code contest
| @Disch: Shame about your predicament, do you not have time to write something else then? |
Not these days. Working full time pretty much drains my ability to do anything productive during what little free time I get.
Jobs suck.
| rapidcoder wrote: |
|---|
| You can write a LISP interpreter entirely in LISP and its *full* source code fits on the screen - yeah, that is what I call awesome. |
If that's true, then yes, that is awesome. But it's irrelevant.
| Rapidcoder wrote: |
|---|
| You can write a LISP interpreter entirely in LISP and its *full* source code fits on the screen - yeah, that is what I call awesome. |
At what resolution? :D
http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/paulgraham/jmc.lisp
Readable on a 12'' notebook in full screen mode. Awesome, isn't it?
Another one in Python:
http://norvig.com/lispy.html
Maybe not as short as the LISP one, but still readable on a low-end 26'' screen.
Yes, but I'd like to see something equally awesome for C++, though.
Readable on a 12'' notebook in full screen mode. Awesome, isn't it?
Another one in Python:
http://norvig.com/lispy.html
Maybe not as short as the LISP one, but still readable on a low-end 26'' screen.
But it's irrelevant. |
Yes, but I'd like to see something equally awesome for C++, though.
Last edited on
Veltas
I actually did that, but I couldn't find a way to figure out where to stop. I just had it run until all 32 or 64 bits were exhausted. So Multiplying 1 * 1 was roughly as time consuming as multiplying 123456789 * 987654321... And forget division!
| Maybe you could create a bitwise function for multiplication! |
I actually did that, but I couldn't find a way to figure out where to stop. I just had it run until all 32 or 64 bits were exhausted. So Multiplying 1 * 1 was roughly as time consuming as multiplying 123456789 * 987654321... And forget division!
Sooo My resolution is 1440x900 and that doesn't fit on one page in full screen mode. Either you have one HELL of a 12'' notebook screen, or you've got your dpi changed, or you're lying. which is it?
| Disch wrote: |
|---|
Not these days. Working full time pretty much drains my ability to do anything productive during what little free time I get. Jobs suck. |
My productivity level has dropped 20-40 fold since getting my 9-5..
@Seraphimsan
This is because widescreen monitors are for watching movies, not programming:)
This is because widescreen monitors are for watching movies, not programming:)
Whether or not it fits on one screen or is as little code as there is makes no difference.
The difference is C++ can do a lot of stuff, and LISP can do a lot of stuff with a lot more code that without much care and attention becomes painful to read for even the most experienced programmer.
C++ is designed to cope with ANYTHING well, whereas LISP could cope with anything but you wouldn't want to.
I think the fact that C++ couldn't be interpreted within itself in a screen is a good thing TBH!!!!
And I doubt there's a C++ interpreter in LISP that fits in a readable format with 92 dpi 12*8px font on a 1024*768.
@Disch + Ultifinitus: Shame about your jobs taking up all this time. At least you're out there making money though, especially in this job market... so many of my friends have left school and spend all their free time looking for a job!
The difference is C++ can do a lot of stuff, and LISP can do a lot of stuff with a lot more code that without much care and attention becomes painful to read for even the most experienced programmer.
C++ is designed to cope with ANYTHING well, whereas LISP could cope with anything but you wouldn't want to.
I think the fact that C++ couldn't be interpreted within itself in a screen is a good thing TBH!!!!
And I doubt there's a C++ interpreter in LISP that fits in a readable format with 92 dpi 12*8px font on a 1024*768.
@Disch + Ultifinitus: Shame about your jobs taking up all this time. At least you're out there making money though, especially in this job market... so many of my friends have left school and spend all their free time looking for a job!
Last edited on
@Veltas: My area is completely fine for jobs. Been offered more than 5... I'd rather be making money doing something I love though. Haven't found any programming jobs in the area.
Last edited on
@ultifinitus,
That's not fair; I send CVs to at least 5 places and none of them even bothered to reply...
That's not fair; I send CVs to at least 5 places and none of them even bothered to reply...
closed account (3hM2Nwbp)
@chris
I didn't get replies to any job applications that I put out until after I was 18 (and there were plenty of places hiring), so don't let it get to you.
I didn't get replies to any job applications that I put out until after I was 18 (and there were plenty of places hiring), so don't let it get to you.
@chris: Luc is right, my 17- friends all needed to apply to a crazy number of places before they even got a reply.
@ultifinitus: Shame you couldn't find a programming job. What sort of programming job were you after, anyway?
@ultifinitus: Shame you couldn't find a programming job. What sort of programming job were you after, anyway?
@chrisname:
Fair... Well.. perhaps not, however when you said CV I definitely thought ComputerVirus. So I was thinking: How would that land you a job? lol
@Veltas:
I wouldn't mind doing anything that isn't web dev. My local uni has a fairly lame IT dept. I'm thinking about just going over and wowing them with some stuff from my portfolio...
Fair... Well.. perhaps not, however when you said CV I definitely thought ComputerVirus. So I was thinking: How would that land you a job? lol
@Veltas:
I wouldn't mind doing anything that isn't web dev. My local uni has a fairly lame IT dept. I'm thinking about just going over and wowing them with some stuff from my portfolio...
Measuring software productivity by lines of code is like measuring progress on an airplane by how much it weighs. |
This quote is out of context. And the original context was that it is completeley wrong to think that programmers who write more code in a unit of time are more productive than those who write less. Actually the correlation is negative. The programmers that write less code to achieve the same are usually much better, and the resulting code is of much higher quality (= less copy-pasteing, less boilerplate, more content).
I'm bored. After all, I have heard this all before, and I haven't seen you cite any statistics that I couldn't immediately reject due to inherent bias.
Please let's focus on the contest, K?
-Albatross
Please let's focus on the contest, K?
-Albatross
@rapidcoder:
Writing code to do the same thing in less lines isn't always cleverer. And the code often runs slower with fewer lines. For example, iterative functions are less clever than nested functions, and require more code, but nested functions require more resources and run slower.
You've referred to other languages for some reason, are you trying to say that overall C++ is a crap language? Because I'm hearing a lot of hate...
Writing code to do the same thing in less lines isn't always cleverer. And the code often runs slower with fewer lines. For example, iterative functions are less clever than nested functions, and require more code, but nested functions require more resources and run slower.
You've referred to other languages for some reason, are you trying to say that overall C++ is a crap language? Because I'm hearing a lot of hate...