00:10 (join) adadglgmut_
00:13 (quit) adadglgmut: Ping timeout: 240 seconds
01:10 (join) vu3rdd
01:10 (quit) dnolen_: Quit: dnolen_
01:12 (join) neilv
01:53 (join) writer
02:18 (join) Mehz
02:18 (part) Mehz: "Leaving"
03:17 (quit) adadglgmut_: Read error: Connection reset by peer
03:21 (join) MayDaniel
03:32 (quit) jonrafkind: Ping timeout: 265 seconds
03:34 (quit) MayDaniel: 
03:45 (quit) neilv: Ping timeout: 240 seconds
04:06 (quit) Fare: *.net *.split
04:06 (quit) spacebat: *.net *.split
04:06 (quit) offby1: *.net *.split
04:06 (quit) rudybot: *.net *.split
04:06 (quit) Ogion: *.net *.split
04:06 (quit) _p4bl0: *.net *.split
04:06 (quit) PascalHunger: *.net *.split
04:06 (quit) bleakgadfly: *.net *.split
04:06 (quit) alexsuraci: *.net *.split
04:06 (quit) tewk: *.net *.split
04:07 (quit) tcoppi: *.net *.split
04:07 (quit) MarcWeber: *.net *.split
04:07 (quit) mattmight: *.net *.split
04:07 (quit) tonyg: *.net *.split
04:07 (quit) martinhex: *.net *.split
04:07 (quit) chandler: *.net *.split
04:07 (quit) rbarraud: *.net *.split
04:59 (join) spacebat
04:59 (join) mattmight
04:59 (join) tewk
04:59 (join) MarcWeber
04:59 (join) Ogion
04:59 (join) tcoppi
04:59 (join) alexsuraci
04:59 (join) chandler
04:59 (join) rudybot
04:59 (join) PascalHunger
04:59 (join) martinhex
04:59 (join) tonyg
04:59 (join) Fare
04:59 (join) rbarraud
04:59 (join) _p4bl0
04:59 (join) bleakgadfly
04:59 (join) offby1
05:41 (join) masm
08:17 (join) MayDaniel
08:19 Lajla: PascalHunger, solution to what?
08:25 (join) danbrown
08:35 (quit) MayDaniel: 
08:39 (quit) danbrown: Quit: danbrown
08:57 (join) adadglgmut
09:12 (join) b-man_
09:18 (join) jeapostrophe
09:25 (quit) vu3rdd: Remote host closed the connection
09:33 (join) mattmigh`
09:40 (quit) mattmight: Ping timeout: 276 seconds
09:44 (join) mceier
10:23 (join) MayDaniel
10:56 (join) danbrown
11:11 (join) anRch
11:15 (join) sstrickl
11:16 (quit) jeapostrophe: Quit: jeapostrophe
11:58 (join) hanDerPeder
12:00 (join) skrm|new
12:00 (quit) martinhex: Read error: Connection reset by peer
12:08 skrm|new: hello all together. i have a question regarding the Racket REPL. How can I use it within my own programs? I know that there is a command called (read-eval-print-loop), but everytime I use it I get an error ('unbound identifier'), even when I type something simple like '(+ 1 1)'.
12:10 (part) C-Keen
12:10 (quit) anRch: Quit: anRch
12:11 chandler: I don't seem to have that problem.
12:13 chandler: rudybot: eval (parameterize ((current-input-port (open-input-string "(+ 1 2)"))) (read-eval-print-loop))
12:13 rudybot: chandler: ; stdout: "> 3\n> "
12:14 skrm|new: The Problem is that I want to have a REPL in my roco-built executable where I can execute statements that use my previous definitions.
12:14 Lajla: skrm|new, what do you mean, you mean you want to create a program which evaluate racket expressions and prints the result?
12:15 samth: skrm|new, which previous definitions
12:16 samth: I suspect you need to read about namespaces: http://docs.racket-lang.org/guide/mk-namespace.html
12:16 (join) anRch
12:17 skrm|new: OK, so the problem is that (read-eval-print-loop) gets not executed in the same namespace as my definitions?
12:19 Lajla: skrm|new, what are 'your definitions', the definitions you use in your executable to create it?
12:20 chandler: skrm|new: The namespace where your definitions are evaluated exists at compile time. At run time, the current value of the parameter `current-namespace' is used for the REPL.
12:21 skrm|new: And how can I set current-namespace to this 'namespace where my definitions are executed'?
12:21 chandler: When I asked rudybot to evaluate something using `read-eval-print-loop' above, `current-namespace' was bound to the namespace used by the rudybot REPL. But if you're running the program via "racket foo.ss" or creating an executable via "raco exe", that isn't the case.
12:21 lisppaste: chandler pasted "something like this" at http://paste.lisp.org/display/115539
12:21 (quit) danbrown: Quit: danbrown
12:23 skrm|new: OK, I understand, but how do I reference the namespace where I have done my definitions?
12:24 (join) MayDaniel_
12:25 lisppaste: chandler annotated #115539 "using namespace anchors" at http://paste.lisp.org/display/115539#1
12:25 chandler: Try something like that.
12:26 (join) YamNad
12:26 (quit) YamNad: Read error: Connection reset by peer
12:26 skrm|new: OK thank you. Works perfectly.
12:28 (quit) MayDaniel: Ping timeout: 276 seconds
12:29 (quit) MayDaniel_: Ping timeout: 240 seconds
12:34 (quit) writer: Remote host closed the connection
12:34 (join) writer
12:36 (join) jonrafkind
12:37 (join) MayDaniel
12:40 _p4bl0: hi everyone, I have a coding style question. Do you think it's a good habit to use CamelCase to name struct? Or should one stick to the usual-scheme-naming?
12:46 (quit) anRch: Quit: anRch
12:48 Lajla: _p4bl0, why not?
12:48 Lajla: Depends on whom you want to read your stuff of course.
12:49 Lajla: But the reason why different languages have different styles, and some languages multiple just shows that none is superior and that it's basically a 'who got their first and managed to shove his praeferred style down to the mouth of those after him' situation.
12:51 _p4bl0: Lajla: it's a school project (we have to code a multiplayer tetris for the network programming course, each of us have to do it in another language we choose, and code a server and a client, and of course any client should be able to communicate with any server)
12:51 Lajla: _p4bl0, so no one has to read your code?
12:51 _p4bl0: Lajla: only the prof, so ya, no one
12:51 _p4bl0: Lajla: but I'd like to upload the project to the PLaneT when I finish it
12:52 Lajla: Then, by all means, screw any convention and go with what you like. If you don't have to read your own code, then use gotos aplenty.
12:52 Lajla: Ahh, ten people do have to read it.
12:52 _p4bl0: Lajla: I'll ahev to read my own code to maintain it
12:52 Lajla: I guess then it would raise some eyebrows if you don't use the conventional styles, luckily you can just make an algorithm that transforms between either.
12:53 _p4bl0: Lajla: as long as it's consistent in the whole project I'm okay with anything, so I'll goo with the-usual-convention
12:53 Lajla: _p4bl0, but this is all very subjective and really unrelated to one's ability to code. Some people need a convention to read code more than others. As a general rule, the younger you are, the more easily you will adapt to weirdly written coding styles.
12:53 _p4bl0: Lajla: thanks
12:55 Lajla: _p4bl0, I can tell you though, that to most people a lot of other things about conventions are going to be worth more than camelcaps vs dashes.
12:55 _p4bl0: Lajla: yup i guess so
12:55 Lajla: Such as when to use if, and when to use when.
12:57 _p4bl0: I usually use the one I think is the more semantically valid in the situation
12:57 _p4bl0: according to me... :-p
12:57 Lajla: I never use when, ahaha
12:57 Lajla: घI used and for one-armed ifs usually.
12:57 Lajla: Because the expression evaluates to #f if the arm is not taken, rather than #<void?
12:58 Lajla: I like clojures idea of having it evaluate to nil though
12:59 _p4bl0: Lajla: sometimes you don't care of the return value
13:00 Lajla: _p4bl0, I guess, but I still like #f more than void in scalability.
13:00 _p4bl0: good point
13:00 Lajla: Maybe at one point I will use it.
13:00 Lajla: Also, I hardly ever do (if bla (display blabla))
13:00 Lajla: I'm more (display (if bla blabla)) kind of a guy
13:01 Lajla: So (display (if bla blabla ""))
13:01 _p4bl0: and what about [] vs () in Racket?
13:02 _p4bl0: at first i thought i'll never use the heretic []
13:02 Lajla: _p4bl0, I never use it either, I find that it takes away from readability, but some people here swear by it.
13:03 _p4bl0: but it's nice in cond's (cond ([test] stuff to do) ([test1] stuff1 to do))
13:03 Lajla: _p4bl0, so test is a thunk? =)
13:04 _p4bl0: nope, I didn't knew bracket has this meaning
13:04 _p4bl0: I use them in lets also
13:04 _p4bl0: (let ([k v] [k1 v1]) stuffs)
13:06 _p4bl0: why does brackets should be used for thunk? (and btw, thunk is code evaluated later right?)
13:07 jonrafkind: [ and ( are the same exact thing
13:07 jonrafkind: its just so you can visually distinguish some elements from others
13:07 (join) Bennit
13:07 Bennit: Ohai
13:07 jonrafkind: [  and ( mean differnet things in clojure, but this is not clojure
13:08 _p4bl0: jonrafkind: yup that's for racket, not for the programmer ;-)
13:08 Lajla: _p4bl0, I mean your use of [test]
13:08 Lajla: Implying that test is bound to a function which takes no arguments
13:08 _p4bl0: jonrafkind: ah okay i don't knew clojure, but we were talking conding style only here
13:09 Lajla: _p4bl0, in clojure you _have_ to do (let [x 2 y 4] (+ x y))
13:09 _p4bl0: Lajla: it was pseudo code, "test" could be any expr
13:09 jonrafkind: there is no relationship between [] and thunks, afaik
13:09 Lajla: Using (let (x 2 y 4) ... is invalid
13:09 jonrafkind: i mean no one will make a correspondence between them
13:09 _p4bl0: jonrafkind: okay great
13:09 (join) napping
13:09 _p4bl0: Bennit: hi
13:10 Lajla: Not really no, I was referring to the use of [test] opposed to just test or [eqv? 3 3] or something like that
13:10 _p4bl0: Lajla: okay, so that's just a misunderstanding, I should have written "test-expr"
13:10 Lajla: Well, and ommited the [ ... ], but I get waht you meant.
13:11 Lajla: I was just pointing out that it's conventional to write either (cond (test-expr stuff to do)) or  (cond ([test args ...] stuff to do))
13:11 _p4bl0: Lajla: ommiting the [] would be strange cause my point was to show my usage of them (i feel like this sentence is not good english)
13:12 _p4bl0: Lajla: okay so what i do is conventionnal, perfect
13:12 _p4bl0: oh no
13:12 _p4bl0: I see what you meant
13:12 _p4bl0: sorry
13:12 _p4bl0: okay
13:13 _p4bl0: (I tought "conventionnal" was about the code itself not the form of the code)
13:14 _p4bl0: it would be handy to have a quote, quasiquote and unquote for natural language
13:15 Lajla: _p4bl0, well, you have to some extend.
13:15 Lajla: Assuming that a sentence 'evaluates' to its meaning.
13:16 Lajla: You can say "I said to that girl 'I like you'."
13:16 Lajla: Without quotes it's not grammatical.
13:18 _p4bl0: yep but here my error was more at a meta level (if i can say so). The problem here was to guess if what is conventionnal is the code itslef (the usage of the [] etc.) or the way to present it.
13:23 (join) vu3rdd
13:43 napping: How easy is it to borrow the arrow drawing for bound variables?
13:43 napping: I'd like to make a program that shows dependencies in an assembly program in a similar style
13:48 (quit) skrm|new: Ping timeout: 265 seconds
14:49 (quit) writer: Ping timeout: 252 seconds
14:50 (join) writer
14:51 samth: napping, it turns out not to be so easy
14:51 samth: you should take a look at the implementation of the macro stepper
14:52 samth: http://github.com/plt/racket/tree/master/collects/macro-debugger/syntax-browser/
14:52 (notice) rudybot: http://tinyurl.com/34cgk99
14:54 (quit) vu3rdd: Remote host closed the connection
15:29 PascalHunger: Lajla: heh I can never read anyones code but my own
15:31 Lajla: PascalHunger, then everyone or you have made some mistakes. =)
15:32 Lajla: The major asset of not working in assembly is not make it easier to write, but to read.
15:44 Fare: eli: got exscribe to run?
15:49 Lajla: PascalHunger: http://codepad.org/mdDSvo9o can you read that?
16:00 eli: Fare: Didn't get to it yet.
16:00 Fare: ok. Tell me if I need do anything.
16:00 eli: OK.
16:01 Fare: Also - can you time the building of docs before and after conversion?
16:01 Fare: I'm curious how much faster/slower my parser is.
16:01 Fare: That said I liked the colloquialism \n][\n to go from one paragraph to the next
16:01 Fare: \n}@{\n isn't as nice.
16:02 Fare: But I suppose I can get used to it.
16:02 (join) jeapostrophe
16:03 Fare: Is this legit? @`.[a] ?
16:07 eli: Fare: It'll probably take enough effort to do this that I won't remember to time it.
16:08 eli: No clue about the \n][\n that you're talking about.
16:09 eli: And @`.[a] would in theory be the same as `(. a) when reading "." by itself, so no.
16:09 Fare: @`,[a]
16:10 eli: Ah -- no that won't work either I think -- at least with my parser.
16:10 Fare: I used a function p* for a list of justified paragraphs -- (p*[a][b][c]) or (p*[
16:10 Fare: a
16:10 Fare: ][
16:10 Fare: b
16:10 Fare: ]...)
16:10 eli: Fare: "Obviously", I'm lying...
16:10 Fare: so in practice, \n][\n was my paragraph separator
16:10 eli: It works.
16:11 eli: For paragraphs in html, I have two things,
16:11 eli: The usual is:
16:11 eli: @list{@p{foo}
16:11 eli: @p{bar}}
16:11 eli messed up the indentation
16:12 (quit) MayDaniel: 
16:12 eli: And to make it a bit more convenient, I made a convenience function maker that uses `@~' to separate chunks,
16:12 eli: so that would be:
16:12 eli: 
16:12 eli: @*p{foo
16:12 eli: @~
16:12 eli: bar}
16:13 eli: Where `*p' is such a function -- it scans the body for these `~'s, splits on them, then maps `p' on the result.
16:13 eli: But I didn't plan on changing *code*, right?
16:14 Fare: what's ~ bound to?
16:15 eli: Some random gensymmed value, IIRC.
16:15 Fare: ok
16:15 Fare: eli: well, the goal is to convert from colloquial old-scribble to colloquial new-scribble.
16:15 Fare: if it's garbled, I would as well keep the old file.
16:16 (join) danbrown
16:16 Fare: if we have to define new functions -- well, cl-compat.scr and/or fare-style.scr are there for that
16:16 eli: Fare: http://git.racket-lang.org/plt/HEAD:/collects/meta/web/common/extras.rkt
16:17 eli: What I thought is -- a simple pass that converts all the text, that's all.
16:17 eli: Trying to get as much text-level compatibility with the original.
16:17 eli: This should be better, since the syntax is overall better.
16:17 eli: Then, you can start improving things by defining new functions.
16:18 eli: That could have been done in any syntax, but the scribe thing makes escaping back to an expression much more painful.
16:18 eli: Eg, compared with how easy it is to just use `@~' in the text.
16:18 Fare: It does? How so?
16:19 eli: I can't parse that...
16:19 PascalHunger: Lajla: just kidding i am pretty good at reading other peoples code for the most part just not scheme
16:19 Fare: scribe makes it easy to escape back: [foo ,(bar) baz]
16:20 Lajla: PascalHunger, the language tends to have that effect on people.
16:20 Lajla: But my code, blegh. =(
16:20 Fare: or with my extensions [:emph foo ,(~) baz]
16:21 eli: Fare: Yeah -- but try to explain that to someone else...
16:22 eli: Having a language where `@foo' in text means the same as `foo' in code makes things easier --
16:23 eli: in this case, it's easy to see that when I write `@~' then it's a racket `~' identifier -- which is an identifier, or a macro keyword -- the usual things.
16:23 eli: It removes one more layer to comprehend when you deal with these things.
16:23 Fare: probably, except that you treat | [ { specially.
16:24 Fare: Well, in Scribe, a single identifier is invalid after a comma, but otherwise anything goes. Since there are no symbol-macros, and/or you can wrap in (identity ...) that's no big deal.
16:24 eli: Yeah well -- []s and {}s are easy -- they're part of the syntax, and they act like delimiters.
16:25 Fare: [... ,(foo) ...] is like a (foo) somewhere.
16:25 eli: And then |s are used in a rough analogy to how they're used to quote symbols.
16:25 Fare: anyway. I agreed to migrate to your scribble - for political reasons.
16:25 eli: The scribe thing about identifiers is horrible.
16:25 Fare: possibly.
16:26 eli: It forces you to do something like ,(identity foo) or ,(begin foo) -- but `quote' destroys it immediately.
16:26 Fare: I suppose I could have done something special. Like ,`,a
16:26 eli: In Racket there's also the consideration of a language that might not have those bindings.
16:26 Fare: or ,,'a
16:27 eli: (With ,`,foo or ,,'a you still get the same problem.)
16:27 eli: Anyway...
16:27 eli goes back to hacking
16:29 Fare: In this case, I suppose that translating ][ to }@{ is OK.
16:29 Fare: A bit ugly, but oh well.
16:32 eli: It is ugly -- and I'll definitely see such things and improve them...
16:47 PascalHunger: Lajla: scheme is cool but for industrial apps i am not so sure about it
16:50 (join) adadglgmut_
16:53 (quit) adadglgmut: Ping timeout: 252 seconds
16:57 eli: PascalHunger: Absolutely!  Better stick to industrially-proven languages.
16:57 eli: COBOL is *thataway*!
16:57 eli points ... someplace else
17:00 Lajla hides
17:01 Fare: COBOL is but a young upstart. FORTRAN it should be.
17:01 Fare: Or ENIAC assembly.
17:01 Lajla: You guys are kind of making a straw-man though.
17:02 Lajla: I'm sure PascalHunger more meant stuff like Java or C# and what-not.
17:02 Fare: Scheme has been used in the industry for longer than Java existed.
17:02 Lajla: And Java overtook it hands down even though it had an earlier start.
17:03 Fare: and Scheme will survive when Java is but a bad memory.
17:03 (quit) jeapostrophe: Quit: jeapostrophe
17:03 Lajla: Come on guys, let's face it, Scheme is an academic language which is theoretical and is used more for academic stuff in the end. Java is a language geared at people who don't know what a theorem is but are supposed to make practical stuff.
17:03 Lajla: Fare, sure.
17:03 Lajla: THat is true.
17:03 Lajla: That is how the industry works.
17:03 eli: Judging by the quality of PascalHunger's opinions and claims, Scheme has been used to make more money than he did so...
17:03 eli: ...make a straman claim and get a strawman reply.
17:03 eli: s/straman/strawman/
17:05 Lajla: Maybe, but Eli, you have to admit, people here have a tendency to get annoyed when people bring that up. You are forgiven to not google, to ask quaestions that you can easily find out yourself. To not do your research. But people will get annoyed when you, falsely or accurately, say that Scheme is not an 'industry language' (which some people consider an insult for a language anyway)
17:06 Lajla realizes the thinnes of the ice again as he defends these ignorant people.
17:06 Fare: Being ignorant is a god-given right.
17:06 Fare: And it's often given right back to god.
17:06 eli: Lajla: I've seen a lot of flamewars, on many language related forums.
17:07 eli: What you're describing is perfectly natural expected -- regardless of the language.
17:07 Lajla: Fare, I don't think this is as much ignorance as a pesonal praeference for most people.
17:07 Lajla: eli, that is true.
17:07 Lajla: You wil also find this in #python or #haskell.
17:07 eli: Go into the python mailing list and talk about it not being industry-ready or whatever, and you'll get the same responses.
17:07 eli: Yeah.
17:07 eli: Same goes for java, and c++, and c, ... and cobol.
17:08 Lajla: eli, but not all languages can be 'industry-ready' can they, or do you think all are?
17:08 eli wonders how #cobol looks like
17:08 eli: Languages are usually not ready in the first part of their existence; but after they've been around for a few years, they are almost always are.
17:09 Lajla: I'm just saying, I don't think that Scheme is per se unfit for industry work for any person. I'm just saying that I can see why some people would rather not use it for industry purposes, even in favour of things like Haskell or Erlang the latter of which was originally more designed from a business standpoint than Scheme.
17:09 Lajla: eli, well, how about that Java is 'more industry ready', which again, can be seen as insult.
17:09 Fare: "Every technique is first developed, then used, important, obsolete, normalized, and finally understood."
17:09 eli: ...only to people who do not like java.
17:10 Lajla: Fare, a poetic and funny quote but probably not always completely true in practice but I see what you're getting at.
17:12 Lajla: But surely you guys have to agree that at some level you can't really blame people for thinking that scheme or racket is not as suited for industry as other things, even if it is their own ignorance and even if they are wrong? It would be blaming people for not knowing that flu is not caused by low temperatures.
17:13 Lajla: Even if it's wrong, it's what you read everywhere, it's what is even taught at universities in language comparison courses.
17:15 eli: Lajla: Yes, obviously "the masses" are not a reliable source of information.  Trying to argue for such misguided opinions in a forum of people who know what they're talking about is not going to make you feel good though.
17:15 eli: BTW, those "language comparison" courses are *so* bad it's not even funny.
17:15 eli: I usually tell people who go through such atrocities to demand a refund.
17:15 Lajla: eli, I'm sure you believe some things too just because of the parroting effect, as do I. I can't blame you for being misinformed.
17:16 Lajla: eli, yes, they tend to be bad, and tend to forget that lisp has vectors. :')
17:16 Lajla: 'Matrix multiplication using lists', buahaha
17:16 eli: Runs much deeper than that.
17:17 Lajla: But my point is more, I don't think you can blame people for being misinformed, especially because  never saw people getting so annoyed here when they were misinformed about other subjects than SCheme's industry status. Though I can also understand how annoying it must be to keep hearing that when you know it's from ignorance.
17:17 eli: And re the parrot effect -- I've personally spent non-trivial amounts of time to be forming my own opinions.  And with all fitting amounts of respect to the respective parties, bashing Scheme (or Racket, or Haskell, or whatever) is usually done by people who spent orders of magnitude less time doing so.
17:18 eli: If you feel like bashing ... I don't know ... OCaml, I'd think the same, but I would obviously not be as inclined to respond.
17:18 Lajla: Well, he wasn't really 'bashing' was he, he said he liked the language.
17:19 Lajla: Maybe he was misinformed, maybe he wasn't but he was polite and didn't join just to say that scheme and people that use it suck.
17:21 eli: Lajla: I like you; you seem like a nice person to talk to, and I enjoy your company.  Just don't stand so close to me -- your breath stinks and I have *important* guests for dinner.
17:22 (join) adadglgmut
17:23 Lajla: I'm not doing it as much for you as I'm doing it for Pascal, but very well.
17:23 eli: Well, hopefully the point was clear.  (There's some proverb about "best intentions" which I'm not cultural enough to remember...)
17:24 eli runs away to deal with "real life"
17:24 (quit) adadglgmut_: Ping timeout: 276 seconds
17:26 Lajla: The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Have fun.
17:28 (join) adadglgmut_
17:28 jonrafkind: im hoping its paved with chocolate!
17:29 Lajla: jonrafkind, depends on if you're going there.
17:29 Lajla: I never accepted jesus sacrifice, I'll pay for my sins. :')
17:31 (quit) adadglgmut: Ping timeout: 264 seconds
17:33 Fare: The blame game is stupid.
17:33 (quit) adadglgmut_: Ping timeout: 240 seconds
17:33 Fare: if someone speaks out of ignorance, then makes decision based on that, he's stupid, and not a person to deal with.
17:33 Fare: but otherwise that's his problem.
17:33 Lajla: You cannot know what you do not know.
17:33 (join) adadglgmut
17:34 Fare: known unknowns.
17:34 Fare: vs unknown unknowns.
17:34 Lajla: There is ignorance and wilful ignorance. Ignorance is just not having been informed properly, not a thing you can help or know. You can also keep denying in spite of undeniable evidence.
17:35 Lajla: Blaming people and becomming annoyed if they reasonably cay that, though they like Scheme, they 'aren't sure' about its industry applications is like blaming people for thinking the church thought the earth was flat in Columbus' days.
17:35 Lajla: It's very tempting and only human to believe untrue myths if they are every-where you go.
17:37 Fare: All ignorance is wilfull
17:38 Fare: we're not talking about laymen
17:38 (join) adadglgmut_
17:38 Fare: we're talking about professional programmers
17:38 (join) asumu
17:38 Fare: if a professional doesn't know better, he's incompetent, and should never be hired.
17:39 Lajla: A lot of people who come here and say that about scheme aren't professional programmers. And that also means that a looooot of people who were hired shouldn't be.
17:39 Lajla: Also, I fail to see how once knowledge of scheme affects one in most programming jobs.
17:39 Fare: actually, using scheme can be a good filter to keep out incompetents.
17:40 Lajla: You can be a professional java-programmer without knowing what a type polymorphization is or understand its wikipedia article I gather.
17:40 Fare: (scheme, or another such good but unpopular language)
17:40 Fare: Lajla: incompetent java programmers abound.
17:40 Lajla: Fare, I agree that it can separate and tests understand of theoretical computer science and programming language theory. But that isn't needed for most programming jobs.
17:41 Lajla: Fare, they still get their job done and do what they are paid for. You don't need to understand a lot of things to professionally work in Java.
17:41 Lajla: But anyway, I guess I'm going to have to retreat from this debate, if you want to continue, my /msg is yours to fill.
17:41 (quit) adadglgmut: Ping timeout: 265 seconds
17:42 (join) adadglgmut
17:42 (quit) adadglgmut_: Ping timeout: 250 seconds
17:44 (join) adadglgmut_
17:45 samth: eli, empirical evidence: when I joined #cobol just now, it has me, ChanServ, and 2 other people
17:45 Lajla: Ahahaha
17:46 Lajla: My uncle actually works in cobol for a living.
17:46 Lajla: He keeps defending it as the most readable language in existence because it's self-documenting
17:47 (quit) adadglgmut: Ping timeout: 245 seconds
17:50 Fare: my cousin's husband said he liked COBOL.
17:50 Fare: That didn't raise him in my esteem.
17:50 Fare: COBOL is a manager-oriented language.
17:51 Lajla: And it never really worked for that.
17:51 Lajla: Turns out being able to read it isn't enough, you actually need to be able to program, how sad. =)
17:51 Fare: it makes you believe you understand the big picture, just because it's made of familiar looking blocks.
17:51 Fare: Speak of building a bridge with LEGOs.
17:52 Fare: or digging a tunnel with silver spoons.
17:52 Lajla: I wouldn't know, what cobol does is more making you 'understand' the small elements like 'x += y' as 'ADD X TO Y' but still makes it impossible to understand the big picture.
17:52 Lajla: Fare, ahh, I misread.
17:52 Lajla: Yes, quite correct.
17:53 jonrafkind: i like COBOL's definition of the continuation: http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~sgomori/314/langref.html#contin
17:54 Lajla: Not nearly as mind-boggling as that of Scheme.
17:57 Fare: http://www.coboloncogs.org/INDEX.HTM
18:03 Fare: What next, Scheme on Spliff?
18:04 (quit) Fare: Quit: Leaving
18:05 (quit) sstrickl: Quit: sstrickl
18:12 napping: samth: thanks for the link. Looks like the add-syntax method in widget.tk has something to do with it
18:13 napping: I guess I will have to turn my text into syntax objects with bindings if I want to get arrows that way
18:17 (quit) napping: Quit: leaving
18:33 (quit) b-man_: Remote host closed the connection
19:02 (quit) Lajla: Read error: Connection reset by peer
19:02 (join) Lajla
19:06 (quit) danbrown: Quit: danbrown
19:13 (join) jeapostrophe
19:13 (quit) mceier: Quit: leaving
19:38 (quit) adadglgmut_: Ping timeout: 240 seconds
19:41 (join) palinurus
19:50 (part) palinurus
20:01 (quit) writer: Quit: writer
20:36 (quit) jonrafkind: Ping timeout: 276 seconds
20:49 (join) carleastlund
21:22 (quit) jeapostrophe: Quit: jeapostrophe
22:02 (quit) masm: Quit: Leaving.
22:19 (join) jeapostrophe
22:34 (quit) jeapostrophe: Quit: jeapostrophe
23:10 (join) jeapostrophe
23:12 (quit) jeapostrophe: Client Quit
23:25 (quit) offby1: Quit: ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs)
23:26 (join) offby1`
23:26 (nick) offby1` -> offby1
23:26 (quit) offby1: Changing host
23:26 (join) offby1