proud recipient of the prestigious you tried award.

  • 1 Post
  • 66 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 2nd, 2023

help-circle



  • i will never forgive C for making the type syntax be

    char* args[]
    

    instead of the much more reasonable

    &[char] args 
    

    it also bothers me that char* args[] and char c are “the same type” in the sense that the compiler lets you write

    char c, *args[5];
    

    with no problems. i think the C languages would be way easier to learn if they had better type syntax. don’t even get me started on C++ adding support for

    auto fn_name() -> ReturnType { … }
    



  • why couldn’t you compute p/q < r/s by checking ps < rq? if you follow the convention that denominators have to be strictly positive then you don’t even have to take signs into account. and you can check equality in the same way. no float conversion necessary. you do still need to eat a big multiplication though, which kind of sucks. the point you bring up of needing to reduce fractions after adding or multiplying also a massive problem. maybe we could solve this by prohibiting the end user from adding or multiplying numbers









  • affiliate@lemmy.worldtoProgrammer Humor@programming.devLanguages
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    6 months ago

    i think it’s mainly people being cranky and set in their ways. they got used to working around all the footguns/bad design decisions of the C/C++ specifications and really don’t want to feel like it was all for nothing. they’re comfortable with C/C++, and rust is new and uncomfortable. i think for some people, being a C/C++ developer is also a big part of their identity, and it might be uncomfortable to let that go.

    i also think there’s a historical precedent for this kind of thing: when a new way of doing things emerges, many of the people who grew up doing it the old way get upset about it and refuse to accept that the new way might be an improvement.