Drew Chadwick DeVault / ddevault / SirCmpwn - Opinionated white-male-guilt-ridden software developer. Cancelled Hyprland and slandered it as "toxic" and transphobic. Hates X11 users and Hacker News. Lolicon.

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Flatline said:
Yes, Drew sucks, but how stupid must you be to send a death threat because of computer software.
Click to expand...
Either extremely stupid or extremely genius
terry.png
 
  • Like
  • Winner
  • Semper Fidelis
Reactions: The Mat Harris, Doctor Neo Cortex, Kiwi2Shoes and 10 others
ilovejews said:
Hey Drew, did those death threats even exist?
Click to expand...
Assuming the death threats are real, my point still stands: How low-T must you be to act like that over software?
The Real Slim Shady said:
Either extremely stupid or extremely genius
Click to expand...
The Discord-lurking, allowance-spending, tendie-consuming, anime-enjoying, leetcode-failing, women-repelling, furry-fantasizing loser sending death threats over stupid computer shit is not in the same league as King Terry.
 
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Doctor Neo Cortex, Kiwi2Shoes, GhastlyGhost and 2 others
Flatline said:
Yes, Drew sucks, but how stupid must you be to send a death threat because of computer software.
Click to expand...
Every time I see someone say death threats I can't help but think its some message saying "kill yourself faggot".
Which is not a death threat.

By the way drew. I will 1v1 you. Not because of vaxry but because you genuinely piss me off.

JK obviously.... Unless
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Doctor Neo Cortex, Kiwi2Shoes, 419 and 7 others
Flatline said:
Assuming the death threats are real
Click to expand...
See, that's your mistake. To someone like Drew, "I hope you die in anonymity" is a death threat. So is "stop posting before you say something you'll regret". So is "you are stupid". They claim everything is a "death threat", because they see it as a hack to short-circuit any criticism.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: The Anarki Main, Chen Stirner, Lord Xenu and 13 others
teriyakiburns said:
See, that's your mistake. To someone like Drew, "I hope you die in anonymity" is a death threat. So is "stop posting before you say something you'll regret". So is "you are stupid". They claim everything is a "death threat", because they see it as a hack to short-circuit any criticism.
Click to expand...
Great, now you guys are posting death threats in here!
 
  • Like
  • Feels
  • DRINK!
Reactions: BoomerPrime, Doctor Neo Cortex, Kiwi2Shoes and 4 others
I noticed this today because it was posted on Lobsters, but it's actually a few weeks old:
https://harelang.org/blog/2024-04-01-introducing-for-each-loops-in-hare/ (archive)

I must admit, it's a shame to see such an important language get useless bloat from the last century, but bloat which the C language lacked, making it bad. It's kind of weird for a one hundred year language to get an addition like this.
Today, for-each loops were merged into Hare’s development branch! This includes patches for the compiler, standard library, specification and tutorial. I want to give some background on how we designed for-each loops and what challenges are associated with implementing them.
Click to expand...
I'm sure a lot of design went into designing something other people had already designed.
Before for-each loops, you could iterate over an array/slice like so:
Click to expand...
C: 
let array = [1, 2, 3];
for (let i = 0z; i < len(array); i += 1) {
    fmt::printfln("{}", array[I])!;
};
This is also known as the stupid way to do it.
Having an index can be very powerful if you require it. However, in most cases, you will not, and I’ve found that using indices makes code less readable. This is how a for-each loop over an array/slice could look:
Click to expand...
C: 
foreach (x in [1, 2, 3]) {
    fmt::printfln("{}", x)!;
};
It's important to note there are also languages which lacked a loop type like this, but still made the previous loop type safe, by providing a better mechanism for getting each index without writing manual additions and silly things like that.
In addition to for-each loops over arrays/slices, you might remember the concept of iterators from languages such as Rust. The idea is very simple: you have a function, typically called something like next(), that you call every loop iteration. This is useful when, for example, iterating over every line of a file — you don’t have to load the whole file in one go, but only ever read it line by line. This concept is also used extensively in the standard library, but so far, it has been implemented using for (true) and match:
Click to expand...
C: 
for (true) match (bufio::read_line(file)!) {
case let line: []u8 =>
    fmt::printfln("{}", strings::fromutf8(line)!)!;
case io::EOF =>
    break;
};
Wow, that looks awful.
While this works, it takes up a lot of lines and is not very readable. We can do better. Here is what that could look like:
Click to expand...
C: 
foreach (line = bufio::read_line(file)!) {
    fmt::printfln("{}", strings::fromutf8(line)!)!;
};
Oh, assignment is an expression in Hare. That's another lesson I see fell on deaf ears.
The purpose of the Hare RFC process is to discuss and reach consensus on bigger changes to Hare. This is especially important for new language features such as for-each. In the three revisions to the RFC, we found solutions for a number of challenges.
Click to expand...
Yes, but what's the RFC mailing list's consensus on gender-affirming care for children?
First of all, there was the syntax question. Do we want foreach? Or should we integrate it into for? We quickly reached the conclusion that it is best to introduce a new syntax to for instead of foreach, because it should remain the only statement that can loop, since there is no while statement in Hare.
Click to expand...
That's a very reasonable decision.
C: 
// for-each value
for (let x .. [1, 2, 3]) { // The type of x is int here
    fmt::printfln("{}", x)!;
};

// for-each reference
for (let x &.. [1, 2, 3]) { // The type of x is *int here
    fmt::printfln("{}", *x)!;
};
Well, that still looks awful. The reference idea is just retarded.
Specifying the iterator loops was especially challenging. How should these kind of loops end, by the iterator returning a special type, or void? Do we use a special method for every type or will it just be a function call? What kind of operator do we want to use? After lots of discussion, this is the syntax we came up with:
Click to expand...
C: 
for (let line => bufio::read_line(file)!) {
    fmt::printfln("{}", strings::fromutf8(line)!)!;
};
That's tolerable, I guess.
This “for-each iterator” loop executes its binding initializer, bufio::read_line(file)!, at every start of the loop. This initializer returns a tagged union with a done type. In this case, the initializer returns ([]u8 | io::EOF). This is a tagged union, which is a type that can contain one of []u8 or io::EOF. Unlike a union in C, it also indicates what type it currently holds, using a tag.

io::EOF is defined as a done type. This means that the for-each loop checks if bufio::read_line(file)! returns done and terminates the loop in this case. Otherwise, it will assign the value to the line variable and run the body of the loop. The type of this variable is []u8, because that is the type that is left in the tagged union when excluding the done type.
Click to expand...
I don't think I need to comment on these two paragraphs. They're perfect the way they are.
The implementation of for-each proves that the Hare RFC process is working really well. We were able to collectively come up with a for-each design that fits Hare really well and that everyone is fine with. I am, personally, very happy with the end result.
Click to expand...
I prefer my languages to be done before people start using them, but whatever.

I'd like to thank null for adding Hare syntax highlighting to the formatting options, although I'm not certain why I have to call it C.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Vecr, Tealeaf, Kees H and 5 others
Didn't he say that Hare was basically done? Man, imagine if the language had some kind of extension facility, so that it could go 100 years without language revisions - that'd be wild, I wonder if such a thing is even possible.

I had to look up what "a done type" is, and while the docs don't appear to define it anywhere (yet?), it seems to be just a built-in type that loops treat specially. Hare really is just C, but the things that pissed Drew off get special syntax.

Actually the more I think about it, the less the done type thing makes sense. As far as I understand, in Hare the types ((x | done) | done) and y | done (where y = x | done) are different since the first one has only one done state and the second has two. But io::EOF = done, so why is str | io::EOF a done type? Does that mean an iterator can't return things of type str | io::EOF? Do you have to first define z = str | io::EOF so that an iterator can return z instead?
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
Reactions: Vecr, Kees H, Hall of Cost Payer and 5 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back