00:12:18 we got grades today 00:18:16 HS or college? 00:19:13 hs 00:20:31 2 As, 1 B, 1 C and 2 Ds 00:20:34 not so great 00:20:51 I had 4 As, 3 Bs this semester. . . 00:21:40 overacheiver 00:22:07 Not really. My GPA's a 3.02. . . 00:24:25 well, i'm just glad i passed the two classes i got Ds in 00:25:29 Know the feeling. . . 00:25:58 spanish and physics 00:26:29 Wish that I'd done physics instead of chemistry. . . 00:26:43 Chemistry + me = explosions. 00:26:53 i'm taking chem next year 00:26:57 "How the hell did you get a *noble gas* to explode?!?" 00:27:04 ^ me in a chem lab. 00:27:14 are you a sophomore? 00:27:26 Going into my senior year. 00:27:29 oh 00:27:42 one year ahead of me then 00:28:25 Suppose so. 00:51:03 -!- GregorR has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 01:03:40 -!- jix__ has joined. 01:12:11 -!- jix has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 01:13:03 -!- GregorR has joined. 01:14:09 * Pikhq curses very, very loudly at make 01:14:41 Is it too much to ask for make to follow its documented behavior? *Is it*? 01:15:17 Yes. 01:16:11 %.b : %.bfm 01:16:19 *Surely* pfuck.0.b matches that. 01:16:51 * GregorR never uses that syntax. 01:16:58 -!- jix__ has quit ("CommandQ"). 01:16:59 .bfm.b: 01:17:26 Now, try "%: %.c". 01:17:49 Or "pfuck.%:pfuck.%.c"; for my purposes, they're equivalent. 01:17:52 WTF? Is that "convert a .c file into anything"? 01:17:58 Ahhhhhhh 01:18:03 Convert a c file into an executable. 01:18:13 (obviously not portable. ;)) 01:20:29 http://pikhq.nonlogic.org/Makefile 01:20:40 Care to tell me how I'm being an idiot? 01:21:00 that was a tasty sammich 01:23:56 . . . Found it. 01:24:34 I have a file called "pfuck.bfm", not "pfuck.0.bfm" and "pfuck.-1.bfm". . . 01:30:06 lawl 01:37:52 , 02:45:26 -!- oerjan has joined. 03:18:05 -!- mbishop has joined. 03:18:28 -!- mbishop has left (?). 03:43:43 -!- boily has joined. 03:44:01 hi boily 03:44:07 hi 03:44:41 i had some hours to spend today, so i created a new programming language 03:45:00 i'm not sure if i have developped it enough to add it to the wiki 03:47:03 well the languages on the wiki are pretty variable 03:48:13 i pasted a ruby interpreter on pastebin and i'm adding the article 03:48:17 if you have an implementation, or enough information that someone could make one, then i say go for it 03:48:59 ok 03:50:45 http://esoteric.voxelperfect.net/wiki/Betterave 03:50:52 there, i just created it 03:56:28 a syntax and list of commands would be nice 03:59:42 afk 04:01:23 currently doing it 04:05:28 did it 04:05:44 hope my english isn't too bad... :/ 04:11:06 Not Turing-complete. 04:11:29 . . . Unless the size of each variable is unlimited or something. 04:11:51 . . . Or. . . 04:12:00 String *list*? 04:12:10 So, infinite number of strings can be stored? 04:12:48 as i coded it, i guess an infinite number of strings is possible 04:13:24 Mmkay, so it is Turing complete. 04:13:31 yay! 04:13:40 Although it'd be damned annoying to prove it. 04:37:21 -!- Sgeo has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 04:38:17 -!- Sgeo has joined. 04:38:46 -!- boily has quit ("Need sleep..."). 05:11:34 -!- Sgeo has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)). 05:13:04 unlimited variables are probably turing-complete (minsky machines seem easy to emulate) 05:13:31 but the string list is not very useful without a way to use it for further computation. 05:13:42 And, even if the *variables* aren't unlimited, you can store at least one number via the size of strings. . . 05:14:14 So, """""""" would store 4. . . 05:14:38 [""|1] would be an infinite loop, adding to the size. . . 05:14:54 i don't think so. how do you get the size of the list other than as an integer? and there is no way to shorten it. 05:15:17 . . . Yeah, that is a problem. 05:15:32 in fact you would have a problem once the string list length exceeds the integer size. 05:15:46 Assuming that integers are bounded. 05:16:04 and if they aren't you don't need the string list other than for output. 05:16:11 Right. . . 06:38:06 i wonder if you could have an algorithm that has a runtime of some uncomputable function 06:39:02 not if it always halts. 06:39:47 because then you could simply run it to find out the runtime. 06:40:12 but 06:40:58 on the other hand the runtime of most ordinary turing-complete interpreters _is_ uncomputable. 06:41:51 because otherwise their halting problem would be solvable by computing the runtime first, then running the algorithm for that long. 06:42:49 er, assuming the computed runtime only works if it actually halts. 06:43:36 as with a busy beaver function 07:54:40 -!- oerjan has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)). 07:59:59 -!- clog has quit (ended). 08:00:00 -!- clog has joined. 08:03:54 -!- glenker_ has joined. 08:04:10 -!- glenker_ has quit (Client Quit). 08:04:50 -!- glenker_ has joined. 08:11:56 -!- glenker_ has quit ("WeeChat 0.2.4"). 08:29:59 -!- lament has joined. 09:17:15 -!- sebbu has joined. 11:47:31 -!- jix has joined. 13:02:31 -!- jix__ has joined. 13:12:06 -!- jix has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 13:48:24 -!- jix__ has changed nick to jix. 15:01:00 In Britain, we are graded for exams on the scale: A, B, C, D, F, N, U. 15:03:14 A-D as usual, F = really bad, U = so bad they didn't even want to grade you, and N = didn't turn up. 16:15:25 didn't turn up? 16:17:30 what does it mean 16:29:09 erm, exactly what it says? 16:29:15 the scale is for exams 16:34:50 no, didn't get what "turn up" means 16:35:21 as a non-native English user 16:48:28 * SimonRC tries to think of a synonym 16:50:57 "attend" 16:51:18 ah 16:51:47 N is for who didn't get the exam at all? 16:52:22 yes 17:36:32 -!- boily has joined. 17:44:49 -!- boily has quit ("WeeChat 0.2.4"). 18:06:35 -!- Sgeo has joined. 18:11:58 -!- sebbu2 has joined. 18:20:36 what is a makefile? 18:20:56 (i prefer annoying people over google :)) 18:30:17 -!- sebbu has quit (Connection timed out). 18:43:16 -!- ehird` has joined. 18:44:05 -!- helios24 has quit (Remote closed the connection). 18:44:10 -!- helios24 has joined. 18:48:11 -!- sebbu2 has changed nick to sebbu. 19:08:39 oklopol: it is a file that is (usually) required by the *nix program make(1). 19:10:20 hmm... tells the os how to compile the source, like, or= 19:10:21 ? 19:15:46 There's a program called or= that tells the OS how to compile the source? 19:16:36 you don't know it? 19:16:55 well, anyway, you don't have to know it to answer my question 19:37:58 or=? 19:40:10 a Makefile is a set of rules: 19:40:19 DEST: SRCS 19:40:19 COMMANDS 19:40:28 "This is how you create DEST, using SRCS: COMMANDS" 19:40:39 make(1) just happens to use SRCS for intelligent dependency handling 19:40:42 so, what i said? 19:40:53 basically. yes. 19:41:08 -!- lament has quit (kubrick.freenode.net irc.freenode.net). 19:43:24 -!- lament has joined. 19:43:26 is bash tc? 19:43:46 um, yes 19:43:51 well 19:43:53 not sure about bash 19:43:57 zsh is, for certain 19:44:07 i assume you mean "tc without anything but builtins" 19:44:14 http://maps.google.com/maps?f=l&hl=en&q=museum&near=San+Francisco,+California,+United+States&ie=UTF8&view=map&om=1&layer=c&cbll=37.777452,-122.504927&cbp=1,289.875024308419,0.628713401659621,3&ll=37.784554,-122.500091&spn=0.023674,0.040169&z=15 19:44:32 -!- lament_ has joined. 19:45:30 -!- lament has quit (Remote closed the connection). 19:46:27 ehird`: you assume very correct. 19:48:44 then, i'd say yes 19:49:04 if/while/test/recursing functions/arrays... it's like a normal prog. language 19:49:14 ``Actually I meant what I said, bash is a turing complete language.'' 19:49:19 http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/sm-users/2005-December/000902.html 19:49:25 of course bash is turing-complete 19:49:57 indeed it's pretty powerful and expressive 19:49:59 of course bash is turing complete 19:50:06 bash is very usefull 19:50:23 i haven't used it 19:50:33 so i wasn't sure 19:50:36 is dos tc? 19:50:38 :P 19:50:58 proof: a language with two characters, iota, * and i, is turing complete. it is laughably simple to implement (a few lines). you can implement it easily in bash. QED 19:51:17 oklopol: batch files you mean? I'm not sure 19:51:29 _they_ might actually not be 19:51:45 in their modern form, they probably are; in the original, they might well not be 19:52:00 i don't think you could access unlimited memory with them 20:04:22 lament_: It depends upon which DOS system you're referring to. 20:04:45 FreeDOS, for example, absolutely is. 20:11:05 ``...SQL is not a programming language because it is for instance impossible to write an infinite loop in it.'' 20:11:42 ooh, activity 20:11:57 you mother 20:12:00 it doesn't have to be turing complete to be a programming language 20:12:00 *your 20:12:01 ... 20:12:21 bsmntbombdood: it was a quote 20:12:23 a silyl quote 20:12:25 *silly 20:12:29 SQL is, obviously, a non-Turing complete, domain specific programming language. . . 20:13:17 ehird`: hence the quote marks? 20:15:33 -!- tokigun has joined. 20:18:58 tokigun: hi 20:19:06 hello 20:39:43 -!- Pikhq has quit ("Leaving."). 20:42:19 -!- Pikhq has joined. 20:52:37 the problem with accepting non-TC languages as such is that, where do you stop? 20:52:59 is html a programming language? Are text files a programming language? 20:53:22 yeah 20:53:27 meh 20:53:54 you can define it using humans in the definition 20:54:03 because that's how it's usually done 20:54:07 the defining 20:54:16 HTML is a bit of a corner case, since some people actually do call it a programming language, and some vehemently deny it is. 20:54:26 hence, my argument 20:54:45 er, no, this is a counter-example to your argument :) 20:54:58 since there's no consistent definition 20:55:27 i've had that argument before 20:55:29 about html 20:56:39 personally i'm fine defining it either way 20:56:52 as long as it's done according to some consistent procedure :) 20:56:53 A programming language should be a language expressing a set of logic for a computer to follow. 20:57:05 Pikhq: which html is 20:57:10 Pikhq: that's pretty meaningless. 20:57:24 The problem comes when people count writing HTML as "programming experience". 20:57:33 which is bullshit 20:57:52 well..... 20:57:55 you just can't win 20:58:04 it is a very tiny amount of programming experience 20:58:33 But merely knowing algebra provides more experience. :p 20:58:44 Pikhq: i meant it perhaps need not be an unambiguous definition 20:58:56 though i did not really say that. 20:58:57 OTOH, HTML has a very high "language level", so if it is suitable for a task, it will blow almost everything else out of the water. 20:58:59 oklopol: Hmm. . . That does make sense. 20:59:21 wow, i rarely hear that :) 20:59:46 now, fixing my documentation... -> 20:59:51 HTML isn't much of a programming language. . . It says in the name "Markup language". ;) 21:00:27 Now, I'd call something like *LaTeX* a corner case. . . 21:00:30 'languge' stands for 'programming language', just as in many other acronyms. 21:00:35 *'language' 21:00:50 latex is turing complete bro 21:00:50 TeX *is* TC.... 21:00:54 Sure, it's a markup language. . . But it's got a Brainfuck interpreter written in it (I don't remember where) 21:01:16 i think we all agree that being TC implies being a programming language 21:01:21 also, there's that XML re-jiggeriser that is TC too. 21:01:23 Of course. 21:01:29 SimonRC: That's just one XML namespace. 21:01:30 quite an FP language IIRC 21:01:31 why "of course"? 21:01:47 one possible way to define what is and what isn't a programming language is according to purpose 21:01:58 ahh.... 21:01:59 by agreeing that TC languages are necessarily programming languages, we reject that wa. 21:02:02 that way. 21:02:08 Then surely Visual Basic isn't a programming language. 21:02:10 I just had another thought... 21:02:21 . . . You know, I think I like a definition which excludes Visual Basic. :p 21:02:26 :-) 21:02:54 Just because you can do programming in something doesn't make it sensible to call it a programming language... 21:02:54 if we say "if it's TC, then it's a programming language", then we're defining based on _capability_ 21:03:15 in the same way that just because you can do OO in something doesn't make it sensible to call it an OO language. 21:03:26 that is correct 21:03:27 OO ASM probably works very well. 21:03:39 but if you start rejecting TC things as programming languages, people will rebel. 21:04:05 SimonRC: The problem is that OO is not a primitive feature of the language itself, it's an addon. 21:04:06 you can do FP in C# 3.0, but that doesn't make it an FPL, because FP in it is unidiomatic and clunky. 21:04:28 maybe it is to do with idiomaticity rather than possibility 21:04:32 If you want to define things that way, HTML is Turing-complete, because you can strap ECMAscript into it. 21:05:26 i think we can all be sane enough to consider javascript as separate from html proper. 21:05:38 I'd *hope* so. 21:05:56 You could make a Python "Hello World" program along the lines of the typical Java version, but that is unidiomatic. The normal way in Python is a single printing statement, because Python is a "scripting language". 21:06:27 java is yucky 21:06:31 The normal way in *many* languages is a single print statement. . . 21:06:40 SimonRC: sure 21:06:43 SimonRC: this is also why perl sucks 21:06:44 Even *assembly* has a simpler "Hello, world" program than Java. . . 21:06:49 heh 21:07:00 but it is less portable! 21:07:03 perl can do a lot of stuff, is very powerful, and it's certainly possible to write clean code in it. 21:07:10 Just not idiomatic. 21:07:18 Also, what if the program later needs to be expanded to read mail? 21:07:23 hello: .asciz "Hello, world!\n" 21:07:24 main: push $hello 21:07:24 call puts 21:07:44 SimonRC: Then obviously you should take the GNU Hello route. 21:07:54 fortunately, we don't normally judge the power of languages by how easy it is to write hello world in them. 21:08:17 yes 21:08:30 java was never meant for writing hello world. 21:08:34 I realise my earlier statement was in fact totally pointless and confusing 21:08:49 Pikhq: using libc is not allowed 21:09:03 bsmntbombdood: Fine; just reduces the portability. 21:09:18 (and if you argue that 'hello world' should necessarily be an easy program in every useful language, then you're just on crack) 21:09:22 you have to use sys_write 21:09:33 http://pikhq.nonlogic.org/hello.asm This is, of course, what you want. 21:10:05 defending java is forbidden 21:10:07 that is final! :) 21:10:08 i assume sys call 4 is write 21:10:25 On Linux, at least. 21:10:56 don't you have to put 0 somewhere for stdout? 21:11:33 On kernels newer than a certain version of 2.2, the registers default to being 0. 21:11:42 Well, that is, on process creation. 21:11:46 oh 21:12:07 Not at *all* portable, but it 'works'. ;) 21:12:48 and ebx is 1? 21:13:59 Yup. 21:14:06 what for? 21:14:46 stdout == 1 21:14:55 oh 21:15:06 And syswrite takes the stream to write to as the first argument. 21:23:28 -!- GregorR has quit (Success). 21:43:26 -!- ehird` has quit. 21:47:20 -!- jix has quit ("CommandQ"). 21:51:47 -!- lament_ has changed nick to lament. 22:04:47 -!- GregorR has joined. 23:33:25 -!- sebbu has quit ("@+").