/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9537182]

Is there a language more perfect than Python for /sci/ coding?

[Anonymous No.9537197]

Anything that's not slow as shit.

[Anonymous No.9537214]

>>9537182
racket/scheme/lisp, matlab, and any CAS is /sci/
C++ is /v/
C is /g/

python is >>>/r/eddit

[Anonymous No.9537219]

>>9537214
>C++ is /v/
That's C#, kiddo.

[Anonymous No.9537221]

>>9537219
I won't disagree.

[Anonymous No.9537223]

>>9537214
1) nobody uses lisp
2) Matlab is shit
3) python is well known as king of data science, web apps and prototyping. Anything you need to do fast, you could import a C library

[Anonymous No.9537233]

>>9537223
>caring about popularity
>>>/fa/

[Anonymous No.9537303]

>>9537214
>C++ is /v/

Foolish mortal. C++ is C on steroids.

[Anonymous No.9537305]

>>9537214
>C++ is /v/
You're either severely overestimating /v/ or severely underestimating C++, not sure which.

[Anonymous No.9537315]

>>9537182
Literally anything

[Anonymous No.9537319]

>>9537315
Wish granted, you now have to use PHP for the rest of your life.

[Anonymous No.9537327]

>>9537319
Ok, not that one

[Anonymous No.9537344]

>>9537327
That's fine, you're now a Ruby on Rails developer.

[Anonymous No.9537346]

>>9537182
FORTRAN

[Anonymous No.9537348]

>>9537346
Grandpa, what did we tell you about trying to use computers, you know they only make you confused and angry. Come back to the living room, we put your Matlock season 3 VHS on.

[Anonymous No.9537351]

>>9537319
>>9537327
PHP isn't that bad.
t. somebody who has actually used PHP in a professional development environment
JS is way more nightmareish

[Anonymous No.9537354]

>>9537351
There's literally nothing wrong with javascript.

[Anonymous No.9537591]

*blocks ur path*

[Anonymous No.9537621]

>>9537214
>matlab
matlab is becoming obsolete.

matlab is proprietary.
Python & R (for statistics) are better in many ways

Mathematica is quite good, but also expensive and proprietary.

[Anonymous No.9537654]

>>9537214
>(((lisp))) , (((scheme))) , (((racket)))

(((lisp))) created by (((John McCarthy))), Math PhD
Son of a Irish father and a (((Lithuanian Jewish mother))).

>((( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCarthy_(computer_scientist) )))

[Anonymous No.9537682]

Is Python the best language to learn as a MechE?

[Anonymous No.9537685]

>>9537654
If you stop using everything created by jews you're going to end up not having very much left. He's not even full jew, you're taking the /pol/ thing too far.

[Anonymous No.9537692]

>>9537654
(lisp (created by
(John Mccarthy
math PhD son of a (Lithuanian Jewish Mother)))

[Anonymous No.9537697]

>>9537685

It's funny though, right? Because lisp uses lots of parenthesis. Get it?

[Anonymous No.9537699]

>>9537682
>Is an interpreted language a not so bad language to learn as a person in STEM?
No.

[Anonymous No.9537700]

>>9537591

>implying R is comparable to Python

[Anonymous No.9537832]

>>9537182
It's so fucking comfy dude

[Anonymous No.9537857]

>>9537700
It is because that's what Python is actually used for most of the time, data science shit.

[Anonymous No.9537861]

>>9537214
>C++ is /v/

>>>/g/tfo

[Anonymous No.9537864]

>>9537223
>web apps
>>>/g/ is that way

[Anonymous No.9537878]

>>9537182
If by python you mean numpy, scipy, and tensorflow then no, there isn't.
If those were out of the picture then I'd probably use Matlab, just for the convenient toolboxes

[Anonymous No.9537879]

>>9537223 >>9537864
>python is king of ... web apps ...

Jupyter Notebook is very comfy
http://jupyter.org/
>he Jupyter Notebook is an open-source web application that allows you to create and share documents that contain live code, equations, visualizations and narrative text.
>Uses include: data cleaning and transformation, numerical simulation, statistical modeling, data visualization, machine learning,...

[Anonymous No.9537893]

>>9537182
enjoy having your code break on you when you copy and paste it from one editor into another.
python is pushed forward on the power of memes, nothing more.

>>9537197
slow is fine, /sci/ fags are not writing systems, you are using high speed functions written in C++ using all the fancy parallel libraries to do your little computations

>>9537214
>C++ is /v/
I don't think /v/ knows how to code, they claim to built game engines, but when asked to backup their knowledge they are unable to explain the most basic things about programming.

[Anonymous No.9537933]

>>9537182
Idris, duh

[Anonymous No.9537937]

>>9537182
True /sci/entists use the untyped lambda calculus for /sci/entific computing

[Anonymous No.9537955]

>>9537182
>not using a language where you can write code then reason formally about it (as well as automate said reasoning) in the same language
What's your excuse /sci/?

[Anonymous No.9537957]

unironically no there is not

[Anonymous No.9538173]

>>9537197
> does element wise operations on python lists using for loops
>hasnt heard of numpy

>"gee whizz isnt python super slow?"

[Anonymous No.9538246]

>>9538173
>uses a library coded in C and just calls it from python
>s-see, python isnt slow!

[Anonymous No.9538260]

>>9538246
>>uses a library coded in C and just calls it from python
>>s-see, python isnt slow!

the main python interpreter, cpython, is coded in C. we may as well say python is just a C program cause it is. every statement in python executes stuff coded in C.

but then the language python isnt C, its a high level language that has powerful features that are fast because their underlying functionality is implemented in C. this is a good thing. this is a feature. python provides ways to combine C code into powrful and fast python libraries. but when i use numpy i use python, not C. btw there is also plenty of fortran wrapped up in libraries. C++ does similar things, so do many other languages.

think about that a lot before you reply with a snarky reply

[Anonymous No.9538264]

>>9537955
>using a theorem prover developed by microshit
i shiggy diggy

[Anonymous No.9538285]

>>9538260
are you mentally retarded? when people say C++ is fast, they don't mean using the libraries written in fortan is fast, they mean running code written in that language is fast, you (or that guy) are saying that python isnt slow, because there are libraries that are fast written in another language, thats not how it works. Python gets compiled into C? great for it, everything gets compiled down to machine code so I guess there's actually no performance difference in any language ever made.

>when im using numpy im using python
depends completely on what you are doing, a long complicated program using numpy you can argue is python, a loop over an array (like that post was talking about) is entuirely done in the underlying C, not in python. By thil logic you could write an entire program in C, wrap it up in a method in Haskell that just 3 lines of code and claim your ACHTUALY using Haskell.

>b-but its a high level language!
the chain of posts were about if its slow or not, now you bring up the fact that its easier to code in it than C? Why?

[Anonymous No.9538294]

>>9538285
numpy is a high performance numerical library for python. apparently it doesnt count as python because its partially implemented in C. well cpython is implemented in C, so i guess python doesnt count as python because its implemented using C.

or we can count numpy as being python, especially because its API is pure python, just like python is pure python.

[Anonymous No.9538413]

the only people worse than pythonistas are rustfags

protip guidos: nearly every language in use that isn't C can call C shared libraries because the C ABI is basically universal

[Anonymous No.9538439]

>>9537223
>1) nobody uses lisp
I use elisp...

[Anonymous No.9538446]

step aside, best language coming by

[Anonymous No.9538447]

>>9537692
kek

[Anonymous No.9538457]

>>9538413
>>9538285
language != implementation

[Anonymous No.9538461]

>>9538285
ARE YOU SEVERELY MENTALLY IMPAIRED???
When people say C++ is fast they mean that compiled BLAS/LAPACK libraries under an INTEL COMPILER and after MUCH LOW LEVEL ASSEMBLY TWEAKING, are fast.

Jesus fuck, you even acknowledged that C gets compiled to machine code, so in the end WHAT IS THE FUCKING DIFFERENCE? Just the compiler and how good it is at making automatic optimizations.
There ARE NOT fast languages, just better compilers.

You are as insufferable as these CSshit codemonkeys who know nothing about numeric algorithms at all and make "le kewl lorentz attractor" with a forward euler integrator. If you don't know math, and you don't know computation, stay clear of computers.

[Anonymous No.9538467]

>not coding in assembly

[Anonymous No.9538472]

>>9538461
>There ARE NOT fast languages, just better compilers.
No. What optimizations are available to a compiler in a large part depends on the semantics of the language. What the compiler can prove about your code is different from what you know about your code. This is why static typing is popular and why many languages offer metaprogramming.

[Anonymous No.9538495]

>>9538461
>There ARE NOT fast languages, just better compilers.
>Taking my strawman and running with it
kek

[Anonymous No.9538687]

>>9537700
For scientific programming, it's not only comparable to Python, it's superior.

Scientists don't need a general purpose computing language. They're never going to have to design huge server applications or web platforms or anything like that. They need to analyze their data. What scientists need for that is a language specifically designed around making the manipulation and analysis of data trivial, and that's R in a nutshell.

[Anonymous No.9538723]

>>9538260
Its still interpreted, not compiled you absolute brainlet. You cannot compare the two

[Anonymous No.9538726]

>>9538687
Second this. R is amazing if all you work with are lists and matrices.

[Anonymous No.9538737]

I use Excel at work. And R when they allow me.

[Anonymous No.9538748]

>ugly trailing backslashes
>20 times slower than C
>lacking intellisense
>messed up variable scoping
>documentation far worse than c# and js

it sucks, too bad there isn't anything better than python anyway

[Anonymous No.9539335]

>>9538446
give it another couple years, then yes

[Anonymous No.9539341]

>>9537214
s/matlab/julia

[Anonymous No.9539342]

>>9537214
>racket/scheme/lisp,
impractical meme shit.
>matlab, and any CAS is /sci/
proprietary, expensive, and slow.

[Anonymous No.9539354]

>>9537214
The problems with C++:
- Bloated with useless/overall harmful features
- They have to be backward compatible with retarded stuff
- You will make lots of errors, the code will be buggy
- Again, you WILL make buggy software and you will spend a lot of time fixing those bugs

Anyone who does not acknowledge these has only ever done home projects/only works alone on a couple thousand lines of code.

[Anonymous No.9539356]

>>9537303
More like some weird drugs that mutated it into a big bulky monstrosity.

[Anonymous No.9539363]

>>9539342
>proprietary
That's indeed shit and only reason /sci/ shouldn't use them.
>slow
That depends on what you're doing and how important your time is compared to the time running it. Usually your time writing it worths more.
>expensive
It isn't like you pay them yourself. Your institution does. And if you're a student they're dirty cheap anyway. Matlab is like $70 and Mathematica ~150$. That's one coffee/month for the >4 years you will use them.

[Anonymous No.9539429]

>>9539342
>impractical
go on

[Anonymous No.9539446]

>>9539429
humans are just bad at reading s-expressions.

alternatives have proven more useful.

[Anonymous No.9539450]

>>9539429
>>9539446
additionally, the metaprogramming capabilities lisps give you just turn out to not be that useful in practice.

[Anonymous No.9539457]

>>9537223
>nobody uses lisp

[Anonymous No.9539459]

>>9539446
>brainlets are bad at reading sexp
so?
>metaprogramming capabilities lisps give users are poorly utilized by brainlets
so?

[Anonymous No.9539470]

>>9539459
its harder to write, harder to debug

Sure, if you want to show off on a mongolian basket weaving forum, then LISP is a top choice.

choosing a programming language is about choosing the right tool for the job. C was designed to write an operating system. Lisp was designed for old school symbolic AI.

There are use cases for LISP, but as a general purpose language its just silly.

[Anonymous No.9539482]

>>9539354
>- They have to be backward compatible with retarded stuff

This is the biggest downside of C++

all of the legacy bullshit that they can't change because it would cost billions of dollars to the global tech industry.

C++ could have been the undisputable go to general purpose language if it was forked. but now its just a weird frankenstein that lets you make preventable mistakes

[Anonymous No.9539553]

>>9539470
Lisp was not designed for old-school symbolic AI, it was designed to be a better lambda calculus.

>it is harder to write
How so?
>harder to debug
This is actually false. It's a lot easier to debug due to its near homoiconicity.

>choosing a programming language is about choosing the right tool for the job
I disagree. Creating a programming language to solve your problem in is choosing the right tool for the job. What you're thinking of is re-solving solved problems. In that case you choose the same tool everyone else chooses. Modern lisps are programmable programming languages. You can write your own syntax. If C++ is a swiss army knife, then modern lisps are CNC mills.

Everyone who learns to program can sympathize with "I wish I could tell my computer to do something." Everyone who learns to program in a lisp can sympathize with "I wish I could tell my compiler to do something."

[Anonymous No.9539567]

>>9539354
>- They have to be backward compatible with retarded stuff
Such as?
>- Bloated with useless/overall harmful features
Stop being autistic
>- You will make lots of errors, the code will be buggy
>- Again, you WILL make buggy software and you will spend a lot of time fixing those bugs
Garbage in, garbage out. Don't blame the language.

[Anonymous No.9539575]

>>9538285
Imagine unironically being this stupid.

[Anonymous No.9539646]

>>9539553
Ah yes. I remember when I was a college student...

You keep listing properties of LISP that separate it from other languages. What you aren't doing is showing that any of these unique properties are actually useful, practical, and improve productivity.

The reality is most programming is simple. We got to the fucking moon with hand written assembly.

[Anonymous No.9539663]

>>9539646
People keep writing new languages all the time. Why is that? Why didn't we stop at, say, Fortran, COBOL, or C? Once you admit that syntax matters you've already made the entire argument for metaprogramming and it's literally just your own ignorance and biases preventing you from reaching the logical conclusion. Maybe you just think it should be left to others, but you're objectively wrong if you think it's just for college kids or memesters.

[Anonymous No.9539678]

>>9539663
>Maybe you just think it should be left to others, but you're objectively wrong if you think it's just for college kids or memesters
>tips fedora

[Anonymous No.9539711]

>>9539646
>The reality is most programming is simple.
Compared to what? Programming is a pretty legitimate candidate for one of the least simple things you could do e.g. that Douglas Crawford quote:
>Computer programs are the most complex things that humans make.
Also RE: Moon landing and assembly, you use low level programming like assembly or C for any embedded systems because the performance and fault tolerance are a lot more important when you're dealing more directly with hardware like that.
I think you're trying to make the argument that because the moon landing was a very difficult and impressive project and because assembly was used for it that this means assembly's good enough for any other applications. And I think where this argument goes wrong is that which tools work best for which situations isn't just a unidimensional scale from easier problems to harder problems. There are situations which are both not as impressive as the moon landing but also wouldn't be very good contexts to apply assembly to e.g. I seriously would not want to do web development in assembly.

[Anonymous No.9539719]

>>9539711
>Also RE: Moon landing and assembly, you use low level programming like assembly or C for any embedded systems because the performance and fault tolerance are a lot more important when you're dealing more directly with hardware like that.
related: http://flownet.com/gat/jpl-lisp.html

[Anonymous No.9539728]

>>9539719
>The only thing left was to get approval from the VP of engineering. The conversation went something like this:
>Me: I'd like to talk to you about something...
>Him: Let me guess - you want to use Smalltalk.
>Me: Er, no...
>Him: Lisp?
>Me: Right.
>Him: No way.
lol, executives literally keep a list of meme languages to avoid and Lisp is #2.

[Anonymous No.9539733]

>>9539711
>I think you're trying to make the argument
Don't strawman me. Just ignoring this entire post.

Keep memeing for LISP. Read those Paul Graham masturbatory blog posts. Fiddle around in emacs all you want. The reality is very smart people have tried to make LISP work in the real world, and it just doesnt. There is a reason no serious company runs production systems with LISP

[Anonymous No.9539747]

>>9539733
You're confusing me with the LISP anon.
I don't care about LISP. Read my post you responded to just now again as its own thing because I think you completely misinterpreted it over your rage at that LISPer.

[Anonymous No.9539751]

>>9539728
The google example is hilarious because they memed on python for a while, then ended up writing their own language. So they exhibit the same anti-pattern as everyone else that stubbornly refuses to embrace lisps.

>should we use lisp
>no it's too complicated let's write our own language from scratch
>should we prototype it in lisp first
>NO THAT'S A MEME
kek

[Anonymous No.9539753]

>>9539733
>>9539747
Also how the fuck is that a strawman when I went out of my way to qualify my impression of what you wrote as just what I think you were trying to argue? That's the opposite of a strawman, I was making an honest effort to understand what you were trying to say without assuming I was getting it right.

[Anonymous No.9539778]

>>9537214
>do matlab heavily and C/C++ for coursework and projects
matlab is literally what you give to the mech eng monkeys who think typing more than 5 lines of code is software development.
that being said, Simulink is the shit

[Anonymous No.9539801]

>>9537348
http://moreisdifferent.com/2015/07/16/why-physicsts-still-use-fortran/

[Anonymous No.9540008]

I studied Biomedical Engineering with a focus in computational modeling and we ALWAYS used Matlab in both undergrad and grad at 2 different schools. Yet none of the job postings I look at want Matlab. Should I learn another language? R and Python seem to be requested frequently

[Anonymous No.9540038]

>tfw want to learn python and R
>tfw don't know any lesson plans to learn what I need to know to be ready to actually use it professionally.

What do lads?

[Anonymous No.9540102]

>>9537182
Doubt it bros.
>>9537197
>import numpy as np
>>9538285
ls this what CS students are actually like?
>>9538687
>>9538726
Python is actually easier and more intuitive to use than R for manipulating data, although R basics are faster to learn.

[Anonymous No.9540107]

Scala

[Anonymous No.9540119]

>>9538472
>not mapping and hardcoding the environment as you go along

[Anonymous No.9540125]

>>9538446

[Anonymous No.9540143]

>>9537197
>t. neet
Computer time is cheap, programmer time is expensive.

[Anonymous No.9540271]

>>9540038
Are you already a competent programmer? If so, learn the basics of Python data types and syntax, then choose some smallish projects to implement. When things don't work or you don't know what to do, look it up.

[Anonymous No.9540355]

>>9537197

Can someone honestly disprove >>9540143 's point? I really don't know why people consider Python as 'slow' when it saves so much development time? Sure, it's slow if you want to crunch numbers but for 80% of use cases I just don't understand why would you label it as 'slow'.

It's like saying that a car is slow in traversing 2000km and a plane is faster; sure, the car is slow but you can use it everyday whereas you barely use a plane unless you're traveling really long distances. Different tools for different jobs as they say, I believe.

[Anonymous No.9540395]

>>9540271

Where does one find small projects?

I've literally gone to youtubes watched some lectures on python and did the exercise (converting DNA sequences and stuff to RNA) and other things like that. I didn't learn anything.

[Anonymous No.9540653]

>>9540355
>Can someone honestly disprove >>9540143 's point?
Literally no body can. You have to remember /sci/ is 99% filthy undergrad plebeians, they have no idea what the real world is like.

[Anonymous No.9540834]

>>9540355
>Sure, it's slow if you want to crunch numbers
It's not though. Crappy Python is slow, but the solution to that is to not write crappy Python.
If you're doing large amounts of number crunching there's libraries designed for it rather than handling each element individually.

[Anonymous No.9540874]

>>9538687
Depends on the "scientist". For my work I coded a solver in python that's 9x faster than it was in MATLAB that's already 10x faster than comparable finite element codes. I don't need to manipulate and analyze it til after I solve it. Since I'm already in python I do that in python too, not about to switch to R.

[Anonymous No.9540895]

>>9540355
>Can someone honestly disprove >>9540143 's point?
Computer time isn't "cheaper" than development time because you only develop your application once (in a loose sense, please don't start a nitpick semantics argument about versioning), whereas it will probably run a lot more than once when your consumers actually make use of it. That's kind of the whole point of programming and automation, you put in some work up front and get a reusable tool out of it afterwards instead of not putting in some work up front but having to do tasks manually over and over again.
i.e. It's an investment. Investments aren't immediately profitable, you give up something valuable up front with the expectation you'll reap a greater amount in benefits later.

[Anonymous No.9541152]

>>9540895
I don't think most people on /sci/ are developing for consumers though. Most people here are probably just analyzing their own data.

[Anonymous No.9541155]

>>9541152
Well even then you probably don't want to write a new program every time you have to complete a task, right?

[Anonymous No.9541156]

>>9540874
Honestly it just sounds like you're a shitty MATLAB programmer.

[Anonymous No.9541186]

>>9539482
>all of the legacy bullshit that they can't change because it would cost billions of dollars to the global tech industry.
wut? just keep your -std=c++11 flag or whatever and ignore whatever the ISO commitee comes up with

[Anonymous No.9541191]

>>9537214
>C++ is bad
why are you retarded ?

[Anonymous No.9541359]

>>9537182
matlab?

[Anonymous No.9541370]

Wolfram Language. (also python is a literal meme for brainlets)

[Anonymous No.9541389]

>>9537591
lol wut?
you just compared a calculator to a desktop computer

[Anonymous No.9541398]

>>9537692
underrated

>>9539482
>>9537303
>>9539354
>>9539482
>>9541186
>>9541191
>C++
pic related

[Anonymous No.9541440]

>>9537182
Ocaml
Any other option is retarded.
>>9537303
Steroids cause early heart attack.
>>9537654
(Go (Back (To
(Your (' Containment Board)))))

[Anonymous No.9541531]

>>9541359
numpy, scipy, etc. take care of matlab desu

[Anonymous No.9541815]

>>9540895
I understand that, but the thing is, Python speeds up the development time for minimal tradeoffs allowing to get out their product faster which will help them profit. I don't see why they would sacrifice profits for longer development time when they need to make profits first so that they can sustain their development for software products. Besides, I'm pretty sure that 'translating' an app from Python to C++ or Java even can be done later when significant performance issues that affects their consumers comes up later.

[Anonymous No.9541828]

>>9541815
>I'm pretty sure that 'translating' an app from Python to C++ or Java even can be done later when significant performance issues that affects their consumers comes up later.
Holy shit, I hope you don't work for an actual business.

[Anonymous No.9541896]

>>9537319

[Anonymous No.9541922]

>>9541815
>Python speeds up the development time for minimal tradeoffs allowing to get out their product faster which will help them profit.
which is only a net profit to the company if the program only sees light to moderate use. if it's something you expect to see heavy use, you're better off sinking the time into it from the get-go to write it in a faster language

[Anonymous No.9541925]

>python
please kill yourself

[Anonymous No.9541932]

Haskell is for tr\ue scientists

[Anonymous No.9541940]

>>9541922
>which is only a net profit to the company if the program only sees light to moderate use

Welcome to science and academia. Most of my code that I've ever written will be executed a handful of times, simply because with high-level languages like Python/R/IDL/Matlab, it's usually faster to whip up a new program than to make one that a fit-for-all solution. And that's just the reality in science. Sure, a solution in C/FORTRAN/whatever might be 2 orders of magnitude faster, but what's the point if it takes me several days to implement it, compared to an hour in Python. 95% of ideas land in the bin anyway, so if I can get an answer quick, that'll save me loads of time.

[Anonymous No.9541947]

>>9541940
>Most of my code that I've ever written will be executed a handful of times
You could probably do a little more planning up front and not have to write something new every time you have a task you want to accomplish.

[Anonymous No.9541958]

>just use matlab guys

[Anonymous No.9541959]

>>9541947
Oh, I'd absolutely would love to do that. Most of us would. The fact is, postdoc contracts are usually two years max, and most programming tasks are different enough that manufacturing a general solution is an overkill that most line managers would not be too happy about.

That is a big problem, though, lots of problems could be solved by identifying key tasks for which it's worth to come up with a well-documented solution. But this level of continuity is seldom seen in research groups.

[Anonymous No.9541967]

>>9537214
this thing... yeah this thing is for THIS OTHER SITE!

[Anonymous No.9542030]

>>9537214
/thread

[Anonymous No.9542073]

>>9538264
How do I do analysis in Coq?

[Anonymous No.9542388]

>>9541191
>/v/ is bad
why are you retarded ?

[Anonymous No.9542392]

>>9541932
haskell is basically for literate programming blogs

[Anonymous No.9542424]

>>9541940
There was a reason I said the word "company" and not "laboratory".

[Anonymous No.9542447]

>>9542388
cs majors are too slow to play video games.

[Anonymous No.9542743]

>>9541815
A guy on /g/ was ranting last week because his company prototypes in C++, then translates it to python afterwards.

[Anonymous No.9542756]

>>9542743
I have done this. For a private project, not professional work, but even so.

[Anonymous No.9542821]

>>9542743
>C++
nice
>to Python
wut !?

[Anonymous No.9542894]

Prolog was God's chosen language but homofascists have forced Python into us instead. Quite nice of them though, Python is the least shitty non-Prolog language

[Anonymous No.9543099]

I work in a bank and i despise my job. I wana get into programming. I started learning some basic html/css but what would you recommend i learn first? What is the fastest way i can learn? Keep in mind i work for 10h a day and i cant quit my job because i need the income so i have like 1h free time per day.

[Anonymous No.9545156]

>>9543099
Given your limited schedule, start with a MOOC, because they take care of the questions like "what should I learn first", "what should I do now", "what the fuck is a goddamn compiler", etc..

I would read up on both How to Design Programs and Harvard' CS50, both of which are available on edx.org. They're both excellent introductions to programming.

[Anonymous No.9545811]

>>9542894
Is there a version of Prolog that avoids the dick and balls syntax:- ?

[Anonymous No.9545836]

>>9541389
Brainlet

[Carbon No.9545880]

>>9537182
Julia
/thread

[namefag No.9545888]

>>9545880
You can't "/thread" yourself, pal.

[Anonymous No.9545905]

>>9539354
Only bad code will produce bad code,

Get better habits and produce good code and you will be a happy camper

[Anonymous No.9545912]

>>9537303

I disagree, but I hope C++ will soon be dead and we will use Rust and D instead.

[Anonymous No.9545920]

>>9545880
Not stable enough yet

[Anonymous No.9545929]

>>9545912
>>>/g/ is your containment board

[Anonymous No.9545975]

>>9541398

Jesus I can't stop laughing at that pic

[Anonymous No.9545991]

>>9537182
julia, as fast as python to prototype but close to gcc to run.

>>9537591
>muh packages
the extent of the r faggot argument. it's a shit language that takes forever to do loops.

inb4 muh vectorization or muh lapply
hahahaha, very limited function.

[Anonymous No.9546039]

>>9545991
Limited function? Vectorization is literally just loops using compiled C code instead of the R interpreter. If you're not willing to put in the trivial effort to vectorize to use the most efficient implementation, why are you even programming?

What you're saying is like going to MATLAB and complaining that everything is less efficient if you don't cast everything as matrices and use linear algebra to solve problems.

[Anonymous No.9546244]

>>9545991
Julia gonna be litty when it finally catches on.

[Anonymous No.9546261]

>>9545880
Julia is /ourfuture/

>>9545991
>as fast as python to prototype
>but close to gcc to run.

t. perfection.

[Anonymous No.9546309]

>>9545912
C++ will never die. It just keeps taking features from other languages that seppleskids used to think were "dumb" and "pointless" but now think is the most amazing thing of all time, all the while mocking languages with features C++ still lacks.

There is no group of programmers I have less respect for than C++ fans. Python is the numale version of curmudgeonly C++ grandpas in that way. Java may be a shit language but it isn't like people preach about it. I would actually program in java if I was asked to. I would never touch C++ or python, except approximately two weeks before quitting.

>>9546244
It's never going to catch on, but that won't mean it isn't the best for what it does. In a lot of ways the popularity of a programming language is how well it appeals to corporate drones meant to be swapped in and out like fuses. For reasons which continue to elude me, such popularity is considered a feature of the language.

Pray julia is never popular.

[Anonymous No.9546409]

>>9546309
Is Julia stable yet? I'm really interested but I've heard some shit that puts me off putting it into regular use for my work.k

[Anonymous No.9546452]

>>9546409
no clue I don't require this kind of computing

[Anonymous No.9546472]

>>9546309
>Java may be a shit language but it isn't like people preach about it.
A language being so bad that programmers know better than to even try promoting it isn't exactly a positive.

[Anonymous No.9546477]

Python is the best! Python is #1.

A) It's the easiest turing-complete language to learn.

2) Easyness is good, because you don't want to waste time learning the language.

3) It's used everywear.

4) Everywear is good, because you're going to be expected to learn and use it anyway.

Ruby might be in second.

[Anonymous No.9546483]

>>9546472
We will agree to disagree about that.

[Anonymous No.9546492]

>>9546477
>960 calories in a single snack bag

Americans what the fuck

[Anonymous No.9546495]

>>9546492
you're not meant to eat the whole thing by yourself in one sitting, dumbass

[Anonymous No.9546498]

>>9546495
>implying thats not what 99.99% of the people do

Dude really

[Anonymous No.9546765]

>>9546492
>>9546477
>>9546495
>>9546498

Holy shit I grabbed one of these from a store by my uni, when I was running late the other day. Ate the whole thing. Did not realize it was so calorie dense.

[Anonymous No.9546801]

>>9541398
Nigger, objects are NOT NECESSARY in C++. You can write a fully-functional C program in C++, but you have the option of using objects. Sometimes those are nice to have.

Is this difficult for you to understand?

[Anonymous No.9546828]

>>9546801
>Nigger, objects are NOT NECESSARY in C++
Objects are the only abstraction C++ offers besides functions and enumerations. To say that objects aren't necessary to program in C++ is to say you should just use a different language with better syntax and other abstractions. Believe it or not there are abstractions that aren't OOP which many languages support and which you might have learned about if you weren't such a butthurt sepples fanboy.