3 ms·

Possible application: https://thedailywtf.com/articles/What_Is_Truth_0x3f_ https://thedailywtf.com/articles/What_Is_Truth_0x3f_

by jjgreen 3mo ago

benj111 3mo ago
Off the top of my head. Compilers. You may know that a value has known 1s and 0s and unknowns. This would allow you to represent that for optimisation purposes.
- Imustaskforhelp 3mo ago
  Arturo[0] language supports true,false and maybe. I really liked that idea actually, worth mentioning here. so valid arturo code can be like (picked from their in-a-nutshell documentation) i1: true i2: false i3: maybe [0]: https://arturo-lang.io/documentation/in-a-nutshell https://arturo-lang.io/documentation/in-a-nutshell
  - taneq 3mo ago
    Everyone hates null but (in database land, and arguably in other programming) it just means “no data.” (As an aside, I found the characterisation of null as being a “billion dollar mistake” to be unfair. Those who don’t acknowledge null are doomed to reimplement it, probably poorly, or to have the unknowns in their logic remain unknown unknowns.)
    - mcherm 3mo ago
      The "mistake" was not in providing a way to represent "no data", it was in providing no way to represent "this definitely HAS" data. Languages that correct the problem have two separate types (eg: Foo & Option<Foo>) meaning "definitely a Foo" and "a Foo but it might have no data". Java just has Foo, meaning "a Foo but it might have no data" but no way to represent "definitely a Foo".
  - deleted 3mo ago
    [deleted]
mi_lk 3mo ago
Had a good chuckle
- abcd_f 3mo ago
  If it weren't for Bool as a name, that's just 0 for OK, non-zero for errors with 1 being general failure.
  - inigyou 3mo ago
    TDWTF code is usually hyperbolized. It might not have been called Bool.
    - WorldMaker 3mo ago
      But also it could have been found in the wild in C/C++ code, which both had no "native" Boolean type until surprisingly recently (C++17 and C23! as in 2017 and 2023 standards, irrespectively) so Bool is very much a possible real name and not part of the hyperbole.
woadwarrior01 3mo ago
I've seen this pattern repeated in a number of large production codebases using optional booleans.
hahahaa 3mo ago
I want an LLM trained on dailywtf code

Possible application: https://thedailywtf.com/articles/What_Is_Truth_0x3f_ https://thedailywtf.com/articles/What_Is_Truth_0x3f_

by jjgreen 3mo ago

Possible application: https://thedailywtf.com/articles/What_Is_Truth_0x3f_ https://thedailywtf.com/articles/What_Is_Truth_0x3f_

benj111 3mo ago

Off the top of my head. Compilers. You may know that a value has known 1s and 0s and unknowns. This would allow you to represent that for optimisation purposes.

Imustaskforhelp 3mo ago
Arturo[0] language supports true,false and maybe. I really liked that idea actually, worth mentioning here. so valid arturo code can be like (picked from their in-a-nutshell documentation) i1: true i2: false i3: maybe [0]: https://arturo-lang.io/documentation/in-a-nutshell https://arturo-lang.io/documentation/in-a-nutshell
- taneq 3mo ago
  Everyone hates null but (in database land, and arguably in other programming) it just means “no data.” (As an aside, I found the characterisation of null as being a “billion dollar mistake” to be unfair. Those who don’t acknowledge null are doomed to reimplement it, probably poorly, or to have the unknowns in their logic remain unknown unknowns.)
  - mcherm 3mo ago
    The "mistake" was not in providing a way to represent "no data", it was in providing no way to represent "this definitely HAS" data. Languages that correct the problem have two separate types (eg: Foo & Option<Foo>) meaning "definitely a Foo" and "a Foo but it might have no data". Java just has Foo, meaning "a Foo but it might have no data" but no way to represent "definitely a Foo".
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]

mi_lk 3mo ago

Had a good chuckle

abcd_f 3mo ago
If it weren't for Bool as a name, that's just 0 for OK, non-zero for errors with 1 being general failure.
- inigyou 3mo ago
  TDWTF code is usually hyperbolized. It might not have been called Bool.
  - WorldMaker 3mo ago
    But also it could have been found in the wild in C/C++ code, which both had no "native" Boolean type until surprisingly recently (C++17 and C23! as in 2017 and 2023 standards, irrespectively) so Bool is very much a possible real name and not part of the hyperbole.

woadwarrior01 3mo ago

I've seen this pattern repeated in a number of large production codebases using optional booleans.

hahahaa 3mo ago

I want an LLM trained on dailywtf code