Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

John Carmack on inlined code (2014)

number-none.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 402 posts

Re: John Carmack on inlined code (2014)

#111

Post by mkoubaa »

badmintonbaseba wrote: post #67
wruza wrote: post #55

I wish languages had the following: let x = block { … return 5 } // x == 5 And the way to mark copypaste, e.g. common foo { asdf(qwerty(i+j)); printf(“%p”, write)); bar(); } …(repeats verbatim 20 times)… … common foo { asdf(qwerty(i+k)); printf(“%d”, (int)write); // cast to int bar(); } … And then you could `mycc diff-common foo` and see: : : common : : common … : : @@…@@ -asdf(qwerty(i+j)); +asdf(qwerty(i+k)); @@…@@…

In C++ it's an idiom to use immediately invoked lambdas: auto x = []{ /*...*/ return 5; }(); There is/was an attempt to introduce a more of a first-class language construct for such immediate "block expressions": https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2023/p28... I'm not convinced that automatic checking of copy-paste errors of such blocks make much sense though. At least I think the false positive rate…

Now if only c++ could guarantee copy elision from lambda returns...

Re: John Carmack on inlined code (2014)

#113

Post by asenchi »

darkwater wrote: post #101
echelon wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a tool, it's a wedge to break indoctrination and overcome bias. It leads to more pragmatic and less ideological thinking. The subject is compelled to contrast opposing views and consider the merits of each. Any use by ideological groups twists the purpose of the phrase on its head. The quote encourages thinking and consideration. You'd have to turn off your brain for this to have the opposite effect.

> Any use by ideological groups twists the purpose of the phrase on its head. The quote encourages thinking and consideration. You'd have to turn off your brain for this to have the opposite effect. Well, it would not be too surprising that it can be used to, for example, make people think that they can trust science and also believe in some almighty, unexplainable by science divine entity.

Thoughts like this miss the purpose and significance of the maxim being discussed. Science doesn't disprove an "almighty, unexplainable divine entity" any more than an "almighty, unexplainable divine entity" could also provide science as a means to understand the nature of things.

Careful you don't fall into the trap of indoctrination. :)

Re: John Carmack on inlined code (2014)

#114

Post by pjmlp »

reshlo wrote: post #48
silisili wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes! I work with many folks objectively way younger and smarter than me. The two bad habits I try to break them of are abstractions and what ifs. They spend so much time chasing perfection that it negatively affects their output. Multiple times a day I find myself saying 'is that a realistic problem for our use case?' I don't blame them, it's admirable. But I feel like we need to teach YAGNI. Anymore I feel like a sa…

I’ve had the opposite experience before. As a young developer, there were a number of times where I advocated for doing something “the right way” instead of “the good enough way”, was overruled by seniors, and then later I had to fix a bug by doing it “the right way” like I’d wanted to in the first place. Doing it the right way from the start would have saved so much time.

Here is an unwanted senior tip, in many consulting projects without the “the good enough way” first, there isn't anything left for doing “the right way” later on.

Re: John Carmack on inlined code (2014)

#115

Post by astrolx »

moss2 wrote: post #92
mihaic wrote: post #2

When I first heard the maxim that an intelligent person should be able to hold two opposing thoughts at the same time, I was naive to think it meant weighing them for pros and cons. Over time I realized that it means balancing contradictory actions, and the main purpose of experience is knowing when to apply each. Concretely related to the topic, I've often found myself inlining short pieces of one-time code that mad…

[flagged]

Doublethink!

Re: John Carmack on inlined code (2014)

#116

Post by garblegarble »

thelastparadise wrote: post #106
whstl wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Teaching. I had this problem with an overzealous junior developer and the solution was showing some different perspectives. For example John Ousterhout's A Philosophy of Software Design.

I tried this but they just come back with retorts like "OK boomer" which tends to make the situation even worse. How do you respond to that?

The sibling comment says "fire them". That sounds glib, but it's the correct solution here.

From what you've described, you have a coworker who is not open to learning and considering alternative solutions. They are not able to defend their approach, and are instead dismissive (and using an ageist joke to do it). This is toxic to a collaborative work environment.

I give some leeway to assholes who can justify their reasoning. Assholes who just want their way because it's their way aren't worth it and won't make your product better.

Re: John Carmack on inlined code (2014)

#117

Post by HKH2 »

hibernator149 wrote: post #108
mihaic wrote: post #2

When I first heard the maxim that an intelligent person should be able to hold two opposing thoughts at the same time, I was naive to think it meant weighing them for pros and cons. Over time I realized that it means balancing contradictory actions, and the main purpose of experience is knowing when to apply each. Concretely related to the topic, I've often found myself inlining short pieces of one-time code that mad…

Wait, isn't that just Doublethink from 1984? Holding two opposing thoughts is a sign that your mental model of the world is wrong and that it needs to be fixed. Where have you heard that maxim?

It's not referring to cognitive dissonance.

Re: John Carmack on inlined code (2014)

#118

Post by badmintonbaseba »

mkoubaa wrote: post #111
badmintonbaseba wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In C++ it's an idiom to use immediately invoked lambdas: auto x = []{ /*...*/ return 5; }(); There is/was an attempt to introduce a more of a first-class language construct for such immediate "block expressions": https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2023/p28... I'm not convinced that automatic checking of copy-paste errors of such blocks make much sense though. At least I think the false positive rate…

Now if only c++ could guarantee copy elision from lambda returns...

There is a lot of guaranteed copy elision since C++17, what exactly do you mean?

Re: John Carmack on inlined code (2014)

#119

Post by tightbookkeeper »

Ono-Sendai wrote: post #59

There is actually a major problem with long functions - they take a long time to compile, due to superlinear complexity in computation time as a function of function length. In other words breaking up a large function into smaller function can greatly reduce compile times.

If you are willing to make code worse to micro optimize compile times (not even sure this is true) then you should not use any modern language with complex type checking (rust, swift, C#, etc).

Re: John Carmack on inlined code (2014)

#120

Post by badmintonbaseba »

Ono-Sendai wrote: post #88
badmintonbaseba wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That honestly feels like a minor problem, and not something to optimize for. Also an aggressively inlining compiler will experience exactly the same problem. AFAIK at least clang always inlines a static (as in internal linkage) function if it's used only once in the translation unit, no matter how large it is.

Visual studio doesn't do that inlining. And it is a significant problem, I have had to refactor my code into multiple functions because of it.

It might be a significant problem, but not in the code, but the compiler. Fair enough, you are working around a compiler issue.
Post reply on HN