prove it!

I tried really hard but I think I may have stumbled into the inconsistency of arithmetics instead. Oopsie daisy.

I read your meme diagonally, so I’m not sure I got it all.

I think the reason paw patrol is on there is it can be viewed as police state propaganda.

I never watched it, so I can’t speak for that, but I do know some people genuinely think that. I am thus not too sure that this is done ironically.

That’s the sort of indictment of C++ I like to hear. It’s not just me then. I sometimes feel like I’m taking crazy pills with some colleagues who are super enthusiastic about it still.

But again, I’m stupid, I know I’m stupid, and C++ has way too many features and convoluted behaviours which are hard for me to remember and reason about. It often feels like it makes me think more about the language problems than the actual problem I’m supposed to work on. It may say more about me than the language, but I do feel validated with comments like this.

I had no idea about the assertion! Thanks.

Yes, this is plain wrong or often unimportant on modern architecture, you’re right. I, certainly mistakenly, thought this was one of the reasons for the idiomatic version involving function composition, which is the thing I, subjectively, don’t enjoy as much.

I stand corrected.

Thanks for the detailed answer. Preaching to the choir.

The existence of the concept of ownership in languages like C++ is why I threw “moderately” in there. I agree depending on what you take that to mean, it may or may not do some heavy lifting.

For the rest, I’d divide it into hard facts (compiler messages are absolutely undeniable, in any circumstance) and things that can definitely be true depending on your personal use cases. I’m with you on this: for the vast vast majority of tasks commonly understood as software engineering, memory safety is a concern, and a lot, if not all, of your points, are valid.

I must humbly insist that it does not fit my needs, in the sense that memory safety is of no concern to me, and that the restrictions that a compiler-enforced approach imposes make me less productive, and, subjectively, also less enjoyable because causing more friction.

That being said, you may also not consider what I’m currently doing to be software engineering, and that’s totally fine. Then we’d agree entirely.

EDIT: also, there are very few languages less productive and beginner-friendly than C++ in my opinion. The proverbial bar is in hell. But you are talking to an unreasonable C++ hater.

What? You need to make a function to make a loop? That can’t be right???

Ah no, there is a misunderstanding. You can write C-loops, of course, they just could involve more work under the hood because in order to enforce memory safety, there needs to be some form of bounds checking that does not happen in C. Caveat: I don’t know whether that’s always true, and what the subtleties are. Maybe I’m wrong about that even, but what is true is that what I am about to say, you will encounter in Rust codebases.

By function composition I meant in the mathematical sense. So, this example explains the gist of it. You may need to throw in a lambda function in there to actually do the job, yeah. I don’t know what the compiler actually reduces that to though.

It’s just the more functional approach that you can also see with Haskell for example. I find it harder to parse, but that may be lack of training rather than intrinsic difficult.

EDIT: pasted the wrong link to something totally irrelevant, fixed now

Ah, a fellow C coder. Never did do assembly with chips older than x86_64 basically. The only old school stuff I touched was writing an interpreter for the CHIP-8. I tried writing some CHIP-8 too, but coming from more recent paradigms, it seemed quite unwieldy to me.

I like python for quick and dirty stuff, I don’t like python for being interpreted and it being not obvious what happens under the hood, memory wise, at a glance.

Seeing as you do C I’ll say this. The one thing I really did not enjoy, subjectively, with Rust, is that writing “C-style loops” comes with a performance penalty because there are bound checks happening, so the idiomatic version of a loop in Rust usually involves iterators and function composition.

I am stupid. C-loops are easy for me to understand. More sophisticated stuff is hard for my little brain. I’d rather be trusted with my memory access, and be reminded of my stupidity when comes the inevitable segfault. Keeps you humble.

Enjoy! I don’t know what you used to seriously program on but I am willing to bet that the ownership paradigm that it enforces is going to feel at least moderately new to you, unless you forced yourself to code that way anyways.

Plus, as long as you’re doing silly little home projects, the compiler errors are the absolute best I’ve ever seen. Literally just learn basic syntax, try it out, and when it does not compile, the compiler not only tells you why but also what it thinks you’re trying to do and how to fix.

Absolute gem of a learning tool.

No, Rust is to make you feel like you haven’t programmed seriously in 20 years when you first pick it up, even though you are actively doing it.

Before the angry rust “mob” comes to get me: this is a joke. I tried Rust out of genuine curiosity, cobbled together a silly little thing, and quite liked it. The borrow checker made me feel like a total beginner again, in some aspects, and it was great to get that feeling again.

Ultimately it does not fit my needs, but there are a few features I am pretty envious of. I can totally see why it’s getting such a following, and I hope it keeps growing.

Well yes it is to me too seeing as that abuse was not made, to my knowledge at least, in my native language.

But then I thought, “well if there is a crescendo, unless it goes on forever, there will be a climax”. So I kinda get where the abuse (or misunderstanding, or literary license, or whatever the intent is) comes from. I don’t, personally, agree with it, so won’t use it that way. But whatever I personally think is irrelevant, at least now I am aware someone might mean that. So I guess now, in English at least, it’s been long enough and widespread enough it’s no longer an abuse (colloquially speaking)

Hag.

Just in case: this is a reference to Hot Fuzz, I’m not actually calling you a hag.

It might be?..

Oops, I meant to say: “hayaaa”

Thanks a lot for the answer! Quite interesting that the Proto-Indo-European word could have been something close to wasp, only for English to go through the waps->wasp that you explained in your previous post.

Well, one fewer false “fact” to believe in, many more to go!

I understand that civilians are under no obligation to follow the rules of language, but writers should be striving for precision in their language. Impressionism doesn’t really work for literature. You can’t be blurry.

Won’t read the rest, this is enough for me to understand you’re now either arguing in bad faith, or are ignorant of how language evolves. Is English you first language? Look up the contributions of Shakespeare to the language. Are you Italian, like “piccolo” could suggest? Look at Dante Alighieri.

Your language would be different without the freedom that writers take over the ages, and for one thing you’re unhappy about, there are a myriad you don’t even think twice about, and hopefully, quite a few metaphorical and poetic idioms that you find beautiful.

I won’t engage further. Have a good day.

I am talking about none of these things. I am talking about the well-defined, mathematical concept called a disk (or disc). That is, the flat surface bounded by a circle. In the same way that if I was talking about a square in the sense of a shape, I would be talking about the geometric object, not a square as in “town square” (yes they often have four sides too, and no, they’re not always square shaped).

Re disk: I have seen both spellings in the maths literature, I just am not sure whether the distinction is as simple as US vs UK, or if it is more granular (Cambridge vs Oxford for instance), and whether there is also a temporal element to it.

Also, I am sorry that this is now so needlessly pedantic, but it kinda sorta proves my point. We don’t need all that to agree that pizzas are circle shaped, and I would not actually have corrected you and said “no, they are a disk!”. All of that is pseudo-intellectual wank in the context of talking about pizzas.

EDIT re your “round” shadow edit. Well now you’re just deliberately missing the point. Have a good day.

Obviously you look into the literature to see who has the first claim, and they get to keep it. The others have to edit and re-print the entirety of the corpus.

Sounds reasonable to me.

Both spellings are accepted to designate the mathematical object. I think it’s mostly a UK vs US spelling but please don’t quote me on that.

EDIT just realised I missed the opportunity to answer with the extremely unhelpful mathematician response: “yes”

Breaking pots. Don’t mind me.

EDIT: holdup, who are you calling a sysadmin? I administer my system, sure, but that’s about as far as I’m willing to go, thank you.

I’d love to keep it clean but too many devs think $HOME is up for grabs, as long as they prepend their directory names with a dot (they think I’ll never notice, but I notice, and I keep a list…)