Do you question your own code shortly after you wrote it?
Name:
Anonymous2014-05-05 21:36
Do you question your code shortly after you wrote it? I find myself questioning everything I have written weeks, even days after I have written it! I often contemplate rewriting everything. I wonder if this is normal behaviour or if I am just too worried about my code being shit instead of continuing on with projects before I just get worried and start everything over?
Name:
Anonymous2014-05-05 21:38
>>1 There's always another way to write it. As long as it works well enough for what you are trying to do, you may as well leave it as it is.
No, not really. Maybe if you're an idiot that doesn't understand what's going on then yeah maybe. But if you're me then you get it flawless and perfect first try.
>>3 You need to look at things outside your own point of view. No solution is ever perfect. Every approach has it's faults. So it's impossible to write something flawless and perfect. A chair that is strong enough to support an elephant is not light enough for me to lift.
You need to look at things outside your own point of view.
Ditto.
No solution is ever perfect
Baseless assertion And what about solutions? I am talking about my programming of flawless and perfect programs. They aren't ``solutions'' to anything. They are computer programs. Flawless and perfect ones at that.
Every approach has it's faults
Baseless assertion.
So it's impossible to write something flawless and perfect.
Baseless and illogical conclusion.
A chair that is strong enough to support an elephant is not light enough for me to lift.
Nonsensical and badly reasoned metaphor.
Essentially what I'm saying is if you think your work is flawless, you aren't letting yourself see its faults.
Baseless presumption.
My flawless and perfect programs shall continue to be flawless and perfect while you wallow in your idiocy and negativity.
Name:
Anonymous2014-05-05 22:11
>>8 How did you learn to write flawless and perfect programs?
Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA. Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA.
>>11 You just aren't smart enough to comprehend your own stupidity. You haven't extended yourself to your limit so you are satisfied with your current performance and base of knowledge. If you want to take pride in that you can, but I choose not to.
>>17 Who said I was ``satisfied with your current performance and base of knowledge''? My performance and knowledge is always improving. I have yet to reach a limit and am self-aware. I didn't say that all my programs are flawless and perfect but sooner or later they shall reach it and some are flawless and perfect from the start. I take pride in possessing a HIGH INTELLECT. I comprehend YOU fully and the irony is amusing.
>>19 I don't mean to be pedantic, but the very fact that they are improving is evidence that they aren't perfect, as otherwise they'd have no reason to change.
>>23 Is english your second language you fucking shit skin rain forest monkey? Yes my performance and knowledge is improving. My programs tend to be flawless and perfect from the start and others need a little revision to reach that.
>>24 I can evaluate the difference between perfect and acceptable enough. Some may be flawless and perfect while the others are acceptable enough (acceptable enough for functional use but I shall make improvements and make them flawless and perfect).
>>26 Your programs are not perfect. They are acceptable by some standard. I don't consider a perfect program to be a program that is secure and runs efficiently. It needs to be perfect in every way. Ways I have imagined, and in ways no one has yet imagined. 10 years down the road people will look at it and say yes, there is objectively no better way to implement this on the given target machine(s). And this holds during all possible interpretations of the word better, from now until the end of civilization.
>>29 You have confirmed my programs to be perfect and you don't even know it. I shall end this thread here as the Victor of Flawless and Perfect programs, you stupid motherfucker.
Glow uses machine learning to anonymously analyze 9 to 15 data points per day from users with the aim of providing more accurate recommendations for everyone using the app
love how "machine learning" became the next marketing buzzword.
Predictive analytics is more complex and requires advanced skills in engineering, coming from diverse backgrounds in artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, advanced mathematics, and advanced statistics and one could argue, this is a sub-segment of the business intelligence market."
>>61 There is no standard for programming quality, fuck off with your enterprise shit. We like the authors of SICP as computer scientists, not programmers. Probably only programmer that has any salt of worth is tdavis. A male but not an atheist virgin male like you, you genetic inferior.
Name:
Anonymous2014-05-25 1:48
>>62 Can't you see ``worth its salt'' is extremely vague to be considered a standard? I'm not considering any kind of standard for programming quality other than not being fucking Leah.
Now, can you list the female programmers/computer scientists you know that can do something other than pull node.js apps out of their ass. If you can't, you have no right to make the correction on >>60, as you failed to provide an example that ensures the need of using ``their'' instead of ``his''.
I've slept with many Touhous and YHWH is the light that shines upon my path. Fuck you, nigger.
Name:
Anonymous2014-05-25 1:54
>>62 It's not that hard to judge programs. Some aspects to consider: + Brevity. All things being equal (e.g. and especially understandability), a more brief program is preferable. + Efficiency of execution. All things being equal, a more efficient program is preferable. + Understandability. All things being equal, a more understandable program is preferable.
>>63 Unlike you, I don't waste my time following other ``programmers'' and instead focus my time on programming. You can fuck off with your elementary school competitions and go back to 4chan as you proved yourself to be quite like them virgin autistic loser males, faggot autist.
>>65 WILL YOU STOP THE FUCKING REDIRECTIONS ALREADY, FAGCUNT?
Name:
Anonymous2014-05-25 13:30
>>65-66 There is no point in saying ``his vagina''. Replacing ``her vagina'' with ``their vagina'' (singular) is stupid, and so is replacing the his in ``any programmer worth his salt'' with ``their''.
You still have to provide a example for why your 66being technically correct99 makes sense in this context.
For the record, I just slept with the Lunarian mistress of Eientei. What have you losers ever achieved in your life, other than being neurotypical Javascript coders?
"Man" is masculine in a lot of European languages (German, Russian, etc.) for a reason. Even English, which doesn't have genders, has the word man mean both "male human" and "human", but not "female human". Only men are truly human in that they are capable of higher thought, of willful acts, of having morals and rational judgement. Women are mostly incapable or reluctant to exercise those qualities. A woman never knows why something should or shouldn't be done, she is a lot happier following a man's lead. This is because women are generally childlike and immature, which facilitates their communication with children (which it is their function to produce and raise). A woman is a human in a middle stage of development between child and fully-grown, mature man.
I don't look like a homo who blames women for his virginity either. However, you can't deny women can't program for shit, with the special exception of Lain.
>>82 I'm pretty sure you're the one who can't program for shit. And programming doesn't take even a quarter of the intellect required for computer science. Come back when software actually lasts a long time and programming isn't just dust in the wind, you virgin.
>>83 Even if I were a terrible computer scientist or programmer, that wouldn't make women any better. I'm not a misogynist, I'm just stating a fact. It's not my fault women choose to excel in other fields.
You're right, most of them are youkai females. most of them are youkai females. [b]most[/b]
Obviously you aren't the sharpest tool in the toolbox
Name:
Anonymous2014-05-25 21:55
>>90 My first sentence was a reply to your first sentence. Likewise for my second sentence. You're right though, my reply should have been I still can't see any female computer scientist other than Nitori and Lain, nigger.
Name:
Anonymous2014-05-25 22:24
I have known female programmers that were good. The definition of good and bad is subjective. Programmers tend to specialize in a few different areas, and when comparing programmers, the areas don't usually overlap. I have known female programmers that are better than me at a few areas, and whom I was better at in a few other areas. Being a lambda knight, my areas are useless and most experienced programmers don't bother with learning them or even becoming aware of their existence.