The Nineteenth Byte

9:45 PM

@flawr well, right now its nonfunctional

@EᴀsᴛᴇʀʟʏIʀᴋ kek

Sure.

bad dum tszzz

LockOpeners

heh

@flawr That's not really a golfing language

@flawr J is concise but it isn't a golfing language

flawr

9:45 PM

So concise != golfing?

@AlexA. serious answer pls

@flawr Golfing => concise but it doesn't go both ways

LockOpeners

concatenative or bust

@quartata Seriously

@AlexA. no pls

You.. haven't actually decided yet have you

9:47 PM

Anybody know how to run Shoes? codegolf.stackexchange.com/a/77522/44713

@CoolestVeto yes

@CoolestVeto yes

you put them on

@CoolestVeto you wear them

ninja'd

then move one leg forward

then you move the other

9:47 PM

wow

I.. actually have Shoes though

@quartata Array maybe kinda functional

Actually you can just do ./shoes

LockOpeners

@QPaysTaxes Concatenative doesn't necessitate RPN

@CoolestVeto thx

9:48 PM

@AlexA. So it'll be like APL

@quartata I don't

I'm a goat

hai i am cat

@quartata more or less

@AlexA. have fun parsing it

@EᴀsᴛᴇʀʟʏIʀᴋ do cat's wear shoes?

9:48 PM

hooks and forks are parsing hell just ask @Dennis

@quartata That'll be the easy part

> cat<b>'</b>s

@AlexA. no it won't

@Downgoat yeah, they have natural fur shoes

@quartata Yeah, it's not that hard

9:49 PM

@QPaysTaxes I officially give up

I already have a mostly-functional parser

@quartata They're not that bad if you don't care about efficiency.

@EᴀsᴛᴇʀʟʏIʀᴋ but they don't wear them

@Dennis Well, I guess I kinda assumed he wanted to make a good parser

@QPaysTaxes magic

9:50 PM

@quartata My parser doesn't handle the different type of chains. That's probably why it's not efficient...

@Downgoat true

@Dennis I don't know how to parse hooks/forks :|

Do you have a good algorithm?

I don't even have a ~~good~~ not crappy parser for FOG.

@Dennis Why does it not? I presumed you'd parse hooks into some sort of AST like fg -> g--->(f---->x),x

I have pretty much ignored the advice CR gave when I posted the source.

9:51 PM

Then it would be pretty easy to traverse

prefix is easy af to parse

@quartata I don't even know what an AST is.

@QPaysTaxes weird apl stuff

@QPaysTaxes J things

@Maltysen Nope, not APL

@Maltysen is stack based and postfix.

9:52 PM

APL only has atops

@Dennis the best way to write a language

@QPaysTaxes Witchcraft and hooliganism.

@EᴀsᴛᴇʀʟʏIʀᴋ That's... even easier to parse

Abstract syntax tree

In computer science, an abstract syntax tree (AST), or just syntax tree, is a tree representation of the abstract syntactic structure of source code written in a programming language. Each node of the tree denotes a construct occurring in the source code. The syntax is "abstract" in not representing every detail appearing in the real syntax. For instance, grouping parentheses are implicit in the tree structure, and a syntactic construct like an if-condition-then expression may be denoted by means of a single node with three branches. This distinguishes abstract syntax trees from concrete syntax...

@quartata good

9:53 PM

@EᴀsᴛᴇʀʟʏIʀᴋ I mean... it's literally just a switch case

^

well, will create parser later when I have time.

I don't think it even qualifies as a "parser"

XD

I mean, it sorta does.

9:53 PM

brb bai

But it's so fundamentally simple that I wouldn't think about it in terms of one

but AST's are actually the best

Ease of parsing, ranked from easiest to hardest: postfix, prefix, infix

@quartata This is how I parse chains. That's done at run time, not during parsing.

@Dennis my eyes

Actually it's not that bad

9:55 PM

@CᴏɴᴏʀO'Bʀɪᴇɴ I don't. See above.

But I think it would be much easier for you to have that done at parse time

oh

aditsu

"it also produces its own force field which prevents it from going through the ground" -> I heard that one of the first physicists who figured out that matter is mostly empty space had a hard time getting out of bed the next morning for fear of falling through the floor

You can essentially translate Jelly into a sort of prefix language

@quartata I doubt it would be easier, but it would most definitely be more efficient.

9:55 PM

@aditsu hahahahahahahahahaha

@aditsu rofl