1mo ago

Mom can we have Scratch? We have scratch at home. Scratch at home:

Programmer Humor @lemmy.ml

HiddenLayer555 @lemmy.ml

1mo ago

31 comments

Oooh, that is tempting. The main pain would be center justifying the code. Perhaps if it was left justified...
- Clearly we need self-centering support from editors.
  
  Just one more reason to do your coding in Word.
- I think the main pain would be manually aligning the frames on every line with every change, occasionally having to extend the width and updating every line of code to match it
My employer's CI rejects extended ASCII characters :(
- Really? You never use the occasional nbsp; or something?
  Edit: my client actually parses the space lol
  
  Just remembered not all projects have a web interface or an interface at all
  
  Backslashes are not extended ASCII
- That's normal, you should just use Unicode in that case.
  
  You misspelled UTF-8

This only half as bad as the emoji soup macros

Got a link?

I got something better for you.

    
namespace 🔵 = std;
using 🔢 = int;
using 💀 = void;
using 🕖 = time_t;
using 👌 = bool;
#define 👂 auto
#define 🎌 enum
#define 👎 false
#define 👍 true
#define 👹 "evil"
#define 💪 🔵::make_shared
#define 🍸 virtual
#define 🖥️ 🔵::cout
#define 🔫 🔵::endl
template<class 🔮>
using 📚 = 🔵::vector<🔮>;
template<class 🔮>
using 👇 = 🔵::shared_ptr<🔮>;

🎌 🐒 { 🐵, 🙈, 🙉, 🙊 };
🔢 🎲() { return 🔵::rand(); }
👌 😎() { return 👎; }

struct 🍴 { 🍸 💀 👀() = 0; };
struct 🍊 : 🍴 { 🍸 💀 👀() { 🖥️ << "🍊" << 🔫; }; };
struct 🍉 : 🍴 { 🍸 💀 👀() { 🖥️ << "🍉" << 🔫; }; };
struct 🍒 : 🍴 { 🍸 💀 👀() { 🖥️ << "🍉" << 🔫; }; };
struct 🍓 : 🍴 { 🍸 💀 👀() { 🖥️ << "🍓" << 🔫; }; };
struct 🍍 : 🍴 { 🍸 💀 👀() { 🖥️ << "🍍" << 🔫; }; };
struct 🍅 : 🍴 { 🍸 💀 👀() { 🖥️ << "🍅" << 🔫; }; };

🔢 main()
{
    if(😎() == 👎)
        🖥️ << "💩" << 🔫;

    📚<👇<🍴>> 🍛 = { 💪<🍊>(), 💪<🍉>(), 💪<🍒>(), 💪<🍍>(), 💪<🍅>() };
 
    for (👂 🍏 : 🍛)
        🍏->👀();

    return 🎲();
}

Remember the meme where all the parentheses are on the right hand side? This meme is the same.
This would musk to write, but is honestly really readable.
super minor but I always preferred to define fizzbuzz as modulo 3*5 to show adherence to the instructions in the readability of the code without having to think about why
- Mmm I think they are missing == 0
You could do this in basic ASCII, with only three defines. replace " " with "{", replace ";" with "}", and "" with nothing. If your compiler processes macros in the correct order, it will become valid code. (You would use semicolons as the vertical lines)
Have they #defined out the equals symbol? I don't think that for loop is going to compile.
- The symbol they defined out is not the equals symbol but rather U+2550, so the for loop is fine.
- why not? looks fine
  
  The #define = line would mean the = would be effectively removed, rendering the for a syntax error. That is, assuming it is an equals sign they've redefined, and not similar looking character.

31 comments