|
i hope that was just a low effort troll and run cos lol
|
#
¿
May 20, 2012 20:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 16:33 |
|
|
yaoi prophet posted:one of my favorite classes i ever took was how technology influences the way people communicate, we covered stuff like why people still say 'hi this is X' even though caller ID makes it pointless (it's to make sure that the other person can hear you and can respond) i seem to remember david crystal's 'language and the internet' having some neat stuff to say about this kinda thing
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2012 20:52
|
|
|
*invents perl* my work here is done
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2012 17:10
|
|
|
the arrow shorthand for dereferencing is p cool $hashref->{'whatever'} meaning ${$hashref}{'whatever'} $arrayref->[123] meaning ${$arrayref}[123] $subref->('dick',69) meaning &{$subref}('dick',69) then if you have refs to refs e.g. multidimensional arrays/hashes/whatever you can elide subsequent arrows e.g. $ref->{'row'}{'column'} meaning $ref->{'row'}->{'column'} meaning ${${$ref}{'row'}}{'column'} or w/e
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2012 17:27
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:why not hash['whatever']['row']['column'] the short answer is "because you have to, because youre forced to handle references yourself, because of the way perl works" specifically 1. perl flattens arrays. ((1,2),(3,4)) means (1,2,3,4). this includes @_, the array of parameters received by a subroutine. so good luck passing two arrays, or anything more complicated, without the help of references 2. perl passes everything by value (when youre passing a reference youre still just passing a scalar by value) point #1 sounds like youre just working around a limitation of the language. arguably true but its not exactly hard to use [[1,2],[3,4]] or whatever. [] gives you a reference to an anonymous array. similarly the -> operator takes the pain out of dereferencing id actually say #2 is a positive thing. you dont have to think wtf is happening when you call a subroutine. you know its all by value. i only know a small amount of python but im reliably informed that quote:the following types, and their subclasses, pass by reference: which sounds fuckin horrific and a recipe for disaster/defensive copying hell tbqh
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2012 21:46
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:it was a rhetorical question, yeah my reply was mainly for the benefit of people who dont know perl  BonzoESC posted:$ref->{'whatever'}{'row'}{'column'} is objectively worse than ref['whatever']['row']['column'] took me a while to work out why, but now i agree wholeheartedly BonzoESC posted:everything in ruby is pass-by-reference-to-object yeah this is really neat and consistent BonzoESC posted:especially if the former is a world where "$arrayref->[123] meaning ${$arrayref}[123]" is true not sure how this makes it worse than it otherwise is but w/e
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2012 22:59
|
|
|
Stringent posted:idgi its conceptually pretty neat to make everything an object and pass everything by reference and make [_] a method call rather than treating arrays as some special entity and managing ref/deref yourself. the way perl does things is a good solution, albeit a solution to a problem of its own creation. i guess the ruby way means you need some kind of clone operation in the language though so maybe its not as neat and clean as it first appears. i dont know ruby
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2012 00:33
|
|
|
qntm posted:Perl has no way of knowing whether a given list expression is supposed to declare an array or a hash, so it assumes neither and flattens the list out. eh lol no its essentially because this Gazpacho posted:it's because perl up to version 4 literally had no direct way to express a list of lists, so there was never any choice of what to do with nested lists other than flattening them
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2012 01:07
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:"clone" is a method implemented on Object and if you need a given class to always deep copy you can override "initialize_copy" to clone all its members sounds good so far. whats the catch w/ ruby
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2012 01:09
|
|
|
tef posted:um, perl is call by reference. python and ruby are call by object (i.e call by value where the value is a reference). gotcha tef posted:whoever told you this has no loving idea what they are talking about. slightly surprised but entirely possible tef posted:it turns out that passing a reference to an immutable value is almost indistinguishable from passing that value. hrm yeah tef posted:what are they teaching you rufo this is a personal failing not one of my alma mater
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2012 11:03
|
|
|
TiMBuS posted:Good poo poo! go get perl 6!! damnit timbus
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2012 11:06
|
|
|
Zombywuf posted:Is Perl6 ready yet? go back to "trolling" d&d
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2012 13:30
|
|
|
Sulk posted:I am sort of gingerly dipping my toes into the waters of Go, Google’s new language… I’ll tell you one concurrency thing I am really pleased by. I have been wondering since about 1971 why nobody took the ball and ran with Hoare’s communicating sequential processes model. So elegant, so pretty, so nice to reason about and 40 years later the Go people picked it up and ran with it. That’s one reason I’m looking at Go. CSP is the basis of their concurrency model in that language which is enough to motivate me to want to look at it some more. i realise u just copy pasted this and dont fuckin understand it but csp owns and tony hoare owns and it was done w/ occam 25 years ago h.t.h.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2012 22:05
|
|
|
Sulk posted:take a guess who said it lol stopped clock etc i guess
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2012 22:09
|
|
|
Zombywuf posted:The CSP book has a hell of a lot more in it than channels. Channels and processes are just the Pi calculus, CSP has all kinds of useful poo poo in it that no-one seems to be aware of. i know, its one of the few things i actually know anything about
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2012 22:38
|
|
|
Ronald Raiden posted:Rufo what's CSP? a formal language for describing systems of communicating processes. you can use it to program things (occam) and you can use it to specify models which you can test other things against (fdr2) and you can use it as a specification language from which other things can be generated (tangram). its got fingers in a ton of different compsci pies. this is a good introductory book http://web.comlab.ox.ac.uk/oucl/work/bill.roscoe/publications/68b.ps
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2012 00:32
|
|
|
calculus is terrible but you need to earn the right to say so
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2012 00:10
|
|
|
ahhh spiders posted:yeah! jam that meme in there gently caress that butt real good
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2012 01:57
|
|
|
graph posted:ur luns. show them to me lol
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2012 23:18
|
|
|
learn lisp by skimming sicp remember that youre probably not learning lisp in order to be able to program in lisp
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2012 12:17
|
|
|
how about no!!!!!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2012 13:00
|
|
|
Jonny 290 posted:"sup girl what you doin tonight" hahahah
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2012 15:09
|
|
|
Ronald Raiden posted:hey, just so everyone knows php still sucks. I was doing a thing and accidently misspelled a variable and php was just like whatever i don't care I just won't do anything with this unbound variable and then it was hard to figure out why it wasn't working cuz there as no error dog ur error reporting level is set wrong
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2012 17:55
|
|
|
yeah javascript is literally the best language for every conceivable task idgi
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2012 18:18
|
|
|
TiMBuS posted:a rly fuckin nice web framework thing im currently using is perl w/ mojolicious. if youre tired of an epically bad language like php, try it out whats the deal with every web "framework" and its dog coming with its own built in http server these days jesus christ 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2012 11:25
|
|
|
Nomnom Cookie posted:cuz they're a pita to deploy and every p language has its own special snowflake way of doing it just use fastcgi for everything itd be preferable at this point im sure being able to run some command from your shell and get a pos server running on port 6969 is great for playing about with things quickly but its prob raising a generation of devops retards who dont realise they are but one part of the ~stack~
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2012 12:31
|
|
|
gantt janitor
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2012 02:38
|
|
|
testing poo poo is for chumps
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2012 21:38
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:will it? i thought that poo poo was checked by the compiler how would it know
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2012 21:58
|
|
|
Ronald Raiden posted:rear end from a butt lol
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2012 00:59
|
|
|
i like to start presentations standing at the back of the room cos it takes ppl by surprise then stop using a mic so people listen more carefully
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2012 23:10
|
|
|
put gently caress all information on your slides and then present it really badly so nobody has a clue what your on about either during or after
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2012 00:01
|
|
|
insist on using your mac laptop but dont bring that converter thing they need to work with vga projectors, erupt in a fit of righteous indignation as you delay everyone
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2012 00:16
|
|
|
start with an icebreaker. get everyone in the audience to introduce themselves and name their favourite food and place. followed by those of all the people before them in reverse order. finish by taking questions from the floor
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2012 02:37
|
|
|
pass a form around the audience but do not provide a pen
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2012 02:47
|
|
|
ask for a show of hands pick someone, ask their name, get them to justify their answer which you will subsequently show is incorrect call people out who dont choose any option, ask them why they dont know
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2012 03:07
|
|
|
Zizzyx posted:it's kinda funny how the amount of time 86400 represents is an interesting figure whether you interpret it as seconds or milliseconds apart from 86400ms isnt sqrt(2) minutes at all wtf kind of poo poo r u chattin
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2012 03:36
|
|
|
its kinda funny how 2^10 = 10^2. makes u think
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2012 03:39
|
|
|
HineyBorelTheorem posted:this is a public service announcement high performants computing
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2012 13:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 16:33 |
|
|
Ragg posted:Indie Bundle Five (just five lol) lol
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2012 18:10
|
|