You must not distribute brother

Literally a Law of Maths, but go ahead and stay in Denial about it 😂

It’s optional

You think the word "must" means it's optional?? 😂

Google distributive law and find me one source saying it’s imperative to distribute

Go through Maths textbooks and find me one which says it isn't, or alternatively go through dictionaries and find me one that says "must" means "optional" 😂

there’s none

He says, when I've already posted multiple textbooks which say it is 😂

You can even confirm this is true yourself with simple examples like the ones I’ve mentioned above

I've confirmed it with Maths textbooks - you know, those things you refuse to look in because you know they prove you are wrong 😂 BTW your "example above" was about The Distributive Property, as I already pointed out to you at the time

you’re just using (AS) without realizing it

as per the textbooks 🙄

Conversations around operator precedence can cause real differences in how expressions are evaluated

No they can't. The rules are universal

you might not underatand it yourself

says someone about to prove that they don't understand it... 😂

With (AS), 3-2+1 = (3-2)+1 = 1+1 = 2

Nope! With AS 3-2+1=+(3+1)-(2)=4-2=2

This is what you would expect

Yes, I expected you to not understand what AS meant 😂

since we do generally agree to evaluate addition and subtraction with the same precedence left-to-right

It's only a convention, not a rule, as just proven

With SA, the evaluation is the same

No it isn't. With SA 3-2+1=-(2)+(3+1)=-2+4=2

you get the same answer

Yep, because order doesn't matter 🙄 AS and SA both give the same answer

No issue there for this expression

Or any expression

But with AS, 3-2+1 = 3-(2+1)

You just violated the rules and changed the sign of the 1 from a + to a minus. 🙄 -(2+1)=-2-1, not -2+1. Welcome to how you got a wrong answer when you wrongly added brackets to it and mixed the different signs together

So evaluating addition with higher precedence rather than equal precedence yields a different answer

No it doesn't., as already proven. 3-2+1=+(3+1)-(2)=+4-2=2, same answer 🙄

I’m sorry dude, but the other person is completely correct

No they're not.

You don’t explain a lot of things

You mean all the things that have links to resources about them in the pre-requisite knowledge section? 😂

For example Git and GitHub are both prerequisites that you don’t mention

Now go read through the links in the pre-requisite section. Also, they're not pre-requisites - it isn't necessary to know how to use them, given cloning the repo is optional - hence not listed as pre-requisites. See how that works?

Knowledge of layout is also a prereq

No it isn't. I specifically cover exactly that. I see you didn't read it.

You don’t explain what binding is.

Yes I do! 😂 As do the links in the pre-requisite knowledge. Again showing you didn't read it

There’s a ton of typos.

says person not identifying any

You missed putting certain things in code blocks

You ever tried doing that on dev.to? Guess what? There's no tutorials for it! 😂 (the thing they said to do doesn't work)

You should every once in a while show the full class or file so the reader knows what they missed

It's done at the beginning. Also there's the repo. Again showing you didn't read it.

There’s a lot that could be improved here.

says person with made-up criticisms from not having actually read through it.

It’s hard to write a tutorial.

No it isn't. Assume the reader knows nothing.

Implicit multiplication is also multiplication

There's no such thing as implicit multiplication. The answer is 1.

This isn’t really one of the ambiguous ones but it’s fair to consider it unclear.

#MathsIsNeverAmbiguous if you follow all the rules of Maths (there's a lot of people here who aren't).

Yes, it's The Distributive Law.

It already isn't an issue if people just follow all the rules of Maths.

A matter of convention: true

False. Actual rules of Maths

This is not one of the ambiguous ones

There aren't any ambiguous ones - #MathsIsNeverAmbiguous

not the math rules

If it involves Maths, then it's Maths rules.

It’s 16

It's 1

There was 3 misinterpretations - see my reply to them.

confidently wrong on the internet

I made a hashtag for people #LoudlyNotUnderstandingThings :-)

No, that video is wrong. Not only that, if you check the letter he referenced Lennes' Letter, you'll find it doesn't support his assertion that the rules changed at all! And that's because they didn't change. Moral of the story Always check the references.