|
So true.
|
# ? Jun 22, 2017 11:54 |
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 07:54 |
|
Can anyone tell me that Xtext isn't a horror? With something called EMF which seems to be a massive inner platform and enough weird conventions that they had to write their own Java variant to deal with the number of getClass based switches you need to write?
|
# ? Jun 22, 2017 14:46 |
|
Eela6 posted:Don't doxx me I have seen mutable data structures passed by reference to asynchronous go routines in every non-trivial go program I've interacted with.
|
# ? Jun 23, 2017 03:50 |
Don't you see? By limiting the syntax, you eliminate all the problems that come from higher-order concepts! Bing bong so simple
|
|
# ? Jun 23, 2017 04:54 |
|
MIPS has a limited syntax
|
# ? Jun 23, 2017 06:41 |
|
Eela6 posted:Don't you see? By limiting the syntax, you eliminate all the problems that come from higher-order concepts! Bing bong so simple This is why I write all my code like this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitespace_(programming_language)
|
# ? Jun 23, 2017 09:19 |
|
KernelSlanders posted:MIPS has a limited syntax And indeed MIPS is good.
|
# ? Jun 23, 2017 10:36 |
|
KernelSlanders posted:I have seen mutable data structures passed by reference to asynchronous go routines in every non-trivial go program I've interacted with.
|
# ? Jun 24, 2017 00:08 |
|
comedyblissoption posted:but golang makes concurrency easy Hey, they never said it makes correct concurrency easy!
|
# ? Jun 24, 2017 01:59 |
|
The thing about coding in MIPS is that there's no way any bugs will be introduced because the computer does exactly what you tell it to do with no messy compiler to screw things up for you. My MIPS code has never once thrown an exception.
|
# ? Jun 24, 2017 02:08 |
|
Dr. Stab posted:The thing about coding in MIPS is that there's no way any bugs will be introduced because the computer does exactly what you tell it to do with no messy compiler to screw things up for you. My MIPS code has never once thrown an exception. I wonder if Mel Kaye would unironically agree with this post.
|
# ? Jun 24, 2017 02:20 |
|
Psh, upgrade to a R4000.
|
# ? Jun 24, 2017 03:10 |
|
Can't decide whether I'm being a bit too pedantic, or far too pedantic.code:
|
# ? Jun 24, 2017 22:54 |
|
Hammerite posted:Can't decide whether I'm being a bit too pedantic, or far too pedantic. Might as well get a class to do this for you: C++ code:
|
# ? Jun 24, 2017 23:47 |
|
Hammerite posted:Can't decide whether I'm being a bit too pedantic, or far too pedantic.
|
# ? Jun 25, 2017 01:09 |
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Might as well get a class to do this for you: You son of a gun- don't give programmers any ideas . Cause this is what happens if you do.
|
# ? Jun 25, 2017 02:38 |
Hammerite posted:Can't decide whether I'm being a bit too pedantic, or far too pedantic. There ought to be a :windows: for this sort of thing.
|
|
# ? Jun 25, 2017 07:21 |
|
I've seen that a lot in APIs that like to define their own bool value because they are old. They continue to do it even when they have stopped support a long time ago for those clunky compilers.
|
# ? Jun 25, 2017 16:51 |
|
MrMoo posted:I've seen that a lot in APIs that like to define their own bool value because they are old. They continue to do it even when they have stopped support a long time ago for those clunky compilers. That doesn't explain Vulkan.
|
# ? Jun 25, 2017 17:00 |
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Might as well get a class to do this for you: Might want to have code:
|
# ? Jun 25, 2017 17:11 |
|
MrMoo posted:I've seen that a lot in APIs that like to define their own bool value because they are old. They continue to do it even when they have stopped support a long time ago for those clunky compilers.
|
# ? Jun 25, 2017 19:23 |
SupSuper posted:Most compilers still default to C89 rather than C99 which officially supports bool. Wait, what? I mostly use gcc, clang, and icc, and I think all of those default to C11 nowadays, with slightly older versions defaulting to C99. What widely used C compilers still default to C89?
|
|
# ? Jun 25, 2017 20:16 |
|
msvc
|
# ? Jun 25, 2017 20:20 |
|
No it doesn't. It's C99.
|
# ? Jun 25, 2017 20:22 |
|
GCC 4.9 isn't that old, is it?
|
# ? Jun 25, 2017 20:27 |
|
Spatial posted:No it doesn't. It's C99. I thought MSVC was only kind-of modern (if you can call C99 modern) because their focus was on the bits relevant to C++, so some parts of the C standard aren't up-to-date? That's just hearsay though.
|
# ? Jun 25, 2017 21:27 |
|
MrMoo posted:I've seen that a lot in APIs that like to define their own bool value because they are old. They continue to do it even when they have stopped support a long time ago for those clunky compilers. I'm a little confused because defining your own Boolean type isn't particularly a weird thing. That code snippet appears to be doing the weirdest type conversion I have ever seen. Without knowing what BOOL actually is (probably an integral value ), why can't the above code just do a simple type conversion from bool to BOOL? Knowing this is some C dialect, why wouldn't that function just take BOOLs as parameters in the first place so that implicit conversion could take over. Hell, even taking in a Boolean as a void* is a better approach than that snippet.
|
# ? Jun 25, 2017 23:00 |
|
Gul Banana posted:msvc Recent versions of msvc don't even support compiling in c89 mode. TooMuchAbstraction posted:I thought MSVC was only kind-of modern (if you can call C99 modern) because their focus was on the bits relevant to C++, so some parts of the C standard aren't up-to-date? For years they said they weren't going to ever support any C features past C89 except where required by newer C++ standards, but then ffmpeg wrote a c99 to c89 converter and this was sufficiently embarrassing that the people inside MS who wanted c99 support were able to get everything that ffmpeg needs implemented (which is basically everything not made optional in c11). Meat Beat Agent posted:GCC 4.9 isn't that old, is it? It's two major versions behind and GCC 7 isn't that far out.
|
# ? Jun 26, 2017 01:18 |
|
go is the donald trump of programming languages: someday everyone is going to simultaneously realize that it's garbage, and the retards who went along with it will lose all respect
|
# ? Jun 26, 2017 04:23 |
|
JewKiller 3000 posted:go is the donald trump of programming languages: someday everyone is going to simultaneously realize that it's garbage, and the retards who went along with it will lose all respect How do you feel about Rust, then?
|
# ? Jun 26, 2017 05:27 |
|
Coffee Mugshot posted:I'm a little confused because defining your own Boolean type isn't particularly a weird thing. That code snippet appears to be doing the weirdest type conversion I have ever seen. Without knowing what BOOL actually is (probably an integral value ), why can't the above code just do a simple type conversion from bool to BOOL? Knowing this is some C dialect, why wouldn't that function just take BOOLs as parameters in the first place so that implicit conversion could take over. Hell, even taking in a Boolean as a void* is a better approach than that snippet. windows.h posted:typedef int BOOL; windows.h is older than stdbool.h, so it defined its own boolean type. It's still around because using the standard one is not worth breaking the API and ABI of just about everything in windows (sizeof(BOOL) != sizeof(bool), in theory or in practice) That's a perfectly fine snippet since it's obvious what its doing.
|
# ? Jun 26, 2017 06:46 |
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Might as well get a class to do this for you: The assignment operator here is unnecessary: a bool can be converted to a WinBOOL to invoke the standard assignment operator. If you're worried about the multiple-conversion case, the better solution is a constructor template.
|
# ? Jun 26, 2017 07:23 |
|
Odette posted:How do you feel about Rust, then?
|
# ? Jun 26, 2017 12:48 |
|
JewKiller 3000 posted:go is the donald trump of programming languages: someday everyone is going to simultaneously realize that it's garbage, and the retards who went along with it will lose all respect But it collects the garbage faster than the humans can perceive...
|
# ? Jun 26, 2017 13:58 |
|
JewKiller 3000 posted:go is the donald trump of programming languages: someday everyone is going to simultaneously realize that it's garbage, and the retards who went along with it will lose all respect Is this guy calling Ken Thompson a retard? Asking for Rob Pike and Robert Griesemer.
|
# ? Jun 26, 2017 14:18 |
|
code:
|
# ? Jun 26, 2017 14:36 |
|
KernelSlanders posted:
and that goes double for regex libraries
|
# ? Jun 26, 2017 16:18 |
|
I don't know what is with the folks that I work with but they are really afraid of removing dead code. For example (not real code):code:
|
# ? Jun 26, 2017 22:51 |
|
idiotmeat posted:I don't know what is with the folks that I work with but they are really afraid of removing dead code. For example (not real code): I had a job once to rehabilitate a university lab's codebase. It was riddled with that kind of thing. Best I can tell, that's what happens when you don't know about / trust source control, but still want to know what the history of a given chunk of code is. I deleted easily 20k lines worth of dead code from that codebase. After checking it all in to source control, of course.
|
# ? Jun 26, 2017 23:11 |
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 07:54 |
|
Honestly, that's the easy stuff. It's relaxing, like pruning topiary.
|
# ? Jun 26, 2017 23:49 |