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 »

weird: Jun 4, 2012; by zen death robot

qntm posted:

then what's this?

code:

error: function definition is not allowed here
        int bar(int b){

on my compiler

# ? Jan 26, 2016 18:39

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 25, 2024 02:45

Hunter2 Thompson: Feb 3, 2005; Ramrod XTreme

Does C++ have a way to get string representations of enums yet?

# ? Jan 26, 2016 18:41

brap: Aug 23, 2004; Grimey Drawer

an inner function can be convenient because you can close over the locals declared above it in the containing function.
this is useful in python because the lambda syntax is limited to one liners and linters will balk and tell you to use an inner function instead of a lambda

# ? Jan 26, 2016 19:07

qntm: Jun 17, 2009

I always thought of a lambda as just a special case of inner function which is why I'm puzzled to see people talking about them as if they're different things

# ? Jan 26, 2016 19:22

VikingofRock: Aug 24, 2008

meatpotato posted:

Does C++ have a way to get string representations of enums yet?

Sure does!

C++ code:

#include <iostream>
#include <string>

enum class Foo {
	YOS,
	POS
};

std::string to_string(const Foo foo) {
	switch (foo) {
		case Foo::YOS: return "YOS";
		case Foo::POS: return "POS";
	}
}

std::ostream& operator<<(std::ostream& os, const Foo foo) {
	return os << to_string(foo);
}

int main() {
	std::cout << Foo::YOS << Foo::POS << std::endl; //prints "YOSPOS"
}

# ? Jan 26, 2016 19:43

Asymmetrikon: Oct 30, 2009; I believe you're a big dork!

qntm posted:

I always thought of a lambda as just a special case of inner function which is why I'm puzzled to see people talking about them as if they're different things

lambdas are just anonymous functions, so I guess it's more accurate to say it's the other way around? usually the only difference is that you have a more expression-like in-line syntax (like \x => ... or w/e) so it's more like every other variable declaration. that means you don't have to assign them to a name if you are just going to return them, but inner functions are mostly equivalent otherwise.

# ? Jan 26, 2016 19:48

Hunter2 Thompson: Feb 3, 2005; Ramrod XTreme

VikingofRock posted:

Sure does!

C++ code:

#include <iostream>
#include <string>

enum class Foo {
	YOS,
	POS
};

std::string to_string(const Foo foo) {
	switch (foo) {
		case Foo::YOS: return "YOS";
		case Foo::POS: return "POS";
	}
}

std::ostream& operator<<(std::ostream& os, const Foo foo) {
	return os << to_string(foo);
}

int main() {
	std::cout << Foo::YOS << Foo::POS << std::endl; //prints "YOSPOS"
}

C++

Here's my "improvement" but I don't know if this is horrible or good:

C++ code:

#include <iostream>
#include <string>

// Add new Foos here, not elsewhere. Good luck.
#define FOO_LIST \
    X(YOS) \
    X(POS) \
    X(BITCH)

enum Foo {
#define X(x) x,
    FOO_LIST
#undef X
};

std::string to_string(const Foo foo) {
	switch (foo) {
#define X(x) case x: return #x;
                FOO_LIST
#undef X
	}
}

std::ostream& operator<<(std::ostream& os, const Foo foo) {
	return os << to_string(foo);
}

int main() {
	std::cout << Foo::YOS << Foo::POS << Foo::BITCH << std::endl; //prints "YOSPOSBITCH"
}

Edit: I can't figure out how to get it to work with enum class but there you go

Hunter2 Thompson fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Jan 26, 2016

# ? Jan 26, 2016 19:59

VikingofRock: Aug 24, 2008

meatpotato posted:

# ? Jan 26, 2016 20:21

Plorkyeran: Mar 22, 2007; To Escape The Shackles Of The Old Forums, We Must Reject The Tribal Negativity He Endorsed

qntm posted:

then what's this?

a gcc extension with wacky semantics that requires runtime code generation and inherently leaks memory (it's a closure that can be passed around as a normal function pointer, so it has to generate a trampoline which passed in the captured values).

# ? Jan 26, 2016 20:28

Jeffrey of YOSPOS: Dec 22, 2005; GET LOSE, YOU CAN'T COMPARE WITH MY POWERS

Plorkyeran posted:

a gcc extension with wacky semantics that requires runtime code generation and inherently leaks memory (it's a closure that can be passed around as a normal function pointer, so it has to generate a trampoline which passed in the captured values).

yeah looking at the ridiculous assembly gcc generates might be the best part - there's definitely gcc extensions in there (computerd gotos, declared labels, inner functions sort-of closing over things, etc)

Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 21:53 on Jan 26, 2016

# ? Jan 26, 2016 21:50

suffix: Jul 27, 2013; Wheeee!

the trampoline is stored on the stack, so it should not leak memory but is only valid until the function returns

i wondered how that would work with the nx flag, turns out gcc just disables it. if you have this anywhere in your program your stack doesn't get no-execute protection

# ? Jan 26, 2016 22:53

Soricidus: Oct 21, 2010; freedom-hating statist shill

suffix posted:

the trampoline is stored on the stack, so it should not leak memory but is only valid until the function returns

i wondered how that would work with the nx flag, turns out gcc just disables it. if you have this anywhere in your program your stack doesn't get no-execute protection

brb, adding gcc extensions to debian server packages

# ? Jan 26, 2016 23:10

Bloody: Mar 3, 2013

qntm posted:

so what's the difference between that and what you were talking about?

then what's this?

idk i guess just syntax so that your lambda/inner declaration cannot occur as a result of like
void foo()
{
... stuff
...
// whoops hosed up a closing brace
void bar()
{
more stuff...
}
}
because there is probably at least one case where that has happened and been the most ludicrous runtime bug to solve

# ? Jan 26, 2016 23:59

Bloody: Mar 3, 2013

languages that are not hosed up horrorshows give you cleaner ways of declaring this:

code:

            Func<int, int> a = (int foo) =>
                               {
                                   return foo 	- 1; 
                                   
                               };

and you have a named method-scoped function that is very easy to differentiate from a non-scoped function and can capture local scope and you can pass it around and all that poo poo

the only thing that is not flawless about this is that you have to manually specify Func<T> you can't just var away the whole thing

# ? Jan 27, 2016 00:02

gonadic io: Feb 16, 2011; >>=

All I'm seeing is an argument for whitespace sensitivity

# ? Jan 27, 2016 00:08

Soricidus: Oct 21, 2010; freedom-hating statist shill

gonadic io posted:

All I'm seeing is an argument for whitespace sensitivity

or auto-formatting on commit, which i guess is essentially the same thing but less enforced

# ? Jan 27, 2016 01:07

fart simpson: Jul 2, 2005; DEATH TO AMERICA

autoformatters own because people can stop bitching about indentation and line breaks and whatever

# ? Jan 27, 2016 02:09

fritz: Jul 26, 2003

https://twitter.com/gavinjoyce/status/691773956144119808

# ? Jan 27, 2016 03:18

Shaggar: Apr 26, 2006

lmao. that's so loving javascript

# ? Jan 27, 2016 03:19

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

fritz posted:

https://twitter.com/gavinjoyce/status/691773956144119808

# ? Jan 27, 2016 03:34

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

fritz posted:

https://twitter.com/gavinjoyce/status/691773956144119808

# ? Jan 27, 2016 03:42

kitten emergency: Jan 13, 2008; get meow this wack-ass crystal prison

npm install verbose is loving terrifying

# ? Jan 27, 2016 03:49

Arcsech: Aug 5, 2008

uncurable mlady posted:

npm is loving terrifying

# ? Jan 27, 2016 03:54

JewKiller 3000: Nov 28, 2006; by Lowtax

who exactly is it who thought "man, the way i just list all my dependencies in this file and maven+eclipse take care of it for me, even telling me when version numbers are wrong... imagine if we had that, but without any of the good parts, and in javascript!"

# ? Jan 27, 2016 04:06

Shaggar: Apr 26, 2006

p-langers

# ? Jan 27, 2016 04:29

Plorkyeran: Mar 22, 2007; To Escape The Shackles Of The Old Forums, We Must Reject The Tribal Negativity He Endorsed

0% chance anyone involved with npm had ever used maven

# ? Jan 27, 2016 06:23

Chamook: Nov 17, 2006; wheeeeeeeeeeeeee

Bloody posted:

the only thing that is not flawless about this is that you have to manually specify Func<T> you can't just var away the whole thing

One of my few good colleagues tells me that this is because the c# compiler can't determine if it should be a Func or an expression, so now we have a handy helper for it:

code:


public static Func<T> Func(Func<T> f) => f;

And then one for all the different number of parameters on the Func, and now we can use var with lambdas.

# ? Jan 27, 2016 07:14

Valeyard: Mar 30, 2012; Grimey Drawer

MALE SHOEGAZE posted:

react's api exposes like 6 functions. it's the definition of simple

Just use backbone with underscore for templating

# ? Jan 27, 2016 10:06

Valeyard: Mar 30, 2012; Grimey Drawer

fritz posted:

https://twitter.com/gavinjoyce/status/691773956144119808

This is pretty bad, but considering there is a toggle for the progress bar in the first place implies they already know there is a performance hit. What other reason would you have for allowing it to be turned off?

# ? Jan 27, 2016 10:14

cowboy beepboop: Feb 24, 2001

don't defend npm it's unseemly

# ? Jan 27, 2016 10:33

tef: May 30, 2004; -> some l-system crap ->

Valeyard posted:

This is pretty bad, but considering there is a toggle for the progress bar in the first place implies they already know there is a performance hit. What other reason would you have for allowing it to be turned off?

(this is kinda common behaviour for cli tools though?)

# ? Jan 27, 2016 10:44

FamDav: Mar 29, 2008

I thought the IO being non-blocking was the point

# ? Jan 27, 2016 10:46

tef: May 30, 2004; -> some l-system crap ->

# ? Jan 27, 2016 10:47

pseudorandom name: May 6, 2007

progress bar toggles and the like are for when you want to pipe the output to a file and don't want the control codes messing it up

# ? Jan 27, 2016 11:07

distortion park: Apr 25, 2011

https://googleblog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/alphago-machine-learning-game-go.html?m=1

Looks like computers are now better at go too. The way they did it is cool too. Rip humans

# ? Jan 27, 2016 20:33

distortion park: Apr 25, 2011

Literally all we're good for is loving. Ian m banks was right.

# ? Jan 27, 2016 20:34

distortion park: Apr 25, 2011

The previous post should be considered forward dated to 2025

# ? Jan 27, 2016 20:34

fritz: Jul 26, 2003

avatar the color of a tv tuned to a dead channel

# ? Jan 27, 2016 21:06

Symbolic Butt: Mar 22, 2009; (_!_); Buglord

pointsofdata posted:

https://googleblog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/alphago-machine-learning-game-go.html?m=1

Looks like computers are now better at go too. The way they did it is cool too. Rip humans

that looks way more promising and impressive than facebook's attempt

# ? Jan 27, 2016 21:37

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 25, 2024 02:45

Nippashish: Nov 2, 2005; Let me see you dance!

pointsofdata posted:

https://googleblog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/alphago-machine-learning-game-go.html?m=1

Looks like computers are now better at go too. The way they did it is cool too. Rip humans

https://storage.googleapis.com/deepmind-data/assets/papers/deepmind-mastering-go.pdf

# ? Jan 27, 2016 22:05

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

«‹›1446 »