and perl through a more "human" language structure.
I'm sick and tired of this "Perl is like human languages" bullshit. I've never seen anyone give any substance behind this vacuous catchphrase, and quite a few convincing putdowns of it.
Perl is just another programming language, a rather unremarkable one, that happens to be popular, have text-processing primitives built in, a huge set of contributed libraries, and one of the most horrendous designs ever.
Or, a similar question, is there any theoretical limit to how efficient an interpreted language such as Haskell can be on the architectures of today?
Another poster already pointed out that there are Haskell compilers. Anyway, the type system in languages like ML or Haskell was designed specifically to guarentee catching all type errors at compile time.
You need to think separately about languages and implementations. The speed of a program does not depend in the language at all, but in the implementation of the language.
Due to my personal limitations though, I just couldn't see how one could develop big, useful applications with them [i.e., Scheme].
Scheme is a limiting toy language, designed to serve as the exhibit of some ideas (lexical scoping, closures, first order functions, first order continuations). It is deliberately kept as a toy language by the committee that manages it.
It does serve as a simple language that beginners can start on before moving on to Common Lisp.
Human languages ARE *very* contextual. The real reason for Lisp being context free is because it is simpler to write a parser for it, and consequently, easier to make it bug free. Saying that a maze of parenthesis is easy to read is at best, hmmm, a fallacy.
You don't seem to know anything about natural languages, formal language theory, or Lisp. The fact that natural languages are interpreted contextually (a semantic/pragmatic concept) has nothing to do with context-freeness (syntactic concept). Lisp's syntax is not the way it is solely because it simplifies creating a parser. The "maze of parentheses" never bothers Lisp programmers because they have tools to make it invisible.
Talk with any serious Lisp programmer about parens, and you'll see that, thanks to the paren-matching, auto-indenting text editors they use, they don't even *look* at the parentheses.
The way Lisp programmers see the structure of code is by the indentation. There is only one indentation style that all Lisp programmers use, and a Lisp editing mode will enforce this style automatically. If you open one parenthesis too few or too many, you'll realize once you hit return, since the next line will probably not be indented right. A keystroke command will close all the open parens when you're done with a definition.
If you're going to call the Olympic Committee on the phone, make sure you use a common language like Ebonics.
You are not funny. Disgusting is a better word.
First, no serious scholar refers to the varieties of English spoken by African USians as "Ebonics" since the early 70s. It is only the misinformed that use this word, and by such use, conveying their overwhelming ignorance. (Yes, the media use the word. They are one of the main locuses of the spread of misinformation on this issue.)
The way the language is usually called is "African American Vernacular English", abbreviated AAVE. Of course, this term has a serious flaw-- America is a *continent*, not a nation, after all. The correct name then should be "African Unitedstatesian Vernacular English", or AUVE.
Visit his web page of you want to see what eh is all about: racist mexicano rants against whites and corporations.
Ok. Now tell me where precisely you found something about corporations in the pages I link. Or racist comments. So, according to you, it is "racist" to denounce white supremacists (who said whites?) that form organized militias to hunt mexicans in the border? Your prejudices show through.
The language that really has problems with Roman characters is Spanish (was that a b, or a v, sen(y)or?)
Just because you're too ignorant not to know the etymological roots of Latinate words doesn't mean Spanish should change it's orthography for you. I mean, the retention of etymological information is one of the primordial criteria in designing an orthography for a language, as you'd recognize if you knew anything about the topic. Otherwise, you get truly dysfunctional orthographies like that for the Tzotzil language.
Keep to defending whores, crack dealers and corporations, Mr. Montoya.
I wasn't denying the existance of "radicals", I'm just denying that you are one.
Which is what you do when you are faced with any radical. Just like you all conservatives do. You still maintain that there are radicals somewhere. To put in in Fregean terms, the idea of "radicals-in-intension" really suits you; the idea of "radicals-in-extension" is the one you have to combat.
Oh, don't tell me they didn't teach you Frege in Bob Jones University. Poor uneducated bible-thumper.
See - you just want to think you're part of a "cool" group of people. Inclusion is something we all desire, and your lame attempts to portray yourself as a "radical" is just a cry for help. Real radicals would laugh in your face.
"Attempts" is plural, and "is" is singular. I think I'll mail a copy of this particular sentence to your masters at BJU, so they realize what vile stuff their alumni are pouring forth in the wider world.
What a fine imagination you have...
Yes. I can imagine a world where mi gente are no longer held down by totalitarian idiots like you. This kind of imagination is indeed fine.
With your sociology training (obviously a requirement for radicals) and feminist leanings, you could do well marketing things like makeup and fashion.
No. I despise the very ideas of "makeup" and "fashion". These are only corporate plots to make perfectly beautiful women hate their own bodies so as to make the powers that be richer. I love women for what they are, for their unbridled potential; not for what they buy.
Are you so literal minded that you believe everything you read? The Bible was written from a different perspective - I can follow God's teachings by searching for the deeper meanings contained within it.
Gee, what do we have here. Finally some sense. This is the only decent idea that the priests at my Catholic High School ever had. I'm happy to see that you can make up with your BJU-brainwashed differences with them, and give them the right some times.
who are you to really care? his children, not yours.
They all live in the same society. Of course one should care what other parents are doing.
the future is not what people like you want, its what "just happens" from society, everyone, not just you
You interpret this the totally wrong way. You make it sound like we, collectively, have no hand in shaping the future. But from what you write, the correct conclusion is that the future is in what we do every day. If you want the world to be a better place for personkind, you should work to make it happen.
The sad truth is that your "radicalism" is just a pretence to cover up the fact that you really are a liberal but want to pretend that you are "extreme" because otherwise the fact of your insignificant, loveless, Godless life would send you spiralling into the pits of depression, suicide and Hell.
BS. You just can't face, to put it in Chomskian terms, to expand the floor of your cage.
And see how you prove my point with every single word you type. You just have to deny the existence of radicals; your propaganda just does not live to the fact of this reality. You want nothing but others to believe the world is such that there are nothing but conservatives and liberals, so you can expose the liberals for what we agree they are. (Of course, you accompany this with some delusional ideas of what the conservatives are.)
The fact that there are people like me who break the pattern you want to impose on the world is the worst news you could ever have. You just want to deny the fact, even to yourself. But, non-buddy, no amount of denial will change the facts. Actually, *please* stay on denial. We could use that.
Heh, I bet you've never even done anything "radical" in your life.
Go tell that to the Canadian national security agencies, and the secret police of a couple Latin American states. I could use that break from a fine upright citizen like you.
Your ignorance of the Truth does not make it any less true. Some of us know in our hearts what is real, and some, like you, have been blinded by your liberal peers and educators into believing in the bleakness of the cult of atheism.
So do you believe in slavery, and that women are the property of males, as one of the commandments requires just to make sense?
I assumed that special protective measures meant government regulation of who can broadcast what, how much, or when, which is called censorship.
One of the most fundamental lessons in my life was at the hands of one of my college profs. Let's call her "Euslaquia", for the time being (not her real name, of course). She made us in our sociology class read an essay, then asked people in the classroom to summarize it in their own words, on the spot. When people started explaining it, she would interrupt them whenever they added something that wasn't in the reading. Random thoughts they had had while reading it, and they mentioned as though the author had said.
Who do you think did most of the talking that hour and a half?
You obviously have not had such an experience. You read other's thoughts, make your own idea of what you think they say, and then attribute your idea of what they say to them. This in place of actually reading what people actually write.
Of course, this is what the establishment wants of you; this is what you call "school" and "college" have engineered you to do-- to have the correct thoughts, and impose them on anything you come across. Please realize how much harm you are doing to the world with these habits of yours.
Your liberal "understanding" of the world is a tragic lie spread by educators more insterested in being "politically correct" than teaching the Truth.
I'm no fucking liberal, I should say. Liberals are a bunch of pansies that talk about marginally progressive values while pandering to the megacorps.
I am you fucking worst nightmare, that which you won't even let yourself publicly acknowledge exists (thus you choice of terminology): I am a radical. Yeah, those people who see through your myth-making, and your reverence for the mythology of some random nomadic tribe from 3,000 years ago.
Feminity is no myth, but a fundamental truth of human nature and the way the Lord created us. Both men and women have their places, and it is the deviation from these roles that the liberals have convinced people is a good thing that is causing the social unrest and general unhappiness we see today.
Go back to BJU, you idiot.
Now I know you're trolling me.
Given you're a slashbot, this should be read as "I disagree with you". Why the fuck do you state the fucking obvious?
First of all, please do not call me a liberal. It's 'libertarian'.
You must mean "Ayn Rand brainwashed egotist". Or "Libertarian" (capital "L") at any rate. True libertarians are socialists; the private totalitarianism advocates stole the term.
My basic angle is that I have a right to live my life the way I choose, and you have a right to live your life as you choose, and neither of us should attempt to infringe upon the other.
Bullshit. You don't recognize other's right to live. That's what you philosophy on "charities" amounts to.
Yes, but everyone knows that the USA is the only significant part of the entire continent, and when someone says America they mean the US. The rest of the continent is full of second rate countries where people are to busy trying to find food to count in the international arena.
Your comment has been logged. Expect consequences from it. We are numerous, and we are all over the planet.
It sounds like you perhaps did "sociology" at college and were so desparate to sleep with the Soviet tractor women that make up the feminazis who take that course that you allowed their rhetoric to sway you.
To your credit, I did do sociology (bold, no quote marks). It is an essential discipline to understand the world, isn't it?
Anyway, the idea of a "Soviet tractor woman" just sounds so sexy-- a woman that knows how to make things work, and has no time for any of this socially constructed "feminity" myth.
I wish I'd had those in college. But no, there we had nothing but whores that were looking to marry rich doctors or engineers that catered for all their whims ($$$). That's why I married a brilliant woman that does construction work, after all. No bullshit there. A woman that knows she can do anything as well as a man can.
You said you were concerned about the "free PC" thing. I retorted with a rhetorical question to the effect of stating that, if the current trend continues, this kind of deal is what is going to make the net reach "everybody" (meaning most USians, of course, not really everybody.)
So your being only "concerned" is a deadly underreaction, the kind of which only makes our fate even bleaker.
Do you read my posts at all before you answer? Otherwise, where the hell did you get this "idea":
So you like the idea that Virgin or Coca-Cola or Disney or whoever has direct hardware control over what the user sees, through the so-called "portal"?
I swear, despite all their talk about "geekdom", slashbots are literacy impaired.
I know what the government should be doing. I watch it do the exact opposite every day.
That's why I've always said we should get rid of governments. Ever since I started learning about what the powerful ones have done to mi gente. Beat them up, murder them, starve them, poison them, all for a few bucks. They're all evil.
We should just get rid of corporations. Corporations are nothing but private dictatorships, and Capitalism is private totalitarianism. There is no getting around this fact.
Slashdot Mirror
There is nothing incompatible with having both things in a language. Try Common Lisp, it embraces both models fully.
I'm sick and tired of this "Perl is like human languages" bullshit. I've never seen anyone give any substance behind this vacuous catchphrase, and quite a few convincing putdowns of it.
Perl is just another programming language, a rather unremarkable one, that happens to be popular, have text-processing primitives built in, a huge set of contributed libraries, and one of the most horrendous designs ever.
Another poster already pointed out that there are Haskell compilers. Anyway, the type system in languages like ML or Haskell was designed specifically to guarentee catching all type errors at compile time.
You need to think separately about languages and implementations. The speed of a program does not depend in the language at all, but in the implementation of the language.
Scheme is a limiting toy language, designed to serve as the exhibit of some ideas (lexical scoping, closures, first order functions, first order continuations). It is deliberately kept as a toy language by the committee that manages it.
It does serve as a simple language that beginners can start on before moving on to Common Lisp.
You don't seem to know anything about natural languages, formal language theory, or Lisp. The fact that natural languages are interpreted contextually (a semantic/pragmatic concept) has nothing to do with context-freeness (syntactic concept). Lisp's syntax is not the way it is solely because it simplifies creating a parser. The "maze of parentheses" never bothers Lisp programmers because they have tools to make it invisible.
Shut up.
Human languages are not known to be context sensitive, free, or recursively enumerable.
The way Lisp programmers see the structure of code is by the indentation. There is only one indentation style that all Lisp programmers use, and a Lisp editing mode will enforce this style automatically. If you open one parenthesis too few or too many, you'll realize once you hit return, since the next line will probably not be indented right. A keystroke command will close all the open parens when you're done with a definition.
You are not funny. Disgusting is a better word.
First, no serious scholar refers to the varieties of English spoken by African USians as "Ebonics" since the early 70s. It is only the misinformed that use this word, and by such use, conveying their overwhelming ignorance. (Yes, the media use the word. They are one of the main locuses of the spread of misinformation on this issue.)
The way the language is usually called is "African American Vernacular English", abbreviated AAVE. Of course, this term has a serious flaw-- America is a *continent*, not a nation, after all. The correct name then should be "African Unitedstatesian Vernacular English", or AUVE.
Ok. Now tell me where precisely you found something about corporations in the pages I link. Or racist comments. So, according to you, it is "racist" to denounce white supremacists (who said whites?) that form organized militias to hunt mexicans in the border? Your prejudices show through.
Just because you're too ignorant not to know the etymological roots of Latinate words doesn't mean Spanish should change it's orthography for you. I mean, the retention of etymological information is one of the primordial criteria in designing an orthography for a language, as you'd recognize if you knew anything about the topic. Otherwise, you get truly dysfunctional orthographies like that for the Tzotzil language.
Keep to defending whores, crack dealers and corporations, Mr. Montoya.
Which is what you do when you are faced with any radical. Just like you all conservatives do. You still maintain that there are radicals somewhere. To put in in Fregean terms, the idea of "radicals-in-intension" really suits you; the idea of "radicals-in-extension" is the one you have to combat.
Oh, don't tell me they didn't teach you Frege in Bob Jones University. Poor uneducated bible-thumper.
See - you just want to think you're part of a "cool" group of people. Inclusion is something we all desire, and your lame attempts to portray yourself as a "radical" is just a cry for help. Real radicals would laugh in your face.
"Attempts" is plural, and "is" is singular. I think I'll mail a copy of this particular sentence to your masters at BJU, so they realize what vile stuff their alumni are pouring forth in the wider world.
What a fine imagination you have...
Yes. I can imagine a world where mi gente are no longer held down by totalitarian idiots like you. This kind of imagination is indeed fine.
With your sociology training (obviously a requirement for radicals) and feminist leanings, you could do well marketing things like makeup and fashion.
No. I despise the very ideas of "makeup" and "fashion". These are only corporate plots to make perfectly beautiful women hate their own bodies so as to make the powers that be richer. I love women for what they are, for their unbridled potential; not for what they buy.
Are you so literal minded that you believe everything you read? The Bible was written from a different perspective - I can follow God's teachings by searching for the deeper meanings contained within it.
Gee, what do we have here. Finally some sense. This is the only decent idea that the priests at my Catholic High School ever had. I'm happy to see that you can make up with your BJU-brainwashed differences with them, and give them the right some times.
They all live in the same society. Of course one should care what other parents are doing.
the future is not what people like you want, its what "just happens" from society, everyone, not just you
You interpret this the totally wrong way. You make it sound like we, collectively, have no hand in shaping the future. But from what you write, the correct conclusion is that the future is in what we do every day. If you want the world to be a better place for personkind, you should work to make it happen.
BS. You just can't face, to put it in Chomskian terms, to expand the floor of your cage.
And see how you prove my point with every single word you type. You just have to deny the existence of radicals; your propaganda just does not live to the fact of this reality. You want nothing but others to believe the world is such that there are nothing but conservatives and liberals, so you can expose the liberals for what we agree they are. (Of course, you accompany this with some delusional ideas of what the conservatives are.)
The fact that there are people like me who break the pattern you want to impose on the world is the worst news you could ever have. You just want to deny the fact, even to yourself. But, non-buddy, no amount of denial will change the facts. Actually, *please* stay on denial. We could use that.
Heh, I bet you've never even done anything "radical" in your life.
Go tell that to the Canadian national security agencies, and the secret police of a couple Latin American states. I could use that break from a fine upright citizen like you.
Your ignorance of the Truth does not make it any less true. Some of us know in our hearts what is real, and some, like you, have been blinded by your liberal peers and educators into believing in the bleakness of the cult of atheism.
So do you believe in slavery, and that women are the property of males, as one of the commandments requires just to make sense?
One of the most fundamental lessons in my life was at the hands of one of my college profs. Let's call her "Euslaquia", for the time being (not her real name, of course). She made us in our sociology class read an essay, then asked people in the classroom to summarize it in their own words, on the spot. When people started explaining it, she would interrupt them whenever they added something that wasn't in the reading. Random thoughts they had had while reading it, and they mentioned as though the author had said.
Who do you think did most of the talking that hour and a half?
You obviously have not had such an experience. You read other's thoughts, make your own idea of what you think they say, and then attribute your idea of what they say to them. This in place of actually reading what people actually write.
Of course, this is what the establishment wants of you; this is what you call "school" and "college" have engineered you to do-- to have the correct thoughts, and impose them on anything you come across. Please realize how much harm you are doing to the world with these habits of yours.
I'm no fucking liberal, I should say. Liberals are a bunch of pansies that talk about marginally progressive values while pandering to the megacorps.
I am you fucking worst nightmare, that which you won't even let yourself publicly acknowledge exists (thus you choice of terminology): I am a radical. Yeah, those people who see through your myth-making, and your reverence for the mythology of some random nomadic tribe from 3,000 years ago.
Feminity is no myth, but a fundamental truth of human nature and the way the Lord created us. Both men and women have their places, and it is the deviation from these roles that the liberals have convinced people is a good thing that is causing the social unrest and general unhappiness we see today.
Go back to BJU, you idiot.
Now I know you're trolling me.
Given you're a slashbot, this should be read as "I disagree with you". Why the fuck do you state the fucking obvious?
You must mean "Ayn Rand brainwashed egotist". Or "Libertarian" (capital "L") at any rate. True libertarians are socialists; the private totalitarianism advocates stole the term.
My basic angle is that I have a right to live my life the way I choose, and you have a right to live your life as you choose, and neither of us should attempt to infringe upon the other.
Bullshit. You don't recognize other's right to live. That's what you philosophy on "charities" amounts to.
Your comment has been logged. Expect consequences from it. We are numerous, and we are all over the planet.
To your credit, I did do sociology (bold, no quote marks). It is an essential discipline to understand the world, isn't it?
Anyway, the idea of a "Soviet tractor woman" just sounds so sexy-- a woman that knows how to make things work, and has no time for any of this socially constructed "feminity" myth.
I wish I'd had those in college. But no, there we had nothing but whores that were looking to marry rich doctors or engineers that catered for all their whims ($$$). That's why I married a brilliant woman that does construction work, after all. No bullshit there. A woman that knows she can do anything as well as a man can.
Somehow, I doubt the sincerity of these statements of yours. Could it be that you are nothing but an apologist for the status quo?
What should we think of people who, when faced with pleas for the disbanding of the corporate system, reply: "Nah, I just know the territory"
Gee, that sentence made as much sense as me saying "You're so right it makes me want to cry out 1+1=3". Damn delusional idiot.
I used to live in America until I couldn't take the sheer perversion of a nation
You slept through your geography lesson, or did you learn your geography at BJU? America is not a nation, it is a continent.
So now I live in England, where things like pornography are thankfully not tolerated.
And the page 3 girls, ah, what are those? And Samantha Fox! Did she not star in some bestiality videos?
And what about Robot Wars, a show that glorifies killing technology, eh?
Don't make me laugh.
You said you were concerned about the "free PC" thing. I retorted with a rhetorical question to the effect of stating that, if the current trend continues, this kind of deal is what is going to make the net reach "everybody" (meaning most USians, of course, not really everybody.)
So your being only "concerned" is a deadly underreaction, the kind of which only makes our fate even bleaker.
There is not "territory", just people and the institutions they create with their daily actions.
Seriously, you do need some serious thinking.
So you like the idea that Virgin or Coca-Cola or Disney or whoever has direct hardware control over what the user sees, through the so-called "portal"?
I swear, despite all their talk about "geekdom", slashbots are literacy impaired.
That's why I've always said we should get rid of governments. Ever since I started learning about what the powerful ones have done to mi gente. Beat them up, murder them, starve them, poison them, all for a few bucks. They're all evil.
We should just get rid of corporations. Corporations are nothing but private dictatorships, and Capitalism is private totalitarianism. There is no getting around this fact.
You lack heart. You would not make a good revolutionary. People like you should do some serious rethinking of your values.