• rockerface@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    As a software developer, the less ambiguous your notation is, the better it is for everyone involved. Not only will I use brackets, I’ll split my expression into multiple rows and use tabs to make it as readable as humanly possible. And maybe throw a comment or 2 if there’s still some black magic involved

        • Mic_Check_One_Two@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          For real though, I have written some truly monstrous operations in Excel.

          What do you mean you want to use Excel to manage everyone’s calendars? And now you want to export that horribly built calendar management spreadsheet to Google Calendar? What do you mean you want the Google Calendar entries automatically formatted based on who is working on a particular day? I mean yes it’s possible but-…

        • Bandicoot_Academic@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          For some context this is one of the winning entries:

          #include <stdio.h>

          #define N(a) “%”#a"$hhn" #define O(a,b) “%10$”#a"d"N(b) #define U “%10$.*37$d” #define G(a) “%”#a"$s" #define H(a,b) G(a)G(b) #define T(a) a a #define s(a) T(a)T(a) #define A(a) s(a)T(a)a #define n(a) A(a)a #define D(a) n(a)A(a) #define C(a) D(a)a #define R C(C(N(12)G(12))) #define o(a,b,c) C(H(a,a))D(G(a))C(H(b,b)G(b))n(G(b))O(32,c)R #define SS O(78,55)R “\n\033[2J\n%26$s”; #define E(a,b,c,d) H(a,b)G©O(253,11)R G(11)O(255,11)R H(11,d)N(d)O(253,35)R #define S(a,b) O(254,11)H(a,b)N(68)R G(68)O(255,68)N(12)H(12,68)G(67)N(67)

          char* fmt = O(10,39)N(40)N(41)N(42)N(43)N(66)N(69)N(24)O(22,65)O(5,70)O(8,44)N( 45)N(46)N (47)N(48)N( 49)N( 50)N( 51)N(52)N(53 )O( 28, 54)O(5, 55) O(2, 56)O(3,57)O( 4,58 )O(13, 73)O(4, 71 )N( 72)O (20,59 )N(60)N(61)N( 62)N (63)N (64)R R E(1,2, 3,13 )E(4, 5,6,13)E(7,8,9 ,13)E(1,4 ,7,13)E (2,5,8, 13)E( 3,6,9,13)E(1,5, 9,13)E(3 ,5,7,13 )E(14,15, 16,23) E(17,18,19,23)E( 20, 21, 22,23)E (14,17,20,23)E(15, 18,21,23)E(16,19, 22 ,23)E( 14, 18, 22,23)E(16,18,20, 23)R U O(255 ,38)R G ( 38)O( 255,36) R H(13,23)O(255, 11)R H(11,36) O(254 ,36) R G( 36 ) O( 255,36)R S(1,14 )S(2,15)S(3, 16)S(4, 17 )S (5, 18)S(6, 19)S(7,20)S(8, 21)S(9 ,22)H(13,23 )H(36, 67 )N(11)R G(11)""O(255, 25 )R s(C(G(11) ))n (G( 11) )G( 11)N(54)R C( “aa”) s(A( G(25)))T (G(25))N (69)R o (14,1,26)o( 15, 2, 27)o (16,3,28 )o( 17,4, 29)o(18 ,5,30)o(19 ,6,31)o( 20,7,32)o (21,8,33)o (22 ,9, 34)n(C(U) )N( 68)R H( 36,13)G(23) N(11)R C(D( G(11))) D(G(11))G(68)N(68)R G(68)O(49,35)R H(13,23)G(67)N(11)R C(H(11,11)G( 11))A(G(11))C(H(36,36)G(36))s(G(36))O(32,58)R C(D(G(36)))A(G(36))SS

          #define arg d+6,d+8,d+10,d+12,d+14,d+16,d+18,d+20,d+22,0,d+46,d+52,d+48,d+24,d
          +26,d+28,d+30,d+32,d+34,d+36,d+38,d+40,d+50,(scanf(d+126,d+4),d+(6
          -2)+18*(1-d[2]%2)+d[4]*2),d,d+66,d+68,d+70, d+78,d+80,d+82,d+90,d+
          92,d+94,d+97,d+54,d[2],d+2,d+71,d+77,d+83,d+89,d+95,d+72,d+73,d+74
          ,d+75,d+76,d+84,d+85,d+86,d+87,d+88,d+100,d+101,d+96,d+102,d+99,d+
          67,d+69,d+79,d+81,d+91,d+93,d+98,d+103,d+58,d+60,d+98,d+126,d+127,
          d+128,d+129

          char d[538] = {1,0,10,0,10};

          int main() { while(*d) printf(fmt, arg); }

        • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Further up the thread, someone mentioned that writing good software is about communicating concepts to people, first and foremost.

          This, code obfuscation, is what it looks like to communicate exclusively to the compiler instead.

    • PoisonedPrisonPanda@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months 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?

      • janNatan@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months 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.

          • Qkall@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Somehow that clip is better than the fairly odd movie. I don’t think I could recommend it… But I think of the clip posted all the time. It’s so weird 😂. Some how they figured out creepy, funny, and somehow wholesome at once.

  • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months 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 (to a human reader that hasn’t internalized PEMDAS, anyways) whereas you get a compilation error if ANYTHING is ambiguous in programming. (yes, I am WELL aware of the frustrations of runtime errors)

    • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months 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.

      • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Yea, that’s it. Math syntax was created for humans, and programming syntax had to always remain deterministic for computers. It’s not an insult to either, just interesting how ambiguities show up often when humans are involved. I say ‘often’ for the general case: Math should be just as deterministic as programming, but it’s not in some situations.

  • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

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

    But anyway, I’m on Team RPN.