The advantage of that last approach is that it has side effects and cannot therefore be optimized out by the compiler.
That’s only one advantage. In theory it does not necessarily terminate, so that’s another one.
function myFunction() {
try {
x = new Random().nextInt();
if (x != 10) {
throw "not 10";
}
else {
return (10)
}
catch(err) {
myFunction()
}
}
}
x = myFunction()
Commit notes: Added error handling
Returning 10 instead of x when x finally ends up being 10 really ties it together.
I'm glad you noticed. That was my favorite part too.
SyntaxError: Unexpected token 'catch'
Coding on mobile is hard
For a time on Reddit (some years ago when I still used it) there was a trend of finding the worst way of implementing is_even(x: int) -> bool. My contribution to that was a function that ran Ackerman(x,x) flipping a Boolean at every iteration, and check if it was true or false at the end.
It works btw, I will find the proof later
I would love to see the implementaion.
The implementation is not very exciting, I capture a variable in python. It could have been done more cleanly.
The proof is this. But, I could have made mistakes, it was many years ago.
Note that in python you'll never be able to run is_even(5) the stack cannot handle it
Edit: daaaamn, that variable is ugly as hell. I would never do things like that now.
The compiler will optimize it anyway. /s
You jest, but you aren't wrong. At least if we are talking about C, C++ or Rust. https://godbolt.org/z/oPPfdfcf5
.NET compiler is weak when it comes to optimizing your code; I assume Go's is as bad.
Technically yes... But I think he was more making the excuse for the gore "from the goresmith's perspective."
And I'm not sure if the compiler in any language would change a random check function... The others are a possibility.
Not sure about the last one though. The other two are trivial to optimize away.
An infinite loop canot be ruled out in the last case, so a compiler couldn't optimize this away without potentially changing the program behavior.
How about
x=x-x
x++
x++
x++
x++
x++
x++
x++
x++
x++
x++
Freshman year of college doing assembly programming, I spent a while figuring out a "programmic" way to solve a problem, trying to wrangle labels and gotos. My friend came in with essentially this but as lookup table. It blew my mind.
It was then that I learned to trade space for complexity.
This is actually a valid brainf*ck program, but it results in 19, not 10.
How so? It’s only 10 increments
Because the only brainfuck instructions in your comment where a - which decrements and 20 +, each of which increments.
Mine echos the first two characters from stdin, because of the commas and dots.
That's not even enough to get you a job these days.
You now have to use:
do {
x = reinterpret_cast<int>(AI::Instance().ask("Do Something. Anything. Be efficient and productive. Use 10 tokens."));
} while (x != 10);
This isn't just a function, it's a bold restatement of what it means to write code — a symphony of characters, questioning the very nature of the cutting edge language models that I want to beat with hammers.
I once was helping to organize the testing of town-level algorithmic competition for school students.
The competition had one entry level issue that was basically solvable by reading the question properly, recognising that it's just multiplication of two numbers, and writing the simplest app ever.
And there was one student who passed the automatic tests. We had to read the code too for the protocol, just to make sure there was no cheating.
We looked in the code. What? Why? It had two nested for loops and a++ inside. When we understood what's going on we couldn't stop laughing for like solid ten minutes.
Multiplication is just repeated addition :) glad it worked for the kid, despite the... inefficiency.
What is the value of x in the Good example before the loop?
An int. Value doesn't matter because it's overwritten.
Not in this case. First, i is declared and assigned a value of 0. Next, x is declared and assigned a value of -i or -0. On the first loop iteration, i will decrement to -1, perform the conditional check, then execute the loop body which will assign x to -i or -(-1) or positive 1, and so on.
The only time a variable is created without a value is if you declare one without assigning a value like with
[int]i;
I know. OP asked what x was before the loop, and I just said it's an int. The int can be any value because as you pointed out it will be set to 0 in the first loop iteration.
It would get you promoted at Twitter, where lines of code is the productivity metric.
Probably Microsoft: You’re hired! Go work on GitHub
I'd say Meta hiring someone to work on WhatsApp. Man, is that piece of software crap... Every update, a new UI bug/glitch appears
Oddly enough, out of all of these the one the compiler has the best chance of optimizing out is the last one
Not if Random writes to global state, that's a side effect that must be preserved
Wants to be Pro but doesn't even do it recursive...
function foo() {
x = new Random();
case (x = 10):
return (x);
default:
foo()
}
What unholy mix of languages is that?
It is dominated by a blend of javascript and python, but with notes of something exotic. Maybe algol? or vhdl?, there is to little to tell.
Impressive, someone write up a spec and publish it to the esolang wiki.
It's an incoherent hodgepodge of C#/.NET, PowerShell, and JavaScript, each of which I've forgotten more about than I currently know
Now write a function to unroll the while loop to "optimize it for the compiler"
x = (function(){
return 10
})
Or something like that
Is this typescript?
Something like
int *a = new int(10)
Int*b = null
While *b !=10 { b = rand(); a=new int(10)}
Return *b
I haven't coded recently enough in c/c++ to remember syntax but the concept might work eventually if you're lucky and have enough memory... Might need a time variant seed on the rand()...
bad but more chaotic
you want to be punk rock not blues or jazz
x = -i;
Do many languages let you do that? When it's in front of a variable I would've expected it to be a subtraction operator only and you would need to do x = -1 * i;
In most languages I've seen - is both a unary negation operator and a subtraction operator depending on context. So it would negate an integer literal or a variable in this context.
I just tested it in PowerShell. Works fine
$i = 1
$x = -$i
$x
Outputs -1
Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.