Best LtU humour

One of the great things about LtU discussions is that we have some very witty posters, and some posts are LOL funny (that's "laugh out loud" for those new to the internet...)

So I decided to start an informal poll here: which is the funniest post on LtU ever?

I suggest two categories: one for general humour and wit, and a second for humour that requires knowledge of the theory of pogramming languages to decipher.

On edit: I think we need a special category for longer, more literary posts, if you will - the type Frank used to produce.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

First nomination

A recent post by Chris gets my first nomination.

The the punch line is masterful, and delivered with great style and panache. That's what I call skill...


fadrian for "Why, Soitenly!" and "Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk," rooted here. The Curly Howard Correspondence and the "Y you..." combinator, indeed.

Oddly enough...

... my first name is Frank, also, although I would not put myself in the same league as Mr. Atanassow (although we Franks are a quite funny bunch).

For those of you who like the short form, here's another one I came up with today (not about computer languages, sadly):

Q: Why do so few physicians specialize in proctology?
A: Because, while all doctors are assholes, not all can be asshole doctors.

Thank you, thank you! I'll be here all week.


By the sweet prince Hamlet: Frank.

Dang! You beat me to it

I would have posted that link, but you got there first. One of the funniest blog comments I've ever read.

(The Visigoths, I mean.)

Prolog joke

Not sure where I saw this but I thought it was funny:

Q: How many Prolog programmers to change a lightbulb?
A: no.

I don't recall this being on

I don't recall this being on LtU (but I guess it is now). I find it hilarious.

Computer says No

That is classic. My non-programmer friends think the Prolog 'no' business is pretty funny full stop. (Has anyone seen Little Britain? That receptionist is using Prolog!)

Never occured to me to

Never occured to me to connect Little Britain and Prolog. Now that's insider humour ;-)


In the long category, +1 for Frank and the Visigoths.

In the short category, +1 for the Curly Howard Correspondence.

I guess maybe all of these require some PLT, but I'm not even sure anymore...

Lazy evaluation?

It seems nobody is willing to go dig into the archives for other deserving posts... Instead suddenly many people are trying to be witty in other threads :-)

Greenspun's 10 laws

I've been looking for a thread to stick this. Since Greenspun never got around to creating the other 9 I figured I'd put together the list:

Law 10 (Greenspun's 10th law): Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad-hoc, informally-specified bug-ridden slow implementation of half of Common Lisp.

Law 9 (Norvig's variant): Any sufficiently complicated Common Lisp program contains an ad-hoc, informally-specified bug-ridden slow implementation of Prolog.

Law 8 (Haskell version): Any sufficiently advanced type system includes an incomplete and twisted subset of Scheme

Law 7 (Strong's version of the 10th): Any sufficiently complex data will be organized to contain a functional programming language

Law 6 (Ozen's refutation): Anyone who teaches and practices in a field still in its infancy has an informally specified, ad-hoc and bug-ridden collection of rules that often amuse but rarely enlighten.

Law 5 (Bone's Law): To fully understand any programming language, you must first implement a Lisp in it

Law 4 (Python Law): Most successful programming languages were invented by a brilliant programmer, Lisp is built into of the structure of the Universe.

Law 3 (Clarke's 3rd law): Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Law 2 (Law of variables): On a long enough time scale, all variables are temporary

Law 1 (Zawinski's Expansion Law): Every program attempts to expand until it can read mail. Those programs which cannot so expand are replaced by ones which can.

Law 1 (Zawinski's Expansion

Law 1 (Zawinski's Expansion Law): Every program attempts to expand until it can read mail. Those programs which cannot so expand are replaced by ones which can.

Oh man, so true. I have this ERP system which now sends and logs "notes"... ;-)

Contrapositive of 3 is funnier

Any technology that is distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.

Law 5 (Bone's Law)...'s funny because it's true.

lisp cycles

I know this is not directly LtU but it made me lol this morning...

so true..