I usually do parrot a text meme when it's maker has spammed it to this level, but not this one, because the statement is false. Do you hear me? It's false!
Name:
Anonymous2015-07-29 14:26
>>9 Agreed. The correct statement would be XML makes Java an "acceptable Lisp"
Name:
Anonymous2015-07-29 14:41
.-"```"-. /_______; \ (_________)\| / / a a \ \(_) / ( \___/ ) \ ___ooo\__\_____/__/______ / \ | XML makes java the | | "acceptable lisp" | \___________________ooo___/ / \ /:.:.:.:.:.:.:\ | | | \==|==/ /-'Y'-\ (__/ \__)
Internet ramblings make Lisp the `"acceptable Lisp"
Name:
Anonymous2015-08-01 5:07
Have you accepted Lisp into your life?
Name:
Anonymous2015-08-01 11:52
XML makes Java the "acceptable Lisp"
Name:
Anonymous2015-08-01 13:52
XML makes Java the "acceptable Lisp"
Name:
Anonymous2015-08-01 14:22
C makes Haskell the "acceptable Lisp"
Name:
Anonymous2015-08-02 23:53
"GRUNNER" makes Fjölnir the "acceptable Lisp"
Name:
Anonymous2015-08-03 2:07
Homosexuality makes faggotry the "acceptable gayness"
Name:
Anonymous2015-08-03 18:05
Rainbow thigh-highs make boys the "acceptable girls"
Name:
Anonymous2015-08-03 18:08
you guys are fucking stupid, just kill yourselves and fuck off already
Name:
Anonymous2015-08-03 19:13
>>24 Are you arguing that XML doesn't make Java the "acceptable Lisp"? I'd love to hear why you think that
Name:
Anonymous2015-08-03 22:23
>>25 XML does not make Java the acceptable Lisp because the spirit of Lisp is to take a language and create a feedback loop in which it flows back into itself. A Java program can parse an XML document, but in order for Java to be a Lisp, there needs to be a loop.
------> XML Java <------
Allow me to illustrate the diagram for Lisp.
______ / \ LISP<---------'
A Java program can read an XML document, but what can an XML document do to a Java program? This is the missing link. Without that arrow, XML does not make Java an ``acceptable Lisp''.
Name:
Anonymous2015-08-03 23:32
>>26 Java ASTs could be stored as XML and XSLT could manipulate the ASTs.
(listen :location here :object (face-of hamster-fucker))
Name:
Anonymous2015-08-05 12:44
XML makes Java the "acceptable Lisp"
Name:
Anonymous2015-08-05 13:05
dubs
Name:
Anonymous2015-08-05 14:08
IF YOU WERE KILLED TOMORROW IN A XSLT RELATED ACCIDENT, I WOULDNT GO TO YOUR FUNERAL BECAUSE ID BE WRITING JAVA+XML ∧＿∧ （ ´∀｀） ／ | / .| / "⌒ヽ |.ｲ | ＿＿ | .ノ | || |＿＿ . ノく＿＿つ∪∪ ＼ ＿（（＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿_＼ ￣￣ヽつ￣￣￣￣￣￣ | |￣ ＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿__| | ￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣| | XML MAKES JAVA THE "ACCEPTABLE LISP"
>>45 But Lisp is a form of XML. XML is perfect as a basis for XML? What the fuck?
Name:
Anonymous2015-08-12 19:31
Touhou Danmaku 12g is the first release to natively support BulletML, a feature of Touhou danmaku that enables customers to manipulate bullets in a danmaku in BulletML format. Based on XML, industry-standard BulletML technology also supports GrazeX, SpellCard Specification Requests (SSR)-609 and the Border 2.1 mid-tier danmaku management framework, among other leading-edge enteprise-class bullet management technology standards.
Then there's this neverending talk about “interactive programming,” as if that was something desirable. In Lisp, you apparently type stuff into the REPL instead of writing it into files. Great! Except... you can't store the code in files that way. Lispers tend to learn their lesson the hard way, as all code is lost when you need to reboot your computer. But then again, noone bears to write Lisp code more than 100 lines long anyway, so it probably doesn't matter much.
Exactly what I've been thinking all along. Thank you for expressing my thoughts so concisely.
Name:
Anonymous2015-08-13 23:42
But really, using macros in production code is a disaster waiting to happen. With functions, you at least know what the evaluation rules are. But what if you call a macro like the following?
>>61 April Fools' ``humor'' is shit only Reddit enjoys. The shitty unfunny article you posted is one of the many reasons retards like him should kill themselves before posting any of their lame ``jokes''.
Name:
Anonymous2015-08-14 1:06
>>62 Satire is the lowest form of comedy. Any idiot can make ironic comparisons, extended metaphors, and humorous allegories.
Name:
Anonymous2015-08-14 3:14
>>62 I don't like Reddit either but you have a lamppost up your ass.
>>58 Nobody writes code straight on the REPL, they call code from there. Stop being a fucktard.
Name:
Anonymous2015-08-15 9:22
"GRUNNUR" makes Fjölnir the "acceptable C"
Name:
Anonymous2015-08-15 12:18
>>68 Yes, they do. One of the main staples of all Common Lishp smug weenie talk is that "conditions and restarts allow you to fix errors at runtime" and "you can write code at runtime!". They definitely preach writing code in the REPL as a good thing.
Name:
Anonymous2015-08-15 15:03
you write the code into a file then use emacs to send it to the repl
it would be stupid to write it into the repl since then you'd have t ocopy it out
>>97 You could write an interpreter in anything for a Lisp, because it's easy to write and better than whatever fuckpile you started with anyway, so whatever is underneath is meaningless.
Name:
Anonymous2016-07-22 7:48
Clojure runs on the Java virtual machine and as a result integrates with Java and fully supports calling Java code from Clojure, and Clojure code can be called from Java also.
Those of you who are familiar with more traditional functional languages, such as Lisp or Scheme, will recognize that functions in JScript are fundamentally the Lambda Calculus in fancy dress. (The august Waldemar Horwat — who was at one time the lead Javascript developer at AOL-Time-Warner-Netscape — once told me that he considered Javascript to be just another syntax for Common Lisp. I’m pretty sure he was being serious; Waldemar’s a hard core language guy and a heck of a square dancer to boot.)
Since Lisp is just an AST, any language as transformable into its AST is "just another syntax" for the same thing. But Javascript has different and distinctly more terrible semantics, and almost no non-Lisp languages have direct AST programmability.
The fact that he said Common Lisp specifically, and not just some vague notion of Lisp, means he's absolutely delusional. Where are the dynamic bindings? Where are the multimethods? Where are the standard macros, reader macros, or compiler macros? Oh right, there's NO SYNTAX FOR IT, much less functionality.