/dpt/ - Daily Programming Thread

old thread: What are you working on, Sup Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=buQNgW-voAg
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Stop posting this cringy fag webm.
It's not funny. It was never funny.

Still better than many other alternatives.

that strikes me as seeming a bit unsafe... is C for alpha male risk takers?

The most practical programming language today is Idris.

>the literally who version of Haskell
I hope these aren't the same people telling me D is dead

Code being used in the industry for real world things.
D has games, systems,audio, Ebay's Data mining, etc.
And thats still with the GC.
Haskell and co. are still in academia for the most part.

I like it

You just acknowledged that Idris is a programming language, meaning it can't have the property of being "practical".

am I wrong to think that C++ is the future of mankind?

Remedy Entertainment is slowly introducing it as well

You have no idea how wrong you are

Go is the worst programming language. It's not the most unpleasant language to program in, or the least productive, but it was designed ignoring 30+ years of research, so the designers knew how to make a better language and they deliberately chose not to.

Yeah, thats who I meant since the other is a no-name MMO

>real world things
As opposed to fake world things?
D can't be "dead". It is plain garbage, though.

Wrong

with great powers come great responsibilities as they say

>unironically cant local import or format how I want like Python
truly a mistake.

If you're not using a pure language then you're not programming, you're just coding.

Golang appeals to the lowest common denominator.

That was its design and purpose.

If I want to do functional Web Dev, what languages/stacks should I be looking at? Is it worth it over using C++?

>you're not programming, you're just coding
:thinking:

>with no I/O
you forgot to add this.

>pure language

What did he mean by this? Binary is the only true, pure language.

prove me wrong

>Binary
Retard.

Binary isn't a language.

Should I have just said writing 1s and 0s???

It actually is. I'm 100% certain that the set of all languages has something which accepts only 1 and 0, true and false, etc.

"Machine code" is the correct thing to call it.
Binary is just a number base, or describing a 2-ary function.

true and false isn't a language

>a language so pure and expressive, you could do away with names completely

pretty neat concept 2bh
youtube.com/watch?v=buQNgW-voAg

>imaginary

anime website

John De Goes is an absolute beast.

Gotta start somewhere.

They can be the alphabet of the language called Binary.

>a language so pure it is literally useless

/dpt/ will like it.

Who said this?

The day haskell gets officially dethroned will be great.

R8

ugly trash, much like your favorite """"language""""

I think Idris might do that.

shit

Dethroned for the language everyone jerks off but doesn't actually use?
Congrats I guess

>so pure
How can something be more pure than something else?

this is better

Remove the trashkell logo and it'll be better.

OK, so let me ask you a question.

Someone hands you a box. A gift for you. You open the box and it is Swiss Army Knife. You encounter a rope, and you notice that the Swiss Army Knife can be used as a cutting instrument.

Where does it make sense to put the determination of what kind of object it is and what uses it has? Did the gift giver have to specifically access the "giveKnife" protocol of your interactions? Does the Gift interface have to hold place-holders for every possible action that could possibly performed by any kind of Gift? Where does the complexity really lie? Does the complexity lie in the concept of a gift, the concept of giving, or does it lie in the human?

Yes, these are satirical questions and if you don't get that, YOU are the punch line.

FP = Fairly Perfect
OOP = Opposite Of Perfect

So this?

PP = Perfectly Perfect

fairly poop

Perfect.

It's obvious, you need a Giver class, and a GiverFactory to get instances of Giver from.

Can someone help me realize what the meanings of the following are:

class B{
public:
int f, b;
B(int f, int b);
...
}'

class A {
public:
B b;
A();
};

A:A() {
B = new B(1,2); //returns point of B from heap?
//or
b = B(1,2); ///??????
//or (assuming it's like a struct and we already have the memory there, skip the constructor????)
b.f = 1;
b.b = 2;
}


which is correct and what the fuck does the middle one mean

What is Idris going to be actually used for, what is its purpose?

And can someone please tell me what the concurrency model looks like, and how it compares to other languages?

nothing useful

Holy trips have spoken.
Functional programming is over.
God himself uses OOP.

It's a general-purpose programming language. You can use it for games, webdev (the compiler can output PHP!), CRUD apps, theorem proving, ...

Apparently it has support for message passing built in, there may be libraries available for other concurrency models.

Not necessarily. He just declared FP is fairly poop, that's all. He may prefer other paradigms.

do your own homework poojeet

Cool green text.

I wish this was homework since I could just tell the TA to tell me, but it's not and i'm all by myself learning this fucking language.

In that case, stop learning that defective shit.

>paying $20k a year to learn programming language
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

which dubs do i trust???

That's why you community college that kind of bullshit, assuming it's required.

Believe my trips fag
FP = fairly poop

Trust no one.

Isn't struct packing/padding on the compiler's side, though?

Not necessiraly.

Jesus Christ I'm gonna fucking rape your face

What's the name of that coding language, like hackshall or hashall or something.

The programmer can control it.

A::A() : B(1, 2) { }

Lisp

Highcall

>gcc 7 when

>not using clang

It was Haskell. I should had added that it was completely autistic and irrelevant of a language.

gcc is the only true compiler and you know it

In all likelihood it will not be used for anything noteworthy at all.

What 'problem' does it solve that other languages are incapable of doing?

D

>What 'problem' does it solve that other languages are incapable of doing?
Having dependent types.

>Python,Java and C+++ bastard baby

I can't find anything different from C++, it looks like a C++ generally.

>C+++ bastard baby
Technically its just a C/++ one because Walter finally got tired of C++.

I use C++ sometimes but I hate it

this image makes me uncomfortable please remove it thank you

u wot
>Python
making me think senpai

That's because it's symmetric

struct gs_override
{
gs_override(selector new_gs) { set_gs(new_gs); }
~gs_override() { set_gs(old_gs); }

gs_override() = delete;
gs_override(const gs_override&) = delete;
gs_override(gs_override&&) = delete;
gs_override& operator=(const gs_override&) = delete;
gs_override& operator=(gs_override&&) = delete;

private:
void set_gs(auto s) { asm volatile("mov gs, %w0;" :: "rm" (s)); }
selector old_gs { get_gs() };
};
rate my raii thing

What fucking language is this?
what value does delete convey?
Why isn't delete a function that accepts a struct gs_override pointer to delete?

C++ was a mistake

You actually have a level of autism user!

Is there a compiler for the simply typed lambda calculus? I need it to output machine code.

>What fucking language is this?
C.

>defiling your pure algorithms by running them on physical machines
baka hentai

= delete in a prototype like this means "delete the default constructor/destructor of this signature, and if there would be any attempt to do something that would invoke this (i.e. copying an object), throw a compiler error."

In this instance, delete is neither a value nor an expression. It's just a keyword with a special meaning. In other instances, keyword delete maps to a memory de-allocation function.

>private
I don't think C had that.

Somewhere floating out on the Internet... probably. If you can't find what you're looking for though, now might be a good time to pick up some compiler theory and learn LLVM.

seems to me like they should have thought of a much better way to represent this behaviour