[–]16423528?0 points
0 points
0 points
(+0|-0)
ago
all the other ones are literally like learning a different language in that you can say the same thing in every world language, you can program the same thing in every programming language
Just because something might be possible in another language, it doesn't mean it is going to be as elegant to do. For example it would be a pain to do denotative continuous time programming in C, because C sucks at making abstractions. Just because a language being Turing complete means you can do any computation, it doesn't necessarily mean that you would want to do that computation with that language. As an aside, Turing completeness is overrated and leads to problems such as not being able to prove if your program enters an infinite loop doing nothing.
[–]16423536?0 points
0 points
0 points
(+0|-0)
ago
as elegant to do
oh dear lord , ur a python programmer arent you.
this "elegance" is completely subjective. At its best it boils down to doing the same thing with less key strokes. In the end this all gets encapsulated anyways. You create and API that is elegant under the hood, I create and API that is "messy" under the hood. At the end of the day our interfaces are the same, this elegance means little.
At worst this elegance is used by engineers with extreme speciality in a particular language to implement something it a very specific unique way to try to squeeze as much logic in the smallest space and gain very little performance boosts in exchange for creating some very unique code that is difficult to maintain. We call this over engineering.
Get this vocabulary out of your head. An engineer does care about elegance. A good engineer cares about:
1) functionality
2) maintainability
3) performance
yes some programs adhere to special contexts by default (GO and parallel programming, Erlang and fault tollerance) but all programming languages can create interfaces, apis to makes
these tasks just as easy.
Because they are turning complete. Fuck your elegance, get the job done with the tool you know.
Turing completeness is overrated
you understand that this statement makes no sense and shows your ignorance
Fucking shitty hipster programmers that only know javascript
[–]16439451?0 points
0 points
0 points
(+0|-0)
ago
ur a python programmer arent you
Nope. I do most of my programming in Idris at the moment.
this "elegance" is completely subjective
sure
You create and API that is elegant under the hood, I create and API that is "messy" under the hood. At the end of the day our interfaces are the same, this elegance means little.
Well the problem isn't what happens under the hood. If your language is unable to make the concept clean over the hood, then we have reached a problem.
An engineer does[n't] care about elegance
I'm an academic, not an engineer.
you understand that this statement makes no sense and shows your ignorance
It does make sense. Idris let's me optionally sacrifice Turing completeness to be able to ensure that functions that I write will indeed terminate. You can also utilize the categorical dual of that and get the guarantee that you program will always be productive. I care about solving the problem. Whether or not I do so via methods that are Turing complete or not are besides the point.
So you are saying that to make an abstraction in C, you need to build a new programming language over it. I hope you can see how that is a very poor solution to the problem of wanting to create an abstraction.
Fuck that, there needs to be laws and standardisation on requirements for coding. Only the cleanest looking languages permitted. Anything less is simply a street shitting expression in code.
[–]16422709?0 points
0 points
0 points
(+0|-0)
ago
Checked.
Also, there are massive pitfalls that you won't know about just coming from C/CPP. Like how the hell garbage collection is to be used, with a REAL OOPL.
[–] 16423528? ago
Just because something might be possible in another language, it doesn't mean it is going to be as elegant to do. For example it would be a pain to do denotative continuous time programming in C, because C sucks at making abstractions. Just because a language being Turing complete means you can do any computation, it doesn't necessarily mean that you would want to do that computation with that language. As an aside, Turing completeness is overrated and leads to problems such as not being able to prove if your program enters an infinite loop doing nothing.
>>12729507
>>12729518
Neither of your posts include them saying, "Learn to code", or a paraphrase of that.
[–] 16423537? ago
all languages are built on top of C …. are you a complete retard?
[–] 16423538? ago
Take the FORTH pill anon.
[–] 16423536? ago
oh dear lord , ur a python programmer arent you.
this "elegance" is completely subjective. At its best it boils down to doing the same thing with less key strokes. In the end this all gets encapsulated anyways. You create and API that is elegant under the hood, I create and API that is "messy" under the hood. At the end of the day our interfaces are the same, this elegance means little.
At worst this elegance is used by engineers with extreme speciality in a particular language to implement something it a very specific unique way to try to squeeze as much logic in the smallest space and gain very little performance boosts in exchange for creating some very unique code that is difficult to maintain. We call this over engineering.
Get this vocabulary out of your head. An engineer does care about elegance. A good engineer cares about:
1) functionality
2) maintainability
3) performance
yes some programs adhere to special contexts by default (GO and parallel programming, Erlang and fault tollerance) but all programming languages can create interfaces, apis to makes
these tasks just as easy.
Because they are turning complete. Fuck your elegance, get the job done with the tool you know.
you understand that this statement makes no sense and shows your ignorance
Fucking shitty hipster programmers that only know javascript
[–] 16439451? ago
Nope. I do most of my programming in Idris at the moment.
sure
Well the problem isn't what happens under the hood. If your language is unable to make the concept clean over the hood, then we have reached a problem.
I'm an academic, not an engineer.
It does make sense. Idris let's me optionally sacrifice Turing completeness to be able to ensure that functions that I write will indeed terminate. You can also utilize the categorical dual of that and get the guarantee that you program will always be productive. I care about solving the problem. Whether or not I do so via methods that are Turing complete or not are besides the point.
>>12729743
So you are saying that to make an abstraction in C, you need to build a new programming language over it. I hope you can see how that is a very poor solution to the problem of wanting to create an abstraction.
>>12731520
PHP is literally jewish.
[–] 16424307? ago
They may be taking jobs in the sector but they sure are good at creating others with their incompetence lulz
>>12729742
Fuck that, there needs to be laws and standardisation on requirements for coding. Only the cleanest looking languages permitted. Anything less is simply a street shitting expression in code.