00:06:54 we can have nil = \x y -> y 00:07:00 t = \x y -> x 00:08:52 if p x y = p x y 00:25:29 Let's just pretend we can compute the uncomputable. 00:27:12 Let's just pretend that 1+1=3. 00:27:16 let's 00:27:49 Or, in the factory language. . . 00:27:55 LET 1+1=3 00:27:57 >:D 00:28:02 -!- ihope has changed nick to i. 00:28:07 hm can 3 be overloaded in scheme to be 2? 00:28:08 -!- i has changed nick to ihope. 00:28:33 (set! 2 3) 00:28:41 (not really) 00:28:46 no, tried that ;p 00:28:55 -!- ihope has changed nick to \050. 00:29:05 -!- \050 has changed nick to ihope. 00:29:16 there's always (define three 3) (define two three)... but that doesn't really matter. 00:29:20 or count 00:29:45 Happy Happy Joy Joy. 00:29:52 off to try the kernel 00:29:54 -!- andreou has quit ("kernel time"). 00:33:07 -!- andreou has joined. 00:38:25 Joy is not the same as luck, and there is no such thing as joy luck. 00:38:53 Sad, isn't it? 00:40:06 consider yourself lucky if you have joy 00:40:15 and be joyful if you have (good) luck 00:40:30 they're like ( and ) 00:41:53 wha.t 00:42:23 * pikhq joins bsmntbombdood in singing "Happy Happy Joy Joy". 00:46:15 That's what the MIT scheme interpreter says on exit 00:47:31 Ren & Stimpy fans, I see. 00:49:37 -!- ihope has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)). 01:03:40 * bsmntbombdood plays with bsmnt_bot 01:03:55 someone suggested a change, what was it? 01:16:05 -!- digital_me_ has joined. 01:27:12 -!- digital_me has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 01:41:37 -!- calamari has joined. 01:46:17 * andreou happily plays around with chicken scheme until he's fit for bathing 01:56:53 #' 02:00:13 -!- ihope has joined. 02:02:54 foo 02:03:53 bar 02:04:13 eggs 02:04:19 ham 02:11:21 -!- pikhq has quit ("leaving"). 02:33:32 -!- ihope has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 02:49:53 -!- ShadowHntr has quit (Connection timed out). 03:40:06 -!- andreou has quit ("\"). 04:03:40 -!- wooby has quit. 04:38:23 -!- wooby has joined. 05:20:33 hmmm... I need to learn C++ 05:20:37 not because I want to. 05:20:42 true 05:20:46 because it's the best 05:20:49 but because I'm going to be using it soon... with little to no experience. 05:20:59 :) 05:21:41 see... the people I'm "working", who have little knowledge about programming, seem utterly sure that C++ is the best language to use for their purposes. 05:22:04 I told them the best language for me to use would be the one I'm most familiar with... in this case Python, or Lisp (vaguely) as an alternative. 05:22:30 but... not good enough... so.. 05:22:34 now I need to learn C++ 05:22:37 who knows... it might be fun. 05:22:58 c++ is fun 05:23:06 It looks rather boring to me. 05:23:13 nothing terribly exciting. 05:23:17 haha :) 05:23:58 and static typing is a drag if you've always used duck typing. 05:24:19 with c++ i best have the feeling i can do anything, you have such direct access to the memoryt 05:24:22 *-t 05:24:36 i have a python question for you 05:24:40 meh... I've never actually -needed- direct access to the memory. 05:24:41 but not now 05:24:47 bus leaved in 2 minutes 05:24:49 not neede 05:24:52 wanted. 05:24:56 you should want 05:24:58 I haven't wanted it either. 05:24:59 now to go -> 05:25:09 I'm not even sure what I'd do with it. 05:25:53 hmmm.. where can I get the full specification of the standard C++ implementation? 05:26:00 I can't seem to find anything but paper books. 05:29:40 I would just play around with it... 05:29:43 but that seems like too much work. 05:29:50 I mean... you have to compile it and all. 05:31:23 and I'm not really sure how to access the compiler from windows. 05:43:51 -!- oerjan has joined. 05:45:32 Hi bsmntbombdood 05:45:36 hi 05:46:01 I noticed that the Haskell tutorial you said you were reading was not the most recent version. 05:46:32 One thing that irks me about C++ is I haven't figured out how it's consistent. 05:46:53 CakeProphet: c++ is hideous 05:47:11 In Python everything is universally consistent... but so far I haven't found this to be true in C++ 05:47:16 it might jsut be my lack of understanding though. 05:47:40 Has anyone claimed C++ is consistent? 05:47:46 Nope. 05:48:00 I'm just trying to find out if it is. 05:48:27 static typing is sooo annoying in high level languages 05:48:36 On the other hand (and I say this having never tried to program in it) people are complaining about how its features have lots of unexpected interactions. 05:49:23 Apparently you have to learn a lot of rules for what not to do in combination. 05:49:42 I find that true of common lisp. 05:49:46 with all the macros. 05:50:07 it's hard to keep all straight when you're learning. 05:50:16 Ah yes. I suppose that is a reason why Scheme invented the hygienic macro system. 05:53:16 hmmm.. 05:53:27 gah, all these languages, so little time 05:53:39 could you define a C++ macro that substitutes all newline characters with ;\n? 05:54:03 c++ doesn't have macros 05:54:11 if you're like me... and lazy and don't feel like getting into the habit of using semicolons and have no real use for writing multiple statements in one line? 05:54:21 eh... it has flimsy textual substititions with #define 05:54:24 which it calls "macros" 05:54:33 they're not lisp macros, no. 05:54:36 -!- ShadowHntr has joined. 05:54:45 CakeProphet: just use semicolons 05:55:01 Yeah, it's no big deal. 05:55:10 but any step of laziness I can take would be great. 05:55:24 no one will be able to understand your code, and it will break 05:56:00 Why's that? 05:56:03 I think you mean "no real use for writing a statement over multiple lines" 05:56:07 if (p) 05:56:11 foo() 05:56:15 teh bork 05:56:33 He didn't say to leave out brackets. 05:56:42 that turns into "if (p); foo();" 05:57:05 oerjan: you don't need brackets there 05:57:57 He could simply follow a Python-like rule: either use brackets or put the sub-statement on the same line. 05:59:24 meh.. I can use C++'s ways no problem. 05:59:27 On the other hand I am not sure whether { ; is permitted in all cases. 05:59:34 no use sticking to old modes of thought. 06:00:04 I think "{ ;" will work, it's just a line with no stuff on it 06:00:14 hmm... I do kind of wonder how C++ actually works though... 06:00:28 ugly 06:00:31 the more I read into it the more it starts to sound like how I thought a programming langauge would work back before I learned how to program. 06:00:35 Will it work for switch statements? 06:00:49 I probably wouldn't use switch anyways 06:00:52 it's kind of silly. 06:01:04 I think so 06:01:45 Does C++ use the same evaluation as Python does for crap? 06:01:49 well.. 06:01:50 what I mean by that. 06:02:20 I remember someone finding it odd that "\n".join(SomeList) was a valid python expression. 06:02:28 and they were primarily a C/C++ programmer. 06:02:59 can't call methods on a char* 06:03:10 some I'm wondering if C++ uses variables and statements as I knew them 06:03:35 ah. 06:03:40 oh okay. 06:03:52 On the other hand, some Python programmers might find it odd that 4["foob"] is a valid C expression. :p 06:04:22 That's not too odd... it wouldn't work in Python, and I have no clue what it means... 06:04:38 It means the same as "foob"[4]", ie. 'b'. 06:04:40 It means exactly the same as "foob"[4] 06:04:49 Uh, '\0', I mean. 06:04:52 ...oh... well that -is- odd. 06:05:02 no the syntax... but what the syntax produces. 06:05:06 It's because a[b] is sort-of defined as *(a+b), and + is commutative. 06:05:06 because p[q] = *(p+q), so commutative. 06:05:12 Right, because C's array syntax is just sugar 06:05:21 Darn speaking in each other's mouths 06:05:28 x[i] == *(x+i) 06:05:49 wow, three of us said exactly the same thing 06:06:10 hmmm.. 06:06:12 so.... 06:06:23 how does it differenciate if it's communative? 06:06:36 It's + that is commutative. 06:06:40 CakeProphet: Have you programmed in a language with pointers before? 06:06:50 would it just as easily been the "foob" slice of 4? (which obviously doesn't make any sense... but it could have been read that way) 06:06:54 nope. 06:07:03 I hope you'll find them enlightening 06:07:16 I love playing with pointers :) 06:07:23 "foob" in a sense means the position of the 'f' 06:07:37 I basically conceptualize them to be like mutable data structures in Python... they point to the exact same chunk of memory rather than a new "copy" of it. 06:07:51 CakeProphet: pretty much 06:07:53 so "foob"+4 means the position of, well, I suppose not 'b', that was an error. 06:08:11 oerjan: no, "foob"+4 is correct 06:08:15 Alright... then I know how to use pointers. 06:08:28 CakeProphet: Except, pointers are more usefull 06:08:35 I just need to remember that everything is implicitly a copy of the original value unless I use a pointer. 06:08:38 Not in C. "foob"[0] == 'f' 06:08:52 oerjan: yes... 06:09:16 I could see the possible uses... I just question the way its implemented. 06:09:28 I would have made pointers implicit... and copies of the value explicit. 06:09:47 So "foob"[4]=='\000', the implicit NUL at end of string. 06:09:49 But I'm sure there's a reason. 06:09:57 oerjan: uh huh 06:10:29 so 4["foob"] == '\0' 06:10:45 Pointers may be more efficient in some cases, I guess. 06:11:18 I think C just has a different idea of what a variable is than me. 06:11:27 Pointers are more than just mutability, because the pointers can be manipulated themselves 06:11:39 Yes, to C a variable is a region in memory, of arbitrary size. 06:12:11 since I get my ideas about variables form Python... which, in terms of C++, makes variables implicitly a pointer. 06:12:38 x = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8] 06:12:39 y = x 06:12:47 Not simply a reference to a region of memory, like presumably in Python (except for primitive immutable types, where the reference is optimized away) 06:13:38 hmmm... 06:13:41 alright then... 06:13:54 I don't like C++ arrays either... if I must complain. 06:14:06 I can't think of too many uses for them... 06:14:26 Don't think of them as an array, just as a succint way to manipulate large areas of memory 06:14:40 s/array/list/ 06:14:40 Well... they're fixed-width. 06:14:47 It's probably the lowest-overhead way to have an array, since it's just a block of memory. 06:14:49 which... makes them kind of constained in what they can do. 06:15:08 yeah... C's all about low overhead. :P 06:15:16 Like I said, they aren't a list 06:15:25 Interestingly in Haskell and Ocaml, where things _are_ references by default, there are libraries for "unboxing", which means essentially doing it the C way for efficiency. 06:15:27 If you're using C++, you probably want to use STL's containers (like std::vector) anyway, if you want an array-like container, and arrays if you want to _implement_ a container. 06:16:07 ah... so arrays aren't intended to be the final structure? 06:16:17 just the means to the final structure? 06:16:22 Like conses in lisp 06:16:38 ...they can be 06:16:38 Arrays were inherited from C. 06:16:55 Right. 06:16:59 I guess that depends on the user; but all C++ books probably tout the merits of the STL containers. 06:17:35 They essentially just show their age, as does pointers. 06:18:04 Except probably for really low-level programming. 06:20:12 which is what they are for 06:20:38 I imagine when I first start with C++ I'll always forget to type "||" instead of "or" 06:20:43 same with && and ! 06:20:56 I could use #define to substitute them... if I wanted. 06:21:16 simply to avoid it from screwing up my program. 06:23:35 I think what Oklopol's nop language needs is a type system so complicated that _it_ is Turing-complete. 06:24:07 C++ templates are, after all. :p 06:24:21 ....okay... 06:24:23 C++ templates are SO GROSS 06:24:32 I'm not sure who the hell thought that C++'s comma operator was a good idea. 06:24:43 It's C's comma operator. 06:24:48 that's why high level languages should be dynamically typed 06:24:50 ....and C++'s 06:25:12 What's your problem with the comma? 06:25:24 I don't call Python's + operator C's + operator simply because C used it before Python. 06:25:27 what do you mean, comma operator? 06:25:31 nah... it's fine.. and I could actually see myself using it. 06:25:45 I 'm just curious who the hell thought it up... and why they chose a comma. 06:26:09 The comma operator is simply a result of C distinguishing too hard between expressions and statements, like a P-language I could mention. 06:26:18 give me an example, I have no idea what you're talking about 06:26:37 int x = (a=5,b=3, 6 ) 06:26:40 x would be 6 06:27:16 Incidentally, I haven't met anyone who wouldn't write that as "a = 5; b = 3; int x = 6;". 06:27:19 ...i've never seen/used that 06:27:40 yeah I know... I probably wouldn't use it... 06:27:42 for that 06:27:44 But the comma is used a lot in initializing several values in the init section of a for loop; for(a = 0, b = 0; ...) ... 06:28:07 so it's like a... creepy non-data-type version of a tuple? 06:28:34 Actually it's like a creepy expression version of a statement separator. 06:28:58 what's a statement operator? 06:29:01 ; ? 06:29:11 separator. 06:29:30 aaah. 06:29:38 oh okay... I see WHY you would use it now... 06:29:41 The , and ?: operators are very useful if you have some sort of ; allergy and want to write your whole program as a single expression. 06:29:44 still think it's a lame way to do it. :P 06:30:00 I like writing programs in single expressions. :D 06:30:17 Like Ocaml, a functional language uses ; for both, since it doesn't distinguish statements from expressions. 06:30:21 but for some reason I consider variable assignment in an expression "cheating". 06:30:37 but that's my inevitable Python bias... because python treats = as a statement. 06:31:41 However, Ocaml's syntax is generally not considered its best part. 06:31:57 hmmm.. 06:32:54 of course it's cheating. 06:32:59 it's a side effect. 06:32:59 "for x in SomeList" in Python in "for(x = SomeList[y], y++, SomeList)" right? 06:33:04 any side effect in an expression is cheating. 06:33:23 Here's a well-structured brainf*ck interpreter in C I wrote once; it shows the amazing usefulness of the ?: operator: 06:33:26 main(j,a,n,t)int*a;{unsigned short p=-1;char*r=calloc(n=p+1,6),*i=r 06:33:29 +n,**k=i+n;for(read(open(*++a,t=0),i,p);n=*i-43,t<0?n-48?n-50||++t: 06:33:31 --t:n?n-2?n-19?n-17?n-3?n-48?n-50?n-1||read(0,r+p,1):p[r]?i=k[j]:j 06:33:34 --:p[r]?k[++j]=i:t--:putchar(p[r]):p--:p++:p[r]--:p[r]++,*i++;);} 06:33:41 oh I use conditional expressions all the time... and list comprehensions. 06:33:56 fizzie: i see a lot of ; 06:34:07 Yes, I don't really have a ; allergy. 06:34:31 hmmm... C makes it easier to avoid multiple statements... 06:34:41 in Python it's like a fun little challenge though... C makes it too easy. :P 06:34:59 CakeProphet: not really 06:35:23 it's probably easier in python since C doesn't have lambdas 06:35:42 you can do variable assignments, multiple-expressions-with-side-effects-but-only-use-the-last-one-to-evaluate, 06:35:48 it's almost like having statements. 06:36:21 And you have the ?: to do conditionals. 06:36:29 Python doesn't allow variable assignments in an expression... which makes it way more difficult (but more "pure") to write one-liners. 06:36:36 well.. Python added something for that in 2.5 06:36:46 (true if cond else false) 06:37:16 which I use... all the time. 06:37:53 -!- ShadowHntr has quit (Connection timed out). 06:38:15 That's a funny way to write it. Perl has the "... if cond;" statement modifier, but it doesn't add an else branch there. 06:38:37 it seemed weird at first to me too. 06:38:40 but it's grown on me... 06:38:43 it reads a lot like English. 06:38:52 true if cond else false doesn't read at all like english. 06:38:59 it reads like Forth. 06:39:10 it reads like conversational english 06:39:15 I suppose you cannot use ... if ... else ... inside an ... if ... else ... without parentheses. 06:39:22 how often do you put your ifs before your assertions? 06:39:29 only in formal settings. 06:39:43 but in conversation... I always say "I like pancakes, but only if it's noon" 06:39:49 the condition came after. 06:40:08 i prefer the way forth does it. 06:40:09 "I like pancakes, but only if it's noon; else I like RAW MEAT ARRR." 06:40:34 well else is kind kind of a weird word. 06:40:39 What about pancakes with raw meat in them? 06:40:40 "otherwise" sounds more conversationally. 06:40:45 but... else is easier to write. :D 06:41:14 cond if true else false then 06:41:49 Yeah, Forth's then at the end is really weird. 06:41:50 hehehe... to someone unfamiliar with stack-based languages... that would look like someone scrambled the source code. 06:42:57 I'm still waiting for python to get a while-loop list comprehension/generator-expression. 06:43:03 I never use while loops that much though. 06:43:57 usually just one for the main loop of the program. 06:44:54 aw, I feel so robbed! SQL doesn't allow definition of recursive functions! 06:45:03 CREATE FUNCTION adder(a INT(10), b INT(10)) RETURNS INT(10) RETURN IF(b<>0, adder(a + 1, b - 1), a); 06:45:13 ERROR 1424 (HY000): Recursive stored functions and triggers are not allowed. 06:45:13 oh woe is you.. 06:45:23 how will you go on without SQL functions being recursive? 06:45:41 I was hoping I'd stumbled upon a brilliant esocoding opportunity. 06:45:56 like coding a BF interpreter in mySQL or something 06:46:03 SQL is kind of appaling though. 06:46:17 * CakeProphet had a BF interpreter coded in Excel at one point. 06:46:30 cool 06:46:32 I remeber you talking about that 06:46:43 yeah I finally got it to work. 06:46:46 but excel macros are pretty powerful to begin with 06:46:55 it can't really "print" things. 06:47:03 it just gives you the entire array to work with. 06:47:27 but I guess you could use print to accumulate characters into a single "output cell" 06:47:29 if you wanted. 06:47:55 cond if true-stmnt else fasle-stmt? 06:48:34 I can't remember enough forth 06:48:37 oerjan: not really 06:48:46 oerjan: it just means, "... and then, do this" 06:48:55 2 definitions of "then" 06:50:34 if ... if ... else ... then else ... then 06:51:39 hmm... 06:51:55 I would have implemented it true-stmt then false-stmt else if 06:52:09 or false-stmt else true-stmt then if 06:52:26 reminds me of the backwardsiness of FORTH. :D 06:52:44 Doesn't work with the Forth compiler principle though. 06:52:56 yeah 06:53:05 ooh. we have an idea- we can't make recursive calls in a general sense, but we *can* define functions with our functions. We might be able to "build the tracks as our train runs on them", so to speak 06:53:07 fuck the compiler principle. 06:53:10 if takes the predicate off the stack 06:53:33 hmmm.... here's an idea. 06:53:36 Because anything found before the first "keyword" must be directly executed. 06:54:01 make an imperitive esolang modelled after "it puts the lotion on the skin" 06:54:10 haha 06:54:25 oh 06:54:29 it puts the lotion of the skin 06:54:31 its 06:54:33 skin 06:54:35 bleh 06:54:36 "It puts the lotion on it's skin or else it gets the hose again" 06:54:42 hahahahahaha 06:54:45 conditional 06:55:11 * oerjan wonders what the heck you are referring to. 06:56:07 we're playing lambs 06:58:33 The obvious name for Ork's successor would be "ORK is to increment." 06:58:52 ....I'm calling mine Sophia. 06:58:52 * oerjan is still reading the logs. 06:58:55 because I like the name. 06:59:08 and because I intend to create a large number of things named "Sophia" 06:59:11 to confuse people. 07:00:25 I wonder what C++ would have been like if it included the increment in its evaluation (++C) 07:01:12 haha 07:01:23 Obviously one of them would have a syntax like: Sophia? Sophia. Sophia! Sophia? 07:01:42 ...no 07:01:48 that's like... the worst clone ever. 07:01:53 a clone of ook... 07:01:55 that's appaling. 07:01:56 What, you don't want to increment Ook? :) 07:02:08 cloning a cloning is a sin. 07:02:25 Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo. 07:02:44 It'll basically have ORKs syntax... with Metaclasses and coroutines... 07:02:57 and some new directive-type stuff via commands related to "Sophia" 07:03:21 I wasn't suggesting that you make Sophia have such a syntax, but that you make Sophia have it. 07:03:22 and some minor syntax tweaks... such as "When this program starts:" being changed to "When Sophia loves us:" 07:03:49 no no no... I would really only consider Sophia for that kind of silliness. 07:04:11 well... that's actually not a syntax tweak... 07:04:12 excuse me mister but wtf ru doing? 07:04:18 because Sophia will be an object with a method "loves us" 07:04:36 so it'd be When sophia is to love us 07:05:32 oh yeah... and special methods (yup... can't have OO without SPECIAL METHODS!!_ 07:06:02 "be said" is the string representation method (and how the object is printed when outputted) 07:06:16 When an apple is to be said: 07:07:45 and I'll try to think of some ways to totally bastardize ORK. 07:07:51 for fun. 07:09:45 You could add a functional layer. 07:10:31 I plan on making it heavily corotuinal. 07:10:32 actually. 07:10:37 with the whole "ring" thing. 07:19:22 -!- digital_me_ has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 07:19:45 -!- Sgeo has quit (Remote closed the connection). 07:28:06 -!- calamari has left (?). 07:58:42 Hey look. I've ignored all of you for the last 2000 lines. 07:59:59 -!- clog has quit (ended). 08:00:00 -!- clog has joined. 08:00:07 That's OK, we were ignoring you too. 08:31:36 No, it's not OK. It's ORK. 10:20:54 -!- ihope has joined. 10:24:05 -!- oerjan has quit ("leaving"). 12:54:55 [08:21:32] I think what Oklopol's nop language needs is a type system so complicated that _it_ is Turing-complete. 12:54:56 it is 12:55:02 but no IO :) 12:55:21 ny nop language 12:59:57 [08:44:14] * CakeProphet had a BF interpreter coded in Excel at one point. 13:00:09 if you're talking about vba, i made one during a class in school 13:02:23 [14:53:16] ny nop language 13:02:26 idiot :\ 13:16:41 -!- andreou has joined. 13:21:04 it supports only datatypes list and nopad, nopad being the empty list 13:21:54 I did Bitwise Cyclic Tag in Excel. 13:22:09 And I don't mean a macro or anything. 13:22:21 with cell arithmetic? 13:22:27 Yep. 13:22:35 It's easier than BF, of course. 13:22:42 because making it in vba is as easy as in any language :) 13:22:56 I think BCT earns the Simplest Turing-Complete Language award. 13:23:09 tho vb is the worst language i've run into 13:23:14 hmm i'll have to check it, don't remember 13:23:21 Malbolge is the worse language I've run into. 13:23:24 :-) 13:23:33 And by worse, I mean worst. 13:25:21 well, in vb it's nicer to do a program, but i like malbolge more :) 13:25:37 Epigram has a ridiculously strong type system, doesn't it? 13:25:58 i'll have to see that one too........ 13:26:02 :\ 13:31:30 BCT stops execution when datastring is empty? 13:32:46 * andreou would like to see the US gov't adopting mycelium as a stego device 13:37:39 andreou: :-) 13:37:58 They probably have better ways of doing that, you know. 13:38:30 probably; not as cool, though 13:38:47 Heh. 13:43:38 a combination of filigram.c and mycelium would also produce interesting results 13:44:29 filigram.c? 13:45:11 it's on ../filigram/ in the site of that putty guy 13:45:15 (sorry, no c&p here) 13:51:28 -!- ihope_ has joined. 14:07:29 -!- ihope has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 14:12:43 python: reduce ( (lambda a, b : a+b), [[[]], [[[], [], [[], []]], []], [[], [], []]] ) 14:12:44 nopol: <<<>><<<><><<><>>><>><<><><>>>:<<..><:>:<::>> 14:13:13 it supports alphanumeric names tho, also comments and whitespace 14:13:44 the function is <<..><:>:<::>>, please crack it if you have time :) 14:15:59