Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

Do you question your own code shortly after you wrote it?

Name: Anonymous 2014-05-05 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: Anonymous 2014-05-05 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.

Name: Anonymous 2014-05-05 21:42

>>2
There's always another way to write it.
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.

Name: Anonymous 2014-05-05 21:48

>>3
le pedophile sage

Name: Anonymous 2014-05-05 21:59

>>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.

Name: Anonymous 2014-05-05 22:04

Essentially what I'm saying is if you think your work is flawless, you aren't letting yourself see its faults.

Name: le bbcodes fail 2014-05-05 22:04

>>5
Sure, it's heavy, but is it Abelson heavy?

Name: Anonymous 2014-05-05 22:07

>>5
Stop being negative you illogical imbecile.

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: Anonymous 2014-05-05 22:11

>>8
How did you learn to write flawless and perfect programs?

Name: Anonymous 2014-05-05 22:13

>>8
This isn't going to go anywhere, so I wont respond. I'll let other posters continue this conversation if they want to.

Name: Anonymous 2014-05-05 22:14

>>9
I first learned how to program and then applied my HIGH INTELLECT.

Boom flawless and perfect programs.
Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA.

>>8
[b]> 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.
Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA.
[/b]

Name: Anonymous 2014-05-05 22:27

>>11
Get smart, HAHAHHAHAHHA.
I guess what you are trying to tell me is to read SICP, right anon-kun?

Name: Anonymous 2014-05-05 22:28

>>12
Clearly new here. Back to /g/.

Name: Anonymous 2014-05-05 22:29

>>13
Eat my dick faggot.

Name: Anonymous 2014-05-05 22:32

>>14
>le angry /g/ro face >:(

Name: Anonymous 2014-05-05 22:33

>>15
Sorry.

Name: Anonymous 2014-05-05 22:35

>>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.

Name: Anonymous 2014-05-05 22:38

>>17
#rekt

Name: Anonymous 2014-05-05 22:39

>>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.

Name: Anonymous 2014-05-05 22:40

>>18
How did this little non-programming 4channer find its way here?

Name: Anonymous 2014-05-05 22:43

>>20
ur mum lol

Name: Anonymous 2014-05-05 22:46

>>21
Mum? And finally you discovered the ``Don't bump'' checkbox. Now you can be like the big boys!

Name: Anonymous 2014-05-05 22:48

>>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.

Name: >>23 2014-05-05 22:51

and if they aren't changing, it doesn't mean that it's perfect, but that it is acceptable enough to not motivate further work.

Name: Anonymous 2014-05-05 22:52

>>22
nice mene

Name: Anonymous 2014-05-05 22:53

>>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.

Name: Anonymous 2014-05-05 22:54

>>26
I remember my first beer.

Name: Anonymous 2014-05-05 22:55

>>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).

Name: Anonymous 2014-05-05 22:59

>>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.

Name: Anonymous 2014-05-05 23:00

anti-sage

Name: Anonymous 2014-05-05 23:05

>>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.

Name: Anonymous 2014-05-05 23:06

>>31
congrats

Name: Anonymous 2014-05-05 23:08

>>31
You should be a comedian.

Name: Anonymous 2014-05-06 0:56

I've decided to just read SICP.

Name: Anonymous 2014-05-06 16:34

>>29
on the given target machine(s)
You're wrong already. The perfect program must obviously be completely hardware-independent and be able to run on any machine.

Name: Anonymous 2014-05-06 18:02

Stop fucking programming for iOS, you shit bowl.

Name: Anonymous 2014-05-06 19:09

>>36
Why? It's way more profitable.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tristanlouis/2013/08/10/how-much-do-average-apps-make/
$1 per download compared to pathetic Android's $0.01, and Windows Phone's unimpressive $0.15.

Though, I don't know why I should care. Nothing I've published has ever broken a hundred downloads (excluding Android's Chinese pirates).

Name: Anonymous 2014-05-06 19:45

>>35
NO YOUARE WRONG YOU KUCING BAFFFOOON FFUAOJDOCK SDVOK SDVOKSDV

Name: Anonymous 2014-05-06 20:50

>>38
Sure, it's BAFFFOOON FFUAOJDOCK SDVOK SDVOKSDV, but is it Abelson BAFFFOOON FFUAOJDOCK SDVOK SDVOKSDV?

Name: Anonymous 2014-05-06 20:55

>>39
fuck you I sniggered.
Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List
All trademarks and copyrights on this site are owned by their respective parties. All comments and posts are the responsibility of their own posters.
- Tinychan + 2ch Mode + RSS -