[HN Gopher] I accidentally a scheme
___________________________________________________________________
I accidentally a scheme
Author : Tomte
Score : 223 points
Date : 2023-11-14 04:25 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (wingolog.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (wingolog.org)
| frognumber wrote:
| People accidentally a scheme all the time. I first accidentalled
| a scheme in high school. I learned about S-types, which were to
| Lisp what JSON is to JavaScript. I made a language around then.
| Oops.
|
| Some would argue Brendan Eich of Netscape accidentalled a scheme
| in JavaScript, but others would argue that he didn't. Most
| accidental schemes are pretty bad, and the original JavaScript
| fits the bill, or it doesn't, depending on what you think to be a
| scheme.
|
| There's a law about that:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenspun's_tenth_rule
|
| It comes up in most DSLs.
|
| I bet this is a better accidental scheme, by virtue of the
| author, but a big part of the point of a scheme is that it's easy
| to implement, yet powerful. MIT freshman used to build a scheme
| interpreter and a scheme compiler in their first computer science
| course (6.001).
|
| It's very easy to accidentally a scheme.
| trollian wrote:
| I think Eich intentionallyed a scheme.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Yep, AFAIR he intentionallyed a scheme _twice_ , but both
| times, the suits had a different idea (first time around, to
| ride on Java marketing; second time around, to compete with
| Microsoft and JScript).
| agumonkey wrote:
| But he accidentally an ecmascript on the way
| robofanatic wrote:
| thats scheme accidentallification
| yarg wrote:
| Reminds me of carcinisation; lots of things turn into crabs.
| benj111 wrote:
| Please people, wear protection when 'experimenting', especially
| as teenagers.
|
| A scheme is for life, not just for Christmas.
| simiones wrote:
| > I learned about S-types, which were to Lisp what JSON is to
| JavaScript.
|
| Do you mean s-expressions here (sexps), or is there also a
| thing called s-types that I've been missing?
| frognumber wrote:
| Neither.
|
| * I meant s-types.
|
| * There is no such thing. The problem, as Clinton: "It
| depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."
|
| S-types WERE a thing, but never a major one.
|
| I ran across them as a high school student on a random
| research project at a university as a summer internship of
| some kind. They were used by a handful of research groups for
| some data interchange format. Literally the only person who
| would find the interesting is myself, and not for what they
| were, but because they were my first exposure to Lisp /
| Scheme concepts, which I had not heard of before, and which
| triggered a series of (high school grade) epiphanies for me
| (which would probably be obvious to 50+% of the people here).
|
| As far as I know, S-types no longer exist. A quick web search
| brought up zero references. There is absolutely no reason to
| know about them in 2023. However, if you want to know about
| them:
|
| - They were quite literally S-expressions. All S-types were
| S-expressions
|
| - However, they were well-specified, so useful as an
| import/export format
|
| - In particular, they had research-grade libraries to do the
| above from at least two languages (I would guess Java and
| LISP, but I no longer recall; perhaps it was C++ and Scheme).
|
| - There was some attempt to simplify, but I no longer recall
| what it was. I recall that I was told it had something to do
| with lists versus function calls, but looking back on it, the
| explanation I recall being told makes zero sense. That's more
| likely a function of my memory than the explanation.
|
| I believe on that internship, my direct use of them was
| probably limited to looking at some data in that format. This
| was really at the outskirts of the project I was doing. They
| did inspire a lot of work during the school year, when I
| schemed for the first time, not really knowing what I was
| doing but figuring out a lot of stuff in the process.
|
| Looking back at it, though, having a standardized Python /
| JavaScript / etc. import/export library for some standardized
| version of S-expressions might be helpful. Or it might not
| be. Who knows.
| fanf2 wrote:
| Sounds a bit like the S-expression syntax that was
| developed for SPKI/SDSI in the 1990s. I am surprised to
| find that the old spec has been revived after over 25 years
| https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rivest-sexp/
| teddyh wrote:
| > _I am surprised to find that the old spec has been
| revived after over 25 years_
|
| The thread at
| <https://www.spinics.net/lists/ietf/thrd4.html#115999>
| seems to be relevant. Especially
| <https://www.spinics.net/lists/ietf/msg116441.html>.
| simiones wrote:
| Glad I asked, this turned out to be much more fascinating
| than I thought. Thank you for the notes!
| zelphirkalt wrote:
| What is a Scheme and what is not a Scheme is actually pretty
| well defined in terms of language concepts and features. The
| JavaScript of back then is not that. Some Scheme may have
| served as something that Eich took hints from, but he did not
| create a new Scheme.
| bitslayer wrote:
| Took hints from, ergo "an ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-
| ridden, slow implementation"
| frognumber wrote:
| FYI: At the time, the creator of Scheme, Jerry Sussman,
| believed the JavaScript was a Scheme.
|
| I don't say this to claim he was right (I didn't agree with
| him, at the time), but merely to point out that "what is not
| a Scheme is actually" NOT "pretty well defined in terms of
| language concepts and features."
|
| A proper Scheme is as defined in Revised Report on the
| Algorithmic Language Scheme, but there are many improper
| half-baked Schemes too.
|
| Reasonable people can and do disagree about which things do
| and don't qualify.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| I think there is nothing more vacuous than taxonomy
| arguments (though they can be fun). Kent Pitman (KMP), for
| example, is on record as saying that Scheme is not a
| Lisp[1]
|
| 1: https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.lisp/c/Bj8Hx6mZEYI
| /m/6... (besides the inevitable flamewar started by
| @lisper's question, there's actually some good discussion
| between the "adults in the room" well downthread of what I
| linked).
| dahart wrote:
| The story goes Eich was hired to embed Scheme in a browser,
| and hung on to lambdas and functional concepts but lost
| homoiconicity by management fiat; they didn't like the weird
| way it looked. He tried to intentionally a Scheme and ended
| up accidentally a Scheme step-cousin. It's fair to say some
| argue it is a Scheme dialect, because some people do, and
| they're not wrong, JS does share aspects. It's also fair to
| say JS is not a Scheme, also true.
|
| I googled and found someone's blog post with a fun
| description: "JS is stupid Lisp in Java's ill-fitting
| clothing. It's Alonzo Church going to a Halloween party as
| Alan Turing. It's the lambda calculus in Turing-machine drag.
| It's a quirky nerd with a cynical marketing department. (The
| syntax and the name of the language -- JavaScript--were
| determined by Netscape's desire to ride the coattails of
| Java's popularity in the early 1990s.) It's multiparadigm
| salad." https://medium.com/thinking-with-
| computers/javascript-is-not...
| Jtsummers wrote:
| https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3386327
|
| For the story from Allen Wirfs-Brock and Brendan Eich.
|
| Section 2.1, starting on page 7, talks about the portion of
| JS history where Eich was hired to build a Scheme in a
| browser and continues with why it changed and how.
| taneq wrote:
| > There's a law about that
|
| That was my first thought too. As the length of your codebase
| increases, the likelihood of (probably badly) accidentally a
| scheme'ing tends towards 1.
| michaelteter wrote:
| There doesn't seem to be a lot of fun valid English writing
| today. Certainly it seems the opposite is the norm, even at the
| highest levels of government.
|
| But I found joy very early in this essay. "Tonight's missive is
| an apology: not quite in the sense of expiation, though not quite
| not that, either; rather, apology in the sense of explanation, of
| exegesis: apologia."
|
| When an introduction provides such a concise but entertaining
| junglegym for the reader, surely the rest will be enlightening.
| And if not, we have short attention spans, so we click elsewhere
| :).
| munificent wrote:
| All of Andy Wingo's writing is this delightful to read.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| Pompous in a good way: you learn something. Rather than pompous
| but you have no idea what they were saying.
| spit2wind wrote:
| Great for a blog, terrible for documentation.
| chrisweekly wrote:
| Could someone please explain the missing verb in the title? It's
| clearly a deliberate omission in the linked post (which also has
| a section heading "one does not simply a scheme"), but I don't
| get it. Something to do w/ garbage collection, or a scheme inside
| joke?
| ReactiveJelly wrote:
| Here's the reference -
| https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-accidentally
| chrisweekly wrote:
| Thanks! This one somehow slipped under my radar.
| all2 wrote:
| And here's the other: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/one-
| does-not-simply-walk-into...
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| Like the HODL meme
| throw151123 wrote:
| Old 4chan meme
| codetiger wrote:
| This accidentally the LLM model AI.
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| Note to self: learn a lisp. Lisp people appear to be having more
| fun than the rest of us.
| cfiggers wrote:
| There's literally dozens of us!
|
| If you're serious about learning a Lisp but motivated more by,
| as you say, "having more fun" rather than, say, landing a six-
| figure job writing it professionally... then may I recommend
| Janet[0] for your consideration. Janet is an embeddably-small,
| yet surprisingly batteries-included Lisp implemented in pure C.
| In terms of syntax and core library it borrows more directly
| from Clojure than from Scheme, but all the modern Lisps have
| their bits of influence. I've found both the language and the
| tiny little community that exists around it delightful.
|
| As an example of the latter, somebody smart wrote a real actual
| book[1] about Janet recently that was on the HN front page for
| a day or so when he first released it. It's a gentle
| introduction not just to Janet but to Lisp in general, and
| assumes only general proficiency with JavaScript to get you up
| to speed. I recommend it.
|
| [0] https://www.janet-lang.org
|
| [1] https://janet.guide
| TylerE wrote:
| Ooh that's actually really interesting. I've always been a
| bit into lisp... even did a bit of amatuer CL back in the
| day..but always thought the distribution model of basically a
| memory dump was just the worst of all possible worlds.
| bigfishrunning wrote:
| I agree with this sentiment -- from a reproducability
| standpoint, CL images aren't great. My workflow has always
| been to maintain a source file and then use emacs to shove
| s-expressions into the repl -- that way, rather then save
| the image, i can just re-evaluate my source file and get a
| reasonable facsimile
| dleslie wrote:
| While I like Janet, and find it to be a lovely little
| language; I think it's important to note that it lacks lists
| and cons cells, and so as a result some people don't label it
| a lisp, and programming in it is unlike other lisp languages.
| It's similar, because the syntax is similar and the macros
| and various forms are lifted straight from lisps; but the
| feel of programming in it is very much like programming in C,
| and I find it's less like Scheme or Common Lisp.
|
| Because it's not built around linked lists, the core type
| most encountered for lists of data is arrays and tuples.
| Neither is conducive to efficiently removing elements mid-
| set, or composing two sets, or interleaving two sets, or
| other operations that require reordering, replacing, adding
| or removing elements in the set. When I'm writing code in
| lisp I don't think about that overhead much, because for
| linked lists it's not an issue.
| cnity wrote:
| > Neither is conducive to efficiently removing elements
| mid-set, or composing two sets, or interleaving two sets,
| or other operations that require reordering, replacing,
| adding or removing elements in the set
|
| Read this: https://isocpp.org/blog/2014/06/stroustrup-lists
| dleslie wrote:
| That's based around a contrived problem that was posed to
| him:
|
| > Insert a sequence of random integers into a sorted
| sequence, then remove those elements one by one as
| determined by a random sequece of positions: Do you use a
| vector (a contiguously allocated sequence of elements) or
| a linked list?
|
| The key is that the sequence is sorted; and is kept
| sorted throughout the insertion process.
| TylerE wrote:
| Feature not a big in my book. A linked list is almost never
| the right answer. Certainly shouldn't be the default.
| hajile wrote:
| > A linked list is almost never the right answer.
|
| And yet a subset of the linked list called a tree is
| usually the right answer to problems.
| TylerE wrote:
| because it avoids all the pathological worse case
| performance unless you get insanely unlucky with the
| order the data is inserted... and even then you can do a
| rebalance if you're that concerned about it.
| dleslie wrote:
| It depends on how you approach solving problems, and what
| the problem is.
|
| In the contrived example, a linked list is clearly a
| terrible option for manipulating a sorted set of
| integers. Modern computers can slice and dice contiguous
| integers with vectorized routines, and those benefits are
| lost with linked lists that are storing their data
| haphazardly across the heap.
|
| If your problem space is best defined with contiguously-
| stored numbers, then for sure, don't use linked lists.
| Most lisps will happily provide you with vectors and
| arrays for these use cases.
| vindarel wrote:
| But is Janet as interactive as Common Lisp? (REPL, image-
| based development, debugger, restarts...) The fun is there!
| cfiggers wrote:
| Yes, 100% to both the REPL and image-based development!
|
| Janet's REPL has a debug mode, but I'm sadly not qualified
| to evaluate whether/how it measures up to CL's due to my
| own inexperience with either. :)
|
| As for restarts (I had to Google around to get an idea of
| what that means)--it seems to me that Janet does not have
| first-class support for restarts in the way that some other
| Lisps, for e.g. CL, do. Presumably (as it would be in most
| other languages I would suppose) one could recreate that
| experience in Janet by tapping into the first-party error
| handling and REPL primitives. But you'd definitely be
| rolling your own rather than having it already in Janet out
| of the box.
| ikurei wrote:
| Since you mentioned this, what would you say would be the
| right Lisp for more pragmatic, cynical reasons?
|
| What Lisp should we learn if we want to make money from it?
| cfiggers wrote:
| If I knew the answer to that question I'd probably have a
| very different job than the one I have. :)
| stcg wrote:
| Maybe Clojure. In 2022 it took the top spot for "Top paying
| technologies" in the annual StackOverflow survey [0], and
| in 2023 it tied with other lispy languages [1].
|
| That said, I don't think it matters much. A developer
| familiar with some lispy language (and perhaps functional
| programming) should be able to quickly pickup any other
| lispy language. And the developers that make the most money
| have probably used a lot of programming languages, with
| different paradigms.
|
| [0]: https://survey.stackoverflow.co/2022/#top-paying-
| technologie...
|
| [1]: https://survey.stackoverflow.co/2023/#section-top-
| paying-tec...
| defenestration wrote:
| I had a lot of fun learning Clojure. While I don't use it in
| daily practice, I learned a lot about elegancy, the advantages
| of data immutability and using code as building blocks. For
| learning I used the 4clojure website where you can solve
| interactive coding puzzles and learn from solutions of others.
| See: https://4clojure.oxal.org
| jimbob45 wrote:
| _learn from solutions of others_
|
| I got my first job furiously doing that for nights on end. It
| felt like cheating but it's ultimately way faster than
| waiting potentially years to figure out those tricks on your
| own.
| defenestration wrote:
| Yeah, good to hear. I also did this for nights on end. My
| strategy was to try to solve the puzzle myself first (in a
| reasonable amount of time) and then check the solutions of
| others. Always fun to see if I could make my solution
| faster/shorter/more elegant/etc. with the inspiration of
| the other solutions.
| Obscurity4340 wrote:
| What are the odds that someone gets accused of plagiarism
| for doing exactly that? Like, say there's a perfect
| solution in existence with the fewest lines/tokens of
| code all the elegant shortcuts and maybe a little bit of
| "sorcery", how likely is it for two people to work their
| way down the perfect solution and it basically looks
| exactly the same, maybe they followed the same logical
| workflow to arrive there, who knows...
|
| Edit: like a hash-collision for geeks
| tmtvl wrote:
| I recommend Common Lisp, it's fast, it's mature, and it has
| some wicked cool tools. You can find some resources here:
| <https://stevelosh.com/blog/2018/08/a-road-to-common-lisp>. You
| can also look at CLiki (the Common Lisp wiki), the Common Lisp
| Cookbook, and the Common Lisp Community Spec for information
| any basically anything you may be interested in.
| _0ffh wrote:
| On the risk of drawing the ire of our lisping friends, I find
| that I have more fun writing lisps than using them, at least
| unless I equip them with a syntax.
| LocalH wrote:
| Does modding a game that uses a bespoke Lispish scripting
| language count?
| bigfishrunning wrote:
| Yes! All you have to do to make a lisp is to make a thing and
| call it a lisp. Lists are recommended, but optional.
| carapace wrote:
| One great way to learn Lisp is to write your own:
|
| > The goal of the Make-A-Lisp project is to make it easy to
| write your own Lisp interpreter without sacrificing those many
| "Aha!" moments that come from ascending the McCarthy mountain.
| When you reach the peak of this particular mountain, you will
| have an interpreter for the mal Lisp language that is powerful
| enough to be self-hosting, meaning it will be able to run a mal
| interpreter written in mal itself.
|
| ~ https://github.com/kanaka/mal/blob/master/process/guide.md
|
| https://github.com/kanaka/mal
| ookdatnog wrote:
| I haven't done any serious lisping outside of tutorials and
| books, but I warmly recommend the wizard book of myth and
| legend, SICP (https://mitp-content-
| server.mit.edu/books/content/sectbyfn/b...). I had a lot of fun
| working through it.
| tmtvl wrote:
| Remember to watch the video lectures.
| zem wrote:
| I've played around with a number of lisps and racket is the one
| I find the most enjoyable to use.
| thewakalix wrote:
| Followup: https://wingolog.org/archives/2023/11/14/whiffle-a-
| purpose-b...
| carabiner wrote:
| The whole scheme?
| sjamaan wrote:
| And nothing but the scheme!
| lkuty wrote:
| Is the title grammatically correct ? A verb is missing, don't you
| think... My mother tongue is french, thus I may be missing some
| pun.
| tusqasi wrote:
| It is like a joke. I am not a native englisher too.
| emmanueloga_ wrote:
| The verb seems to be "a".
|
| Does he regularly _a_ scheme? Or did he do it in the past?
| Both!
| vore wrote:
| The verb is "accidentally", actually!
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Proper verbing would be "accidented", I believe (and I
| _love_ English for how you can just verb or noun anything -
| it 's like Lisp of natural languages!), but I guess
| "accidentally" can be chalked up to artistic license.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > (and I love English for how you can just verb or noun
| anything - it's like Lisp of natural languages!)
|
| This is an odd observation. All languages have
| derivation. (
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphological_derivation )
|
| English has zero-derivation of verbs [that is, the form
| of the derived verb is identical to the form of the word
| from which the verb was derived], and this construction
| is highly productive; many people have remarked on it.
| But there's nothing similar for nouns in English, so I
| don't see why you're listing nouns as parallel to verbs.
|
| The meme expression "I accidentally [missing verb]
| [something]" does not obey the rules of English, as you
| can easily tell by the responses saying "you accidentally
| did what?"
|
| If you really meant that parenthetical, you might be
| interested in Chinese, where academics sometimes get into
| arguments over what part of speech a given example of a
| word should be considered to belong to. There is very
| little inflection, which makes the confusion possible.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| I'm speaking more about language culture, as it's used.
| My native language, Polish, allows for convenient
| derivation, but it's not a natural thing to do, and if
| you try, people will look at you funny. In English, it
| feels very natural and people will understand you when
| you do it.
| moron4hire wrote:
| That's verbing a noun, but I don't think that's what is
| going on here. I think the title is trying to verb an
| adverb.
|
| If the "correct" sentence is "I accidentally created a
| scheme", then I think it would be "accidentallied". In
| excising the verb, shouldn't one carry its tense over to
| the adverb?
|
| If the "correct" sentence is "I created an accidental
| scheme", then it would be "acidentalled".
|
| But verbing the adjective doesn't have the same rhythm as
| verbing the adverb, in this case. And rhythm is the most
| important rule of English. The indefinite article needs
| to fall on a low note, and the adverb form is flexible
| enough to end on a high note to give a lilting
| affirmation, whereas the adjective form is not.
| MereInterest wrote:
| If I were diagramming it, I think I'd still label
| "accidentally" as an adverb, but would note that the
| corresponding verb has been omitted. It's the written
| equivalent of hearing "Oh my, there's a gigantic <RADIO
| STATIC> blocking the road." The unknown word blocked by the
| radio static is still the noun, we just don't know what it
| is.
| technion wrote:
| https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-accidentally
| vidarh wrote:
| It was originally a meta-joke way of pointing out you'd left
| something out by intentionally leaving out the verb in the
| sentence where you pointed out you'd left something out.
|
| It's since become a meme of sort as a more general way to flag
| as a joke that you've done something "accidentally" where a
| fully formed sentence would be more ambiguous.
|
| E.g. "I accidentally created a scheme" might still not be
| entirely serious about it being an accident, but it's open to
| interpretation and sets a slightly more serious tone. "I
| accidentally a scheme" clearly signposts the title is at least
| in part a joke.
| gardenhedge wrote:
| This is the role "lol" used to play. "I accidentally created
| a scheme lol"
| benj111 wrote:
| Doesn't "I accidentally a" predate lol?
|
| I seem to recall it from high school, and that was before
| mobiles were widespread.
| vidarh wrote:
| I now really want a comprehensive history of its use. It
| feels recent, but it's also the type of thing it'd be
| unsurprising to find isolated examples of independent
| "invention" of from long before it came into common
| use...
| benj111 wrote:
| I've been considering this further.
|
| Lol would have become widely used with text messages
| which is when I came across it, it could have been used
| back in the BBS days.
|
| "I accidentally a" is basically just teenage humour.
|
| I accidentally <implied sexual thing> a $X. (Obviously
| becoming more funny the more unlikely it is for any
| sexual thing to work on whatever $X is).
|
| On top of that you've got the weird language
| construction, just like speaking like Yoda is hilarious,
| and you have the perfect thing to spread throughout the
| playground.
|
| Although internet usage doesn't imply the sexual act.
|
| I accidentally a house Means i accidentally built? A
| house.
|
| Not I accidentally had sex with a house.
| vidarh wrote:
| It's exactly because it's such easy humour I'm curious if
| there are any older expected uses... It seems pretty
| clear it gained _prominence_ with the YouTube video
| someone has referenced, and it may indeed be the first,
| but we may never really know.
| grncdr wrote:
| No chance, "lol" has been in usage for at least 25 years,
| possibly more than 30.
| benj111 wrote:
| Well this was in real life, so you aren't going to get
| records.
|
| Wikipedia suggests lol is more like 40 years old, but you
| actually have a written record to back that up.
|
| All I have is my own experience, I wasn't really on the
| internet until the 2000s so I wouldn't have come across
| lol until mobile phones and texting became widespread
| (around 1999/2000).
|
| "I accidentally a" would have been in the 1995 - 2000
| time frame. But again that's just my experience of it.
| seanhunter wrote:
| Yeah LOL comes from the BBS days as do a bunch of other
| acronyms/initialisms https://slate.com/human-
| interest/2014/05/lol-s-25th-annivers...
| pohl wrote:
| I'll stand as witness to the fact that ordinary people
| playfully tortured the language towards humorously cute
| long, long before one TRS-80 could call another over the
| phone. The tech just helped these people find and feed
| off of each other.
| zem wrote:
| look up the (speculative) etymology of OK for instance
| Izkata wrote:
| Knowyourmeme has a confirmed usage of "lol" from 1989,
| along with a list of others from the same document:
| https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/lol
|
| "I accidentally" started in 2008, and they have a link to
| the youtube video it came from:
| https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-accidentally
| kubanczyk wrote:
| Interesting. Did you mean before mobiles or before
| smartphones? As of today, it has been dated to ~2004
| (knowyourmeme).
| benj111 wrote:
| No, I'm old. Mobile phones
| junon wrote:
| Nah, "I accidentally" came way after "lol". I remember
| using "lol" as a kid on MSN/ICQ/IRC and "I accidentally"
| wasn't around until I was a teen at the earliest.
| jordigh wrote:
| We have good record of when "I accidentally" started.
| Circa 2008.
|
| https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-accidentally
|
| "LOL" goes back to IRC so at least 1980s or so.
|
| https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/LOL#cite_note-mcculloch-1
| sparrish wrote:
| > "I accidentally a scheme" clearly signposts the title is at
| least in part a joke.
|
| Not if you're unfamiliar with the joke. And with the lack of
| capitalization, the bad grammar had me figuring this was an
| ESL author.
| vidarh wrote:
| That's true for most language changes, but this is not
| particularly new at this point, though still new enough
| that it's understandable that it'll be misunderstood.
| wkjagt wrote:
| They deliberately a word
| skrebbel wrote:
| _A lesson I learned long ago is that if something isn 't fun, I
| need to turn it into a compiler._
|
| I want to frame this sentence and hang it on my wall.
| ThePowerOfFuet wrote:
| Don't let your dreams be dreams.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Yesterday you said tomorrow, so just do it
| packetlost wrote:
| Do we consider macros compilers now? :)
| bjoli wrote:
| I would say yes. A compiler takes code and produces different
| code. Maybe in another language. I wouldnt call a simple
| anaphoric if a compiler, but I wrote this:
| https://git.sr.ht/~bjoli/goof-loop and it specifies a new
| loop construct for scheme. It takes code conforming to a
| grammar and produces standard scheme code while also
| generating loop code, temporary variables, identifiers and
| all that jazz. It even transforms the code using CPS. That is
| what you get for writing complex macros in syntax-rules I
| guess.
| Izmaki wrote:
| As somebody with English as a second language, I hate it when
| "accidentally" is used as a verb.
| zfxfr wrote:
| I am french I read your comment then read again the title to
| see what was wrong and I noticed my brain automatically added
| the word "entered" after accidentally. So yes I understand your
| feeling
| croisillon wrote:
| i thought the missing verb was created and not entered?
| db48x wrote:
| It's still an adverb here. The meme used here is to
| deliberately the verb as a form of wordplay.
| zem wrote:
| https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-accidentally
| seanhunter wrote:
| The fact that people do it doesn't make it any less
| horrifying.
| RugnirViking wrote:
| I have english as my first language but I moved to a country
| where most people learn it as a second language and people are
| horrified to see how I communicate with my sister. Of course, I
| wouldn't do it with them when i'm actually trying to
| communicate effectively. I think its one of those "when you
| understand the rules well you can break them" type thing, here
| it indicates a carefree and playful tone, for a similar reason
| to how the lack of capitalisation in the title etc indicates a
| casual tone. It's trying to avoid being Official and Boastful
| and Buisnesslike.
|
| In particular, the first sentence is similarly playful with its
| choice of words; suffice to say this is intentionally poetry
| MereInterest wrote:
| Would it help to still consider "accidentally" as an adverb,
| but modifying an omitted verb? As a native English-speaker,
| that's how I tend to parse it.
|
| Up until the end of the sentence, the reader doesn't know
| whether a verb is going to occur. English usually arranges a
| sentence with subject-verb-object ordering ("I ate my meal."),
| and not subject-object-verb ordering ("I my meal ate."), so
| this is unlikely. However, variations occur, such as "Neither a
| borrower nor a lender be." in Macbeth, or "Frankincense to
| offer have I" from We Three Kings. These tend to be somewhat
| archaic usage, and so an author may deliberately use this tone
| for a sense of formality.
|
| This is similar to a garden-path sentence [0], where the
| sentence cannot be easily parsed in order. Up until the title
| ends, we don't know if the title will so formal that it changes
| up the word ordering (e.g. "I accidentally a scheme brought
| forth.") or so informal that it omitted a word without
| realizing it. This contrast between extreme formality and
| extreme informality becomes a source of humor when resolved.
|
| (And by dissecting a joke, I have made it that much funnier.
| I'm great at parties.)
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden-path_sentence
| avgcorrection wrote:
| I don't see what ESL has got to do with that preference.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| Hurts my head reading the title
| farmdve wrote:
| I had to login to HN which I have not done in many months just
| to say this to the young generation.
|
| The title is from a meme. Like before the memes of today, when
| a meme was an image around a black frame with white text.
|
| It usually goes "I accidentally a <thing>".
| brainbag wrote:
| Until I read all the way down here to the bottom of the
| comment thread, I was thinking about the older people who
| didn't get this reference since I've been hearing it for
| decades. But now I see, thanks to your comment, that it is I
| that is the old one, and it's the youngsters that don't know
| it.
| gpderetta wrote:
| Yes, it is an older meme, but it checks out.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| Thanks uncle!
| kookamamie wrote:
| Is there any chance of making the blog layout narrower, so that
| it fits my Windows 95 + VGA resolution better?
| lynx23 wrote:
| Every sufficiently complicated systems has a Common Lisp at its
| core...
| ezekiel68 wrote:
| The odd lack of verbs (in the title and the text) made me
| immediately suspect this was an unfortunate AI submission. Is
| omitting verbs part of the inside joke of Lisp communities?
| pohl wrote:
| It's a pretty common thing all over the internet to
| deliberately butcher the language for humorous effect. The
| LOLcat ("I can has cheeseburger ") translation of the Bible is
| hilarious.
| b33j0r wrote:
| I haz read! Begat treats like make biscuits!
|
| Rosanna, Rosanna, to Parton the Lamb!
| _a_a_a_ wrote:
| Bloody hell, there go a few hours. Thanks for that (somehow
| both sarcastically and not).
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20190327161227/http://www.lolcat.
| ..
| junon wrote:
| I bought that book after first reading about "ceiling cat"
| and "basement cat".
| BaculumMeumEst wrote:
| https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-accidentally
| _a_a_a_ wrote:
| On February 22nd, 2008, YouTuber Ted Suzan posted a video
| entitled "I accidentally a piano bench; is this dangerous?"
|
| https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-accidentally
| avgcorrection wrote:
| Joke cannot into brain.
| wkjagt wrote:
| It's time for a new book with a cartoon elephant on the front.
| "The Accidental Schemer".
| kevindamm wrote:
| I accidentally a Scheme, and you can too!
| iainctduncan wrote:
| I would pay very good money for that book. :-)
| tjr wrote:
| Speaking of, I was disappointed that Duane did not make the
| drawings for the latest volume. Perhaps he's retired now.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| Lots of discussion about how GCs cause problems ("far away from
| time and space from the original") and destabilize and ruin your
| life generally.
|
| I knew I was not in favor of GCs. For any reason. A pox upon the
| landscape of software.
| m0d0nne11 wrote:
| This sentence no verb
| drmeister wrote:
| I accidentally a Common Lisp that interoperates with C++
| (https://github.com/clasp-developers/clasp.git). We would also
| like to move beyond BDWGC and the Whiffle GC looks interesting. I
| will reach out to you, and maybe we can chat about it.
| chubot wrote:
| FWIW we also test the Oils GC with a X-to-Y to generator, where X
| is Python and not Scheme, and Y is C++ and not C :)
|
| For example here's a self-contained Python program to make
| various types of linked lists and traverse them, making sure the
| GC can follow the resulting pointers in C++, with field
| inheritance, vtable pointers, etc.
|
| https://github.com/oilshell/oil/blob/master/mycpp/examples/c...
| kagevf wrote:
| > That sounds like a bug farm.
|
| Stealing that expression.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-11-15 23:01 UTC)