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

Come Break My Compiler

bellmar.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 33 posts

Re: Come Break My Compiler

#21

Post by photochemsyn »

ggambetta wrote: post #4

> No “real programmers” write code in Assembly. This means the opposite of what she means, which is > No, “real programmers” write code in Assembly. because of the missing comma. Insisting on good spelling and grammar is not about being annoying, it's about not accidentally writing the opposite of what you want to convey :(

Good grammar? "Real programmers" is a colloquialism, and being concerned about good grammar is an indication that the subject is formal or technical writing, in which such constructions should be avoided. "Real programmers" is borrowed from "real men" and that expression is a colloquial synonym for "douche bag", according to this reference:

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=real%20men

This is clear if we ask, 'what's the opposite of a real programmer?' - perhaps an imaginary programmer?

Re: Come Break My Compiler

#22

Post by jasode »

photochemsyn wrote: post #21
ggambetta wrote: post #4

> No “real programmers” write code in Assembly. This means the opposite of what she means, which is > No, “real programmers” write code in Assembly. because of the missing comma. Insisting on good spelling and grammar is not about being annoying, it's about not accidentally writing the opposite of what you want to convey :(

Good grammar? "Real programmers" is a colloquialism, and being concerned about good grammar is an indication that the subject is formal or technical writing, in which such constructions should be avoided. "Real programmers" is borrowed from "real men" and that expression is a colloquial synonym for "douche bag", according to this reference: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=real%20men This is clear if w…

>Good grammar? "Real programmers" is a colloquialism, [...] This is clear if we ask, 'what's the opposite of a real programmer?' - perhaps an imaginary programmer?

No, that's not the misinterpretation that gp (ggambetta) was trying explain with the missing commas causing parsing confusion.

The "real programmers" isn't the main confusion. It's the missing commas.

The author was trying to convey (with some sarcasm) how some programmers have a sense of superiority when they can program in the lower abstraction layer underneath the higher-level programming language others are using. E.g. You code in Javascript?!? Meh, real programmers code in C. You code in C?!? Real programmers code in assembly. etc.

It's only after some readers get to the 4th sentence ("butterflies") that the common joke is revealed and they backtrack to the previous sentences to realize they're missing commas that would have made the joke easier-to-read : It’s really an age old dilemma in computers: “real programmers” write code in C. No [,] “real programmers” write code in Assembly. No [,] “real programmers” write code in binary. No, wait, “real programmers” use butterflies.

Analogous to this XKCD joke about "purity" : https://xkcd.com/435/

The distraction of readers trying to parse the missing commas -- detracted from the author's intended rhetorical effect.

Re: Come Break My Compiler

#23

Post by skwheel »

ggambetta wrote: post #4

> No “real programmers” write code in Assembly. This means the opposite of what she means, which is > No, “real programmers” write code in Assembly. because of the missing comma. Insisting on good spelling and grammar is not about being annoying, it's about not accidentally writing the opposite of what you want to convey :(

Oh my god, yes. I had to re-read that paragraph three times, and then open the xkcd to confirm what the author really meant. This absolutely killed the flow of the article for me.

Re: Come Break My Compiler

#24

Post by skwheel »

jasode wrote: post #22
photochemsyn wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good grammar? "Real programmers" is a colloquialism, and being concerned about good grammar is an indication that the subject is formal or technical writing, in which such constructions should be avoided. "Real programmers" is borrowed from "real men" and that expression is a colloquial synonym for "douche bag", according to this reference: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=real%20men This is clear if w…

>Good grammar? "Real programmers" is a colloquialism, [...] This is clear if we ask, 'what's the opposite of a real programmer?' - perhaps an imaginary programmer? No, that's not the misinterpretation that gp (ggambetta) was trying explain with the missing commas causing parsing confusion. The "real programmers" isn't the main confusion. It's the missing commas. The author was trying to convey (with some sarcasm) how…

Yes, exactly. I really thought the author was trying to argue that no one writes in assembly. But then when I reached the butterfly line, I realized it was just sloppy writing missing commas.

Re: Come Break My Compiler

#25

Post by remon »

avgcorrection wrote: post #3

Useless title for HN.[1] A compiler tells me that it’s some language that can be compiled. “Break” tells me that either the compiler is mature and the author is daring someone to fuzz it, or that the compiler is not mature and hence it’s easy to find something that “breaks” while using it (it’s the latter). Would I break someone’s program? I have no reason to care about their program based on this title. [1] Of cours…

A particularly low value contribution. The title is a copy of the article's title and pretty accurately captures its content. This is being difficult for the sake of being difficult.

Re: Come Break My Compiler

#26

Post by remon »

I quite like this approach to system spec languages. It feels a bit more modern than the rather unwieldy TLA+. Can someone explain how a spec language can exist without sets as a first class datatype though? (admittedly I only had time for a cursory glance at Fault).

Also had a quick look at the codebase and was positively surpised by it being Golang. Oh and just in case the author has a peek at this thread; the only source file I opened had this interesting typo :D "NewProcesser() *Processor"

Re: Come Break My Compiler

#27

Post by avgcorrection »

aprilnya wrote: post #18
avgcorrection wrote: post #3

Useless title for HN.[1] A compiler tells me that it’s some language that can be compiled. “Break” tells me that either the compiler is mature and the author is daring someone to fuzz it, or that the compiler is not mature and hence it’s easy to find something that “breaks” while using it (it’s the latter). Would I break someone’s program? I have no reason to care about their program based on this title. [1] Of cours…

The title isn’t editorialized. The title on HN is exactly the same as the original blog post

Of course it isn’t. That’s what I wrote. “Of course there’s the “no ediotoralizing” rule” to acknowledge and preempt the “no editorializing” responses. But (as I wrote) the submitter and the author are the same person.

Re: Come Break My Compiler

#28

Post by avgcorrection »

cinntaile wrote: post #7
avgcorrection wrote: post #3

Useless title for HN.[1] A compiler tells me that it’s some language that can be compiled. “Break” tells me that either the compiler is mature and the author is daring someone to fuzz it, or that the compiler is not mature and hence it’s easy to find something that “breaks” while using it (it’s the latter). Would I break someone’s program? I have no reason to care about their program based on this title. [1] Of cours…

The article perfectly explains why the author wants you to break the compiler. It's so it can be improved and to do that user feedback (by breaking the compiler) is needed.

“Test my software”

I’ll get right on that.

Re: Come Break My Compiler

#29

Post by aprilnya »

avgcorrection wrote: post #27
aprilnya wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The title isn’t editorialized. The title on HN is exactly the same as the original blog post

Of course it isn’t. That’s what I wrote. “Of course there’s the “no ediotoralizing” rule” to acknowledge and preempt the “no editorializing” responses. But (as I wrote) the submitter and the author are the same person.

Oops, misunderstood

Re: Come Break My Compiler

#30

Post by avgcorrection »

remon wrote: post #25
avgcorrection wrote: post #3

Useless title for HN.[1] A compiler tells me that it’s some language that can be compiled. “Break” tells me that either the compiler is mature and the author is daring someone to fuzz it, or that the compiler is not mature and hence it’s easy to find something that “breaks” while using it (it’s the latter). Would I break someone’s program? I have no reason to care about their program based on this title. [1] Of cours…

A particularly low value contribution. The title is a copy of the article's title and pretty accurately captures its content. This is being difficult for the sake of being difficult.

A meta-complaint about a meta-complaint. Wonderfully on-topic in the HN posting spirit. :)
Post reply on HN