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

submitted by

https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/5e55ae30-7a00-4bb8-a392-9801b4bd64d6.png

Mom can we have Scratch? We have scratch at home. Scratch at home:
449
1

Log in to comment

Hot Top New

Oooh, that is tempting. The main pain would be center justifying the code. Perhaps if it was left justified...

 reply
58

Clearly we need self-centering support from editors.

 reply
45

Just one more reason to do your coding in Word.

 reply
25

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

 reply
8

My employer's CI rejects extended ASCII characters :(

 reply
29
edited

Really? You never use the occasional \  or something?

Edit: my client actually parses the space lol

 reply
8

Backslashes are not extended ASCII

 reply
2

Just remembered not all projects have a web interface or an interface at all

 reply
4

That's normal, you should just use Unicode in that case.

 reply
3

You misspelled UTF-8

 reply
6

Feel free to encode it whichever way suits you best.

 reply
1

Unless it's ISO 8859-1, apparently.

 reply
3

I'm not sure if you're completely up to date on this whole Unicode thing.

 reply
0

I'm not sure if you're completely up-to-date on this whole encoding thing.

 reply
4

This only half as bad as the emoji soup macros

 reply
22

Got a link?

 reply
2

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 🎲();
}
 reply
7

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

 reply
10
edited

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)

 reply
9

This would musk to write, but is honestly really readable.

 reply
11

Remember the meme where all the parentheses are on the right hand side? This meme is the same.

 reply
11

Have they #defined out the equals symbol? I don't think that for loop is going to compile.

 reply
4

The symbol they defined out is not the equals symbol but rather U+2550, so the for loop is fine.

 reply
23

Comments in Programmer Humor@lemmy.ml

It's funny but also tempting me 😄

 reply
22
edited

Isn't the logic inverted? I think you want a == 0 on each of those conditions

You wouldn't even need the first if you removed the space

 reply
16

Correct, noticed the same thing. Should have been a bang in front of each of the terms, your modulus of any of those will return a 0 when hit, which will convert to false and fail each of those conditions.

This solution will do the opposite of what was intended unless the if conditions are inverted. Then it works flawlessly and the %15 is indeed a clever solution.

 reply
3
edited

Ya'know, it shouldn't be too hard to setup the ╔ and ╚ characters to function as or be substituted for quotes or brackets, depending on the language, then handle the rest as ligatures. Straight display substitution could allow for clean code and portable touch-typing, while still providing this sort of "visual training wheels" for those who want it in their own editor/ide

 reply
9

Huh, I had never considered this solution to fizzbuzz to be honest. I usually go for string concatenation, or (i % 3 == 0 && i % 5 == 0), but yeah i % 15 == 0 is certainly a clever simplification

 reply
3

I think it's worse at conveying the intention and should be a compile-time simplification (I'm too lazy to check if compilers would do it though).

 reply
3