Reverse functional programming



  • @The_Assimilator said:

    As for C, I wouldn't say the specification is poor, just intentionally vague and leaves everything up to the compiler implementer. Then you get two compilers that implement the same poorly-defined feature in ways that make cross-compilation impossible. So you add a preprocessor to the language to provide compile guards and OH GOD KILL ME NOW

    My favorite part of any C spec is when they talk about the things they fucked up in the last spec but which are now so deeply-ingrained in a billion lines of source that they will still be there in C3017 when some poor, Reptilian bastard is trying to figure out how to add together signed and unsigned types.



  • @Salamander said:

    I just read the effective go page, and I'm convinced that the whole thing was an april fools joke that got out of hand
    so Go is basically a poorly executed INTERCAL? that explains alot.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INTERCAL
    http://www.catb.org/~esr/intercal/



  • @esoterik said:

    @Salamander said:
    I just read the effective go page, and I'm convinced that the whole thing was an april fools joke that got out of hand
    so Go is basically a poorly executed INTERCAL? that explains alot.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INTERCAL
    http://www.catb.org/~esr/intercal/

    I FIXED UR LINKS FUR U.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @arotenbe said:
    If you're developing low-level systems software, you usually don't want automated GC for everything and opaque concurrency support; whereas, if you're developing application software, you'd use an actual high-level language and wouldn't be thinking about things like header files.

    DING! DING! DING!

    It's similar to the core fault of C++: it's too low-level for anyone to want to develop applications in, but with high-level features that don't do well in systems programming. (Not to mention it's got every language feature every conceived of built on the foundation of C, a language with one of the poorest specifications ever. Oh, and Stroustrup is a Misery Vampire who feeds off the suffering of developers, so he decided shit like recursive templates were a must-have.)

    C++ is verbose and convoluted, but at least does one thing right—uses general features to implement special cases.

    My biggest problem with Go is that it, quite intentionally, builds specific features into the language. Instead of just adding generics, they added three most common cases where they would be needed, (hash based) associative arrays, message queues and closures. So if you need an ordered associative container, you end up casting all over the place. And using indirection, because polymorphism can only be done with reference types. In C++ I can write any special container I need just as efficiently and conveniently (as far as the C++ verbosity allows) as a standard one.

    Until I get some strange problem with Koenig lookup that no compiler gives any sensible diagnostics to track down that is.



  • @MiffTheFox said:

    Haskell is all about embedding other languages' features in a purely-functional environment.

    I admit I only have passing familiarity with Haskell, but I don't think I've seen many other (mainstream) languages' features there. I've seen many Haskell features outside of it though. I'd say Haskell is all about making actually usable non-strict language and about genericity.
    @MiffTheFox said:
    C# is Java with less syntax cruft.

    Java has no syntax cruft, so C# can't have less. It's the exact opposite. It is Java with every usefullish feature glued on.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @bridget99 said:
    ...not the least of which is the fact that two identical-looking Unicode strings can in fact have radically different encodings.

    Yes, this is stupid, but Unicode normalization has been the--excuse me--norm for a very long time. Stop whining.

    What about a Cyrillic A vs a Latin A?



  • @Zemm said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    @bridget99 said:
    ...not the least of which is the fact that two identical-looking Unicode strings can in fact have radically different encodings.

    Yes, this is stupid, but Unicode normalization has been the--excuse me--norm for a very long time. Stop whining.

    What about a Cyrillic A vs a Latin A?

     

     

    Maybe your vast array of Russian programmers should use english keyboards? 

     

    We were talking about variable names, weren't we?

     



  • @Bulb said:

    @MiffTheFox said:
    C# is Java with less syntax cruft.

    Java has no syntax cruft, so C# can't have less. It's the exact opposite. It is Java with every usefullish feature glued on.

    The main advantage of C# is that its tools are designed by a competent software company that makes competent software. So it has a better IDE, debugger, windowing libraries, other libraries (even third party ones), build system, installer, web server environment, etc. Basically where Java is weakest, C# is strongest.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @Bulb said:
    @MiffTheFox said:
    C# is Java with less syntax cruft.

    Java has no syntax cruft, so C# can't have less. It's the exact opposite. It is Java with every usefullish feature glued on.

    The main advantage of C# is that its tools are designed by a competent software company that makes competent software. So it has a better IDE, debugger, windowing libraries, other libraries (even third party ones), build system, installer, web server environment, etc. Basically where Java is weakest, C# is strongest.

    I think Eclipse is every bit as good as VS.NET, maybe better. Trashing Eclipse doesn't help your credibility.



    Things I dislike about C#:


    -Properties; they're unnecessary sugar and they encourage what amounts to the use of fields.


    -Event wireup is a train wreck in C#. Overloading += and -= for this purpose is the kind of mistake a sophomore in college would make. The -= syntax for unwiring events is particularly asinine. Why must I instantiate something to unwire something else?


    -I love how you have to declare your potential exceptions in Java. Amazingly, C# lacks this.


    -XML comments are just awful boilerplate crap: ugly, unnecessary, and exemplary of the 2001 "XML is everything" hype.



    • Properties. What the fuck are you talking about? If your properties are sugar, you're doing it wrong. There is good reason for keeping the getter and setter together, and I get you think that's way worse than naming every other method get* or set* and having them strewn all over the place, cause the code is prettier that way.
    • Events. What the fuck are you talking about? If you need to un-wire an event, keep a fucking reference around for the EventHandler. That's like crying that malloc() is broken cause your piece of shit app is leaking like the Titanic, and free() as hard to use cause you'd have to hold a valid reference.
    • Exceptions. You're right. That you can't see the potential exceptions a method throws is retarded. Most of Microsoft's own .Net libraries document their exceptions very well though, so that may be down to your own lack of documenting skill
    • XML Comments: What the fuck are you talking about? If you don't like comments that has in-tool support for creating documentation, don't use them. Shit.


  • Hey Cenan, you have one post so... pro-tip: Bridget99 is a troll who posts only the worst development practices possible.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Hey Cenan, you have one post so... pro-tip: Bridget99 is a troll who posts only the *worst* development practices possible.

    Yeah I know, I just felt like ripping a faceless troll a new one, and thought "hey WTF". Rough day at work...

    You know, you might think that trolling has no victims until you step into a code review meeting and hear one of bridget99's moronic statements regurgitated like gospel. Then guns come out. People gets waterboarded. The root cause found to be a bridget99 TDWTF post on top 10 on Google, cause he smattered around just enough buzz-fluff feces to choke PageRank().

    These morons need to be met with stern debunkment. Tolerance is not acceptable. Or something. Whatever.



  •  Sometimes I feel like bridget is one of morbius' carefully crafted alts.



  • @Cenan said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    Hey Cenan, you have one post so... pro-tip: Bridget99 is a troll who posts only the worst development practices possible.

    Yeah I know, I just felt like ripping a faceless troll a new one, and thought "hey WTF". Rough day at work...

    You know, you might think that trolling has no victims until you step into a code review meeting and hear one of bridget99's moronic statements regurgitated like gospel. Then guns come out. People gets waterboarded. The root cause found to be a bridget99 TDWTF post on top 10 on Google, cause he smattered around just enough buzz-fluff feces to choke PageRank().

    These morons need to be met with stern debunkment. Tolerance is not acceptable. Or something. Whatever.

    That's awesome. Y'all are welcome to get me on speakerphone for your next code review.


  • Considered Harmful

    @bridget99 said:

    @Cenan said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    Hey Cenan, you have one post so... pro-tip: Bridget99 is a troll who posts only the worst development practices possible.

    Yeah I know, I just felt like ripping a faceless troll a new one, and thought "hey WTF". Rough day at work...

    You know, you might think that trolling has no victims until you step into a code review meeting and hear one of bridget99's moronic statements regurgitated like gospel. Then guns come out. People gets waterboarded. The root cause found to be a bridget99 TDWTF post on top 10 on Google, cause he smattered around just enough buzz-fluff feces to choke PageRank().

    These morons need to be met with stern debunkment. Tolerance is not acceptable. Or something. Whatever.

    That's awesome. Y'all are welcome to get me on speakerphone for your next code review.


    NO, THIS IS ALL WRONG. THERE SHOULD BE NO WINDOW BORDER, JUST A SINGLE TOPMOST WINDOW IN THE CORNER OF THE SCREEN. I KNOW YOU CAN'T MOVE IT, THAT'S THE POINT.



  • @Cenan said:

    • Properties. What the fuck are you talking about? If your properties are sugar, you're doing it wrong. There is good reason for keeping the getter and setter together, and I get you think that's way worse than naming every other method get* or set* and having them strewn all over the place, cause the code is prettier that way.
    • Events. What the fuck are you talking about? If you need to un-wire an event, keep a fucking reference around for the EventHandler. That's like crying that malloc() is broken cause your piece of shit app is leaking like the Titanic, and free() as hard to use cause you'd have to hold a valid reference.
    • Exceptions. You're right. That you can't see the potential exceptions a method throws is retarded. Most of Microsoft's own .Net libraries document their exceptions very well though, so that may be down to your own lack of documenting skill
    • XML Comments: What the fuck are you talking about? If you don't like comments that has in-tool support for creating documentation, don't use them. Shit.

    Properties: What I would suggest is get/set methods grouped together. No, you don't have to group your methods together, any more than a C# programmer has to avoid creating quasi-fields. Either way, it's possible to screw things up, and my opinion is that creating quasi-fields is the biggest potential screw-up in play here. Eliminating properties doesn't completely address the issue, but in my experience having properties does encourage making quasi-fields. It allows developers to get rid of fields in a cosmetic way that does nothing but sweep the real problem under the rug.



    Events : I don't think the unwiring technique you're describing actually works. In .NET 1.0 and 1.1, the only C# syntax for unwiring events was:



    myconrol.Clicked-=new EventHandlerType(myMethod);



    I am fairly certain this was the only way to do this. I remember trying what you suggested (maintaining a reference) but it did not work. Later (.NET 2.0?), the syntax shown below became allowable:



    mycontrol.Clicked-=myMethod;



    This is an improvement, but really, the use of += and-= is infantile.



    XML Comments: what you say is reasonable. I still hate them though. I've sifted through too much boilerplate crap to ever really feel enthusiastic about that sort of thing.



  • @dhromed said:

     Sometimes I feel like bridget is one of morbius' carefully crafted alts.

    consults list Hmm.. nope, bridget's not one of mine. But.. dhromed is?



  • @bridget99 said:

    In .NET 1.0 and 1.1...

    And yet Java doesn't have Collections or a JIT or even any XML support in the built-in libraries!



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @bridget99 said:
    In .NET 1.0 and 1.1...

    And yet Java doesn't have Collections or a JIT or even any XML support in the built-in libraries!

    I posted the .NET 2.0+ syntax as well and I still think it's crap.



  • @joe.edwards said:

    @bridget99 said:
    @Cenan said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    Hey Cenan, you have one post so... pro-tip: Bridget99 is a troll who posts only the worst development practices possible.

    Yeah I know, I just felt like ripping a faceless troll a new one, and thought "hey WTF". Rough day at work...

    You know, you might think that trolling has no victims until you step into a code review meeting and hear one of bridget99's moronic statements regurgitated like gospel. Then guns come out. People gets waterboarded. The root cause found to be a bridget99 TDWTF post on top 10 on Google, cause he smattered around just enough buzz-fluff feces to choke PageRank().

    These morons need to be met with stern debunkment. Tolerance is not acceptable. Or something. Whatever.

    That's awesome. Y'all are welcome to get me on speakerphone for your next code review.


    NO, THIS IS ALL WRONG. THERE SHOULD BE NO WINDOW BORDER, JUST A SINGLE TOPMOST WINDOW IN THE CORNER OF THE SCREEN. I KNOW YOU CAN'T MOVE IT, THAT'S THE POINT.

    Why should I waste time explaining/supporting/coding around the "window" metaphor when every single emerging GUI trend (Microsoft's included) abandons it? What I am doing is... the future!



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @dhromed said:

     Sometimes I feel like bridget is one of morbius' carefully crafted alts.

    consults list Hmm.. nope, bridget's not one of mine. But.. dhromed is?

     

    But but...you are one of my alts!

     



  • @dhromed said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    @dhromed said:

     Sometimes I feel like bridget is one of morbius' carefully crafted alts.

    consults list Hmm.. nope, bridget's not one of mine. But.. dhromed is?

     

    But but...you are one of my alts!

    I thought I was one of blakey's alts..



  • Blakey doesn't have alts.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Blakey doesn't have alts.

    Isn't he a mod on alt.sex.mrbelvedere?



  • @bridget99 said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    Blakey doesn't have alts.

    Isn't he a mod on alt.sex.mrbelvedere?

    +1



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Blakey doesn't have alts.

    I don't either. I hope nobody does; the thought of someone going to the effort of sockpuppeting on this forum is too depressing to contemplate.


  • Considered Harmful

    @morbiuswilters said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    Blakey doesn't have alts.

    I don't either. I hope nobody does; the thought of someone going to the effort of sockpuppeting on this forum is too depressing to contemplate.

    In Hyderabad, nobody is having the alternate account. Is punishable by death.


  • Trolleybus Mechanic

    @morbiuswilters said:

    @dhromed said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    @dhromed said:

     Sometimes I feel like bridget is one of morbius' carefully crafted alts.

    consults list Hmm.. nope, bridget's not one of mine. But.. dhromed is?

     

    But but...you are one of my alts!

    I thought I was one of blakey's alts..

     

     

     



  • @bridget99 said:

    Who cares about any of this? I'd really like to see the real-world case for Unicode identifiers that isn't "they make my language seem better than [some other language]."

     

    I might add this topic to my interview script. Q: What do you think about Unicode identifiers? A: That sounds like a horrible idea that would send any decent programmer off job-hunting.

    Well, I know you don't give a shit about them, but sometimes people want to give variables names from a language other than English. You know, with the weird symbols like "è"or "â" or "ç". And no, "e" "a" and "c" are completely different things. Ty to wite Englix wods witout using "r" or "h", fo example, you'll see wat I mean.


    Yes, I know, English is the most used language for programming, I'm not defending that everyone should program everything in their language, but I don't see why they shouldn't be able to for short snippets or occasional variable names that don't have a clear translation in English.



  • @spamcourt said:

    Yes, I know, English is the most used language for programming, I'm not defending that everyone should program everything in their language, but I don't see why they shouldn't be able to for short snippets or occasional variable names that don't have a clear translation in English.

    I think we should simply have a single, global language. It would save so much trouble in translations, misunderstandings, character set issues.. we can all get together and agree that anybody who doesn't use that language gets nuked.

    To make the process transparent and fair, I am going to pick one language completely at random that all the world must now use.

    drumroll

    Well, look at that, it's English!



  • @spamcourt said:

    @bridget99 said:

    Who cares about any of this? I'd really like to see the real-world case for Unicode identifiers that isn't "they make my language seem better than [some other language]."

     

    I might add this topic to my interview script. Q: What do you think about Unicode identifiers? A: That sounds like a horrible idea that would send any decent programmer off job-hunting.

    Well, I know you don't give a shit about them, but sometimes people want to give variables names from a language other than English. You know, with the weird symbols like "è"or "â" or "ç". And no, "e" "a" and "c" are completely different things. Ty to wite Englix wods witout using "r" or "h", fo example, you'll see wat I mean.


    Yes, I know, English is the most used language for programming, I'm not defending that everyone should program everything in their language, but I don't see why they shouldn't be able to for short snippets or occasional variable names that don't have a clear translation in English.

    I don't think Unicode is the answer to that problem, though. I've come to view a Unicode string as more akin to an image than an ASCII string. When I look at two ASCII strings reading "AAA," I know they are the same. With Unicode, it's a bit trickier. So, ultimately, I think Unicode is good for linguistics, philology, education, etc., but bad for anything resembling science or engineering.

    But if we say we want to allow variable names like "año_uno," how do we do it?



    Well, in general, my answer is "not with Unicode." Specifically, I think that one thing we've learned from Unicode is that "code pages" weren't all that bad. They address the basic issue in a pragmatic, Hippocratic way. Sure, if I get some code that was written in the Albanian code page, and I'm not using that code page, the identifiers will look funny. But if I'm not using the Albanian code page, it's probably because I don't speak Albanian, and I therefore wouldn't get much out of those variable names anyway. They end up being random-looking, meaningless names, regardless of codepage... but at least they're not ambiguous.



    I can think of another approach that's better than Unicode. Specifically, rather than trying to shoehorn one OS onto many languages, we could let French computers use a French OS, German computers use a German OS, and so on. Each OS would end up with something like its own version of ASCII. We would have FSCII, GSCII, etc. Each OS would likely also contain features related to English/ASCII, as public spaces like the Web would still be ASCII/ English-based.



    Before we could reach this ideal though, a whole lot of people would have to abandon their attachment to "code reuse" and aversion to "reinventing the wheel." I know the coders are out there to make it happen. Under the status quo, these surplus systems programmers write viruses, while we entrust string encoding to a half-dozen or so neckbeards. It would be infinitely better to decentralize this role. Then, the people who write viruses now would write locale-specific OSes instead, and they'd probably do a damned good job at it.


  • Considered Harmful

    You guys the brainworms are gone, you don't have to shoot m—

    *blammo*


  • @joe.edwards said:

    You guys the brainworms are gone, you don't have to shoot m—


    blammo

    Didn't like my idea...?



    Personally, if I were a developer in Spain, I think I'd rather work on getting SCII/ ESPAÑ-OS running than work on twiddling Unicode / Windows globalization into behaving properly. I realize some may disagree. It really seems like one of those master morality / slave morality dichotomies to me. If you've got confidence in your own abilities, you won't have the time or inclination to fuck around with Unicode.



  • Never mind. I missed your post in the other thread. Not everything I post is crap, I promise.


  • Considered Harmful

    @bridget99 said:

    @joe.edwards said:

    You guys the brainworms are gone, you don't have to shoot m—


    blammo

    Didn't like my idea...?



    Personally, if I were a developer in Spain, I think I'd rather work on getting SCII/ ESPAÑ-OS running than work on twiddling Unicode / Windows globalization into behaving properly. I realize some may disagree. It really seems like one of those master morality / slave morality dichotomies to me. If you've got confidence in your own abilities, you won't have the time or inclination to fuck around with Unicode.

    Sorry, but Unicode was invented to solve a real problem. You want us to go back to what's been known to be an inferior system for decades now.

    Here, I have a package for you:



  • @joe.edwards said:

    @bridget99 said:
    @joe.edwards said:

    You guys the brainworms are gone, you don't have to shoot m—


    blammo

    Didn't like my idea...?



    Personally, if I were a developer in Spain, I think I'd rather work on getting SCII/ ESPAÑ-OS running than work on twiddling Unicode / Windows globalization into behaving properly. I realize some may disagree. It really seems like one of those master morality / slave morality dichotomies to me. If you've got confidence in your own abilities, you won't have the time or inclination to fuck around with Unicode.

    Sorry, but Unicode was invented to solve a real problem. You want us to go back to what's been known to be an inferior system for decades now.

    Here, I have a package for you:

    Sure Unicode was invented to solve real problems, code page mismatch being perhaps the most obvious of these. I just think Unicode did a shitty job. No surprise there; like Fred Brooks said, "plan to throw one away."



  • @bridget99 said:

    bullshit about Unicode

    Let's say you have a program written in a language of your choice (with English variables and function names, etc.) that modifies the work of someone named Jørgen and uses an algorithm invented by someone named Владимир. What magical code page contains enough letters to represent three languages unambiguously and doesn't require extra information about what code page you're using?



  • @bridget99 said:

    master morality / slave morality

    �bermensch!



  • @Ben L. said:

    Let's say you have a program written in a language of your choice (with English variables and function names, etc.) that modifies the work of someone named Jørgen and uses an algorithm invented by someone named Владимир. What magical code page contains enough letters to represent three languages unambiguously and doesn't require extra information about what code page you're using?

    Trick question, I never work on terrorist code.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Ben L. said:
    Let's say you have a program written in a language of your choice (with English variables and function names, etc.) that modifies the work of someone named Jørgen and uses an algorithm invented by someone named Владимир. What magical code page contains enough letters to represent three languages unambiguously and doesn't require extra information about what code page you're using?

    Trick question, I never work on terrorist code.

    Fun fact: Both of those are names of people working at Valve.

    Oh right, Counter-Strike has terrorists.

    Carry on.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @bridget99 said:
    master morality / slave morality

    �bermensch!



  • @Ben L. said:

    @bridget99 said:
    bullshit about Unicode

    Let's say you have a program written in a language of your choice (with English variables and function names, etc.) that modifies the work of someone named Jørgen and uses an algorithm invented by someone named Владимир. What magical code page contains enough letters to represent three languages unambiguously and doesn't require extra information about what code page you're using?


    Well, no codepage could ever encompass the Scandinavian letters and the Cyrillic letters. Code pages are a compromise. But would it really be so terrible to just type "Vladimir" and "Joergen?" We're just talking about comments here, right? Do we want to completely fuck everything up for comments?



    And, as I posted, my real preferred solution is neither code pages nor Unicode. Code pages are a workable compromise. Unicode tries not to compromise, and therefore followed the same path as most big "no compromise" endeavours, i.e. straight into the gutter.



  • @Ben L. said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    @bridget99 said:
    master morality / slave morality

    �bermensch!

    Ok yes yes, video game images.

    I'm still waiting to hear about which environment variable my programs should be checking before spawning threads. YOU DODGED THAT LITTLE QUESTION DIDN'T YOU???


  • Considered Harmful

    SQL Server (and probably other RDBMSes, my database experience is mostly SQL Server) actually solves the problems of ambiguity in Unicode beautifully with its collations. You get the full Unicode character set available to you, but you can choose the rules by which characters compare and sort.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    I'm still waiting to hear about which environment variable my programs should be checking before spawning threads. YOU DODGED THAT LITTLE QUESTION DIDN'T YOU???

    I CAN TYPE IN ALL CAPS TOO???

    Go has an environment variable named GOMAXPROCS. If it's not set, Go pretends it's 1. The reason being that goroutines are cheaper than threads and Go needs to know how many threads it's allowed to use to multiplex the goroutines onto.

    Here's a program that uses 5000 goroutines. Try that with threads. I dare you.



  • @Ben L. said:

    Try that with threads. I dare you.

    Are you joking or something? I use 5000 threads all the time.

    Although, you did inadvertently answer a question I posed awhile back, which was what the hell was different about Go's threads. So it turns out Go threads are just pretend threads which are scheduled on top of a pool of real threads. While it's nice they made that idiom easy to implement, it's not new or novel in any way. And I wonder how well the Go scheduler is under heavy load.



  • @bridget99 said:

    @Ben L. said:
    @bridget99 said:
    bullshit about Unicode

    Let's say you have a program written in a language of your choice (with English variables and function names, etc.) that modifies the work of someone named Jørgen and uses an algorithm invented by someone named Владимир. What magical code page contains enough letters to represent three languages unambiguously and doesn't require extra information about what code page you're using?


    Well, no codepage could ever encompass the Scandinavian letters and the Cyrillic letters. Code pages are a compromise. But would it really be so terrible to just type "Vladimir" and "Joergen?" We're just talking about comments here, right? Do we want to completely fuck everything up for comments?



    And, as I posted, my real preferred solution is neither code pages nor Unicode. Code pages are a workable compromise. Unicode tries not to compromise, and therefore followed the same path as most big "no compromise" endeavours, i.e. straight into the gutter.

    So what mutant-code-page-mixed-with-gorilla-feces would you suggest we use for this thread? Unicode seems to be handling it quite well.



  • @Ben L. said:

    Here's a program that uses 5000 goroutines. Try that with threads. I dare you.

    5000 threads? I have a webserver that does that in its sleep. Hell my bog-standard Windows PC here at work has 1500 threads running at the moment, and it's not doing jack.

    BTW, wasn't Go written in 2007? Why the fuck does it refer to "procs" and not "cores"? I mean, who gives a shit in 2013 (or 2007 for that matter) how many physical processors are in the machines when only cores matter? Are "procs" really "cores"?

    For that matter, how does it handle hyper-threading? Do those count as "procs"?

    How it is possible for a language designed in 2007 to:
    1) Not support Unicode? (Meaning: it has a fundamental feature that breaks in languages without capital letters. For you pedantic dickweeds.)
    2) Have such a poorly-worded environment variable?



  • @Ben L. said:

    @bridget99 said:
    @Ben L. said:
    @bridget99 said:
    bullshit about Unicode

    Let's say you have a program written in a language of your choice (with English variables and function names, etc.) that modifies the work of someone named Jørgen and uses an algorithm invented by someone named Владимир. What magical code page contains enough letters to represent three languages unambiguously and doesn't require extra information about what code page you're using?


    Well, no codepage could ever encompass the Scandinavian letters and the Cyrillic letters. Code pages are a compromise. But would it really be so terrible to just type "Vladimir" and "Joergen?" We're just talking about comments here, right? Do we want to completely fuck everything up for comments?



    And, as I posted, my real preferred solution is neither code pages nor Unicode. Code pages are a workable compromise. Unicode tries not to compromise, and therefore followed the same path as most big "no compromise" endeavours, i.e. straight into the gutter.

    So what mutant-code-page-mixed-with-gorilla-feces would you suggest we use for this thread? Unicode seems to be handling it quite well.

    This thread is not code. It's fine with me if it contains Unicode. The URL shouldn't be Unicode. The code shouldn't be in Unicode.


  • Considered Harmful

    @Ben L. said:

    Unicode seems to be handling it quite well.

    Just don't look at the tag cloud.


Log in to reply