuitive. 01:54:44 i suppose it is a shorter translation to what the computer actually does, sort of 01:54:52 Definetely. 01:55:46 I only create functions for minor stuff... like quick and commonly-used string manipulations or stuff like that... 01:56:00 shortcuts... but the structure (if you want to call it that) is essentially imperitive. 01:56:35 hello 01:56:40 argh! 01:58:15 experimenting with the edit keys can be dangerous 01:59:26 even in haskell, the top level of a program is essentially imperative 02:01:04 i understand functional structure has less problems when doing things concurrently 02:01:25 than imperative structure 02:02:39 BBL 02:02:43 -!- oerjanj has quit ("Leaving"). 02:03:34 -!- randomness has joined. 02:04:08 -!- oerjanj has joined. 02:05:10 -!- Spion has joined. 02:05:20 o.0 02:05:52 -!- Mrak has joined. 02:05:53 Please type the prime numbers up to 100 and press enter? 02:06:24 Please say "Hello, World!" 02:06:55 6_o 02:07:01 Please, whatever 02:07:15 Due to IRP's nature, any quine is potentially a severe DDOS worm. 02:07:16 hrm 02:07:31 2 3 5 7 11 13 17 19 23 29 31 37 41 43 47 53 59 61 67 71 73 79 83 89 97 02:07:37 lol :D 02:07:41 Thank you. 02:08:00 modulo errors of course 02:08:33 looks fine to me 02:09:49 Hello, Void! 02:10:20 mailfunctioning ? 02:10:21 (some noise must be expected in IRP transmission) 02:10:21 :D 02:10:33 i see, you had to make things more interesting 02:10:43 :)) 02:10:52 * CakeProphet begins making a prime number program just for the hell of it. 02:11:00 lol 02:11:08 * oerjanj fires up WinHugs 02:12:16 hmmm... 02:12:43 So... the most clunky way I can think to make a prime number program... is just to divide each and every number in a range of numbers by a shitload of numbers... 02:13:00 who needs a prime number program anyway? :)) 02:13:15 Who needs a hello world program? 02:13:20 you've not heard of Eratosthenes's sieve? 02:13:41 it is enough to divide by smaller primes 02:13:54 Math is not me. 02:15:31 you can go up to sqrt(num)+1 then 02:15:48 Hmmm? 02:16:08 So the shitload of numbers... would be the sqrt of the number + 1? 02:16:46 yes 02:16:50 for 49, up to 8 02:17:22 * CakeProphet forgot how to do sqrt's in Python. 02:17:44 Well, its Wednesday and Spion is on IRC. 02:17:52 Eratosthenes has another approach: start with 1, X it, then go to 2, it, and X all multiples of 2 02:18:03 then go to 3, it, X all multiples of 3 02:18:05 etc 02:18:11 Argh.. too... much... math. 02:18:25 the higher you go, the more primes left in 02:18:43 cool way to do it would be a linked list 02:18:56 or maybe not; 02:18:59 faster would be an array 02:23:33 Eh... Python doesn't use arrays unless you specifically need them... 02:23:38 so.. yeah 02:24:25 * oerjanj made his Haskell version work 02:24:27 Python... ermm su..c.. ceeds in bringing the worse of me 02:24:43 +out 02:28:12 primes = sieve [2..] where sieve (n:rest) = n:sieve (filter (\r -> r `mod` n /= 0) rest) 02:28:26 Ugh... that looks way too hard to touch to write... so... 02:28:50 a Haskell one-liner 02:29:48 bye 02:29:50 -!- randomness has quit. 02:32:07 for num in range(greenlight, stopsign): 02:32:09 for numanuma in range(2, num * num): 02:32:10 if num % numanuma == 0: 02:32:12 print num, 'equals', numanuma, '*', num/numanuma 02:32:13 break 02:32:15 else: 02:32:16 02:32:18 print num, 'is optimus prime' 02:33:10 Of course... 02:33:16 With inputs for all the range values. 02:33:50 isn't that range(2,num * num) a bit excessive? 02:34:27 it should be square root, not square 02:35:47 Oh yeah... 02:35:49 Well.. 02:35:56 I don't know how to do sqrts in Python :D 02:36:29 learn python, then program in python 02:36:40 .... 02:36:53 to avoid square roots, you could add a test (numanuma * numanuma <= num, although that would be a bit ineffective... 02:37:04 Oh ho... now don't get all mean-grumpy-pants-coder on me... I -am- learning... 02:37:44 http://www.google.com/search?q=python+module+reference+sqrt 02:37:57 or **0.5 i think 02:38:22 * oerjanj starts up python help 02:38:31 it's sqrt(num) 02:38:44 sqrt isn't a builtin :) 02:39:00 but close enough 02:39:08 Well... after going through the library. 02:39:14 it's in the math module 02:39:16 It's apparently hidden away in cmath 02:39:20 or... math 02:39:36 those pythonistas wanted to make it as hard as possible 02:40:11 Eh.... square root doesn't come into play that often.. really. 02:42:13 Numbers in general... are... really only needed for a few things... as far as practical programming goes.. 02:42:25 Unles.. of course... you're building something that is specifically intended for mathemathics. 02:42:37 Such as... a prime number finder 02:42:40 -!- Mrak has left (?). 02:47:01 well, Python is no worse than Glass, where even addition is a method... 02:55:41 -!- Spion has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 03:05:27 -!- pikhq has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)). 03:09:51 -!- pikhq has joined. 03:38:10 -!- oerjanj has quit ("Good night!"). 03:40:29 -!- CakeProphet has quit (No route to host). 04:20:34 -!- ivan` has quit (Connection timed out). 04:33:55 -!- Arrogant has joined. 04:38:52 -!- CXII has joined. 04:46:58 -!- ivan` has joined. 04:59:55 -!- CXI has quit (Connection timed out). 05:32:51 good night, everyone. 05:33:16 -!- RodgerTheGreat has quit. 06:25:07 -!- ivan` has quit (" Want to be different? HydraIRC -> http://www.hydrairc.com <-"). 07:59:59 -!- clog has quit (ended). 08:00:00 -!- clog has joined. 08:05:28 -!- ivan` has joined. 08:36:09 -!- Sph1nx has joined. 09:37:19 -!- CXII has quit (Connection timed out). 09:44:16 -!- Arrogant has quit ("Leaving"). 12:10:07 -!- jix_ has joined. 12:14:42 -!- jix_ has changed nick to jix. 13:42:41 -!- Sph1nx has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 13:45:46 -!- Sph1nx has joined. 14:16:01 -!- Sph1nx has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 14:18:44 -!- Sph1nx has joined. 14:19:55 -!- Sph1nx has quit (Remote closed the connection). 14:35:18 -!- CXI has joined. 14:56:25 -!- CXI has quit ("If you're reading this, it's probably xchat's fault."). 14:59:44 -!- rtwobitspite has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)). 15:03:39 -!- calamari has joined. 15:04:10 hi 15:23:47 -!- calamari has quit ("Leaving"). 16:30:07 -!- jix has quit (Remote closed the connection). 16:31:00 -!- jix has joined. 16:34:48 -!- Sph1nx has joined. 16:40:17 -!- CXI has joined. 16:55:19 -!- RodgerTheGreat has joined. 17:13:09 -!- kipple has joined. 17:40:47 -!- smokecfh has joined. 17:56:07 -!- RodgerTheGreat has quit. 18:03:04 -!- smokecfh has quit (Remote closed the connection). 19:06:41 -!- Sph1nx has quit ("Bye-bye =]"). 19:48:25 -!- bsmntbombdood has joined. 20:24:33 -!- tgwizard has joined. 20:37:33 -!- RodgerTheGreat has joined. 20:37:52 hello 20:38:07 Hello. 22:22:32 slow day, eh? 23:15:55 -!- kipple has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 23:30:25 -!- GregorR has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 23:30:32 -!- EgoBot has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)). 23:31:34 -!- GregorR has joined. 23:46:40 -!- oerjanj has joined.