00:01:39 SimonRC: no, it kills connections longer than like 5 seconds 00:25:58 Google kills connections longer than 5 seconds? 00:26:02 -!- Tritonio_ has quit ("Bye..."). 00:26:40 -!- GregorR-L has quit ("Leaving"). 03:04:10 hehehe http://i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=24130 03:04:11 zzzzzzzzzz 03:16:36 sleepity 03:16:44 slipe 03:16:50 is for the weak 03:16:58 err... yes. 03:17:38 i'm pretty sure i was doing something just now 03:17:45 programming? 03:17:47 perhaps. 03:37:03 I should make a two-dimensional esoteric language. 03:37:14 *yawn* 03:37:20 Declarative, since everyone knows declarative languages are The Way Forward. 03:37:29 Make an n-dimensional one that's not brainfuck-based. 03:37:42 Befunge-based? 03:37:50 I even grant you the usage of the "0.0.0" portion of Dimensifuck syntax, since that's not Brainfuck-based at all. ;) 03:37:51 Or brainfuck-based? 03:38:09 Not brainfuck-based. . . Befunge-based *could* be interesting. 03:38:16 2 dimensional languages are fail 03:38:26 Mainly, the idea is to have it not be Dimensifuck. ;) 03:38:28 (Actually, they're The Natural Way, since most natural languages I've seen are declarative.) 03:38:33 bsmntbombdood: they are? 03:38:36 They're cool! 03:38:37 yes 03:38:47 bsmntbombdood: Do you approve of n-dimensional ones? 03:38:48 Malbolge, on the other hand... 03:38:59 pikhq: in the case that n = 1 03:39:13 It's esoteric! 03:39:16 n is any integer greater than 0. 03:39:30 One language for all such integers? 03:39:36 Uh, yeah. 03:39:43 http://esolangs.org/wiki/Dimensifuck Like this. 03:40:31 Hmm... 03:40:36 ihope: what is declarative? 03:40:39 0+^v 03:40:53 bsmntbombdood: "this is true, that is true" rather than "do this, do that". 03:41:04 hmmm 03:41:22 prologgg 03:41:31 Prolog. Haskell. Epigram. 03:41:35 sqrt(x) = the a such that a**2 = x? 03:41:38 Lazy K. 03:41:54 isn't lazy k just combinator calculus? 03:41:55 bsmntbombdood: can be done in... maybe at least one language. 03:42:00 Yes, it essentially is. 03:42:11 I guess it's not really declarative so much as just functional. 03:42:14 declarative is kinda like funxxxional 03:42:30 They're related. 03:42:31 except it's even more snuggy 03:42:49 Greatly because... um, hmm, maybe they're actually not relateD? 03:42:52 s/D/d/ 03:43:01 You can have an imperative functional language quite easily. 03:43:11 I believe Python and JavaScript are both... that. 03:43:14 scheme! 03:43:27 python is less and less functional every day 03:43:48 Declarative non-functional languages are possible as well. 03:44:00 bsmntbombdood: what's the status on removing lambda? 03:44:05 I see it's still here for now, at least. 03:44:13 i think it's removed in py3k 03:44:19 removed? 03:44:22 py3k? 03:44:24 i'm quitting python. 03:44:25 i've fallen out of the python world though 03:44:40 ~exec sys.stdout(sys.stdout) 03:44:40 <__main__.IRCFileWrapper instance at 0xb7c5fb0c> 03:44:44 No you haven't. :-P 03:44:47 i'm never gonna touch it again if lambda dies 03:45:07 bsmnt_bot was written...how long ago? 03:45:15 I have no idea! 03:45:15 17 months 03:45:21 really? 03:45:24 tomorrow. 03:45:25 yes. 03:45:34 uh, how did you know that? 03:45:43 was i right? 03:45:47 You can grab an older version of Python and present it to... um, the functional people. 03:45:54 if i was, then it's because i own. 03:46:02 i don't know if you were right 03:46:04 The Old Python people. 03:46:21 ihope: great idea about a 2d declarative lang 03:46:41 they're always so completely imperative, all these one-char=one-command langs 03:46:56 Inspired by... um, that language that I think isn't Ithkuil. 03:47:12 are you saying this grea idea was not yours? 03:47:34 hmm 03:47:42 Ilaksh. 03:47:46 if i went to sleep now, i could... sleep 03:47:57 Dec 19 21:15:29 03:48:00 Well, I think Ilaksh is a constructed language written in two dimensions. 03:48:06 That's as far as the inspiration goes. 03:48:06 * bsmnt_bot (n=bsmnt@abacus.kwzs.be) has joined #esoteric 03:48:08 one the other hand, i could just stay here and stare stupid at the screen 03:48:15 that's the first time bsmnt_bot appears in my logs 03:48:23 ihope: constructed? 03:48:43 Not a programming language, but still made up. 03:48:50 bsmntbombdood: what year? 03:48:53 bsmntbombdood: that did not have any time on it 03:48:58 I have yet to see a natural programming language. :-P 03:49:21 Maybe they exist; I dunno. 03:49:24 oerjan: it was manually givezored 03:49:30 Dec 19 21:15:29 03:49:41 oh 03:49:43 ihope: what do you mean by that? 03:49:56 "Hey, if I do this, the computer behaves in certain ways!" 03:50:02 bsmntbombdood: what year was that? 03:50:06 User figures out a programming language based on the computer's responses. 03:50:21 ihope: when toddlers start learning to program, perhaps? 03:50:23 2006 i assume 03:50:32 when i have kids. 03:50:32 Nah, it was this year. 03:50:41 ihope: i did that with qbasic 03:50:53 when i was but a wee child 03:51:01 You... just sort of figured out qbasic? 03:51:08 i used to code on bare metal with a laser pointer 03:51:12 and a magnifying glass 03:52:04 I did all my programming on a pool table. 03:52:14 I invented this thing called a Feynman gate. 03:52:25 whuz that? 03:52:27 And "Feynman" just happens to be the name of some... intellectual. 03:52:36 I started when I was 8 on Apple BASIC. . . 03:52:57 i started @ 7 with qbasix 03:53:14 Put a ball in 1, get a ball out A. Put a ball in 2, get a ball out B if there was a ball in 1 or C if there wasn't. 03:53:40 oh 03:53:47 is that tc? 03:53:52 i doubt it 03:54:02 i wish i had a turtle 03:54:03 Finite memory. 03:54:08 i'd teach them to sing 03:54:22 ihope: did you invent that? 03:54:25 If you have an infinite pool table with an infinite number of obstacles, it's Turing-complete. 03:54:31 Nope. Found it all online. 03:55:04 i'm a bit too tired to understand that many words 03:55:07 i'll eat something -> 03:55:16 gotta finish my codez 03:57:34 ihope: how does that scale into a bigger table? 04:00:02 How does what scale? 04:00:11 Bigger table, bigger computer. 04:00:22 i mean, that's for three holes 04:00:35 when there's a forth, what do you do with it 04:00:44 Well, there aren't necessarily any holes at all. 04:00:53 no holes? :| 04:00:55 dick 04:00:58 *sick 04:01:00 You have your balls and you have some sort of obstacles. 04:01:01 ... 04:01:07 okay 04:01:11 You can have holes if you want, I guess. 04:01:47 But given that this is all about building tiny, energy-efficient computers, don't expect them to work :-P 04:01:50 I wish I had a turtle; I'd teach it LOGO. 04:01:56 cool idea 04:02:00 4 turtles 04:02:07 trying to catch each other 04:02:23 so they do the decreasing rectangle 04:02:28 and in the end 04:02:32 they kill each other 04:02:39 What a waste. 04:02:48 yes, but what a rectangle. 04:07:34 hmm 04:07:47 i made a 3d flight simulator once with logo 04:08:07 though it wasn't really a 3d flight simulator. 04:08:15 but you flew around and tried to hit the other guy 04:08:23 Cool. 04:08:54 i also made a 2d flight simulator with eye view 04:09:00 'eye view'? 04:09:29 * oerjan tries to hit oklopol. 04:09:33 anyway, it was sick 04:09:51 that was... visual basic iirc :P 04:10:09 4 hour project... i was pretty good at vb 04:10:16 but then i found out it sucked ass :< 04:10:35 now i can't open it 04:10:56 hmm, code -> 04:12:17 oh 04:12:18 my 04:12:19 god 04:12:22 i gotta upload this xD 04:14:54 here we go 04:15:06 www.vjn.fi/gz/Luolis.exe 04:15:17 you gotta love the graphics. 04:16:33 god i've done a lot of crappy games 04:16:44 i must've had an empty childhood. 04:16:53 empty, vacuum 04:25:45 hehe, this one is pretty nice www.vjn.fi/gz/sdlluolis.exe :P 04:27:00 -!- ihope has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 04:28:59 how'd you like a game where you move around a 2d screen with one button? 04:29:58 www.vjn.fi/gz/onokki.exe eve though i'm pretty sure no one is gonna open these :P 04:30:03 *even 04:30:27 sweet memories <3 04:30:28 -> 04:35:24 (btw in case you try onokki, i can move to anywhere on the screen in ~ 6 seconds) 04:46:38 "The program cannot start because SDL.dll does not exist" 04:47:03 www.vjn.fi/dep 04:47:12 this is why no one is going to run them 04:47:16 vc6++ 04:47:22 c6+v+ 04:49:58 that was the link to the dll, by the way, don't know if you just thought it was another gamme 04:50:22 i guessed dep meant "dependencies" 04:50:29 yeah 04:50:34 well guessed 04:50:45 i named it but i never remember it :P 04:50:52 i always try /dll 04:51:46 i wish i still got great ideas like making a game that's controlled with one button 05:00:29 mind telling me what that button is? 05:00:31 -!- boily has joined. 05:00:37 wait 05:00:55 -!- pikhq_ has joined. 05:00:58 'enter' for green, '1' for red 05:01:03 if you mean onokki 05:01:10 (also, your program is evil, i need ctrl-alt-del to quit...) 05:01:14 haha 05:01:16 well 05:01:24 lol windows 05:01:37 when i run it, a console is also opened 05:01:44 shutting that down kills the program 05:01:54 bsmntbombdood: you are lol 05:02:11 windows is made of fail 05:02:15 oh, i didn't see that 05:02:40 -!- pikhq has quit (Nick collision from services.). 05:02:42 -!- pikhq_ has changed nick to pikhq. 05:02:46 oerjan: did you figure how to move around? :) 05:02:50 you'd be the first 05:03:50 even though the idea is very trivial 05:04:29 the first thing i could think of 05:07:56 even though there is just one button, there are actually two kinds of manouvering 05:08:56 well i did manage to get stuck in a corner for a while, still haven't broken the code 05:09:06 heh 05:09:24 it's very easy. 05:09:39 just think what happens when the button is donw and what happens when it's not 05:09:58 oh... let's see 05:10:04 just pressing the button won't help in cracking teh code 05:10:30 heh, i became invincible, muahahaa 05:12:46 i remember we used to play that game with 7 players xD 05:13:14 the beauty of having just one button per player is that 7 players can use the same kayboard 05:13:24 though it gets a bit cramped 05:16:46 oerjan: still trying? 05:17:03 taking a break 05:17:08 okay 05:17:17 tell me if you want clues :D 05:17:37 ...' 05:17:37 is casting a void* -> function pointer legal in C? 05:17:42 yes 05:18:14 why do you ask? 05:18:26 because i have some code that does 05:18:42 and me and someone are arguing over whether it's legal or not 05:19:03 i can't say i actually *know* 05:19:13 i've assumed wrong about c before :) 05:19:52 well 05:20:08 of course you can do that, any pointer is just a normal number 05:20:24 and 05:20:38 why would a function pointer be a special pointer :\ 05:21:19 if it's not legal, i'll kill 'em 05:21:27 hope tha convinces you 05:21:33 ... 05:22:17 ...? 05:22:28 ...?... 05:22:58 * oklopol refuses to do what he's supposed to 05:56:16 -!- boily has quit ("WeeChat 0.2.5"). 06:04:52 -!- boily has joined. 06:13:19 -!- oerjan has quit ("Good night"). 06:29:52 -!- boily has quit (Remote closed the connection). 07:02:54 -!- Izak has joined. 07:03:13 Welcome to insanity. 07:03:43 bsmntbombdood: Casting void* -> any pointer is, by definition, legal. ;) 07:51:43 -!- edwardk has joined. 07:51:52 -!- Izak has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 07:53:28 are the esoteric languages in question here esoteric as in hard to use/pointless brainf*ck kind of things or esoteric as in non-mainstream, unusual and interesting? 07:54:03 both 07:54:14 fair enough =-) 07:55:23 been working on a toy interpreter/compiler for a lazy programming language with first class subset/quotient types and looking for a place to talk to people about it, that fit the general gamut of this place? 07:56:00 absolutely 07:56:08 ah good to know then =) 07:56:24 i can stop drowning out the rest of the chatter on ##logic then ;) 07:59:59 -!- clog has quit (ended). 08:00:00 -!- clog has joined. 08:00:23 basically what i have right now is an interpreter written in haskell for this thing, and a compiler i've been slowly working on bootstrapping in it. the language is sort of a kitchen-sink repository of anything cool-but-undecidable-in-general in type theory circles. 08:01:10 Just with the word "haskell", you've gotten Oerjan's approval (although he's not here ATM) 08:01:21 hopefully in a couple months i should have something stable enough to start being useful 08:01:22 heh 08:01:35 what are subset/quotient types? 08:01:40 Just one question: is it sufficiently odd/quirky to count as an esoteric language? 08:01:55 i don't know, pikhq thats kind of what i was hoping to find out ;) 08:02:03 May very well be. . . 08:02:29 Non-mainstream, unusual, and interesting, I believe you have covered. 08:02:39 So, even if not techincally esoteric, you fit in perfectly. 08:02:58 bsmntbombdood: : the idea is that you can define a subset type of an existing type by stating a predicate using the syntax of the base language for the predicate. so example Nat = { x : Int | x >= 0 } would be a subset type taken from the Ints 08:03:13 (although I'm thinking about making Brainfuck knowledge mandatory for the channel. :p) 08:03:29 or if i have sorted : Ord a => [a] -> Bool as a predicate written in the base language 08:03:30 i can say 08:03:46 sort : Ord a => [a] => { result : [a] | sorted result } 08:04:07 using a subset type on the result to specify that the result will satisfy the in-language predicate above 08:04:13 edwardk: Hmm. I like, so far. . . Not sure I'll be able to wrap my head around all of it, though. :p 08:04:16 appealing to abstract interpretation to check it at compile time 08:04:24 so in general 08:05:02 f : { x : T1 | pre x } -> { y : T2 | post x y } defines a compile-time-checked contract of the pre and post conditions on f 08:05:10 they can't be proven in general, but surprisingly many can 08:05:34 I. . . Um. . . 08:05:38 so if i can prove it you hear nothing from the compiler, if i can concretely disprove it with a counter example you get an error and the counter example, shrunk haskell quickcheck style 08:05:58 if i can't prove it you get a warning and an option to insert a runtime check for the condition, since the predicate is written in the base language 08:06:15 * pikhq goes to the comfort of a Brainfuck interpreter. Could someone that's actually taken computer science make edwardk feel welcome, instead? :p 08:06:28 pikhq: heh 08:06:44 you know its bad when your language makes someone seek comfort in Brainfuck 08:07:22 Not really. I actually enjoy coding in BF. 08:07:50 anyways thats one undecidable-but-cool feature, and its probably the most useful one that I have been working towards 08:08:21 Hmm. . . I *think* you've managed to describe something superTuring. 08:08:32 yes yes, you and oerjan will have fun together 08:08:45 yeah, like i said, type checking the above tries to prove it, if it can, and if it can't, it falls back on inserting a runtime check 08:08:58 so a lot of things like array bounds checking can be caught that way at compile time 08:09:24 quotient types are a little harder to motivate and unfortunately lack the runtime fall-back. 08:11:10 subset types let you define an arbitrary subtype for any type in the language by using predicates defined in the language. quotient types let you go the other way and let you define arbitrary supertypes for types in the language by redefining equality on them and incurring a proof burden every time you use them in argument-position to a function that is defined over the base type. 08:11:30 so, hrmm, Parity = Int \\ (\x y -> x mod 2 == y mod 2) 08:11:35 would be a quotient over the integers 08:11:48 where we say that two values are equal if they have the same remainder mod 2. 08:12:00 then even = 0 :: Parity; odd = 1 :: Parity 08:12:35 and if you ask of 4 == even, it'll say yes because 4 :: Parity == 0 :: Parity since 4 mod 2 == 0 mod 2 08:12:40 too much syntax! 08:13:28 * pikhq is too much of a fan of a lack of syntax. . . 08:13:42 pikhq: that would explain the love of BF =) 08:13:50 edwardk: And of Tcl. 08:13:54 ah 08:14:02 lisp! 08:14:04 And my worshipfulness of Lisp, in spite of not knowing it. 08:14:09 i would have thought we would have lost you to scheme or lisp by now 08:14:13 heh 08:15:54 anyways syntax-like its kind of like haskell, with the addition that you use the same function syntax at the type and term levels -- giving it somewhat less syntax to learn there, but blowing the syntax budget on polymorphic records, etc. 08:16:07 What, do you have anything against people using: puts "2 + 2 == [+ 2 [* 5 6]]" 08:16:09 ? 08:16:22 Um. . . 08:16:26 What the hell did I write? 08:16:34 not quite sure 08:16:41 (it's 2:00. Forgive me.) 08:16:56 it's 2:00? 08:18:13 i thought you were in MST 08:25:49 anyways it probably doesn't qualify as esoteric, simply because its designed to be useful ;) 08:27:38 as long as it's interesting 08:30:20 Currently, I'm in CST. Will be back in Mountain soon. 08:30:57 edwardk: It's an interesting concept for a programming language. I'd say it fits with the populace here if not the topic. ;) 08:31:01 heh 08:31:26 yeah 08:31:39 BTW, some of the oddest esoteric languages have been designed with some sort of usefulness in mind. . . 08:32:00 basically my goal right now is to get the compiler bootstrapped and generate some decent code from it 08:32:15 and to finish mucking around with the syntax so much =) 08:32:37 replace it all with sexps ;) 08:32:49 (I believe one was designed to disprove the strong claim of the wire crossing problem 08:32:50 not bloody likely ;) 08:32:52 ) 08:34:37 Scratch that: multiple esolangs have been designed with that in mind. 08:35:18 Another esolang was designed with the idea of making it trivial to design cellular automatons. 08:38:12 yeah i've actually checked in on them over the years here and there 08:38:36 Cool. 09:19:06 -!- sebbu has joined. 11:00:23 -!- jix has joined. 12:08:49 -!- RedDak has joined. 13:03:55 -!- RedDak has quit (Remote closed the connection). 13:06:59 -!- jix has quit ("This computer has gone to sleep"). 13:08:28 -!- jix has joined. 13:08:32 -!- jix has quit (Remote closed the connection). 13:24:52 * SimonRC tries to figure out wtf Luolis does 13:33:30 * SimonRC can't figure out onokki either 13:42:57 -!- RedDak has joined. 13:43:19 Welcome to #esoteric. 14:43:35 -!- ihope_ has joined. 15:23:48 -!- RedDak has quit (Remote closed the connection). 15:56:01 -!- RobAtWork has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 16:10:45 'sup, everyone? 16:12:26 everything, pretty much 16:12:29 -!- edwardk has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 16:29:44 -!- pikhq has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 16:39:25 -!- sebbu2 has joined. 16:51:56 -!- sebbu has quit (Nick collision from services.). 16:52:01 -!- sebbu2 has changed nick to sebbu. 18:07:18 -!- pikhq has joined. 18:25:29 -!- ihope_ has changed nick to ihope. 18:34:23 -!- jix has joined. 18:46:35 So, a two-dimensional declarative language... 18:56:53 ...lemme conjure up something from topology. 19:07:07 hmm 19:09:13 Okay. Statements are subsets of RxR, which is the plane. 19:09:26 it should be Тетрис-based! 19:09:46 If there's a continuous bijection between RxR and RxR that maps S onto T, then S and T are equivalent. 19:10:09 if you say so 19:10:16 ah, topology! 19:10:18 (A scary thing until you finish digesting it. After you do, it seems... easy.) 19:10:33 of course it is topology 19:11:02 Let's call the existence of such a bijection "morphability". 19:11:17 There's probably a term for it already, but mine works. 19:12:51 And... egad, there's so much stuff that's so easy to grasp intuitively yet so hard to express formally... 19:13:28 like? 19:15:23 The idea I'm wanting to capture is that of what could easily be written by a pen such that a little bit of sloppiness doesn't matter. 19:16:02 Something like the letter O would be invalid because the starting and ending points would have to match perfectly. 19:16:36 Same for the letter T: the one end of the vertical line has to go exactly as far as the horizontal line. 19:17:00 -!- edward1 has joined. 19:47:30 -!- edward1 has changed nick to edwardk. 19:50:09 Well, we'll say that a statement has to be a union of finite curves with endpoints such that the only "special points" are where a curve goes through a curve. 19:50:36 Er, endpoints where a curve goes through a curve 19:50:44 Er, endpoints *and* where a curve goes through a curve 19:52:12 "Special point" meaning singular point, I guess. 19:53:11 A statement has to be a union of finite curves with endpoints such that all singular points are stable! 20:18:21 it's hard to figure out what a "line" is when dealing with lines drawn on paper. 20:18:24 . 20:28:12 -!- chuck has joined. 20:28:36 -!- chuck has left (?). 20:41:31 -!- RedDak has joined. 21:09:50 I think I've captured it decently well. 21:13:59 Hey, I could turn this into a grid notation thing... 21:14:52 + is an intersection, | is a straight line, - is a straight line... I guess some creativity is needed for corners. 21:15:05 + will do 21:15:17 since no two lines may end at a point 21:15:36 They don't end at points; they end at edges. 21:15:50 + alone is two lines crossing. 21:16:33 If you add a - to the side and | below, it might still be two lines crossing. 21:16:49 You could use the same character for all crossings, though. How about %? 21:17:07 * 21:17:18 \ 21:17:19 / 21:17:23 Er, all corners, I mean. 21:17:31 ...Yes, \ and /! 21:38:15 For a second there I thought the curves involved were real curves, like NURBS or something. hrmm there is an esoteric language for you 21:38:58 Heh... 21:39:16 Well, if you find a good way to specify those things, they'll work as well. 21:39:36 A little crazy, eh? 21:39:44 well, i was a computational geometer for a while, i'm pretty comfortable with NURBS ;) 21:41:01 now, try to explain to the end user what a sequence of knots and weights is supposed to do 21:41:33 where is "NURBS" 21:42:00 non-uniform rational b-spline curves 21:42:30 its not a language, just a way to specify curves in a projectionally invariant manner 21:47:23 Projectionally invariant? 21:47:34 (No, spellcheck, I didn't mean "protection ally".) 21:47:35 innumerable brainfuck: a function and a range a...b is specified, then for every result of that function in that range is given it's own thread (infinite threads that is), so that every thread has a real number representing an infinite number of brainfuck instructions to execute (base 8 presentation); should a thread be given a faulty bf program it dies; the memory is shared, and it's continuous, > will move one derivative and has to be executed infinit 21:47:35 e times to move at all 21:47:51 hmm 21:48:06 actually, if you lose that continuous memory, that can be written an interpreter 21:48:16 in theory 21:48:21 Hmm... 21:48:47 it has to give faulty bf programs except for certain values 21:49:05 After faulty BF programs are disposed of... well, the result is still dense. 21:49:12 ihope: if you use a perspective projection on a bezier curve then subdivide it you get a different curve than if you subdivide it and then project it. NURBS provide the non-uniform subdivision necessary to be able to project something into 'viewspace' and get the same curve cutting it up there as before. it means its more useful for computer graphics applications 21:49:17 nope, if you give it a function where it's not 21:49:25 Oh, right. 21:49:43 of course, running innumerable threads would be impossible even if we were given an infinite space to use for the computer :) 21:49:52 and infinite time 21:50:56 * edwardk takes off his geometer hat and goes back to being a code monkey ;) 21:51:26 edwardk: write me an innumerable bf interpreter! 21:51:29 :| 21:51:36 that's be awesome 21:51:40 *that'd 21:51:44 oklopol: heh, busy with my own language compiler at the moment ;) 21:51:48