Coding Horrors: You can gather all your technical debt into one easy framework!

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > The Cavern of COBOL > Coding Horrors: You can gather all your technical debt into one easy framework!

«‹›1503 »

QuarkJets: Sep 8, 2008

Presto posted:

We have this already. Long story short, I was seeing a gastroenterologist for a while, and to try to see what was wrong with me, I swallowed a capsule with a camera and an LED flash that transmitted pictures to a capture device I wore for a day until the capsule... exited.

We don't really have it in the widespread trendy way that I meant.

I guess you can start calling yourself an influencer once people start twitch streaming their colon

# ? Jun 2, 2021 00:44

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 5, 2024 23:47

Adhemar: Jan 21, 2004; Kellner, da ist ein scheussliches Biest in meiner Suppe.

Absurd Alhazred posted:

Gastrointestinal system any% speedrun

I always screw it up at the end on the frame-perfect loaf pinch.

# ? Jun 3, 2021 06:34

Hammerite: Mar 9, 2007; And you don't remember what I said here, either, but it was pompous and stupid.; Jade Ear Joe

Someone at work was looking into what would be involved in moving our legacy C++ projects to C++20 and warned that this does something different now:

code:

A a(B(x))

To me that declares an A called "a" and initializes it with the result of calling B(x). In the newest C++ I am told it is equivalent to

code:

A a(B x)

i.e. it declares a function named "a" instead?! That's a big breaking change.

# ? Jun 3, 2021 11:28

Zopotantor: Feb 24, 2013; ...und ist er drin dann lassen wir ihn niemals wieder raus...

Hammerite posted:

Someone at work was looking into what would be involved in moving our legacy C++ projects to C++20 and warned that this does something different now:
code:
A a(B(x))
To me that declares an A called "a" and initializes it with the result of calling B(x). In the newest C++ I am told it is equivalent to
code:
A a(B x)
i.e. it declares a function named "a" instead?! That's a big breaking change.

That looks like the "most vexing parse", and I don't think C++20 changes anything in this regard. I'd ask them where this information comes from.

# ? Jun 3, 2021 11:50

Hammerite: Mar 9, 2007; And you don't remember what I said here, either, but it was pompous and stupid.; Jade Ear Joe

Then I might have misunderstood what my colleague said. They were describing something else that changed regarding changes to variable declarations and implicit conversions, and said something like "you might be tempted to write code like this, but don't".

# ? Jun 3, 2021 12:15

Bruegels Fuckbooks: Sep 14, 2004; Now, listen - I know the two of you are very different from each other in a lot of ways, but you have to understand that as far as Grandpa's concerned, you're both pieces of shit! Yeah. I can prove it mathematically.

Hammerite posted:

Then I might have misunderstood what my colleague said. They were describing something else that changed regarding changes to variable declarations and implicit conversions, and said something like "you might be tempted to write code like this, but don't".

the most vexing parse stuff was addressed in c++11 by adding a new language feature uniform type initialization, so it's not that the old code wouldn't work, it's that you should generally be using uniform initialization when applicable to avoid the problem and old style would be frowned upon. problems are generally addressed by adding new features in C++, and breaking changes are avoided (there usually are documented breaking changes, but can't remember one that wasn't in esoteric functionality.)

# ? Jun 3, 2021 13:08

Hargrimm: Sep 22, 2011; W A R R E N

While trying to replace a foreach (for no evident reason), this dude stumbled upon just the most broken possible way to try and use an enumerator:

code:

var enumerator = list?.GetEnumerator();

do
{
    var thing = enumerator?.Current;
    // do stuff
} while (enumerator?.MoveNext() != null);

This was committed in January and remained unnoticed until now. Guess it's good no one was actually using this feature.

# ? Jun 3, 2021 17:31

Tei: Feb 19, 2011; Can't post for 4 days!

Hammerite posted:

Someone at work was looking into what would be involved in moving our legacy C++ projects to C++20 and warned that this does something different now:
code:
A a(B(x))
To me that declares an A called "a" and initializes it with the result of calling B(x). In the newest C++ I am told it is equivalent to
code:
A a(B x)
i.e. it declares a function named "a" instead?! That's a big breaking change.

I wanted to go back to C++ someday, but if It dropped the C syntax core beliefs this much maybe will be a hard pass. What a ugly re-interpretation of ( and ).

# ? Jun 3, 2021 17:55

more falafel please: Feb 26, 2005; forums poster

Tei posted:

I wanted to go back to C++ someday, but if It dropped the C syntax core beliefs this much maybe will be a hard pass. What a ugly re-interpretation of ( and ).

This has always been the case in C++, it is not a C++11/14/17/20 phenomenon. The name "most vexing parse" was coined by Scott Myers in Effective C++ 20 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_vexing_parse

# ? Jun 3, 2021 17:58

Tei: Feb 19, 2011; Can't post for 4 days!

Tei posted:

I wanted to go back to C++ someday, but if It dropped the C syntax core beliefs this much maybe will be a hard pass. What a ugly re-interpretation of ( and ).

This is a problem that occurs in C as well, it's just rarer that it comes up. It's rooted in an ambiguity in C syntax, and C++ helps to resolve the ambiguity by adding alternatives, not by dropping C syntax core beliefs

# ? Jun 3, 2021 23:12

rjmccall: Sep 7, 2007; no worries friend; Fun Shoe

Right. The thing that�s vexing about it is that it�s grammatically ambiguous and so has to be parsed as a function declaration for C compatibility. So if you�re upset that it gets parsed as a function declaration, you should be mad at C, not C++.

# ? Jun 3, 2021 23:17

Kazinsal: Dec 13, 2011

I'm more upset that people would intentionally write code that ambiguous in a situation that has been known for decades to be one of the ultimate possible ambiguities in C/C++ syntax.

# ? Jun 3, 2021 23:24

ultrafilter: Aug 23, 2007; It's okay if you have any questions.

Be mad at C.

# ? Jun 3, 2021 23:36

QuarkJets: Sep 8, 2008

ultrafilter posted:

Be mad at C.

Thread title?

# ? Jun 3, 2021 23:51

Doom Mathematic: Sep 2, 2008

No, you don't get it, the beauty of C is that it's a simple language [adds two numbers together, potentially invoking undefined behaviour]

# ? Jun 4, 2021 00:03

Volmarias: Dec 31, 2002; EMAIL... THE INTERNET... SEARCH ENGINES...

Doom Mathematic posted:

No, you don't get it, the beauty of C is that it's a simple language [adds two numbers together, potentially invoking undefined behaviour]

Username / Post combo

# ? Jun 4, 2021 00:39

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

rjmccall posted:

Right. The thing that�s vexing about it is that it�s grammatically ambiguous and so has to be parsed as a function declaration for C compatibility. So if you�re upset that it gets parsed as a function declaration, you should be mad at C, not C++.

Nah I�m gonna be mad at C++, how the hell is it C�s fault that C++ insists on preserving compatibility in the weirdest edge cases when it�s happily broken compatibility on a bunch of very common things.

# ? Jun 4, 2021 02:49

Kazinsal: Dec 13, 2011

C doesn't have function style initializer syntax and doesn't have functional casting, so you can't cause the most vexing parse through those means. Ambiguity caused by those are explicitly a C++ problem.

# ? Jun 4, 2021 03:09

Foxfire_: Nov 8, 2010

"Text that could be a declaration or a variable definition should be treated as a declaration" (C)
+
"You may omit names when declaring a function/function pointer e.g. typedef int (*typeAlias)(float,float)" (C)
+
"You can define and construct objects with parenthesis e.g. Foo a(1,2,3)" (C++)

combine to do a stupid that nobody realized until it was baked in

# ? Jun 4, 2021 04:20

xtal: Jan 9, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

The third one seems pretty stupid on the face of it

# ? Jun 4, 2021 04:29

Foxfire_: Nov 8, 2010

I think it comes from C with Classes (that would later become C++) originally being a text preprocessor that took C+some extra magic words and spat out plain C code.

# ? Jun 4, 2021 04:49

Hammerite: Mar 9, 2007; And you don't remember what I said here, either, but it was pompous and stupid.; Jade Ear Joe

Kazinsal posted:

I'm more upset that people would intentionally write code that ambiguous in a situation that has been known for decades to be one of the ultimate possible ambiguities in C/C++ syntax.

I'm a C# programmer who has to occasionally, very grudgingly, write code in C++ for our legacy applications. If your language has "ultimate ambiguities" for decades then it can eat my rear end!!! :blastu:

# ? Jun 4, 2021 09:26

NihilCredo: Jun 6, 2011; iram omni possibili modo preme:
plus una illa te diffamabit, quam multæ virtutes commendabunt

xtal posted:

The third one seems pretty stupid on the face of it

With the benefit of thirty years of hindsight the second one is stupid as well. Modern languages use a placeholder for "I don't have a name to provide for this thing", typically _, and it's concise, legible, and unambiguous.

The first one, IDK honestly. Like, I have no idea what kind of ancient C code would break if the rule were reversed or (my gut instinct) if the ambiguity were required to be a compile-time error.

# ? Jun 4, 2021 09:46

Qwertycoatl: Dec 31, 2008

I'm probably being dense but I can't think of a (C) example of a statement that the first one covers.

e: And related but not quite the same, it's stupid that

code:

foo * bar;

is ambiguous unless you know whether foo is a type or a variable

# ? Jun 4, 2021 10:22

Sagacity: May 2, 2003; Hopefully my epitaph will be funnier than my custom title.

NihilCredo posted:

Like, I have no idea what kind of ancient C code would break

Probably things like OpenSSL

# ? Jun 4, 2021 12:19

feedmegin: Jul 30, 2008

Tei posted:

Only Europeans will get this joke.

https://www.phillytrib.com/news/bus...6176146c7c.html

We still get that message in the UK despite being neither EU nor EEA members any more. Brexit meant nothing :negative:

# ? Jun 4, 2021 13:54

Absurd Alhazred: Mar 27, 2010; by Athanatos

Hammerite posted:

I'm a C# programmer who has to occasionally, very grudgingly, write code in C++ for our legacy applications. If your language has "ultimate ambiguities" for decades then it can eat my rear end!!!

UB could do that, yes. :grin:

# ? Jun 4, 2021 15:16

Xarn: Jun 26, 2015

Bruegels Fuckbooks posted:

the most vexing parse stuff was addressed in c++11 by adding a new language feature uniform type initialization, so it's not that the old code wouldn't work, it's that you should generally be using uniform initialization when applicable to avoid the problem and old style would be frowned upon. problems are generally addressed by adding new features in C++, and breaking changes are avoided (there usually are documented breaking changes, but can't remember one that wasn't in esoteric functionality.)

Except uniform initialization is also terribly broken, and we want back to parentheses instead. :v:

# ? Jun 4, 2021 22:24

QuarkJets: Sep 8, 2008

When I write C# it feels like my lips have been sewn around someone else's rear end in a top hat, and while my mouth hasn't been filled with poo poo yet I know it's inevitable so I exist in a constant state of fear and anticipation

# ? Jun 4, 2021 22:48

Space Gopher: Jul 31, 2006; BLITHERING IDIOT AND HARDCORE DURIAN APOLOGIST. LET ME TELL YOU WHY THIS SHIT DON'T STINK EVEN THOUGH WE ALL KNOW IT DOES BECAUSE I'M SUPER CULTURED.

QuarkJets posted:

When I write C# it feels like my lips have been sewn around someone else's rear end in a top hat, and while my mouth hasn't been filled with poo poo yet I know it's inevitable so I exist in a constant state of fear and anticipation

That's one hell of a metaphor.

What has you so afraid of C#? It's always seemed like the PB&J or Toyota Camry of software development: there's nothing remotely interesting or sexy about it, but it's good at suiting simple needs, and most of the time that's all people really need anyway.

# ? Jun 4, 2021 23:13

Foxfire_: Nov 8, 2010

In my opinion C# is the most pleasantly designed of modern major languages, largely because it has a big paid development team and is allowed to have breaking changes in the language from older versions. What don't you like about it?

# ? Jun 5, 2021 01:31

Kazinsal: Dec 13, 2011

Foxfire_ posted:

In my opinion C# is the most pleasantly designed of modern major languages, largely because it has a big paid development team and is allowed to have breaking changes in the language from older versions. What don't you like about it?

Many people simply don't want to admit that Microsoft can design a really good language by paying developers large sums of money.

# ? Jun 5, 2021 01:36

leper khan: Dec 28, 2010; Honest to god thinks Half Life 2 is a bad game. But at least he likes Monster Hunter.

Kazinsal posted:

Many people simply don't want to admit that Microsoft can design a really good language by paying developers large sums of money.

Is it because google couldn't?

# ? Jun 5, 2021 01:38

Volmarias: Dec 31, 2002; EMAIL... THE INTERNET... SEARCH ENGINES...

Kazinsal posted:

Many people simply don't want to admit that Microsoft can design a really good language by paying developers large sums of money.

There's also a lot of lingering distrust of Microsoft given the shenanigans that they pulled in the 90s and 00s. It's taught a lot of people making the decisions to be wary.

# ? Jun 5, 2021 02:07

Kazinsal: Dec 13, 2011

Volmarias posted:

There's also a lot of lingering distrust of Microsoft given the shenanigans that they pulled in the 90s and 00s. It's taught a lot of people making the decisions to be wary.

My favourite example of them turning their act around is GitHub free accounts having way more features available after being bought by Microsoft than before. Don�t need to milk ten dollars a month out of individual devs when you have big daddy Redmond bucks behind you.

# ? Jun 5, 2021 02:34

leper khan: Dec 28, 2010; Honest to god thinks Half Life 2 is a bad game. But at least he likes Monster Hunter.

Kazinsal posted:

My favourite example of them turning their act around is GitHub free accounts having way more features available after being bought by Microsoft than before. Don’t need to milk ten dollars a month out of individual devs when you have big daddy Redmond bucks behind you.

GitHub rakes in cash with the corporate appliance

# ? Jun 5, 2021 02:40

xtal: Jan 9, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

Volmarias posted:

There's also a lot of lingering distrust of Microsoft given the shenanigans that they pulled in the 90s and 00s. It's taught a lot of people making the decisions to be wary.

They're still pulling the same stuff like this year.

# ? Jun 5, 2021 03:01

redleader: Aug 18, 2005; Engage according to operational parameters

Space Gopher posted:

That's one hell of a metaphor.

What has you so afraid of C#? It's always seemed like the PB&J or Toyota Camry of software development: there's nothing remotely interesting or sexy about it, but it's good at suiting simple needs, and most of the time that's all people really need anyway.

it's also good for various complicated needs too

# ? Jun 5, 2021 03:22

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 5, 2024 23:47

taqueso: Mar 8, 2004

xtal posted:

They're still pulling the same stuff like this year.

What'd they do?

# ? Jun 5, 2021 03:50

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > The Cavern of COBOL > Coding Horrors: You can gather all your technical debt into one easy framework!

«‹›1503 »