In the language Gulf of Mexico,
you can use any letters from the word “function” (as long as they’re in order)
union foo () => ()Naming
Both variables and constants can be named with any Unicode character or string.
const const letter = 'A'! var const 👍 = True! var var 1️⃣ = 1!This includes numbers, and other language constructs.
const const 5 = 4! print(2 + 2 === 5)! //trueThis is a recipe for disaster I kinda wanna try
If you’re unsure, that’s ok. You can put a question mark at the end of a line instead. It prints debug info about that line to the console for you.
print("Hello world")?Fucking sold, I was gonna learn rust but you’ve changed my mind
In the language Gulf of Mexico
HUH?
Some languages start arrays at 0, which can be unintuitive for beginners. Some languages start arrays at 1, which isn’t representative of how the code actually works. Gulf of Mexico does the best of both worlds: Arrays start at -1.
Oh, I see they’re serious! Time to ditch JavaScript.
Bash was derived by a team of criminally insane programmers in the bowels of a South American asylum so deep in the jungle no country can rightfully claim it as its own. It is the product of the demented keystrokes of the damned, possessing a singular logic so alien that its developers can hardly be said to be human at all.
And I wouldn’t have it any other way.
Not exactly aimed at language keywords (although it is aimed at the language designers who decided abbreviations in keywords are acceptable):
I hate abbreviations in source code so fucking much. Reading is more of software engineering than writing. If you cannot be bothered to type a whole word because typing is hard for you, find a different job. Do not force others to engage in mental gymnastics to understand what the fuck a variable or function is supposed to mean.
There was a rather famous piece of software at my last job. Guy writing it wanted job security. A lot of the core variables of the application were named based on the sounds a helicopter made. God damn onomatopoeia variables. Pretty sure that shit is still in use somewhere.
While
Cfeels fine without having a keyword for function, I feel likebashwould have benefitted from it.Bash (specifically Bash, not POSIX sh) does have a keyword for functions (
function), but it’s optional.Ooh nice.
The optional bit messed it up, because even though I can make my scripts easier for me, other’s scripts won’t be.
But thenbashhad to be usable withshscripts, so I get it.Right. It’s optional so that Bash remains backwards compatible as a superset of POSIX sh. If you’re working with exclusively Bash, though, it’s nice to use as syntactic sugar if nothing else.
funcitonIdk why but that’s how I type it half the time.
And you can continue typing it that way for as long as you want if you set up autohotkey to automatically fix your typos.
Autohotkey? Naw, you wanna setup a daily cron job to read and replace every one of your common typos with the correct spelling. That’s the way, trust me.
Edit: Daily cron job typo correction.
Kotlin seams fun
It is. Also *seems
No, no, they’re saying Kotlin seams together the fun.
Nix:
:( although Nix doesn’t allow empty bodies so it won’t build )
Related: Every
Fnkey on a keyboard is a missed opportunity! That’s not fun at all!
Begs the question, what’s the other shift key labeled!
Doesn’t matter: Nobody uses right shift for anything but pinball games!
okay, now i gotta figure out how to start a keyboard rave when i press fn
That’s a cool looking keyboard!
Meanwhile Haskell:
=
Not sure I’d call what bash has functions. They’re closer to subroutines in Basic than functions in other languages, as in you can’t return a value from them (they can only return their exit code, and you can capture their stdout and stderr). But even then, they are full subshells. It’s one of the reasons I don’t really like Bash, you’re forced into globally or at least broadly-scoped variables. Oh, and I have no clue right now how to find where in your pipe you got a non-null exit code.
It’s not a big problem for simple scripting, but it makes things cumbersome once you try to do more.
You’re not forced into global forced variables, but they’re the default. Use the
localkeyword in front of the variable declaration for nicely scoped variable.It’s not that cumbersome to do things like
local date=`date` echo "$date"but in all honesty the syntax sucks ass because it’s not intuitive. If statements suck ass, passing variables has to be done via command line arguments sucks ass, switch statements suck ass, making structured data sucks ass (
jqis nice though).I agree with you that bash really sucks when you get to anything more than 10 lines and at that point I’d take literally prefer Dreamberd.
global variables
vomits
I didn’t mean that bash has no local variables, but rather that if you want to use a function as such without capturing stdout, you need variables that are scoped across your functions, which is usually global or at least effectively global.
Turns out you can, by using () instead of {} in the function declaration you can run the function in a subshell where changes to variables are scoped to the subshell and functions are local.
That doesn’t help you if you want to get the result of something that happened in the function without capturing stdout, does it?
where in your pipe you got a non-null exit code
First thing you want is
set -eandset -o pipefail. That should report the errors in human-parseable form.Second, to capture exit codes from each command/program, you have to run each of them in sequence yourself, connected by pipes that you create via
mkfifo— the same way as you would do it in any other programming environment. Bash’s|pipes are just a convenient shorthand for this, so if you want full control, you have to ditch the convenience.Functions are definitely not subshells in Bash, seeing as anything modifying the environment, like
pyenvand such, is implemented as functions instead of scripts — specifically because functions are run in the same shell instance.Unless ‘subshell’ means something in the vein of ‘like a new shell, but not really’.
Functions are definitely not subshells in Bash
You’re right, my bad, I got this mixed up with something else.
R:
\()new fangled…
C++ has
[]{}.(You can also add more brackets if you wish to do nothing longer:
[]<>[[]]()[[]]{}())Then rust has
||{}Sadly we can’t add more complexity without adding an argument:
|_:&'_[()]|{}
() => {}
()=>{}Javascript straddling the middle as usual.
The equivalent in JavaScript / TypeScript would actually be
function () {}, this is the syntax for named functions.C# is the same as bash though.
It’s object-oriented; you can assign this to a named variable.
In that case the full thing would be
const fun = () => {}Yeah for whatever reason, FE devs want to make everything a const. It’s like a religious belief or something, it’s really kinda weird.
const fun = () => { const something = “whatever” const array = []; array.push(someting)
for (const thing of array) { if (thing === ‘whatever’) blah(thing) } }
Semicolons? Optional. Which quotes you should use? Whatever you feel like! But you must declare things as a const wherever possible! Even if it’s an array that you’re going to be changing, declare it as a const because you should know that you can push things into a const array, and since it’s possible to declare it as a const, you must declare it as a const.
Why is this? Nobody knows, but it’s important to FE devs that you use const.
semicolons? quotes? use a formatter and don’t think about it. I think js world has basically done this already.
const is simpler. why would I declare an array as
letif I’m not reassigning? someone can look at it and know they don’t have to think about reassignment of the reference, just normal mutation. ts has the furtherreadonlyto describe the other type of mutation, don’t abuseletto mean that.const arrow over named function? gets rid of all the legacy behaviors and apis. no
arguments, consistentthis, and no hoisting or accidental reassignment. the 2 places you should ever use named fn are generator or if you actually needthisStylistically, you’re changing the array when you add something to it. Javascript is a janky language in the best of times, but FE devs like to artificially introduce additional unnecessary complexities on top of the jank.
const is simpler. why would I declare an array as let if I’m not reassigning?
Why would you declare a const that’s going to have different data every time to function is called?
Now I’m thinking it’s a form of gatekeeping. Just an excuse for FE devs to throw out terms like “immutable” to make it sound like they know what they’re taking about. Y’all need to constantly sound like you know what you’re talking about when dealing with users, pretending weird stylistic choices have real technical reasons for them. But the BE devs know what you’re saying is complete bullshit LOL.
knowing the programming language you’re working in at a basic level is gatekeeping I’m ok with
You are literally just describing the conceptual differences between functional programming and object oriented programming. It has nothing to do with front end vs backend, except for the fact that React has vastly popularized functional paradigms on the frontend.
If you come from a Java / Spring background, that will seem foreign, if you come from an express background it will feel natural.
Functional programming is extremely pleasant though. Its been described as what object oriented would look like if you actually followed all the SOLID principles. You should keep an open mind.
The reason is very simple, performance. If a value doesn’t need to be changed, don’t declare it as mutable. This isn’t just a front-end thing btw.
Pushing something onto an array isn’t changing the array? It’s not changing the reference to the array, but from a style standpoint it doesn’t make sense.
And if you’re declaring a const within the scope of a function, it’s still allocating memory when it enters the scope and disposing it when it leaves the scope, same as a variable. There’s no performance benefit to do this.
Something like const CONSTANT_VALUE = “This never changes” has a performance benefit and is actually how other languages use constants. The value will always be the same, the compiler understands this and can optimize accordingly. If you’re declaring an iterator or the result of calling a webservice to be const it’ll be a different value every time it runs that code, so it’s not something a compiler can optimize. In style terms, it’s a value that’s different every time you get to that line of code, so why would you want to call it constant?
You’re comment indicates the FE dev obsession with always using const stems from a misunderstanding of how computers work. But of course many religious beliefs originate from a misunderstanding of the world. Whatever man, I just make it a const to make the linter happy, because it’s dumb FE bullshit LOL.
Lol.
Pushing something onto an array isn’t changing the array? It’s not changing the reference to the array, but from a style standpoint it doesn’t make sense.
So you’re arguing for writing things as they seem, not the way that computers treat them?
You’re comment indicates the FE dev obsession with always using const stems from a misunderstanding of how computers work.
Maybe rethink this.
function: ... goto function;Or perhaps
call functionif you’ve got a call stack going.Nevermind that is C or something right? Otherwise it would be
jmp function?Yeah that’s C.
I added the
gototo put emphasis on the function being a label instead of a real function.I’ve done that in C before. I was just confused because the labels need to be in scope of a function as far as I am aware. In assembly you don’t really have that.
We’ll just put everything in
int main(). No worries
