Home

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.

By Ehud Lamm at 2007-07-21 19:21 | Fun | other blogs | 15358 reads

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...

By Ehud Lamm at Sat, 2007-07-21 19:32 | login or register to post comments

Nomination

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

By Paul Snively at Sat, 2007-07-21 20:11 | login or register to post comments

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 fadrian at Mon, 2007-07-23 23:38 | login or register to post comments

Visigoths!

By the sweet prince Hamlet: Frank.

By Koray Can at Sat, 2007-07-21 21:00 | login or register to post comments

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.)

By Peter McArthur at Sat, 2007-07-21 21:05 | login or register to post comments

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.

By ekoontz at Sat, 2007-07-21 22:31 | login or register to post comments

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.

By Derek Elkins at Sat, 2007-07-21 22:38 | login or register to post comments

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!)

By lucraft at Mon, 2007-07-23 16:28 | login or register to post comments

Never occured to me to

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

By Ehud Lamm at Mon, 2007-07-23 17:50 | login or register to post comments

Votes!

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...

By Matt Hellige at Mon, 2007-07-23 15:42 | login or register to post comments

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 :-)

By Ehud Lamm at Tue, 2007-07-24 08:50 | login or register to post comments

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.

By JeffB at Fri, 2007-07-27 17:20 | login or register to post comments

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"... ;-)

By naasking at Fri, 2007-07-27 19:35 | login or register to post comments

Contrapositive of 3 is funnier

Any technology that is distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.

By Frank Black at Fri, 2007-07-27 22:47 | login or register to post comments

Law 5 (Bone's Law)...

...it's funny because it's true.

By Wolf Logan at Mon, 2007-07-30 17:59 | login or register to post comments

lisp cycles

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

http://xkcd.com/297/

so true..

By soapdog at Wed, 2007-08-01 18:54 | login or register to post comments