Which language is the least bad?
-
-
@magus Thanks for reminding me of Cosmos.
Now why does the link "COSMOS Repository on GitHub" point to http://www.gocosmos.org/docs/install/ ?
Edit: found what I wanted,
no thanks to themnever mind; there are links to the repository in the install page, I just didn't see them. Should file a bug tomorrow.
-
@lucas1 said in Which language is the least bad?:
The GIL lock
I heard that they had trouble with that when they made an ATM machine in Python.
-
@pie_flavor said in Which language is the least bad?:
@boomzilla said in Which language is the least bad?:
@pie_flavor Like, voluntarily? They actually speak it to each other?
No, they're forced at knifepoint.
Yes, they speak it to each other. There are thousands of people who are raised speaking it natively. Knowledge (or at least elementary googling) should come before posting.Civilized Discourse in lojban is "litytce nuncasnu"
Delete entire Discourse in lojban is "susu"
You can tell which one is more frequently used by the length.
-
@ben_lubar said in Which language is the least bad?:
@pie_flavor said in Which language is the least bad?:
@boomzilla said in Which language is the least bad?:
@pie_flavor Like, voluntarily? They actually speak it to each other?
No, they're forced at knifepoint.
Yes, they speak it to each other. There are thousands of people who are raised speaking it natively. Knowledge (or at least elementary googling) should come before posting.Civilized Discourse in lojban is "litytce nuncasnu"
Delete entire Discourse in lojban is "susu"
You can tell which one is more frequently used by the length.
Also, fbmac-ing a post is "su". fbmac-ing a topic is "mromakfa". The response to either is usually "oi'o".
-
@ben_lubar oif wlaf, zbweai aeof zoi aodfj aifo owea afbxanc*
*why is that you're always up so late posting?
-
@darkmatter said in Which language is the least bad?:
@ben_lubar oif wlaf, zbweai aeof zoi aodfj aifo owea afbxanc*
*why is that you're always up so late posting?
lo samselkei
-
@ben_lubar
makes sense I guess.
not too different from why I'm up posting at these ungodly hours.
-
@darkmatter video games are the root of all evil after all?
-
@ben_lubar the weird part is that you seem to mix enough lojban with things I can't translate that i can sort of figure out you're going on about. Maybe it's all real? Maybe it's maybelline.
Also, what game is it that's got you sucked in at all hours of the night?
-
@darkmatter said in Which language is the least bad?:
Also, what game is it that's got you sucked in at all hours of the night?
https://what.thedailywtf.com/topic/20028/gilled-horse-chew/487
-
@ben_lubar
so... two word answer, Guild Wars?
-
@pie_flavor said in Which language is the least bad?:
Knowledge (or at least elementary googling) should come before posting
YMBNH
-
@lucas1 said in Which language is the least bad?:
Sorry I did. Good enough and least bad make the same meaning for most people. Do I really need to draw a graph.
No but you might need to learn English.
Jesus fuck you're an Englishman and you consistently demonstrate a complete lack of mastery of the English language. I don't know what you did while you were growing up but you certainly weren't paying attention in school.
-
@pie_flavor said in Which language is the least bad?:
Either you're trolling, or stupid. Can't tell which; not sure I care. Either means I don't care to respond anymore.
You got to this point quicker than I did, congrats.
-
@sloosecannon said in Which language is the least bad?:
I see you've met lucas.
In this thread: @lucas1 has beef with @pie_flavor (Mmm... beef pie...) because poor communication skills.
-
@ben_lubar said in Which language is the least bad?:
mromakfa
Are there any other Lojban words that are like half-asleep mumbles combined with Doom cheat codes?
-
@hungrier In another thread @ben_lubar taught that the correct way to express emotion is to make like a quaggan and
.uu
.
-
@twelvebaud said in Which language is the least bad?:
@hungrier In another thread @ben_lubar taught that the correct way to express emotion is to make like a quaggan and
.uu
.
-
I've changed my mind. Dart is the least bad. I love everything about it.
-
@pie_flavor said in Which language is the least bad?:
I've changed my mind. Dart is the least bad. I love everything about it.
Such as...?
-
@dreikin Well, for starters, it's the only language I can think of with free exceptions, since you catch stack-traces separately.
Edit: I suppose it only hits 'there's barely anything wrong with it', so it's still tied with C# and Rust in that case. But my point is that Dart is definitely up there.
-
@pie_flavor said in Which language is the least bad?:
you catch stack-traces separately
Could you expand on that? What do you mean?
Or I could just google it, I guess.
try { room.openDoor(); room.enter(person); } catch(exception, stackTrace) { print(exception); print(stackTrace); }
-
Recently, there was a feature added to Rust nightly called non-lexical lifetimes. Basically, it made borrow checker much less of PITA by significantly reducing number of cases where an obviously correct code doesn't compile.
-
@gąska That's landed? Cool.
I don't know if you're posting that in response to what I just said in a thread in the lounge. :)
Edit: given you've posted ~20 minutes earlier, I guess not.
-
@pie_flavor said in Which language is the least bad?:
I've changed my mind. Dart is the least bad. I love everything about it.
What do you use dart for?
Google keeps saying it's very popular, but I've yet to hear anyone actually using it in real life.
-
@cartman82 said in Which language is the least bad?:
@pie_flavor said in Which language is the least bad?:
I've changed my mind. Dart is the least bad. I love everything about it.
What do you use dart for?
Google keeps saying it's very popular, but I've yet to hear anyone actually using it in real life.
It's basically TypeScript if TypeScript was based on Go instead of C#.
-
@cartman82 said in Which language is the least bad?:
@pie_flavor said in Which language is the least bad?:
I've changed my mind. Dart is the least bad. I love everything about it.
What do you use dart for?
Google keeps saying it's very popular, but I've yet to hear anyone actually using it in real life.
I don't really use anything for anything if it's not JVM, but you could use it for servers, client side JS, etc. Google itself uses it a shit ton. For example, the entirety of AdWords servers are run on Dart.
@ben_lubar said in Which language is the least bad?:
It's basically TypeScript if TypeScript was based on Go instead of C#.
That is such an incredible oversimplification of everything.
Edit: Holy shit, double quoting! On mobile! Will wonders never cease? Now I can't decide if I like the red boob or not.
-
@pie_flavor said in Which language is the least bad?:
I don't really use anything for anything if it's not JVM, but you could use it for servers, client side JS, etc. Google itself uses it a shit ton. For example, the entirety of AdWords servers are run on Dart.
That's my point. One could use it for all sorts of things, but no one actually does use it.
-
@cartman82 Like I said, I don't use anything for anything. I just make Minecraft server mods. If I was writing real stuff, I could totally use it.
-
@pie_flavor said in Which language is the least bad?:
That is such an incredible oversimplification of everything.
I'll simplify it more:
It's basically a good language if a good language was based on a good language instead of a good language.
-
@ben_lubar In short, it's a good language if a good language was made like a good language and not a good language.
-
@gąska i.e. it's a good language.
-
@pie_flavor said in Which language is the least bad?:
@gąska i.e. it's a good language.
But is it goodenough or leastbad?
-
-
d-lang seemed much better than Go or Rust
-
Has anyone suggested MUMPS yet? :face_with_stuck-out_tongue_closed_eyes:
-
@sockpuppet7 said in Which language is the least bad?:
d-lang seemed much better than Go or Rust
Then why no one's using it?
-
@gąska There are people using it.
-
@gąska Because it's not actually better.
It fixes a few of the most obvious flaws of C++, but keeps some of the more insidious fundamental problems, such as Templates and objects-as-value-types, that essentially every other new language since then has realized are bad ideas and not implemented.
-
@masonwheeler objects-as-value-types is THE reason why C++ is so popular. Until recently, it was the only language out there with >1% market share and value semantics - which is main reason why it's still so widely used despite hundreds of annoyances, including several would-be-deal-breakers that people still bear with because of value semantics. This is why I like Rust so much - it finally provides a real alternative for C++!
Templates, yes, they are bad. But I prefer bad templates over no generics at all.
-
@masonwheeler said in Which language is the least bad?:
@gąska Because it's not actually better.
It fixes a few of the most obvious flaws of C++, but keeps some of ...
You're contradicting yourself - if it fixes the most obvious flaws of C++, it is better.
-
@gąska said in Which language is the least bad?:
@masonwheeler objects-as-value-types is THE reason why C++ is so popular.
[Citation needed]
Until recently, it was the only language out there with >1% market share and value semantics - which is main reason why it's still so widely used despite hundreds of annoyances, including several would-be-deal-breakers that people still bear with because of value semantics.
So the combination of backwards compatibility with C, OOP, and a strong marketing campaign that for years and years made it synonymous among the less-well-informed with OOP, good performance, and "code for power users" has nothing to do with it?
Objects as value types are horrible, because value types break inheritance. This is one of the main reasons I never use C++ for anything: when your biggest headlining feature is OOP, and your inheritance system is broken, that undermines the whole reason why you might want to use it right out of the box, before we even start getting into all the rest of the massive s the language is saddled with.
-
@sockpuppet7 said in Which language is the least bad?:
You're contradicting yourself - if it fixes the most obvious flaws of C++, it is better.
Better than C++, maybe. But that's not the claim that was being made that I was responding to.
-
@masonwheeler C++ is already better than Go
edit: Thinking about some of C++ flaws, I'm not so sure about that. Both are horrible pieces of shit.
-
This post is deleted!
-
@masonwheeler said in Which language is the least bad?:
So the combination of backwards compatibility with C
It's been 28 years since "The C++ Programming Language Second Edition" was published. It's been 20 years since C++ became ISO standard. Source-level backwards compatibility with C was only relevant for so long. Especially since C wasn't source-level-compatible with C++ since 1999.
@masonwheeler said in Which language is the least bad?:
OOP, and a strong marketing campaign that for years and years made it synonymous among the less-well-informed with OOP, good performance
Sounds like Java. Guess what - Java took most of the C++'s market share back in late 90s/early 00s. But couldn't take it all - because generics and value semantics.
@masonwheeler said in Which language is the least bad?:
"code for power users"
I don't even know what it's supposed to mean. If it means what I think it means, then you're wrong - all Unix hackers write in plain C, and the rest in Python (used to be Perl).
@masonwheeler said in Which language is the least bad?:
Objects as value types are horrible, because value types break inheritance.
Solution: don't use inheritance. There are other ways to do the same thing in most cases. Also, 99% of times you'll have a reference and not a value, and with references all your virtual bullshit works just fine.
@masonwheeler said in Which language is the least bad?:
This is one of the main reasons I never use C++ for anything: when your biggest headlining feature is OOP
It hasn't been for at least the last 10 years. Its slogan was more like "you DON'T have to do OOP if you don't want to! It's multiparadigm as shit!" Also, "pay for what you use" and "native code".
-
@gąska TBH, I see that as an optimization and performance issue, not a language semantics issue. C++ hasn't stuck around because value semantics are so bitchin' great, but because a naive implementation of reference semantics has terribad performance, and most languages that use them either don't snap pointers often enough, or don't give you the pragmas you want to force them to be snapped when you need them to be. 99.9% of the time, you want reference semantics, because value semantics is usually premature optimization; the other 0.1%, you don't really want value semantics, you just want to ensure that it is implemented as values rather than references.
In other words, the real problem is that most reference semantics languages do them badly, and Lispers like me roll their eyes because the problems they are having are ones which were solved back in the Project MAC days but most modern language designers can't be bothered to look up the fixes - fixes which were published decades ago.
Seriously, when was the last time you saw a language such as Python implement (for example) lists in a sensible way? Lists are an ADT; just because the obvious way to implement them is a linked list doesn't mean that they need to be implemented that way. Most Lisp compilers and interpreters don't do that; they may retain the semantics of a chain of CONS cells, but the compiler is probably turning that into CDR-coded lists, at minimum, and might well use three or four different representations internally if it can determine that doing so won't interfere with the behavior. Non-Lispers are always astonished by this, because premature optimization is so baked into most languages that they can't imagine the alternative.
The problem then, of course, is that you don't get the control over the form the data structure takes in memory; but let's be honest here, how often is that really needed for anything other than systems programming? While one could argue that "Model over implementation" leads to loss of fine control, the truth is, fine control is usually more of a burden than a help.
But even that's a false dichotomy; it is putting the cart before the horse, because the goal should be to design the program to run, and then figure out how to fix performance bottlenecks later, preferably without making a lot changes to the source code directly. If you can tell the compiler what to do out-of-band, you can decouple the two problems, which is why I am playing around with that kind of thing - I have no idea if my ideas on it are any good or not, but I want to find out rather than just assuming otherwise.
TL;DR: value semantics enshrine premature optimization in the language. You might prefer them, but I don't see the point if reference semantics can still be implemented as values when they need to be.
-
@gąska said in Which language is the least bad?:
Guess what - Java took most of the C++'s market share back in late 90s/early 00s. But couldn't take it all - because generics and value semantics.
Yammering about value types and generics is too inside baseball to explain big stuff like this. I mean, it's fun for programmers to have flamewars about but I think it's missing so much of the point when it comes to market share.
The reasons are much simpler. I think it probably had more to do with the horrible nature of Java GUIs and the performance difference, especially at startup.
-
@scholrlea said in Which language is the least bad?:
@gąska TBH, I see that as an optimization and performance issue, not a language semantics issue. C++ hasn't stuck around because value semantics are so bitchin' great, but because a naive implementation of reference semantics has terribad performance, and most languages that use them either don't snap pointers often enough, or don't give you the pragmas you want to force them to be snapped when you need them to be.
That's probably the main reason of popularity. But that aside, value semantics are very nice to have for other reasons than performance. With value semantics, when I have an object, it's mine. Unless I give away pointers to it, no one can change it. When I copy an object, it's a copy; an independent object I can do whatever I want with and it won't affect the original (unless it's supposed to - but I have control over when it does and when it doesn't, and it doesn't by default). Also, languages with reference semantics often don't offer references to references, which was really annoying in data structures classes at uni - I've had to use wrapper objects for all my data, since generic "swap" function isn't provided by Java and it's impossible to implement yourself. So for me, value semantics is a huge win even if under the covers it's all references and small GC-ed allocations and it's all suboptimal as fuck - just gimme copy and swap.