terrible programmers: my god, it's full of chars

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > YOSPOS > terrible programmers: my god, it's full of chars

«‹›1446 »

power botton: Nov 2, 2011

Johnny Cache Hit posted:

adult programmers

no such thing

# ? Jan 8, 2014 15:37

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 13, 2024 08:48

Cocoa Crispies: Jul 20, 2001; Vehicular Manslaughter!; Pillbug

gucci void main posted:

go fmt is cool but unfortunately go has the ugliest syntax of just about any language ever designed so no level of formatting can truly help it

lol

C++, java/c#, Erlang, lisp

# ? Jan 8, 2014 15:52

Johnny Cache Hit: Oct 17, 2011

gucci void main posted:

go has the ugliest syntax of just about any language ever designed

what

now i want to know what language you think has the prettiest syntax

# ? Jan 8, 2014 16:19

Shaggar: Apr 26, 2006

I don't think I remember go syntax, but I cant imagine its worse than perl

# ? Jan 8, 2014 16:19

Johnny Cache Hit: Oct 17, 2011

face me sulk

i want to mock whatever language you say has the prettiest syntax

# ? Jan 8, 2014 20:13

Doc Block: Apr 15, 2003; Fun Shoe

Do people actually use Go yet, or is it still Yet Another Google Project that Linux nerds are going gaga over because Ken Thompson or whoever is/was involved?

# ? Jan 8, 2014 20:40

power botton: Nov 2, 2011

Doc Block posted:

Do people actually use Go yet, or is it still Yet Another Google Project that Linux nerds are going gaga over because Ken Thompson or whoever is/was involved?

people love to claim that google is using it for serious infrastructure and services internally

# ? Jan 8, 2014 22:28

power botton: Nov 2, 2011

http://golang.org/doc/faq#Is_Google_using_go_internally

It does the insane job of serving chrome binaries.

# ? Jan 8, 2014 22:29

Nomnom Cookie: Aug 30, 2009

a custom server written in a custom language, to serve files from a custom filesystem over http. google is the most nih place in the universe

# ? Jan 9, 2014 01:04

Shaggar: Apr 26, 2006

Doc Block posted:

Do people actually use Go yet, or is it still Yet Another Google Project that Linux nerds are going gaga over because Ken Thompson or whoever is/was involved?

pretty sure its already abandoned.

# ? Jan 9, 2014 01:16

men with puns: Feb 8, 2010; Young Orc

Nomnom Cookie posted:

a custom server written in a custom language, to serve files from a custom filesystem over http. google is the most nih place in the universe

if you're using their browser, they'll talk to it using SPDY instead of http

# ? Jan 9, 2014 04:58

double sulk: Jul 2, 2010

Johnny Cache Hit posted:

what

now i want to know what language you think has the prettiest syntax

elixir or c#

# ? Jan 9, 2014 05:11

DONT THREAD ON ME: Oct 1, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo; Floss Finder

i like haskell

# ? Jan 9, 2014 05:15

gonadic io: Feb 16, 2011; >>=

gotta say, using spaces for function application seems nicer than any other alternative i've seen. plus it lets you use partial application really easily to do stuff like

code:

> imapM_ (printf "%d %s\n") ["foo", "bar", "baz"]
0 foo
1 bar
2 baz

# ? Jan 9, 2014 15:01

MononcQc: May 29, 2007

Elixir's spaces for function application, combined with its eager evaluation, and its use of different namespaces for closures and literal functions can be confusing. I wouldn't consider it to have a neat syntax, or at the very least, not the best semantics around so far.

So for example, the pipe operator (|>) allows to transform something like f(g(a,1),2,3) into a |> g(1) |> f(2,3), or with spaces: a |> g 1 |> f 2,3 . That's fine. Now if g is instead a closure, then it works a bit like lisps-2 and you need a different syntax: f(g.(a,1),2,3), and a |> g.(1) |> f 2,3 (closures do not allow the parens-less calling syntax).

Similarly to standard lisp-2 shenanigans, you can have both g() and g.()�calls happening and referring to two different functions within the same scope. The former refers to the literal 'g' function, while the latter refers to the closure within the 'g' variable.

Here's where it gets fun with spaces for function application. Let's say I use this g�combo and use it in an expression such as g |> something(x). It isn't clear whether I just called g() and passed its result to something(_, x), or if I passed in the variable itself.

Then the |> macro has problems of its own, namely that it's impossible to call a function and use its result in a pipe sequence: g |> (f())�isn't valid as far as I know.

Elixir has nice-looking syntax, but warts hiding around it, and you have to be careful about it. I remember finding a bug with its pattern matching assignment/reassignment where poo poo was left unspecified:

x = 3 {x, ^x} = {5,5}

It was undefined whether the pattern matching would take place left-to-right or not, and whether the re-assignment of 'x' would take place before its fixed matching on a previous value (^x). In one case the expression works, in the other, it fails and errors out. I think this has now been specified into the language, but you just know there's plenty of that stuff lurking in.

I know I would instantly remove the parens-free calls given how confusing it is in Elixir.

E: just asked Jos� Valim. The variable is always prefered in g |> f, and nullary function calls will only happen if there is no scope ambiguity.

MononcQc fucked around with this message at 15:57 on Jan 9, 2014

# ? Jan 9, 2014 15:37

Mr SuperAwesome: Apr 6, 2011; im from the bad post police, and i'm afraid i have bad news

Johnny Cache Hit posted:

what

now i want to know what language you think has the prettiest syntax

c# syntax is pretty loving great

# ? Jan 9, 2014 15:48

coffeetable: Feb 5, 2006; TELL ME AGAIN HOW GREAT BRITAIN WOULD BE IF IT WAS RULED BY THE MERCILESS JACKBOOT OF PRINCE CHARLES

YES I DO TALK TO PLANTS ACTUALLY

USSMICHELLEBACHMAN posted:

haskell

# ? Jan 9, 2014 15:55

FamDav: Mar 29, 2008

elixir blows erlang blows your mom blows

# ? Jan 9, 2014 21:39

~Coxy: Dec 9, 2003; R.I.P. Inter-OS Sass - b.2000AD d.2003AD

Mr SuperAwesome posted:

c# syntax is pretty loving great

shaggar was right

# ? Jan 10, 2014 08:22

Dessert Rose: May 17, 2004; awoken in control of a lucid deep dream...

~Coxy posted:

shaggar was right

# ? Jan 10, 2014 08:54

Dr Monkeysee: Oct 11, 2002; just a fox like a hundred thousand others; Nap Ghost

Mr SuperAwesome posted:

c# syntax is pretty loving great

seriously c# is really pretty when written well

oddly java has almost the same syntax but it's different enough some mental block kicks in and my eyes slide right the gently caress off the screen. i literally can't pay attention to a java code review

in summation the line between beauty and the grotesque is thin

# ? Jan 10, 2014 09:07

Mr SuperAwesome: Apr 6, 2011; im from the bad post police, and i'm afraid i have bad news

ye i agree gently caress java lol

# ? Jan 10, 2014 14:23

Malcolm XML: Aug 8, 2009; I always knew it would end like ｔｈｉｓ．

Monkeyseesaw posted:

seriously c# is really pretty when written well

oddly java has almost the same syntax but it's different enough some mental block kicks in and my eyes slide right the gently caress off the screen. i literally can't pay attention to a java code review

in summation the line between beauty and the grotesque is thin

f# is basically a nicer c# in every way possible

# ? Jan 10, 2014 14:32

Shaggar: Apr 26, 2006

java and c# are pretty much the same, but VS defaults to all man style so that's why c# code looks better by default

# ? Jan 10, 2014 15:32

Shaggar: Apr 26, 2006

also, properties

# ? Jan 10, 2014 15:33

Posting Principle: Dec 10, 2011; by Ralp

realtalk why cant i just do something like

code:

@Property int butts;

in java

# ? Jan 10, 2014 15:43

Shaggar: Apr 26, 2006

that's not really any different from private int butts; or public int butts;

what you really want is public int Butts { get; set; }

# ? Jan 10, 2014 15:50

SavageMessiah: Jan 28, 2009; Emotionally drained and spookified; Toilet Rascal

Java code:

@Data
class Butts {
  private int stinkyness;
}

class Butts {
  @Getter @Setter
  private int stinkyness;
}

works with lombok

lombok rules

EDIT: to be clear it generates appropriate bean methods. if its final it only does the getter.

# ? Jan 10, 2014 15:51

Shaggar: Apr 26, 2006

that's all pretty gross compared 2 c# properties.

# ? Jan 10, 2014 15:56

SavageMessiah: Jan 28, 2009; Emotionally drained and spookified; Toilet Rascal

Shaggar posted:

that's all pretty gross compared 2 c# properties.

yes

but ill take what i can get

# ? Jan 10, 2014 16:15

Janitor Prime: Jan 22, 2004; PC LOAD LETTER

What da fuck does that mean; Fun Shoe

Shaggar posted:

that's all pretty gross compared 2 c# properties.

Sorry shaggar, but lombok loving rules when you're making stupid little bean classes that are really just structs. It adds the getters, setters, constructors, equals, hashcode and toString all for you with that one annotation.

# ? Jan 10, 2014 16:28

Posting Principle: Dec 10, 2011; by Ralp

Hard NOP Life posted:

Sorry shaggar, but lombok loving rules when you're making stupid little bean classes that are really just structs. It adds the getters, setters, constructors, equals, hashcode and toString all for you with that one annotation.

lombok looks pretty cool. how does that sort of stuff work in java, is it doing the work at compile time, or using reflection/proxies?

# ? Jan 10, 2014 16:33

GameCube: Nov 21, 2006

yo check it there's a sales on computer books about computers http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=amb_lin...rd_i=7299114011

can someone who knows about this poo poo tell me if there's a referral in that link cuz someone sent it out to the whole engineering dept and now i wonder if he's making mad bucks off of us

# ? Jan 10, 2014 16:37

Shaggar: Apr 26, 2006

it does it during compilation so the compiled code is as if you wrote the getters/setters/etc.. you're self. I don't like the smell of it.

# ? Jan 10, 2014 16:38

Posting Principle: Dec 10, 2011; by Ralp

thats really cool then. i might use it

# ? Jan 10, 2014 16:41

Posting Principle: Dec 10, 2011; by Ralp

actually i'm going to look at the code for it to see how it works, because that is more interesting than using it really.

# ? Jan 10, 2014 16:42

Shaggar: Apr 26, 2006

like that's something i'd rather have the ide do for me in realtime. eclipse can already generate that stuff for you, but you have to tell it to manually. so if you could flag a class somehow so eclipse auto generated stuff when you made changes to fields that would be better. that way you're checking in the real code which would be way easier for people who don't know about whatever special compiler thing ur using.

# ? Jan 10, 2014 16:44

bobbilljim: May 29, 2013; this christmas feels like the very first christmas to me

y do u bother with getter and setter methods if there's no logic in them u could just use the public field directly

# ? Jan 10, 2014 23:45

DONT THREAD ON ME: Oct 1, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo; Floss Finder

i like haskell guards a lot

code:

	max :: Ord a => a -> a -> a
	max x y
	  | x > y = x
	  | otherwise = y

# ? Jan 10, 2014 23:51

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 13, 2024 08:48

MeruFM: Jul 27, 2010

C# is kinda nice in some ways but using getset syntactic sugar as the reason is p bad

# ? Jan 10, 2014 23:51

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > YOSPOS > terrible programmers: my god, it's full of chars

«‹›1446 »