Ha, you remember 15 year old bugs? I’ve “fixed” bugs that were deliberate decisions because the fix was worse then the bug - so I’ve then unfixed the bug and said “7 years ago xmunk, that was really quite a good decision… SO Y U NO COMMENT!” Of course, since I’ve fixed the same fix twice it’s now burned into my memory so there’s no reason to leave a comment at this point.
I love living vicariously. I feel this whole situation, and I barely ever did more then the (bare bones) intro to AMOS, or or hello world on c64 basic, but Lemmy and the hard R site (before the API mess) memes make me feel the situations at hand, even with very minimal understanding of coding.
There’s been a few times where I had to look into an issue and found a comment I wrote much earlier with a ticket number or link to a previous ticket that explains exactly why this new issue is actually the intended behavior.
It’s really helpful when the product owners clearly can’t make up their minds about what they want their apps to do.
I like Javascript… but it is certainly an unholy amalgamation of mismatched parts that, in the end, can get pretty much anything done if you don’t mind 100+ node dependencies.
Ive moved jobs 4 times in the last 10 years and only 1 of those jobs has actually moved me off the projects I’ve been working on.
I’ve legitimately responded to my own Issue with a fix to the bug I put in against that code that I wrote at a previous place. It’s weird.
I almost always get another set of eyes since it’s my old code but that’s always fun “hey I wrote this 6 years ago and it still works but it’s gross … please don’t judge me”
Been in mine 25 years. I could probably make more money elsewhere, but then I’d have to get a proper job rather than be the coding equivalent of an unmaintained fire extinguisher.
oh i just meant because usually tech companies go bust or merge in under five years these days :3 but that’s honestly so amazing and i’m happy that you are that happy where you are!
My colleague and “squad leader” (ie boss without the salary) is a few months younger than me and has been in the same company for about 18 years. Meanwhile I think the longest I’ve been somewhere is about 2 years.
“Where do you see yourself in 5 years?” has me giggling every time.
Probably more importantly, it runs on the JVM and is designed to interoperate with existing Java code. (FWIW, I actually think they made a major mistake in how they handle null Java objects, and that Kotlin did better here; but Kotlin is much newer.)
My experience in going from C to C++ was different: if you're not converting everything from mallocs with custom addressing systems to the collections framework, you're not living.
My experience with C++ was when C++ was a relatively new thing. Practically the only notable feature provided by the standard library, was that unholy abuse of bit shift operators for I/O. No standard collections or any other data types.
And every compiler would consider something else a valid C++ code or interpret the same code differently.
I am little bit prejudiced since then… and that is probably where the author is coming from too.
Then things were just getting more complicated (templates and other new syntax quirks), to fill the holes in attempts to make C a 'high level language'.
Is it wrong that I’m stuck trying to figure out what language this is?
Trying to figure out what string.length and print(var) exist in a single language… Not Java, not C# (I’m pretty sure its .Length, not length), certainly not C, C++ or Python, Pascal, Schme or Haskell or Javascript or PHP.
It’s weird that people are so focused on it. It’s pseudocode, and it’s purely meant for day one comp sci students to grasp how data is stored and processed, before they are forced into writing Java, most likely
I’m very much guessing that this is just supposed to be a type of pseudocode given the context and vagueness of it.
It’s a big reason why I really dont like pseudocode as instruction to people learning the basics of what programming is. It made more sense 20 years ago when programming languages were on a whole a lot more esoteric and less plain text, but now with simple languages like Python there’s simply little reason to not just write Python code or whatever.
I took an intro to programming class in College and the single thing I got dinged on the most is “incorrect pseudocode”, which was either too formal and close to real code or too casual and close to plain English.
It’s not a great system. We really need to get rid of it as a practice
And VisualBasic’s syntax is easier than COBOL, but this isn’t a competition to make the least offensive heap of putrid garbage, so why does it matter?
Python works just fine for basic scripts, frankly it’s amazing for it, but oop and functional programming is so incredibly obviously badly shoehorned in that huge swathes needs scrapping and version 4 releasing
I think you’re missing the forest for the trees here pretty heavily.
Yes, Python has some goofy aspects about managing it while performing high level, in depth tasks.
This is a post and a comment chain about pseudocode being taught to people who likely just learned what a “programming language” was several weeks ago. Essentially no one taking the GCSE knows what “bash-like scripts” even means.
Reminds me of 7th grade math class, chapter on estimating. Assignment was “Estimate the following values” with problems like 42+28=? or 14*3=?
One of them was 6*7=? Which having memorized my times tables in 4th grade like they told me to, I knew off the top of my head that it’s 42. I wrote that. And it was marked wrong because I was too precise.
This is quite a cheap answer but maybe it’s just pseudo code. We had exercises in university about pseudo code with examples that intentionally broke all syntax systems and conventions to show that not everything has to be executable that you write down in a theoretical computer science homework
It’s a shitty question. It’s implied by the fact that “24” is wrong that the answer is “6”, the length of the string “Monday”.
In some languages dot access on objects could give you the properties of the object type (things pertaining to a “day” object) but this would still be ambiguous since a day’s length can be measured in many different ways.
In others, it would require you to call length as a function (.length()) or not be available at all, or require you to pass the object into another function [ length_in_seconds(day_x)]
I think the question is fine, but we have to assume they covered this type of method prior to the exam, where .length would result in the character count of a String.
Scala and Kotlin are close ones, although those requires variables to be declared with var day = “Monday” (unless the variables are declared elsewhere)
“You should have known what the intent of the question was. Management won’t know or care about the internals of your code as long as it meets requirements. You have failed this test.”
Or
“You should know that you’re calling a function with invalid parameters. Where did you get your CS degree from again?”
“You should have known what the intent of the question was. Management won’t know or care about the internals of your code as long as it meets requirements. You have failed this test.”
“You should know that you’re calling a function with invalid parameters. Where did you get your CS degree from again?”
sigh you can have your ransom, just remove the cameras.
no the school can realistically choose any sensible language, the one in the exam question is a pseudocode one that is used only to make the exam questions understandable regardless of which language you studied
Better. Of course, it’s just built over top, so you can still get JavaScript issues in TypeScript, and it’s not necessarily going to be obvious. This is particularly an issue if you call JavaScript libraries, which I’m told is standard practice.
programmer_humor
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.