Programmer Humor

41127 readers

178 users here now

Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)

Rules:

Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
No NSFW content.
Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

cat_programmer@lemmy.ml

This is a joke about HolyC (lemmy.ml)

submitted 2 weeks ago by vala@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/programmerhumor@lemmy.ml

9 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Alt text:

Transcendence meme template

function main() {...}

int main() {...}

void main() {...}

U0 main() {...}

/* HolyC example */
U0 Main()
{
  U8 *message = "hello world";
  "%s\n",message;
}
Main;

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml 13 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The Holy C integer naming scheme is so elegant, I wish c had adopted it

[–] HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml 13 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Wym? You mean you don't like typing out unsigned long long a hundred times?

[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

What really frustrates me about that, is that someone put in a lot of effort to be able to write these things out using proper words, but it still isn't really more readable.

Like, sure, unsigned is very obvious. But short, int, long and long long don't really tell you anything except "this can fit more or less data". That same concept can be expressed with a growing number, i.e. i16, i32 and i64.

And when someone actually needs to know how much data fits into each type, well, then the latter approach is just better, because it tells you right on the tin.

[–] labsin@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

In c they do indeed just mean shorter and longer int as the size of the int is defined by the compiler and target and originally represented the hardware.

There are types like int32_t or int_least16_t.

[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Huh, so if you don't opt for these more specific number types, then your program will explode sooner or later, depending on the architecture it's being run on...?

I guess, times were different back when C got created, with register size still much more in flux. But yeah, from today's perspective, that seems terrifying. 😅

[–] fiqusonnick@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 week ago

The C standard for different ints is absolutely cursed, even after C99 tried to normalize it. The only requirement is that sizeof(char) <= sizeof(short) <= sizeof(int) <= sizeof(long) <= sizeof(long long) and sizeof(char) == 1. Mind you they don't define what size a byte is so you technically can have an architecture where all of those are 64 bits. Oh and for that same reason exact-size types (int32_t, uint16_t etc) are not guaranteed to be defined

Fuck