If we taught human languages the way most programming languages are being taught today, everyone would have the equivalent vocabulary of a 10-year-old and never be able to read or write sentences containing more than one verb, one adjective, one adverb, and one noun. "Unsafe" words like "science", "thinking", and "brain" would be banned from common use and restricted only to the "experts" (i.e. governments and the other fat pigs at the top), and anyone who tried to break free would be considered a terrorist.
The next time someone tries to tell you that your code is "unreadable", ask them how much of their human language they knew when they were 5.
You have a brain: use it or lose it.
Name:
Anonymous2017-02-19 17:27
The great thing about assembly is it reads like Fun with Dick and Jane.
Name:
Anonymous2017-02-19 18:35
You're totally free to ignore the fact that code is for humans to read and understand. Just don't be surprised when no one will work with you!
Name:
Anonymous2017-02-19 18:40
You're calling them five years old? Unreadable means it's a mess, not that they don't know the vocabulary.
readability of code is mostly about using descriptive variable names, separation of concerns (e.g. in case like your browser it would be having separate functions for parsing and rendering, not mixing the two of them), DRY and not using 'clever' tricks. only the last one can lead to bloat, but this is mostly due to what is considered a 'clever' trick in different language. bit masks instead of boolean parameters (as well as other ways of exploiting the binary representation of values) would be a 'clever' trick in FIOC or Java but it wouldn't be in C or asm (especially how neither asm nor pre-C99 C don't really have other ways of passing single true/false values). using macros to do control flow more complex than foreach would be considered a 'clever' trick in C (unless you're FrozenVoid) but not in Lisp.
there's a vast space between ENTERPRISE and optimizing down to a single CPU cycle.
>>9 How much of your human language did you know when you were 5?
Name:
Anonymous2017-02-20 15:34
using macros to do control flow more complex than foreach would be considered a 'clever' trick in C (unless you're FrozenVoid)
Actually, the point was that you can do functional programming with macros..text macros are incredibly underused and feared by mainstream C projects. You can increase code density by orders of magnitude if macros are used aggressively(it reduces the readability but increases productive).
Name:
Anonymous2017-02-20 16:54
>>9 There was this one time when someone posted the source code for J. It looked exactly the same as this but you fags told people to "use their brain". That shit is just deliberately complicated and you're a retard for not having the decency of using sane variable names that even your future self will be thankful for.
No, Boolean("1").getInstance().toString() is not what readability is. Complain about ENTERPRISE all you want but don't defend this single-letter variable bullshit.
>>13 I know what was the point but there's a reason most people don't do that in non-hobby C code: it's hard to read, hard to debug and forces you to use constructs that are counterintuitive to anyone used to idiomatic C (do {}while(0) is the most obvious example but obviously it's far from the most convoluted ones out there).
That has nothing to do with macros. You need that because the C syntax is badly designed. Another example of a workaround for bad syntax design is the ``IIFE'' in JavaScript.
Name:
Anonymous2017-02-22 2:54
>>21 Or you could just use GO's lightweight goroutine's and not bother with C threading!
Name:
Anonymous2017-02-22 7:21
>>24 this has a lot of to do with C syntax not being designed with macros in mind
Your code is shit, and it has nothing to do with your ignorance of your programming language. If you knew more you'll just create a bigger mess. Stop being an unreadability apologizer.