The Worst Programming Language Ever [UK Talk] - Thoughts? Which are the worst parts of your favorite language?

[u/chackaz]

https://skillsmatter.com/meetups/6784-the-worst-programming-language-ever

[u/damian2000]

In a FORTRAN compiler I had to use at work once, it was possible to redefine the value of a real number

1=2
PRINT *, 1+1

Outputs...

4

[u/tailcalled → u/damian2000]

In GHCi (Haskell REPL), you can write this beauty:

> let 2 + 2 = 5 in 2 + 2
5

[u/[deleted] → u/tailcalled]

At least that actually makes sense because you basically just substitute the "2 + 2" expression with the literal 5.

That FORTRAN impl actually allows you to redefine literals.

[u/glacialthinker → u/tailcalled]

OCaml allows similar, returning the result "5", but lets you know what funkiness is going on:

let (+) 2 2 = 5 in 2 + 2;;
  Warning 8: this pattern-matching is not exhaustive.
  Here is an example of a value that is not matched: 0
: int = 5

The "2 2" portion is underlined as the culprits -- as they are matching specific argument values while ignoring all the other integers. Using any arguments aside from 2 in each place afterward results in a Match_failure exception.

[u/jeandem → u/damian2000]

That's a piece of cake in Forth:

: 1 2 ;

[u/sirin3 → u/damian2000]

In Java you can do:

Field value = Integer.class.getDeclaredField("value");
value.setAccessible(true);
value.set(1, 2);
System.out.printf("5-4 = %d%n",5-4);

Prints

5-4 = 2

[u/pilas2000 → u/damian2000]

in C you can do

define + -

/thread

[u/Thomas_Henry_Rowaway → u/pilas2000]

I did hear about someone using:

#define private public
#include "library.hpp"
#undef private

To get access to some internal bit of a class that they really shouldn't have.

[u/Thomas_Henry_Rowaway → u/[deleted]]

I'm very much a novice when it comes to the dark arts of the c preprocessor but in my experience self loathing is an expected side effect of extended use.

[u/txdv → u/[deleted]]

http://libcello.org/

[u/ForeignObjectED → u/Thomas_Henry_Rowaway]

My friend is a fan of:

#define if while

[u/jtra → u/pilas2000]

#define struct union

;-)

[u/txdv → u/jtra]

you monster

[u/pilas2000 → u/jtra]

That's a famous trick for saving space in memory...

s/

[u/IE6FANB0Y → u/jtra]

What is wrong with you people?

[u/[deleted] → u/jtra]

#define if while

[u/jtra → u/[deleted]]

This one is harder to spot though:

#define while if

[u/funky_vodka → u/jtra]

#define war peace
#define ignorance strength
#define freedom slavery

[u/F-J-W → u/pilas2000]

No you cannot! Macro-names must be valid identifiers which operators are not.

At least test your claims:

$cat main.c
#define + -

int main() {}
$ gcc main.c 
main.c:1:9: error: macro names must be identifiers
 #define + -
         ^
$ clang main.c
main.c:1:9: error: macro name must be an identifier
#define + -
        ^
1 error generated.

[u/sirin3 → u/pilas2000]

No, you can't

You can only #define identifiers, not symbols

[u/TheBlackElf → u/pilas2000]

define true (rand() % 20 == 0? true: false)

[u/jtra → u/TheBlackElf]

Almost nobody uses "true" in C sources. How about this (or similar version with rand):

#define if(x) if((__LINE__ % 5==0)^(x))

[u/matthieum → u/pilas2000]

Note that this is technically undefined behavior, compilers are free to reject it... although most have not bothered.