4 ms·

What bizarre nonsense. I hope nobody thinks this level of (mis)understanding is replacement for understanding, you know, how to program. The majority of this i

What bizarre nonsense. I hope nobody thinks this level of (mis)understanding is replacement for understanding, you know, how to program. The majority of this is undefined behavior or implementation details of your compiler. If you rely on that, I don't want your code anywhere near my machine.

pkolaczk 13y ago
I think you missed the point. It is more about coder's attitude than about using (or not using) the presented examples in real code. I wouldn't like to work with a programmer than writes shitty code accidentally relying on UB, and denies every criticism by saying "it works, so what's up?".
blueblob 13y ago
I felt this way as well. On an interview why would you give a really specific answer to a really general question? I don't think it's that most people can't answer like this, rather that it's not what was asked.
benched 13y ago
I am trying to find a way to reconcile two realities. On one hand, whenever I encounter books or articles on language legalese (particularly in C and C++), it is always immediately apparent that I'm somewhat out of my depth, despite programming in C and C++ for 20 years. I can follow the reasoning, but I almost never spot the finer problems myself. On the other hand, I can and have written large, complex games that run well and appear to be just fine from the user's point of view. I can seemingly write reams of code without ever thinking of such issues, except when they trip up the compiler or cause detectable bugs. I find I very, very seldom need to think of the lawyerly issues at work, or in personal projects, and to my knowledge, nobody has suffered materially for it. (Granted, I am writing games and not NASA software.) Whenever these types of issues come up, I always think: "Wow, I know less than I thought. This seems serious?" And yet I never seem to see real-world consequences. This seems strange to me.

pkolaczk 13y ago

I think you missed the point. It is more about coder's attitude than about using (or not using) the presented examples in real code. I wouldn't like to work with a programmer than writes shitty code accidentally relying on UB, and denies every criticism by saying "it works, so what's up?".

blueblob 13y ago

I felt this way as well. On an interview why would you give a really specific answer to a really general question? I don't think it's that most people can't answer like this, rather that it's not what was asked.

benched 13y ago

I am trying to find a way to reconcile two realities. On one hand, whenever I encounter books or articles on language legalese (particularly in C and C++), it is always immediately apparent that I'm somewhat out of my depth, despite programming in C and C++ for 20 years. I can follow the reasoning, but I almost never spot the finer problems myself. On the other hand, I can and have written large, complex games that run well and appear to be just fine from the user's point of view. I can seemingly write reams of code without ever thinking of such issues, except when they trip up the compiler or cause detectable bugs. I find I very, very seldom need to think of the lawyerly issues at work, or in personal projects, and to my knowledge, nobody has suffered materially for it. (Granted, I am writing games and not NASA software.) Whenever these types of issues come up, I always think: "Wow, I know less than I thought. This seems serious?" And yet I never seem to see real-world consequences. This seems strange to me.