this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2025
170 points (94.3% liked)

Programmer Humor

33315 readers
874 users here now

Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 28 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old

What is an example of "plain-text code", or of someone fainting at the sight of it?

The Java® Language Specification explains that "Programs are written in Unicode", which can reasonably be described as "Plain Text", but I would be surprised to see someone fainting at the sight of one.

[–] Presi300@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

*except JavaScript

[–] meowmeowbeanz@sh.itjust.works 18 points 3 days ago (3 children)

If programming languages are made for humans, then explain Assembly. Or better yet, try debugging a segfault in C at 3 AM and tell me that was designed with human comfort in mind.

Sure, some languages pretend to be human-friendly (looking at you, Python), but then you hit regex or dependency hell, and suddenly it’s like deciphering alien hieroglyphs. Let’s not even start on Lisp—parentheses everywhere like it’s trying to smother you in syntax.

No, programming languages aren’t made for humans—they’re made for machines, and we’re just the poor fools trying to survive the translation layer.

[–] saigot@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 day ago

add t0, t1, t2 is way easier for humans than the 0x014B4820 that it could be assembled into, and what programmers had to use before assembly existed.

[–] mugdad1@lemm.ee 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

it was a joke bro lol no one want to do regex at 3am

[–] meowmeowbeanz@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 days ago

Ah, I see where you’re coming from—my earlier post was meant as humor, but I might have leaned too hard into the sarcasm. No offense intended!

To clarify, there are languages and tools designed with machines in mind. Assembly is the classic example, but let’s not forget LLVM. It’s not a language per se, but an intermediate representation that optimizes code for machine execution. It’s like the ultimate translator between human-written code and raw machine instructions.

Still, regex at 3 AM? That’s a universal nightmare no matter what abstraction you’re working with.

[–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 2 days ago

i prefer c than python tbh. When I write a c application, it keeps working. When I write a python script, it rots and rarely lasts a year before I have to stop whatever else I'm doing and dive back into the python code to get it working again

[–] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 40 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

The statement in this meme is false. There are many programming languages which can be written by humans but which are intended primarily to be generated by other programs (such as compilers for higher-level languages).

The distinction can sometimes be missed even by people who are successfully writing code in these languages; this comment from Jeffrey Friedl (author of the book Mastering Regular Expressions) stuck with me:

I’ve written full-fledged applications in PostScript – it can be done – but it’s important to remember that PostScript has been designed for machine-generated scripts. A human does not normally code in PostScript directly, but rather, they write a program in another language that produces PostScript to do what they want. (I realized this after having written said applications :-)) —Jeffrey

(there is a lot of fascinating history in that thread on his blog...)

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 28 points 3 days ago (2 children)

some languages are however made to be anti-human, looking at you brainfuck and whitespace

[–] Kacarott@aussie.zone 3 points 2 days ago

Brainfuck is genuinely a fun toy language, and not that hard to use (for fairly simple stuff anyway). For really anti-human check out malbgolge 🫣

[–] platypode@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 days ago

Those are arguably the most “made for humans” languages—they’re made to make humans laugh and/or headbutt a railroad spike in frustration

[–] Pippipartner@discuss.tchncs.de 28 points 3 days ago

Well so is torture

[–] Reddfugee42@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago (1 children)

They're not humans, they're programmers.

[–] MyNameIsRichard@lemmy.ml 14 points 3 days ago (2 children)

To be fair, they share 98% of their DNA with humans.

[–] dfyx@lemmy.helios42.de 10 points 3 days ago

So do bananas

[–] Windex007@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

You mean they've adapted? Learned to copy our DNA?

[–] brokenlcd@feddit.it 10 points 3 days ago (3 children)

bytecode and IL enter the chat

[–] heavy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 days ago

To be a pedantic dick, those aren't really programming languages. Their purpose isn't for writing at that level.

[–] mugdad1@lemm.ee 2 points 3 days ago
[–] pastermil@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 days ago

Machine codes are not programming language.

[–] SatyrSack@feddit.org 8 points 3 days ago

That's a very Earth-centric assumption

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago

You should have tried programming a 68000 about 40 years ago. I dreamed in binary for the duration of that class.

[–] yetAnotherUser@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] mugdad1@lemm.ee 1 points 2 days ago
[–] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Adding to what others in thread have said, there are languages that are more usable and are more user-centric.

SFW edit: There are automatic transmission cars and manual transmission cars, both made for humans, one easier than the other. There are calculators that can compute lots of values and mental math classes, both for humans, one easier than the other. Ergonomics matter.

Although I do concede that, depending on the context, knowing more about something is better than not. I wonder what happened to the original meme's author for them to create the meme.

[–] semperverus@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

You forgot to attribute your quote. Abraham Lincoln originally said that!

[–] lowleveldata@programming.dev 2 points 3 days ago
[–] thann@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 days ago

Inline some assembly and delete this