OS Development Log

There's also recursive languages, but I forgot the name of one a friend had used..

 

There's also recursive languages, but I forgot the name of one a friend had used..

That's not a thing.

If it is, it's an esoteric language akin to a joke or a thought experiment.

 

That's not a thing.

If it is, it's an esoteric language akin to a joke or a thought experiment.

It is, and it isn't a joke or a though lt experimemt but a fully working language. I may be wrong, but I think it was called Clojure.

 

It is, and it isn't a joke or a though lt experimemt but a fully working language. I may be wrong, but I think it was called Clojure.

I've used Clojure. It's considered to be a functional programming language. Recursion is something that it places emphasis on however.

 

Don't shoot the messenger! I wasn't telling you what to do, just bringing up things you should be aware of.

 

I honestly don't care if I die doing this

I care.

 

It is, and it isn't a joke or a though lt experimemt but a fully working language. I may be wrong, but I think it was called Clojure.

Clojure is a dialect of Lisp, which is, as I mentioned earlier, a dynamically-typed functional language.
It is not a recursive language, because recursive languages are not a thing. What IS a thing is the concept of recursivity, which is, in extremely broad terms, something that is similar (mathematically speaking) to a part of itself, for example (in the field of computer science), a function that calls itself (or that calls another function that calls the first one), or a closure, which is unrelated to Clojure and is a function defined inside of the scope of another function. Thank you very much.

HTML and CSS: Mhm.
Javascript: Don't care about it.
Java: I agree with you.
QBasic: Yeah, it's old, I only use it to mess around sometimes.
Zeno: I'm surprised you even know what Zeno is, but it certainly did help me understand programming a bit better. (Like before if you asked me what an 'int' was I would have probably said something along the lines of 'An initializer?')
C: It's old... And?
Assembly: It's not a programming language, it's a mindfuck.

You seem to only care about my calling those languages old, and not about the actual point. I suggest you read my post again while ignoring the parts about the age of the languages. If you do not understand a term, feel free to Google it or ask me about it, I'll be glad to define it.

Wait, what?!

Just in case that wasn't clear (sorry), I meant that if you're not making an OS because you need the OS, then you're going to give up making an OS because that is way too much work (and too complicated, too). I did not mean that you're going to give up learning. That's something you should never do.

Basically:
People have opinions. (WHAT? No way! That's bullshit!)

While I do agree that people have opinions, be careful with that statement: sometimes objective facts leave no room for opinion (I'm not implying that it's the case here, but then again maybe I am).

Yes, I understand that I've undertaken a project way too big for me with way too little knowledge, but I'm fine with that.

Good!

I honestly don't care if I die doing this, I just need something to waste all my time on right now, that's not why I'm making an operating system, I have no idea why I want to do that, but I have a good excuse to focus on something I want to do.

So yeah, this answers that. I wish you the best of luck, but you really should choose a more accessible goal for now.

TL;DR Stop telling me what to do, it's not helping because I'm not listening, I'm more stubborn than a really fucking heavy rock floating trough space orbiting around a small star. (I.e. Earth)

I'll be honest with you: this, in my opinion, is one of the worst flaws one can have impeding their learning process. I know, I'm like that too. Maybe you think having a die-hard determination to go all the way in whatever you do regardless of what """the haters""" say to you is cool and hype, but that's the best way to blindly run straight into a wall. Even if you don't like or want criticism, or if said criticism is said in a way you don't appreciate, you should always take it and reflect upon it, because most of the time it is the sign that something is indeed wrong with the way you envision things, and it gives you the chance to find and fix it.

I'm not saying all this to antagonize you, nor am I trying to be a killjoy or a party-pooper or whatever else you probably think I am. As a fellow person who likes to code, and who made many mistakes over the course of my learning, I wouldn't want you to fall into obvious pitfalls that you could have avoided with the right guidance. I hope that you will become a great coder in the future, but for now you should try to make the most of your time and find the best way(s) to learn the right things efficiently.

 

Clojure is a dialect of Lisp, which is, as I mentioned earlier, a dynamically-typed functional language.
It is not a recursive language, because recursive languages are not a thing. What IS a thing is the concept of recursivity, which is, in extremely broad terms, something that is similar (mathematically speaking) to a part of itself, for example (in the field of computer science), a function that calls itself (or that calls another function that calls the first one), or a closure, which is unrelated to Clojure and is a function defined inside of the scope of another function. Thank you very much.

I am fully aware Clojure is based off of Lisp, and that it is a functional language and isn't ultimately recursive, but you can not dismiss that it is heavily based off of recursiveness. (Recursive- based for loops, lazy sequences, etc.)

I am a competent developer, I understand basic concepts like recursivity; unless you were explaining that for the sake of other people. You're welcome likewise very much.

 

you can not dismiss that it is heavily based off of recursiveness. (Recursive- based for loops, lazy sequences, etc.)

"Recursive-based for loops" are not for loops, they are recursive functions. Laziness has barely anything to do with recursivity. The concepts you mentioned are common characteristics of functional languages, not of recursive languages (which are not a thing).

I am a competent developer, I understand basic concepts like recursivity; unless you were explaining that for the sake of other people. You're welcome likewise very much.

You never know. People, on this site just like everywhere else, have a general tendency to use buzzwords they barely know the meaning of to make it seem like they're smarter than they actually are.

 

"Recursive-based for loops" are not for loops, they are recursive functions. Laziness has barely anything to do with recursivity. The concepts you mentioned are common characteristics of functional languages, not of recursive languages (which are not a thing).

Take note: "...heavily based off of recursiveness."
I never said that it was unique to Clojure.

You never know. People, on this site just like everywhere else, have a general tendency to use buzzwords they barely know the meaning of to make it seem like they're smarter than they actually are.

I can assure you that I don't throw around buzzwords for any personal gain. Words that I use are words I understand and are part of my usual vocabulary.

 

Take note: "...heavily based off of recursiveness."
I never said that it was unique to Clojure.

You're missing the point again.

The concepts you mentioned are common characteristics of functional languages, not of recursive languages (which are not a thing).

The keyword here is not "common". It's "functional". The term you want is "functional paradigm", not "recursive paradigm" (which

is

not

a

thing).

 

Please, Hiino, at this point none of us are getting anywhere if one or the other is missing the point of the other or one.

 

Jeez, talk about way off topic.
Now back on track, please

Is it related enough when I ask why I found this line:

Do you like to lick balls?

between the files?

 

While I do agree that people have opinions, be careful with that statement: sometimes objective facts leave no room for opinion (I'm not implying that it's the case here, but then again maybe I am).

There are no such thing as objective facts.