On Aug 3, 7:51 pm, fft1976 <fft1...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 3, 1:19 am, p...@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) > wrote: > > > > > > > fft1976 <fft1...@gmail.com> writes: > > > By the way, here is in 1 line of BF, a complete BF reader that is able > > > to > > > read all the BF syntax needed to write it: > > > > ,+[-.,+] > > > > Here's how to try it: > > > > $ sudo apt-get install bf > > > $ cat > reader.bf > > > ,+[-.,+] > > > $ bf reader.bf < reader.bf > > > > Your 150 lines don't look very impressive now, do they? > > > > Ruby < Lisp <<< BF! > > > I specified a syntactic reader. Not just a reader. > > It is a syntactic reader. BF's syntax is just a sequence of > characters. If you throw in illegal characters, the behavior is > "undefined". Lisp's syntax is more complicated: it's a tree of > identifiers (in its idealized form; of course, Common Lisp had to fuck > it up). Ruby's and Python's syntaxes are even more complicated. > > The above was to illustrate the wrongness of your argument that the > length of a self-parser determines the usefulness of the language. > Hell, I know that BF can be a little *too* awesome. > > By the way, Python's syntax is much better than Ruby's. Dollar signs > in front of variables? WTF were the designers smoking? That's like > Perl! Haven't you learned your lesson? > > Python's syntax might even be better than Lisp's, but it's certainly > harder to parse.- Hide quoted text -
Go away, troll. [This is cross-posted; I recommend that no one else follow up.] Carl Banks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
