What are you maids working on?Previous thread: >>108600579
reading through the latest C++ mailing and it seems like executors has driven even the people working on it crazy
>>108653783They were always crazy.>imagine making a language to be portable to systems that no one will ever use>and then trying to dig yourself out of your self-inflicted abstraction hell with even more abstractions>instead of making a language to be performant for the big four
I've (re)written so much documentation that my casual text/speech has become pretentious looking/sounding. Oh well.
>>108654027... sure, anon. That's the reason.
>>108654264>starting posts with ellipsisNow that's pretentious
>>108654391It's warranted./dpt/ is like the top 90% of all developers, and I'm in the 99% bracket of that selection.>proven by my ability to pass as a native English speaker>whilst being drunk on 20 cl of Gin
>>108653582I'm trying to do more Godot and game jams. It's such a cool tool because between Godot and Blender you really can just build out anything you want. But it takes a ton of practice to get things looking and functioning exactly how you want.
>>108654027I talk so much to Claude and ChatGPT that I'm starting to sound like an LLM
>>108654429>guy on the leftHoly shit.
>>108654264Yes...as mentioned.Having to figure out more vocabulary, looking into etymology, etc. with the express intent of trying to better form concise documentation for functions, has had influence on how I communicate.I'm annoyed at your insinuation, it's really unwarranted and out of nowhere. Mean spirited.
>>108654531Boo hoo.
>>108654591Yes, that is the sentiment.
>>108654599Whose sentiment? Because it sounds like you want _my_ sentiment to be _your_ sentiment.
>>108654671Mine.I'm saying Anon is being mean and it's making me feel bad because I question what's wrong with someone to make them act that way unprompted.
>>108654531>Yes...as mentioned.>Having to figure out more vocabulary, looking into etymology, etc. with the express intent of trying to better form concise documentation for functions, has had influence on how I communicate.>I'm annoyed at your insinuation, it's really unwarranted and out of nowhere. Mean spirited.
>>108654409>I'm in the 99% bracket of that selection.Post maid outfit.
>>108654409>99% bracketanon...
i always laugh at people who put alot of effort into their writing like imagine yo uspend 15 minutes to write a reply whe ni literally shat out mine in less than 15 seconds AND its more sensical than yours so i wi nthe argument. l m. a. o.
>>108655756faggot
>>108655811u
>>108654463I talk to myself so much that I'm starting to sound like a schizophrenic.
>>108655756>i always laugh at people who put alot of effort into their writing like imagine yo uspend 15 minutes to write a reply whe ni literally shat out mine in less than 15 seconds AND its more sensical than yours so i wi nthe argument. l m. a. o.i laf @ pl wh wrt fu wrd. idts wast tim. dn ne fu wrd 2 und mnin
>>108656029writing like that is too hard to decipher thoughmy approach of writing full sentences but quickly without proof reading or editing is the sweetspot of decipherability & speed
>>108656048https://monkeytype.com/prv t
>>108656068never lcaimed that i was a fast typer though just that i find it silly to put alot of effort into making your 4chan posts messages pretty
>>108656098nt bd. bt thk ab ds: ou wrtg s th nly thg w lve bhd af w de. wh nt tk prd n t?
There's really no excuse for not typing properly.
>>108654684>it makes me feel bad>but not because of what I did>but what they didYeah, I think I got my answer.
>>108656119you think you will build a legacy of 4chan posts after you die?
>>108656124speed > accuracy.
>>108653582Maids have a programming language.https://maidcode.me/
>>108656332>Rust-powered languageOH NONONONONONONONONONONONO!Individual lifetimes are of the devil, and kernels that only handle individual handles are doubly so.>yes, that means Torvalds is the antichrist>don't tell me you're actually surprised
>>108656332>cloudflare slop
>>108656332https://github.com/xqyet/MaidCode>obj instead of var>stay instead of const>walk instead of for>through instead of ..>alsoif instead of else if>otherwise instead of else>give instead of return>unsafe/safe instead of try/catch>uhoh instead of throw/panic>fetch instead of import>serve instead of print>dynamic typingcringe
>>108656644there was an attempt { we did it reddit} oh no no no no(oopsie&) { chat are you saying this}my attempt at zoomer code
there was an attempt { we did it reddit} oh no no no no(oopsie&) { chat are you saying this}
>>108656644>>dynamic typingStatic types are like training wheels. You don't need them if you know what you are doing. They exist to help low skill programmers who can't make mid sized or large programs without them.
>>108656699Are you retarded?
>>108656699pseud
>>108656135Yes. The reaction / response is what affected me. There was no cause to be upset prior to the reply, it triggered my empathy for Anon.
>>108657274Nah, you lying. Poorly.
>>108657425I'm not sure why you think that and I doubt I would be able to convince you.If it's what you believe, so be it. I'll assume that's a form of cop out / cope, and you'll have equal difficulty convince me otherwise.
Finally decided to setup some benchmarking and query analyzing. Until now I had no way of telling if I introduced some performance regression except to just push update and wait for users with much bigger datasets than me to come back to me with complains. And even if that happens again, I can now ask them to generate and send me diagnostics data for quick debugging instead of asking them to upload several hundreds GBs databases.
>>108657429>I'm not sure why you think thatBecause any neurotypical person would first assume there's something wrong with *them*, not with others. Simple as that.
>>108657446That's very presumptions about multiple facets. And is some kind of standard you just made up and applied to me, you, and 4chan as a whole.In any case our conversation concluded; past tense. You don't believe me, and won't. And your intention seems to be to emotionally engage with me, but not in a pleasant or nice way.Hence the assumption on my part, which never got cleared up because of your refusal.
>>108657454>That's very presumptionsPresumptuous, autist.
>>108656005What's wrong with that? I lost my virginity to a schizo
>>108657455You missed the typo in the previous post.>autistYou present this as a joke, but we both know how it's intended to be interpreted.Yes, I speak your language and understand you. Obviously.
>>108657468And yet you're still here. Obviously the message did NOT come across.
>>108657483I'm usually here. And will continue to be here. I'll talk with you so long as I have time and you make sure to notify me (reply).>Obviously the message did NOT come across.It's loud and clear. "Please respond". And I am, but you're not talking back to me.
>>108657490>I'm usually here. And will continue to be hereMeaning the message did NOT come across.
>>108657494Here's what I've gathered. You're drunk, upset, autistic, and want attention from someone random.I'm here.
>>108657500>>108657494
>>108657504I already told you, I can interpret your messages clearly.If you're not able to convince yourself, why are you even trying to convince me?We're anonymous. Why are you trying to deny this after reaching out in the first place?Get on with it, please.
>>108657513>>108657494
>>108657535Repeating it isn't going to change anything. Rather than saying "you don't understand", you'd do better to try and clarify your message, since in your eyes I didn't interpret it correctly, and you're conveniently not telling me what's wrong, almost as if I'm correct in my assessment and there is nothing left for you to say at this point.
>>108657545>>108657494
>>108657564Feel free to reiterate your intended message if you wish to convince me otherwise.Until then, we both have different versions of events.
>>108657572>we both have different versions of eventsObviously.
>>108657634Yes, and I'm curious, if you think my interpretation differs from yours, then what possibly could you have meant or intended.It'd be interesting to see, although as I wrote, I strongly doubt I will believe you.Goading is my guess. And so far that looks correct, as evidenced by you.
>>108657664>I strongly doubt I will believe you.>>108657446
>>108657691You have repeated numerous times that I interpret your post incorrectly, you can't just point at it and expect me to receive it differently, you have to make an effort to communicate if you want me to understand whatever you're trying to convey, and once we do that you have to convince me why it's important to you, so that we can discuss it.
>>108657702>you can't just point at it and expect me to receive it differentlyWell, actually, yes, I can.
>>108657708Pedantically so, but my meaning is that just pointing at your post isn't going to make me interpret it differently.If you want me to interpret it another way, you have to try to rephrase it (effectively).
>>108657721Thanks for proving my point.
>>108657726I'm not sure what you mean.I think you're just being obtuse on purpose as a sort of backpedal, but the problem with this is I'm not arguing against you.You're trying to convince someone of something, and it doesn't look like the target is me. Get what I'm saying?
I want to contribute to an open source project but I'm not used to working on things where I didn't write every line myself.How do you start reading someone else's github repo? Just pick the most important looking file and start reading?
>>108657758Very subjective. But what I do is check for documentation or shit like that first. And if it doesn't exist then I step through the program starting from main using either a debugger and/or in my editor "jump to definition" for symbols like function names.Stepping through is a debugger is usually pretty easy, you know exactly what the program does, what the code paths look like, etc.and you can refine this to your particular needs.Like if you're trying to fix an issue, drill down from main to some deeper point near the area you need to understand.If you're lucky you can also just ask someone who works on it for advice and they might collaborate with you.
>>108657734Have you tried assuming you're wrong?
>>108657809I wrote out what I think you're saying.You're telling me I'm interpreting it wrong.I asked you to clarify. You refuse.In principle, I can't even admit to being wrong because by your own account, I don't know what you're even trying to say.In reality, we both know. Hence the game.But I legitimately want to understand what's wrong with you, not play.Playing is fine, but I'm much more interested in hearing what you would say if you replied for real.I guess you think I'm joking or trying to be malicious for asking why you're upset, but no, I'm just lending you my ear.
>>108657830>In reality, we both know.>>108657809
>>108657851To answer your question, no I haven't tried assuming that.I'm rather confident in my position, as you present yourself to be (despite...well...).
>>108657862>I'm rather confident in my positionExactly.
>>108657882I don't know if that's meant to agree or insinuate.Your posts are much too terse to be useful beyond chaff.Not trying to be rude, I'm just saying it's really hard to communicate with you. Which makes sense given what you said, but that's my feedback if you want to incorporate it.
>>108657896>I'm just saying it's really hard to communicate with youThat's the POINT:>inability to read between lines>yet confidence in his own positions
>>108657950If the point is to be obtuse on purpose, then you shouldn't be offended when people don't understand you.You're hoping people will "read between the lines" as if you prepared something there, but have not.I asked you directly to clarify, and it's not that you won't, it's that you literally can't.
>>108657973>when people don't understand youBut only special people don't understand me. Those who have, inexplicably, high confidence in their opinions.
>>108657985So you claim. But you've made many claims, and not any of them make sense.I understand why you would want to shuck the blame on me, but obviously when you babble and don't get understood, the fault isn't mine, even if you wish it to be.>inexplicablyBut I've expressed it bluntly. There is no mystery, if you want to know a detail, just ask me.I'm confident in this based on my experience and your patterns. But more so based on your own push, you're the one telling me I'm correct. And on top of that, you're not telling me I'm wrong. What other conclusion is there.I spend a lot of time on 4chan, projection is a 2nd language to me, "trolls" (attention seekers) are my familiar.And I have a real desire to understand them even better. In the rare instances they drop their fear and speak for real.
>>108658005>but obviously when you babble and don't get understood, the fault isn't mineWrong.
>>108658005It's like I'm in a early 2010's RP thread
>>108658021If that's what you think, that's what you think.If you want to talk about something with /me/, the onus is on you to adapt to /me/, not the other way around.So far, all I know is that you're upset. And I've been wondering what about, and for some reason you won't tell me, despite being anonymous.What's with the reluctance after you were the one that initiated? Kind of goofy, isn't it.
>>108658039>the onus is on you to adapt to /me/LolLmao
>>108658059Yes. If you want me to hear you out, you gotta speak in a way I can understand you.Otherwise we'll be stuck in this pointless loop where you don't really say much and don't really get anything out of it.If you tell me what you want to talk about, we can.
>>108658085>>108657985
>>108658090I don't know what that's supposed to mean or how it relates to what I wrote.I have doubts in its truth, I'm sure plenty fail to understand you...oh I see...damnAlright, I got mine.
>>108658106>I'm sure plenty fail to understand you>>108657985
>>108658112So like, can you tell me about /why/ it bothers you? Or what you're doing about it?
>>108658121Because I don't think you have any business in programming, and since you won't leave the domain the best I can do is raise awareness of your general unsuitability.
>>108658169Programming? I hardly mentioned it. I was talking about why your communication issue bothers you and what you're doing about it.I assume this is practice? Since it's anonymous and without risk. Not a bad idea.You seem to do well with LLMs, have you considered running one locally and talking with it directly?
>>108658189>I was talking about why your communication issue bothers youIt doesn't. That's just projection on your part.
>>108658204>That's just projection on your part:^/So you say...
>>108658207Yes.
>>108658210Anon, it didn't deflect the first time. I promise you it's not going to deflect the next time.Maybe that works for most, I'm telling you straight up it doesn't work with me. I don't know why you keep repeating. I mean I do, but I'm telling you that we can talk normally without holding back.
>>108658212>I'm telling you straight up it doesn't work with meGood.
>>108658219Good for me, not for you. You'll never resolve the issue if you don't make an attempt. It's really bad when the stakes are so low, and the support so high. You'll not likely get this opportunity often.
>>108658223>Good for me, not for youWrong.
>>108658227In context, incorrect.If you want to deceive me, you need a different trick.But I'm telling you that you don't need a trick at all, you can just talk to me normally.
>>108658238>In context, incorrect.Neither or.
>>108658251I don't see your perspective on this.So far, I only know what's bothering you, but we haven't really discussed much. Most of it is me dragging it out of you.Don't you think it would be to your benefit to drop facade? I guess part of your problem is that you can't...hmm...Uhh, I'm kinda stuck on this one, need your help. How do we proceed?
>>108653783Only natural for those who believe they can build an all purpose silver bullet.
>>108658260>Don't you think it would be to your benefit to drop facade?Why? I'm getting exactly what I want.
>>108658277Well that's good. I was worried it wasn't getting through but I didn't think about the indirection on the other side. Appreciate you saying so. Accidental or not.
>>108658289>I didn't think about the indirection on the other sideNo surprises here: >>108657950
>>108658292Yes.Do you recognize why the inversion like that is odd for the receiver? Like is that part obvious at all or... I don't know how to ask the question.Is it like a compulsion? Can you even tell me?
>>108658297The reason you're confused is that you continue to be wrong: >>108657809
>>108658318I may or may not have used the word "wrong" but don't take it too personally.Yes what you're doing isn't conducive to good communication, but whatever, it's a little frustrating in this context, who cares.As for confusion, what can I help you with? You're confused why people don't understand you when you invert the points?I'd like you to try talking normally, as in directly, not indirectly and backwards. Just try it, it's okay if you fuck up. Worst thing someone here will do is poke fun at you, some stranger who doesn't even know you.
>>108658329>Yes what you're doing isn't conducive to good communicationVery clearly not a me-problem.
>>108658344Depends how you look at it. Communication is often between 2 parties, a collaboration if you will.What I want you to understand is that not everyone has the experience I have. We can converse, with relative ease. I think you know better than me that's not usually the case. Is it?
>>108658350>Depends how you look at it.Nope.
>>108658358True, but I didn't want to be so harsh. It's not necessary since we're not exactly enemies.If you want me to match your pedantry, I can try. But obviously it's annoying to me so I'd rather we both avoid it.Communication is inherently a collaboration between 2 parties.For the sake of discussion we will include ones own self as a separate entity by virtue of time. Like writing a letter to your future self.A philosophical quandary maybe, but one we can put aside to be on equal terms.
>>108658376>It's not necessary since we're not exactly enemies.Wrong.
>>108658378Elaborate.
>>108658383>>108658169
>>108658418All of our posts center around linguistics but your concern is about programming. So I don't understand what you mean or why you're bringing it up.And as I pointed out, we're anonymous. Nobody knows who you or I are, so your recommendation against me doesn't have any impact on my reputation, if there even is one.Maybe you're mixing me up with one of the other Anons that posted code or something? Wasn't me.
>>108658441>center around linguisticsWrong.
>>108658462What would you say we're talking about then? Because I don't see anything related to programming.Am I right that you're concerned I'll become a programmer? That's not my field.
>>108658466>What would you say we're talking about then?Your confidence in your unreliable narrative.
>>108658493Ehh, it comes up but it's not the focal point, at least from my perspective.I'm mostly concerned about you personally. I'd like to know what's got you acting this way.You told me it's about programming, and I said we never talked about programming.Now you changed the story and said it's about confidence or something.We both have different ideas on what the topic is.Can you tell me from your perspective what topic you would like to talk about?Direct questions would be helpful too.
>>108658515>it comes up but it's not the focal point, at least from my perspectiveExactly.
I've learned about recursion but rarely ever use it for anything
>>108658528"Exactly" on its own isn't exactly elucidating.If you want my interpretation, you're saying that the point is not about programming and it's not about what you just said either, which contradicts yourself.I'd rather you just reiterate the point directly, as it stands currently.I.e. what is your concern and/or what are you trying to convey if it's not the things I said and not the things you yourself said?>>108658535I end up converting a lot of recursive functions to iterative ones in languages that don't do TCO.But sometimes it's just simpler and easier to recur. Like on tree structures or various linked lists, like quad trees.
>>108658546>"Exactly" on its own isn't exactly elucidatingFor you. Which is the point.
>>108658571Your supposed "point" is lost on me when you don't express it. Of the 2 of us only you know what you mean, not me.If your goal is to tell me something, you didn't.If your goal is to convince me of something, you also didn't.You have to express what you wish to convey, otherwise nobody will understand you. Myself included.
It's not the most niggerlicious code I've ever written, but fuck me if it's not close.This is exactly why pipes should be mappable.>also why in blazes does the pipe not return UTF-16 data
>>108658577>Your supposed "point" is lost on meWhich is the point in and of itself.
>>108658585>why in blazes does the pipe not return UTF-16 dataI'm going to randomly guess because you're calling the A function instead of the macro that would expand to SendMessageW?>>108658591That's not a "point", it's a non-expression. You've effectively said nothing.You said before your point has something to do with programming, but you never said what about.
>>108658593>confusing cause and effectJust go away, autist.
>>108658607I don't know what you mean. Too obtuse for me.>go awayI take it this is more backwards talk since you're replying to me asking me to consider your perspective on some unsaid programming topic.For me, I appreciate the exercise, but in this specific case I also appreciate the insight into your psyche.I don't think it was on purpose, but you made me realize something about that archetype. Very useful.
