 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> a functional programmer with no prior exposure to the imperative paradigm?!
> Haskell is creating mindless monsters! :D
Hey, this was probably a long time ago! Maybe he was a Prolog
programmer? ;-)
*runs*
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:33:59 -0500, nemesis wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
>> Well, yes, but at the same time, there must be a definitive reference
>> on it. Or is it the "ipsum lorem" text that's considered definitive?
>> ;-)
>
> googled:
> http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/bf/
>
> I don't lose time with that kind of stuff...
I think you just broke my brain. And here I was thinking it was a joke
you made up. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:08:36 +0000, Orchid XP v7 wrote:
>>> As the name suggests, it's a language specifically designed to be
>>> incomprehensible. [Unlike, say, the SKI calculus, which *is*
>>> incomprehensible, but not by design...]
>>
>> Well, yes, but at the same time, there must be a definitive reference
>> on it. Or is it the "ipsum lorem" text that's considered definitive?
>> ;-)
>
> Oh yes, of course...
>
> http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/bf/
Now I *have* seen it all. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> I think you just broke my brain.
Does exactly what it says on the tin.
> And here I was thinking it was a joke you made up. :-)
Oh no, it's definitely not a joke. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson escribió:
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:33:59 -0500, nemesis wrote:
>> googled:
>> http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/bf/
>>
>> I don't lose time with that kind of stuff...
>
> I think you just broke my brain.
You mean he f**ked your brain?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 21:23:49 +0000, Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> I think you just broke my brain.
>
> Does exactly what it says on the tin.
It's tinned, to? Wow. :-)
>> And here I was thinking it was a joke you made up. :-)
>
> Oh no, it's definitely not a joke. ;-)
Well, for some values of 'joke' anyways. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 19:27:10 -0200, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Jim Henderson escribió:
>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:33:59 -0500, nemesis wrote:
>>> googled:
>>> http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/bf/
>>>
>>> I don't lose time with that kind of stuff...
>>
>> I think you just broke my brain.
>
> You mean he f**ked your brain?
More or less, yes.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> Looks like YAFFI [Yet Another Factorial Function] to me. ;-)
Yet Another Factorial Function Implementation.
Damn it, I should just stop typing! >_<
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Now I *have* seen it all. :-)
Nah. The Iota calculus is much harder. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:16:14 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> Now I *have* seen it all. :-)
>
> Nah. The Iota calculus is much harder. ;-)
I gave up at integral calculus. Too much memorisation.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
