00:00:32 <ihope> Or a piece of something blasphical.
00:01:31 <Razor-X> Is ALGOL considered esoteric?
00:01:39 <lament> Razor-X: reading SICP is more important than knowing Lisp or Scheme
00:02:06 <ihope> Razor-X: if it wasn't intended to be esoteric, it's not esoteric.
00:02:07 <lament> well, unless you already know the material.
00:02:14 <lament> which CakeProphet clearly doesn't.
00:02:26 <ihope> COBOL and BANCstar are not esoteric.
00:03:20 <ihope> Apparently blasphemes are the main concept behind blasphology.
00:04:14 <CakeProphet> Hmmm... so.... how about a language that changes itself based whatever the hell the programmer needs?
00:04:39 <CakeProphet> Say you want lazy evaluation for some project instead of eager... then you can just set the parameter at the very beginning of the program.
00:04:41 <lament> CakeProphet: you mean Lisp?
00:05:09 <ihope> Uh... thunks. The eager kind.
00:05:22 <ihope> That's how you do eagerness in Thubi.
00:06:03 <CakeProphet> Or maybe have keywords for different types of evaluation... you can switch in and out of different types of evaluation with a special keyword.
00:06:16 <ihope> It's Thue plus full I/O capabilities.
00:06:23 <CakeProphet> Or anything... typing... compilation/interpretation.
00:06:32 <ihope> Thue already has full O, but not full I.
00:07:57 <ihope> That is, it has full O as long as you use the newline hack.
00:08:15 <lament> CakeProphet: please read SICP
00:09:19 <CakeProphet> Is there some fundamental flaw in that idea?
00:09:55 -!- CXI has quit (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)).
00:10:13 <lament> yes - you haven't read SICP
00:10:40 <lament> which actually looks at that
00:11:57 <ihope> Is there a copy of SICP online?
00:13:25 <lament> i pasted it quite recently
00:13:32 <lament> http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book.html
00:14:09 <ihope> You better read in, CakeProphet, because I'm reading it, and it's you who's supposed to read it.
00:27:59 * ihope sets some masses on a gravitational field
00:28:45 <ihope> Actually, they're marbles on a Ziploc bag with some water in it.
00:28:49 <ihope> Same thing, right?
00:29:26 <CakeProphet> Hmmm.. a programming language that looks like pirate jargon.
00:30:28 <Razor-X> CakeProphet: Yes, you should read SICP to get familiar with the concepts of Lisp.
00:31:15 <Razor-X> And pick up Guile too, so you can have fun with Scheme.
00:31:33 <Razor-X> You may also want to look at the Abelson-Sussman lectures instead.
00:31:41 <Razor-X> (Which is for Common Lisp.)
00:31:49 <Razor-X> Plus, you get a guy who looks like a gnome in it!
00:31:58 <Razor-X> http://swiss.ai.mit.edu/classes/6.001/abelson-sussman-lectures/gjspicture.jpg
00:32:04 <CakeProphet> They all look... really demanding on the coder...
00:32:35 <CakeProphet> I'm used to Python's lack-of-shit-to-type-for-something-to-happen.
00:32:54 <Razor-X> Well, programming is dependant on the gray matter that exists betwen the cranial buffer fluid.
00:33:24 <CakeProphet> If I can accomplish something with less typing... I'm going to use that language.
00:33:30 <Razor-X> In Lisp, with macros (not sure that much about Scheme's macros), it should decrease *most* user overhead effectively.
00:37:05 <CakeProphet> I like the idea of a programming language specially designed for creating or adding onto a programming language.
00:37:05 -!- macgeek- has changed nick to macgeek.
00:37:32 <Razor-X> That's what makes functional languages fun, the language changes for you, not you for it.
00:37:38 <CakeProphet> hmmm... Lisp does that right? But that's not its main goal..
00:37:49 <Razor-X> No! It *is* one of its main goals!
00:38:44 <Razor-X> So, are you going by the lectures or SICP?
00:40:24 <Razor-X> Are you going to read SICP first or read the lectures then SICP?
00:41:13 <CakeProphet> Dunno... I don't plan crap like that out...
00:41:21 -!- RodgerTh1Great has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)).
00:43:19 <CakeProphet> Programming isn't a passion of mine... it's a hobby... I have no rush to learn as much about it as I can... Python is just easy enough to be fun... everything looks too annoying to type.
00:43:45 <Razor-X> I feel slighted if I don't learn everything about a subject I'm interested in.
00:43:49 <CakeProphet> Meh.. maybe I just can't get out of my comfort zone... oh well... at least I'm comfortable.
00:43:50 <Razor-X> And I don't like feeling slighted.
00:44:07 <Razor-X> Quantum computing is the only thing I've really taken on faith.
00:44:39 <CakeProphet> I just simply don't care... life is here for me to have fun... if I'm not having fun I'm wasting my life.
00:45:03 <Razor-X> I love learning languages, finding grammar rules, programming, creating new languages, dreaming up stories, etc, etc.
00:45:04 <CakeProphet> *shrugs* Different people have different ways of having fun...
00:45:22 <CakeProphet> I personally love the idea of -making- programming languages... but using them is a little less attractive.
00:46:09 <Razor-X> That maybe so, but you should be familiar with the concepts of other languages so you don't reinvent the wheel and so you have a basis of ideas.
00:46:31 <Razor-X> I ``know'' more languages than I can remember, but I doubt I can program much in them. I know their concepts though.
00:47:00 <CakeProphet> I know most of the concepts on the surface... nothing in-depth though.
00:47:03 <Razor-X> But my human languages are all pretty good.
00:47:27 -!- jix has quit ("Bitte waehlen Sie eine Beerdigungnachricht").
00:47:39 <Razor-X> (In that I haven't forgotten them.)
00:51:43 <lament> CakeProphet: no, you don't know most concepts even on the surface
00:51:56 <lament> CakeProphet: when only today you had to be told what lists are
00:52:05 <lament> it really doesn't get any more basic than that
00:52:37 <Razor-X> When you build languages, you should know how a computer works on a certain level.
00:53:14 <Razor-X> If you know your concepts, write a BF->Python compiler in Python.
00:56:41 <Razor-X> It is actually really easy.
00:56:44 <CakeProphet> The only thing I really enjoy doing is... hmmm... music and writing...
00:56:46 -!- RodgerTheGreat has joined.
00:57:15 <pikhq> Coding is a great joy. . .
00:58:19 <CakeProphet> probably the most enjoyable part of joding is taking what I've crerated and writing comments for it.
00:59:58 <RodgerTheGreat> is everybody putting some ++++++++++[>++++++<-]>.---------. into their submissions for the contest?
01:00:40 <Razor-X> !bf ++++++++++[>++++++<-]>.---------.
01:01:13 <lament> what instruments do you play?
01:01:26 <CakeProphet> Guitar, trombone, harmonica, a little bit of piano.
01:02:40 <lament> classical, acoustic, electric?
01:03:13 <CakeProphet> I have an acoustic and an electirc... oh and a bass
01:03:47 <lament> well, what kind of music do you play?
01:04:27 <CakeProphet> Meh.... blues/rock (not shitty new rock...)/psychadelic-ish-stuff/whatever
01:04:51 <Razor-X> Everyone who plays music loves calling one genre bad :D
01:04:56 <CakeProphet> Playing something planned bores me to no end.
01:05:22 <CakeProphet> Meh... it's not bad.. I just personally don't like it.. everything is preference though.
01:05:47 <Razor-X> I prefer classical to play, personally.
01:05:53 <Razor-X> European Classical, to be exact.
01:06:31 <CakeProphet> The style that is... then I would imrpov classical-sounding stuff.
01:06:43 <ihope> This keyboard feels really weird since I've gotten used to touching that Ziploc bag filled with water.
01:07:17 <CakeProphet> I can improv something classical-sounding.. but I don't really know anything about it so it's probably something generic sounding.
01:07:19 <Razor-X> Classical sounding music is pretty definitely defined, you know. There's a set time and a set of scales which people love to play on.
01:07:38 <Razor-X> Music theory is fun. One of my favorite parts of music.
01:08:28 <Razor-X> No. I'm not much of a romantic, if you haven't noticed.
01:08:57 <CakeProphet> Playing something written on a sheet feels.... emotionless.
01:10:05 * RodgerTheGreat is listening to Icemachine: Revolution by skyrunner from BrainControl
01:10:28 <Sgeo> Bye for now all, see you later
01:11:07 * Razor-X is listening to Nothing -- No-one [0:00/0:00].
01:11:59 <lament> i'm not a big fan of music theory, not sure how much playing classical has to do with it
01:12:41 <lament> it's just music, that happens to be thousands times better than whatever crap you're going to improvise; so why not play it?
01:12:42 <CakeProphet> A good bit.. classical pretty much -is0 music theory.
01:12:45 -!- tgwizard has quit (Remote closed the connection).
01:12:52 <lament> CakeProphet: you are wrong.
01:13:09 * pikhq is listening to White Noise -- Frodo [time unknown]
01:13:34 * pikhq has music theory down pretty well. . .
01:13:41 <pikhq> As well as actual *music*. ;)
01:13:57 <CakeProphet> I know the basics... otherwise I would sound terrible improvising.
01:14:21 <lament> anyway, going home, bbl
01:24:53 <Razor-X> Uggh. I didn't know Abelson is so *boring*.
01:31:28 <Razor-X> The guy from the Lisp lectures.
01:31:51 <Razor-X> He has just spent 19 minutes teaching me about black boxes.
01:32:43 <Razor-X> I was struggling not to fall asleep.
01:32:56 <ihope> A black box is a function that we don't know anything about, but we can still feed inputs to a black box and get outputs.
01:33:01 <ihope> Black boxes in 19 seconds.
01:33:08 <ihope> If you're a slow reader, that is.
01:33:10 <Razor-X> Or to float off into magic-land when a teacher goes into some horribly boring lecture.
01:34:23 <Razor-X> I hear they're great but, please tell me it gets more interesting.
01:35:08 <RodgerTheGreat> I've only been through about half of them, but I thought they improved.
01:35:21 <RodgerTheGreat> you might want to just skip ahead if you already know the language.
01:35:51 <Razor-X> Well, his introduction seems aimed for the completely new person into programming.
01:36:21 <Razor-X> Principles of abstraction become pretty obvious after coding for a while.
01:36:36 <Razor-X> What lecture does the meat start from?
01:36:57 <RodgerTheGreat> yeah, I mostly watched them to learn the semantics of LISP more thoroughly.
01:37:03 <Razor-X> (I still say Sussman looks like a gnome.)
01:37:16 <CakeProphet> I hate it when teaching stuff assumes you already know shit about programming..
01:37:27 <CakeProphet> I swear I've yet to find instructions for someone who knows JACKSHIT about programming...
01:37:38 <CakeProphet> most of what I know is self-taught and learned from others.
01:38:07 <Razor-X> You think I've taken a programming course in my life? :D
01:38:21 <RodgerTheGreat> as I said, I haven't been through all of them, but I imagine the last couple would be pretty interesting.
01:38:32 <Razor-X> Or any math course above Pre-Calculus Algebra and Trigonometry?
01:38:38 <CakeProphet> I do think it would help a bit if material actually -explained- terminology...
01:38:51 -!- Weirdbro has joined.
01:39:17 <Razor-X> Since I started when I was 7 and in the ages of dial-up, the help of other people was not really there.
01:39:25 <CakeProphet> RodgerTheGreat, That function-as-list idea was conceptualized in my head with Python... and in Python lists are arrays.
01:39:29 <Razor-X> I had to learn to read and absorb things on my own.
01:39:30 -!- macgeek has changed nick to macgeek-.
01:39:38 <Weirdbro> IRP: Please, some one write the 12 number of the Fibonacci Sequence in binary
01:40:06 <CakeProphet> error = lazy evaluation doesn't want to try.
01:40:12 <pikhq> Hark! Is that a slave of proprietary software?
01:40:32 <Razor-X> Hark! Why is everyone using ``Hark'' ?
01:40:34 <pikhq> pikhq: Calculation could not be performed: programmer too lazy.
01:41:11 <RodgerTheGreat> seriously, dude. you're every bit as much a slave to software created by other people as I am. everyone using a computer stands on the shoulders of giants.
01:41:34 <Razor-X> Proprietary is not equal to software created by others.
01:41:38 <pikhq> RodgerTheGreat: The difference is that I can actually stand on the shoulders of giants instead of being stomped on by them.
01:41:39 <Weirdbro> Hark! I am mostly not a slave of proprietary software. My Linux just happens to be running in a virtual machine inside of windows.
01:41:59 * CakeProphet is depressed... someone hand me a shoulder to cry on :(
01:42:05 <Razor-X> Can you edit your WM in real time? Ho ho.
01:42:15 * RodgerTheGreat detaches a spare shoulder and hands it to CakeProphet.
01:42:21 <pikhq> Can you edit your WM at all?
01:42:42 <Razor-X> StumpWM and Ratpoison for the win!
01:42:53 <RodgerTheGreat> why would I want to modify my window manager? It does precisely what I need.
01:42:58 * pikhq is temporarily enslaved by nonfree software. . . Curse you, Nvidia!
01:43:19 <pikhq> RodgerTheGreat: That's because you haven't yet thought of ways of making it better.
01:43:19 <CakeProphet> I'm having one of those "I have no purpose" fits of depression.
01:43:44 <CakeProphet> RodgerTheGreat, BRAINSTORM FASTER DUMBASS. </sarcasm>
01:43:47 <Razor-X> I'm bored right now at Abelson and want to take a shower and the read some more of my Japanese novel.
01:43:58 <pikhq> Here in the world of GNU/Linux, if I want a new feature, I can write it myself, ask a friend to do it for me, pay a programmer to do it, or do without.
01:44:36 <pikhq> Out there in the world of nonfree software, if you want a new feature, you can beg and pay for the upgrade with the feature, beg and not get the new feature, or not beg and just do without.
01:44:52 <Razor-X> Or you can beg and pay and get no upgrade.
01:45:11 <pikhq> Razor-X: Still getting raped up the ass.
01:45:12 <RodgerTheGreat> I use my computer to accomplish tasks, not to constantly tweak my environment in pursuit of some lofty "perfect environment". I am pleased with my machine how it is, and I strike a useful balance between having unix at my fingertips and being able to run software without being forced to compile it.
01:45:21 <CakeProphet> Or you could engage conversations with windows and mac users about how awesome linux is.
01:45:46 <Razor-X> I love my perfect environment :3.
01:45:53 <pikhq> I use my computer to accomplish tasks, and if it doesn't yet accomplish a task I want, it will in a week.
01:46:25 <pikhq> If your computer doesn't yet accomplish a task you want, it *might* after several months of begging and a paid upgrade.
01:46:42 <RodgerTheGreat> at least I'm not instantly dismissive and elitist to users of "inferior" operating systems. It's called choice.
01:46:43 <CakeProphet> In many ways... the computers are our bitches... which is why I follow the-coder-should-have-it-easy philosophy
01:46:45 <Razor-X> But Linux has its faults too, dun forget.
01:46:59 <CakeProphet> My bitch does my work... I just tell it what to do in the easiest way possible :D
01:47:02 <Razor-X> *Cough* Encoding software *Cough*.
01:47:05 <Weirdbro> I would love Linux even more if all the proprietary stuff suddenly became FOSS by means of the Linux penguin destroying the resistance.
01:47:07 -!- Weirdbro has quit ("Ex-Chat").
01:47:13 -!- bsmntbombdood has quit ("all your basment are belong to bsmntbombdood").
01:47:46 <Razor-X> I don't have the video background neccessary to code encoding software :(.
01:48:11 <ihope> The "I have no purpose" depression can be remedied easily by finding someone who cares about you.
01:48:30 <Razor-X> I always have a purpose in my self-centered world.
01:49:15 -!- puzzlet has quit (Remote closed the connection).
01:49:33 <ihope> Pah. Just ask somebody if he cares about you, and if the answer's "no", ask somebody else.
01:50:10 <RodgerTheGreat> unless you decide to join a clique and conform to the mores of a large social group, it's anything but simple to find someone that cares about you. The internet can be a lonely place.
01:50:15 <CakeProphet> ...I'm pretty sure the answer here will be "no"... and I don't really... know a lot of people..
01:50:39 <Razor-X> The answer: Become hopelessly introverted and egotistical.
01:50:49 <Razor-X> The WORLD is at fault, not YOU :D.
01:50:53 <ihope> Hey, we seem pretty alike.
01:51:22 <ihope> I love Python, despite the fact that I don't know much and it doesn't have the features I want.
01:51:26 <RodgerTheGreat> Razor-X seems to have stumbled across the underlying cause of myspace's popularity.
01:52:12 <Razor-X> Of course, I also realize that to these other people that believe they exist but are a figment of my imagination, they don't have the synapses space dominated in my brain to care about my likes and dislikes.
01:53:35 <RodgerTheGreat> it is a fact that the only person we can be sure is real is ourself, and even then it can be difficult.
01:54:15 <ihope> Okay. CakeProphet, I'd like to learn Python tomorrow, and if you commit suicide or something, I will be very unhappy.
01:54:20 <RodgerTheGreat> this brings into play the question of sentience: is there ANY way someone can really prove to you that they're sentient? I'd say there isn't.
01:54:52 <RodgerTheGreat> the text-only communication in IRC only serves to reinforce this concept.
01:54:56 <Razor-X> ihope: Go and read a reference manual. Bub.
01:55:21 <CakeProphet> Oh no no... I'm way more knowledgable than a reference manual.
01:55:25 <Razor-X> I feel like coding in Lisp again.
01:56:02 <ihope> Everybody who has a nick starting with "r" is now banned from ##quantum.
01:56:24 <ihope> However, it just so happens that everybody who has a nick starting with "r" can use the UNBAN command on ChanServ.
01:56:40 <ihope> So feel free to unban yourselves at any time.
01:57:12 <Razor-X> I will now ban every nickname that starts with `z'.
01:57:43 <Razor-X> It's a display of my godlike power.
01:58:16 <Razor-X> Anyhow. I feel icky and unfeminine. Shower time.
01:58:17 -!- bsmntbombdood has joined.
02:00:19 <ihope> Razor-X: so where's the ban?
02:07:56 -!- pikhq has quit (Read error: 54 (Connection reset by peer)).
02:09:30 -!- Igor has quit (Remote closed the connection).
02:09:48 <ihope> I have no idea how Igor managed to stay in without PONGing.
02:09:49 -!- pikhq has joined.
02:19:30 -!- puzzlet has joined.
02:26:08 -!- Weirdbro_ has joined.
02:26:43 <Weirdbro_> IRP: Please output a link to a Brainfuck tutorial
02:28:03 <pikhq> pikhq: Error: http://esolangs.org/wiki/Brainfuck only links to tutorials, but is not in itself a tutorial: programmer thought that this would help, but didn't parse it literally.
02:28:16 <pikhq> exit(ERROR_FAILURE);
02:28:17 <Weirdbro_> Gosh, this IRP server is useless. I'd better go to one with strict evalutation.
02:29:33 -!- Weirdbro_ has quit (Client Quit).
03:23:30 -!- Sgeo has quit ("Ex-Chat").
03:28:11 -!- Sgeo has joined.
03:28:55 -!- ihope_ has joined.
03:39:30 -!- ivan` has joined.
03:45:59 -!- ihope has quit (Connection timed out).
03:59:25 <GregorR> HELLO I AM MUHAMMED MUSSAFFAH IL BAN FALLAFEL I AM FROM MADAGASCAR AND NEED A TRUSTWORTHY ACCOUNT IN YOUR COUNTRY I GOT YOUR CHANNEL NAME FROM A FRIEND WHO SAYS YOU CAN BE TRUSTED I NEED TO TRANSFER LARGE SUMS OF MONEY ($4000000 USD) PLEASE EMAIL this_is_not_a_spam_email_address@yahoo.com WITH YOUR BANK INFORMATION AND I WILL SEND YOU THE MONEY YOU WILL GET 15% AS COMPENSATION THANK YOU GOD BLESS YOU JESUS WUVS U KTHXBYE
04:00:15 <GregorR> Now, to combine it with other common forms of spam ...
04:01:08 -!- Sgeo has quit ("Ex-Chat").
04:01:18 <GregorR> HELLO I AM MUHAMMED MUSSAFFAH IL BAN FALLAFEL I AM FROM MADAGASCAR AND NEED A TRUSTWORTHY ACCOUNT IN YOUR COUNTRY I GOT YOUR CHANNEL NAME FROM A FRIEND WHO SAYS YOU CAN BE TRUSTED I NEED TO TRANSFER LARGE SUMS OF PENIS ENLARGEMENT (10 INCHES IN ONE WEEK WOW) PLEASE EMAIL this_is_not_a_spam_email_address@yahoo.com WITH YOUR BANK INFORMATION AND I WILL SEND YOU THE MONEY YOU WILL GET 8 INCHES IN TWO WEEKS AS COMPENSATION THANK YOU GOD BLESS YOU JESUS WUVS
04:01:57 <pikhq> That's a very good idea.
04:03:03 <GregorR> HELLO I AM MUHAMMED MUSSAFFAH IL BAN FALLAFEL I AM FROM MADAGASCAR AND NEED A TRUSTWORTHY ACCOUNT IN YOUR COUNTRY I GOT YOUR CHANNEL NAME FROM A FRIEND WHO SAYS YOU CAN BE TRUSTED I NEED TO TRANSFER LARGE SUMS OF PENIS ENLARGEMENT (10 INCHES IN ONE WEEK WOW) PLEASE EMAIL this_is_not_a_spam_email_address@yahoo.com WITH YOUR BANK INFORMATION AND I WILL SEND YOU THE MONEY YOU WILL GET 8 INCHES IN TWO WEEKS AS COMPENSATION THANK YOU GOD BLESS YOU JESUS WUVS
04:03:04 <GregorR> U KTHXBYE IF YOU FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO SEVEN PEOPLE JESUS WONT STRIKE YOU DOWN ADD YOUR EMAIL HERE: moron@hotmail.com dumbass@hotmail.com AND YOU WILL GET LOTS OF PENIS ENLARGEMENT ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS SEND 1 INCHE OF PENIS ENLARGEMENT TO EACH NAME ON THE LIST THEN ADD YOURSELF AND EMAIL SEVEN PEOPLE IT REALLY WORKS WOW
04:03:45 -!- CakeProphet has quit (No route to host).
04:31:25 -!- ivan` has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)).
05:05:48 -!- CXI has joined.
05:13:35 -!- RodgerTheGreat has quit.
05:15:05 -!- RodgerTheGreat has joined.
05:18:15 -!- RodgerTheGreat has quit (Remote closed the connection).
05:19:17 -!- RodgerTheGreat has joined.
05:24:12 -!- Arrogant has joined.
05:42:55 -!- ivan` has joined.
05:47:27 -!- ivan` has quit (Client Quit).
05:53:09 -!- RodgerTheGreat has quit (Remote closed the connection).
05:54:09 -!- RodgerTheGreat has joined.
06:06:51 -!- puzzlet has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)).
06:08:44 -!- ivan` has joined.
07:09:59 -!- RodgerTheGreat has quit.
07:22:22 -!- macgeek- has changed nick to macgeek.
07:37:34 <Razor-X> Is anyone submitting the trig function calculator to the contest?
07:48:42 -!- macgeek has changed nick to macgeek-.
07:57:06 <Razor-X> I'm asking the contestants.
07:59:59 -!- clog has quit (ended).
08:00:00 -!- clog has joined.
08:02:52 -!- GregorR-W has quit (Remote closed the connection).
08:03:45 -!- GregorR-W has joined.
08:07:49 <Arrogant> Razor-X, when I get married I demand you be best man.
09:39:15 -!- CXI has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)).
09:39:17 -!- wooby has joined.
11:05:31 -!- Arrogant has quit ("Leaving").
11:15:23 -!- tgwizard has joined.
11:33:20 -!- tgwizard has quit (Connection timed out).
11:34:05 -!- tgwizard has joined.
12:15:31 -!- jix has joined.
12:23:29 <ihope_> You're best man now, dog...
13:05:31 -!- tgwizard has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)).
13:46:40 -!- jix has quit ("This computer has gone to sleep").
14:12:03 <ihope_> >data Sentence = True | False | ForallSentences (Sentence -> Sentence) | ExistsSentence (Sentence -> Sentence) | Surely Sentence | Maybe Sentence | Not Sentence | Fails Sentence | Sentence `And` Sentence | Sentence `Or` Sentence | Sentence `Implies` Sentence
14:13:06 <ihope_> data TruthValue = SurelyTrue | Unknown | SurelyFAlse
14:14:18 -!- CakeProphet has joined.
14:15:00 <CakeProphet> mmm... the joys of -not- going to school todat.
14:17:47 <ihope_> Mmm... the joys of summer vacation...
14:20:40 <CakeProphet> oh... bo I'm back in school... I just decided not to go today... because I'm a rebel like that. ;)
14:23:40 -!- jix has joined.
14:32:14 -!- RodgerTheGreat has joined.
14:52:19 -!- tgwizard has joined.
15:21:42 -!- RodgerTheGreat_ has joined.
15:21:42 -!- RodgerTheGreat has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)).
15:26:30 -!- RodgerTheGreat_ has quit (Remote closed the connection).
15:27:32 -!- RodgerTheGreat has joined.
15:32:59 -!- pgimeno has quit (Read error: 54 (Connection reset by peer)).
15:44:45 <CakeProphet> You could do all sorts of complex expression with just a few lines of code.
15:46:08 <CakeProphet> Hmmm... I wonder... can you put a cond inside of +, -, /, or *?
15:46:36 <CakeProphet> cond works like any other lisp function right? It can be placed inside other functions I'm guessing.
15:48:36 -!- pgimeno has joined.
15:50:03 <CakeProphet> That's an interesting way to think about it... rather than the usual use-if-statements-to-assign-a-variable-then-add-the-variable-to-5 method of doing that.
15:50:18 <CakeProphet> You could put the if in the addition itself.
15:51:45 <RodgerTheGreat> yeah- I've used that trick to save a couple bytes writing programs on my calculator.
15:52:11 <ihope_> x + (if x == 7 then 2 else 5)
15:53:00 <CakeProphet> Hmmm... and then if you -needed- a variable... you could put a cond into a define statement.
15:53:08 * CakeProphet likes how everything in lisp is interchangeable.
15:53:20 <CakeProphet> There's 4 billion different ways to do the same thing.
15:53:22 -!- kipple has joined.
15:53:55 -!- kipple_ has joined.
15:54:56 <ihope_> (if 7 /= x then 5 else 2) + x
15:59:00 <CakeProphet> You could do some crazy stuff with indexes.
16:01:48 <CakeProphet> ihope_, what are the key differences between Lisp and Scheme?
16:02:45 <ihope_> Scheme has call-with-current-continuation and uses ? for predicates, and Lisp doesn't have call-with-current-continuation and uses p for predicated.
16:04:33 -!- RodgerTheGreat has quit.
16:06:21 <ihope_> You'll never use call-with-current-continuation, and the other difference doesn't matter.
16:06:40 <ihope_> Dunno the other differences.
16:10:38 <CakeProphet> I -just- figured out how a while loop works...
16:11:09 <CakeProphet> Or at least... I know how you would define a while-looping function in Lisp.
16:12:14 <ihope_> So what's one look like in Lisp?
16:12:35 <ihope_> Probably not especially different from in Haskell.
16:12:43 <CakeProphet> Oh dear... I temporarily forgot how the define function works for defining functions.... I forgot where the ()'s go.
16:19:03 <CakeProphet> (define (while meh statement) (cond (meh (while meh statement))) Although I have a feeling I messed up horribly somewhere.
16:19:44 * CakeProphet has only a days worth of reading-one-book-but-never-actually-using-Lisp
16:21:03 <ihope_> factorial x = x * factorial (x-1)
16:23:48 <CakeProphet> The while function calls itself if the "meh" conditional is true... yaaaay figuring-shit-like-this-out.
16:25:01 <ihope_> while p f x | p x = while p f (f x)
16:25:13 <CakeProphet> We kind of program in the reverse order of what the computer does... in a way.
16:25:13 <ihope_> while p f x | otherwise = x
16:25:49 <CakeProphet> We work on the outside layer of the program... and the computer starts at the bottom and works its way up... while we start from the top and work our way down.
16:30:27 <CakeProphet> Still haven't figured out iterators though.
16:30:52 <CakeProphet> I don't get for... or at least the way Python's for works.
16:34:57 -!- CakeProphet has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)).
16:39:32 -!- CakeProphet has joined.
16:40:14 <CakeProphet> Anyone recommend any good Lisp compilers? (or interpreters.. I can't remember which one it is.)
16:41:18 <ihope_> CakeProphet: you mean you don't know what Python's for does, or you don't know how to do it in Lisp?
16:42:00 <CakeProphet> Both.... although I vaguely know that Python's for involves the __iter__ attribute of certain datatypes...
16:42:20 <CakeProphet> I don't know the specific functioning... at a low level.
16:51:22 <CakeProphet> Hmm.. if Malbolge wanted to be more impossible to code... it could dynammically encrypt every line after you type it.
16:51:31 <CakeProphet> Move down a line... and the line above becomes illegible.
16:51:35 -!- RodgerTheGreat has joined.
16:51:46 <CakeProphet> Hmm.. if Malbolge wanted to be more impossible to code... it could dynammically encrypt every line after you type it.
16:51:49 <CakeProphet> Move down a line... and the line above becomes illegible.
16:51:56 <CakeProphet> (repeated that, for RodgerTheGreats pleasure)
16:58:52 <CakeProphet> RodgerTheGreat, Can you link me to a Lisp compiler? Or is it interpreter?
17:00:29 <RodgerTheGreat> I know of one for PalmOS offhand, but I can probably find you a good one for OSX/Linux/Windows
17:01:58 <GregorR-W> http://www.gnu.org/software/scheme/
17:02:11 <GregorR-W> Damn. That's what I get for making up URLs.
17:02:42 <GregorR-W> http://www.gnu.org/software/mit-scheme/
17:03:35 <GregorR-W> "Note that you cannot build a working system from the source unless you have a working MIT/GNU Scheme compiler to do the compilation." hahahah
17:03:42 <GregorR-W> Recursive dependencies are good for you.
17:03:55 * GregorR-W 's opinion is that that's only excusable for C :P
17:04:08 <GregorR-W> And only for C because you need to have /some/ base.
17:07:30 <Razor-X> Mmmm. No, there are a good many differences.
17:07:51 <Razor-X> Scheme's most popular interpreter is Guile, and Lisp's most common interpreter is clisp.
17:08:14 <Razor-X> Other good ones for Common Lisp are SBCL and CMUCL.
17:08:24 <CakeProphet> Scheme sounds okay.. although it might be more limited.
17:08:48 <Razor-X> It is more limited, and there are some nasty differences between the two.
17:08:59 <Razor-X> Little nitpicky ones, I mean.
17:09:35 <RodgerTheGreat> well, I haven't deeply explored scheme, but my LISP code ran fine in a scheme interpreter.
17:09:55 <Razor-X> Also Scheme abstracts a bit more. Common Lisp makes a distinction between symbols and functions (defun and defparameter) while Scheme makes no distinction (define), there's scoping rules, and other such things. Depends on what you want to do.
17:10:24 <Razor-X> If you want to do multimedia-ish things, Common Lisp is your best bet. But if you want to build compilers/interpreters, either is fair game.
17:11:14 <Razor-X> Only because Common Lisp has more libraries now.
17:11:40 <Razor-X> Also, Common Lisp's standard is like insane-huge (bigger than C++, IIRC) and because of the hugeness it seems in constant flux.
17:13:01 <CakeProphet> Why distinguish between functions and symbols?
17:13:10 <ihope_> Between what and what?
17:13:17 <ihope_> I mean between functions and what?
17:13:30 <GregorR-W> Razor-X: ... C++'s standard library is not particularly "insane-huge"
17:13:43 <Razor-X> GregorR-W: Isn't the standard like 900 pages+?
17:13:57 * CakeProphet kind of likes how scheme doesn't distinguish between functions and symbols.
17:14:29 <GregorR-W> Because Sun has absolute constrol over it, they have no reason not to just add, add, add.
17:14:55 <Razor-X> I'll be reading that to take an AP test on my own this year, you know -_-''.
17:14:59 <RodgerTheGreat> it's great when you find what you need, but finding what you want can be a challenge...
17:15:14 <CakeProphet> A collaborative compilation of a crapload of modules.
17:15:54 <Razor-X> I knew nothing about Java and got a 60% on a practice test, getting my scope rules wrong and some Java-specific stuff wrong.
17:16:32 <Razor-X> And because I haven't done OOP in ages.
17:17:39 <RodgerTheGreat> I took a 5 day class as an intro to java, and then worked with it as my main language for a couple of months.
17:18:00 <RodgerTheGreat> pretty much everything syntax-wise on the essays you can figure out from the example code.
17:29:05 <Razor-X> Be a *real* man, manage your own bits and busses!
17:29:08 <GregorR-W> "Oooh, pointers scare me, I don't want to think about the fact that there's memory on my system *sobbles*"
17:29:35 <Razor-X> GregorR-W: Lots of languages don't deal with pointers. I don't think that's as much the issue.
17:29:57 * CakeProphet doesn't even know what a pointer does... cause he's never used one.
17:30:02 <GregorR-W> "I LOVE Object Oriented programming to the degree that the (totally ridiculous) code 'public static void main' makes me happy 8-D"
17:30:45 <Razor-X> C# can work with pointers if you want, but can Java?
17:31:19 <GregorR-W> Pointers are not an absolute necessity, but when they help, they /really help/.
17:31:38 <CakeProphet> It would make more sense to me that the language would just assume all variables that aren't specified otherwise are within the class namespace... rather than doing "self.variable" over and over.
17:31:44 <lament> pointers are useless in a language with implicit references
17:32:00 <lament> CakeProphet: doesn't Java do that?
17:32:10 <CakeProphet> *shrugs* I dunno.. I was referring to Python.
17:32:10 <Razor-X> I wonder why C didn't use implicit references.
17:32:23 <GregorR-W> Razor-X: Because C predates the concept.
17:32:24 <ihope_> lament: would Haskell be one of those implicit reference languages?
17:32:37 <Razor-X> GregorR-W: ALGOL had it, IIRC.
17:32:40 <lament> GregorR-W: Lisp predates C
17:32:44 <GregorR-W> Well, I should say, it predates the concept in that form of language.
17:32:57 <lament> ihope_: Haskell is a special case entirely
17:32:59 <GregorR-W> That is, compiled, sits-atop-the-asm languages.
17:33:02 <lament> ihope_: it doesn't really have variables at all
17:33:07 <GregorR-W> C is like a very high-level ASM *shrugs*
17:33:09 <lament> GregorR-W: Lisp was always compiled
17:33:17 <lament> well, practically always
17:33:18 <Razor-X> Lisp was compiled before C came along.
17:33:45 <GregorR-W> Lisp does not resemble the underlying architecture.
17:33:52 <Razor-X> There are no pointers in ASM.
17:33:59 <ihope_> Lisp and ASM are high-level versions of each other.
17:33:59 <lament> Razor-X: there sort of are.
17:34:06 <lament> Razor-X: the different addressing modes
17:34:10 <GregorR-W> Razor-X: There are, just without C's syntactic sugar.
17:34:13 <ihope_> Razor-X: how do you write into memory, then, eh?
17:34:27 <ihope_> What's its second argument?
17:34:38 <Razor-X> Yeah. I guess you'd call that a pointer.
17:35:01 <GregorR-W> A pointer is just a slight abstraction of an address.
17:35:22 <lament> assembly and forth are the only lanugages i'm aware of that use actual addresses to do stuff
17:35:25 <ihope_> They don't have to be slight.
17:35:57 <Razor-X> The language that went nowhere fast.
17:36:10 <lament> nah, people still use it for some things
17:36:29 <Razor-X> How can you retire ALGOL and keep Forth? Sheer madness.
17:36:52 <lament> Forth is pretty much the best language for extremely tiny architectures
17:37:38 <Razor-X> Forth isn't much better than ASM though.
17:38:17 <lament> Razor-X: it's like Lisp. It's what you make it to be
17:38:24 <lament> it's arbitrarily extendable
17:39:03 <ihope_> main() = interpret("...")
17:40:12 <lament> forth is perhaps the most esoteric of mainstream languages
17:40:18 <CakeProphet> The only reason Lisp is "extendible" is because all of its syntax is the same... it's really just giving you an illusionary effect of adding to the language.
17:40:58 <CakeProphet> If I wanted... I could add to Python by defining a bunch of functions.... same thing as using define in Lisp.
17:40:59 <lament> CakeProphet: define "illusionary"
17:41:04 <lament> CakeProphet: no, you couldn't.
17:41:15 <lament> CakeProphet: go ahead, add do...while loops to Python
17:41:19 <Razor-X> lament: Oh? I didn't know.
17:41:23 <CakeProphet> Well... all functions add to the language... but Lisp just seems to... add onto the syntax itself because the syntax is uniform.
17:41:48 <lament> CakeProphet: add do...while loops to Python using any syntax.
17:41:51 <Razor-X> CakeProphet: Make an ``if'' for me in Python.
17:42:26 <lament> doesn't have a do..while
17:42:34 <lament> doesn't have a goto either
17:43:47 <Razor-X> What do you think a do..while is?
17:44:03 <CakeProphet> do something while something is something?
17:44:27 <Razor-X> Only, the condition is checked *after* the loop.
17:44:51 <CakeProphet> Oh... that'd be even easier than making while.
17:45:04 <lament> CakeProphet: okay, so make it!
17:45:04 <Razor-X> That's why it's not a while..do loop, but a do..while loop.
17:45:13 <lament> CakeProphet: with functions, or with whatever you want
17:45:57 <Razor-X> I should add one thing to Glass then fork it and call it Rlass. Just for the effect.
17:46:17 <lament> i could do the same, and call it llass
17:46:20 <Razor-X> I disagree with your philisophy, GregorR-W!!!11!!!!
17:46:40 <GregorR-W> Razor-X: SOFTWARE IS /MEANT/ TO BE FREE YOU XEMACS USING SCUMPILE
17:46:45 <lament> CakeProphet: that never actually does the 'action'
17:46:53 <Razor-X> GregorR-W: I don't use XEmacs.
17:47:46 <lament> CakeProphet: Please. Read SICP :\
17:47:55 <CakeProphet> Because everything is the same syntax... it's capable of adding onto itself in ways other languages can't.
17:48:34 <Razor-X> Not because everything is the same syntax, but because you can change the language in the language.
17:48:36 <ihope_> Does this work? http://pastebin.ca/146454
17:49:11 <CakeProphet> "It can add to itself, because you can change the language in the language"
17:49:22 <lament> ihope_: 'act' doesn't do anything, act is already evaluated
17:50:16 <CakeProphet> Everything is a function.... if, while, everything.... because everything is a function, creating more functions adds to the everything... thus you've extended the language.
17:50:31 <CakeProphet> Also.. having everything as functions allows for more expressive statements than other languages.
17:50:33 <lament> CakeProphet: Not everything is a function in lisp.
17:50:35 <Razor-X> lament: Scheme has macros, right?
17:50:43 <lament> CakeProphet: Many many things aren't functions.
17:50:48 <lament> CakeProphet: do..while loops aren't functions.
17:50:57 <CakeProphet> lament, Every -statement- is a function...
17:50:58 <Razor-X> lament: 's what I thought.
17:51:06 <lament> CakeProphet: no, that's wrong
17:51:09 <Razor-X> CakeProphet: You haven't seen *anything* until you've seen macros.
17:51:12 <lament> CakeProphet: every statement is _not_ a function :)
17:52:20 <CakeProphet> (define x 2) is a function.... (cond (= x 2) (eat (and cookies milk) is a function... each () takes parameters and runs them through a bit of code to return a value... which is the definition of a function.
17:54:36 <CakeProphet> (func parameter (func parameter parameter)) it's a function/
17:54:49 <lament> CakeProphet: actually, of those things, only the last one is a function
17:55:21 <CakeProphet> Please -explain- instead of just saying "no it doesn't"
17:56:12 <lament> a function is an object that, when given a bunch of values, produces another value.
17:56:37 <lament> (or, possibly, fails to return)
17:57:15 <lament> (define x 2) doesn't produce any value.
17:57:35 <lament> instead it binds x to 2, which is not something functions do.
17:58:04 <lament> (define x 2) is not a function for the same reason that "x = 2" is not a function in Python.
17:58:13 <CakeProphet> Okay... define is a special form... it provides a means to define the rest of the everything... which is functions :D
17:58:27 <lament> yes, define is a special form
17:58:35 <lament> just as "def" is a special form in Python
17:58:44 <lament> however, it's not the only special form
17:58:55 <lament> for example, 'if' is also a special form (just as in Python)
17:59:12 <lament> and 'cond' is a special form
17:59:42 <lament> it can't be, and i'm pretty sure SICP covers why.
18:00:18 <CakeProphet> It -does- take input and return a value however.
18:00:40 <kipple_> doesn't (define x 2) return 2?
18:00:57 <ihope_> Pah, who needs define?
18:01:00 <lament> kipple_: i don't think it ought to.
18:01:15 <lament> CakeProphet: consider the Python code:
18:01:41 <lament> would that work? no :)
18:03:21 <lament> well, suppose foo() prints 'hello' and bar() prints world()
18:03:26 <lament> i mean prints "world" :)
18:03:58 <lament> then if (1==1, foo(), bar()) would print 'helloworld' BEFORE the function would even start evaluating!
18:05:11 <ihope_> It'd evaluate from the inside out?
18:05:23 <ihope_> How about this: if(1==1, foo, bar)()?
18:05:26 <lament> CakeProphet: because python would evaluate the arguments before evaluating the function.
18:05:45 <ihope_> That works, if I'm not mistaken...
18:06:26 <ihope_> foo(bar()) calls bar, then calls foo with the result.
18:07:55 <lament> but that's clearly not a substitute for being able to write
18:08:12 <lament> if(1==2, print "pigs can fly", return 42)
18:08:23 <lament> good luck doing that :)
18:08:29 <CakeProphet> Still not sure how this ties into if not operating like a function..
18:08:40 <GregorR-W> http://pastebin.ca/146481 < Gregor's idle musings on an interpreted programming language.
18:09:50 <lament> CakeProphet: 'if' only evaluates one of its arguments, instead of evaluating both
18:10:40 <lament> because all arguments to functions are evaluated before calling the function, at least in Scheme and in Python.
18:10:44 <lament> so if cannot be a function.
18:10:48 <lament> at least in Scheme and in Python.
18:11:11 <lament> (it can be in languages with wildly different semantics)
18:11:16 <CakeProphet> It returns results... that's really all you need to act like a function... it operates just like a function when you actually use it.
18:11:37 <kipple_> I think you guys just operate on different definitions of what a function is
18:12:26 <lament> kipple_: well, he only knows Python
18:12:36 <lament> and Python has call-by-value semantics
18:13:17 <CakeProphet> CakeProphet.Function = put(crap_in), get(crap_out)
18:13:33 <lament> what's that one language that had call-by-name? :)
18:14:43 <CakeProphet> Yeah... I'm sort of thinking in terms of Python... since I'm predominantly more accustomed to it... I consider every S-expression in lisp to return some kind of value to be used in the expression that contains it.
18:14:46 <ihope_> Okay, maybe the if function would take a condition and two tuples, and each tuple would contain a function and its arguments... eh.
18:15:10 <lament> ihope_: what if you want to do
18:15:16 <lament> if(1==2, print "pigs can fly", return 42)
18:15:29 <lament> ihope_: 'return 42' certainly can't be a function
18:15:31 <CakeProphet> Python would actually give youy a sybtax error for that one.
18:15:46 <CakeProphet> You can't do stuff like "print "pigs can fly"" as the parameter to a function.
18:15:59 <lament> CakeProphet: that's why you can't make if a function :)
18:16:18 <lament> ihope_: print is not a function in python
18:16:24 <lament> ihope_: it's a statement
18:16:37 <fizzie> Your snake-language is really silly.
18:16:47 <lament> fizzie: nah, not really
18:16:53 <lament> fizzie: it's mostly for debugging purposes anyway
18:16:58 <ihope_> It's PERFECT... but yeah, it's silly.
18:17:03 <fizzie> "print" being syntax sounds rather BASIC-y.
18:17:11 <lament> fizzie: i.e. print is not something you'd use in real code
18:17:22 <lament> fizzie: so might as well make it convenient :)
18:17:42 <fizzie> PHP's "echo" was probably special syntax, too, though.
18:17:44 <ihope_> What would you use in real code?
18:18:20 <lament> ihope_: probably some_file.write(stuff)
18:18:30 <lament> while some_file could be sys.stdout by default
18:19:14 <lament> print adds some formatting for 'easy' printing
18:19:21 <lament> which is great for debugging, not so great otherwise
18:19:43 <CakeProphet> Yeah... I mainly use print for debugging... and when I need to -see- what's happening.
18:19:45 <lament> i.e print 'a','b' prints "a b\n"
18:20:16 <CakeProphet> My IRC bot prints pretty much everything is receives from the connection... just so I know how to deal with crap.
18:26:34 -!- smokecfh has joined.
18:29:04 <ihope_> Pretty much everything?
18:29:14 <ihope_> Why not just plain everything?
18:29:29 <CakeProphet> Because in normal conversation not everything is said literally :D
18:29:43 <CakeProphet> It -does- print everything... usually in a nice perty formatted form.
18:30:08 <lament> normal conversation? in this channel?
18:30:25 <ihope_> Face it. We're normal.
18:30:38 <lament> ihope_: that makes me worried
18:30:39 <CakeProphet> If by channel you mean an IRC channel... then yes.
18:31:45 <GregorR-W> CakeProphet>If by channel you meanIRC channel... then yes.
18:32:09 <ihope_> There's a space between the last two slashes.
18:32:50 <ihope_> Python doesn't like it when I indent this thing.
18:32:53 <lament> better known as Gregor the Terrible
18:33:04 <lament> ihope_: Python hates you.
18:33:07 <ihope_> The first is okay, the second is not.
18:33:36 <lament> ihope_: that is correct.
18:34:09 <CakeProphet> Python does special stuff with indenting...
18:34:25 <lament> ihope_: because it's incorrect syntax.
18:34:47 <ihope_> Haskell doesn't care about indentation as much as Python does...
18:34:58 <lament> ihope_: that's why Haskell is a different language!
18:35:02 <ihope_> That means Python's better than Haskell, right?
18:36:03 <EgoBot> help ps kill i eof flush show ls bf_txtgen usertrig daemon undaemon
18:36:05 <EgoBot> 1l 2l adjust axo bch bf{8,[16],32,64} funge93 fyb fybs glass glypho kipple lambda lazyk linguine malbolge pbrain qbf rail rhotor sadol sceql trigger udage01 unlambda whirl
18:36:23 <EgoBot> To use an interpreter: <interpreter> <program> Note: <program> can be the actual program, an http:// URL, or a file:// URL which refers to my pseudofilesystem.
18:36:27 <CakeProphet> So indenting that second line is saying that it's in a block that doesn't exist.
18:38:58 <ihope_> So does Python have for-loops?
18:39:37 <lament> ihope_: it has for-each loops which are called 'for'
18:39:59 <fizzie> Not many languages care about indentation as much as Python.
18:40:02 <ihope_> And what's the list of everything from 1 to 100?
18:40:03 <fizzie> FORTRAN does, in a way.
18:40:41 <lament> ihope_: everything is python is very heavily biased towards counting from 0
18:40:57 <lament> ihope_: so range(100) gives you the list from 0 to 99
18:41:01 <fizzie> There's a SRFI (or a SRFI proposal, or just crazy-talk) for indentation-sensitive Scheme, too.
18:41:12 <lament> fizzie: sounds like crazy-talk
18:41:22 <CakeProphet> Scheme would be annoying with forced identition.
18:42:59 <ihope_> Somehow I don't think the word "would" is really appropriate there.
18:43:19 <ihope_> So Python doesn't have infinite lists, eh?
18:43:46 <lament> ihope_: it has generators which are pretty much that
18:44:31 <CakeProphet> arrays are arrays that function like C arrays
18:44:46 <ihope_> So how do I make a generator?
18:44:48 <CakeProphet> Not sure what you use for lists... I guess tuples or something.
18:45:27 <ihope_> Oh, I can do without them.
18:46:52 <CakeProphet> In fact.. I kinda forgot what a generator does.
18:47:15 <ihope_> Sounds like an infinite list to me.
18:48:02 <ihope_> And I see that this Python thingamahoochie doesn't like tail recursion.
18:49:46 <ihope_> Where am I supposed to get my daily fix of tail recursion?
18:51:16 <fizzie> Where the Spec promises you proper tail recursion.
19:05:32 <ihope_> 't like recursive constants either?
19:06:52 <ihope_> Don't worry, I'm not putting them on planes.
19:09:40 -!- macgeek- has changed nick to macgeek.
19:21:58 <GregorR-W> MOTHAFUCKIN SNAKES ON A MOTHAFUCIN PLANE
19:28:52 -!- RodgerTheGreat has quit.
19:33:44 <GregorR-W> http://pastebin.ca/146582 ... comments?
19:34:06 <GregorR-W> (Perhaps not the greatest example for comments ^^
19:40:53 -!- macgeek has changed nick to macgeek-.
20:36:24 -!- RodgerTheGreat has joined.
20:45:23 <ihope_> What, that was, like, ages ago...
20:45:40 <ihope_> Over an hour and a half.
20:45:42 <lindi-> RodgerTheGreat: which competition?
20:45:57 <ihope_> Is there more than one?
20:46:21 <RodgerTheGreat> http://esoteric.voxelperfect.net/wiki/2006_Esolang_Contest
20:51:18 <lindi-> RodgerTheGreat: how about mentionin that the entries have to be free software?
20:52:12 <lindi-> RodgerTheGreat: no it doesn't actually
20:54:16 <lindi-> RodgerTheGreat: it just talks about FSF approved licenses
20:55:10 <RodgerTheGreat> then, what would you define as "free software"? Public domain?
20:55:32 <lindi-> RodgerTheGreat: www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
20:56:12 <lindi-> RodgerTheGreat: maybe this is nitpicking but isn't that quite on-topic when we talk about esoteric languages ;)
20:57:45 <RodgerTheGreat> I suppose- I didn't really come up with the license regulations, though. If you ask me, people should just make their code public domain- I don't see all this concern with licenses. If you want to give stuff away, give it away.
20:58:14 <RodgerTheGreat> it only takes two words to explain the rights you want to give.
20:58:25 <lindi-> RodgerTheGreat: s/FSF approved license/FSF approved free software license/
20:58:57 <lindi-> RodgerTheGreat: public domain afaik does not exist in all countries in the same way it exists in US
21:42:13 <RodgerTheGreat> that's called the "my encrypted harddrive, bitch" license.
21:55:40 <GregorR-W> CakeProphet: It is neither C nor Perl.
21:55:46 <GregorR-W> I used C syntax highlighting just to do something.
21:55:52 <GregorR-W> It's the language I'm writing in my head.
21:56:16 <GregorR-W> And no, public domain does /NOT/ explain the rights.
21:56:25 <GregorR-W> In fact, I would really prefer that nobody submit under public domain.
21:57:17 <GregorR-W> A) You can't legally declare something to be public domain without paperwork, despite the common misconception.
21:57:36 <GregorR-W> B) Despite all logic, public domain implies a warrantee /which you cannot by any means remove/.
21:58:16 <ihope_> Isn't it spelled "warranty"?
21:58:45 <GregorR-W> Yeah, I always misspell that for some reason >_<
21:59:03 <ihope_> There's no such thing as a guaranty...
21:59:19 <ihope_> So what kind of warranty is it?
21:59:48 <GregorR-W> Now, mind you, it's hard to define "damages" in terms of software.
21:59:54 <ihope_> So writing a public domain computer virus would be a bad idea?
22:00:20 <GregorR-W> Presumably, if you write a computer virus, you are not licensing it to its users, so it falls under the same warranty.
22:00:40 <GregorR-W> Only with a license can you revoke that warranty (look at every software license ever)
22:01:06 <ihope_> Yeah, I guess you can't get away with a plain unlicensed virus or anything either.
22:01:26 <ihope_> So who can be liable for these damages?
22:01:59 <GregorR-W> For a virus, I don't know, but I believe for software the original writer and the distributor (if anybody can verify this, thanks)
22:02:05 <ihope_> What if the virus was written by another virus, which was in turn written by another virus, which came about accidentally?
22:04:17 -!- [1]kipple has joined.
22:05:55 -!- kipple has quit (sterling.freenode.net irc.freenode.net).
22:05:56 -!- Anders has quit (sterling.freenode.net irc.freenode.net).
22:05:56 -!- [1]kipple has changed nick to kipple.
22:06:07 -!- Anders has joined.
22:34:25 <GregorR-W> Somebody give me a fairly simple example program to write in my in-progress non-esoteric language ...
22:55:19 <ihope_> main = getContents >>= putStr
22:55:49 <ihope_> Wait, you're making a language?
22:56:05 <ihope_> Maybe a factorial program.
22:56:08 <GregorR-W> I started having ideas, trying to formalize them into something useful.
22:56:36 <ihope_> main = do x <- readLine; print (product [1..x])
22:57:17 <GregorR-W> I don't have stdlib defined yet, so I'll just look at the second part.
22:58:56 <lament> that's... a bit longer than ihope's version
22:59:20 -!- smokecfh has quit (Remote closed the connection).
23:00:38 <GregorR-W> Well, if we assume that the "factorial" function is built in, we get:
23:00:55 <GregorR-W> x = (something to get the input); println(factorial(x));
23:01:17 <lament> your language seems kinda boring.
23:01:28 <GregorR-W> Well, you haven't seen any of it yet.
23:01:33 <ihope_> What does it have in the way of types?
23:01:41 <GregorR-W> It's dynamically typed, so it only has four "types"
23:01:56 <GregorR-W> Numerical scalar, string scalar, objects and functions.
23:02:09 <ihope_> Is while a function up there?
23:02:35 <ihope_> Whoops, time to abruptly... go.
23:02:38 <GregorR-W> Though both would have to be internally defined since they're sort of self-reliant.
23:02:47 <GregorR-W> You could override them if you were an idiot though ^^
23:03:34 <GregorR-W> I need an example that can show off its cool OO/functional hybrid abilities ...
23:03:44 <ihope_> While can be defined recursively.
23:05:52 <GregorR-W> Yeah, you could make a recursive while, that's true
23:06:04 <GregorR-W> I have no intent on goto right now, it'd be pretty nasty with how it works ...
23:07:21 <GregorR-W> while = (x of function, y of function) { if(x, { y(); while(x, y); }); };
23:07:33 <GregorR-W> while = (x of function, y of function) { if(x(), { y(); while(x, y); }); };
23:09:27 <GregorR-W> And for a purely functional approach, a function can also be defined by a single expression (with no ;)
23:09:28 -!- CakeProphet has quit (No route to host).
23:10:01 <GregorR-W> (That being said, this is not intended to be a purely functional language)
23:27:30 * pikhq had a very, very weird idea. . .
23:28:33 <pikhq> You know the notation of, say "f(x)=x^2" used in mathematics? I was just thinking. . . What if I could manage to prove that Turing complete?
23:29:05 <GregorR-W> Then you would have lambda calculus?
23:29:29 <pikhq> Funny. . . I thought Lambda Calculus used slightly different notation. . .
23:29:45 <pikhq> . . . Oh, you're right. That would be lambda calc, wouldn't it?
23:29:54 <GregorR-W> The fundamental idea is the same, some function = expression
23:30:28 <pikhq> Man difference being that I'd be using full, proper mathematical notation, instead of coming up with a new notation.
23:34:19 <pikhq> Instead of ? m n f x. m f (n f x), I could just do add(x,y)=x+y
23:34:41 <macgeek-> what do you guys think of this idea? http://farhnware.homelinux.com/misc/plain.txt
23:34:50 <GregorR-W> add = (x of float, y of float) { x + y };
23:35:26 <pikhq> It's pure math, and therefore untyped.
23:36:02 <GregorR-W> macgeek-: What's the difference between ? and )?
23:36:14 <GregorR-W> pikhq: Well, the "of's" are optional. add = (x, y) { x + y;
23:36:20 <GregorR-W> (/me's mind is still on his new lang :P )
23:38:26 <macgeek-> GregorR-W: ? outputs as a character, ) outputs the value; "x" versus "120"
23:39:04 <macgeek-> I was able to create Hello World, Cat, and 99 Bottles of Beer
23:42:40 <macgeek-> I seem to remember a language similar to Plain, but I couldn't find it on esolangs.org/wiki
23:45:48 -!- Sgeo has joined.
23:46:36 <macgeek-> I might be thinking of a mix of languages
23:49:02 -!- Sph1nx has joined.
23:49:49 -!- tgwizard has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)).
23:51:23 -!- CakeProphet has joined.
23:54:47 <CakeProphet> Behringer created a USB guitar... everyone laugh
23:59:28 <ivan`> i have a USB hard drive that's actually a 120V DC source
23:59:33 <ivan`> my friends buy new computers through me