terrible programmers: my god, it's full of chars

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > YOSPOS > terrible programmers: my god, it's full of chars

«‹›1446 »

Valeyard: Mar 30, 2012; Grimey Drawer

# ? May 19, 2014 14:26

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 12, 2024 06:25

Tavistock: Oct 30, 2010

https://github.com/hylang/hy

forgot to say look at his django and flask stuff im sure you can get sql alchemy to work

Tavistock fucked around with this message at 15:21 on May 19, 2014

# ? May 19, 2014 15:18

Notorious b.s.d.: Jan 25, 2003; by Reene

Luigi Thirty posted:

i recently discovered lisp and it seems pee cool to mess around with but how do i make it talk to a mysql? there's like five zillion libraries with lovely documentation and they all don't work unless you have a specific lisp implementation pirated from a DEC backup disc in 1975 or whatever the gently caress. i'm just using whatever apt-get install clisp downloaded i ain't got time for that jibba jabba

this is the central issue with using common lisp in any problem space you can imagine. nobody ever finishes libraries. everything is half-baked and incomplete.

to get anything done you will eventually end up writing your own lib that covers your own use cases. then you can release your own half-baked and incompletely documented library

p.s. clisp is terrible, get yourself set up with sbcl + slime. yes you can apt-get these

# ? May 19, 2014 15:57

Notorious b.s.d.: Jan 25, 2003; by Reene

tbh in 2014, if you want to experiment with lisp, i would point you towards clojure

upsides:

usable, finished, documented libraries exist
clojure<=>java interop aint perfect, but it is scads better than CL's C ffi
it's pretty fast
not designed by committee
you can package and distribute an application as a jar (instead of a 500 MB 'world' image w/ complete sbcl runtime)
maven and lein are way friendlier than asdf

downsides:

it's very, very fp-focused. CL makes it easy to write OO or straight-imperative code. clojure does not.
it's not standardized. clojure can change underneath you
it's pretty pokey compared to sbcl (but still faster than e.g. clisp)

# ? May 19, 2014 16:03

fart simpson: Jul 2, 2005; DEATH TO AMERICA

Notorious b.s.d. posted:

downsides:

it's very, very fp-focused. CL makes it easy to write OO or straight-imperative code. clojure does not.

i think youve put this in the wrong category

# ? May 19, 2014 16:06

Notorious b.s.d.: Jan 25, 2003; by Reene

it was the major thing that drove me away from clojure

all my hobby projects and some of my work stuff is in scala now. it's a less-pleasant language in lots of ways, but, like CL, it nails the whole multi-paradigm thing.

when i want to write lovely OO bodges, i want to write lovely OO bodges. donn't get in my loving way

# ? May 19, 2014 16:09

Luigi Thirty: Apr 30, 2006; Emergency confection port.

Notorious b.s.d. posted:

tbh in 2014, if you want to experiment with lisp, i would point you towards clojure

upsides:

usable, finished, documented libraries exist

clojure<=>java interop aint perfect, but it is scads better than CL's C ffi

it's pretty fast

not designed by committee

you can package and distribute an application as a jar (instead of a 500 MB 'world' image w/ complete sbcl runtime)

maven and lein are way friendlier than asdf

downsides:

it's very, very fp-focused. CL makes it easy to write OO or straight-imperative code. clojure does not.

it's not standardized. clojure can change underneath you

it's pretty pokey compared to sbcl (but still faster than e.g. clisp)

i read some of the lisp thread and they talked about clojure having really lovely error handling and documentation with the dev solution being "fix/write it yourself or dwi" but i will download that as well and give it a try

e: or scala. or haskell! i can download them aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaall

Luigi Thirty fucked around with this message at 18:07 on May 19, 2014

# ? May 19, 2014 17:24

Soricidus: Oct 21, 2010; freedom-hating statist shill

imho anyone who wants to experiment with lisp should try racket.

# ? May 19, 2014 18:33

Shaggar: Apr 26, 2006

lisp and scala and clojure are all great if you want to massively complicate your development efforts for no reason

# ? May 19, 2014 18:34

Luigi Thirty: Apr 30, 2006; Emergency confection port.

Shaggar posted:

anything more complicated than basic is all great if you want to massively complicate your development efforts for no reason

# ? May 19, 2014 18:40

Shaggar: Apr 26, 2006

use java or c#. they are designed to be used for professional development while lisp, scala, and clojure are not

# ? May 19, 2014 18:48

MeruFM: Jul 27, 2010

the only reason you say that is because there's libraries that work

some could say that's the only good reason to use any language ever, except C

# ? May 19, 2014 19:11

Shaggar: Apr 26, 2006

yeah libraries, frameworks, and tools. you know, the things you need to make development work.

# ? May 19, 2014 19:12

Luigi Thirty: Apr 30, 2006; Emergency confection port.

god drat it they want to see a c# code sample but anything i have worth showing is in python or c++

# ? May 19, 2014 19:13

Valeyard: Mar 30, 2012; Grimey Drawer

Luigi Thirty posted:

god drat it they want to see a c# code sample but anything i have worth showing is in python or c++

shaggar was right

# ? May 19, 2014 19:13

Forums Terrorist: Dec 8, 2011

Valeyard posted:

shaggar was right

# ? May 19, 2014 19:25

Luigi Thirty: Apr 30, 2006; Emergency confection port.

i knew it...

# ? May 19, 2014 19:25

Soricidus: Oct 21, 2010; freedom-hating statist shill

i'm going to stay in denial. i dont want to live in a world where my mastery of scheme and ocaml is literally worthless

(mlmp, also yes killing myself would work)

# ? May 19, 2014 21:26

Share Bear: Apr 27, 2004

i got a job cause i know perl and welp i gotta do java poo poo now

i had asked for help earlier in the thread, dehumanized myself and faced to java, and got a raise

deal with it

# ? May 19, 2014 21:43

DONT THREAD ON ME: Oct 1, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo; Floss Finder

Share Bear posted:

i got a job cause i know perl and welp i gotta do java poo poo now

congrats on the promotion!

# ? May 19, 2014 21:44

Workaday Wizard: Oct 23, 2009; by Pragmatica

imaging you had to actually support enterprise solutions written in perl :spooky:

# ? May 19, 2014 21:48

Soricidus: Oct 21, 2010; freedom-hating statist shill

perl 4, that is

# ? May 19, 2014 21:54

Soricidus: Oct 21, 2010; freedom-hating statist shill

and half the lines turn out to be backticks that only work if the system shell is ksh88

# ? May 19, 2014 21:56

Notorious b.s.d.: Jan 25, 2003; by Reene

Share Bear posted:

i got a job cause i know perl and welp i gotta do java poo poo now

i had asked for help earlier in the thread, dehumanized myself and faced to java, and got a raise

deal with it

Inline::Java is all you need :q:

code:

   use Inline Java => <<'END', AUTOSTUDY => 1 ;
      import java.util.* ;

      class Pod_10 {
         public Pod_10(){
         }

         public HashMap get_hm(){
            HashMap hm = new HashMap() ;
            return hm ;
         }
      }
   END

   my $obj = new Pod_10() ;
   my $hm = $obj->get_hm() ;
   $hm->put("key", "value") ;
   my $val = $hm->get("key") ;
   print($val . "\n") ; # prints value

# ? May 19, 2014 22:01

weird: Jun 4, 2012; by zen death robot

is ocaml more like scheme where its mostly functional (particularly culturally), or is it more of a true multiparadigm language like common lisp

# ? May 19, 2014 23:56

Soricidus: Oct 21, 2010; freedom-hating statist shill

it's very much multiparadigm. there's a lot of imperative code that relies on loops and mutable state and stuff. and it has a complete oo system bolted on, although that's not really used so much.

think common lisp with a real compiler, worse syntax, less fragmentation, and more type system wankery.

# ? May 20, 2014 00:18

FamDav: Mar 29, 2008

suffix posted:

the right proportion of ingredients depends not just on serving size, but also on the composition of the flours, which can vary between countries

so it would be like this dumb poo poo where item data is json or sumthin but usage is tracked

code:

var f{display_name: "Flour", "units:"ounces", amount: 3};
var e{display_name: "Egg", units:"unit", amount:2 };

batter := mix(|1/2|flour+eggs);

return batter

would result in an error like "1/2 flour unused" or possible the much more user friendly "1.5 ounces of flour unused in recipe".

So you would write:

code:

var f{display_name: "flour", "units:"ounces", amount: 3, vegan?: True, vegetarian?: True};
var e{display_name: "egg", units:"unit", amount:2, vegan?: False, vegetarian?: True};

b0 := mix(|1/2|flour+|1/2|eggs){ display_name: "cake batter" };
b1 := mix(|1/2|flour+|1/2|eggs){ display_name: "cake batter" };

return (b0, b1)

which would yield

code:

Ingredients:
3C flour
2 eggs

Instructions:
Mix 2 eggs and 3 cups of flour together

Yields:
1 cake batter
1 cake batter // this looks p bad i dunno

Tags:
[Vegan], [Vegetarian]

i dunno tho

# ? May 20, 2014 01:42

Jabor: Jul 16, 2010; #1 Loser at SpaceChem

no the point is that what exactly is in "3 ounces of flour" is different depending on where in the world you are. so the quantity of flour you want to use in proportion to other ingredients can also vary.

also a recipe that uses eggs is not vegan

# ? May 20, 2014 01:55

FamDav: Mar 29, 2008

Jabor posted:

no the point is that what exactly is in "3 ounces of flour" is different depending on where in the world you are. so the quantity of flour you want to use in proportion to other ingredients can also vary.

also a recipe that uses eggs is not vegan

im not sure if youre confusing volumetric issues (a cup of flour is not always a cup of flour depending on how packed it is) or flour types (cake flour vs wheat flour vs 00 flour) but weight is used universally. assuming you have a recipe w/ nothing but weights you can also easily convert to baker percentages.

and shrughes i had meant to put a not in there.

# ? May 20, 2014 02:02

JewKiller 3000: Nov 28, 2006; by Lowtax

Jabor posted:

no the point is that what exactly is in "3 ounces of flour" is different depending on where in the world you are. so the quantity of flour you want to use in proportion to other ingredients can also vary.

also a recipe that uses eggs is not vegan

well except who cares and who cares

# ? May 20, 2014 02:38

Shaggar: Apr 26, 2006

Jabor posted:

no the point is that what exactly is in "3 ounces of flour" is different depending on where in the world you are. so the quantity of flour you want to use in proportion to other ingredients can also vary.

also a recipe that uses eggs is not vegan

no its not. 3 ounces is 3 ounces.

# ? May 20, 2014 02:40

BONGHITZ: Jan 1, 1970

i think its a little bit more at the equator

# ? May 20, 2014 02:40

Shaggar: Apr 26, 2006

altho u shouldn't measure flour in ounces that's weird as hell

# ? May 20, 2014 02:40

fart simpson: Jul 2, 2005; DEATH TO AMERICA

yeah you should measure it in grams

# ? May 20, 2014 03:22

Notorious b.s.d.: Jan 25, 2003; by Reene

Soricidus posted:

think common lisp with a real compiler, worse syntax, less fragmentation, and more type system wankery.

common lisp has real compilers and virtually no fragmentation. it's "common" because they made a standard out of combining everyone's lovely commercial implementations of lisp

CL has a lot of problems. compiler quality is not one of them. neither is portability. it's pretty much everything else that is the problem

# ? May 20, 2014 03:23

~Coxy: Dec 9, 2003; R.I.P. Inter-OS Sass - b.2000AD d.2003AD

Shaggar posted:

altho u shouldn't measure flour in ounces that's weird as hell

measuring soft ingredients in volumes is the fundamental mistake of baking

# ? May 20, 2014 10:52

fart simpson: Jul 2, 2005; DEATH TO AMERICA

~Coxy posted:

measuring soft ingredients in volumes is the fundamental mistake of baking

this is yet another american thing though. other places use grams and it's way better

# ? May 20, 2014 11:03

fart simpson: Jul 2, 2005; DEATH TO AMERICA

do you know how much easier it is to measure out something like cream cheese in grams instead of cups? a lot.

# ? May 20, 2014 11:10

Valeyard: Mar 30, 2012; Grimey Drawer

MeramJert posted:

do you know how much easier it is to measure out something like cream cheese in grams instead of cups? a lot.

my cups are fuckin hugee loll, :greenangel:

# ? May 20, 2014 11:13

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 12, 2024 06:25

FamDav: Mar 29, 2008

MeramJert posted:

do you know how much easier it is to measure out something like cream cheese in grams instead of cups? a lot.

i wonder how much variation in weight there is with peanut butter, because that is the worst to measure by volume.

# ? May 20, 2014 14:25

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > YOSPOS > terrible programmers: my god, it's full of chars

«‹›1446 »