This can't be for real. I'll stick with C11 thank you.
this post was submitted on 18 Jan 2024
17 points (100.0% liked)
Programmer Humor
19207 readers
1197 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Here you dropped this:
#define ifnt(x) if (!(x))
I'd take a not or "if not" operator tbh.
aint (something) {
somethingElse()
}
I propose a new, more threatening kind of control flow.
do {
/* something */
} or else {
/* you don't want to find out */
}
do {
/* something */
} do hast {
/* something */
}
do {
/* something */
} do hast {
/* something */
} do hast mich {
/* something */
}
You just made me a offer I can't refuse. I go now to sleep with the fishes...
Some C++ style guides suggest the following naming convention for functions that crash on any error
OpenFileOrDie()
It's funnier when you try to SysCallAndDie() :-P
(that's a real thing in perl btw - I guess that function didn't get the memo)
Personally, I like to call catched exception variables up, so for a rethrow I can throw up;.
Except rethrowing an exception in C# is just throw;, anything else is a crime against the person who reads your stacktraces.
I mean, it makes sense to call ComplainToErrorAndExit just 'die', no?
PHP has the always wonderful (and perfectly functional) syntax of
logUserIn() or die();
Or Perl
Perl also has unless() for the very purpose in OP, which is a more sensible choice.
Oh, and if you need to reinforce your belief that Perl is a mess, the single-quote character can be used as a package separator instead of "::". This was set in the 90s when nobody was quite sure of the right syntax for package separators, so it borrowed "::" from C++ and the single quote from Ada (I think).
That means the ifn't() in OP can be interpreted as calling the t() function on the ifn package.
The "::" separator is vastly preferred, though. Single quotes run havoc on syntax highlighting text editors (since they can also be used for strings). About the only time I've seen it used is a joke module, Acme::don't.
I'm just hoping this paves the way to code with Southern dialect
iffun is == true
iffun ain't == false
May I introduce you to the joys of #define and creating your own horrible sub language
That reminds me of an old paper about how to create a compilable C program out of old game ROMs. Decompile to assembly. Implement a bunch of #define statements that implement all the ASM statements. Now compile it to a native binary on whatever platform.
Won't likely be faster or more accurate than regular emulation methods, but it's a neat idea considering that the source code on all this stuff was lost a long time ago.
cap () {
}
nocap () {
}
nocap(frfr){
}
ifn't(!valid) halp?
I believe that resolves the same as
ain't!(!untrue)
Reduce exclamation marks!? Great Scott!!!!! Is there a shortage of punctuation in the future!?
1.21GB!!!
Kernighan, what was I thinking?
You could have saved two, all you had to do was use the interrobang. You’re a monster.
All known deposits were depleted
Please God let this be a humorous post that somehow does not also find a way to manage to come true...
I would have bought it if they said ifnot instead, it's the same number of characters and wouldn't require a major parser overhaul to support keywords with a ' in the name.
i mean, “unless” tends to be the usual term for an “if not” keyword in languages that implement such a thing
Which is awful and incredibly confusing. I hate ruby
And Perl
And my axe!
Yeah, to be clear, I don't like it, I don't like it one bit:-P.
If not anybody have time for that.
*ifn't*
Oh dear Lord what have I done!? :-P
What's wrong with "else"
It's not ifn't
^This
OP raises a valid point