A couple of years ago, my friend wanted to learn programming, so I was giving her a hand with resources and reviewing her code. She got to the part on adding code comments, and wrote the now-infamous line,

i = i + 1 #this increments i

We’ve all written superflouous comments, especially as beginners. And it’s not even really funny, but for whatever reason, somehow we both remember this specific line years later and laugh at it together.

Years later (this week), to poke fun, I started writing sillier and sillier ways to increment i:

Beginner level:

# this increments i:
x = i 
x = x + int(True)
i = x

Beginner++ level:

# this increments i:
def increment(val):
   for i in range(val+1):
      output = i + 1
   return output

Intermediate level:

# this increments i:
class NumIncrementor:
	def __init__(self, initial_num):
		self.internal_num = initial_num

	def increment_number(self):
		incremented_number = 0
		# we add 1 each iteration for indexing reasons
		for i in list(range(self.internal_num)) + [len(range(self.internal_num))]: 
			incremented_number = i + 1 # fix obo error by incrementing i. I won't use recursion, I won't use recursion, I won't use recursion

		self.internal_num = incremented_number

	def get_incremented_number(self):
		return self.internal_num

i = input("Enter a number:")

incrementor = NumIncrementor(i)
incrementor.increment_number()
i = incrementor.get_incremented_number()

print(i)

Since I’m obviously very bored, I thought I’d hear your take on the “best” way to increment an int in your language of choice - I don’t think my code is quite expert-level enough. Consider it a sort of advent of code challenge? Any code which does not contain the comment “this increments i:” will produce a compile error and fail to run.

No AI code pls. That’s no fun.

  • fool@programming.dev
    2·
    3 days ago

    First, imagine a number in JavaScript. (Bit of a nail biter here, huh?)

    let i = 5

    Then, we will construct an incrementor. This is really simple: here is the method.

    1. Make a bracket-string-centric version of eval().
    []["filter"]["constructor"]("return i+1")()
    1. Reconstruct stringy eval() by using +[] as 0, +!+[] as 1, and implicit conversions as ways to create strings. For example, ‘false’ is (![]+[]), so ‘f’ is (![]+[])[+[]].
    [][
  (![] + [])[+[]] + // f
  ([![]] + [][[]])[+!+[] + [+[]]] + // i
  (![] + [])[!+[] + !+[]] + // l
  (!![] + [])[+[]] + // t
  (!![] + [])[!+[] + !+[] + !+[]] + // e
  (!![] + [])[+!+[]] // r
][
  ([][(![]+[])[+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+ // c
  (!![]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+ // o
  ([][[]]+[])[+!+[]]+ // n
  (![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+ // s
  (!![]+[])[+[]]+ // t
  (!![]+[])[+!+[]]+ // r
  ([][[]]+[])[+[]]+ // u
  ([][(![]+[])[+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+ // c
  (!![]+[])[+[]]+ // t
  (!![]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+ // o
  (!![]+[])[+!+[]] // r
]("return i+1")()
    1. Draw the rest of the fucking owl. Final code:
    let i = 5; // haha yay

[][
  (![] + [])[+[]] + // f
  ([![]] + [][[]])[+!+[] + [+[]]] + // i
  (![] + [])[!+[] + !+[]] + // l
  (!![] + [])[+[]] + // t
  (!![] + [])[!+[] + !+[] + !+[]] + // e
  (!![] + [])[+!+[]] // r
][
  ([][(![]+[])[+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+ // c
  (!![]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+ // o
  ([][[]]+[])[+!+[]]+ // n
  (![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+ // s
  (!![]+[])[+[]]+ // t
  (!![]+[])[+!+[]]+ // r
  ([][[]]+[])[+[]]+ // u
  ([][(![]+[])[+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+ // c
  (!![]+[])[+[]]+ // t
  (!![]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+ // o
  (!![]+[])[+!+[]] // r
](
  (!![]+[])[+!+[]]+ // r
  (!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+ // e
  (!![]+[])[+[]]+ // t
  ([][[]]+[])[+[]]+ // u
  (!![]+[])[+!+[]]+ // r
  ([][[]]+[])[+!+[]]+ // n
  (+[![]]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]])[+!+[]+[+!+[]]]+ // ' '
  ([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+ // i
  (+(+!+[]+(!+[]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+[+!+[]]+[+[]]+[+[]])+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+ // +
  +!+[] // 1
)()
// no virus i swear. execute arbitrary code in your browser console.

    Anyway, that’s just everyday JS work. It’s like step 5 after resizing the button, but a bit before centering the div.

    based on this. some translation methods done differently.

    • driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br
      1·
      3 days ago

      Can’t increment negative numbers or zero smh.

      Fix:

      if x==0:
    return 1
else x==1:
    return 2
else if x==-1:
    return 0
else if x==2
    return 3
else if x==-2
    return -1
...
    • rhpp@programming.dev
      1·
      4 days ago

      Wait, why does it multiply by 4? (apparently addition takes precedence over bitwise operations)

    • palordrolap@fedia.io
      2·
      4 days ago

      This is actually the correct way to do it in JavaScript, especially if the right hand side is more than 1.

      If JavaScript thinks i contains a string, and let’s say its value is 27, i += 1 will result in i containing 271.

      Subtraction doesn’t have any weird string-versus-number semantics and neither does unary minus, so i -=- 1 guarantees 28 in this case.

      For the increment case, ++ works properly whether JavaScript thinks i is a string or not, but since the joke is to avoid it, here we are.

      • henfredemars@infosec.pubEnglish
        1·
        4 days ago

        The time it takes for the counter to increment due to cosmic rays or background radiation is approximately constant, therefore same order as adding one. Same time complexity.

        Constant time solution. Highly efficient.