PDA

View Full Version : what language looks the 1337357 (leetest) to code in?



jimi_hendrix
January 18th, 2009, 01:13 AM
if you were on your laptop on a train and you just wanted to look like you were doing something important/complex/awesome what language would you use?

Anzan
January 18th, 2009, 01:22 AM
Assembly.

Achetar
January 18th, 2009, 01:34 AM
Definately Assembly. Another good one is C + inline ASM. That confuses them (your boss, whoever) even more because you are writing in multiple languages!

Cracauer
January 18th, 2009, 01:35 AM
Intercal.

Nothing beats "COME FROM" for l33t factor.

steveneddy
January 18th, 2009, 01:37 AM
Wouldn't it be easier to do something

important/complex/awesome ??

loganwm
January 18th, 2009, 01:47 AM
Code in Opcodes with a hex editor. haha :)

kavon89
January 18th, 2009, 01:47 AM
asm, maybe c

maximinus_uk
January 18th, 2009, 01:50 AM
Assembly doesn't look that 1337, when I used to code it just looked like 4 columns going down the screen (labels, instructions, operands and comments).

A complex lisp function though - that really looks like funky alien code!

jimi_hendrix
January 18th, 2009, 02:23 AM
Assembly doesn't look that 1337, when I used to code it just looked like 4 columns going down the screen (labels, instructions, operands and comments).

agreed


A complex lisp function though - that really looks like funky alien code!
to me lisp feels like its for higher beings (the look i mean)

Joeb454
January 18th, 2009, 02:30 AM
I'm gonna throw binary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_code_%28computing%29) and bf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain****#Hello_World.21) out there ;)

namegame
January 18th, 2009, 02:39 AM
I've been at school programming before and people have asked me, "What kind of paper are you writing?" That was Java/C/C++.

If I knew other programmers were around I'd probably use Lisp/Scheme.

:P

jimi_hendrix
January 18th, 2009, 02:44 AM
imo...if you are good with ASM or scheme you are legit

happysmileman
January 18th, 2009, 02:45 AM
I imagine all of it would look complex/important/awesome to the casual observer.

Of course I imagine the less letters and numbers you use the more complex it looks, so doing C/C++ using pointers and references everywhere (with single letter variable names)

namegame
January 18th, 2009, 02:55 AM
(with single letter variable names)

I think I would shoot myself if it was a project of any substance. :P

jimi_hendrix
January 18th, 2009, 03:12 AM
I imagine all of it would look complex/important/awesome to the casual observer.

Of course I imagine the less letters and numbers you use the more complex it looks, so doing C/C++ using pointers and references everywhere (with single letter variable names)

right but the average person could understand COBOL...its self documenting


I think I would shoot myself if it was a project of any substance. :P

in my first programming book (C# was the langauge)the author made a note about good naming about how he had to do a project in a language that only supported 2 letter variable names and he messed up used the same variable twice and didnt catch it...

slavik
January 18th, 2009, 03:33 AM
perl with the cyrilic character set :D

jimi_hendrix
January 18th, 2009, 03:35 AM
that sounds awesome

lakersforce
January 18th, 2009, 03:36 AM
Ruby

Rhubarb
January 18th, 2009, 03:37 AM
The leetest language would have to be LOLCODE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOLCODE

There's also LOLPython too:
http://www.dalkescientific.com/writings/diary/archive/2007/06/01/lolpython.html

Or perhaps Chef (code that looks like some ingredients and a method to prepare / cook your meal):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chef_(programming_language)

Or you could program with the GIMP to make bitmaps:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piet

Or you could program using only whitespace characters (like tab, space, newline):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitespace_(programming_language)

slavik
January 18th, 2009, 03:41 AM
hmm, brain**** :)

lakersforce
January 18th, 2009, 03:43 AM
hmm, brain**** :)

oh yeah. I forgot Brain****!

Alasdair
January 18th, 2009, 03:43 AM
Surely the l33t programming language (http://www.geocities.com/electrodruiduk/l33t.htm) is the l33test? :P

Rhubarb
January 18th, 2009, 04:00 AM
Surely the l33t programming language (http://www.geocities.com/electrodruiduk/l33t.htm) is the l33test? :P
Yeah, that is indeed pretty 1337 :P

pp.
January 18th, 2009, 11:12 AM
APL, or sewing patterns

nvteighen
January 18th, 2009, 02:45 PM
imo...if you are good with ASM or scheme you are legit

+1 for Lisp. The "uninitiated" has to somehow see that you're not just writing incoherent stuff, but something potentially comprehensible that you understand but the "uninitiated" not. Cryptic, but not senseless. Lisp looks great for that, IMO.


perl with the cyrilic character set :D

Well, I guess Perl with Latin script is enough to give an "unitiated" (and also some programmers) a surprise ;)

jimi_hendrix
January 18th, 2009, 02:54 PM
actually i think theres a BASIC dialect in chinese...

Murrquan
January 18th, 2009, 03:03 PM
I'm told that Perl looks sort of like cartoon characters swearing. Maybe if you got an IDE that looked like a fill-in-the-blanks Garfield comic?

Not 1337 per se, but could certainly cause double-takes!

HavocXphere
January 18th, 2009, 03:03 PM
+1 for LISP. A dozen brackets per line, cryptic keywords and loads of tree structures.

wmcbrine
January 18th, 2009, 03:34 PM
Mumps.

Sorivenul
January 18th, 2009, 04:03 PM
Looks? Piet (http://www.dangermouse.net/esoteric/piet.html).

Cracauer
January 18th, 2009, 04:24 PM
+1 for LISP. A dozen brackets per line, cryptic keywords and loads of tree structures.

Just always have a window with the results of a couple (macroexpand-1 ...)s open. The dirt that gets washed up from libraries and the implementation adds some nice flavor.

And as people said above, this is better than line noise looking languages like perl and APL. Perl and APL might be incomprehensible to other programmers but for the non-programmer they look like Michelangelo working on a bunch of first-sized rocks he found on the beach.

monkeyking
January 18th, 2009, 04:36 PM
If you just want a break while your computer looks serious,
I can recommend cappuccino

sudo apt-get install cappuccino
cappuccino

jimi_hendrix
January 18th, 2009, 05:15 PM
Just always have a window with the results of a couple (macroexpand-1 ...)s open. The dirt that gets washed up from libraries and the implementation adds some nice flavor.
in CL or Scheme?

If you just want a break while your computer looks serious,
I can recommend cappuccino

sudo apt-get install cappuccino
cappuccino

what does cappuccino do (my ubuntu doesnt have internet so no repos :()

Reiger
January 18th, 2009, 06:31 PM
Haskell tends to work to that effect, much like Lisp in this regard because people can more or less understand there's some sense behind a bunch of cryptic words -- but they often can't fathom the idea of programming as chaining together a bunch of subroutines only ever defining how the outcome should look like, but not how it should actually be computed.

For that matter all functional programming languages which are used with a 'minimalist' approach to imperative syntactic sugar will work this way; even people who consider themselves a pretty good programmer can be 'fooled' like this, simply by the fact that once you no longer define _how_ something must be computed a certain 'aura' of 'hand-wavy' magic _seems_ to be emited from the result.

Gotta love it when you type something like this into the GHCi:


:t mapM


Or this:


:t map $ foldl (.) id


Or if you get an error message... ;)

EDIT: Also, I don't think that the chef/1337/brain****/Ook!/befunged 'type' languages really do come accross as you doing something important. I suspect "you being silly", or "you showing off conspicuously" or "intelectual game of no wider siginificance whatsoever" will be closer to the thoughts these languages would inspire. I think it would seem plain obvious (by the very look of the languages, as they do go out of their way to be non-practical or emulate/mock certain real-world styles) that these languages are not intended for serious programming; hence, to a slightly experienced programmer it's yet-another-want-to-be-difficult-imperative-language, to the non-programmer it will look like this cannot possibly be a proper language (I don't think the notion of turing-completeness matters much to him/her either).

jimi_hendrix
January 18th, 2009, 06:57 PM
agreed with the edit....

FORTRAN or COBOL might look like your doing something serious if you are actually still hacking either of them

Cracauer
January 18th, 2009, 07:26 PM
in CL or Scheme?


Scheme isn't fun for this. What you want to see in the macroexpansions is 20 years of maintanance of the loop macro that made symbol names so byzantine they look like a programming language by themselves.

jimi_hendrix
January 18th, 2009, 07:41 PM
Scheme isn't fun for this. What you want to see in the macroexpansions is 20 years of maintanance of the loop macro that made symbol names so byzantine they look like a programming language by themselves.

example of output (and commmand)

mdurham
January 18th, 2009, 10:59 PM
if you were on your laptop on a train and you just wanted to look like you were doing something important/complex/awesome what language would you use?
Chinese.

snova
January 18th, 2009, 11:12 PM
Python. Any other language and I'd have to start something from scratch, and what good is a blank file? :)

Besides, most people wouldn't understand it regardless of language...


what does cappuccino do (my ubuntu doesnt have internet so no repos :()


Package: cappuccino
State: not installed
Version: 0.5.1-2ubuntu2
Priority: optional
Section: universe/games
Maintainer: Ubuntu MOTU Developers <ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com>
Uncompressed Size: 414k
Depends: python, python-gtk2, polygen
Description: an utility to let your boss think that you're working hard
Run this software on your computer when you are not motivated to work, and enjoy doing something different. If your boss come in your
cubicle, he'll think "Yeah, he's doing something different since his computer is really busy - He's doing something really important".

CptPicard
January 18th, 2009, 11:13 PM
Yep, SLIME and Lisp are my vote too... like in the interview screenshot (http://kmandla.wordpress.com/2008/05/24/an-interview-with-cptpicard/).

And you asm guys, take note that you can disassemble a lisp function just fine for that added assembly flavour...

C0pac3t1c
January 19th, 2009, 12:28 AM
LISP, COBOL, HASKELL, SMALLTALK...out of all I think Fortron leaves me numb. Just reading a few lines makes my head hurts a little because I cant cram a few lines in my head like i do other languages I reasearch on.

jimi_hendrix
January 19th, 2009, 12:31 AM
hehe...anyone got a free smalltalk compiler taht works on windows and linux?

jimi_hendrix
January 19th, 2009, 02:43 AM
actually forth looks pretty 1337 intense...

hyperyoda
January 19th, 2009, 02:51 AM
ANSI Common Lisp ftw!

jimi_hendrix
January 19th, 2009, 02:54 AM
btw whats forth good for </ot>

Reiger
January 19th, 2009, 03:11 AM
<ot>For embedded systems, and programs which for some reason must reside on a system unable to support a fully functioning OS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forth_(programming_language)</ot>

myrtle1908
January 19th, 2009, 03:43 AM
How about Joy ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joy_(programming_language)

"One of the most appealing aspects of Joy is this: the meaning function is a homomorphism from the syntactic monoid onto the semantic monoid. That is, the syntactic relation of concatenation of symbols maps directly onto the semantic relation of composition of functions."

Homomorphism? Monoid? Pullease! I hate academics.

Quicksort in Joy ...


DEFINE qsort ==
[small]
[]
[uncons [>] split]
[[swap] dip cons concat]
binrec .

Sorivenul
January 19th, 2009, 03:53 AM
How about Joy ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joy_(programming_language)
Very nice. I'd forgotten about Joy. Your link is missing the end parenthesis, though.

Reiger
January 19th, 2009, 03:54 AM
That's pretty much: What You See In The Code Is How/What (It) Is Computed.

So there can be no question of operator precendence; consider:


if(0 > 3 - 4) {
echo "'>' has lower priority (precendence) than '-' has, therefore the statement is equivalent to '0 > (3-4)'.";
}
else {
echo "The statement is equivalent to '(0 > 3) - 4' due to the the fact that function application/concatenation is defined left-to-right. At least in 'common' Math-speak.";
}

pp.
January 19th, 2009, 07:47 AM
hehe...anyone got a free smalltalk compiler taht works on windows and linux?

Squeak

spupy
January 19th, 2009, 09:00 AM
On Project Euler I saw two languages I couldn't understand - J and K.

jrusso2
January 19th, 2009, 09:03 AM
Squeek, Haskell or Small Talk.

red_Marvin
January 19th, 2009, 06:48 PM
I have to +1 for APL, with the original font and the special keyboard.
Editing forth files with ed would be ok too.

CptPicard
January 19th, 2009, 06:56 PM
"One of the most appealing aspects of Joy is this: the meaning function is a homomorphism from the syntactic monoid onto the semantic monoid. That is, the syntactic relation of concatenation of symbols maps directly onto the semantic relation of composition of functions."

+1, well put. I wish the bit-twiddlers understood how good that is, too.

nvteighen
January 19th, 2009, 07:36 PM
actually forth looks pretty 1337 intense...

+1 :d

jimi_hendrix
January 19th, 2009, 08:11 PM
Squeak

seems somewhat kiddie...or did i find the wrong thing

pp.
January 20th, 2009, 12:01 AM
seems somewhat kiddie...or did i find the wrong thing

It's a full blown Smalltalk IDE, and a cery credible Smalltalk-80 clone, although it has some UIs which are for kiddies.

http://www.squeak.org/

Though there's a package in the Ubuntu repos.

Cracauer
January 20th, 2009, 12:09 AM
It's a full blown Smalltalk IDE, and a cery credible Smalltalk-80 clone[...]


Really? Is there any hope to run old PARCplace Smalltalk code on there?

pp.
January 20th, 2009, 12:19 AM
Really? Is there any hope to run old PARCplace Smalltalk code on there?

Don't know; sorry. It's worth trying, though.

There's also GNU Smalltalk which is said to be Smalltalk-80, runnable from the command line.

Cracauer
January 20th, 2009, 03:34 AM
Don't know; sorry. It's worth trying, though.

There's also GNU Smalltalk which is said to be Smalltalk-80, runnable from the command line.

I tried GNU Smalltalk back in the day (gosh, ages) but the stuff I did had some GUI elements. ParcPlace's Smalltalk that you could buy for SunOS 4 did not support the commandline as such.

pp.
January 20th, 2009, 09:06 PM
I tried GNU Smalltalk back in the day (gosh, ages) but the stuff I did had some GUI elements. ParcPlace's Smalltalk that you could buy for SunOS 4 did not support the commandline as such.

I haven't done either of those, but a few others supported in Windows and DOS. I seem to recall that each of them supported a headless mode as well. Not that I actually used Smalltalk that way, ever.

maximinus_uk
January 21st, 2009, 02:27 PM
Many years ago a friend came round to my house whilst I was in the middle of a coding session. On my screen was a fairly complicated C routine for 3d texture mapping (this was way back in 1995).

My friend showed an interest in the code, and as he was a gamer, I quickly simplified what I was doing. "I'm writing a game", I said, "It's a 3D game, and these are the instructions the computer has to follow to run the game".

"Wow!", he said, glancing particularly hard at one routine that handled 3d textures being partly off-screen. "I never knew it was so easy!"

Of course his eyes were fixed upon the commments: "// If offscreen, only draw what we can see", "// Don't draw the back of the picture", "// Don't draw if we can't see it". "Just like English, then, ain't it!"

I don't think he was ever convinced afterwards that coding was at all difficult :mad: