Programming thread

  • 🔎 If you see an alert for analytics.usips.org, this is a self-hosted system I am running as a test. It is GDPR compliant and collects no invasive information.
  • 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
Lard Shart said:
The language is created by a NAZI CHUD!!!
Click to expand...
A coworker sent me basically the same thing but from Hacker News. Apparently I'm a total chud now for enjoying something other than Rust. I only said "I'm starting to learn Odin because it looks interesting." and I had to listen for thirty minutes about memory safety. @Troon Petty and the 41ers is entirely correct about the hostility of Rust programmers slowing language adoption, I do not want to touch Rust at all because everyone from that language acts holier than thou if you dare investigate anything besides Rust.

Unfortunately, I am very OOP brained (I blame schools and the insistence of teaching ONLY Python and Java) so the only hang-up I'm having now is trying to tie my ideas into whatever "Data Oriented" means. If anyone has any resources for breaking out of Object Oriented hell I would like to give them a read.
 
The overwhelming majority of bugs aren't about memory safety like Rust makes it out to be and it's so fucking infuriating that all the zoomer faggots go I WANT NANNY COMPILER BORROW CHECKER TO MAKE ME FEEL SAFE that I'm about to just write assembly out of spite
 
Polyarmory said:
In fairness, all of them are "the same" in that they're built around sequences of statements (resolved and arranged at varying times with varying complexity.)
Click to expand...
This is a very surface-level comparison, though, is it not? Who cares how those things look if they generate machine code differently?
 
Private Tag Reporter said:
Never heard of it til now. Is there any way to take something like that and output it to an FPGA chip?
Click to expand...
While not a game per say. You could Look into Logisim-Evolution. You can design your circuits in Hardware blocks and even simulate them digitally. Also, you can have it convert your designs from the Block Level Diagrams into VHDL or Verilog so that you could then use to put onto a FPGA.
 
I don't even dislike Rust. I dislike its community. There is a dedicated Rust hate thread, but it's mostly dead. I agree with pretty much all the criticism of Rust in there though.

General Zigger said:
If anyone has any resources for breaking out of Object Oriented hell I would like to give them a read.
Click to expand...
You mentioned Python-you can write Python programs without writing any classes. Not even in a strictly technical sense; you could write significant and useful programs just using like Flask and Pandas and stuff.

If you want to get further out of your comfort zone, it depends entirely on how much time and energy you want to put towards it. Go has a lot of warts (I like it despite them) and is a useful job skill. C always exists, I think I've mentioned Modern C in here before. I also liked the "canonical" recommendations for Scheme and Haskell (SICP and Learn You A Haskell). There's a pretty comprehensive looking book on OCaml, Real World OCaml, that's free online, and the FFmpeg team has been publishing some assembly lessons on GitHub.
 
I did play around with that nandgame a bit. You unlock sandbox after beating the first five levels. (Unlocking XOR).

Honestly I know why it has to be a NAND, but it does make the logic a bit annoying, especially for the optimization problems, since it's less intuitive. Unfortunately that's just a fundamental mathematical law. Why does the universe have to be unintuitive? :(

General Zigger said:
Unfortunately, I am very OOP brained (I blame schools and the insistence of teaching ONLY Python and Java) so the only hang-up I'm having now is trying to tie my ideas into whatever "Data Oriented" means. If anyone has any resources for breaking out of Object Oriented hell I would like to give them a read.
Click to expand...
https://odinbook.com/ if you haven't already.
 
Last edited:
debristar said:
in the very near future this thread will be as dumb as a thread about a calculator.
Click to expand...
I saw a photograph of a retard using a calculator for the problem 6÷2=3but now I can't find it. :(

I'm reading a nice book lately, The Architecture Of Symbolic Computers By Peter M. Kogge, and it's so pleasant to be reading a book without any of that disgusting specific knowledge so many fools believe to be more important than the fundamentals.

The book discusses abstract programs, and so far hasn't got into middling details. This is a book I know to later discuss the physical implementations of symbolic programming systems in hardware, so it's not that it shies away from it. It's pleasant to see a self-contained description of a little language, as an example, with its alphabet and everything listed explicitly over something like "Use ASCII, but we'll be ignoring the control characters, lol." or similar shit.

This reminds me of that dumbass who wrote a package manager for Mac OS X and didn't pass an interview because he couldn't figure out how to reverse or invert a binary tree. This is like a digital artist being given a pencil and straightedge, unable to figure out how to sharpen the pencil and use the straightedge to draw a straight line, then a triangle. I've seen UNIX weenies treat worthless shit, like remembering the parameter ordering for the ln program, as more important than basic mathematics. It's fucking pathetic. Also, I just use Emacs' dired mode for making symbolic links with S. :story:
analrapist said:
Enjoy prison, child stalker.
Click to expand...
C: 
human_t * you;
you = &prison;
Yes, I had to review the implementation of Emacs' interpreter to write this joke, what of it. :tomlinson:

Hey, this reminds me of a joke. I sometimes call C language programmers bug chasers because they refuse to use protection.
 
UERISIMILITUDO said:
This reminds me of that dumbass who wrote a package manager for Mac OS X and didn't pass an interview because he couldn't figure out how to reverse or invert a binary tree.
Click to expand...
He wrote that after seven interviews he wasn't selected because he is difficult and didn't study up on computer science. I'm just paraphrasing what he wrote. Also, he didn't know what they were trying to get him to demonstrate so he picked an algorithm at random to give his side. No one is really sure what they asked him.


Screenshot 2026-07-21 at 8.40.58 PM.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
AbendCode12 said:
He wrote that after seven interviews he wasn't selected because he is difficult and didn't study up on computer science. I'm just paraphrasing what he wrote. Also, he didn't know what they were trying to get him to demonstrate so he picked an algorithm at random to give his side. No one is really sure what they asked him.


View attachment 9305397
Click to expand...
I appreciate the info. He seems more reasonable now, not perfectly—I still disagree with his fundamental positions here—but moreso at the very least.
 
UERISIMILITUDO said:
This reminds me of that dumbass who wrote a package manager for Mac OS X and didn't pass an interview because he couldn't figure out how to reverse or invert a binary tree.
Click to expand...
Many programmers are self-taught and often have very little understanding of computer science-style questions. I wouldn't know how to invert a binary tree in an interview situation; I am sure I could work it out.

The last time I did any of this stuff was in 2007. Most of the time in the real world (which is boring business apps), you often never have to do anything more complicated than a for loop and maybe some basic mathematics.

The whole point of the discussion around this is that Google has a hiring process that selects out people that are capable of building software but don't know how to answer more academic questions. This is often the case, btw.
UERISIMILITUDO said:
This is like a digital artist being given a pencil and straightedge, unable to figure out how to sharpen the pencil and use the straightedge to draw a straight line, then a triangle.
Click to expand...
Not at all.

If you ask a fabricator in a machine shop a bunch of mechanical engineering questions. Sure, the guys in the machine shop would know loads about how to manufacture stuff with the tools; they would know a bunch of basic rules about engineering physics, but they probably wouldn't know how to calculate the thermal efficiency of a 4-stroke diesel.

Software engineering isn't computer science. I spend 70% of my time fixing odd environmental bugs, writing tests and trying to figure out why something isn't rendering correctly on Android.
 
One's failure at a technical interview should be viewed as a sign to get good, not to whine about it on the web.
Sure, most people do not invert trees in their day-to-day jobs. But is it not valuable knowledge to have?
I too would not be able to write the inversion algorithm in an interview, though.
 
mnt_ms said:
One's failure at a technical interview should be viewed as a sign to get good, not to whine about it on the web.
Click to expand...
If a large part of the process is broken. It isn't whining.

I've had some total horseshit job interviews where I was asked a load of questions about encryption when the role was I was being hired to make a basic CRUD app.
mnt_ms said:
Sure, most people do not invert trees in their day-to-day jobs. But is it not valuable knowledge to have?
Click to expand...
No. I've not done it once professionally. The most complicated thing I've done is do recursion without actually doing recursion and the Painters algorithm.

mnt_ms said:
I too would not be able to write the inversion algorithm in an interview, though.
Click to expand...
Which is the entire point. Getting into places like Google is more about being able to smash LeetCode-style questions.

I can do this, and often I am the only candidate that often passes stuff like HackerRank pre-screening, but I get fucked by a bunch of questions where it's like I have to memorise the .NET MSDN reference or am quizzed about stuff I don't know. I had one interview where I ended it after I said "I don't know" twice, and the guy continued to try to tease information out of me that I didn't have.

I cannot fathom why many here can't understand that Google not hiring someone that built a successful open-source project doesn't indicate that their hiring might be broken and selecting for the wrong people.
 
Last edited:
SchizoDaemon said:
Many programmers are self-taught and often have very little understanding of computer science-style questions. I wouldn't know how to invert a binary tree in an interview situation; I am sure I could work it out.
Click to expand...
That's exactly my point: That he couldn't work it out says everything I mean.
SchizoDaemon said:
If you ask a fabricator in a machine shop a bunch of mechanical engineering questions. Sure, the guys in the machine shop would know loads about how to manufacture stuff with the tools; they would know a bunch of basic rules about engineering physics, but they probably wouldn't know how to calculate the thermal efficiency of a 4-stroke diesel.
Click to expand...
SchizoDaemon said:
I spend 70% of my time fixing odd environmental bugs, writing tests and trying to figure out why something isn't rendering correctly on Android.
Click to expand...
I'm sure mathematicians from antiquity imagined worlds of pure mathematical forms, not unlike the platonic ideal of software, but the unfortunate reality is that these worlds we've made allow early fools to damn everyone else. It's as if a shitty carpenter could fuck up the laws of physics for a plot of land and make it impossible to build a sink, but leave it possible to get most of the way there through fourteen special cases. All of this is madness.

Almost all software is utterly worthless, or has negative value. Most CRUD programs would be best off as slots of a more general form filled in, yet that's how very little of it's implemented from the examples I've met.
SchizoDaemon said:
Software engineering isn't computer science.
Click to expand...
I'd argue this is why most software is shit. We'll have to agree to disagree, because to me this is like a so-called astronomer knowing all about the different brands of telescopes yet knowing none of the constellations.
 
Frightened Rabbit said:
Also, "But well, what the fuck does comp-sci have to do with modern app development" is probably the most revealing sectence of this entire rant.
Click to expand...
What does it have anything to do with comp-sci?

Software engineering and computer science are two separate but related fields. It is like comparing mechanical engineering and physics. Mechanical engineers can do a lot of physics, but they are not physicist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom