2011-06-22.txt:20:31:06: <oerjan> !perl print q doesthiswork?  ;
2013-02-18.txt:01:52:56: -!- doesthiswork has joined #esoteric.
2013-02-18.txt:01:53:56: <doesthiswork> bike: which version of sapir-worf/
2013-02-18.txt:01:54:07: <elliott> `WELCOME doesthiswork
2013-02-18.txt:01:54:09: <HackEgo> DOESTHISWORK: WELCOME TO THE INTERNATIONAL HUB FOR ESOTERIC PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE DESIGN AND DEPLOYMENT! FOR MORE INFORMATION, CHECK OUT OUR WIKI: HTTP://ESOLANGS.ORG/WIKI/MAIN_PAGE. (FOR THE OTHER KIND OF ESOTERICA, TRY #ESOTERIC ON IRC.DAL.NET.)
2013-02-18.txt:01:57:09: <Bike> doesthiswork: the dumb version
2013-02-18.txt:02:10:07: <doesthiswork> does anybody know where i can find the picture? wayback machine didn't have it
2013-02-18.txt:02:12:38: <doesthiswork> thank you, the gerrafs / long horses were hilarious but I was still curious about the picture.
2013-02-18.txt:02:14:44: <doesthiswork> it is
2013-02-18.txt:02:15:44: <doesthiswork> I no longer am, I may have used aspect incorrectly, I was trying to say that I was curious until ion satisfied the curiosity.
2013-02-18.txt:02:17:33: <doesthiswork> have you people ever heard the linguistic illusion "no head injury is too trivial to be ignored" ?
2013-02-18.txt:02:19:33: <doesthiswork> what it literally says is exactly the opposite of what everyone agrees it must mean.
2013-02-18.txt:02:20:43: <doesthiswork> that is the commonly agreed upon meaning
2013-02-18.txt:02:20:50: <doesthiswork> what it literally says is the the smaller a head injury gets the the harder it gets to ignore. 
2013-02-18.txt:02:21:10: <doesthiswork> But we can ignore all of them if we try
2013-02-18.txt:02:23:16: <doesthiswork> The relevance of this linguistic illusion to programming languages is that you can often detect where someone has made a mistake by the presence of tautologies in the code
2013-02-18.txt:03:00:50: <doesthiswork> that is a logical conclusion to come to
2013-02-18.txt:03:05:08: <doesthiswork> what eventually convinced you/
2013-02-18.txt:03:05:34: <Sgeo_> doesthiswork, being told in class. Also the geometric perspective, of a grid of a by b squares
2013-02-18.txt:03:06:41: <doesthiswork> yes, you just rotate the rectangle and it is isomorphic
2013-02-18.txt:03:12:48: <doesthiswork> when I was in first grade I built a giant sand sculpture of human reproductive anatomy
2013-02-18.txt:03:13:03: <doesthiswork> it took me years to figure out why the teacher didn't like it
2013-02-18.txt:03:13:51: <doesthiswork> I did during recess and got the rest of the class to help
2013-02-18.txt:03:14:24: <doesthiswork> both combined (because more is better)
2013-02-18.txt:08:45:15: <doesthiswork> I'm fond of both fexprs and compile time functions
2013-02-18.txt:08:49:02: <doesthiswork> (some-fexpr-based-macro (eval (+ 1 1)) (+ 2 3))
2013-02-18.txt:12:01:34: <doesthiswork> did Psogumma ever go beyond a concept? http://catseye.tc/node/Psogumma.html
2013-02-18.txt:12:05:56: <doesthiswork> I can't think of any big obstacles off the top of my head
2013-02-18.txt:12:09:45: <doesthiswork> you have a nice parse tree representing a normal bland language, and then whenever you don't know how to translate the next part of psogumma you decide that it must mean one of the valid operations available and use that.
2013-02-18.txt:12:11:25: <doesthiswork> or really easily it could be a skin for the s k i combinators
2013-02-18.txt:14:32:07: -!- doesthiswork has quit (Quit: Leaving.).
2013-02-18.txt:22:09:22: -!- doesthiswork has joined #esoteric.
2013-02-18.txt:22:37:56: <doesthiswork> how bot infested is this channel? so far I count esomimic lambdabot and hackwhatever
2013-02-18.txt:22:38:38: <Phantom_Hoover> doesthiswork, cuttlefish, HackEgo, EgoBot, fungot, glogbot, clog, lambdabot, esomimic
2013-02-18.txt:22:59:11: <doesthiswork> I think that what could have helped prevent that stupid mistake is some nice strong and static typeing
2013-02-18.txt:23:04:05: <doesthiswork> also if the comment thread was lazily computed there would be no bug visable
2013-02-18.txt:23:07:13: <doesthiswork> fixed!
2013-02-18.txt:23:10:18: <doesthiswork> is the same lambda bot as haskell's channel or is it a variation
2013-02-19.txt:00:23:42: <doesthiswork> I thought that exploiting inefficiency improved efficiency
2013-02-19.txt:00:25:27: <Bike> doesthiswork: exploiting inefficiency in the sense of finding a niche that doesn't 'need' to exist for the rest of the system to function, and possibly deepening that niche out of self-interest.
2013-02-19.txt:00:28:31: <doesthiswork> bike: could you give an example niche?
2013-02-19.txt:01:31:05: <doesthiswork> what if there is a language that gets offended whenever you assume that a function will return because you're infringeing on it's autonomy
2013-02-19.txt:01:31:39: <doesthiswork> so when you add numbers you need to provide a default value in case they don't add
2013-02-19.txt:01:32:49: <doesthiswork> and when you use a value from a variable you have to specify what to do if the variable has forgotten
2013-02-19.txt:01:34:24: <doesthiswork> yes! naturally most of the time every thing will be obliging but if you take things for granted it won't work
2013-02-19.txt:01:35:30: <doesthiswork> although you can become friends with parts of the program and leave out some of the bet hedgeing
2013-02-19.txt:01:39:50: <doesthiswork> and sometimes variables won't want to store values for you because they have more interesting things to do, but if spend a little extra computation time thanking various parts of the program when they help you, they will be happier and faster to help you the next time you ask a favor of them
2013-02-19.txt:01:42:04: <doesthiswork> yes but if you marry more than one there can be jelousy problems
2013-02-19.txt:01:42:58: <doesthiswork> it would be a truly object oriented language because it would make you treat objets with the proper respect
2013-02-19.txt:01:44:26: <doesthiswork> and you have to interact with your married variables more than any other
2013-02-19.txt:01:45:35: <coppro> doesthiswork: that sounds like a DMM languages
2013-02-19.txt:01:46:06: <doesthiswork> the problem with simula was it wasn't simulationist enough
2013-02-19.txt:01:47:22: <doesthiswork> coppro: what does DMM stand for?
2013-02-19.txt:01:51:05: <doesthiswork> I was reading a book about discourse analysis and though that making a language that worked like human relations would be most natural.
2013-02-19.txt:02:01:51: <doesthiswork> marry a variable is more trouble than it's worth unless you're going to be using that variable pretty exclusively 
2013-02-19.txt:02:04:32: <doesthiswork> it doesn't enforce monogamy it just has jealousy as a anti scaling factor
2013-02-19.txt:05:07:14: -!- doesthiswork has quit (Quit: Leaving.).
2013-02-19.txt:08:45:03: -!- doesthiswork has joined #esoteric.
2013-02-19.txt:12:52:16: -!- doesthiswork has quit (Quit: Leaving.).
2013-02-19.txt:18:09:02: -!- doesthiswork has joined #esoteric.
2013-02-19.txt:18:42:39: <doesthiswork> where's karkat in the slist?
2013-02-19.txt:18:44:31: <elliott> doesthiswork: so, does it work?
2013-02-19.txt:18:44:57: <doesthiswork> elliott: does what work?
2013-02-19.txt:18:46:02: <elliott> doesthiswork: this.
2013-02-19.txt:18:46:17: <doesthiswork> elliott: no it doesn't
2013-02-19.txt:18:46:28: <nortti> doesthiswork: what is "this"
2013-02-19.txt:18:52:01: <doesthiswork> `? olsner
2013-02-19.txt:18:52:28: <Phantom_Hoover> `run echo "no" > wisdom/doesthiswork
2013-02-19.txt:18:52:34: <Phantom_Hoover> `? doesthiswork
2013-02-19.txt:18:52:57: <doesthiswork> `? hackego
2013-02-19.txt:18:53:22: <doesthiswork> `run echo "no" > wisdom/hackego
2013-02-19.txt:18:53:42: <doesthiswork> `? hackego
2013-02-19.txt:19:10:25: <doesthiswork> yeah but modern lisps don't use it
2013-02-19.txt:19:12:00: <doesthiswork> kmc if I rember correctly you use a [ and then later the ] would close everything in between
2013-02-19.txt:19:36:10: <doesthiswork> kmc: that sounds like a fun candidate for a genetic screen, to see which genes are more common than in the background population
2013-02-19.txt:21:35:01: <doesthiswork> freefull: how would you get a loop to cycle 5 times? in all your examples it looked like they stopped after one cycle
2013-02-19.txt:21:44:44: <FreeFull> doesthiswork: 5 [ 1 - 0 == Loop Dont ? ]
2013-02-19.txt:21:46:31: <FreeFull> doesthiswork: 5 [ 1 - 0 >= Loop Dont ? ]
2013-02-19.txt:21:47:11: <doesthiswork> freefull: I see now
2013-02-19.txt:21:49:12: <doesthiswork> freefull: why have a special "loop/ don't" version of boolians? why not use normal boolians for the loop test?
2013-02-19.txt:21:50:20: <FreeFull> doesthiswork: Because of what happens when you don't have the right indicator on the stack
2013-02-19.txt:21:50:53: <doesthiswork> freefull: what happens?
2013-02-19.txt:21:51:20: <FreeFull> doesthiswork: The loop terminates and everything gets dumped
2013-02-19.txt:21:53:03: <doesthiswork> freefull: I mean, could you give a nice example where it is nicer to use loop/not loop than 0/not 0?
2013-02-19.txt:21:55:35: <doesthiswork> that is a good reason
2013-02-19.txt:22:00:01: <doesthiswork> so what about [ [ 1 - 3 = ] don't loop ? ]
2013-02-19.txt:22:00:21: <doesthiswork> I meant [ 4 [ 1 - 3 = ] don't loop ? ]
2013-02-19.txt:22:00:40: <doesthiswork> when we put brackets around "loop" does it's behavior change?
2013-02-19.txt:22:00:47: <doesthiswork> [ [ 1 - 3 = ] don't [loop] ? ]
2013-02-19.txt:22:19:14: <doesthiswork> I believe that it is an infinite loop which is why I can't quite make them work like higher order functions.
2013-02-19.txt:22:19:22: <doesthiswork> it's the one value you can't return
2013-02-19.txt:22:36:37: <FreeFull> doesthiswork: Is this satisfactory?
2013-02-19.txt:22:37:39: <doesthiswork> that is satifactory (I've always had a poor imagination)
2013-02-19.txt:22:39:00: <doesthiswork> so by using [ * dont ] you can surround anything without change
2013-02-19.txt:22:39:48: <doesthiswork> or if loop looped on boolians [ * 0 ] would do the same
2013-02-19.txt:23:11:22: <FreeFull> doesthiswork: That is a good argument for getting rid of Loop/Dont actually
2013-02-19.txt:23:16:44: <doesthiswork> if you hit the end of a loop and the inside is true then, then the loop is reset to exactly how it was before executing?
2013-02-19.txt:23:34:47: <doesthiswork> hah, and information free language http://pastebin.com/trAf3vbP
2013-02-19.txt:23:34:55: <doesthiswork> *an not and
2013-02-19.txt:23:55:46: <doesthiswork> what's the highest complexity class you can get for a language that doesn't create or destroy information?
2013-02-19.txt:23:56:27: <doesthiswork> I do mean reverseable
2013-02-19.txt:23:56:54: <doesthiswork> you give it a list of values at the beginning of the program
2013-02-19.txt:23:57:16: <doesthiswork> and then you get them back rearranged (I think)
2013-02-19.txt:23:58:01: <doesthiswork> on the wikipedia article they had wires splitting which breaks the no creaton of information rule
2013-02-19.txt:23:58:01: <Phantom_Hoover> doesthiswork, that's so obviously tc i can't be bothered demonstrating that it is
2013-02-19.txt:23:58:48: <doesthiswork> it is obviously turing complete if you have a large list of values that you already know (like a free list)
2013-02-19.txt:23:59:18: <doesthiswork> ...
2013-02-20.txt:00:00:11: <doesthiswork> reversible is just a side effect
2013-02-20.txt:00:00:14: <Bike> doesthiswork: the fredkin gate has three outputs.
2013-02-20.txt:00:00:56: <doesthiswork> yes it does, and if you use each output exactly once it conserves information
2013-02-20.txt:00:00:58: <ais523> doesthiswork: reversible languages emulating irreversible ones normally do so by having keeping a history of what happened
2013-02-20.txt:00:02:09: <doesthiswork> I am more interested in the conservation of information and 0-energy than reversing computation 
2013-02-20.txt:00:02:23: <Phantom_Hoover> doesthiswork, you can't talk about 'conservation of information' without a rigorous quantification of information
2013-02-20.txt:00:02:32: <doesthiswork> shannon information
2013-02-20.txt:00:02:56: <doesthiswork> otherwise known as entropy
2013-02-20.txt:00:04:25: <doesthiswork> phantom_hoover: what is the definition of reversible that the rest of the world uses? 
2013-02-20.txt:00:05:07: <ais523> doesthiswork: basically that given any program, there's an inverse program that does the opposite
2013-02-20.txt:00:05:41: <doesthiswork> does sound like the definition of reversable
2013-02-20.txt:01:55:54: <doesthiswork> lol
2013-02-20.txt:02:27:22: <doesthiswork> the suffix -ed is a reduced form of "did"
2013-02-20.txt:02:27:46: <doesthiswork> the suffix -ly used to be like
2013-02-20.txt:02:52:52: <doesthiswork> you know how physicists like trying to solve the problems of other fields because they figure they can probably do it better than the professionals?
2013-02-20.txt:02:53:30: <doesthiswork> I've noticed several programers that have the habit of trying to do the same to physics
2013-02-20.txt:02:53:38: <doesthiswork> it is pretty funny
2013-02-20.txt:02:53:43: <zzo38> doesthiswork: Maybe in some cases it is possible? Not in all cases!
2013-02-20.txt:02:54:28: <doesthiswork> lol
2013-02-20.txt:02:54:54: <doesthiswork> my hobby is redesigning alphabets so i feel free to say that this one is a bad idea
2013-02-20.txt:02:56:56: <doesthiswork> fər sɛvrl mʌnθs æi roʊt onli ɪn IPA
2013-02-20.txt:02:58:00: <doesthiswork> exactly!
2013-02-20.txt:02:58:11: <doesthiswork> and the domane experts love new ideas
2013-02-20.txt:02:58:24: <doesthiswork> because they love the domain
2013-02-20.txt:02:58:30: <Bike> doesthiswork: btw you should write in IPA in a non-rhotic accent
2013-02-20.txt:02:58:51: <doesthiswork> no thanks I don't like those little floaty rs
2013-02-20.txt:02:59:32: <doesthiswork> kmc : http://www.neverworkintheory.org/
2013-02-20.txt:03:01:22: <doesthiswork> I have found that by the time I've heard 5 ways of doing something I have developed strong opinions about which way is best, all with out ever doing the thing
2013-02-20.txt:03:01:59: <Bike> doesthiswork: i think people are pretty good at having strong opinions regardless of what they know, generally speaking.
2013-02-20.txt:03:03:08: <doesthiswork> kmc: I've seen a graph of how well people thought they did compated to how wel they did do
2013-02-20.txt:03:03:20: <doesthiswork> there was no inverse nor inflection point
2013-02-20.txt:03:03:57: <doesthiswork> their estimates just had a much lower variance and a mean of 60th percentile
2013-02-20.txt:03:05:14: <doesthiswork> although my anecdotal evidence matches up with your statement
2013-02-20.txt:03:05:58: <doesthiswork> that actually seems counter
2013-02-20.txt:03:06:25: <doesthiswork> what it said is that people failed to express opinions about things they didn't know
2013-02-20.txt:03:06:35: <doesthiswork> but made up for it on the trivial things
2013-02-20.txt:03:08:24: <doesthiswork> have a look at the dunning kruger graph http://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2010/07/07/what-the-dunning-kruger-effect-is-and-isnt/
2013-02-20.txt:03:08:59: <doesthiswork> it shows that the ranking of abiliy is stable no matter your knowledge level
2013-02-20.txt:03:09:19: <doesthiswork> it is just the absolute vales that change
2013-02-20.txt:03:12:08: <doesthiswork> the crossing point depends on the difficulty of the tast
2013-02-20.txt:03:12:22: <doesthiswork> with harder tasks the crossing point is lower
2013-02-20.txt:03:13:07: <doesthiswork> (sorry about bringing in the data, but I really like graphs)
2013-02-20.txt:03:15:27: <kmc> thanks for the link doesthiswork
2013-02-20.txt:03:16:32: <doesthiswork> it pisses off some of my facebook acquaintances, when I spoil a good story with nitpicking data
2013-02-20.txt:03:17:27: <kmc> it was probably an attempt to tab complete your name doesthiswork 
2013-02-20.txt:03:25:47: <doesthiswork> here is an argument for why R is a good esoteric language http://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2012/06/08/r-the-master-troll-of-statistical-languages/
2013-02-20.txt:03:36:39: <doesthiswork> shachaf: i think monqy doesn't want to respond to your messages
2013-02-20.txt:03:36:50: <shachaf> doesthiswork: It's possible.
2013-02-20.txt:03:37:17: <doesthiswork> that can't be right
2013-02-20.txt:03:37:26: <doesthiswork> if anything you aren't monqying enough
2013-02-20.txt:03:37:54: <elliott> doesthiswork: ok who are you
2013-02-20.txt:03:39:34: <elliott> well I guess doesthiswork has to be the kind of person who would use adium to connect to an IRC channel
2013-02-20.txt:03:40:15: <doesthiswork> elliott: what kind of person would that be?
2013-02-20.txt:03:41:20: <elliott> doesthiswork: aaaaaaaargh
2013-02-20.txt:03:41:24: <elliott> `pastelogs doesthiswork