|
uG posted:operator overloading rules as long as im the one doing it
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 17:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 22:53 |
|
|
Bloody posted:you wanna know an awful lang? hahhahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahhahahhahahahahahhahahahahaahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahha
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 17:47
|
|
|
perl goatse op supremacy =()=
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 17:47
|
|
|
are you working with images or csvs? if not dont use matlab
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 17:47
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:it's stupid and bad because it's inconsistent Type erasure
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 17:48
|
|
|
Bloody posted:wait so now there is a type ButtFart that's secretly a System.Collections.Generic.List<KeyValuePair<Butt, Fart>>;? goddamn that owns, i am a terrible programmer yep. and it does own.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 17:49
|
|
|
Nomnom Cookie posted:Type erasure type erasure was an engineering problem not a language design problem. an implementation detail. but yeah they hosed that one up bigtime
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 17:49
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:are you working with images or csvs? if not dont use matlab im working with academia
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 17:51
|
|
|
Bloody posted:im working with academia im so sorry.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 17:59
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:hello, my name is pollyanna, hello
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 18:01
|
|
|
uG posted:operator overloading rules as long as im the one doing it it is really fun if it's some throwaway project no one else will be using when i put my throwaway projects up on github and they get forked because of how cool+userful they are, is when it becomes a problem
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 18:08
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:type erasure was an engineering problem not a language design problem. an implementation detail. I'm sure its a great relief when you get bitten in the rear end by it "no worry mate just an implementation detail"
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 18:14
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:type erasure was an engineering problem not a language design problem. an implementation detail. Go back and read the spec on erasure. It might have been motivated by engineering but it's a language (mis) feature.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 18:23
|
|
|
I must have read that poo poo like 3 times and I still don't get why it's a big loving deal. Why couldn't Java just have schism'd into two versions, or even just have included both runtimes, a default one to support old lovely code a new one that supports types? I'm guessing it was just  but it would have been the best way to transition to the newer runtime until all those old jars were recompiled or abandoned for newer things while at the same time still supporting super old poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 18:27
|
|
|
people get something that works, and they don't want to change that if they can ever avoid it
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 18:28
|
|
|
Then why release new versions of Java then?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 18:30
|
|
|
Zlodo posted:I'm sure its a great relief when you get bitten in the rear end by it Nomnom Cookie posted:Go back and read the spec on erasure. It might have been motivated by engineering but it's a language (mis) feature. well the motivation is what matters here when java was initially designed, they made a ton of good choices in a green grass world, where they got to define everything from scratch type erasure was a compromise among competing concerns in a world with millions of lines of legacy code. i think they screwed the pooch but i can see why they were tempted by their bad solution
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 18:30
|
|
|
Hard NOP Life posted:I must have read that poo poo like 3 times and I still don't get why it's a big loving deal. .net 2.0 just said "gently caress it" and that seems to have been the right solution. 1.0/1.1 code still ran but it was a pain in the rear end to migrate things, and, well, that seems to have worked out ok.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 18:31
|
|
|
Hard NOP Life posted:Then why release new versions of Java then? people also want new features they want new stuff and they want to never give up their old stuff
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 18:31
|
|
|
prefect posted:people also want new features perl5 livin the dream
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 18:35
|
|
|
uG posted:perl5 livin the dream i wrote a tiny little perl script this afternoon 
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
uG posted:perl5 livin the dream dude p5 is alive and well on thursday i'm gonna go see the Moose guy talk about his proposed Moose-like additions to the p5 core, it's gonna rule
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 19:11
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:it's a type alias, and if you never use them, you are writing some really ugly C# what, as in "i don't like typing System.Collections.Generic.List<KeyValuePair<Butt, Fart>>;" - why wouldn't u just including System.Collections.Generics making it List<KeyValuePair<Butt,Fart>>; - why wouldn't u use a dictionary - why wouldn't you use var 99% of the time except for instantiating stuff like the only way this seems to make sense is if you're doing TypeOf's all over the place or something. or if you have intellisense turned off for some reason USSMICHELLEBACHMAN posted:that's why you do all your math stuff in c and then turn it back into an object for whatever objectey stuff it needs to do (http://stackoverflow.com/questions/421463/should-i-use-nsdecimalnumber-to-deal-with-money )
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 19:25
|
|
|
Mr SuperAwesome posted:what about currencies (decimal) tbh i don't even like operators that much for numbers. i would be perfectly happy with a language that had explicit method names even for math
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 19:29
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:tbh i don't even like operators that much for numbers. mods namechange to method man
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 19:34
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:tbh i don't even like operators that much for numbers. i'm genuinely curious what kind of work you do that would lead to this conclusion
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 19:35
|
|
|
uG posted:perl5 livin the dream i got a lead on a place thats looking for a data guy but its perl and matlab and i havent done serious perl since literally 2004
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 19:35
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:i would be perfectly happy with a language that had explicit method names even for math what the gently caress one of the things i hate about numpy is the difference between arrays and matrices and how sometimes * means pointwise multiplication and how sometimes * means matrix multiplication, but you cant just use .dot() all the time because its slow as balls on matrices (or one of those things is slow, i dont remember which)
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 19:39
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:dude p5 is alive and well ironically that guy went on all last year about how perl is dead, a dead end, the detroit of scripting languages, etc
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 19:39
|
|
|
PerlMotion, a toolchain for iOS and OS X development using the Perl5 programming language, is whats really up 
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 19:40
|
|
|
how about a happy medium: prefix overloaded operators with something like .+ .- .* ./
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 19:40
|
|
|
* overloads . *
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 19:41
|
|
|
prefixing overloaded operators with something removes almost all the usefulness of it
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 19:44
|
|
|
USSMICHELLEBACHMAN posted:lol doing math with objects is dumb wtf steveE?? theres nothing wrong with having a wide enough definition of "object" that encompasses types unless your using a j-lang where they insist that every object must be heavy and costly and have no notion of passing things by value sometimes you manipulate mathematical objects other than scalars and theres no reason you should have to use a diff syntax when doing calculations on them
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 19:44
|
|
|
operator overloading only seems useful to people who've never worked w/ other people. mostly p-langers who want to people able to alias a random method to an operator so they can type less. its stupid obfuscation that serves no purpose.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 19:47
|
|
|
"oh but for this one highly special needs math thing it actually makes sense!" well too bad. we aren't breaking the language to suit your stupid autism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 19:48
|
|
|
Mr SuperAwesome posted:
lol idfk this is the terrible programmer thread
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 19:49
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:"oh but for this one highly special needs math thing it actually makes sense!" everyone who programs has special needs though
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 19:49
|
|
|
Zlodo posted:theres nothing wrong with having a wide enough definition of "object" that encompasses types java is mandatory pass-by-value jackass there is literally no way to pass by reference Zlodo posted:sometimes you manipulate mathematical objects other than scalars and theres no reason you should have to use a diff syntax when doing calculations on them except that programming is not math using mathematical notation for concrete operations on data types can be unhelpful when the abstractions don't hold e.g. most things with integers and anything with floating point ever
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 19:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 22:53 |
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:java is mandatory pass-by-value jackass idc my point is that it is actually always passed by reference from a low level point of view (as opposed as being directly pushed onto the stack or even across multiple registers like when objects are passed by value in c++) which in turns makes every class no matter how small such as a mathematical vector inefficient as hell even though there should be no reason objects cant be lightweight and still have methods or overloaded operators so it precludes a lot of cool things because theres this language limitation where every object is heavyweight as it has to be allocated on its own on the heap quote:except that programming is not math
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 20:16
|
|