Sandbox posts last active a week ago: Fibonacci word fractal, Longest N-Sum Sub-Array

Well the jokes on you

because Domino's has launched a burger-style pizza range

Get gamed on nerd :p

Hmm, should we turn this into a challenge? Golf an unstoppable virus?

ugh, I forgot I had postponed Windows updates for a week, a week ago

@lyxal Of all of the cheeses to use on a pizza, American plastic burger cheese has to be the worst choice

You might as well just use cling film melted with a hairdryer

Gotta keep the taste authentic tho 😎

@lyxal

i just converted "never gonna give you up" to midi

and imported it into jummbox

im exporting it

oo jummbox

i wish itd run in my browser y_y i have to use ultravanilla beepbox

@thejonymyster yeah that got updated a lot since i last saw it

CMP: assuming that, for some reason, vectorizing is off the table; is it reasonable for arithmetic performed on a list to coerce the list into a number by its length?

I'd do what Ash did and use its sum

Adding a sum is a very common operation

Adding a length, not so much

@lyxal here it is

can y'all understand the words lol

i should upload the full version to youtube lol

→ 27 messages moved to Off-Topic TNB

@NoHaxJustRadvylf ah yeah, good point

ty

So...Go and OCI consider Wasm to be its own architecture, just like amd64 or ARM. Makes sense. But, since they also both specify an OS, JavaScript is now considered an OS.

We've finally done it. [something].js is now an operating system :p

@NoHaxJustRadvylf Bit behind schedule, smh :P

There are a lot of XKCDs structured that way, aren't there--a timeline of something, extended into the future with increasingly silly [citation needed] predictions.

i just had the best idea for the worst language ever: XMLang

pastebin.com/g0Tz1Yr2

@Seggan AHHHHHHHH

@Seggan i really hope division is "div"

@DLosc [[Category:Timelines]](explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/Category:Timelines)

@Seggan Hmm... what about

oh i didnt know it didnt like nested brackets oops

<expression arity="2" operator="*">
    <operand>
        <variable>num</variable>
    </operand>
    <operand>
        <call function="factorial">
            <argument>
                <expression arity="2" operator="-">
                    <operand>
                        <variable>num</variable>
                    </operand>
                    <operand>
                        <number>1</number>
                    </operand>
                </expression>
            </argument>
        </call>

heart eyes ^

no

@Seggan this is hilarious

@DLosc a terrible idea executed to perfection, as djikstra would say, haha

it's almost like a lisp

@AviFS D:

@DLosc that's a bad thing?

i mean it's like a lisp, but worse, right :p

Sounded like you were saying Lisp is a terrible idea executed to perfection. I was objecting to the implication Lisp = terrible. (Says the guy who probably wouldn't want to write a practical program in any Lisp dialect, so maybe you've got a point...)

@DLosc haha, no they were two separate thoughts. i loved your take on the xml thing, but i'm saying it's a horrendous idea to begin with :p

independently, it feels lispy

in case anyone was wondering, here's what it looks like as a lisp:

(expr 2 *
    (op (var num))
    (op (call factorial (arg
                (expr 2 -
                    (op (var num))
                    (op (const 1))
                )))
    )
)

Here it is without changing the indentation structure: Github Gist

Ah, I see. Yeah, it does make some sense to compare it to Lisp, since both of them are rather transparent syntaxes for representing abstract syntax trees.

@DLosc My thought exactly! And since Lispified this ends up more verbose than any Lisp I know, the "best" way to make this XML lang is prob just to change the syntax of Scheme, haha

Assuming you wanted efficiency, which is prob not an esolanger's idea of a good time anyway

Honestly, has anyone else wondered about HTML being written with Lispier syntax? Those closing tags always seem like such a waste!

And it's a one-to-one mapping. I just don't understand XML.

@AviFS I really like that idea, actually

I hate XML, but haven't been able to think of anything better than significant whitespace to replace it with

@NoHaxJustRadvylf Ooh wait, really? I actually did an exercise where I re-wrote a simple webpage with as many different equiv syntaxes as I could think of.

Trying to find it!

There was also a bracket-based one.

@AviFS HyperText Markup Lisp

yes

please

Honestly, something like this might be rather trivial to implement in a Lisp flavor like Racket, which prides itself on easy creation of domain-specific sublanguages.

the future of html?

I dunno. I played around with it a bit, and the main problem I can see is that you can't easily tell by looking at a closing paren what function (tag, in this case) it's closing. Which can be a problem with programming languages, too; I've seen code where } is followed by a comment indicating which loop it's the end of.

Yes, having to type the tag name twice is a pain, but it makes the code (markup) more readable later.

What if there was an optional syntax where you could do something like (bold ... :bold)?

Like some sort of optional prefix that would only be syntactically valid if it matched the opening tag

Could work. QBasic has something like that with for loops: you can close a FOR i loop with either NEXT or NEXT i (and as far as I've seen, everyone uses NEXT i except in code golf)

ooh

that's actually pretty smart

even makes it easier to read out loud

Yep

clever

@DLosc I actually really like that, it also makes it convenient to do continues at any level without that weird label syntax

While I was experimenting with Lisp HTML syntax using the login page of the site I'm working on as an example, I discovered and fixed a syntax error in the page. Who says TNB keeps you from getting actual work done? :P

@NoHaxJustRadvylf Hm, interesting! But it only works with for loops, sadly. (Also, I don't think QBasic supports this.)

OTOH, in QBasic you can just use GOTO if you need the equivalent of continue, so... ;P

LYAL?

not yet