 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Other amusing quotes of the week:
"Also [scripting languages] 'don't scale well', which I guess means that
they don't make it inconvenient to design badly."
"someday we'll need meta-software that converts from obsolete languages
into modern ones"
"Don't we call that compilers?"
[Actually that's kinda backwards, isn't it?]
"how about a language where you program with unit vectors: orientation
oriented programming"
"what you just typed isn't even well typed"
(The compiler tells me this all the time BTW...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> "Haskell was developed by Isaac Newton in the 15th Century as a tool to
> help his investigations into the Alchemic arts. It was rediscovered in
> the 1980s by three Cambridge undergraduates who were browsing through
> Newton's laboratory notebooks looking for smutty jokes in the margins,
> and has since developed into an elaborate joke perpetrated by elite
> computer scientists who believe that predictable order of execution is
> contrary to natural law. The current version of Haskell is Haskell 1714,
> which adds syntactic sugar for Zygohistomorphic Premorphisms to the
> original language definition of 1693."
its from the mailing list, isn't it?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/11/2010 08:44 PM, nemesis wrote:
> its from the mailing list, isn't it?
What, you think *I* could invent something this awesome?
Yes, of course it's from the mailing list...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I don't understand the specification.
>
> I even expressed it in Haskell-ish syntax.
>
> "Zero or more A's, followed by zero or more A's, followed by zero or
> more A's, followed by three A's."
In what way is that different from "zero or more As"?
> The fact that you can't read the link I provided is screaming out that
> you need to learn how to read that link. Not knowing even the basics of
> regular expressions is like not knowing even the basics of TCP.
Except that regular expressions are an obscure topic used almost nowhere
except in text-mangling languages like Perl.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/11/2010 05:24 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> Apparently you have a radically different idea of "ubiquitous" than I
>> do...
>
> Regular expressions are the same as state machines.
Sure. Just expressed in an unecessarily cryptic mannar.
If a state machine is a good way to solve your problem, why not express
it clearly? And why limit it to only operating on characters?
> Let me list a few of the programs I use every day that support and use
> regular expressions:
>
> .NET
> VI
> EMacs
> Grep
> Find
> Bash
> Perl
> Awk
> Sed
> Flex
...so, basically Unix text-mangling tools then?
> javascript
That's the third time I've heard somebody say that. I've yet to see it.
> Pretty much every editor above the level of notepad
It's no secret that emacs and vi think this is a good idea. I don't
recall seeing any other editors use it though.
> Pretty much every programming language since COBOL
Really. Because your list seems to include only low-level scripting
languages. I don't see regexs in Pascal, C, Eiffel, etc.
> Let me list a few of the programs that support the parser you prefer:
>
> Haskell
I'm pretty sure that Haskell is not the only programming language that
offers real parser construction tools. Parsec is merely an example of
such. (If you /really/ want to split hairs, Parsec has actually been
ported to [at least] Java, Ruby and C#. But that's not the point.)
> So, yeah, the fact that your education sucks doesn't mean bupkiss about
> what actually goes on in the real world. :-)
Right. Because Unix text-mangling is all that happens in "the real
world", naturally...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I give up.
>
> <Yoda> And that is why you fail. </Yoda>
>
> You're making assertions with no experience. You've already admitted you
> don't know how regular expressions work, yet here you are telling *me*
> that building them programatically is "incredibly fragile". You're
> talking out your ass, my dear.
Goodbye.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> I give up.
>>
>> <Yoda> And that is why you fail. </Yoda>
>>
>> You're making assertions with no experience. You've already admitted you
>> don't know how regular expressions work, yet here you are telling *me*
>> that building them programatically is "incredibly fragile". You're
>> talking out your ass, my dear.
>
> Goodbye.
Sorry. That *was* kind of harsh.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> If a state machine is a good way to solve your problem, why not express
> it clearly? And why limit it to only operating on characters?
It is clearly expressed, and it's not limited to only operating on
characters. What can I say?
> ...so, basically Unix text-mangling tools then?
No. Most anything working with text.
>> Pretty much every programming language since COBOL
>
> Really. Because your list seems to include only low-level scripting
> languages. I don't see regexs in Pascal, C, Eiffel, etc.
Libraries, dear. Few languages have them built into the syntax.
>> Let me list a few of the programs that support the parser you prefer:
>>
>> Haskell
>
> I'm pretty sure that Haskell is not the only programming language that
> offers real parser construction tools. Parsec is merely an example of
> such.
Sure. And the other languages have real parser tools too. Bison, for
example, if nothing else.
>> So, yeah, the fact that your education sucks doesn't mean bupkiss about
>> what actually goes on in the real world. :-)
>
> Right. Because Unix text-mangling is all that happens in "the real
> world", naturally...
No, because it's used much more widely, yet you've never seen it. Every
state machine is a regular expression matcher. Those pictures of state
transitions in TCP? Regular expressions. The "railroad track" diagrams in
the Pascal standard? Regular expressions.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> I don't understand the specification.
>>
>> I even expressed it in Haskell-ish syntax.
>>
>> "Zero or more A's, followed by zero or more A's, followed by zero or
>> more A's, followed by three A's."
>
> In what way is that different from "zero or more As"?
That's not the point. Replace "A" with "phone number" and you have the same
problem.
> Except that regular expressions are an obscure topic used almost nowhere
> except in text-mangling languages like Perl.
No, they're really not. That's what I'm trying to explain. That's like
saying "state machines are really irrelevant" or "parsers are an obscure topic."
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> "Also [scripting languages] 'don't scale well', which I guess means that
> they don't make it inconvenient to design badly."
Amusingly, that's exactly true. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
