Writes “I have a PhD in linguistics. I am literally a cunning linguist, and literally all of you are fucking stupid […].”
Also writes “fuckoing”.
LOL
Anon reinventing “human language programming”.
It is kinda funny we spent all these centuries turning english into a less-debatable notation called “math” to write algorithms in, only to then reverse that and get stuff like vibe-coding
vibe coded algorithms probably won’t be the way your boss wants them coded but they still work. and i don’t code for a living so i’m just like <shrug>
Actually this is why I find python so hard. Might need to refer to his teachings
Javascript users be like.
try { mysteryBox?.open?.(); } catch() { console.error("fuck") }Rust users be like.
let discord_kitten = femboys .iter() .map(|b| Bottom { thigh_highs: true, ..*b }) .filter(|b| b.girth<5.0) .reduce(|top,b| top %= b);C# users be like.
// from the Unity turoial IDK what this does RegistrationHandler.SingletonInjectionHandler.InjectSingleton<IInjectedSingleton>(new InjectedSingleton(RegistrationHandler.SingletonInjectionHandler.SingletonType.Player));Why are you using Python instead of Rust.
It’s not
theDog.walks(), it’s狗.走()Conjugate this you anglocentrist fuck!
狗。走。了()
There you go, you canine-centric bastard
HAHAHAHA
I love how evil this is
Don’t speak any chinese languages (or is that japanese?) but I do know that most words don’t have a direct translation to english
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA I’M STEALING THAT IDEA!
I’m forced to learn french because I’m in canada, so if I get corrected I can chuck a phrase of similar meaning with no direct translation
God I love doing stuff like this
does chinese code take up less space? wait how many bytes does it take to encode a chinese character? is it just UTF-8 or is it something else
UTF-16 is fine for the vast majority of Chinese characters. It has been standard since 2008 for C++ (at least for code that wants to be running on windows; Microsoft moved everything to w_string back then).
C# uses UTF-16 natively for strings.
Dunno about other languages
Buffalo_buffalo::buffaloBuffalo.buffalo(Buffalo.buffalo);p.s. I’m on mobile and this is a shitpost. I did not put a lot of thought into this code. Feel free to suggest a more accurate representation.
buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalobuffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalobuffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo
that’s ruby
NoIDontThinkIWill.gif
to me method names are imperatives, like when we order the dog to walk.
dog.walk() = “Dog, walk!”
I don’t python, but I know there’s tons of ()
why is there so much () and other empty brackets?
It’s calling a function without a parameter.
You know how in math you had something like:
f(x) = x²
Not all functions need parameters though. The function:
f(x) = 2
does not even use the provided x! So just leave it out:
f() = 2
Similarly, you could give a function two parameters:
f(x, y) = x + y
Programmers use functions to primarily organize their code. Otherwise it would get very unreadable very quickly. Those function are usually a bit more complicated than a single line, though.
dog.walk() would call the walk() function of “dog”. Some valid code could be:
dog.walk() wait(10) dog.stop()This code would make the dog walk for 10 seconds assuming every function used is actually defined somewhere.
i know that’s how you’re supposed to read it…and guess what…it’s wrong
How do you tell a dog to walk? “Dog, walks!” or “Dog, walk!”
i’m not telling the dog to walk, i’m describing it walking
Python is an imperative language.
which was a mistake
Python is not a descriptive language, it’s a commands based language.
Go do functional programming if you want to describe instead of command.
Transpiling python and describing stuff when actually you are commanding is overly backwards and stupid, but I’d not expect anything else from a 4chan post. XD
But the dog can fail to walk before he ever walked, so you’re not describing him walking, you’re telling him to start walking.
Elaborate?
fuckoing
meh, close enough
I’m sorry, but I can’t take you seriously if you critique something out of your area of expertise OR if you are correcting language and you, yourself, mess up.
If how python works is not close enough to english for op, why is “fuckoing” close enough?
PYTHON ISN’T EVEN MEANT TO FOLLOW ALL ENGLISH RULES???
[]just doesn’t have the same bop.Can I just say that as someone who only codes tangentially to my work, code and documentation that uses the same word 2 or 3 times in an expression, when they mean different things, is such an immense pet peeve of mine when learning something new.
I’m already struggling with everything else about it, and now I have to parse out which lady is which and what the hell each one is supposed to be
object Object(object = object);
Statements dreamed up by the utterly deranged.
All the lady in there are the same lady, it’s being used for different things as the other comment answered you but it’s the same box of information, if you will.
That’s just Python’s generator syntax. Not all that difficult to parse once you get a feel for it. Plus syntax highlighting helps.
(OUTPUT_EXPRESSION for ITEM in INPUT_ITERABLE if CONDITION)it’s list comprehension syntax, not generator syntax
list comprehensions aren’t changed much. but a statement like
dog = Dog(name="fido")is transpiled tothe dog is now a Dog with name 'fido'the language uses backticks for strings. it handles nested stringly nicely because of it
I feel like I’m walking into a trap here but:
This pedant is using an adjective as an adverb.
(…)you don’t conjugate your verbs right.
right is informal american english for “correctly”. i don’t give a shit about prescriptive rules of grammar, they’re all bullshit. every last rule was created by some holier-than-thou pedant. i’m only interested in descriptive rules, i.e. grice’s maxims (the thing that finally made me understand how to get over my autism)
Honestly I agree, I only pointed it out because of the irony of a pedant insisting others ought to use words according to their formal definitions while misusing formal English.
“Right” is a bad word to end a sentence with“Right” is a bad word with which to end a sentence because it can be mis-parsed as as an invitation to agreement.
(the thing that finally made me understand how to get over my autism)
What do you mean get over your autism? You’re still autistic, you may have gained social skills or something similar, but you’re still autistic.
<gen> also idgaf how incorrect my grammar and spellings are as long as it’s readable </gen>
also I use tone indicators kinda like HTML tags because I find they help me more that way, so they might help someone else more that way.
I do not care if you use formal, informal, american, canadian, australian, british, or a different english than any of those, as long as what you’re saying is comprehensible
grice’s maxims
https://www.usingenglish.com/articles/grices-conversational-maxims.html for those, like me, who did not know what Grice’s Maxims are. It’s a short read.
believe it or not i can’t remember how it all works even though i was completely obsessed with it in college. i knew how much it could benefit me if i started applying the maxims to every single thing i heard and said, which i did.
I would imagine the class would be aDog and when you instantiate it the variable would be theDog.
theDogsounds more like a reference to a singleton than one of many instances. I thinkthisDogfits better.“the dog” maps to dog, the = maps to “is now”, and Dog() maps to “a dog”, and (name=“Dog name”) maps to “with name dog name”
So no, you’re wrong, lmao
I’ve already written the transpiler
perl is garbage and larry wall is barely fluent in english. that man does NOT know how to name things.
EDIT: i kid i kid, he definitely speaks english
With the Lingua::Perligata module you can write your perl in Latin instead. My coworker says it’s more readable that way if you know Latin.
not gonna work, i took two years of german in HS and one year of spanish in college.
And that brings us back to BASIC.
