00:48:36 -!- jix has quit ("..."). 00:51:32 -!- olsner has quit ("Leaving"). 01:37:23 -!- Sgeo has joined. 02:18:51 -!- oerjan has quit ("Good night"). 02:59:30 -!- Dewio has joined. 02:59:52 -!- Dewi has quit (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)). 03:05:29 -!- Dewi has joined. 03:14:03 -!- sebbu2 has joined. 03:14:15 -!- decipher has quit (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)). 03:17:37 -!- decipher has joined. 03:18:07 -!- Dewio has quit (Read error: 101 (Network is unreachable)). 03:19:09 -!- sebbu has quit (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)). 03:19:09 -!- sebbu2 has changed nick to sebbu. 04:39:05 -!- GreaseMonkey has quit ("You only need one wheel. Bikers are just greedy."). 06:20:38 -!- Sgeo has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 06:37:53 CHEESE IT, THE COPS! 06:40:33 Hahahah, they pulled over a pizza delivery car X-D 07:05:23 hai gregor 07:38:07 Wow. 07:40:45 -!- olsner has joined. 07:59:59 -!- clog has quit (ended). 08:00:00 -!- clog has joined. 08:06:47 morning 08:16:20 mor 08:21:41 -!- oklopol has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)). 08:22:00 -!- oklopol has joined. 08:28:18 okay, project for c++ course: implement virtual machine for an object oriented scripting language :o 08:28:59 * oklopol likes 08:29:57 will HQ9++ do? 08:35:36 well actually everything is specced exactly 08:36:20 so i'll just make a statically typed language and compile into the vm, in case i feel like being creative 08:57:38 oklopol: you can build a JVM in a weekend 08:58:03 oh, they gave you a spec for it too 09:06:42 yeah, so it's quite simple 09:07:13 but, still the best project ever 10:30:56 -!- james has quit (Remote closed the connection). 10:35:51 -!- Slereah_ has joined. 10:41:36 -!- Corun has joined. 11:45:40 -!- Corun has quit ("This computer has gone to sleep"). 11:51:16 -!- Slereah_ has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)). 11:52:03 -!- Slereah_ has joined. 12:04:27 -!- KingOfKarlsruhe has joined. 12:44:04 -!- Slereah_ has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)). 13:03:59 -!- zuff has changed nick to ehird. 13:11:27 -!- appletizer has joined. 13:29:26 -!- oerjan has joined. 13:42:32 -!- KingOfKarlsruhe has quit (Remote closed the connection). 13:57:55 +/%# 13:57:57 valid j code. 13:58:08 also valid line noise. 13:58:49 yes. 13:58:52 not even perl can beat that. 13:59:16 not even oklotalk can beat that :< 13:59:26 oklopol: what about cise 13:59:42 i think it might be a legal perl fragment though, if the / terminates a regex 13:59:55 well. in cise + sums the list, but i'll have to think a bit about the exact syntax of the whole 14:00:24 oklopol: +/ is fold + so it's sum 14:00:27 % is divide, # length 14:00:29 i assume you know that 14:00:32 well. /+# might work. 14:00:34 yeah of course 14:00:49 think i can't read j perfectly after two days of learning? 14:00:55 i wish i could 14:00:56 :< 14:01:10 oklopol: does /+# read from stdin? 14:01:12 it's pretty intuitive. 14:01:21 ehird: no it reads from the input stream 14:01:26 well input register 14:01:27 i mean 14:01:29 in cise 14:01:29 more like 14:01:34 nope. 14:01:34 intuitive in a hideous, non-euclidean way 14:01:38 it does in j 14:01:43 no it doesn't 14:01:53 oklopol: yes, it does - it's just that in j, code is entered on the stdin stream too 14:01:57 that's how function arguments work in j 14:02:03 (+/ % #) 1 2 3 14:02:04 the value of +/%# is just the boxed function. 14:02:11 ^ reads 1, 2 and 3 from stdin 14:02:16 when it is written to stdin 14:02:33 i think that's really nice, it's like forth 14:02:38 didn't know that. 14:02:49 anyway no cise doesn't do that 14:02:53 oklotalk does 14:03:10 oklopol: are you going to learn k next? 14:03:13 it seems even more concise 14:03:33 ehird: perhaps, the bottlenecks are mostly the same. 14:03:42 oklopol: link to where you learned j? 14:03:43 so i could prolly learn it in seccunds. 14:03:47 err. 14:03:52 i dl'd j602 14:03:56 there are these "labs" 14:03:58 ok 14:04:04 also, I think what's needed to get j even more concise 14:04:07 is implicit maps/folds 14:04:13 sum is just + 14:04:17 that has the nice property of: 14:04:19 1 + 2 14:04:21 and 14:04:21 + 1 2 14:04:23 being the same 14:04:39 +%# 14:05:27 not sure how you'd get shorter than that? 14:05:33 that only helps in that special case 14:05:37 it's reduced to the basic operations: sum divided by length 14:05:43 - 1 2 14:05:43 _1 _2 14:05:55 oklopol: what about it 14:06:03 - 1 2 would be the same as 1 - 2 14:06:05 implicit fold only makes sense for +, pretty impure to make it an exception 14:06:07 - 1 2 3 would be 1 - 2 - 3 14:06:16 ehird: - 1 2 was input 14:06:19 _1 _2 was output 14:06:31 oklopol: why is (fold - [1 2]) [-1 -2]? 14:06:38 ... 14:06:47 hmm 14:06:53 right you thought i okay. 14:06:55 :P 14:06:55 my point 14:06:59 j already has a meaning for 14:07:01 that 14:07:07 i know 14:07:10 + 1 2 ====== (+1), (+2) 14:07:12 i'm talking about how you make j even more concise :P 14:07:41 yeah, but i don't think hacks like that are very j'y (they definitely are somewhat j'y, but not *that* j'y), they are very cise'y though 14:07:48 well 14:07:55 + % # is a beautiful program 14:07:55 i mean 14:07:58 if we write it out in english: 14:08:04 sum divide length 14:08:15 it's the three operations that actually make up the definition of averaging 14:08:17 and no extra cruft 14:08:25 and that's really nice 14:08:53 yeah, but that has a meaning just as intuitive as is, div elems by list length 14:09:04 yeah but 14:09:08 the / in +/ % # is unneeded 14:09:14 +ing a list 14:09:16 is obviously summing it 14:09:20 that's just what it is 14:09:24 adding a list 14:09:35 so it can be implicit 14:09:36 sorry, i disagree. 14:09:55 oklopol: what other meaning does adding a list have? 14:10:20 I DISAGREE 14:10:24 oklopol: well, tell me 14:10:32 don't make me use supercase... 14:10:35 because if you can't think of one, i'm pretty sure it's intuitive that adding a list is summing it 14:10:59 well yeah of course fold is more intuitive than map for +, because unary plus is a fucking useless operation. 14:11:28 oklopol: for all OP, I'm not sure "OPing a list" makes sense as mapping op over list 14:11:31 but something like having unary + be abs would be much more sensible imo, and keeping the implicit map 14:11:31 -!- Slereah_ has joined. 14:11:33 find an OP where it does 14:11:45 ehird: that's really at war with the whole idea of j 14:11:50 i know, so what 14:11:52 answer me 14:11:52 :P 14:11:55 err. 14:12:02 write some j. it's all about mapping 14:12:06 ... 14:12:08 i don't care about j 14:12:10 goddamn 14:12:10 wait, yeah, i said correctly 14:12:14 I'm asking a question 14:12:15 answer it 14:12:35 what, - makes sense over a list 14:12:43 as does really any unary operator 14:12:46 - 1 2 3 14:12:48 makes sense to me as 14:12:50 1 - 2 - 3 14:12:56 if you want negation, use _ 14:12:58 _ 1 2 3 14:12:59 = 14:12:59 oh. not to me. 14:13:02 _1, _2, _3 14:13:18 (monadic funcs are mapped, dyadic ones are folded, is my current thinking) 14:13:21 whatever, i don't agree with any of this. 14:13:28 don't you care about tiny prgorams? :P 14:13:45 bleh. 14:13:54 almost all j operators are both unary and binary 14:14:07 eh, you can do some contexterizing to find out which you want 14:14:10 and mapping the unaries is usually what you want. 14:14:20 err... k. 14:14:25 that sounds like something cise would do 14:14:27 +_ 1 2 3 14:14:29 not very j'y still 14:14:29 => 14:14:30 -6 14:14:35 oklopol: i don't want something j'y 14:14:39 i want something concise and cool :P 14:14:47 I REFUSE TO UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT OF VIEW 14:14:50 +_ 1 2 3 -> -6 makes perfect sense imo 14:15:05 * oklopol is in a hurry, and just wants to disagree 14:15:09 lolz 14:15:12 not that that makes any sense 14:15:20 :P 14:15:41 the only problem is 14:15:42 ascii 14:15:43 is 14:15:45 too 14:15:47 small 14:15:49 :'( 14:16:02 must leave, yeah, you're right, i like that unary = map, binary = fold thing; assuming you clear up what "contexterizing" is 14:16:04 :) 14:16:06 yeah it is 14:16:10 oklopol: well, bye but 14:16:15 WE SHOULD INVENT, LIKE, A SYSTEM WITH MORE CHARS 14:16:15 i think functions should have like 14:16:16 either 14:16:18 * oklopol goes ----> 14:16:20 "mainly unary" 14:16:20 or 14:16:22 "mainly binary" 14:16:26 which flips their map/fold behaviour 14:16:29 and you can override it explicitly 14:16:32 if you really need to 14:16:36 haha, that's lovely :) 14:16:36 bye 14:16:39 buttttt 14:16:42 yeah bye -> 14:17:33 like to fold _ would be 14:17:44 /_ 1 2 3 14:17:47 whatever 1 _ 2 _ 3 does :P 14:18:37 -!- Slereah_ has quit (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)). 14:19:55 ehird: depends, in j _ isn't really an operator, it's an inherent part of a number, just like the haskell - 14:20:00 not that i'm not gone, i definitely am. 14:20:00 oklopol: haha you're back :D 14:20:03 (->) 14:20:03 but oklopol 14:20:07 poop 14:20:07 :P 14:20:26 hmm 14:20:30 factorial: 14:20:39 wellll 14:20:43 depends on the range syntax 14:20:49 if we say it's a boring func for the sake of example 14:20:57 * range 1 14:21:24 hmm if we say it's .. then 14:21:28 n!=*1..n 14:21:30 lovely 14:21:57 in cise: *:, where : is range 14:22:16 oklopol: hm but 14:22:18 range is 1..n inclusive here, because * doesn't like zeroes :) 14:22:22 how does the starting 1 get there 14:22:23 annnd 14:22:24 what 14:22:31 esplain 14:22:33 "like"? 14:22:39 cise has the concept of "liking" for functions, they can tell what types they prefer 14:22:39 -!- jix has joined. 14:22:48 and range can be either 0..n-1 or 1..n 14:22:48 and other functions try to give them it? 14:22:48 XD 14:22:56 :) 14:22:57 well : is nice for range 14:22:57 exactly 14:22:59 n!=*1:n 14:23:06 cise is a very hard language to parse. 14:23:15 pretty much impossible. 14:23:21 then you can use ! as a map factorial ofc: 14:23:28 going ---> 14:23:32 wait oklopol 14:23:35 this will make you lol: 14:23:39 +!%# 14:23:48 that produces the average of the factorials of the list given 14:23:53 with that ! def 14:23:53 :D 14:24:14 bye 14:26:15 that reads as 14:26:22 add factorial divide length 14:26:27 where add=sum 14:26:28 and you know that 14:26:30 so you can say 14:26:34 sum factorial divide length 14:26:48 +_!%# 14:26:55 sum negative factorial divide length 14:26:57 it's beautiful 14:27:15 -!- appletizer has quit. 14:28:24 in haskell, that's 14:28:29 (\x -> (sum $ map (0-) $ map fac x) `div` genericLength x) 14:28:42 the answer for the list 1 2 3 4 5 is -31 by the way 14:28:58 +_!%#. 14:29:00 i just love it 14:29:04 +_!%# +_!%# +_!%# +_!%# 14:29:12 i mean, i can read that now 14:29:14 oerjan: can you? 14:29:15 it's easy 14:29:17 if you know 14:29:18 + = add 14:29:21 _ = negate 14:29:23 ! = factorial 14:29:24 % = divide 14:29:26 # = length 14:29:33 then, you just read out the operations in order! 14:29:37 add negative factorial divide length 14:29:42 *negate 14:29:44 add negate factorial divide length 14:29:53 oerjan: ??? :D 14:30:08 I'M NOT LISTENING LA LA LA LA 14:30:35 oerjan: it's simple! come to the dark side!! we have tiny programs that you can just read aloud!! :D 14:30:40 and they're easy to write! 14:30:45 no parens! mostly! 14:30:48 and extremely ambiguous 14:30:58 oerjan: that's not all that ambiguous 14:31:15 i mean, if you read it out, there's only one "sane, working" meaning it could have 14:31:28 and the language will pretty much always take that one. 14:31:30 not ambiguous if you're AI-complete, then 14:31:34 +_!%# 14:31:42 oerjan: well, it has well-defined precedences ofc 14:31:46 it's just that they're set intuitively 14:32:07 i.e. just write your program as a flat list of (nested) english names on the argument 14:32:10 except you have a character set 14:32:15 where one char = one word for a restricted set 14:32:20 add negate factorial divide length 14:32:23 +_!%# 14:34:12 +_!%# it's sooo beautiful 14:34:18 i don't think i've ever written a nicer program 14:34:24 it's so simple and so YUM 14:35:23 i need second opinions. :| 14:35:29 lament! 14:35:33 -> 14:35:36 -!- oerjan has quit ("leaving"). 14:35:44 i scared him away :( 14:41:01 +_!%#+_!%#+_!%#+_!%#+_!%#+_!%#+_!%#+_!%#+_!%#+_!%#+_!%#+_!%#+_!%#+_!%#+_!%#+_!%#+_!%# 14:41:17 -!- ehird has set topic: +_!%# | http://tunes.org/~nef/logs/esoteric/. 14:46:05 +_!%#! 14:46:10 i'm not sure if that's the factorial of the length 14:46:15 or that whole expr, factorialled 14:46:18 but you know what?? 14:46:22 WHO CARES 14:46:22 :D 14:57:02 +_!%#+_!%#+_!%#+_!%#+_!%#+_!%#+_!%#+_!%#+_!%#+_!%# 14:57:13 -!- ehird has changed nick to zuff. 15:01:32 "%", doesn't that require two arguments? Or does it take the second argument from the supplied arguments? e.g. foo = +_!%#; foo "hello" 3 7 => add(negate(factorial(divide(length("hello"),3))),7) 15:02:05 MizardX: well 15:02:09 % does take two arguments 15:02:11 +_! 15:02:13 and # 15:02:22 + sums the list it gets, which is _! 15:02:31 _ maps _ on it, being an unary function, negating all the elements of 15:02:35 ! the factorialled list 15:02:40 # just gets the length of the same list 15:02:41 so: 15:02:47 +_!%# 1 2 3 15:02:48 is 15:03:21 x = [1,2,3]; fold(add, map(negate, map(factorial, x))) / length(x) 15:04:58 ok. Strange to apply the arguments to both operands... 15:05:20 MizardX: they read from the rest of the input string up to \n, basically 15:05:21 it's like j 15:06:22 basically, if you can show me a shorter way to do +_!%# in any language i'll sell my soul :P 15:07:37 negative mean of the factorials of the arguments 15:08:33 MizardX: no 15:08:38 the mean of the negation of the factorials of the arguments 15:08:41 the negation is _ 15:08:43 before the ! 15:08:49 to split it up into logical pieces: 15:08:54 + _! 15:08:55 % 15:08:56 # 15:10:26 mean should probably be a function 15:10:34 like...uh... 15:10:37 $ 15:10:44 then it becomes 15:10:45 $_! 15:11:02 $=+%# 15:11:04 then 15:11:06 $_! 1 2 3 15:11:08 -> -31 15:11:38 the mean of the negation is the negation of the mean 15:11:48 MizardX: shush you 15:11:52 this matters in the universe of awesome 15:12:05 it matters in a spiritual satisfaction way! 15:12:12 but yes, _$! would work just as well 15:12:17 but $_! is probably valid perl 15:16:14 hmm 15:16:22 I wonder what you should call $_! 15:16:23 i guess 15:16:29 meannegfacs 15:16:30 :P 15:16:38 to be honest, why even make that a function 15:16:43 it's quicker to just use it than give it a name 16:13:07 http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=rBurACl5wW0 16:15:17 FNORD 16:29:29 i can still write +_!%# without thinking 16:29:41 it's just so -obvious- if you know what the symbols mean. well, obviously 16:31:05 [[Why do you want to learn C when there's C++?!... C++ stands for a increasement of C... ]] 16:31:09 -!- zuff has set topic: Why do you want to learn C when there's C++?!... C++ stands for a increasement of C.... 16:40:44 -!- KingOfKarlsruhe has joined. 16:41:44 http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0 16:42:28 jayCampbell: through intense tracking of your youtube links, i have discovered you reside in UNITED KINGDOMIA// 16:42:35 THIS WILL BE YOUR LAST TRESSPASS-FALL 16:42:39 my death ray is on its way. 16:43:21 no, ever since i went to your link all my youtube links send me to UK 16:43:31 jayCampbell: that was the previous part of my trap 16:43:37 clicking on that link TRANSPORTED YOU TO THE UK 16:43:39 you just don't know it yet 16:43:41 shit 16:44:12 Ahahahahhaahahahah! 16:46:02 +_!%# 16:46:02 hee 16:46:06 i can still write it without thinking 16:46:57 jayCampbell: +_!%# 16:47:43 segfault 16:48:06 jayCampbell: tell me what that program does and i'll not send the death rays 16:49:33 jayCampbell: you have 50 hours 16:49:53 -!- Sgeo has joined. 16:50:04 Sgeo: what does +_!%# do 16:50:07 answer and win prizes 16:50:30 I'm assuming you're talking about an esolang. What esolang? 16:50:45 it is not actually specced anywhere 16:50:45 <3 16:50:48 SO TELL ME 16:51:11 it does fold(add, map(negate, map(factorial, x))) / length(x) 16:51:13 I'M SAVED 16:51:32 do you want it implemented? 16:51:34 jayCampbell: copy and paster >:( 16:51:43 and no, dammit, it's mostly oklopol's 16:51:58 i've been looking for an excuse 16:52:23 jayCampbell: anyway now you get to answer another, harder one 16:52:26 for cheating 16:52:26 :D 16:56:47 spec me a language 16:56:51 no dammit 16:57:00 make your own stupid languages to implement >:( 16:57:01 :P 16:57:41 i'm torn between Three Stooges and Genesis, where the programmer first creates the heavens and the urfs 16:58:06 will probably do PokerScript 16:58:13 got any unique ideas? :P 16:58:24 apparently not 16:58:29 +_!%# is very uniq 16:58:40 not rilly 16:58:44 ya tis. 16:58:46 just ask oklopol. 17:00:24 it's a reversed rpn with a couple extra functions 17:00:33 umm 17:00:34 no 17:00:35 it's not 17:00:40 it is not reversed rpn 17:00:40 at al 17:00:41 l 17:00:50 it just isn't 17:01:12 in that, operations are invoked on a stack 17:01:18 nope 17:01:20 they are not 17:01:42