As a software developer, the less ambiguous your notation is, the better it is for everyone involved. Not only will I use brackets, I’ll split my expression into multiple rows and use tabs to make it as readable as humanly possible. And maybe throw a comment or 2 if there’s still some black magic involved
deleted by creator
Calm down, Satan
deleted by creator
The one-liner: *parses HTML with a regex*
cthulhu fthagn
Well, this is exactly what mathematicians do.
Excel has entered the chat
For real though, I have written some truly monstrous operations in Excel.
What do you mean you want to use Excel to manage everyone’s calendars? And now you want to export that horribly built calendar management spreadsheet to Google Calendar? What do you mean you want the Google Calendar entries automatically formatted based on who is working on a particular day? I mean yes it’s possible but-…
VBA has made things so, so much easier since I started learning how to use it.
That almost seems cute next to the shit the obfuscated c contest pulls off. https://www.ioccc.org/years.html
For some context this is one of the winning entries:
#include <stdio.h>
#define N(a) “%”#a"$hhn" #define O(a,b) “%10$”#a"d"N(b) #define U “%10$.*37$d” #define G(a) “%”#a"$s" #define H(a,b) G(a)G(b) #define T(a) a a #define s(a) T(a)T(a) #define A(a) s(a)T(a)a #define n(a) A(a)a #define D(a) n(a)A(a) #define C(a) D(a)a #define R C(C(N(12)G(12))) #define o(a,b,c) C(H(a,a))D(G(a))C(H(b,b)G(b))n(G(b))O(32,c)R #define SS O(78,55)R “\n\033[2J\n%26$s”; #define E(a,b,c,d) H(a,b)G©O(253,11)R G(11)O(255,11)R H(11,d)N(d)O(253,35)R #define S(a,b) O(254,11)H(a,b)N(68)R G(68)O(255,68)N(12)H(12,68)G(67)N(67)
char* fmt = O(10,39)N(40)N(41)N(42)N(43)N(66)N(69)N(24)O(22,65)O(5,70)O(8,44)N( 45)N(46)N (47)N(48)N( 49)N( 50)N( 51)N(52)N(53 )O( 28, 54)O(5, 55) O(2, 56)O(3,57)O( 4,58 )O(13, 73)O(4, 71 )N( 72)O (20,59 )N(60)N(61)N( 62)N (63)N (64)R R E(1,2, 3,13 )E(4, 5,6,13)E(7,8,9 ,13)E(1,4 ,7,13)E (2,5,8, 13)E( 3,6,9,13)E(1,5, 9,13)E(3 ,5,7,13 )E(14,15, 16,23) E(17,18,19,23)E( 20, 21, 22,23)E (14,17,20,23)E(15, 18,21,23)E(16,19, 22 ,23)E( 14, 18, 22,23)E(16,18,20, 23)R U O(255 ,38)R G ( 38)O( 255,36) R H(13,23)O(255, 11)R H(11,36) O(254 ,36) R G( 36 ) O( 255,36)R S(1,14 )S(2,15)S(3, 16)S(4, 17 )S (5, 18)S(6, 19)S(7,20)S(8, 21)S(9 ,22)H(13,23 )H(36, 67 )N(11)R G(11)""O(255, 25 )R s(C(G(11) ))n (G( 11) )G( 11)N(54)R C( “aa”) s(A( G(25)))T (G(25))N (69)R o (14,1,26)o( 15, 2, 27)o (16,3,28 )o( 17,4, 29)o(18 ,5,30)o(19 ,6,31)o( 20,7,32)o (21,8,33)o (22 ,9, 34)n(C(U) )N( 68)R H( 36,13)G(23) N(11)R C(D( G(11))) D(G(11))G(68)N(68)R G(68)O(49,35)R H(13,23)G(67)N(11)R C(H(11,11)G( 11))A(G(11))C(H(36,36)G(36))s(G(36))O(32,58)R C(D(G(36)))A(G(36))SS
#define arg d+6,d+8,d+10,d+12,d+14,d+16,d+18,d+20,d+22,0,d+46,d+52,d+48,d+24,d
+26,d+28,d+30,d+32,d+34,d+36,d+38,d+40,d+50,(scanf(d+126,d+4),d+(6
-2)+18*(1-d[2]%2)+d[4]*2),d,d+66,d+68,d+70, d+78,d+80,d+82,d+90,d+
92,d+94,d+97,d+54,d[2],d+2,d+71,d+77,d+83,d+89,d+95,d+72,d+73,d+74
,d+75,d+76,d+84,d+85,d+86,d+87,d+88,d+100,d+101,d+96,d+102,d+99,d+
67,d+69,d+79,d+81,d+91,d+93,d+98,d+103,d+58,d+60,d+98,d+126,d+127,
d+128,d+129char d[538] = {1,0,10,0,10};
int main() { while(*d) printf(fmt, arg); }
I tried to read that out loud and summoned something. Please help me, I’m scared.
I thought this was a simple piece of software?
Pinhead: No. It is a means by which to summon us.
Further up the thread, someone mentioned that writing good software is about communicating concepts to people, first and foremost.
This, code obfuscation, is what it looks like to communicate exclusively to the compiler instead.
I had someone submit a pull request recently that, in addition to their actual changes, also removed every single parenthesis that wasn’t strictly necessary in a file full of 3D math functions. I know it was probably the fault of an autoformatter they used, but I was still the most offended I’ve ever been at a pull request.
Autoformatter? More like obfuscator
As a professor said, most programming languages don’t care about readability and whitespace. But we care because humans need it to parse meaning. Thus, write code for people, not for the machine. Always assume that someone with no knowledge of the context will have to debug it, and be kind to them. Because that someone might be you in six months when you have completely forgotten how the code works.
Source code is for humans, then the compiler turns it into code for machines.
Exactly. You read code way more times than you write it, so it makes all the sense in the world to prioritize readability.
Yep, if you’re writing code for a machine, just do it in binary to save compilation time (/s just in case). Also, you in six months will indeed be someone with no knowledge of the context. And every piece of code you think you write for one-time use is guaranteed to be reused every day for the next 5 years
And every piece of code you think you write for one-time use is guaranteed to be reused every day for the next 5 years
This. Always be kind to your future self.
Yeah I totally agree. You can minimize and optimize as part of your build procedure/compilation but the source code should be as readable as possible for humans.
Python forcing end of line and tabs kinda does. Add Black auto-formatter and it’s pretty good.
I’ve seen too many Python devs write out complex statements all on one crammed up line. Including some that are in the main docs.
Enforced whitespace is just one aspect of readable code. There are many others, and Python is no better at enforcing those than any other language.
That would probably make very long lines and black would automatically add returns to line with proper indentations. But it has a a limit for sure. If you chain many list comprehensions it’s going to be a mess.
I genuinely hate being human for this stuff. So many things have such crazy computational shortcuts, it’s sometimes difficult to remember which part represents reality. Outside of the realm of math, where “imaginary” numbers are still a touch of enigma to me, so many algorithms are based on general assumptions about reality or the specific task, that the programmatic approach NEVER encapsulates the full scope of the problem.
As in, sometimes if you know EXACTLY how a tool works, you might still have no idea about the significance of that tool. Even in a universe where no one is lazy, and everyone wants to know “why?”, the answers are NOT forthcoming.
I, my head, shake.
- RPN user
Also known as: Japanese speaker
I recall that there is a myriad of memes of the form ‘what is 4-2*3’ under which there is always a never ending discussion of confidently incorrect dumbasses denying the existence of the multiplication before addition rule.
So your suspicion is at least not unreasonable
back and forth, forever.
Suuuuuch a weird movie lol
Also works if you dont trust yourself with correctly ordering your operations.
Ok man. Wtf did I just watch…
I get it. We are here on the somehow dark side of the internet…
But THIS… without any context. i mean. Im questioning live here man. What do you want to express with that?
I’m pretty sure it’s just a reference to when the kid types ))<>((
Btw, it’s not from the dark side of the Internet. This was a very popular video at the time.
My husband showed me that video last night. It was very strange.
Somehow that clip is better than the fairly odd movie. I don’t think I could recommend it… But I think of the clip posted all the time. It’s so weird 😂. Some how they figured out creepy, funny, and somehow wholesome at once.
Unfortunately some calculators, such as Google’s will ignore your brackets and put in their own anyway. You just gotta find a decent calculator in the first place.
It is also frustrating when different calculators have different orders of operations and dont tell you.
It is also frustrating when different calculators have different orders of operations and dont tell you.
Yeah, but to be fair most of them do tell you the order of operations they use, they just bury it in a million lines of text about it. If they could all just check with some Maths teachers/textbooks first then it wouldn’t be necessary. Instead we’re left trying to work out which ones are right and which ones aren’t. Any calculator that gives you an option to switch on/off “implicit multiplication”, then just run as fast as you can the other way! :-)
The underlying truth of this joke is: Programming syntax is less confusing than mathematical syntax. There are genuinely ambiguous layouts of syntax in math (to a human reader that hasn’t internalized PEMDAS, anyways) whereas you get a compilation error if ANYTHING is ambiguous in programming. (yes, I am WELL aware of the frustrations of runtime errors)
Also: sometimes, a mathematician just has to invent some concept or syntax to convey something unconventional. The specific use of subscript/superscript, whatever ‘phi’ is being used for, etc. on whatever paper you’re reading doesn’t have to correlate to how other work uses the same concepts. It’s bad form, but sometimes its needed, and if useful enough is added to the general canon of what we call “math”. Meanwhile, you can encapsulate and obfuscate things in software, sure, but you can always get down to the bedrock of what the language supports; there’s no inventing anything new.
Yea, that’s it. Math syntax was created for humans, and programming syntax had to always remain deterministic for computers. It’s not an insult to either, just interesting how ambiguities show up often when humans are involved. I say ‘often’ for the general case: Math should be just as deterministic as programming, but it’s not in some situations.
Math should be just as deterministic as programming, but it’s not in some situations
Maths is 100% deterministic for order of operations. The issue is people not following all of the rules. Order of operations thread index
Math is. The syntax is arbitrary in some edge cases.
The syntax is arbitrary in some edge cases
Such as?
So better do higher math in Python? I agree.
Python isn’t the only programming language.
But a quite common pl in science.
Counterpoint: C function pointers (or just C in general)
Internalized PEMDAS without knowing it’s literally the same thing as BODMAS is exactly the problem!
what in the name of fuck is BODMAS
Same as PEMDAS, except:
Parentheses -> Bracket
Exponent -> Order
Multiplication <-> Division
BODMAS
I learned it as “BEDMAS”
Brackets
Exponents
(You can guess the rest)
But when I learned BEDMAS, my teacher directed us to do implied multiplication before other multiplication/division. Which, as far as I’m aware, is mathematically correct according to the proper order of operations (instead of whatever acronym summary you learned).
Before I get "umm. Acktually"d … I know that’s not the full picture of the order of operations as it should be in mathematics. But for the limited scope I learned of algebra from highschool, AFAIK, this is correct to the point that I have understanding of. I’m not a mathematician, and I work with computers all day long and they do the math for me when I need to do any of it. So higher understanding in my case is not helpful.
AFAIK, this is correct to the point that I have understanding of. I’m not a mathematician
I’m a Maths teacher/tutor. The actual rules are Terms and The Distributive Law. There is no such thing as “implicit multiplication” (which is usually people lumping the 2 separate rules together as one and ending up with wrong answers).
order? how does that make sense? brackets alright ig
Order of magnitude? Thinking out loud.
You have the right idea, and you are right in some regards. Generally the order of magnitude is an order of 10. That is, 1350 could be represented as 1.350×10³, so the order of magnitude is the third order of 10, which is 10³ (i.e. some value x×1000).
Order of magnitude?
It’s actually short for “to the order of”, as in 2 squared is 2 to the order of 2. i.e. same thing as Exponent or Index.
order?
It’s actually short for “to the order of”, as in 2 squared is 2 to the order of 2. i.e. same thing as Exponent or Index.
I mean … yea. The exact problem is math is not taught correctly. Order of operations make total logical sense for what the operations are doing.
The problem only arises when people don’t come to all of the appropriate conclusions on their own.
The exact problem is math is not taught correctly
Every single Maths textbook I’ve seen teaches it correctly. The issue is people not remembering what they were taught (and then programming a calculator without checking it first). Calculators
(> (explicit) (implicit))
me using sbcl for everything
Is the title a Requiem for a Dream reference?
(I used(LISP)one time(and it(permanently))changed the way I (program(computers)))
I’ve never seen a calculator that had bracket keys but didn’t implement the conventional order of operations.
But anyway, I’m on Team RPN.
my dumb ass reading this: “Team rock paper nscissors”
RTS = rock taper scissors
FPS = frock paper scissors
https://plus.maths.org/content/pemdas-paradox
Even two casios won’t give you the same answer:
https://plus.maths.org/content/sites/plus.maths.org/files/articles/2019/pemdas/calculators.png
There’s no pemdas paradox, just people who have forgotten the order of operations rules
Even two casios won’t give you the same answer:
The one on the right is an old model. As far as I’m aware Casio no longer make any models that still give the wrong answer.
Ah, I wasn’t thinking of calculators that let you type in a full expression. When I was in school, only fancy graphing calculators had that feature. A typical scientific calculator didn’t have juxtaposition, so you’d have to enter 6÷2(1+2) as 6÷2×(1+2), and you’d get 9 as the answer because ÷ and × have equal precedence and just go left to right.
A typical scientific calculator didn’t have juxtaposition, so you’d have to enter 6÷2(1+2) as 6÷2×(1+2)
That’s not true
you’d get 9 as the answer because ÷ and × have equal precedence and just go left to right
Well, more precisely you broke up the single term 2(1+2) into 2 terms - 2 and (1+2) - when you inserted the multiplication symbol, which sends the (1+2) from being in the denominator to being in the numerator. Terms are separated by operators and joined by grouping symbols.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at with your source. I’m taking about physical, non-graphic scientific calculators from the 1990s.
I’m taking about physical, non-graphic scientific calculators from the 1990s.
Yep, exact same as the calculator in the linked thread. The expression entered was 6÷2(1+2).
I’ve never seen a calculator that had bracket keys but didn’t implement the conventional order of operations.
I’ve seen plenty
Improved readability is always good
$((A+B))
Gotta use Lisp notation to be sure
