4 ms·
> Calling a language a joke is not constructive anymore. The entire article is a joke. Did you miss these? > In other languages In OK? > a != b let x = !(a >
by TulliusCicero 4y ago
> Calling a language a joke is not constructive anymore.
The entire article is a joke. Did you miss these?
> In other languages In OK?
> a != b let x = !(a >= b); let y = !(b >= a); x || y
> To remove any ambiguity and to ensure full commitment to the death of classes, we've decided to use our own terminology: 'notaclass' , or 'nac' for short.
> notaclass person {
> pack "I am a stupid piece of shit who should not be doing this"
> field name
> field email
> }
> But they are still kind of similar to receivers in other languages so we settled on self-ish, a sensible middle-ground. It's a word that accurately describes you, if you're the kind of person who disagrees with this convention.
> Some example abbreviations:
> invalid valid
> characters chars
> MaximumPhysicalAddress mxphsadr
> accrueYesterdaysYield() ayy()
> hostEnterpriseYellowBorderBackground() heybbg()
> You may disagree with this idiom, and that's okay, because it's enforced by the compiler. You're welcome.
- adesanmi 4y agoI think they're trolling and you took the bait
- Supermancho 4y ago> The entire article is a joke. Did you miss these? If you're not interested in language design, I'm not sure why you bother to read any new (real or fictional) language docs. It might be a joke and you just stop thinking about it? That's lazy thinking and I'm not sure how it's beneficial in informing your preferred design choices, over time. I'm sorry if my serious consideration of satirical language design offends your sensibilities. I have the opposite reaction.