Mostly the missing listing of clobbered registers. Other than that it’s mostly just that you’re doing useless things, like manually putting the stuff into the registers instead of letting the compiler do it, and the useless push and pop. And the loop is obviously not needed and would hurt performance if you do every write like that.
I’m sorry, I’m only a novice Python guy. Know enough to get two RESTful APIs to talk to each other and do some network automation or rudimentary Ansible plugins.
Apparently, “Theorems for free!” is a paper that talks about an extensive ability to reason about parts of programs, if you follow some rather basic rules.
However, lots of popular programming languages throw this ability out the window, because they do not want to enforce those basic rules.
Most languages, for example, allow for rather uncontrolled side effects and to be able to reason as a programmer, you have to make the assumption that no one else abused side effects.
The instanceof is rather referring to dynamic typing, though, as e.g. employed by Python and JS, which makes it difficult to make any assumptions at all.
So, in statically typed languages, when you’re implementing a function, you can declare that a given parameter is a number or a string etc. and the compiler will enforce that for you. In dynamically typed languages, you have to assume that anyone calling your function is using it correctly, which is a difficult assumption to make after a refactoring in a larger codebase.
All in all, such different levels of rigorosity can be fine, but the larger your codebase grows, the more you do want such rules to be enforced, so you can just ignore the rest of the codebase.
It kinda is though. Iirc it received an interrupt it shouldn’t have received and doesn’t know how to resolve. It is not supposed to ignore it, but then the only other option is crashing at this point. Basically it continues in a dazed and confused state.
Of course the message could be clearer, but at least it also makes the message easily searchable.
Plan 9 does the job. GNU is better for the end user. But if I had to maintain that stuff I would definitely want to maintain the Plan 9 code and not the GNU code.
I love how many people brought up the Turkish “I” as if everyone here is on the Unicode steering committee or just got jobs for Turkish facebook.
I, an English speaker, have personally solved the problem by not having a Turkish I in the name of my Downloads directory, or any other directory that I need to cd into on my computer. I’m going to imagine the Turks solve it by painstakingly typing the correct I, or limiting their use of uppercase I’s in general.
In fact, researching the actual issue for more than 1 second seemingly shows that Unicode basically created this problem themselves because the two I’s are just seperate letters in Turkic languages. …wikipedia.org/…/Dotted_and_dotless_I_in_computin…
If you nerds think this is bad try doing Powershell for any amount of time. It is entirely case-insensitive.
Why the FUCK did they make characters that look the same have different codepointers in UNICODE? They should’ve done what they did in CJK and make duplicates have the same codepointer.
Well letters don’t really have a single canonical shape. There are many acceptable ways of rendering each. While two letters might usually look the same, it is very possible that some shape could be acceptable for one but not the other. So, it makes sense to distinguish between them in binary representation. That allows the interpreting software to determine if it cares about the difference or not.
Also, the Unicode code tables do mention which characters look (nearly) identical, so it’s definitely possible to make a program interpret something like a Greek question mark the same as a semicolon. I guess it’s just that no one has bothered, since it’s such a rare edge case.
In cases where something looks stupid but your knowledge on it is almost zero it’s entirely possible that it’s not.
The people that maintain Unicode have put a lot of thought and effort into this. Might be helpful to research why rather than assuming you have a better way despite little knowledge of the subject.
The solution is to force font creators to be fucking reasonable, just like how the Cyrillic A looks exactly like the Latin A. They are the same letter. The letters L and I are totally different (in handwriting at least)
They already did that for CJK. Make characters that look the same in handwriting b have be same codepointer.
You really can’t though. For several reasons. Which would have been apparent to you had you bothered to actually create your example link to аpple.com or to understand this problem.
programmer_humor
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.