Programmer Humor

[–] Baizey@feddit.dk 4 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Technically java would also be (){} since the modifiers are optional (outside of public static void main(String... args)) and return type is ignore for the others :D

parent

[–] potatoguy@lemmy.eco.br 6 points 10 months ago

Yeah, it's a joke, but I disagree on the void, the other languages on the meme doesn't need a return type (when they are returning nothing), java needs it.

parent

[–] RaphaelSchmitz@feddit.org -4 points 10 months ago* (1 child)

Yeah the thing is that each part of "public static void" is a feature. Which other languages don't have.

Still makes a good meme for programmers who are not experienced enough to know that.

parent

[–] orc_princess@lemmy.ml 2 points 10 months ago

Many other languages have a more readable way of conveying access, class vs instance methods, and of course return type.

Newer Java versions look great but the industry is slow to catch on, I've worked with Java 8 for an NGO for only a few months before landing a better job with a different language and the amount of boilerplate we made in just that little while is insane. A lot of it is generated by the IDE, sure, but it's so incredibly redundant.

parent

[–] Sxan@piefed.zip 30 points 10 months ago (4 children)

:(){:|: &};:

[–] bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 12 points 10 months ago (3 children)

:(){:|: &};:
:(){:|: &};:

parent

[–] HumanPerson@sh.itjust.works 9 points 10 months ago* (2 children)

:(){:|: &};:
:(){:|: &};:
:(){:|: &};:
:(){:|: &};:

parent

[–] cryoistalline@lemmy.ml 7 points 10 months ago (1 child)

:(){:|: &};:
:(){:|: &};:
:(){:|: &};:
:(){:|: &};:
:(){:|: &};:
:(){:|: &};:
:(){:|: &};:
:(){:|: &};:

parent

[–] somerandomperson@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 9 months ago

:(){:|: &};:
:(){:|: &};:
:(){:|: &};:
:(){:|: &};:
:(){:|: &};:
:(){:|: &};:
:(){:|: &};:
:(){:|: &};:
:(){:|: &};:
:(){:|: &};:
:(){:|: &};:
:(){:|: &};:
:(){:|: &};:
:(){:|: &};:
:(){:|: &};:
:(){:|: &};:

parent

[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 17 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Bash fucks me up so much, too. You just put the parentheses there to say that something is a function, not for actually declaring the parameters that can be passed in...

[–] vala@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 10 months ago

This really sends me

parent

[–] tetris11@feddit.uk 1 point 10 months ago

|{}

parent

[–] KSPAtlas@sopuli.xyz 15 points 10 months ago (1 child)

Haskell: =

[–] codemankey@programming.dev 3 points 10 months ago

The language of the gods

parent

[–] bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 12 points 10 months ago (4 children)

function() {}

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 13 points 10 months ago (3 children)

JavaScript can do better than that:

() => {}

parent

[–] barubary@infosec.exchange 6 points 10 months ago (1 child)

C++: [](){}

parent

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 5 points 10 months ago*

Huh, I haven’t looked at C++ in decades, and I didn’t know they’d added lambda functions/expressions, in C++11. Apparently you can shorten it further: []{}

parent

[–] bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 1 point 10 months ago

The intention was to provide a longer version for the first step of the ladder.

parent

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 10 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Some Lisp dialects: (λ () )

[–] tetris11@feddit.uk 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

your IDE is hiding 6 characters there

parent

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 6 points 10 months ago

Some Lisps will accept a literal Unicode lambda character.

parent

[–] benagain@lemmy.ml 4 points 10 months ago

They could have put php up the top where it belongs.

[–] The_Hideous_Orgalorg@sh.itjust.works 4 points 10 months ago (1 child)

Remember kids:

public void doFun();

[–] tetris11@feddit.uk 2 points 10 months ago

Teacher, I just voided myself in public, are we having fun?

parent

[–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 months ago (4 children)

Python: def :

derpface.jpg

[–] dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 10 months ago* (3 children)

that's a class method not a function tho

parent

[–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

AFAIK the syntax seems to be the same.

def sayHam():
    print("Ham")

sayHam()

works when typed into the Python console, no class needed. I program as a hobby, I'm no expert on the language, but does Python even differentiate between functions and class methods internally? Other than just scope? There's a possibility I'll learn something today.

parent

[–] dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

I thought python was one of those weird OOP languages like Java or C# that bound all classless methods to some universal static class but im wrong on that.

They are out there though so be on the lookout for these languages that doesnt believe in algebra.

parent

[–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 1 point 10 months ago

If you want to do anything of any scale with Python, you need to understand OOP because that's how modules work, but you can use it without.

parent

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 3 points 10 months ago

Nix:

x:;

[–] Echo5@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Idk much about programming but that looks like a beautiful reduction of bloat in coding language 😶

[+] solomonschuler@lemmy.zip 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

[deleted]

[+] somerandomperson@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 10 months ago

[deleted]

[–] HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml 1 point 10 months ago* (2 children)

I don't use any but I'm sure there are functional languages where () is a valid function.

[–] chaos@beehaw.org 5 points 10 months ago (1 child)

In Haskell, that's "unit" or the empty tuple. It's basically an object with no contents, behavior, or particular meaning, useful for representing "nothing". It's a solid thing that is never a surprise, unlike undefined or other languages' nulls, which are holes in the language or errors waiting to happen.

You might argue that it's a value and not a function, but Haskell doesn't really differentiate the two anyway:

value :: String
value = "I'm always this string!"

funkyFunc :: String -> String
funkyFunc name = "Rock on, "++name++", rock on!"

Is value a value, or is it a function that takes no arguments? There's not really a difference, Haskell handles them both the same way: by lazily replacing anything matching the pattern on the left side of the equation with the right side of the equation at runtime.

parent

[–] anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 10 months ago

Mostly a great comment, but I wouldn't compare unit to null, it's more like the void type.