Cosimo Galluzzi
Mike Driver
JBB: An Artblog!
Misplaced Lens Cap
if i look back, i am lost
Kiana Khansmith
$LAYYYTER
Today's Document
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open
Not today Justin
titsay
祝日 / Permanent Vacation
No title available
macklin celebrini has autism
@theartofmadeline
ojovivo
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her
No title available
Andulka
occasionally subtle
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from Italy
seen from Malaysia
seen from Brazil
seen from Canada
seen from Brazil
@pipewire-official
I never understood the saying "the world is your oyster" because oysters are famously very difficult to open and don't really have much meat in them and they taste kind of bad, if the saying was "the world is your tiramisu" I would understand because tiramisu is amazing incredible but oysters aren't all that and I am sorry but I have to speak my truth
Princess Ralsei
bringing the stupid type syntax debate onto here too
type name
or
name: type
or
name type
Now as a Poll
type name (like in c and java)
name: type (like in python and rust)
name type (idk which programming language uses this style)
other way
Name type is used by go for example.
I don't like it and regularly do it wrong
Honestly, this and the current results make me wonder.
The only difference between "name: type" and "name type" is a colon, and yet people vastly prefer the former.
Personally I think both are equally stupid. But I also dislike dynamic typing, where that pattern is usually found
nope, name: type originates from pascal iirc which is statically typed, its also used in rust, odin, and a bunch of other low level static languages. the only dynamically typed langs i can think of with it are python and gdscript ig
Okay well then that's even more stupid.
I would've accepted it in dynamically typed languages since there the type is optional, but the name isn't, so you put the optional part in the back.
But if both are needed then put the type in front, because it's the most important part and also it's much more easy to see when multiple identifiers have the same type.
Plus, when coding I think "I need a [type] and I'm gonna name it [name]" and not "I need a [name] and I guess it should be [type]"
There is a cool thing we have these days called type inference, you don't need to write all the types in a statically typed language.
Types are too important to let a program decide what they are
statically typed language
type inference
which is it?
You can have type inference in a statically typed language. Usually you'd have something like an auto keyword, or the walrus operator := in go to denote that you're too lazy to write the type yourself
doesnt sound very static. sounds pretty dynamic to me.
how??
the type is fixed. it does not change.
it all depends on what the program decides it to be. it could change if compiled with a differenet toolchain or system.
that's a kinda silly way to view it
the program's binary changes based on the toolchain, on the system, on the compile flags
but the code is still the same. you could make the very same argument for C or C++ because then if we're changing systems and toolchains type definitions might not be the same. yours isn't a strong argument. following your own logic there is no such thing as static typing.
there is no strongly typed language.
that's the most absurd and less meaningful conclusion i've ever heard.
casts all your variables to (void*)
the difference between static and dynamic is fortunately very cleanly defined, its wether type information is known at compile time
dynamically typed -> types are unknown at compile time. the program only knows about types at runtime
statically typed -> all types have to be known at compile time, type-specific computation can only occur on things u know the type of
gradually typed -> types arent necessarily known at compile time, but can be
name: type is also generally easier to parse. Especially when instead you have the much richer pattern: type, where you can pattern match (usually destructure) receivers. type name has led to numerous thorns, while let name: type is very localised. I also just kinda think it looks nicer than type name.
Inference is only used if the target type is completely unambiguous, so it shouldn't change across toolchains/systems, otherwise either the compiler has a consistency bug, the compiler does not conform to the standard, or the language is fundamentally flawed in its specification for inference. Inference is also a huge driver of name: type in modern statically typed languages; let size = (1600u32, 900u32); is completely unambiguous; why should i need to specify a type if the compiler can infer what its meant to be?
Caught myself spiraling and then remembered it's just my body not wanting to exist in these temperatures
i think they should make the 4th of july incredibly associated with homestuck so everyone below like 30 sees it as a massive cognitohazard and no one will celebrate the US anymore
i have been informed the 4th of july is nepeta day i will be celebrating nepeta next year
(i didn't make this image btw)
Fuck yuo hehehehehe
many ralys
@ yjngshdsng69835
bringing the stupid type syntax debate onto here too
type name
or
name: type
or
name type
Now as a Poll
type name (like in c and java)
name: type (like in python and rust)
name type (idk which programming language uses this style)
other way
Name type is used by go for example.
I don't like it and regularly do it wrong
Honestly, this and the current results make me wonder.
The only difference between "name: type" and "name type" is a colon, and yet people vastly prefer the former.
Personally I think both are equally stupid. But I also dislike dynamic typing, where that pattern is usually found
nope, name: type originates from pascal iirc which is statically typed, its also used in rust, odin, and a bunch of other low level static languages. the only dynamically typed langs i can think of with it are python and gdscript ig
Okay well then that's even more stupid.
I would've accepted it in dynamically typed languages since there the type is optional, but the name isn't, so you put the optional part in the back.
But if both are needed then put the type in front, because it's the most important part and also it's much more easy to see when multiple identifiers have the same type.
Plus, when coding I think "I need a [type] and I'm gonna name it [name]" and not "I need a [name] and I guess it should be [type]"
There is a cool thing we have these days called type inference, you don't need to write all the types in a statically typed language.
Types are too important to let a program decide what they are
statically typed language
type inference
which is it?
You can have type inference in a statically typed language. Usually you'd have something like an auto keyword, or the walrus operator := in go to denote that you're too lazy to write the type yourself
doesnt sound very static. sounds pretty dynamic to me.
how??
the type is fixed. it does not change.
it all depends on what the program decides it to be. it could change if compiled with a differenet toolchain or system.
that's a kinda silly way to view it
the program's binary changes based on the toolchain, on the system, on the compile flags
but the code is still the same. you could make the very same argument for C or C++ because then if we're changing systems and toolchains type definitions might not be the same. yours isn't a strong argument. following your own logic there is no such thing as static typing.
there is no strongly typed language.
that's the most absurd and less meaningful conclusion i've ever heard.
casts all your variables to (void*)
the difference between static and dynamic is fortunately very cleanly defined, its wether type information is known at compile time
dynamically typed -> types are unknown at compile time. the program only knows about types at runtime
statically typed -> all types have to be known at compile time, type-specific computation can only occur on things u know the type of
gradually typed -> types arent necessarily known at compile time, but can be
its by now well known that domestic abuse spikes when england lose at the football. however many are still in thrall to a liberal, individualist, and idealist analysis that isolates this from the wider structural violence in which it is situated. if we really want to combat abuse, we need to address the causes, not the symptoms. that’s why a real materialist feminist movement should be looking for ways to make england better at football
trans women really dominating the indie scene rn huh. lena raine and jamie paige keep popping off and appearing in the best games you can find on steam. gooseworx has her show in theaters. like 80% of content creators i watch nowadays are trans women. and more and more keep popping up. age of the tgirl fr fr
transfem Jax, or as I like to call her, Jax,
good video happy pride
youtube commenters will say things like "just because because a character changed gender doesn't make them trans"
i love the phrase "cruel and unusual." not only is what you're doing mean but it's also quite frankly fucking bizarre
