▲ 516 ▼ You can pry pattern matching from my cold dead hands (sopuli.xyz) submitted 8 months ago by flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyz to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev 222 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Sunrosa@lemmy.world 1 point 8 months ago (1 child) Keywords aren't variables permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago* (1 child) Ooh yeah, overall coding culture is definitely not affected by the preferred nomenclature for identifiers. The person who's habituated to fn over function will absolutely never name their functions in the vein of chkdsk. The two are completely disconnected in the brain of the programmer who read too much K&R in their childhood and was irretrievably traumatized by it for life. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 1 point 8 months ago I'd say it's much more influential the names of the identifiers of the standard library. A language with function keyword that names it's stdlib functions strstr and strtok will inspire way worse naming than on that has fn keyword with stdlib functions str::contains and str::split. We could search for a random crate on crates.io and see what identifiers people actually use, or we could spread misinformation on Lemmy. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago* (1 child) Ooh yeah, overall coding culture is definitely not affected by the preferred nomenclature for identifiers. The person who's habituated to fn over function will absolutely never name their functions in the vein of chkdsk. The two are completely disconnected in the brain of the programmer who read too much K&R in their childhood and was irretrievably traumatized by it for life. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 1 point 8 months ago I'd say it's much more influential the names of the identifiers of the standard library. A language with function keyword that names it's stdlib functions strstr and strtok will inspire way worse naming than on that has fn keyword with stdlib functions str::contains and str::split. We could search for a random crate on crates.io and see what identifiers people actually use, or we could spread misinformation on Lemmy. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 1 point 8 months ago I'd say it's much more influential the names of the identifiers of the standard library. A language with function keyword that names it's stdlib functions strstr and strtok will inspire way worse naming than on that has fn keyword with stdlib functions str::contains and str::split. We could search for a random crate on crates.io and see what identifiers people actually use, or we could spread misinformation on Lemmy. permalink fedilink source parent
