Git default branch renamed back from main to master
That one actually seems plausible, if he ever learns about that whole thing
That shit was INCREDIBLY dumb
It comes from the old records industry.
Also, guys, let me rush to my university to tell them they’re extremely racist to enroll me in a “Master’s” program.in fucking Iran.
Would be the most sane thing he’s ever done.
reverting main back to master
Yeah…this one is sadly on brand
Sadly? Master branch never implied the existence of a slave branch. It was one of the dumbest pieces of woke incursion into tech.
Yeah agreed. Just another piece of white devs acting like they knew better for everyone.
- Push directly to master, not main
- No command line args, just change the global const and recompile
- No env vars either
- Port numbers only go up to 5280, the number of feet in a mile
- All auth is just a password; tokens are minority developers, not auth, and usernames are identity politics
- No hashes – it’s the gateway drug to fentanyl
- No imports. INTERNAL DEVELOPERS FIRST
- Exceptions are now illegal and therefore won’t occur, so no need to check for them
- SOAP/XML APIs only
- No support for external machines. If it’s good enough for my machine, it’s good enough for yours.
Exceptions are now illegal and therefore won’t occur, so no need to check for them
Ah, I see you’ve met C++ developers.
No command line args, just change the global const and recompile
Nah, don’t use global variables, magic values everywhere. And don’t use const whatsoever, we need to move fast and break things, we can’t let something immutable stop us
Main branches will be renamed Master
GTFOH with that. 1-indexed arrays?! You monster.
(Mostly joking… Ok, somewhat joking :P )
Lua has entered the chat
Writing Lua code that also interacts with C code that uses 0 indexing is an awful experience. Annoys me to this day even though haven’t used it for 2 years
and MATLAB, Visual Basic (with
Option Base 1), and SQL.This is one of the few things that I really don’t like any Lua. It’s otherwise pretty decent and useful.
Visual Basic used to let you choose if you wanted to start arrays at 0 or 1. It was an app-wide setting, so that was fun.
I’ve not heard that name in a long time…
It’s how I got into programming, so I’ll always have a soft spot for it. Now it’s over 20 years later and I’m still coding.
Apple Basic (on an Apple IIe) was my first language that I recall.
Didn’t have a computer powerful enough for VB until later. It does have a special place in my nostalgia zone but has also led so many astray.
He’s got to be in contact with the CEO of my company, this is trade secret theft if not…
NGL, this kind of form of putting the decisions the monkey-in-charge is making in a way experts in a field will understand, is a very good way to showcase the absurdity.
From this point on, all arrays are reverse-indexed.
♾️-0 ♾️-1 …
Hey now, you know that according to the Bible the biggest number is a million. Anything larger than that including infinity is some of that “woke shit”.
Your array will be 999,999, 999,998, 999,997 …
Am I The only one that sees the tie as yellow in this photo?
I see it as blue
I started reading that from the top and got increasingly angry on the way down. That creature is a monster.
I don’t get why only four of these are jokes
didn’t know donny was a forth programmer
What about stacks grows to higher addresses?
Im unfamiliar with this as well. If you are allocating memory for a stack, why does it matter which direction it populates data? Is this just a convention?
I asked deepseek: Downward-growing stacks** are more common in many architectures (e.g., x86, ARM). This convention originated from early computer architectures and has been carried forward for consistency.
Funny, I can’t remember, because I did a lot of assembler.
Ah thank you so its just a convention.
Arrays not starting at 1 bother me. I think the entrenched 0-based index is more important than any major push to use 1 instead, but if I could go back in time and change it I would.
It really doesn’t make sense to start at 1 as the value is really the distance from the start and would screw up other parts of indexing and counters.
Yeah, but if we went back and time and changed it then there wouldn’t be other stuff relying on it being 0-based.
It was not randomly decided. Even before arrays as a language concept existed, you would just store objects in continuous memory.
To access you would do $addr+0, $addr+1 etc. The index had to be zero-based or you would simply waste the first address.
Then in languages like C that just got a little bit of syntactic sugar where the ‘[]’ operator is a shorthand for that offset. An array is still just a memory address (i.e. a pointer).
I know. But in the alternate reality where we’d been using 1-based indices forever you’d be telling me how useful it is that the first element is “1” instead of zero and I’d be saying there are some benefits to using zero based index because it’s more like an offset than an index.
A lot of mathematical languages start from 1: R, Julia, Mathematica (and also Lua and Fish).
I don’t know why, but in, e.g. R, it doesn’t bother me, I get caught by it in Lua all the time.
I suppose it’s a function of how far the array is abstracted from being pointers to an address that makes it easier to mentally switch.
this is what messed me up with ZSH for a bit, having a shell default to 1 instead of 0 was weird
Rare zshell L
