tries to hide C:\jp\scripts\whuj9f.bat and the fact he copied 90% of the thing from a post in the offtopic section of a gaming forum behind his back (with no success)
oh also hhe62m.lsp was copied off a magic spellbook dont ask about it
this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2025
1154 points (99.4% liked)
Programmer Humor
22619 readers
1192 users here now
Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
Rules
- Keep content in english
- No advertisements
- Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
This symbol isn't needed for spells this long, but it's considered best practice and other wizards will make fun of me for not including it, even though it isn't needed.
mood
LBRP versus the Lord's prayer.
Who is the artist?
If you’re adding code you don’t understand to a production system you should be fired
Edit: I assumed it was obvious from context that I’m referring to copy-pasting code from stack overflow or an LLM or whatever without knowing what it does but apparently that needs to be said explicitly.
Never use libraries you don’t contribute to in Production
There's a huge difference between copy-pasting code you don't understand and using a library with the assumption that the library does what it says on the tin. At the very least there's a clear boundary between your code and not-your-code.
I really like to build from zero, but some things are better copied, no matter if you fully understand them or fall short. :)
For example, I'm not qualified to check if Hamilton and Euler were correct - I only do as they explained, and later double-check the output against input.
I didn't say never copy and paste. I'm saying when you push a commit you should understand what all the LOC in that commit do (not counting vendored dependencies). If you don't understand how something works, like crypto (not sure what Hamilton or Euler refers to in this context), ideally you would use a library. If you can't, you should still understand the code sufficiently well to be able to explain how it implements the underlying algorithm. For example if you're writing a CRC function you should be able to explain how your function implements the CRC operations, even if you don't have a clue why those operations work.
Many times the code we work on is built in abstractions we don't know about from top to bottom.
If you are submitting work, you should understand how the code you're submitting works. Sure, you don't have to know exactly how the code it calls works, but if you're submitting code and there's a block of code and you have no clue how that block works, that's a problem.
So you code everything in Assembly from scratch?
Are you seriously trying to equate "I don't know which instructions this code is using" to "I copied code I don't understand"? Are you seriously trying to say that someone who doesn't know how to write x = a + b in assembly doesn't understand that code?
No, they're pointing out that it's a little silly to expect everyone to understand each and every later of abstraction fully before deploying code.
I said you need to understand what the code you wrote (as in, LOC that git blame will blame on you) does. Not that you need to fully understand what the code it calls does. It should be pretty obvious from context that I'm referring to copy-pasting code from stack overflow or an LLM or whatever without knowing what it does.
In what world is assembly more readable or easier to understand?
No I just read the stack overflow guy's explanation and the other small comments around and they explain it.
Closed as duplicate
I don't understand Assembly. Straight up binary only for me.
Same here. Assembly is a little too high level for me. I don't like the assembler guessing what I meant. I like telling processors exactly what to do.
Honestly, modern CISC processors are also a little high level if you think about it. I don't want the processor guessing what I meant to tell it. I like telling them exactly what to do.
The processor is just going to guess wrong and might occasionally waste a few cycles!
Man this is just another great example of why I think software is essentially magic.
At the root of it, the hardware, it's magic smoke. It's all based on magic from that point up - because the layer below the one you are using "works because it does."
I think it depends a lot on a person's individual knowledge. If you keep studying far enough away from your main area of expertise, there'll still be some point where you stop and have to blindly accept that something "just works", but it will no longer feel like that's what your main field is based upon.
Imagine a chef. You can be an OK chef just by memorizing facts and getting a "feel" for how recipes work. Many chefs study chemistry to better understand how various cooking/baking processes work. A few might even get into the physics underlying the chemical reactions just to satisfy curiosity. But you don't need to keep going into subatomic particles to have lost the feeling that cooking is based on mysterious unknowns.
For my personal interest, I've learned about compilers, machine code, microcode and CPU design, down to transistor-based logic. Most of this isn't directly applicable to modern programming, and my knowledge still ends at a certain point, but programming itself no longer feels like it's built on a mystery.
I don't recommend that every programmer go to this extreme, but we don't have to feel that our work is based on "magic smoke" if we really don't want to.
ADDED: If anyone's curious, I highly recommend Ben Eater's YouTube videos about "Building an 8-bit breadboard computer!" It's a playlist/course that covers pretty much everything starting from an overview of oscillators and logic gates, and ending with a simple but functional computer, including a CPU core built out of discrete components. He uses a lot of ICs, but he usually explains what circuits they contain, in isolation, before he adds them to the CPU. He does a great job of covering the important points, and tying them together well.
If writing software makes you some sort of magician then writing in assembly should surely mean you are a cleric or warlock.
I designed microcontrollers and wrote assembly for them
Now I'm just a regular software dudebro
What class do I get?
Either respec or multiclass
Seeker, you learned your people's language and then learned the way of the world.
I havent worked with assembly or any firmware in 10+ years, but from memory, I think it's more like being a Witch Doctor. You got primitive things and no idea what they do, but the specific patterns and dances make things happen.
♻️
Pretty much most chem students doing labs.
view more: next ›