end of statement is ;, not

> end of statement is ;, not .
> = is assignment, not == is equals, not =
> . is property access, not ,
> array index starts at 0, not 1

Why are the creators of programming so retarded?

Attached: r_170895_nUbiT.jpg (735x468, 35K)

>> . is property access, not ,
Why should it be ,

Nothing's preventing (You) from putting macros in your C user.

>> . is property access, not ,
>> array index starts at 0, not 1
Opinions discarded

standard inventory terminology is that way for instance
20x Jacket, Large

I took this one seriously,
at first i was like : this is totally arbitrary, then i found this paper saying that arrays starting from 1 was already a thing in the past, but they dropped it. i saw 2 arguments that are relevant to this (still in 2018 they are weak) . first : zero is the smallest natural number with zero. Secondly if you are comparing stuff you get 1

good thing programming isn't supposed to be based on inventory management then

Attached: file.png (727x117, 18K)

Tokenize the function call:

typedef struct {int x;} foo;
foo s;
int x;
f(s,x);

you are missing something here. and that is basic OOP, you get clothes, that is a class it has type(your jacket) and size (Large). if you want to check the cloth[0]'s (just to annoy you) size you do cloth[0].size, to get cloth[0] size and type you have to check cloth[0] twice, well mabe it would be actually cool if you could cloth[0],size,type. but there is a reason to this thing be that way, size and type can be of different data types, and its more sane to do it that way.

>= is assignment, not array index starts at 0, not 1
Think of it as an offset then.

In math, = is equals, not "assignment". There is no assignment is math, it's a programming thing.

The arrow makes more logically sense as you are assigning right to left, so a statement like:

int muffins

Take these 2 statements for example

System.out.println("Hi");

System,out,println("Hi").

The second statement is more reflective of sentence structure.

>int muffins looks better than
>int muffin = 4;
congrats, you have the shittiest taste in the world.

It makes more sense than some fucking made up arrow.
x = 4 is the programming equivalent of "such that x = 5" or "where x = 5"

user...

fuck

The downfall of your

:= is better for assignment.

you would really enjoy PROLOG faggot

The trade off is that == is two key presses (only saving grace of it is that it's the same key)

prologgg

Yes, but assignment is arguably performed more often than comparison.

Assignment is probably the most used operator (next to ;).

>sentence structure
Lol

Nothing stopping you from making your own hotshot

>it would be actually cool if you could cloth[0],size,type
In Kotlin you can just do
cloth[0].apply {
size = something
type.doSomethingElse()
}

lua's indexes start with 1

>division rounds towards zero instead of negative infinity
holy fuck I hate C so much

Attached: a33.png (558x614, 45K)

>. is reserved for paths/ownership
>= makes logical sense (this equals...)
>== only alternative
>you cant be serious
>yfw memory starts at 0, hence "nothing"

go back to your blog fag

Attached: 1463978308373.png (305x267, 147K)

What bothers me is that typical programming language have special syntax for everything. Why can't they be like Lisp which manages to do all necessary stuff with sexp?

I'm not sure if you were siding with OP or not.

Why does it matter? You're probably an EOP that assumes all natural languages use the same set of punctuation with the same semantics.

In math, "equals" doesn't return true or not true.

|x y|
x := 6.
y := 9.
x = y isTrue: [Transcript show: 'not all langs are the same']

>Round towards an overflow
Why?

In HDL, = is assignment while

>, property access
How about fucking no.

Not OP, but if . is used for statement termination, you could use ; in function calls as a separator.

>int muffins looks better than
>int muffin = 4;

Fuck no.


>If anything, == could also be swapped with =, as we are taught our whole lives that = is equals, and == would be special case.

This is ok

>{ } instead of begin end