ec changed the topic of #elliottcable to: #
cloudhead has joined #elliottcable
<ec> audy: hm?
<ec> audy: Yep. I'd eventually like to have an #ELLIOTTCABLE minecraft-server, something fairly robust with integration into the chatroom.
<alexgordon> hi ec
<ec> o7
<alexgordon> ec: are you still minecrafting?
<ec> yepyep
<ec> well, ish
<alexgordon> -_-
<alexgordon> ec: you should really... not do that
<ec> sozz
<alexgordon> lol
<purr> lol
<alexgordon> ec: we were having such a nice time working on paws!
<ec> ugh
<ec> girlfriend's running and being healthy and good at everything on the planet,
<ec> and I've fallen out of contact with the *one* thing I was actually any good at that was useful (read: programming)
<ec> so now I'm homeless, rather unhealthy (only staying in shape by dint of starving myself accidentally), *and* unproductive.
<alexgordon> ec: redstone counts!
<ec> actually doing mod-stuff
<ec> anyway, whitequark said he knew how to break paws
<ec> so probably doesn't matter anyway >:
<alexgordon> lol
<alexgordon> well if *whitequark* says so
<alexgordon> ec: I dunno, remember I said I knew how to break paws in the beginning
<alexgordon> ...all the time
<ec> well, true
<ec> idk. I'm feeling much less self-assured right now.
<alexgordon> "only staying in shape by dint of starving myself accidentally" lol
<purr> lol
<alexgordon> you accidentally the whole diet?
<ec> nah, not, like, dieting, that implies healthy
<alexgordon> not really
<ec> most people stay in-shape and in small clothing sizes and self-feely-good by *electively* being *healthy*
<alexgordon> it implies relative starvation
<ec> I'm somehow inexplicably staying in-shape and in small clothing sizes, but without any of the self-feel-goods, by *accidentally* being extremely *unhealthy*
<alexgordon> mmm
<alexgordon> well I'm the same really
<alexgordon> maybe not that bad
<ec> do miss Paws-feels, though.
<ec> things were going so very well before Minecraft.
<ec> see, I don't consider myself a gamer. I'm just an addictive personality type.
<ec> I don't even *like* gaming. I don't like how it makes me feel, I don't see the attraction.
<ec> I'm only susceptible when something *other than wanting to game*, draws me in, gets me past the “I hate games” hurdle …
<ec> … and then I'm addicted, against my will.
<alexgordon> ec: you should just rip your gfx card out and put in a Voodoo3
<alexgordon> gaming problem solved
<ec> It's like somebody who hates the taste of alcohol, hates drinking, but is susceptible to addiction and getting completely smashed by accident, if anybody else pressures them into drinking.
<alexgordon> ec: the solution is to replace negative addictions with positive ones...
<alexgordon> addiction is just the flipside of productivity
<alexgordon> no difference between a 9 hour programming stint and a 9 hour gaming binge, other than the former achieves useful things
<vil> hi guys
<alexgordon> hi evans
<vil> I wish I could get addicted to productive stuff >_<
<vil> ec: if you're like most people I know who play Minecraft, you'll hit a lull in desire to play any time now, that's your chance to escape
<alexgordon> LOL
<ec> already been there several times
<purr> LOL
<alexgordon> ec is not "like most people"
<ec> instead of quitting the game, I just moved on from *playing* to *creating*
<ec> now I want to do all sorts of automation and mod shit
<ec> got a few interesting mod ideas
<ec> most primarily, I want to make P2P “servers”
<ec> by which I *actually* mean, an in-game way to use Open to LAN to play collaboratively
<ec> something like a nether portal, that when built, and used, saves your player-info out-of-game
<vil> oh, portals between worlds
<vil> interesting
<ec> then an external program that you run, and Open to LAN, and join a friends' single-player game, keeping all of your stuff and player-state
<ec> thus, sister can say, “hey, I'll trade you some of this huge quantity of iron for some diamonds”
<vil> there's a server mod for that, but I've not seen anything about doing it with the open-to-LAN feature
<vil> neat
<ec> or “can you come help me mine this cavern? It's scary.”
<ec> yeah.
alexgordon has quit [Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.]
Sgeo has joined #elliottcable
<whitequark> ec: you know
<whitequark> when I hit that point (yes, I did binge-play minecraft at some point in my life) when I want to write automation for silly games
<whitequark> I stop for a minute and think about it, and it usually dawns on me that Minecraft is just a motherfucking game, and what you're doing, what you're addicted to is just several sets of changing bits somewhere in RAM
<ec> that's a fairly good point.
<ec> unfortunately, I have one more sticking point, that's preventing any of those almost-“FUCKIN' DONE.” moments from succeeding:
<whitequark> so, I look at it and feel something like disgust, sort of, and that's how it ends
<ec> the *entire point of fucking starting to play*, was to play with my girlfriend.
<ec> we played together for, like, two hours. it was the best thing ever. Now, I'm constantly begging her to play with me, and she never really feels like it, or has time, or wants to play *together* instead of her doing her own thing in singleplayer.
<whitequark> there's a downside tho
<ec> I want SMP Minecraft with my girlfriend, more than I want to have sex with my girlfriend.
<whitequark> when I think about life, and think about it [...] several sets of moving atoms in the Universe, and sometimes, yeah, yet again of changing bits in someone else's RAM
<whitequark> and that's when it gets sad.
<ec> I need to burn out *on SMP*, not on Minecraft. Until then, I'm in Minecraft-limbo, just “preparing things” endlessly, for when I *can* play with her, instead of alone. Practicing cool redstone circuits, digging into obscure corners of the rules, configuring Bukkit plugins and Forge mods, writing maps that I think she might find fun …
<ec> … on the off-chance that something I do, might convince her to play with me.
<whitequark> I'm sorry to say it, but it sounds like a miserable relationship
* ec laughs
<ec> Yep. Most contemptible situation possible.
<ec> I NEED TO BE DONE WITH THIS GAME. ddis
<ec> so, whitequark, what's your Paws-breaking argument?
<whitequark> ah
<whitequark> well, on one occasion you said that it's very important for Paws to be fully async. we've already figured out that Paws == CPS-transformed code. on another occasion you said that the current Paws "language", as in concrete syntax, or abstract syntax, or even object model, are something for another language to compile in
<whitequark> now think about it: contemporary languages have IRs, which they compile in, and most of those IRs are in the CPS form
<whitequark> so
<whitequark> what did you really create? I'm not sure anymore
<whitequark> there probably exists an 1:1 mapping with LLVM<>Paws, or close to 1:1
<ec> perhaps, I wouldn't know
<ec> one point, unrelated to the “what is paws,” but related to the “what gets written on top of paws,”
<ec> is that paws-built ‘languages’ are still entirely async; basically have to be
<ec> nothing is *transformed*, it's just disabstracted, unless I'm very confused by the terminology
<ec> and if LLVM etceteras are already Paws-style, well, that's just better for me!
<whitequark> I think you are confused indeed
<ec> paws is a *way* of thinking about asynchronicity, a way to build languages that match that way-of-thinking.
<whitequark> how is "disabstraction" different from "transformation" ?
<whitequark> oh yeah, when I thought of the argument above, I remembered that exact sentence you said
<whitequark> about the way of thinking
<ec> transformation implies some step where some bit of code takes what you did, and transforms it into something else; whereas abstraction implies the programmer having taken that something-else, and seperated it out without changing it
<whitequark> well, what happens after "separation" ?
<ec> re-phrase
<whitequark> see, when I say "CPS transformation", I mean that code in CPS form is directly equivalent to the code in usual, implicit-control-transfer form
<whitequark> it does not imply that you need to transform one into another; it does imply that you don't gain much from going from one form to another, since it's the same shit
<ec> m'kay, didn't get that
<whitequark> you can build two exact same compilers with exact same behavior on top of SSA IR (= Paws) and non-SSA IR
<ec> SSA?
<whitequark> = CPS
* ec nods
<whitequark> well, you could say that you want to influence ways of thinking for compiler developers, and I could see your point here, but IMO it's rather moot because most compiler developers don't inherently think in terms of synchronous control flow
<whitequark> you won't go far if you do
<whitequark> and for users, whether Paws is async or sync or whatever doesn't matter at all
<whitequark> because they never really see it, and if you changed it from one form to another, nothing would really change
* ec tries to change your words into elliott-speak in his head
<whitequark> also yes, I just realized how to do 1:1 mapping from Paws to LLVM
<ec> you're saying it's only useful if it's intended to encourage language-designers to design more explicitly-asynch languages, because *all* languages are inherently asynch?
<ec> if that's correct, then to the first I respond, of course, that's the entire point;
<whitequark> well, what you're saying is technically wrong, but you're thinking in the right direction
<ec> and to the second, I say … I guess I'd need a more formal understanding to see how ‘all languages are equally inherently asynch’ is the case (I'm sure you have a proof somewhere describing how “all languages can become SSA languages,” then?), because it's certainly not obviously the case to me
<whitequark> I would phrase it as "there is no inherent, fundamental distinction between sync and async"
<ec> i.e. Ruby is less usefully-asynch than Node.js is usefully-asynch;
<whitequark> lol
<purr> lol
<ec> and in the same ‘way’ that Node.js is usefully-asynch, I'm creating Paws to be *more* usefully-asynch
<ec> whether or not they're formally/provably equally-asynch.
<ec> make any sense at all? refutation?
<whitequark> well, now that's a concrete point we can talk about
<ec> or, to put it another way:
<ec> whatever you may be able to prove about transformability of langauges,
<ec> I can reply that there's a definite, extant *feel*-difference between Ruby, and any DSL/language/project/concept based in Ruby,
<whitequark> but first I'll just tell you how you can transform your Paws code to LLVM
<ec> and Node.js-and-friends, and any DSL/language/project/concept based in JavaScript.
<whitequark> it's simple actually
<ec> and I want to grasp and tear-out and make-stand-alone, that “feel.”
<ec> which is what Paws is/does.
<whitequark> you just need to translate all control transfers in Paws to LLVM tail calls
<whitequark> boom, done
<whitequark> that would work exactly as you want it to
<whitequark> refuting your argument about "contemporary langauges are inherently call-stack based"
<whitequark> so.
<whitequark> talking about feels and whatnot
<whitequark> explain me how, in your view, Ruby is different from Node.js? I have an idea of what you may be thinking about
<ec> hm
<ec> difficultly-subjective to put
<ec> I've always been able to say “asynch”, and make the safe assumption that a listener understands what I'm talking about.
* whitequark giggles
<ec> yesyesyes go on, pull the other one, bells on, etc
<whitequark> sorry, what ?
<ec> nothing.
<ec> thinking of words.
<ec> Okay, take a differential of your own:
<whitequark> (safe assumption) that's why it is useful to formalize stuff
<ec> 1. Ruby exists. Is popular. You don't see much, or anything, in the way of asynchronous programming styles or approaches.
<ec> 2. Node hits the scene, gains a lot of hype. It *forces* asynchronicity of access for anything I/O related, and to boot, is designed for I/Oy things.
<ec> 3. You see an explosion of “asynchronous-style” modules, libraries, tutorials … you name it. (To me, those tutorials, modules, and approaches ‘feel good.’ They help with things I care about, as another way to put it.)
<ec> 4. Those styles and approaches, and many of those libraries, get ‘ported back’ to Ruby, subsequently.
<whitequark> by the way, you know that Node folks are trying to undo their stance that "callbacks are all you need"?
<ec> So why didn't they exist in Ruby first? Ruby didn't lend itself to those styles; they're more ‘awkward’ there. Ruby didn't require those, it expected/allowed-for traditional, synchronous operations.
<whitequark> since less braindead models have landed in ES, like promises and coroutines
<ec> So the difference there, that caused the advent and popularity and development of those (styles|modules|libraries|tutorials), is what I'm trying to grasp and discuss.
<ec> call that “asynch.”
* whitequark sighs
<whitequark> I would kindly remind you that EM and stuff around it is older than Node itself
<ec> oh, absolutely
<ec> I didn't say *evented*
<ec> nothing about the event-loop architecture of Node is novel.
<whitequark> then what exactly are you talking about? callbacks in the whole stdlib?
<ec> it simply uses an old, boring structure (global event loop crap) to *ape* asynchronous programming, in a synchronous langauge.
<ec> not callbacks themselves; decoupling of action and response (if any.)
<joelteon> I have to design a simple webpage
<joelteon> i hate this shit
<ec> in Ruby et al, action and response/result are tightly-coupled. If you want to decouple them, you have to do it manually.
<ec> Node's approach is the opposite:
<ec> action and response, and thus your subsequent action, are decoupled. If you want to *couple* them, you have to do it manually.
<whitequark> you understand that you are comparing a language to a stdlib ?
<ec> Only in the case of Ruby vs JavaScript
<ec> which is *entirely the point*
<whitequark> there is zilch difference between Ruby and JS
<ec> to take that approach, as applied to only the stdlib,
<ec> and apply it instead to the entire language design.
<whitequark> well, ok
<ec> so, yes, I understand that that discussion applies only to the stdlib of Node
<ec> which is exactly the “problem” I'm trying to solve
<ec> (since I see it as a “problem” that the approach there, is applied to only the stdlib, and not the entire language)
<whitequark> so essentially what you want is to have a language which is inherently based on callbacks internally
<ec> (leading to ugly abstractions and band-aids, like the global event loop)
<ec> that's not quite the way of putting it
<ec> since, as you said, apparently *all* langauges are that way, inherently
<whitequark> no
<ec> and that's not what I care-about/want *anyway*
<whitequark> that's not what I am talking about
<ec> rather, that's a means to an end … the end being, as I said, finding linguistic approaches to decoupling action, and response.
<ec> make a little sense?
<ec> wish micahjohnston still existed. could use some translation/assistance here.
<whitequark> I'm saying that implicit-control-transfer and explicit-control-transfer are like "lenses" for looking at languages. any languages.
<whitequark> you could pick one or another, and it makes literally zero difference which one do you pick
<ec> that's like saying ‘object-orientation’ makes zero difference from ‘functional programming’
<ec> (yes, I know, silly names; both can be used at once; not either necessarily applies, etcetcetc)
<whitequark> oh, I'm so glad you brought up this
<ec> nonetheless, they matter to a fuckton of people
<whitequark> I had a demo
<ec> it doesn't *matter*, pardon the joke, that it doesn't matter.
<ec> because it still matters.
<ec> or, to put it less intentionally-recursive-ly
<ec> it doesn't matter if they're provably equivalent, because they don't feel equivalent.
<whitequark> where I first wrote a loop as, well, an imperative loop
<whitequark> and then I wrote a loop as a recursive, tail-calling function
<whitequark> and then I demonstrated how you can invoke LLVM optimizer with different two flags and it will convert one into another, and vice-versa, all by itself.
<whitequark> I'll explain how this relates to OO vs FP, by the way
<whitequark> you are entirely correct that at high level, i.e. with the languages which people actually use, OO and FP feel different
<whitequark> heck, they can very well be intrinsically and significantly different, because with a lot of contemporary implementations of one and another, there are things which don't have an equivalent
<whitequark> for example, tail-call-encoded state machines do not have an equivalent in OO languages without goto.
<whitequark> but what you are implementing in Paws is a *language IR*. it doesn't make any sense to start building the language from IR, and make that IR opinionated about some way or representation or another, because:
<whitequark> the way an IR should look is dictated by 1 (one) thing: convenience. optimizer IR looks in a particular way because the optimizer would be shorter. bytecode, network-transferred IR looks another way because you need it to be small. etcetc
<whitequark> it is entirely and completely true that a language which embraces explicit-control-transfer and does this in a non-dumb way (callbacks, duh) is interesting and has value
<ec> oh
<whitequark> and can feel to users differently and etcetc
<whitequark> but what you're designing now is not such language
<ec> no, it absolutely is!
<ec> I think. if I understood you correctly, there.
<whitequark> you're designing an IR for, ostensibly, this language, because a user is not supposed to write Paws code
<ec> Paws' N is an IR optimized *for re-abstraction*.
<ec> Lemme explain.
<whitequark> and it simply doesn't matter which IR you use.
<ec> The entire point of that, is for higher-level languages built on top of it to become non-dictatorial.
<whitequark> ugh, spare me of your philosophical bullshit, I'm really tired of it
<whitequark> please
<ec> … 'k
<ec> lemme see if I can re-phrase without philosophical bullshit, then?
<whitequark> phrased less aggressively, that would be
<whitequark> "if you explain it in a more formal way, you'll see yourself where the fallacy lies"
<ec> if the IR forces (encourages*) layered-abstraction, instead of all-in-one translation,
<ec> then that allows for removal of layers to later be removed.
<ec> seems pretty un-bullshitty to me. no?
<whitequark> and?
<whitequark> I don't see value in that
<whitequark> even if it's true, which I cannot yet verify because I don't understand the internals of that process well enough
<whitequark> but let's say what you say *is* true.
<whitequark> what would you achieve?
<ec> compare, say, vim and sublime.
<ec> sublime's got a lot of great features. as you learn more, you become more efficient. that's one approach.
<whitequark> I disagree
<whitequark> what you're saying is "compare, say, implementation languages of vim and sublime"
<ec> another (not necessarily better, but that's beside the point) approach, is to become more efficient by *modifying* (/extending/reconfiguring/whatever) it.
<ec> your programming-language is just as important a tool (honestly, more important) as the editor, or stdlib.
<ec> pluggable stdlibs, and pluggable editors, are a thing
* whitequark sighs
<ec> (again, whether they're better than “preconfigured-excellent” ones, like Java's stdlib or Sublime, is beside the point for the moment)
<ec> so why aren't pluggable languages?
<ec> rather, “improve-as-you-customize-them” rather than “improve-as-you-learn-them”
<whitequark> there are pluggable languages... Felleisen, "programming languages as libraries"
<whitequark> and I still don't see why it should revolve around explicit control transfer
<whitequark> I mean, ok, let's suppose that what you say about pluggability is beneficial (unrelatedly, I think it is). so how does it relate to Paws ?
<ec> two independant things
<ec> not actually sure how we switched subjects.
<ec> but Paws, like any creation, is an amalgamation of various “ideas the creator thinks are good”
<ec> I've spoken many times in here of taking various good bits, and working with them separately.
<whitequark> sure
<whitequark> ok, let's take it yet another way
<ec> I happen to think asynchronicity-of-interface and plugabillity-of-interface are two very important, very beneficial things; so I tried to integrate the two
<whitequark> suppose Paws (the part you are writing now) is done. what next?
<ec> hm, if I understand the question correctly, build what I consider “the correct Paws language” on top of it
<ec> immediately and completely ignoring the fact that I designed so that somebody could un-do any of the things I then do
<whitequark> ok
<whitequark> can you start with the "correct Paws language" ?
<whitequark> not putting the cart in front of the horse.
<ec> I have my own ideas as to what makes a good langauge. Other than a few that I intentionally picked to be ‘incontrovertible’ (asynchronicity, dynamism) for this particular project, I'm trying to *ignore* those things
<ec> until I've got a relatively unopinionated basis to build the opinions on top of
<ec> I certainly could.
<ec> But that would prevent that one, big, “wanted element” of that set of ‘correct ideas’ that I'm suck with …
<ec> … which is that any of those ideas, could be incorrect for a particular person.
<ec> <insert some bullshit about foundations coming before houses, and all that>
<whitequark> so what do you want a Paws programmer to look like? how do they do things?
<ec> exactly the kind of question I'm trying to avoid answering, right now.
<ec> There was *some* level of discussion of this, for approximately a year, or maybe half a year (though it was in-depth, constant, and verbose) when the project was new
<ec> but I've already *made* the decisions of which bits-of-things-I-care-about are important enough (or rather, “core” enough) to affect this layer of the design. To discuss other parts, (I know myself.) would cause me to infect this layer of the design with them. The more I forget about them for now, the better.
<ec> Ugh, philosophical-bullshit.
<ec> not sure how else to express.
<ec> back to Minecraft. more Paws discussion another time.
<ec> unhelpful to a discussion like this, that I've been away from the project for long enough, that my own thoughts on the subject are “fuzzy” instead of concrete.
<jesusabdullah> paws?
<whitequark> ec: by the way
<whitequark> ah
<whitequark> nevermind
<ec> ?
<whitequark> already forgot
<whitequark> was thinking about something
<ec> okay
<ec> sorry, now having an extremely depressing conversation with my girlfriend.
<ec> lotsa badfeels brah
<whitequark> too much minecraft ?
<ec> hm?
<ec> nothing to do with minecraft
<whitequark> that was a lame joke
<ec> to do with melatonin and running and marijuanna and dancing and music
<whitequark> diverse set of subjects
<ec> with one common denominator: I don't understand them.
<ec> And I seem to be missing some human ability to empathize (emotional), or theorize (intellectual), with things I don't *myself* understand/do/like.
<ec> Leaving me very off-put when somebody participates, or expects me to understand/participate
<whitequark> exactly like me, then
* whitequark shrugs
<purr> ¯\(º_o)/¯
<whitequark> and, quite possibly, every other person who has ever existed
<joelteon> wow how weird and quirky
* whitequark slaps joelteon around a bit with a large trout
<ec> lol otters
<purr> lol
<joelteon> anyway i'm pretty proud of this
<joelteon> it's all bash
<whitequark> fuck.
<joelteon> it's completely XSS-vulnerable too
<whitequark> can you at least pretend you do something useful
<jesusabdullah> I miss weed :(
<joelteon> who, me?
<whitequark> yes
<jesusabdullah> I don't have the connections in Utah, nor do I have the $ even if I did
<joelteon> what
<joelteon> i mean
<joelteon> i have a job
<whitequark> jesusabdullah: silkroad
<joelteon> this is what i did in my downtime
<jesusabdullah> yeah maybe
<jesusabdullah> more likely, I'll ask around when I'm less poor
<joelteon> but ok
<jesusabdullah> which shouldn't take too long
<jesusabdullah> Current job pays, just need to build up my buffer
<whitequark> idk i would be wary of buying illegal stuff in meatspace
<whitequark> wait, usa, you legalized it
<jesusabdullah> person to person?
<jesusabdullah> lol not in Utah lol
<joelteon> what's wrong with making a bash webserver
<whitequark> same difference
<ec> joelteon: lexie?
<joelteon> yt's a bot
<joelteon> it
<jesusabdullah> I, umm
<jesusabdullah> I saw a webserver implemented on top of netcat once
<jesusabdullah> it made me happy
<joelteon> yeah that's what this is
<whitequark> I could never understand is
<joelteon> github joelteon/smash
<ec> I'm so, so tempted to pull a micahjohnston right now
<ec> “I HATE EVERYTHING FOREVER COMPUTERS AND COMPUTER-PEOPLE FUCKING SUCK SO MUCH”
<ec> or maybe an alexgordon
<whitequark> I mean, yeah they are all turing-complete, you can obviously do that
<whitequark> so what
<ec> kickban the entire room out of life-frustration
<jesusabdullah> sick
<joelteon> bash is turing complete, yeah
<jesusabdullah> I'm down
<joelteon> it's also in most servers anyway
<whitequark> ec: talking about that
<whitequark> ec: can you give me op
<joelteon> the installation process consists of
<joelteon> ./smash
<ec> wouldn't trust you for a heartbeat <3
<joelteon> anyway, i wasn't expecting this much hostility
<joelteon> so i guess i'll take my ball and go home
<jesusabdullah> noooo
<jesusabdullah> I've been waiting for this
<jesusabdullah> for a while
<whitequark> because kickbanning the entire room is something I would totally do
<jesusabdullah> a netcat based webserver with an actual real api
<whitequark> right now
<jesusabdullah> I love hacks
<jesusabdullah> ^__^
<joelteon> shut up jesusabdullah
<joelteon> it's not useful
<jesusabdullah> SO
<joelteon> stop pretending
<ec> shut up joelteon it's not whitequark
<jesusabdullah> also you don't know that
<jesusabdullah> XD
<joelteon> so fun is for people that are stupid
<jesusabdullah> I'm just happy this exists even if I never use it for a "production grade" thinger
<jesusabdullah> whatever that might be
<joelteon> you sick bastard
<joelteon> whitequark, are you being serious
<ec> re: “and possibly every human ever”
<joelteon> i have to know
<jesusabdullah> I'll just judge you for writing in haskles
<whitequark> joelteon: serious about what
<ec> well, somehow, every-human-ever is capable of maintaining a normal relationship
<ec> and these issues are tearing mine apart
<joelteon> about saying "can you at least pretend you do something useful"
<joelteon> about that
<jesusabdullah> yeah idk about that ec
<whitequark> ec: hahahahaha. sorry. you see, every-human-ever are capable of pretending on public that they have a normal relationship
<jesusabdullah> yeah p. much ^^
<jesusabdullah> brb water + cigg
<jesusabdullah> I need to stop smoking :(
<whitequark> I unfortunately have a first-hand, even, much more first-hand account of it than I would ever wish
<eligrey> i havent ever checked it until now
<eligrey> ec: i like your js code style
<eligrey> well ive only usually seen your snippets before
<whitequark> ec: not as a participant but as observer, which, due to absence of significant emotional contribution, made it even more sad and sickening
<whitequark> joelteon: I hate fun. that's not entirely true but you can stick to this and just disregard my opinion if it makes life easier to you
<joelteon> ohh
<joelteon> you're THAT guy
<joelteon> ok
<joelteon> will do
<ec> eligrey: lolwat
<purr> lolwat
<ec> eligrey: did the world just explode
<ec> whitequark: That's the first time, *ever*, that I've seen your knowledge of written English break down.
<ec> Can't decide what the trigger is. Emotional attachment on *your* part to the subject of the sentence?
<ec> eligrey: which code are you talking about?
<whitequark> ec: what in particular do you mean?
<eligrey> µpaws.js
<ec> egads
<ec> that's a clusterfuck
<ec> run away bravely D:
<whitequark> (also lol, I think you're biased here. I've had a plenty of ungrammatical sentences, though probably not in this circumstances)
<eligrey> lol yeah i can see how its a clusterfuck
<ec> hold on
<eligrey> but i mean the general style itself
<ec> I'm not speaking of perfect, University-assignment englush
<ec> … englush
<ec> … english
<ec> I'm speaking of ‘conversational english,’ especially in an intellectual setting.
<whitequark> englisch
<whitequark> since I still don't understand what in particular you couldn't parse...
<ec> We're real-people in here; mostly intelligent ones, mostly with a high-level mastery of English. Your English lives up to ours, which is saying a lot more of value than “your English is university-level.”
<ec> Yes, there's some grammar-fails, and much rarer, some spelling-fails: but it's very rare to see anything clearly “english-as-a-second-language” sourced.
<ec> Or, put another way, it's rare to see an error that anybody else in here wouldn't make.
<whitequark> goddamnit, show me the error already
<whitequark> don't see it
* ec laughs
<ec> And here's where I torture you by leaving you to find it.
<ec> 'AT'LL TEACH YOU TO MALIGN PAWS, BITCH
<whitequark> I knew it: you're just messing with me
* ec runs off to get food
* ec throws smoke-bomb behind self
* whitequark shrugs
<purr> ¯\(º_o)/¯
* ec makes ‘pffffbt’ teleportation noises with his mouth as he runs off
<whitequark> fuck that, I'm off to read some C++. it makes more sense than ec.
whitequark has left #elliottcable [#elliottcable]
<ec> LOL
<purr> LOL
<ec> jesus
<ec> the ultimate insult.
<joelteon> that guy is a douche
<joelteon> who is that
<ec> whitequark? Peter Zotov.
<ec> smart dev-guy.
<ec> one of many.
<ec> most smart people are douches, IME.
<joelteon> yeah
<ec> the smart*est* especially.
<joelteon> and that's a reason to be a douche!!!!!!
<ec> oddly enough, the same subset of smart-people-who-are-douches, are usually the least *productive*
<joelteon> who needs productivity when you have smugness
<ec> I see the most production-of-awesome-lifechangingness, from A) “mildly intelligent, but really not that up-there” types, and the very rare B) super-intelligent person who's also super-humble/kind
<ec> myself, inbetween A) and B), and those like me, generally do little of value, unless they do it *through* others
<ec> (inspiring type A's, and assisting type B's)
whitequark has joined #elliottcable
<whitequark> ec: re productiveness: in my experience the B) guys are just really old
<whitequark> you sort of run out of smugness at some point. either that or burn out.
<whitequark> well, there's also EWD, but he's an exception
<jesusabdullah> I like to think I'm a relatively smart person but I also like to think I'm not a douche
<jesusabdullah> I guess one of those is wrong ;)
<whitequark> "smart" metric looks good but breaks down when you try to examine it closely
<whitequark> what is "smart" /
<whitequark> ?
<jesusabdullah> yeah, I'm not sure I care
futile has joined #elliottcable
<futile> wat
<futile> ec: there's also the kind of people who want to make things but aren't smart enough to do it right. we're really productive but it doesn't amount to anything useful
<whitequark> futile: who are you?
<futile> im futile.
<whitequark> your style of writing looks vaguely familiar
<futile> you can tell that from one sentence?
<whitequark> that's my gut feeling
<futile> i just copy other people's writing
<futile> so it probably is familiar
<futile> ec: and I've found that the smugness from super-smart people is usually only justified confidence..
<futile> like, I was reading Torvald's rant against C++ earlier, and he makes tons of good points. sure, in a super rude way, but every point is valid.
<futile> so maybe he just comes off as smug on account of *knowing* he's right and not caring that other people disagree, because he already knows it and that's good enough for him.
<futile> seems like there's a fine line between smug and confident
futile has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<joelteon> you can't sniff https connections taking place on your machine, can you?
<joelteon> that's the whole point of https
<joelteon> not sure who futile is but this whole thing smells fishy to me
<whitequark> that was someone's futile attempt at trolling
<whitequark> I think
<whitequark> you can sniff https, sorta
<whitequark> add your own certificate to the certificate storage so that whatever UA is connecting will think it's OK
<whitequark> then MITM yourself
<joelteon> ok
<joelteon> that's pretty complicated
<joelteon> if someone wants my oauth client secret that badly they can have it
eligrey has quit [Quit: Leaving]
wudofyr has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
wudofyr has joined #elliottcable
sharkbot has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
sharkbot has joined #elliottcable
<dsamarin> ec: eligrey and I would like to know if you want to join the Hum team and help us collaborate on the ultimate text/video/audio/file chat protocol and client with us
<dsamarin> We already have 2MB of ideas for it
cloudhead has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
cloudhead has joined #elliottcable
<prophile> futile may be a smug bastard
<prophile> but i promise you it wasn't me
cloudhea1 has joined #elliottcable
Sgeo has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
cloudhead has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
alexgordon has joined #elliottcable
<audy> ec buffer overflowed. what
PragCypher has joined #elliottcable
futile has joined #elliottcable
<futile> wat
<futile> whitequark: who are you?
<PragCypher> you can either find out his name or location, but not both
<dsamarin> he russkie haka
futile has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<dsamarin> хакер
yrashk has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
<alexgordon> -nope
<purr> alexgordon: http://youtu.be/gvdf5n-zI14
yorick has joined #elliottcable
cloudhea1 has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
yorick has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
eligrey has joined #elliottcable
PragCypher has quit [Quit: Leaving]
cloudhead has joined #elliottcable
<ec> who the *fuck* was futile
<ec> audy: hm?
<ec> dsamarin: probs not, unless it makes a cool minecraft server too, right now
<ec> #addiction
cloudhead has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
<ec> hi
<purr> ec: hi!