11–20 of 54 posts
Why is it that the first thing I try tends to uncover shortcomings? typedef uint64_t qbb_t __attribute__((vector_size(sizeof(uint64_t) * 4))) Syntax error OK, its an extension, meh.
Is this largely supplanted by LLMs?
Is this largely supplanted by LLMs?
Output for the example I got on opening the website:
char (*(*x())[5])()
ChatGPT: x is a function that, when called, gives us access to 5 functions that each return a character. (TL;DR, it gave a full explanation too)
Like mentioned before the error rate of LLMs is probably much higher on complex expressions.
Is this largely supplanted by LLMs?
cdecl is always correct with regards to this stuff.
I don't know why you'd choose the former.
Is there a language that's substantially free of gibberish?
Is there a language that's substantially free of gibberish?
Is there a language that's substantially free of gibberish?
Then again people complain that they are too verbose, and they rather write in hieroglyph friendly languages.
I don't think it is gibberish. It's code and in order to read that code you need to understand the language, and to understand language you need learning and experience.
Maybe it can be useful for learning, but if you have to use such tool, I suspect you won't understand it anyway - so in a way it is more a gibberish-to-gibberish translator.
Next I want one to explain some of Rust’s more cryptic pointer gibberish. Usually I just hit “use suggested fix X” until the compiler’s happy.