←back to thread

617 points EvgeniyZh | 6 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
stkai ◴[] No.43576376[source]
The source code is such a fun read (for the comments). I found some source code for GW-BASIC, and here are two of my favorites:

  ;WE COULD NOT FIT THE NUMBER INTO THE BUFFER DESPITE OUR VALIENT
  ;EFFORTS WE MUST POP ALL THE CHARACTERS BACK OFF THE STACK AND
  ;POP OFF THE BEGINNING BUFFER PRINT LOCATION AND INPUT A "%" SIGN THERE

  ;CONSTANTS FOR THE RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR FOLLOW
  ;DO NOT CHANGE THESE WITHOUT CONSULTING KNUTH VOL 2
  ;CHAPTER 3 FIRST
Edit: GW-BASIC, not QBASIC (https://github.com/microsoft/GW-BASIC)
replies(2): >>43576945 #>>43579555 #
deathtrader666 ◴[] No.43579555[source]
Shouldn't it be "valiant" ?
replies(2): >>43579805 #>>43584969 #
1. jimbob45 ◴[] No.43584969[source]
The best programmers I’ve known have all been deficient at spelling. I don’t know why it so uniformly appears among them.
replies(3): >>43587168 #>>43588020 #>>43593320 #
2. AdmiralAsshat ◴[] No.43587168[source]
A popular t-shirt illustrates this point:

https://www.teepublic.com/t-shirt/637761-i-write-code-progra...

3. themadturk ◴[] No.43588020[source]
Humans in general, even writers, are deficient at spelling. This is the reason we need spellcheckers.
replies(1): >>43590535 #
4. psychoslave ◴[] No.43590535[source]
I am far more confident at spelling any Esperanto word that I have never faced before than I am with many common word in French which is my native language.

We can do better than blaming people for falling in pitfalls of a system full of odd traps.

replies(1): >>43616358 #
5. ptspts ◴[] No.43593320[source]
Absolutely not true about the best programmers I know.
6. themadturk ◴[] No.43616358{3}[source]
Of course you are; Esperanto is a manufactured language designed to a certain standard; French, like our unfortunate English, is naturally evolved and has all the variants and inconsistencies that implies.