lolcatuser

6 ms·

1.
by lolcatuser 2y ago
Definitely. This, plus a graduate degree in a more specific field, and you end up with a very well-rounded education.
2.
by lolcatuser 3y ago
The reason division by zero can be a number is that floating-point numbers aren't individual numbers but ranges of numbers. So 0.0 isn't really the integer 0, it is the range of numbers between 0 and the smallest representable n
3.
by lolcatuser 3y ago
I don't know how they work internally, but I can say that power hammers used for blacksmithing sound similar to the woodpecker in the video, only much slower. A couple hard, fast hits with absurd force before slowing down and stoppin
4.
by lolcatuser 3y ago
A hypothetical god would not destroy the world, but absolutely could . I think that's the idea - they're not reveling in the fact that they can do anything anybody could reasonably want to do, they're reveling in the fact
5.
by lolcatuser 3y ago
It's better to say that, in C, characters are bytes. That's why coming at this from the modern perspective of "characters are the things on my screen" is always going to confuse you - C doesn't have bytes, only
6.
by lolcatuser 3y ago
C isn't Java. Even Niklaus Wirth in Pascal, Oberon, and the like avoided naming their identifiers too long. 'GetStrSz()' is enough to achieve (most of) what you want, assuming certain naming conventions: - Makes it clear that
7.
by lolcatuser 3y ago
Maybe my least favorite "feature" of C. I can manage most aspects of zero-terminated strings well enough, but when I have to specify the length of them, is it an 'int', 'size_t', 'ssize_t', or somethi
8.
by lolcatuser 3y ago
It's entirely possible to write a wrapper function with a short name to convert string literals to actual string objects. my_function(my_var, 3.6, $("bzarflo"), my_other_var, false); Isn't that much more of a
9.
by lolcatuser 3y ago
You're being willfully obtuse here. When somebody says "this algorithm is unbounded" they of course don't mean that they've changed the laws of the universe to allow for an infinite array of memory that it can work
10.
by lolcatuser 4y ago
You absolutely can justify infinity - even if your real system can't represent numbers larger than X, you can't guarantee that won't change in the future. For example, in C, integers have minimum sizes, but no maximum. We&#
11.
by lolcatuser 4y ago
Ounces can measure both volume and weight, depending on the context. In this case, there's not enough context to tell, so the comment is total BS. If they meant ounces (volume), then an ounce of gold would weigh more than an ounce of f
12.
by lolcatuser 4y ago
That's lame. Ounces are an ambiguous unit, and most people don't use them for volume, they use them for weight.
13.
by lolcatuser 4y ago
I use octal for this. x << (3 * 8); vs. x << 030;
14.
by lolcatuser 4y ago
wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance Too often I hear people complain that they're being oppressed for their "differing opinions." A tolerable opinion is something like "my favorite color is blue," not
15.
by lolcatuser 4y ago
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1124.pdf Section 6.10 (Page 145): Preprocessing Directives Hey, would you look at that! The preprocessor is a mandatory part of the language!
16.
by lolcatuser 4y ago
But that is a legitimate problem. Using a language feature that is a known footgun (`if ...` instead of `if {...}`) without being cautious enough to avoid shooting yourself in the foot is not the fault of the footgun, it's the fault