Oh! I just remembered this video. If you wanna know how students can struggle with pseudo code, watch the video. I use this video when I teach algorithms (students are even worse at that than pseudo code).
It is just that here, in this situation, I didn’t get it
I scrolled back to see, and I think that initial one was just someone who disagreed with your suggestion, for whatever reason (like I downvote incorrect responses to order of operations questions. i.e. hearsay which contradicts what's actually in textbooks and taught), but then yeah, there was some piling on when you asked for an explanation, and I just write them off as "I don't want to see this" types. At first it bothered me, but in the end I just take out of it that I got more upvotes than downvotes, so just proceed with business as usual then. :-)
Remember the human, and all of that
Yeah, there's some keyboard-warriors who forget that. You learn to just ignore the downvoters unless, like in your situation, you'd like an explanation as to why your particular suggestion was downvoted by someone. e.g. maybe they know something that you don't. There was a whole side-discussion about Kagi like that (someone had seen something on a blog, and someone else pointed out the CEO's response to the blog, etc. - I didn't read the whole thing... but I didn't downvote it either ;-) ).
YIj54yALOJxEsY20eU has compromised on their privacy values by not including a special character in their username.
They're just trying to convey they're not THAT strong. 😂
don’t have to learn about indenting until you cover flow control
Which is one of the very first things they're taught - "hello world", variables ("Enter your name", "hello {name}"), branches, and loops, in that order.
I’m not sure I can think of a language that would be better suited to learning
Pascal - it's what it was designed for. Variables, branches, and loops, with strong types and optional indenting. Once people have a handle on that, THEN move onto OOP.
Yep, I've been actively promoting programming.dev any time the topic of StackOveflow has come up.
My calculator says -2² = -4
That's correct
It is also frustrating when different calculators have different orders of operations and dont tell you.
Yeah, but to be fair most of them do tell you the order of operations they use, they just bury it in a million lines of text about it. If they could all just check with some Maths teachers/textbooks first then it wouldn't be necessary. Instead we're left trying to work out which ones are right and which ones aren't. Any calculator that gives you an option to switch on/off "implicit multiplication", then just run as fast as you can the other way! :-)
Unfortunately some calculators, such as Google's will ignore your brackets and put in their own anyway. You just gotta find a decent calculator in the first place.
I think it was something like : -2 is a diminutive for -1x2
Correct. Things that are usually left out of Maths expressions are plus signs, ones as multipliers/indices, and un-needed brackets. e.g. I could more fully write this as -1(4)², but that just simplifies to -4²
I just used the calc on window… it cannot respect order of operation
Yeah, I've tried several times to get Microsoft to fix their calculators. I've given up trying now - eventually you have to stop banging your head against the wall.
I'm used to there being grumpy people around now. ;-) (they're somewhat unpredictable too - wait what? Why are you downvoting that?! 😂) I had nothing but positive reaction from the dotnet and MAUI communities. I think it maybe didn't come across well enough here that even though there's focus on dotnet/MAUI, what I'll be talking about is applicable to any programmer who wants to find out how to get more out of the Fediverse. i.e. here's the MAUI version of this tool, but said tool would also exist for other languages too, and if you can't find it here's the public repo where you could fork it. That was the reason I posted it here too anyway.
P.S. thanks for the well wishes.
Well, that's what was apparently meant, but in fact the correct terminology here is factors. There's only multiplicands (and multipliers) with an explicit multiplication sign. axb - multiplicand a and multiplier b, ab - Term with factors a and b, and a is the coefficient of this Term.