))<>((

Comments

• rockerface@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  As a software developer, the less ambiguous your notation is, the better it is for everyone involved

  source

  • Mikufan@ani.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    No just write the entire code in one line totally perfect.

    source

    • rockerface@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Calm down, Satan

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • zqwzzle@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      That almost seems cute next to the shit the obfuscated c contest pulls off. www.ioccc.org/years.html

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • CommissarVulpin@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Excel has entered the chat

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • MigratingApe@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Well, this is exactly what mathematicians do.

      source
  • dustyData@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    As a professor said, most programming languages don’t care about readability and whitespace. But we care because humans need it to parse meaning. Thus, write code for people, not for the machine. Always assume that someone with no knowledge of the context will have to debug it, and be kind to them. Because that someone might be you in six months when you have completely forgotten how the code works.

    source

    • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Exactly. You read code way more times than you write it, so it makes all the sense in the world to prioritize readability.

      source
    • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Source code is for humans, then the compiler turns it into code for machines.

      source
    • oce@jlai.lu ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Python forcing end of line and tabs kinda does. Add Black auto-formatter and it’s pretty good.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • feinstruktur@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      This. Always be kind to your future self.

      source
    • rockerface@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Yep, if you’re writing code for a machine, just do it in binary to save compilation time. Also, you in six months will indeed be someone with no knowledge of the context. And every piece of code you think you write for one-time use is guaranteed to be reused every day for the next 5 years

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • snowsuit2654@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Yeah I totally agree. You can minimize and optimize as part of your build procedure/compilation but the source code should be as readable as possible for humans.

      source
  • Quetzalcutlass@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I had someone submit a pull request recently that, in addition to their actual changes, also removed every single parenthesis that wasn’t strictly necessary in a file full of 3D math functions. I know it was probably the fault of an autoformatter they used, but I was still the most offended I’ve ever been at a pull request.

    source

    • rockerface@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Autoformatter? More like obfuscator

      source
  • MotoAsh@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I genuinely hate being human for this stuff. So many things have such crazy computational shortcuts, it’s sometimes difficult to remember which part represents reality. Outside of the realm of math, where “imaginary” numbers are still a touch of enigma to me, so many algorithms are based on general assumptions about reality or the specific task, that the programmatic approach NEVER encapsulates the full scope of the problem.

    As in, sometimes if you know EXACTLY how a tool works, you might still have no idea about the significance of that tool. Even in a universe where no one is lazy, and everyone wants to know “why?”, the answers are NOT forthcoming.

    source
  • stebo02@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Ok but that’s unrelated to putting some numbers and operations in a calculator. No one is going to proofread that. If anything, you simply calculate it again.

    source
  • penquin@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    You’re a good human being.

    source
  • neidu2@feddit.nl ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    As someone who used to code in Lisp, I’m all for excessive paranthesis use.

    source
• unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Also works if you dont trust yourself with correctly ordering your operations.

  source
• mathic@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I, my head, shake.

  • RPN user

  source

  • rockerface@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Also known as: Japanese speaker

    source
• ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  back and forth, forever.

  source

  • RinseDrizzle@midwest.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Suuuuuch a weird movie lol

    source
• Qkall@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Iykyk

  youtu.be/KQoJo81lujk

  source

  • PoisonedPrisonPanda@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Ok man. Wtf did I just watch…

    I get it. We are here on the somehow dark side of the internet…

    But THIS… without any context. i mean. Im questioning live here man. What do you want to express with that?

    source

    • janNatan@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I’m pretty sure it’s just a reference to when the kid types ))<>((

      Btw, it’s not from the dark side of the Internet. This was a very popular video at the time.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      🤦‍♂️ read the post body, my lad.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• SmoothLiquidation@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  This is why every calculator should be a RPN calculator.

  source

  • lemmyng@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I still have my HP 48 series calculator. It’s a sturdy beast.

    source
  • SmartmanApps@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    This is why every calculator should be a RPN calculator

    No, this is why programmers should (re)learn the order of operations rules before writing a calculator.

    source
• Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  (I used(LISP)onetime((and it)permanently)changed the way I (operate(computers)))

  source

  • henfredemars@infosec.pub ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Did it change it in a positive way?

    source

    • crmsnbleyd@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Negative, as you feel bad anytime you use a language that isn’t lisp

      source
• MotoAsh@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  The underlying truth of this joke is: Programming syntax is less confusing than mathematical syntax. There are genuinely ambiguous layouts of syntax in math whereas you get a compilation error if ANYTHING is ambiguous in programming.

  source

  • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Internalized PEMDAS without knowing it’s literally the same thing as BODMAS is exactly the problem!

    source

    • strawberry@kbin.run ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      what in the name of fuck is BODMAS

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • MotoAsh@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I mean … yea. The exact problem is math is not taught correctly. Order of operations make total logical sense for what the operations are doing.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • MonkderDritte@feddit.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    So better do higher math in Python? I agree.

    source

    • MotoAsh@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Python isn’t the only programming language.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • itsralC@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Counterpoint: C function pointers (or just C in general)

    source
  • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Also: sometimes, a mathematician just has to invent some concept or syntax to convey something unconventional. The specific use of subscript/superscript, whatever ‘phi’ is being used for, etc. on whatever paper you’re reading doesn’t have to correlate to how other work uses the same concepts. It’s bad form, but sometimes its needed, and if useful enough is added to the general canon of what we call “math”. Meanwhile, you can encapsulate and obfuscate things in software, sure, but you can always get down to the bedrock of what the language supports; there’s no inventing anything new.

    source

    • MotoAsh@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Yea, that’s it. Math syntax was created for humans, and programming syntax had to always remain deterministic. It’s not an insult to either, just interesting how ambiguities show up often when humans are involved.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• MeDuViNoX@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  (‿!‿) (‿O‿)

  source

  • The_Cunt_of_Monte_Cristo@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    ( . ) ( . ) ( . Y . )

    source
• Voyajer@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Improved readability is always good

  source
• FatTony@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  My calculator thinks -2² is -4, so yeah…

  source

  • ByGourou@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Isn’t the “-” order of operations the same as a multiply ? I think I learned powers take priority over the “-” so your calculator would be right.
    But either way if it can cause confusion you should use parentheses.

    source

    • TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Every calculator I’ve used has separate negative and subtraction keys for this purpose. There is no order of operations to follow, it’s just a squaring a number

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • SmartmanApps@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I think I learned powers take priority over the “-”

      Yes, Exponents is the 2nd-highest precedence (after Brackets) - BEDMAS.

      source
  • Ultraviolet@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I would never write -n². Either ‐(n²) or (-n)². Order of operations shouldn’t be some sort of gotcha to trick people into misinterpreting you, it’s the intuitive reading of a well constructed mathematical expression.

    source

    • SmartmanApps@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Either ‐(n²) or (-n)². Order of operations shouldn’t be some sort of gotcha to trick people into misinterpreting you

      It isn’t. With ‐(n²), n² is already a single term, so the brackets aren’t needed.

      source
  • SmartmanApps@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    My calculator says -2² = -4

    That’s correct

    source
• lolcatnip@reddthat.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I’ve never seen a calculator that had brackets but didn’t implement the conventional order of operations.

  source

  • isolatedscotch@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    my dumb ass reading this: “Team rock paper nscissors”

    source

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      RTS = rock taper scissors FPS = frock paper scissors

      source
  • masterspace@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    plus.maths.org/content/pemdas-paradox

    source

    • SmartmanApps@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      plus.maths.org/content/pemdas-paradox

      There’s no pemdas paradox, just people who have forgotten the order of operations rules

      Even two casios won’t give you the same answer:

      The one on the right is an old model. As far as I’m aware Casio no longer make any models that still give the wrong answer.

      Image

      source
    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Ah, I wasn’t thinking of calculators that let you type in a full expression. When I was in school, only fancy graphing calculators had that feature. A typical scientific calculator didn’t have juxtaposition, so you’d have to enter 6÷2(1+2) as 6÷2×(1+2), and you’d get 9 as the answer because ÷ and × have equal precedence and just go left to right.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • SmartmanApps@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I’ve never seen a calculator that had bracket keys but didn’t implement the conventional order of operations.

    I’ve seen plenty

    source
• SmartmanApps@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Unfortunately some calculators, such as Google’s will ignore your brackets and put in their own anyway. You just gotta find a decent calculator in the first place.

  source

  • EmrysOfTheValley@beehaw.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Image

    It is also frustrating when different calculators have different orders of operations and dont tell you.

    source

    • SmartmanApps@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      It is also frustrating when different calculators have different orders of operations and dont tell you.

      Yeah, but to be fair most of them do tell you the order of operations they use, they just bury it in a million lines of text about it. If they could all just check with some Maths teachers/textbooks first then it wouldn’t be necessary. Instead we’re left trying to work out which ones are right and which ones aren’t. Any calculator that gives you an option to switch on/off “implicit multiplication”, then just run as fast as you can the other way! :-)

      source
• EunieIsTheBus@feddit.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I recall that there is a myriad of memes of the form ‘what is 4-2*3’ under which there is always a never ending discussion of confidently incorrect dumbasses denying the existence of the multiplication before addition rule.

  source

  • SmartmanApps@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Image

    source
• Lemmy_Cook@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I feel this in my bones

  source
• ooli@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  [deleted]

  source

  • SmartmanApps@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I just used the calc on window… it cannot respect order of operation

    Yeah, I’ve tried several times to get Microsoft to fix their calculators. I’ve given up trying now - eventually you have to stop banging your head against the wall.

    source
• seriousconsideration@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Or, you know, you could simplify the terms?

  source

  • Daxtron2@startrek.website ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    sounds like work for a compooter

    source
• ArcticAmphibian@lemmus.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  $((A+B))

  source

  • Jakylla@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Gotta use Lisp notation to be sure

    source
• Kowowow@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Ooh I love brackets

  source
• 7heo@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  (> (explicit) (implicit))

  source
• unlucky@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  me using sbcl for everything

  source
• spongeborgcubepants@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Is the title a Requiem for a Dream reference?

  source
• survivalmachine@beehaw.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  My calculator uses a stack instead of brackets. #RPN4Life

  source