Newest at the top
| 2024-12-28 03:23:49 +0100 | <homo> | I was about to rewrite my message and accidentally hit enter :) |
| 2024-12-28 03:23:03 +0100 | <geekosaur> | for a minor example, in Haskell's FFI all values must be forced and all constructors removed because C can't deal with them, and conversely constructors must be added to C values |
| 2024-12-28 03:22:46 +0100 | <homo> | and consistency is about working with other projects |
| 2024-12-28 03:21:58 +0100 | <geekosaur> | the problem with subset of features is you may find yourself limited to the libraries that support the same interface, unless the compiler and runtime are very clever about being able to combine the features at the RTS level |
| 2024-12-28 03:21:45 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <loonycyborg> I still think it's mostly matter of taste |
| 2024-12-28 03:21:11 +0100 | <homo> | Sisyphean that "subset" is the reason I prefer using different languages so that code looks very clean to the eyes, every time I open up .java, .rs, .cpp in the editor I think I am getting eye cancer because of how ugly they look |
| 2024-12-28 03:20:55 +0100 | <geekosaur> | PL/I was IBM's attempt at an "everything" programming language, originally unifying FORTRAN and COBOL and later adding SNOBOL and other languages. It was a huge, bloated nightmare |
| 2024-12-28 03:20:18 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <loonycyborg> Like singletons and libs based on them very much remind me boost.mpl and other c++ template metaprogramming libs |
| 2024-12-28 03:19:53 +0100 | <Sisyphean> | or are you implying some kind of inconsistency (which I don't get since the language must compile) |
| 2024-12-28 03:19:35 +0100 | <Sisyphean> | or are you saying I'm incapable of that and most users need to be spoonfed? |
| 2024-12-28 03:19:20 +0100 | <Sisyphean> | homo: why can't I choose the subset of features that solves my problem? |
| 2024-12-28 03:19:18 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <loonycyborg> Caused by features that are arguably missing |
| 2024-12-28 03:19:08 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <loonycyborg> and both have some large amount of emergent paradigms. |
| 2024-12-28 03:18:10 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <loonycyborg> * variable at runtime, |
| 2024-12-28 03:18:00 +0100 | <homo> | I like when language's syntax is very clean, haskell's syntax makes sense only to functional programming, prolog's syntax makes sense only to logic programming |
| 2024-12-28 03:17:56 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <loonycyborg> in C++ you'd never have trouble getting a compile time variable, unlike haskell with its dependent types that are coming tomorrow :P |
| 2024-12-28 03:17:20 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <loonycyborg> I like template metaprogramming in C++ |
| 2024-12-28 03:17:06 +0100 | <geekosaur> | PL/I never quite dies, does it? |
| 2024-12-28 03:17:00 +0100 | <homo> | hell, try functional programming in C++ or java or javascript |
| 2024-12-28 03:16:42 +0100 | Tuplanolla | (~Tuplanoll@91-159-69-59.elisa-laajakaista.fi) (Quit: Leaving.) |
| 2024-12-28 03:16:42 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@128-137-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) (Ping timeout: 265 seconds) |
| 2024-12-28 03:16:41 +0100 | <homo> | try functional programming in rust and compare it to haskell, which one is cleaner to the eyes? |
| 2024-12-28 03:15:38 +0100 | <homo> | Sisyphean multi-paradigm programming languages are very clumsy, because they absorb features from every other language, they have very detailed hard to read and write syntax, it is harder to make consistent API with them and hard to work with other projects |
| 2024-12-28 03:15:37 +0100 | <geekosaur> | I gave up on x86 back in the i386 days, never mind modern x86_64 |
| 2024-12-28 03:14:58 +0100 | <geekosaur> | hell, you can bang bits. doesn't mean it's a good idea |
| 2024-12-28 03:12:21 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <loonycyborg> after that it's matter of taste how many abstraction layers over that you'd apply |
| 2024-12-28 03:11:58 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <loonycyborg> you can accomplish something meaningful even with direct use of assembly |
| 2024-12-28 03:11:15 +0100 | <Sisyphean> | homo: Isn't that similar to logical positivism? It seems like you're suggesting that you only need a small subset of modern languages to accomplish anything meaningful. |
| 2024-12-28 03:09:37 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@128-137-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) merijn |
| 2024-12-28 03:09:18 +0100 | <geekosaur> | (objc seemed to me like it wanted to be smalltalk) |
| 2024-12-28 03:08:15 +0100 | <geekosaur> | most of that, though, has stuck to C-but… languages (C++ in particular but also Objective-C) |
| 2024-12-28 03:08:04 +0100 | <homo> | still, it is much smaller than both C++ and rust, those 2 languages are feature creeps that say "yes" to every feature request |
| 2024-12-28 03:07:48 +0100 | talismanick | (~user@2601:644:937c:ed10::ae5) (Read error: Connection reset by peer) |
| 2024-12-28 03:07:20 +0100 | <geekosaur> | ansi C… has grown a bit, and occasionally of late has turf wars with C++ |
| 2024-12-28 03:07:20 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@128-137-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) |
| 2024-12-28 03:06:52 +0100 | <geekosaur> | early pcc certainly didn't |
| 2024-12-28 03:06:04 +0100 | <homo> | geekosaur does C offer a lot of features from other programming paradigms making it difficult to choose which features to use and work with other projects? |
| 2024-12-28 03:04:22 +0100 | <homo> | there used to be HOUSE as attempt to have operating system in haskell, but it used way too much cbits in its source code |
| 2024-12-28 03:04:17 +0100 | <geekosaur> | if not earlier |
| 2024-12-28 03:04:03 +0100 | <geekosaur> | C hasn't been minimal since early pcc |
| 2024-12-28 03:03:56 +0100 | <homo> | I guess the main difference between haskell and rust is that in rust you can write entire operating system kernel |
| 2024-12-28 03:03:43 +0100 | <c_wraith> | C is a lot less "minimal" thank people think. |
| 2024-12-28 03:02:28 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@128-137-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) merijn |
| 2024-12-28 03:01:40 +0100 | <homo> | C is very minimal language, both C++ and rust are extremely bloated, too much language features |
| 2024-12-28 03:01:02 +0100 | sayurc | (~sayurc@169.150.203.34) sayurc |
| 2024-12-28 03:00:49 +0100 | <geekosaur> | please, no. C+ maybe. no templates and thank whoever's in charge for that |
| 2024-12-28 03:00:05 +0100 | <homo> | or rather C+++ with more safety |
| 2024-12-28 02:59:41 +0100 | <geekosaur> | people insist C is the fastest. rust offers those people the speed of C with more safety |
| 2024-12-28 02:58:28 +0100 | <homo> | I don't understand hype behind rust, is it because haskell is not loudly advertized as safe language? |
| 2024-12-28 02:56:49 +0100 | <homo> | won't be surprising if part of gtk is already in rust |