p-lang thread: (now (have you (problems two)))

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > YOSPOS > p-lang thread: (now (have you (problems two)))

«‹›1784 »

EVGA Longoria: Dec 25, 2005; Let's go exploring!

Sweeper posted:

css is the worst

CSS owns

Otoh I just copy paste it from my google searches so

# ? Jul 12, 2012 03:14

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 20, 2024 11:50

CaptainMeatpants: Jun 1, 2010

dont forget to clear your floats

# ? Jul 12, 2012 03:15

jony neuemonic: Nov 13, 2009

Sweeper posted:

css is the worst

# ? Jul 12, 2012 03:16

trex eaterofcadrs: Jun 17, 2005; My lack of understanding is only exceeded by my lack of concern.

css is fine too, again keyboard cowboys ruin everything

# ? Jul 12, 2012 03:23

Zizzyx: Sep 18, 2007; INTERGALACTIC CAN CHAMPION

BonzoESC posted:

60 * 60 * 24 // => 86400

it's kinda funny how the amount of time 86400 represents is an interesting figure whether you interpret it as seconds or milliseconds

# ? Jul 12, 2012 03:30

Sneaking Mission: Nov 11, 2008

isnt it ironic dontcha think

# ? Jul 12, 2012 03:33

Blotto Skorzany: Nov 7, 2008; He's a PSoC, loose and runnin'
came the whisper from each lip
And he's here to do some business with
the bad ADC on his chip
bad ADC on his chiiiiip

trex eaterofcadrs posted:

css is fine too, again keyboard cowboys ruin everything

css might be good if mostly conforming implementations were the norm and it hadn't been shat out by the w3c

# ? Jul 12, 2012 03:35

Rufus Ping: Dec 27, 2006; I'm a Friend of Rodney Nano

Zizzyx posted:

it's kinda funny how the amount of time 86400 represents is an interesting figure whether you interpret it as seconds or milliseconds

apart from 86400ms isnt sqrt(2) minutes at all wtf kind of poo poo r u chattin

# ? Jul 12, 2012 03:36

homercles: Feb 14, 2010

Zizzyx posted:

is there anything special about the value 86400, other than it being sqrt(2) minutes? i feel like i've seen it elsewhere

1.44 != sqrt(2) not even close

other constants all programmers should know: 2^-4 to 2²⁰ plus any log2 division/multiplication

get memorising

# ? Jul 12, 2012 03:38

Rufus Ping: Dec 27, 2006; I'm a Friend of Rodney Nano

its kinda funny how 2^10 = 10^2. makes u think

# ? Jul 12, 2012 03:39

rotor: Jun 11, 2001; classic case of pineapple derangement syndrome

Condiv posted:

Sorry to ruin programming chat

Who are these losers and why do I need to know them for a job?

if you write web apps:
(a) I'm so terribly sorry and
(b) you should read stephen souters blog, its about performance and he does a lot of benchmarking, you may recognize him from such libraries as YSlow

# ? Jul 12, 2012 03:39

Sneaking Mission: Nov 11, 2008

1. Grab a calculator
2. Key in the first three digits of your phone number (NOT the area code)
3. Multiply by 80
4. Add 1
5. Multiply by 250
6. Add the last 4 digits of your phone number
7. Add the last 4 digits of your phone number again
8. Subtract 250
9. Divide number by 2

The final sum should be your phone number. How in the hell does this work?!

# ? Jul 12, 2012 03:40

rotor: Jun 11, 2001; classic case of pineapple derangement syndrome

Panic! At The cisco posted:

1. Grab a calculator
2. Key in the first three digits of your phone number (NOT the area code)
3. Multiply by 80
4. Add 1
5. Multiply by 250
6. Add the last 4 digits of your phone number
7. Add the last 4 digits of your phone number again
8. Subtract 250
9. Divide number by 2

The final sum should be your phone number. How in the hell does this work?!

wtf is a calcultor

# ? Jul 12, 2012 03:43

Sneaking Mission: Nov 11, 2008

calculator, now on the app store

# ? Jul 12, 2012 03:44

Peanut and the Gang: Aug 24, 2009; by exmarx

Rufo posted:

its kinda funny how 2^10 = 10^2. makes u think

420 / 69 = 5.55 golden manbabies

# ? Jul 12, 2012 03:51

Star War Sex Parrot: Oct 2, 2003

this is a neat thread

i should have started reading it sooner

# ? Jul 12, 2012 03:52

Shark Sandwich: Sep 6, 2010; by R. Guyovich

Star War Sex Parrot posted:

this is a neat thread

i should have started reading it sooner

i learned more from it than i probably did in college

# ? Jul 12, 2012 03:53

Sneaking Mission: Nov 11, 2008

Star War Sex Parrot posted:

this is a neat thread

i should have started reading it sooner

sticky pls

# ? Jul 12, 2012 03:54

jony neuemonic: Nov 13, 2009

trex eaterofcadrs posted:

css is fine too, again keyboard cowboys ruin everything

it works fine and it's the best tool for what it does

but it's still a pain in the dick to use for anything complicated and requires a ton of duplicated typing

less/sass help but it still kind of sucks

# ? Jul 12, 2012 04:03

rotor: Jun 11, 2001; classic case of pineapple derangement syndrome

Casao posted:

CSS owns

Otoh I just copy paste it from my google searches so

css animations are actually surprisingly good

# ? Jul 12, 2012 04:15

double sulk: Jul 2, 2010

posting on page 100

# ? Jul 12, 2012 04:19

trex eaterofcadrs: Jun 17, 2005; My lack of understanding is only exceeded by my lack of concern.

fidel sarcastro posted:

it works fine and it's the best tool for what it does

but it's still a pain in the dick to use for anything complicated and requires a ton of duplicated typing

less/sass help but it still kind of sucks

no language aside from lisp is perfect so you just gotta live with imperfections and roll w/ the punches

# ? Jul 12, 2012 04:24

Inverse Icarus: Dec 4, 2003; I run SyncRPG, and produce original, digital content for the Pathfinder RPG, designed from the ground up to be played online.

so today i was working near my interns and they were talking about some webdev work they're doing for us and the girl intern said "oh man it's not loading the sexybutton"

apparently sexybutton is a css thing

keep on keepin on webdevs

# ? Jul 12, 2012 04:31

Opinion Haver: Apr 9, 2007

^^^^

wow this is loving awful

rotor posted:

css animations are actually surprisingly good

aside from having to specify them like three times

# ? Jul 12, 2012 04:31

buttcoin smuggler: Jun 25, 2011

loving monads in loving haskell jesus gently caress

i think i finally get them though. sort of. i need to go and make the connection to category-theoretic monads now, because the bind operator is slightly different than how monads are defined category-theoretically (though they are equivalent)

holla back Haskell bros (and hoes)

# ? Jul 12, 2012 04:34

Shark Sandwich: Sep 6, 2010; by R. Guyovich

I had a web dev tell me you don't need to know any theory to design software.

# ? Jul 12, 2012 04:37

Opinion Haver: Apr 9, 2007

HineyBorelTheorem posted:

loving monads in loving haskell jesus gently caress

i think i finally get them though. sort of. i need to go and make the connection to category-theoretic monads now, because the bind operator is slightly different than how monads are defined category-theoretically (though they are equivalent)

holla back Haskell bros (and hoes)

i was going to say that this is backwards from how most people learn about monads and then i saw your username and it made sense

# ? Jul 12, 2012 04:52

MononcQc: May 29, 2007

mjs6643 posted:

I had a web dev tell me you don't need to know any theory to design software.

it doesnt need to be good software

# ? Jul 12, 2012 05:04

coaxmetal: Oct 21, 2010; I flamed me own dad

lots of software is bad software

# ? Jul 12, 2012 05:05

trex eaterofcadrs: Jun 17, 2005; My lack of understanding is only exceeded by my lack of concern.

Ronald Raiden posted:

all software is bad software

we ar still cromagnon man as far as software is concerned, we know jack loving poo poo

# ? Jul 12, 2012 05:10

trex eaterofcadrs: Jun 17, 2005; My lack of understanding is only exceeded by my lack of concern.

HineyBorelTheorem posted:

loving monads in loving haskell jesus gently caress

i think i finally get them though. sort of. i need to go and make the connection to category-theoretic monads now, because the bind operator is slightly different than how monads are defined category-theoretically (though they are equivalent)

holla back Haskell bros (and hoes)

wait

wait

you'r user name is like a math joek and you don' get monads? gently caress dogg

# ? Jul 12, 2012 05:17

buttcoin smuggler: Jun 25, 2011

trex eaterofcadrs posted:

wait

wait

you'r user name is like a math joek and you don' get monads? gently caress dogg

Back off bro. I get them *now*, ok?

# ? Jul 12, 2012 05:18

trex eaterofcadrs: Jun 17, 2005; My lack of understanding is only exceeded by my lack of concern.

HineyBorelTheorem posted:

Back off bro. I get them *now*, ok?

no tis cool i mean tho , category theory is like freshman/sophomore poo poo yo

i bet you knoew them before but like math man

you hsould be on top of it at all times in the 'pos

monads aren't too bad of an abstraction

# ? Jul 12, 2012 05:45

buttcoin smuggler: Jun 25, 2011

trex eaterofcadrs posted:

monads aren't too bad of an abstraction

yeah they're pretty tits

imo yeah category theory is actually trivial and people who sperg over it like it offers some wild, incisive new insights are stupid. It's a nice framework for thinking about complicated things and generalizing common constructions but nothing more

although higher category theory (e.g. the poo poo Lurie does) is pretty nuts

# ? Jul 12, 2012 05:57

trex eaterofcadrs: Jun 17, 2005; My lack of understanding is only exceeded by my lack of concern.

HineyBorelTheorem posted:

yeah they're pretty tits

imo yeah category theory is actually trivial and people who sperg over it like it offers some wild, incisive new insights are stupid. It's a nice framework for thinking about complicated things and generalizing common constructions but nothing more

although higher category theory (e.g. the poo poo Lurie does) is pretty nuts

but monads rule all code atm

maybe in 20 years college grads will understand how to abstract all our jobs into oblivion

as of now i'ma make money managing them

# ? Jul 12, 2012 06:18