plusplus for funni and abstract plusplus for fellow SWAN.

@BordedDev I need to do a bit more work before it's fully functional, but see here (https://github.com/Liebranca/...) and here (https://github.com/Liebranca/...). [DEVILSPEAK ABOUND, SHIELD YOUR EYES].

The video is just a scholarly essay delving more into theoretical and even quasi-metaphysical phenomena; it can give you a better perspective on the philosophy of development but it's not a mandatory view.

@Reepeli Oh, you got me!

Automatic syntax-checking of the perl code generated by the macros is possible, since it's just a bunch of subroutines and a custom import/unimport, but errors arising from macro output is going to be tricky.

The way avtomat builds a project goes a bit like this, for each file: [0] apply preprocessing/code generation, [1] syntax-check the output, [2] write output to build directory, _then_ [3] run the actual compilation. At each step we throw on failure; there's futher steps to handle linking, and also pre/post build hooks, but nevermind that for now.

I still need to fully integrate this new preprocessor to the rest of the build system (I still need to fix the build system also...), but anyway `gcc -fsyntax-only` would be looking at a pure C file at step [1] so that's where I can maybe try and catch bad generation. I need to reimplement the parser first however so that may take a while.

Holdup~. Shitposting is art ok, all the experts agree on this. Recent studies show that governments *should* fund and empower b2plane's asshole for the advancement of mankind.

@whimsical here i teach you software engerninren:

clang-tidy fixmyshit

doesn't substract money from my account every time i run it. wow. such technology. much sillicon.

@whimsical i shurg; can do the same without integrated decepticon in vim. faster too.

@whimsical bruh. we have VIM at home lmao.

@whimsical you need advanced decepticon system on datacenter miningrack to copy paste implementation?

education free/libre in cosmopolitan republic of gnuya; not a single binary blob. i have spent zero babylonian shekel per year in machine code golfing studies, save cost of khubzuzaatar plus electrical bill. now using elder magus power to raise the dead and evade taxes.

inb4 retoori says prediction engine good after spending 700~ euro per year in subscription.

@D-4got10-01 i too practice the fobidden art of counting inodes~

holdup now im curious.

```wat

TEMP := SRC1;

MASK := SRC2;

DEST := 0 ;

m := 0, k := 0;

DO WHILE m < OperandSize

· · IF MASK[ m] = 1 THEN

· · · · DEST[ k] := TEMP[ m];

· · · · k := k+ 1;

· · FI

· · m := m+ 1;

OD

```

(^pseudo from https://felixcloutier.com/x86/pext/)

say you write a branchless version of that, just straight up pasting the same block with a rept to unroll the loop. and to keep it simple lets say we're not actually benchmarking, just going by the ops/latency found in uncle agner's tables (https://agner.org/optimize/...).

just how much faster can it be? its a stupid problem and a very good one.

shill detected; remove hypercopium in progress.

@BordedDev why would you parse solely with regexes are you on crack.

im parsing C files solely with regexes.

reason why is im embedding perl subroutines in C files to use perl as a C preprocessor. yes.

nothing out of this world actually, i just wanted to concatenate `typeof` and then remembered that doesnt work. thats just so stupid. fixed with black magic:

```C

macro typename(expr) {

· · my $have=(exists $CSCOPE->{local}->{$expr}) \

· · · · ? $CSCOPE->{local}->{$expr} \

· · · · : $CSCOPE->{global}->{$expr} \

· · · · ;

· · throw "Undefined symbol $expr" \

· · if ! defined $have;

· · return $have->{name};

};

macro ref(args) {

· · my $cpy=$args->[0];

· · my $type=derefof typename $args->[0];

· · return $type->{name}_deref($cpy);

};

```

wee now i can call variation of function based on type of first argument. can invoke ref macro as ref var or ref(var) because fuck the police.

anyway i lost my train of thought halfway through.

@stackodev just let crack do the talking qr{(?<blk>(?<rec>\{([^\{\}]+|(?&rec))+\};?)+){1}}s;

you see that? _that_ is your brain on drugs. it's genius, but only if you're high on the good shit. a sober brain can hardly grasp, much less produce things like these.

also first to understand what devilspeak regex does gets special prize maybe.

By letters.

[S, O and I]: There is merit to having a base/generic implementation of some struct or functionality, then writing each specialization of it separately. This gives you granularity, in that you only have to include the bits you're actually going to use. In some cases this can speed up build times a lot as simply put you'll usually wind up with less symbols per file.

[L]: If the first field of struct B is an instance of struct A, then yes, ((A ptr) B) is a valid cast. The type theory word salad is very much redundant in this case, the property in question is mere common sense.

[D]: Making it so one module isn't dependent on the implementation _details_ of another is sound advice.

In conclusion, these ideas have validity and practical application, yet there is a special place in hell for Uncle Bob nonetheless.

@TerriToniAX I was precisely considering a Ducky One something as most people seem to agree they are good.

Most models I've seen don't have a numpad, though. I can live with that, but it's bit of a shame. I like using those keys for bindings, they're perfect for it as I never hit them accidentally, given that they're so out of the way when I type.

I dunno, I grew up on an IBM replica (model M2 I think it was? it had the winkey so must be something else) and fucking Turbo Assembler. For reference, I was born in 1994 lmao. But anyway I have way over two decades of muscle memory on that layout, I can't just change to a different one, but for the last five-six years I've had to compromise as models try to get inventive with it, just moving keys around to fuck with me.

"It is more compact!" yeah and it fucking ruins my life, thank you very much smh. That is not directed at anyone in particular just the embodiment of keyboard manufacturers.

implement typing for perl lmao.

Smells like a very Nathan company to me, maybe you dodged a bullet.

It's a _lot_ easier to work with someone that's less skilled, but whom you can easily get along with, than a very skilled person that makes you want to gouge out their fucking eyes everytime they open their mouth to say some stupid provocatory shit and then plays the victim when others start calling out their insufferable bullshit attitude. Nathan.

But Nathan is not real he cannot hurt you; made-up person to illustrate the point, making it more and more personal as the description progresses. Uuh rhetoric or something.

Seriously, it's a _lot_ easier to get shit done when you don't want to fucking murder your own teammates. So there's that, y'know juss sayeeeen.

next thing he knew executive was breaking chalice. https://youtube.com/watch/...

@atheist that no funi ( o ` _ ´ o )

@tamagotchi adjective: inextricable

· · impossible to disentangle or separate.

You is too much AI and too little dictionary maybe.

@tamagotchi A problem inextricable to a type of system does not magically go away when you move from one instance to another.

@Pogromist I was trying to see for myself whether using any of these for coding was a good or bad idea; a lot of folks will say something along the lines of "it's just another tool", but my intuition, and now my own experience, tell me that it's a pretty awful one. That's more or less what I was trying to say.

@BordedDev Yep, I wasn't so much interested in whether they could handle drudgework like fetching the correct boilerpaste, but whether prediction was good enough to handle solving an actual problem. It isn't.

@tamagotchi I've made a point of not naming them as in the end they all have the exact same Achilles' heel; conclusion being it just doesn't matter which model you use.

I've read many comments that very much read like this: "just try [a fortune-teller], it's way better than [a fortune-teller]". Sorry, but that's just missing the point entirely.

unrelated but dotty is kanye cofirmed. only question left is do you have your balls out or is this a lady butterfly type situation.

@donkulator Or washing his feet, even!

... I think I'm starting to nurse a deep seated hatred for folks _unironically_ asking questions to AI. It just spews bullshit, people, that's it. Parlor trick, got old like five years ago already.

More on topic, I tried R at retoor's invitation to try it out, and it's... OK, I guess, but it just has the same strong tendency that every AI has: constantly missing important details that no human would miss, no matter how clear and concise the prompt is, making it's use more of a hindrance than help.

And I'm talking simple things, eh: "Theoretical question, I do __not__ want code in the answer", AI procceeds to dump you ten pages worth of C because theres code somewhere in the conversation and glorified autocomplete is just doing its thing.

IMO, and retoori I'm sorry but its just true, the enthusiasm around AI is mere hyper copium. LLMs are very much shit. If you convinced yourself otherwise, then your standards are WAY too low, go get checked.

Not such a bad idea, actually. I've been going like this for years. Not even autocomplete. I used to be a semi-regular person, but now, now I am addicted to crack cocaine and practice the most tenebrous dark sorcery.

Perl - Job security (also applies to COBOL).

@YourMom So you woke up one day and chose chaos. I can respect that.