What if it's through ad networks? Do the ad-networks pay or do they bill their users? Do they start offering the option, "exclude Maryland"? It seems to me this would be really, really difficult to enforce. So much of what is digital doesn't come with tags. Ads may be relabeled "suggestions" to avoid laws.

Dubious. They're doing all they can to kill it with censorship. It takes more than just new tech to keep something afloat - you also have to treat your userbase well.

Hey, I thought Episode 1 was good. It was the only prequel that could stand on its own as a complete story. The others were "Oops, I forgot to plan this out better so let's just add a ton of fighting and action to hide that fact".

I really enjoyed Episode 1 when it came out, but it has some seriously... err.. controversial things, starting with the whole midichlorian thing and finishing with the over choreographed lightsaber fights[0].

The "Lucas can do no wrong" feels pretty present there too.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0mUVY9fLlw

The colon is a shorthand for (). Incidentally, it also makes for lots of little smiley faces everywhere.

Actually, it can take multiple. gte(a: b: c: d:) is equivalent to (in C) a >= b && a >= c && a >= d. By making operators like functions, you can group like-operations and simplify code. Admittedly, it's not as readable for someone accustomed to seeing C style.

Last note: gte(a=100) would produce an error in Copper because a=100 is an assignment statement that returns "a" (a function), and gte( function ) means nothing.

Edit: I see you're referring to Python, but I figured I'd keep the note of comparison.

That's... surprising, I could easily expect

    gte(a: b: c: d:)

to possibly mean

    a >= b && b >= c && c >= d

I think it's just not as readable precisely because of the ambiguity.

You are correct. "object-function" is basically like in Javascript: It's an object (having members) and an executable body. The colons are a shorthand for function call. ie myfunc()

In Copper, variables only store functions. This separates routine from data so you never end up with null pointer errors like in languages that have Any Types or pointers. Functions can return data, so you end up having function calls everywhere. a=5 is basically a={ret(5)}

In your above example the correct first line would be: adder = [a b] { ret(+(a: b:)) }

Parameters to a function are those that are not assigned data, whereas members are: add = [Param, Member=10) { ret(+(Param: this.Member:)) }

Now you can probably see what's wrong with your third line.

yeah, i think i get it now. but if variables can only store functions, how would you write something like this in Copper?

  x = foo()
  bar(x.a, x.b)

x = foo()

bar(x.a: x.b:)

Functions can return data. So say, a=5, then to get the value of 5 out, all you have to do is call the function a.

Edit: I'm assuming foo() here returns an object with members "a" and "b". An example of such a function-object would be:

foo = [] { ret( [a=5, b=10] ) }

right, but doesn't that contradict this:

> "in Copper, variables only store functions"

because here, `x` clearly stores an object... is this about the whole "object-function" thing where Copper doesn't really distinguish the two?

(btw i'm sure this is explained in the docs... but maybe this'll help folks like me who often just read the comments)

Copper does not distinguish between function and object. An object-function has two parts: the member part and the executable body. In C++, it's analogous to:

class FunctionObject {

FunctionObject* members[];

void* operator() { /* executable body */ }

};

An article on the blog explains the parse tree.

https://copperlang.wordpress.com/2016/11/18/printsyntax/

Edit: The design of the parse tree is such that there is no need for things like statement termination, parameter separation, among other things. By its simplicity, the code focuses on what really matters. Complex syntax is mentally taxing and distracts the programmer from focusing his energy on problem solving.

> Complex syntax is mentally taxing and distracts the programmer from focusing his energy on problem solving.

With respect I don't see it that way (nor know of any studies to back that up qualitatively). While complex syntaxes do exist and they are horrible (I pray you never have to use XSLT) dropping semicolons and commas do not make a syntax noticeably simpler. But they may lay unexpected traps.

See how your users find it though.

The dropping of semicolons and commas isn't what makes it simple, I'll agree. I was referring to the simplicity of the parse tree as a whole. It's easier to figure out what a Copper statement does because there are very few types of statements. Yes, there are a couple of traps [1]. Try reading this example [2] and see how you like it.

[1] When passing either an object or data to a function, the parameter is stored as a function. e.g. if f=[p]{}, then f(a) and f(5) have p=a and p=5 respectively. If a=5, then the results are identical. The trap is that if a={ret({ret(5)})}, which is a wrapping function, and you call "a" before passing it to "f", then you get the nested function {ret(5)} instead of the wrapping function {ret({ret(5)})}. Having worked with Copper in practice, it's not too hard to spot the error, but it is one of those things that will catch beginners off guard.

[2] https://github.com/chronologicaldot/CupricBridge/blob/master...

That "trap" looks weird. Does this mean that a's type changes somehow if you call it before passing it to f? That is indeed surprising for a statically typed language. Could you write out the types of the variants (wrapped vs. non-wrapped)?

a's type didn't change. The trap was that the wrapping function returned its nested function instead of itself. You can do the same thing in other languages, it's just easier to slip into code in Copper. Let me illustrate with pseudo C code:

[code]

class F {

int mydata;

F( int a ) : mydata(a) {}

F* operator( int p ) { a=p; return new Function(0); }

};

myF = new F(10);

doSomething( &myFunc );

doSomething( myFunc() );

[/code]

This is a basic formula for how things appear "under the hood" in the VM. Notice that doSomething() accepts F*, but in the first case, the F instance passed has a different mydata value. In Copper, the above code corresponds to:

[code]

doSomething( myF )

doSomething( myF: ) or doSomething( myF() )

[/code]

No semicolons are ever required. It is loose syntax in that most anything, including this paragraph, is valid and readable code

That's still not very helpful to me. You might want to explain it a bit more in the README.

For example, taking this line from the first example:

    this.peek = +(this.a: this.b:)

If I replace this by:

    this.peek = +(this.a: this.b:

(note the dropped closing parenthesis) and leave everything else as is, that will not be a syntax error?

I know that Forth is "loose syntax" in that Forth code is just a sequence of white-space separated words, so your comment and mine are both syntactically valid Forth, but without meaningful semantics. But Forth does not use parenthesized function calls the way Copper does.

I see what you're getting at. Yes, a ) is needed... eventually. I think the key with "loose" is that it's forgiving. You won't encounter many syntax errors in average programming because the syntax has few rules. In that case, "very simple" would be better said than "loose".

The guy who wrote it isn't a lawyer either.

I think being off social media is very healthy. It's sad that people don't interact in person as much anymore, but maybe we'll get more social media that encourages meeting offline (e.g. meetup.com). Anyone want to make an app? It would be nice of there was an app that would help you identify locals and neighbors with common interests. auto-matching maybe? I can see an app getting really invasive (like checking your search-engine queries), but it doesn't need to be this intense... or maybe that depends on how badly you want to meet people.

... Then again, you could just go knock on your neighbor's door and say hello, but that's too easy, too natural. ;)

> identify locals and neighbors with common interests. auto-matching maybe?

Tinder for friendly neighbors /s

Jokes aside, it does sound good though. I wouldn't mind getting my hands dirty for a few hours on the weekend. As far as mobile apps go, my only competence is in react native. If interested let me know how I can get in touch.