The Nineteenth Byte

7:01 PM

And all I was trying to show is how you can use getters to make x == 1 && x == 2, so whether I used window or global or globalThis or with is totally irrelevant and this just comes off as y'all trying to act smarter than everyone else

emanresu A

JS is kinda cursed in that way, yeah

pxeger

Adám

Just under 20 thousand years. Peanuts.

You've got to admire the precision of that estimate, though.

I mean, just (unpredictable) leap seconds will throw that way off.

emanresu A

15 hours ago, by emanresu A

> delete your computer because it uses macOS and macOS is bad

pxeger

it's just 37 minutes now, but don't you think Apple should detect when it's about to show an unreasonable estimate and replace it with whatever the previous estimate was?

emanresu A

7:11 PM

15 hours ago, by emanresu A

Source

pxeger

@emanresuA lemme just expand this screenshot slightly for you, one sec

emanresu A

Why would you run a macos emulator if you don't like macos?

Also, how much disk space does that thing take up?

pxeger

So I can decide exactly how much I don't like it, of course!

Adám

Isn't that illegal?

pxeger

@emanresuA 6.8GiB so far

@Adám I am secretly the Queen of England; neither criminal nor contract law applies to me

Adám

7:14 PM

Oh, OK.

caird coinheringaahing

Can confirm, pxeger knighted me when we met :P

pxeger

I think it's only a breach of Apple's EULA, not the actual law

If Apple decided to sue me, they would create a PR shitstorm for no gain

I have no intention of ever buying a mac, so they're not losing any money

user

@UnrelatedString It lets you pretend objects have fields when they're really nullary methods

pxeger

user

@user For example, you could do class Foo { private var actualField = 3; def field = actualField }

pxeger

7:17 PM

doesn't quite work

caird coinheringaahing

@pxeger Unfortunately, too many companies report "losses" as this

user

No way the IRS (or whatever thing their country has) is going to let that go though

Adám

@pxeger "I had no intention of ever buying that movie, so MPA has no claim against my torrent download!" Yeah, let's see how that holds up…

pxeger

I don't give a fuck about the law, I'm talking morally

Adám

@hyper-neutrino Thank you for being my trusty SCAPDFATIAT.

emanresu A

7:20 PM

what

pxeger

Someone Copies And Pastes Data From A Thing Into Another Thing

SCAPDFATIAT

emanresu A

I hadn't seen that xkcd :P

Redwolf Programs

It's today's I guess

pxeger

that's understandable, since it's only yesterday's

Unrelated String

@user ah, and there's a distinction between functions taking no parameters and functions taking an empty parameter list (though i do find it funny that there's a further distinction between functions taking an empty parameter list and functions taking a single parameter of unit type)

that's pretty nice actually

pxeger

7:30 PM

@UnrelatedString that means f vs f() vs f (), right?

Wheat Wizard

@pxeger 1. Pirate a game 100,000 times. The video game company instantly looses 6 million dollars. 2. Offer to buy the company and take on their debt for free. 3. Delete all the copies of the game from your harddrive. You are now a millionaire.

pxeger

lol I've seen that one too

Unrelated String

@pxeger f vs f() vs f(())

pxeger

oh, ruby would let you do f () for the last one

(() == nil)

Wheat Wizard

In haskell 2 and 3 are the same but 1 is different.

I wonder how many different ways languages make distinctions.

pxeger

7:32 PM

I don't think there'll be that many that distinguish 2 and 3

Whitespace-sensitive function calls are not that common

emanresu A

3 is a syntax error in JS

Unrelated String

amazing

pxeger

really? I thought JS was supposed to be whitespace-insensitive

Wheat Wizard

I think 3 here is f(()).

wizzwizz4

@pxeger Iirc, you can use new lines instead of semicolons in JS.

pxeger

7:33 PM

@wizzwizz4 well, yeah, with that one exception

Wheat Wizard

At least I was considering the 3 options to be 1 f, 2 f(), 3 f(()).

pxeger

@emanresuA no it isn't?

> f = () => 0
[Function: f]
> f ()
0

Redwolf Programs

f(()) was 3, right?

Unrelated String

let's say it's 1 2 3 4 f f() f () f(()), ordered so as to not suggest that 4 would be f((())) which i really hope isn't distinct in existing languages

pxeger

@UnrelatedString in non-C-family languages where ( isn't for grouping, the last might be different

Unrelated String

7:37 PM

it would definitely be distinct in a lisp but the function call syntax is different there anyhow

emanresu A

5 mins ago, by Unrelated String

@pxeger f vs f() vs f(())

Oops

pxeger

oh

just a miscommunication of numbering

Wheat Wizard

Wait so lisp distinguishes all 4?

wizzwizz4

Only because it has a different syntax.

user

@UnrelatedString Yeah a big part of that is so you can differentiate between nullary methods that are pure, like fields (stack.peek) and nilary methods that do an action (stack.pop())

pxeger

7:38 PM

So is f() treated as just one symbol?

Wheat Wizard

Well yeah all languages have different syntax.

4

wizzwizz4

I think it depends.

Unrelated String

no i meant the f((()))

user

@pxeger You'd need parentheses around it

pxeger

@user are they really called "nullary" and "nilary", or did you actually mean to write the same thing?

user

7:39 PM

They are lol

Or maybe it's the other way around, I can never remember

Wait yeah it is the other way around

pxeger

that's stupid

Unrelated String

i was about to say you probably got it right because nilary could be read to suggest taking an argument of nil

wizzwizz4

@pxeger I checked, and apparently it's two.

Unrelated String

@WheatWizard i think all of the lisps i'm familiar with tokenize such that f() and f () are the same

pxeger

@UnrelatedString yeah that's what I expected

user

7:42 PM

@UnrelatedString Yeah the I always remember it is that if you asked for the argument list to foo.bar, it would be null -> nullary, but you have to account for Odersky occasionally doing stupid things, making it nilary and the other one f() nullary

wizzwizz4

f() is f (), and f(()) isn't permitted because you can't call ().

user

f '() would probably work though

Unrelated String

or at least in a context where it tries to eval (())

pxeger

@wizzwizz4 well that's still a different behaviour...

Unrelated String

yeah

pxeger

7:43 PM