OCaml thread

Which type of interrupt

do you even know what an interrupt routine is? you little faggot

...

I am talking about Holy C, not haskellshit

You know that there are multiple types of interrupts right? Or did they not teach you that in pajeet code academy.

Attached: terry-gif.gif (200x234, 2.85M)

Sad!

OCaml was rendered obsolete by Rust

...

You technically can, it's just unreasonably convoluted compared to any other programming language.

As far as I remember it looked nice on paper:
But where is it typically used? Is the community as small as the other one with a camel, Perl? I remember Perl being used for everything (and scripts being printed in magazines) - then I didn't touch computers in a serious way for some years and it seems to have vanished. Also everyone seems to hate its current version.

Attached: 1512603458001.png (200x200, 6.33K)

Rust double linked List: doc.rust-lang.org/src/alloc/linked_list.rs.html
1660 LOC with comments
C++ doubly linked List: llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/libcxx/trunk/include/list
2421 LOC without comments

Your Rust example uses unsafe all over the place.

Common LISP
Common LISP
D
Why is this useful again? Serious question.
Common LISP and D
Of course, nobody really uses Ocaml, D, or CL so maybe people don't like this sort of thing?

At INRIA in France.

...

You know the C++ option does a billion more things right?

Reading these gives me hope that one day APL/J/K/Q will make a come back.

If you want a simple definition you can have one:

struct node
{
int data;
node *next;
};

class linked_list
{
private:
node *head,*tail;
public:
linked_list()
{
head = NULL;
tail = NULL;
}

void add_node(int n)
{
node *tmp = new node;
tmp->data = n;
tmp->next = NULL;

if(head == NULL)
{
head = tmp;
tail = tmp;
}
else
{
tail->next = tmp;
tail = tail->next;
}
}
};

It just means that your linked list will be missing all the optimizations, and extra operations you might want to do.

obv you are going to want more things like delete node, a system for iterating, etc.

...

I'd rather get an error I can correct myself when I'm trying to put the wrong type into something, rather than getting something out automatically, the type of which I may not expect. You might disagree for various reasons though.
I wouldn't know. Sounds fine to me, but those seem to be less important than other factors. Companies use legacy Matlab code and there's maniacs writing backends in Javascript as you read. Also there is a Haskell windomanager, iirc.

private: node *head,*tail;
Spotted your problem.
You obviously need a couple of getter/setter functions here.

Which was what that comment was pointing out

lol I was messing with ya kid.

...

wew

Rusts type system is just shitty and weak.

You're a fucking moron

Attached: man with down syndrome commits suicide.jpg (1500x1093, 338.21K)

Its better than Java's, not a high bar. A type system that can't verify a list data type though is weak bullshit. BTW "weak" here means not powerful, not "weakly" typed like C.

I'd like you to point out which post you think I was pretending in. Because I'm pretty sure you have no idea.

Common Lisp has dynamic typing, which just means that type errors will bite you in the ass when it hurts the most, rather than sorting that shit out at compile time. There are type optional annotations, but those just remove type checking entirely in the name of speed, that's even worse.

None of them.

Type safety isn't memory safety. Unsafe rust is guaranteed type safe, but not guaranteed memory safe.

0/10 apply yourself

Nope, but a smart type system can ensure memory safety.

Well that's nice and all

And if the type system was not utter shit you could ensure a list was memory safe.

you have no idea what you're talking about. kys

Yea, i'm sure you know all about type systems. You are a smart one. Rust is the absolute limit of engineering and mathematics. Deciding that a list is type and memory safe is something that computer languages just cannot do. No other languages can do that.

like what?

Like plugging in a custom allocator just for that instance of the data type at runtime.

Alright just add a allocator field of type alloc::allocator::Alloc to the LinkedList struct and then instead of using Box::new to allocate nodes use the alloc_one function of the allocator. This should add only a few lines of code.
What else justifies the unreasonably convoluted C++ version?

Look these things add up. The CPP version has sort, merge, reverse, etc. Not to mention tons of extra definition info to make tracing the operation of the STL library based on compile options. The CPP version is also more optimized and has multiple ways to copy data around. Sometimes you want copies, sometimes you want references (not pointers), sometimes you want to do a memory swap, all for different cases.

bump