What programming language is the best for anime girls to use?

I'm going to fail my html class because I'm too far behind and I don't know how to do the final project at this point... Catching up isn't worth it...

>>281291537 (OP)
>java
>awt (awful toolkit)
Disgusting.

>>281291537 (OP)
foids cannot into programming

>>281291551
I haven't done much HTML but I've never been able to string everything together into a program that starts and stops. They only ever taught me how to write disconnected chunks.

>>281291537 (OP)
Ai prompts
like "daisuki desu!"

>>281291594
Do people even touch HTML anymore with all the frameworks and CMS around?

Any sort of Lisp.

Go
>cute mascot
>made for stupid people, very simple in nature
>at the same, is also very rigid and verbose
>which makes it's nature self-contradictory (A very "woman" thing)
>retarded naming conventions for variables (1-3 letters) make it seem smarter than it is and harder to read
>requires constant error handling, so you can pretend you are writing useful code while filling screen with if err != nil return err
>is ultimately pointless, as for any task under the sun there is a better alternative
All of the above makes it the perfect language for your average anime girl to do little work while looking smart and cute.

>>281291537 (OP)
the question should be: which programming language is the cutest anime girl?

>>281291873
>at the same time*

>>281291873
>made for stupid people, very simple in nature
Are you a retard who admires complexity?

>>281291537 (OP)
In fiction, it should be lisp since lisp being useful is pure fiction. Kek

>>281291537 (OP)
Molly-sama, my first anime crush, is actually a java ma'am?
It's over.

>>281291537 (OP)
Binary Combinatory Logic

>>281291592
stfu chud us girls(male) can turn you into rust

>>281291912
Midwits choose between complexity/simplicity.
I admire usefulness.
Either complexity/simplicity can be useful or useless, worthy of admiration or disdain.

>>281291537 (OP)
>java
Yuck

>>281292134
>usefulness
That is a passive user's perspective, who is unaware or uncaring of how things work. Definitely the dumbest stance.

>>281292186
Its ironic that you are trying to argue in favor of simplicity over complexity by saying that a user who keeps things simple by not caring enough about the inner workings of useful tool is being passive and is taking "the dumbest stance".
And this exposes the underlying problem with your chosen paradigm of thought.

The paradigm of useful/useless on the other hand has no problem incorporating user's awareness as one of its components.
In other words, a useless tool won't stop being useless if its made out of two parts or a billion.
Nor will a useful tool stop being useful whether the user knows everything about it's inner workings or nothing.

>>281292447
>a user who keeps things simple
that's not what the statement is about at all, brainlet. It's an engineering question. A user is just a dumb consumer. You think like a dumb consumer.

>>281292134
You are soulless.
Coding should be fun for you, not just useful for your customers.

>>281292478
That is exactly what the statement is about, but it seems that trying to argue about abstract fundamentals makes your brain hurt so much you get mad, so let me simplify things for you.
Your argument boils down to
>After careful examination and proper understanding of all components, an engineer would admire shit on a stick over a rocket because of the first entity's simple design.

>>281292663
No, it does not. You're a dumb consumer who never created anything of worth.

>>281291537 (OP)
php and bit of js is all you need to shitpost

>>281292730
Shhh little gopher, no tears, only dreams now.
>>281292659
Who said anything about customers?
A useful tool is a tool that is the best for achieving the intended goal.
Whether the goal is fun or shipping the product to customers is irrelevant.

>>281292659
>plumbing should be fun for you, not just useful for your customers.

>>281292837
>no arguments
Concession accepted, dumb consumer.

>>281293004
It may not apply to every job, but it does apply to programming.
Ruby was designed by that mantra, and Ruby on Rails was immensely successful.
Haskell was designed as a science experiment and it ended up being useful in production by accident.

>>281293037
None offered.
Neither arguments, nor concessions.