Oriel Jutty :hhHHHAAAH:

“AI” has also successfully found security vulnerabilities that don’t exist.

What, no COBOL? No 5GL?

C++: [](){}

Do you think the Luddites were wrong?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In/_the/_Beginning…/_Was/_the/_Command/_Line

BEFOREHAND: close door, each window & exit; wait until time.    open spellbook, study, read (scan, select, tell us);write it, print the hex while each watches,    reverse its length, write again;    kill spiders, pop them, chop, split, kill them.        unlink arms, shift, wait & listen (listening, wait),sort the flock (then, warn the "goats" & kill the "sheep");    kill them, dump qualms, shift moralities,    values aside, each one;        die sheep! die to reverse the system        you accept (reject, respect);next step,    kill the next sacrifice, each sacrifice,    wait, redo ritual until "all the spirits are pleased";    do it ("as they say").do it(*everyone***must***participate***in***forbidden**s*e*x*).return last victim; package body;    exit crypt (time, times & "half a time") & close it,    select (quickly) & warn your next victim;AFTERWORDS: tell nobody.    wait, wait until time;    wait until next year, next decade;        sleep, sleep, die yourself,        die at last

https://infosec.exchange/@barubary/114697898020548880

Debuggers don’t go back; you have to restart and run through the whole thing

Yes, they do: https://rr-project.org/

https://sourceware.org/gdb/current/onlinedocs/gdb.html/Reverse-Execution.html

Look up history-search-backward in your favorite bash/readline manual.

I disagree with pretty much everything you write here, but especially this:

First of all, you have exact same amount of parens as you would in a mainstream language like Java, C, or Js.

My Perl example uses “mainstream language” syntax. Apparently that doesn’t count because it’s Perl (scary! mental overhead! write only!), so here’s exactly the same thing in JavaScript:

function hypot(x, y) {    return Math.sqrt(x ** 2 + y ** 2);}

… or

const hypot = function (x, y) {    return Math.sqrt(x ** 2 + y ** 2);};

… or

const hypot = (x, y) => Math.sqrt(x ** 2 + y ** 2);

Note how none of these involve four layers of nested parentheses.

OK, my code snippets are Common Lisp. But note that none of them involve list/vector/set literals. I was thinking of [] for array indexing and {} for code blocks.

As for infix macros, sure, that’s not hard to do, but it’s not built into the language and there being “plenty of libraries” is part of the problem: They’re all subtly different, none are standard, and I suspect most people don’t use them anyway. (Plus there’s fun little design issues like whether a*x + b should parse the same as a * x + b, and if it does, then how do you refer to a variable called a*x from an infix environment?)

It doesn’t solve the main issue anyway. Take this snippet from the “infix” readme:

(def hypot  (fn [x y]    (infix sqrt(x ** 2 + y ** 2))))

It ends with a cluster of )))) (reinforcing the “lots of parentheses” impression) and all of those parentheses mean something different: From the outside in, we have the end of a symbol definition (def ...), the end of a function (fn ...), the end of a macro invocation (infix ...), and the end of a function call sqrt(...). It definitely isn’t just “the same number [of parentheses] as any other language that uses parentheses to make function calls”.

Compare e.g. these versions written in Haskell:

hypot = \x y -> sqrt (x ** 2 + y ** 2)

… or Perl:

sub hypot($x, $y) {    sqrt($x ** 2 + $y ** 2)}

… or if you want to separate the function and symbol definition parts:

*hypot = sub ($x, $y) { sqrt($x ** 2 + $y ** 2) };

This is false. Lisp uses parentheses where other languages use (), [], {} or nothing at all. For example, in C I can write int i = 0, but the equivalent Lisp code involves three pairs of parentheses. Or take something like a[i] = f(i + 1) / 2 + p. The equivalent Lisp code is something like (setf (aref a i) (+ (/ (f (+ i 1)) 2) p)), and you can’t tell me that’s not a lot of parentheses.

I, too, love living in a society that never makes errors, ever, as I myself am quite infallible. https://www.web3isgoinggreat.com/

Transfers are predictable and rapid.

And don’t forget how easy it is to reverse them in case of error.

That’s just syntax.

>>> 10 .yearsTraceback (most recent call last):  File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>AttributeError: 'int' object has no attribute 'years'

Does Ruby require the use of [] and {} there? Because those %w/%i/etc things look like custom quoting operators and at least in Perl you can use any delimiter you want: qw(a b c) is a list of strings, but so are qw+a b c+ and qw;a b c;.

I like the original.

$ python3 -c 'f = (lambda x: x + 0.5 - 0.5); print(f(2**52))'  4503599627370495.5

#python

If you had let me write the C++ code, I could have literally destroyed your dataset in a couple of seconds.

There’s a lot of distorted facts here, but the weirdest one to me is “instead of regrouping their efforts (which, I might add, they did, and they got their day in parliament)”. The first half just contradicts itself (“instead of doing X, which they did, …”???) and the second half (“they got their day in parliament”) is verifiably, obviously false: The EU petition is still ongoing and collecting signatures. The deadline is July 31.