barubary

joined 2 years ago
[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 days ago (2 children)

@devilish666 C++ (non-stupid):

#include <stdio.h>
int main() {
puts("Hello, world!");
}

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago
[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 week ago

C) It's an obvious joke.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago (2 children)

s/diplomated/graduate/
s/branche/industry (sector)/

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

Isn't that how B worked?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago

Similarly, Perl lets you say

my $ret = do {    if (...) {        ...    } else {        ...    }};
[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

To be fair, the C example could be detangled a lot by introducing a typedef:

typedef int Callback_t(int, int);Callback_t *(*fp)(Callback_t *, int);
[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

Both of those declarations look weird to me. In Haskell it would be:

a :: Stringbob :: (String, Int, Double) -> [String]bob (a, b, c) = ...

... except that makes bob a function taking a tuple and it's much more idiomatic to curry it instead:

bob :: String -> Int -> Double -> [String]bob a b c = ...-- syntactic sugar for:-- bob = \a -> \b -> \c -> ...

The [T] syntax also has a prefix form [] T, so [String] could also be written [] String.

OCaml makes the opposite choice. In OCaml, a list of strings would be written string list, and a set of lists of strings would be string list set, a list of lists of integers int list list, etc.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Because let x: y is syntactically unambiguous, but you need to know that y names a type in order to correctly parse y x. (Or at least that's the case in C where a(b) may be a variable declaration or a function call depending on what typedefs are in scope.)

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

include Hebrew in their language, because I guess they were feeling kabbalistic

... or because the developers were Israeli: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zend/_(company)#History

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Does that count as you opening vim? Technically, it's git opening vi because you haven't configured a standard text editor to use (done by setting the EDITOR environment variable¹). Yes, it's unfortunate, but I feel you should blame whoever built your git to use vi as the editor of last resort.

¹ Git checks the following places for an editor: GIT_EDITOR (environment variable), core.editor (configuration setting), VISUAL (environment variable), EDITOR (environment variable), and then a compiled-in default if none of the above are set.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I am 100% confident that your claim is factually wrong.

view more: next ›