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

C4 – C in 4 functions

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 142 posts

Re: C4 – C in 4 functions

#111

Post by WhitneyLand »

boomlinde wrote: post #99
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On a first skim, this looks really nice; complaints that it's unreadable are unfounded. Man, I can't even tell what this is supposed to be. My confusion is entirely founded. My thought process with articles like this goes something like "C in four functions, huh? Sounds like it could be clever. I'll just click and read the explanation... Oh, there isn't an explanation. Well, maybe this file will explain things! ...…

In the sense that some people won't have an idea of what's going on, this community altogether isn't particularly inclusive at all. Personally, I really don't want the topics this site covers to cater to a lowest common denominator, and I'm sure that isn't what you had in mind either, but that's the effect of taking "more of us" to mean more than you personally.

The logical leap from adding a "few hints" to everything becomes "lowest common denominator" is the size of the Grand Canyon.

Re: C4 – C in 4 functions

#112

Post by shangxiao »

RubyPinch wrote: post #84
shangxiao wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is unreadable. Lumping code together into big functions just so you can say "Look I've created a compiler in 4 functions" is pointless, unless your goal is to post it to HN to show everyone how clever you are. This is not how you code when you work in a team or when you know some other poor soul has to come along and maintain it. I suggest you take a look at [1] then go and read this excellent book by Martin Fowle…

I have a feeling that the project is a mix of for-fun and to-see-if-its-possible. Not all programming is enterprise quality, some programming is intentionally not. Being so dismissive of that, seems a little silly to me. The demoscene doesn't exist because of a bunch of programmers trying to make the lives of every other programmer more difficult, it exists because people like the challenge.

Of course this occurred to me, my comment was more of an emotional response to "complaints that it's unreadable are unfounded".

If quite a few people are saying that it's unreadable, you don't just dismiss them as making "unfounded" statements.

> The demoscene doesn't exist because of a bunch of programmers trying to make the lives of every other programmer more difficult, it exists because people like the challenge.

I'm pretty sure that this doesn't need to be stated.

Re: C4 – C in 4 functions

#113

Post by petercooper »

petercooper wrote: post #3

I just wanted to credit Reddit's /r/tinycode sub-Reddit for this link: http://www.reddit.com/r/tinycode - it's a pretty cool place to discover minimalistic implementations of things.

Update: We seem to have made /r/tinycode a trending sub-Reddit of the day :-) http://www.reddit.com/r/tinycode/comments/2lcq17/rtinycode_h...

Re: C4 – C in 4 functions

#114

Post by sklogic »

WhitneyLand wrote: post #108
sklogic wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically, what you're saying is that any toy compiler example should be accompanied with a copy of the Dragon Book.

You seem to suggest that a background in compiler theory is somehow table stakes for commenting on HN. Since many here are not developers, and many developers don't have a CS degree, a few contextual comments seem appropriate.

You seem to suggest that a niche, minimalistic toy example should always be accessible to non-developers.

Re: C4 – C in 4 functions

#115

Post by WhitneyLand »

sklogic wrote: post #114
WhitneyLand wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to suggest that a background in compiler theory is somehow table stakes for commenting on HN. Since many here are not developers, and many developers don't have a CS degree, a few contextual comments seem appropriate.

You seem to suggest that a niche, minimalistic toy example should always be accessible to non-developers.

It's false dichotomy that you either get it or you don't. People will access things according to their ability. Where to draw the line on being inclusive? If some has genuine curiosity and motivation to ask a question and learn, then providing a few lines of overview doesn't clutter the board much and can be a positive contribution.

Re: C4 – C in 4 functions

#116

Post by ctdonath »

WhitneyLand wrote: post #108
sklogic wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically, what you're saying is that any toy compiler example should be accompanied with a copy of the Dragon Book.

You seem to suggest that a background in compiler theory is somehow table stakes for commenting on HN. Since many here are not developers, and many developers don't have a CS degree, a few contextual comments seem appropriate.

If you're commenting about a remarkably clever example of an obscure topic which requires prolonged study to understand, then yes I'd suggest that a background in _______ is somehow table stakes for commenting on a focused discussion of _______ on HN.

"Toy examples" are often the result of long & deep study and practice of a subject, creating something profound which casual observers are not entitled to instantly understand. In this case, it's a very clever compiler: everybody understands this summary, and if you want "a few contextual comments" beyond the source code itself then you know where to get enough information to learn what you need to understand this.

If you don't "get it", and don't want to "get it" on your own, it's not for you.

Re: C4 – C in 4 functions

#117

Post by sklogic »

WhitneyLand wrote: post #115
sklogic wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to suggest that a niche, minimalistic toy example should always be accessible to non-developers.

It's false dichotomy that you either get it or you don't. People will access things according to their ability. Where to draw the line on being inclusive? If some has genuine curiosity and motivation to ask a question and learn, then providing a few lines of overview doesn't clutter the board much and can be a positive contribution.

Exactly, where to draw a line? Explaining a concept of abstract and virtual machines may take a few pages of a dense text, explaining how to parse expressions with precedence may require dozens of pages, explaining C types will add a few more.

So, yes, it's either you're curious enough to dig into a code and find the relevant explanations somewhere else (the said Dragon Book and alike), or you won't get it, regardless of how comprehensive comments are.

Re: C4 – C in 4 functions

#118

Post by anonbanker »

glibgil wrote: post #70
diltonm wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other than Minecraft I don't go to Reddit, this is a cool link though and one I'll be checking, thanks.

Now you mostly go to reddit like anyone else. Is not going to reddit the new "I don't watch TV"?

nope. Facebook/Kik/Snapchat/Dropbox is still the new "I Don't Watch TV".

Re: C4 – C in 4 functions

#119

Post by tehwalrus »

emmanueloga_ wrote: post #80
tehwalrus wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The variable names thing really annoyed me too - a habit of code golf, and people who were originally trained in an old FORTRAN edition that had a 6 or 7 char limit on names.

I used to rather long names too... but now I think short variables have their place, and sometimes they even improve readability. This code seems to follow a lot of conventions (if I see the var "i" I could bet a million dollars is an int that is being used as a counter, probably to go through the positions of an array). It uses plenty of enumerated constants, which is good too. I've been doing some functional progra…

I'm not against local variables for counting called i and j.

I'm against a big list of forward declarations, with tens of different variables, each with a very short name, and a comment explaining what this is an abbreviation for. Just replace the names with the comments, with underscores for spaces, using find and replace. two minute job for the whole code base, much more readable code almost everywhere.

I agree that functional languages may be a counter case; but codebases in C and python (in my experience), benefit greatly from well named variables.

Re: C4 – C in 4 functions

#120

Post by tehwalrus »

_wmd wrote: post #43
tehwalrus wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The variable names thing really annoyed me too - a habit of code golf, and people who were originally trained in an old FORTRAN edition that had a 6 or 7 char limit on names.

Unless you're talking about a large piece of software composed entirely of single character functions and variable names, I pretty much disagree. Verbose variable names do not magically teach those reading a piece of code how it works, simultaneously they tend to make it impossible to write many kinds of expressions concisely, and consequently they regularly damage the readability of more complex pieces of code (e.g.…

Writing expressions concisely is an interesting problem, but in order to do, for example, tensor algebra in C you basically must use macros to define a DSL. It is not a goal which can always be achieved, but structures higher than variable names are what allow one to achieve it (usually.)

I didn't say that "verbose" variable names were mandatory everywhere - i and j have their place - but names which are at least pronounceable words are essential, especially if they appear in more places than a five line function.

This project is a special case, certainly, but toy compilers are nothing if not to learn from.

Post reply on HN