Programming thread

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
1766880749669.png
Me the last 2 weeks
 
canalCrab said:
How raw? Just jumping to a label in the same function? Jumping to arbitrary labels? Jumping to arbitrary memory addresses?
Click to expand...
c++ goto doesn't let you jump outside the current function
pretty sensible limitation imo, i don't even know how you would do goto in and out of random functions without mangling the call stack in the process
 
DumbDude43 said:
c++ goto doesn't let you jump outside the current function
pretty sensible limitation imo, i don't even know how you would do goto in and out of random functions without mangling the call stack in the process
Click to expand...
That's what longjmp is for.
Also, longjmp-ing out of an interrupt handler is fun.
 
task scheduling is a spook
 
Anti Snigger said:
Forward only typically. I've been finding that it helps with code reuse and removing branches.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that I personally wouldn't call rawdogging gotos.

Forward jump only goto's are perfectly fine, in most cases, IMO. Backwards jumping or jumping across functions is where they get impossible to reason about.
 
canalCrab said:
Yeah, that I personally wouldn't call rawdogging gotos.

Forward jump only goto's are perfectly fine, in most cases, IMO. Backwards jumping or jumping across functions is where they get impossible to reason about.
Click to expand...
I didn't make the meme, I just laughed at it
 
Anti Snigger said:
I didn't make the meme, I just laughed at it
Click to expand...
Dumbass article nigger said:
Octals have long been shown as extremely poorly designed in C and C-adjacent languages that picked up the very, VERY weird habit of leading zeros turning numbers into base-8 (octal) numbers. The justification was, as ever, “Unix Permissions!!!”. Unfortunately, that’s a feature for 0.001% of absolute and complete nerds,
Click to expand...
aka anyone who has ever opened a file on a Unix-like system??? What a stupid gorilla nigger I hate this guy. These are the people who work on C standards. It’s the tide, oh the dismal tide.
 
August Levasseur said:
What a stupid gorilla nigger I hate this guy. These are the people who work on C standards. It’s the tide, oh the dismal tide.
Click to expand...
I find it hilarious that a furry is working on the standards. The best part is how all of these improvements are perfectly reasonable things good languages like Ada have had for decades, but put there by men who didn't represent themselves as anthropomorphic animals.

Suffer C language programmers, suffer.
 
August Levasseur said:
aka anyone who has ever opened a file on a Unix-like system??? What a stupid gorilla nigger I hate this guy. These are the people who work on C standards. It’s the tide, oh the dismal tide.
Click to expand...
I stumbled on this blog earlier while looking at the new standard proposal. They have an interesting one about different implementations of the embed directive which I found interesting
 
UERISIMILITUDO said:
I find it hilarious that a furry is working on the standards. The best part is how all of these improvements are perfectly reasonable things good languages like Ada have had for decades, but put there by men who didn't represent themselves as anthropomorphic animals.

Suffer C language programmers, suffer.
Click to expand...
C99 is the aryan man's standard anyway
 
UERISIMILITUDO said:
I find it hilarious that a furry is working on the standards. The best part is how all of these improvements are perfectly reasonable things good languages like Ada have had for decades, but put there by men who didn't represent themselves as anthropomorphic animals.

Suffer C language programmers, suffer.
Click to expand...
Most of the features he talks about are alright. I don’t even mind the new octal syntax (just that absolutely boneheaded comment). Labeled breaks are, quite frankly, pointless redundancy in a language that has goto. The new if declaration thing is a welcome intrusion of Go into C, although making the conditional expression optional is dumb and works against readability imo. Case ranges are cringe and I will not be using them. C doesn’t have ranges as a first class feature like some languages, and so shoving this syntax in this one very specific situation is inconsistant and ugly. Moderns may not like it, but the proper C way to do this is with case fallthrough and explicitly including each value.

Goto and case fallthrough may draw the ire of modern computer linguists, but they’re integral parts of C and including what are effectively macros on top of them to satiate people who hate them is just silly. Frankly, any imperative language that doesn’t include goto is gimping itself to some degree. There are some situations where it is just the best option.
 
August Levasseur said:
Labeled breaks are, quite frankly, pointless redundancy in a language that has goto.
Click to expand...
Technically, sure, but I know Common Lisp and Ada both provide the option to name certain program units specifically to avoid this problem of leaving nested units. Ada in particular allows the programmer to name just about anything, to an extreme degree, however. I've used goto in Ada once, when writing some Task exiting code that wasn't as pretty as I'd like. The Ada solution to goto is to make the labels ugly; they look like this:
Code: 
goto Label; -- Damn, no Ada syntax for code blocks here.  No Pascal either.
...
<<Label>>
It's clear, at least. There are also the usual rules about not jumping into the middle of control constructs from outside of them and things like that.

Amusingly, Common Lisp only has goto as its iteration construct, good old TAGBODY and GO, they're just wrapped up in so many macros that the programmer never has to deal with them unless he feels like it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom