00:50:44 -!- SamB has joined. 01:23:50 -!- gilbertdeb has joined. 01:24:11 hello 01:27:55 hi 01:28:16 rebol?> 01:28:31 is it esoteric? 01:28:53 It doesn't aim to be esoteric, AFAIK. 01:29:22 does anyone here play with it? 01:29:30 I couldn't think of any other chanels. 01:29:48 ... except for pldi. 01:32:27 rebol is not esoteric at all. 01:32:44 Just obscure and weird :) 01:32:56 Hmm... Thin line, if you ask me ;) 01:33:16 I guess intent is important 01:33:38 rebol is obscure and weird despite the author's wishes 01:34:38 Hmm... So there's no such thing as an unintentionally esoteric language? 01:34:54 I guess I have a more inclusive interpretation of 'esoteric' than you 01:35:17 Taaus: well, perhaps the author is a madman 01:35:23 Taaus: Which seems to be fairly common 01:35:31 I was just about to say that. Heh. 01:35:41 I guess a language constructed by a madman would be esoteric. Perhaps rebol can qualify for that. 01:35:52 s/would/could 01:36:04 the author once(?) wrote a forth. 01:36:52 i don't think that's sufficient :) 01:36:58 rebol qualifies then by reputation? 01:36:59 it has to! 01:37:12 Forth is fairly esoteric, though 01:37:29 you don't say :D 01:37:45 htrofroloc even more so. 01:37:48 yeah, I'd say there are different levels of esotericity 01:38:14 deltab: ranging from merely broken to transcendentally weird? :) 01:38:20 yes 01:39:14 Who decides if a language is esoteric, though? 01:39:32 Oh, well, that is obvious. 01:39:34 I do. :) 01:41:04 Esotericity is fuzzy. 01:41:11 are j/k esoteric enough? 01:41:19 And probably NP-complete as well ;) 01:41:28 j/k? 01:41:40 jsoftware.com kx.com 01:41:41 J and K. 01:41:53 I wonder if a useable language can be considered esoteric. 01:42:05 they are useable by their authors for sure. 01:42:06 Something like Haskell 01:42:07 They are pretty esoteric, I guess... But they do have a lot of usability. 01:42:35 hm 01:42:41 I've used J. It is... Interesting :) 01:42:45 Some languages are esoteric because they're intentionally obfuscated 01:42:59 But it never occured to me to label J as esoteric. 01:43:09 I'd call J esoteric 01:43:12 Others are esoteric because they use wacky concepts 01:43:27 Does J use wacky concepts? :) 01:43:27 So I guess APL is esoteric as well? 01:43:40 Taaus: what did you use j for? 01:44:27 gilbertdeb: Oh, just small things... Messing around with various mathematical calculations with matrices and whatnot... I gave up trying to use it for anything big. 01:44:48 I tried to mess around with it too. 01:44:59 but my skills in matrices were severely lacking. 01:45:24 matrices seem to be such an ugly thing to base a language on. 01:45:34 lament: it is based on arrays. 01:45:45 so you can do something like 2 + [arraylist] 01:46:21 and because of that you don't have to explicitly write many loops. 01:46:21 you could get away with just one in a major application. 01:47:05 arrays are tremendously ugly as well :) 01:47:31 which is why k, inspired by apl, bases its stuff on lists. 01:47:40 lament: therefore j/apl qualify!! 01:47:58 why? 01:48:09 I liked the / (over) and \ (prefix) modifiers... But I couldn't get used to referring to them as 'adjectives'... Actually none of the 'grammatical' nomenclature really clicked with me... 01:48:09 Tremendous ugliness doesn't make a language esoteric. 01:48:14 C++ is not esoteric. 01:48:15 it doesn't? 01:48:20 hmmm. 01:48:28 Although Perl almost is. 01:48:50 Taaus: the uglier it is, the more english like they claim it actually is. 01:48:51 I disagree... Perl is way too widely used to be called esoteric, IMO. 01:49:05 heh! 01:49:20 Taaus: maybe thats why he said almost 01:50:09 Perl is one of the languages where obfuscation comes naturally 01:50:28 SamB: Well, yes... But there's a difference of at least a few orders of magnitude between the number of Perl users and the number of users of esolangs... And I wouldn't call that 'almost' :) 01:50:53 Taaus: but they don't even suspect it's an esoteric language! 01:51:04 Hehe. 01:51:08 yeah, it creeps up on you from behind and grabs you 01:51:10 Many are called, few are chosen 01:51:43 Many people who are into Scientology don't suspect how fucked up it is, either 01:52:10 heh 01:52:13 And Perl is written by a madman :) 01:52:43 does everyone know about it but scientologists? 01:53:01 Probably. 01:53:08 lament: Designed by a madman, written by several madmen, I'd say ;) 01:53:35 Taaus: Well, now it's being designed by the collective insanity of the whole world :) 01:54:11 Taaus: scientology... I think scientology only had *on* madman... 01:55:31 Sure.. I'm still talking about Perl :) 01:56:21 Suppose I make a language based on some wacky concept, with no intention of it being actually used 01:56:27 And then it turns out to be the next big thing 01:56:32 Will it be esoteric? 01:57:08 I'd say no. 01:57:11 no 01:57:33 damn 01:57:39 then i won't do it :) 01:57:57 does esotericity require a small user base? 01:58:00 I'm not sure whether I should be relieved or disappointed ;) 01:58:48 gilbertdeb: Depends on what you think of as 'user' 01:59:05 gilbertdeb: what happened to bsd? 01:59:09 the human writers/thinkers/speakers. 01:59:14 oh 'tis a sad story. 01:59:28 the installer wouldn't boot on this machine :( 01:59:33 and debian seduced me. 01:59:42 I've written 'hello world' in smalltalk; am i a smalltalk user? 02:00:06 lament: I've said 'hello' in japanese, am I a speaker of japanese? 02:00:08 lament: not really 02:00:14 gilbertdeb: i'm asking you :) 02:00:30 gilbertdeb: because your definition of 'user' sucks 02:00:39 you haven't done anything you couldn't have more easily done in another language 02:00:49 it is not sucky, it just allows a lot of fluff in. 02:00:51 (with the smalltalk one, that is) 02:00:54 My mother is a human writer/thinker/speaker 02:01:04 She never heard of smalltalk, but she would be a smalltalk user by your definition. 02:01:10 it's fuzzy 02:01:30 user of language X. 02:01:33 X being anything. 02:01:43 any programming language that is. 03:47:37 -!- lament has quit (Remote closed the connection). 05:39:41 -!- lament has joined. 07:59:59 -!- clog has quit (ended). 08:00:00 -!- clog has joined. 09:03:03 -!- lament has quit ("Well shirigim duraham da..."). 13:28:28 -!- Aardappel has joined. 16:23:41 -!- Aardappel has quit (Connection timed out). 18:56:57 -!- lament has joined. 20:02:19 -!- Aardappel has joined. 20:12:10 -!- lament has changed nick to Aardappl. 20:12:14 -!- Aardappl has changed nick to lament.