Programming thread

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
analrapist said:
No thanks, I'll take my future with Mr. God and HolyC.

A helpful table of APL symbols
View attachment 8355198
Click to expand...
still better than J - https://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/NuVoc

to be honest i like those types of languages
i personally use uiua from time to time, it has way too much faggotry for my tastes but aside from that the language is interesting

its meant to be something like a stack based APL, but recently the language has been switching from forth-like stack managment like swap or dup or whatever to i guess more idiomatic approach of manipulating the arguments while calling a function like calling a function with order of arguments reversed (n-adic/polyadic commute) or more familiar self modifier which calls a function with all the arguments being the value on top of the stack (in APL also uses the same glyph as commute funnily enough)
if you want a more modern APL theres a language called BQN https://mlochbaum.github.io/BQN/
i like it, but i cant use it for the same reason i cant use apl (i cant comprehend the uhh "flow" of data)
 
Mfw after writing code that places the responsibility on the caller and I am now the caller
guy-pointing-gun-at-self-meme-3.jpg
 
I wish:

def many(f, n):
return (f() for _ in range(n))
#used like:
v, c, d, b = many(list, 4)

or something very similiar
came with default python. I have to do it for nearly every single project.

I don’t want to define helpers just to express something that is conceptually simple and safe.
chained assignements evaluate each expression once, while tuple unpacking does it seperately and neither are very much fun.
there's no standard syntax for evaluationg expressions (O)N to unpack the results.
I think new syntax would be justified.
and no

v, c, d, b = iter(list, None)

is not acceptable because it breaks for ints, bools, strings and floats.
I would also love something for the leftern side of the equation too but asking for that's a stretch that will likely never be met, even lesso than a default 'many'.
 
ArgonianVoter said:
I wish:

def many(f, n):
return (f() for _ in range(n))
#used like:
v, c, d, b = many(list, 4)

or something very similiar
came with default python. I have to do it for nearly every single project.

I don’t want to define helpers just to express something that is conceptually simple and safe.
chained assignements evaluate each expression once, while tuple unpacking does it seperately and neither are very much fun.
there's no standard syntax for evaluationg expressions (O)N to unpack the results.
I think new syntax would be justified.
and no

v, c, d, b = iter(list, None)

is not acceptable because it breaks for ints, bools, strings and floats.
I would also love something for the leftern side of the equation too but asking for that's a stretch that will likely never be met, even lesso than a default 'many'.
Click to expand...
im pretty sure that goes against the zen of python
 
ArgonianVoter said:
Yeah well your stupid fucking Zen is wrong, why do you think we don't have constants outside of "social enforcement".
Click to expand...
ion fucking know nigga

python itself doesnt follow the zen all that well
they added "t-strings" (template strings) to the language recently, so now you can format strings in like 5 different ways, which also violates the zen of python
 
ArgonianVoter said:
I wish:

def many(f, n):
return (f() for _ in range(n))
#used like:
v, c, d, b = many(list, 4)

or something very similiar
came with default python. I have to do it for nearly every single project.

I don’t want to define helpers just to express something that is conceptually simple and safe.
chained assignements evaluate each expression once, while tuple unpacking does it seperately and neither are very much fun.
there's no standard syntax for evaluationg expressions (O)N to unpack the results.
I think new syntax would be justified.
and no

v, c, d, b = iter(list, None)

is not acceptable because it breaks for ints, bools, strings and floats.
I would also love something for the leftern side of the equation too but asking for that's a stretch that will likely never be met, even lesso than a default 'many'.
Click to expand...
Imagine not having a personal standard library you include in all your projects for exactly this kind of situation.
 
August Levasseur said:
Imagine not having a personal standard library you include in all your projects for exactly this kind of situation.
Click to expand...
I avoid doing that kind of thing now to prevent overheard and maintenance burden. I'm not typically working with 200 people, collabs don't usually happen that often for me and when I pass that code I want it to be understood without forcing others to understand my 'personal standard lib', so no that's by design.
 
Drunk and watching an old episode of The Computer Chronicles; still worth watching today for the historical knowledge and context
And holy shit:
Screenshot 2026-01-02 at 21-08-00 The Computer Chronicles - Artificial Intelligence (1984) - Y...png
In pace requiescat
 
Last edited:
WielkiWapiesz2137 said:
adding syntax for something that can be expressed in one line with map lambda and range is nonsensical
Click to expand...
Not like that stopped Guido before. But you can even use his beloved list comprehensions or generator expressions for this: a, b, c = ([] for _ in range(3))
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom