dougdrums posted:

If you don't want people to make money off of your work, don't release it for free?

Bruegels Fuckbooks posted:

i do think a language with no garbage collector which also doesn't support manual memory management is complete genius and i wish all languages were like that. "gently caress it, nothing we can do about that memory leak."

Dylan16807 posted:

Most people don't want their compilers to crash or hang.
Unless I'm missing a joke.

Except when you'd rather have it fail to compile so you can adjust the code.

tankadillo posted:

I need someone to make a linter to enforce that now just to see how many people unironically start using it.

EpicCodeMonkey posted:

https://github.com/jevinskie/mDNSResponder/blob/master/mDNSCore/mDNS.c

Plorkyeran posted:

Signed int overflow is UB, yeah.

Woodsy Owl posted:

Heck no, what language spec permits you to put a space before the left parenthesis of a function call?

JawnV6 posted:

NihilCredo posted:

I live in the blessed land of GC and exceptions. I thought that unsigned overflow was simply the codification of what would happen by default anyway if unsigned overflow were left as UB. Are there any architectures that need to specifically handle them because they would do weird things otherwise and not guarantee 255 + 2 = 1?

Jabor posted:

The real key points are
- They added this to their actual production website, not a private dev instance
- They never actually tested the code path they added the debug logging to before shipping it

xtal posted:

I think Firefox had that before Chrome came out

Suspicious Dish posted:

Probably the best-known example of testing in video games is Riot's test harness for League of Legends, where they record game playback and ensure very high-level things like "when I am this character with this spell with these stats, and fire at this enemy with these stats 5 times, it will eventually die". That's not unit testing, that's super high-level and just about the level that starts becoming helpful for games.

NihilCredo posted:

Are there any games that are developed in a modular fashion like a business app? I.e. with a pure "business logic" library where all the rules play out and the abstract game state evolves via ABI calls, and a separate "frontend" that gets the updated game state from the library and renders it in the engine?

DaTroof posted:

Years ago there was an article about how an engine developer implemented scripting so level designers could write their own high-level game mechanics, but I can't find it now. I'm pretty sure it was a Star Wars game.

Dylan16807 posted:

Yeah but they have semicolons on every line that isn't the last in a block. it's horrible style.


And semicolons at the end of function declarations, which is a bit weird.

tankadillo posted:

https://www.scamlang.dev/

Hammerite posted:

I named my street the empty string as a joke and now the postal service sends all the mail with unreadable addresses here, it's blowing in to my garden and making a mess

Xarn posted:

Without a cast, you cannot downcast at all though.

C++ code:

struct Base {};
struct Derived : Base{};

void foo() {
    Base* bptr = nullptr;
    Derived* dptr = nullptr;
    bptr = dptr; // upcasting, always ok
    dptr = bptr; // compilation error
}

raminasi posted:

F# (and apparently OCaml as well) has one, but it relies on special-casing within the compiler, which might count as cheating.

Absurd Alhazred posted:

https://twitter.com/cmuratori/status/1246930755860586496

Tei posted:

Creating custom widgets like scrollbars is a outdated tecnique from the 90's, early 00's. I believe.

Hammerite posted:

I don't understand what you're saying here either (why would increasing the amount of tuition students receive result in a lowered graduation rate?) but the conversation has moved on and it was tenuously relevant anyway, so never mind.

Ola posted:

If C was made today, I am convinced you could make a type safe, non-variadic "print to console" function that was every bit as a fast as printf. It was a fair mistake made at the time, there is no need to repeat it.

quote:

Is there not some limit of n for std::tuple<type 1, type 2, type 3 ... type n> in C++?

Ola posted:

Print to console takes one string argument, the stock tuples go up to 17, boom, done. The world is a better place.

Foxfire_ posted:

I was being dumb above; Java gets variadic's of heterogeneous types exactly the same way python does:
- Take all the excess parameters and dump them into a single array of generic objects
- Do a runtime type test when they are accessed and fail then if they're wrong

It abandons static type safety just like the C version (python never had static safety to begin with). C/C++ doesn't have a way to implement the runtime type test and has uglier syntax, but is otherwise the same.

How do Rust/Haskell/etc.. that have static type-safe variadic's work?

Space Gopher posted:

Are you arguing against variadic functions in general, or C++'s specific implementation?

In general, they can be a useful way to pass a list of arguments determined at compile time, for something like printf or a logging function. Why copy-paste (and run the risk of errors buried in your pile of almost-but-not-quite identical logic) when you don't have to?

C++'s implementation is ugly because there's no way to express "some type, I don't care what it is" without templates, and that's a common case for variadic functions. Java, C#, and most other modern OO languages handle variadic functions in a clean, type-safe way by just giving you an array of params, that can be of the base object type or anything else you want.

Vanadium posted:

imo, if you can't call your thing Foo because there's already a Foo, you should just call it Foo_ and own the fact that there is a name collision instead of trying to obfuscate it by coming up with new taxonomies for different roles of classes or w/e.

fourwood posted:

What if it were, and I’m just spitballing here, Butt::Type.

Dijkstracula posted:

I'm increasingly convinced that the world decided python was a good teaching language because somebody (rightfully) got tired of making first-year students memorise "public, static, void, main, paren, String, args, bracket, bracket paren" without understanding it, and (wrongly) not realising that complexity is just getting pushed around

Soricidus posted:

I guess the question is “why does for…in take an arbitrary lvalue”. What use cases are there for binding anything other than an identifier or a tuple of identifiers, like we all probably assumed it did until we read that post?

Hammerite posted:

It's also something you see in other languages that have a similar object-reference model to Python. For example in C#

code:

var L = Enumerable.Repeat(new [] {1, 2, 3}, 3).ToArray();
L[0][0] = 99;
string s = "[" + string.Join("], [", L.Select(a => string.Join(", ", a))) + "]";
Console.WriteLine(s); // [99, 2, 3], [99, 2, 3], [99, 2, 3]

It's not accurate to call this "an array of arrays that reference each other". It's an array containing three references to a single object, which happens to be another array. Since there is only one inner array it doesn't make sense to say that there are multiple objects that "reference each other". To the extent that it could be taken to mean that the multiply-referenced array is self-referential, it is a false statement; neither the outer nor the inner array is self-referential.

Hammerite posted:

at the end of the day if you don't understand how object references work in your language it will generate plenty of surprises for you