this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2025
775 points (97.7% liked)

Programmer Humor

23995 readers
1724 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ratel@mander.xyz 131 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Labelling the crab as C is sure to ruffle some exoskeletons..

[–] 0x0@lemmy.zip 2 points 14 hours ago

Only those who lack a sense of humor.

[–] palordrolap@fedia.io 22 points 1 day ago (1 children)

As at least one nautically themed childrens' book surely has it: C is for crab.

Coming at programming sideways feels more like a Haskell or Prolog thing, though.

[–] milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee 8 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

Apple is for ADA

Ball is for BASH

Crab is for C

Dog is for D

Elephant is for Ecsmascript

Fox is for F#

Goat is for Go

House is for Haskell

Igloo is for

...okay I got stuck there.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 3 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

Java has Duke

Duke, Java's mascot. A triangular shaped character with a red nose.

Ugh, I accidentally got a fake transparent background. Oh well.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 4 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

Branding fail so bad that everyone forgets that Java even has a mascot.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 3 points 6 hours ago

There are dozens of us! Millions of devices and dozens of us know about Duke!

Fun fact, Duke is released to the public. I forget in what way exactly, but Oracle freed them (him? it?).

[–] lagoon8622@sh.itjust.works 3 points 9 hours ago (1 children)
[–] milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee 1 points 5 hours ago

Jigsaw is for Java

King is for Kotlin

Lion is for LUA

Monkey is for ...

[–] Rednax@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (4 children)

I mean, at the end of the day, if you really understand your language of choice, you know that it is jusf a bunch of fancy libraries and compiler tricks of top of C. So in my mind, I'm a fully evolved programmer in a language, when I could write anything I can write in that language in C instead.

[–] umbraroze@piefed.social 5 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Or, rather, most compiled languages are just syntactic sugar on top of assembly, and that's especially true with C. (Oh, you can use curly brances and stuff for blocks? That's sure easier to read than the label mess you get with assembly.)

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Assembly is a little too high level for me. I prefer to directly write machine code.

[–] Lv_InSaNe_vL@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

You may as well be a script kiddie. I leverage my very steady hand and highly magnetized needle to write my code

[–] lime@feddit.nu 18 points 1 day ago (2 children)

only true if your language compiles to c. fortran peeps are safe.

[–] ratel@mander.xyz 2 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

I thought it compiles to LLVM intermediate representation and then to the machine code of the requested platform arch. Am I missing something?

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 8 hours ago

Fortran is from 1957, LLVM is from 2003. It's probably like C where there is a compiler tool chain that goes through LLVM like you describe and others that go directly to executables.

[–] lime@feddit.nu 2 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

only if you design it using llvm. llvm is pretty new.

[–] ratel@mander.xyz 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Ah ok I was referring to Rust specifically. Thanks!

[–] lime@feddit.nu 1 points 11 hours ago

yeah but rednax wasn't.

[–] ouRKaoS@lemmy.today 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm an 80's/90's BASIC bitch, so I'm still irrelevant!

[–] WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world 3 points 21 hours ago
10 PRINT "FARTS"    
20 GOTO 10
[–] nialv7@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (3 children)

It's not what you can use that language to do - all general purpose languages are Turing Complete, so what you can do with them is exactly equal. It is about what the language will do for you. Rust compiler will stop you from writing memory unsafe code, C compiler cannot do that.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Fun fact, some languages are not turing complete and I believe people would still consider them programming languages. They're typically targeted at making mathematical proofs.

[–] nialv7@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I did say "general purpose". And many proof assistants are Turing Complete actually, such as Lean.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 1 hour ago

I did say "general purpose".

I did say "fun fact".

[–] qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website 6 points 1 day ago

...are Turing Complete, so what you can do with them is exactly equal.

But they're only equal in the Turing complete sense, which (iirc) says nothing about performance or timing.

[–] Rednax@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

But how does the Rust compiler do that? What does it actually check? Could I write a compiler in C that does this check on a piece of Rust code?

C is so simplictic, that if I can write a piece of functionality in C, I must understand its inner workings fully. Not just how to use the feature, but how the feature works under the hood.

It is often pointless to actually implement the feature in C, since the feature already has a good implementation (see the Rust compiler for the memory safety). But understanding these features, and being able to mentally think about what it takes in C to implement them, is still helpfull for gaining an understanding of the feature.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 2 points 13 hours ago

Could I write a compiler in C that does this check on a piece of Rust code?

Well yes, but that code has to be written in Rust. The human has to follow rules to give the compiler a chance to check things.

C is so simplictic, that if I can write a piece of functionality in C, I must understand its inner workings fully. Not just how to use the feature, but how the feature works under the hood.

I don't think that's particularly more true of C than Rust or even Golang. In C you are frequently making function calls anyway for the real fun stuff. If you ever compile a "simplistic" chunk of C code that you think is obvious how it would compile to assembly and you open up the assembly output, you are likely to be very surprised with what the compiler chose to do. I've seen some professional C developers that never actually had a reason to fully understand how the stack works, since C abstracts that away and the implications of the stack don't matter until you exceed some limitations.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 3 points 1 day ago

I mean, yeah, most languages are turing complete.