431
average c++ dev (programming.dev)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev
110 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I don't think that casting a range of bits as some other arbitrary type "is a bug nobody sees coming".

C++ compilers also warn you that this is likely an issue and will fail to compile if configured to do so. But it will let you do it if you really want to.

That's why I love C++

a screenshot from linkedin reading "I don't think that casting a range of bits as some other arbitrary type "is a bug nobody sees coming". C++ compilers also warn you that this is likely an issue and will fail to compile if configured to do so. But it will *let you do it* if you really want to. That's why I love C++"
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 25 points 1 year ago (12 children)

But it will let you do it if you really want to.

Now, I've seen this a couple of times in this post. The idea that the compiler will let you do anything is so bizarre to me. It's not a matter of being allowed by the software to do anything. The software will do what you goddamn tell it to do, or it gets replaced.

WE'RE the humans, we're not asking some silicon diodes for permission. What the actual fuck?!? We created the fucking thing to do our bidding, and now we're all oh pwueez mr computer sir, may I have another ADC EAX, R13? FUCK THAT! Either the computer performs like the tool it is, or it goes the way of broken hammers and lawnmowers!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Soldiers are supposed to question potentially-illegal orders and refuse to execute them if their commanding officer can't give a good reason why they're justified. Being in charge doesn't mean you're infallible, and there are plenty of mistakes programmers make that the compiler can detect.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    I get the analogy, but I don't think that it's valid. Soldiers are, much to the chagrin of their commanders, sentient beings, and should question potentially illegal orders.

    Where the analogy doesn't hold is, besides my computer not being sentient, what I'm prevented from doing isn't against the law of man.

    I'm not claiming to be infallible. After all to err is human, and I'm indeed very human. But throw me a warning when I do something that goes against best practices, that's fine. Whether I deal with it is something for me to decide. But stopping me from doing what I'm trying to do, because it's potentially problematic? GTFO with that kinda BS.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    when life gives you restrictive compilers, don't request permission from them! make life take the compilers back! Get mad! I don’t want your damn restrictive compilers, what the hell am I supposed to do with these? Demand to see life’s manager! Make life rue the day it thought it could give BigDanishGuy restrictive compilers! Do you know who I am? I’m the man who’s gonna burn your house down! With the compilers! I’m gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible compiler that burns your house down!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I understand the idea. But many people have hugely mistaken beliefs about what the C[++] languages are and how they work. When you write ADC EAX, R13 in assembly, that's it. But C is not a "portable assembler"! It has its own complicated logic. You might think that by writing ++i, you are writing just some INC [i] ot whatnot. You are not. To make a silly example, writing int i=INT_MAX; ++i; you are not telling the compiler to produce INT_MIN. You are just telling it complete nonsense. And it would be better if the compiler "prevented" you from doing it, forcing you to explain yourself better.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    I get what you're saying. I guess what I'm yelling at the clouds about is the common discourse more than anything else.

    If a screw has a slotted head, and your screwdriver is a torx, few people would say that the screwdriver won't allow them to do something.

    Computers are just tools, and we're the ones who created them. We shouldn't be submissive, we should acknowledge that we have taken the wrong approach at solving something and do it a different way. Just like I would bitch about never having the correct screwdriver handy, and then go look for the right one.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Yeah, but there's some things computers are genuinely better at than humans, which is why we code in the first place. I totally agree that you shouldn't ever be completely controlled by your machine, but strong nudging saves a lot of trouble.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent