/dpt/ - Delicious Programming Thread

What are you cooking up, Sup Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

next.rikunabi.com/tech/docs/ct_s03600.jsp?p=002412
twitter.com/AnonBabble

C

D is dead
D will never not have a GC
D will never replace C++
D will never have a gf
D will never be a good language

.. is the source of all security exploits.

How can languages have "lives"? I like fan fictions.

Reminder that no language can yet replace C. C will be the language of FFI interfaces and ABIs for a long, long time.

I thought I told you to stop peddling your awful meme

Rust doesn't have these problems

This is why C is a tumor to the software industry.

Rust also doesn't have HKTs

Still here, claims-not-to-be-Andrei's-buttboy?

> it's popularity is falling more than any other languages in the market.
>C is dying and it should die ASAP.

half a century later, still top language for sys

Yes

HKTs are for brainlets.

Rust doesn't need HKTs to appease to one autist who uses them for toy programs.

except the ones caused by javascript

Python is like buying a box of premade cupcakes
C++ is baking cupcakes from a boxed cupcake mix
C is baking cupcakes from scratch
ASM is baking cupcake from scratch and grinding all your own ingredients

Have fun writing the same code over and over again without them. I hope your boss fires you for wasting time like that.

Then Rust will be yet another waste of countless hours of work. Another language stillborn.

Nah, I'm good at metaprogramming

Explain HKTs to me without using a Haskell type signature
Or link me a good article explaining them

>same code over and over again
t. someone who has never used a language with a macro system

Heavy use of metaprogramming is a sure sign that a language possesses many deficiencies.

What's even the reason for not having them in Rust in the first place? It's not like they will scare away retards who wouldn't have touched the language either way.

lol @ babbies dissing C, probably don't even understand pointer arithmetic and memory management

Have fun declaring 64 bit integers for your loop counters

t. systems guy

Not using metaprogramming to your advantage is a sure sign of a retarded programmer who doesn't obey the rule of never rewriting code more than once.

Do your own homework, scrub.

Haven't you heard? If you design a crippled language, you can call it "pragmatic" and/or "practical", and idiots will flock to it.

...

I guess so.

Currently learning C++ from a book called "Accelerated C++" by Andrew Koening and Barbara Moo and compiling and editing the example code using Xcode

I'm on chapter four where they introduce partitioning a program into several files. They say to name my header files as "header_name.h", but Xcode initializes header files as "header_name.hpp". Either one compiles on my computer.

Which is the proper way? .h or .hpp?

Why resort to metaprogramming if the language allows you to write generic, reusable code directly? Metaprogramming introduces unnecessary complexity and maintainability headaches.

"metaprogramming" is just regular programming in any non-shit language.

i guess they call it hpp because hpp is to h as cpp is to c. never heard of it before

C++ is retarded, and couldn't even decide on a single standard file extension.
Also, use .hpp. .h is for C header files, and people who use that for C++ can go fuck themselves.

Stop using header files altogether, they just pollute the function namespace.

What language do you use?

Butthurt

Husklelshitters are out in full force tonight

I don't touch anything without dependent types and a totality checker.

>Why resort to metaprogramming if the language allows you to write generic, reusable code directly?
I can write generic reusable code in Rust directly

>Metaprogramming introduces unnecessary complexity and maintainability headaches.

Are you a toddler? It doesn't introduce complexities at all and maintaining it is as simple as maintaining a normal function. You clearly have never used a langauge with a macro system

And then we have this idiot who doesn't understand the use of metaprogramming.


You are the same kind of people who will argue that Emacs is a bad editor simply because it lets you customize it as much as you please.

All I can picture is the Python girl being tugged in different directions by the 2 snakes

Haskellshitters are out in full force everynight crying on Sup Forums because their language is so shit that they can't do anything relevant with it aside from their toy programs.

Why would you need a totality checker if the language isn't crippled and is total in the first place?

What's the matter, failed your Haskell class in college?

Just stating facts.

>I can write generic reusable code in Rust directly
No, you can't. This follows directly from its lack of HKTs.

Math autists shouldn't be programming.

I should have guessed

Sometimes I must descend from the clouds and interact with mortals, regrettably.

>Math autists shouldn't be writing proofs.
That's what math autists do.

programs aren't proofs, they have effects

Non-math people shouldn't be in programming. Y'all are the reason software doesn't work.

Yes I can. Consider reading the Rust site if you have any further questions about the Rust language since you don't seem to know anything about it.

Equivalence isn't identity.

I don't need to read the Rust site. Rust lacks HKTs and it is therefore impossible to write generic, reusable code in it directly.

Why do Haskell programmers try to assert themselves everywhere? I'm so glad the Common Lisp community is much more tame and keeps to themselves.

>Non-math people
>people

>Haskell class in college
Be pretty shameful for a school to have a class even more useless than gender studies 101

i bet you think this was really deep and meaningful

Because they're fucking autistic and this is their whole life.
When you insult haskell, you're insulting the very foundations of their life.

So your college didn't even try to teach you Haskell? I sure hope you got a scholarship, because otherwise you wasted your money.

It's self-evident and anyone should be able to understand it, assuming they aren't a retard like you.

>I'm ignorant of your language but i'm going to make a false statement anyway because I'm a haskellfag with nothing to do in my life since my toyprograms are worthless, no one will let me in their OSS projects since I'm an elitist retarded, and I have no intentions of learning anything but what my god and savior haskell tells me

Hope this isn't in response to the Husklelshitter. All they can do is pseudo-math.

Who are you quoting though?

>there has still been nothing of importance written in Haskell

I don't even like Haskell much. It's just better than most languages.

>A implies B, A, therefore B
>noooooo you need to read the rust site

Software bugs come from a wide variety of sources, and it's not always from having a poor understanding of the math.

>outright say programs are proofs
>this is demonstrably false
>"Equivalence isn't identity."
woah, neurons in overdrive

...

So MIT and Stanford are a waste?

It must be liberating, in a way, to be aware of so little in the world.

Who are you quoting?

programs proofs. This is proven.
And who said the first two quotes?

>MIT
>even dropped Scheme and began using Python instead
Utter trash.

Right, some of the brightest minds in CS are utter trash because they weren't forced to pay for a class that could be learned online in less time.

programs aren't proofs though, is what i'm saying and you fail to understand. proofs do not do anything. they are entirely useless, on a fundamental level. programs, on a fundamental level, are useful. do you understand what i'm saying? proofs do not cause an effect

Reread my post. You seem to be utterly retarded and incapable of reading basic sentences.

MIT is trash. Its students wasted their money (unless they got scholarships).

l2reading comprehension

you're just plugging your ears at this point

Programs are not useful, on a fundamental level. They're only an AST (or worse, text).

One of the highest ranking schools in the nation is trash because they don't offer your languages anymore and you are too incapable of learning them without a professor wasting his time teaching you petty shit?

This is exactly why you are on the internet shilling haskell and doing nothing with your life.

Trying to learn how to use templates in sepples.

I am stating something which is known to be true beyond any doubt. This is literally proven. Programs are equivalent to proofs.
You're not even arguing with me here, if you have some information which shows that this is incorrect I'm sure a lot of people would like to know that.

so butthurt you had to reply twice?

>useless
>useful

>Programs are equivalent to proofs.
show me a proof that can edit text documents. you can't, because proofs are not imperative and cannot perform. go back to sci

It being trash is not about specific languages. It's about the philosophy that informed its decision to switch from Scheme to Python.

Here's a page with some descriptions of the anime personifications of programming languages:
next.rikunabi.com/tech/docs/ct_s03600.jsp?p=002412
It's in Japanese, but more or less understandable after you run it through google translate.

Of course user, you know much better than them and their program even tho you probably never even went anywhere past HS let alone near MIT

>you can't
Nor do I need to. The truth of that statement is independent of what I do.

How do I set up graphical output with C++ on osx?

"Programs should be readable" - Philosophy that informed MIT's decision to switch from Scheme to Python

What do you mean by "graphical output"?

Scheme is far more readable than Python.

>you know much better than them and their program
Yes, I do.

it's not about whether you can do it or not. you can't write a proof that returns 1. because proofs don't return. proofs don't do ANYTHING. that's the big thing you don't understand. math doesn't do anything at all

Stop giving this guy (You)s

Programs are proofs, and vice versa.

A program that returns 1 is a proof.

copy and paste the definition of declarative, and then do the same for imperative, post that, and then don't post anything else

A proof can prove that the result a program returns is correct

These things are complementary, why are you trying to pit them against one another

>A program that returns 1 is a proof.
It is a coincidence, not a proof.

because he falsely equated programs to proofs here in "who are you quoting" tier greentext

Which guy

All programs are proofs, no matter how much you wish they weren't. This is an inescapable truth.

My ability or inability to write a proof which """""""""returns""""""""" 1 is entirely irrelevant.
These two things have already been proven to be equivalent.
Where did I ever write this?
"programs = proofs"