Icons that are based on English puns and wordplay are easily understood by speakers of other languages.

This reminded me of one of those Top Gear “drive across a foreign country in weird vehicles” specials where Jeremy Clarkson needed to borrow a cable to jump-start his car, and laboriously mimed out jumping for “jump”, and walking a dog for “lead”, to a perplexed local. Richard Hammond was cracking up but finally managed to point out what a fool Clarkson was being.

Geolocation is an accurate way to predict the user’s language.

And as an addendum to this, in 2025 nobody should be using Windows’ “Non-latin/-unicode character set” setting to guess the user’s preferred language. That’s a pre-WinXP kludge. I’m specifically looking at you, Intel integrated graphics software writers, but you have plenty of company, don’t worry.

Why be like that? Whether you think their position is silly or not, this person obviously gets called out on this a lot. And rather than pitch a fit over being needled about it for the umpteenth time, they responded with links that ought to satisfy any genuine curiosity. Considering the times I’ve seen an empty “Go educate yourself!” as a response from petulant children, I’d say buddy did us a solid. They don’t owe us a personalized response.

Sure, but as far as I’m aware, no other large group of LISP users exists. My contention isn’t that most AI researchers use LISP now, but that most LISP programmers are (were?) AI researchers.

I’ve been trying to learn about early AI work, and I’m finding that to get any practical details you’re almost guaranteed to have to wade through LISP code, although at least it’s usually pretty well commented.

LISP: You are an AI researcher and a nerd.

I use 10ten (previously Rikuchamp) for Japanese. I don’t think it does full translation, but it gives thorough dictionary lookups (from WWWJDIC) as mouseover tooltips. Very useful if you’re trying to learn the language, but maybe not so much if you just want to read stuff quickly. I think it’s now available for every major browser, but I mostly use it on FF.

A few years ago I had a software problem, and in the course of trying to solve it I found someone with almost the identical problem on SO, although no-one had posted a solution. Later on, I managed to piece some facts together and come up with a solution that worked for me. Trying to make life easier for others having the same problem, I posted my solution to that SO question, along with a brief explanation of what I thought the underlying problem was, and how my solution addressed it.

I got several upvotes, and one or two comments from people saying it worked for them too, which was nice. There was also a post from someone it didn’t work for, and they outlined why they thought that might be, which was constructive.

Unfortunately there was also some salty grump who weighed in just to tell me that my solution wasn’t “correct”. Not that it didn’t work mind you, just that it wasn’t good enough for them. As far as I bothered to look into their vague comments, my solution may have fixed the issue more as a side-effect than directly, but it did fix the issue. Meanwhile this person offered no alternative instructions of their own.

As time goes on, I seem to run across this sort of – not just unhelpful but “anti-helpful” – attitude more and more often on SO.

That’s kind of the bare bones of how it works, underneath all the abstraction layers and pretty GUIs.

Then it evolves.

First, you start splitting your code into multiple source files, either because your programs get too big to keep scrolling up and down one huge file to cross-check things, or because you want to incorporate someone else’s code into your program, and it’s more than just one or two functions you can easily copy and paste. You can still keep compiling and linking all of this in one step, but the command gets so long that you make a shell script/batch file as a shortcut.

After that, you might want to mix-and-match various source files to target different platforms, or to make other bulk changes, and you start going down the rabbit hole of having your shell script take arguments, rather than having a dozen different scripts. And then one day you take another look at “make” and realize that whereas before it seemed like impenetrable overengineering, it now makes complete and obvious sense to you.

Then you discover using “make” (or a similar utility) to split compilation and linking into separate steps, which used to seem nonsensical, but now you’re dealing with codebases that take more than a couple of seconds to compile, or precompiled libraries or DLLs, and you get comfortable with the idea of just hanging on to compiled object files and (re)using them when the source for that part of the program hasn’t changed.

And finally (maybe) you look at some of the crazy stuff in fancy IDEs and understand why it’s there; that it’s just representations of all this other stuff that you now know about and feel competent with. I say “maybe” because I’ve been programming for over 35 years, occasionally professionally but mostly as a hobbyist, and there are still things in IDEs that I either don’t understand, or don’t see the point of having them. But knowing the underlying principles makes me feel comfortable enough to ignore them.

I hadn’t heard of Kate before, so I can’t offer much hands-on advice. I dug around and found a “handbook” here: https://docs.kde.org/stable5/en/kate/kate/index.html

Unfortunately it does look like you need to define a project to compile/run anything, which appears to require manually creating a .kateproject file in the directory as outlined here: https://docs.kde.org/stable5/en/kate/kate/kate-application-plugin-projects.html#project-create

I had exactly the same problem when I moved from languages that were interpreted or combined the IDE and runtime environment into one, and starting to use languages which had their own external compiler. Unfortunately, open source project user documentation is often terrible for beginners (what I found above for Kate seems to be no exception), and IDEs often seem to be written by people who don’t really expect anyone to actually use the included build options (to be fair, most folks seem to like using their own separate build utilities, so probably this is often the case)

If you can tell us which compiler or interpreter you’re using (e.g. gcc, clang, Python), someone can probably tell you how to compile and/or run a single-file program from the terminal with a fairly simple command.

Maybe, but it’s gonna be more like SkyNet with electrolytes; it’s what terminators crave.

I think I can appreciate where you’re coming from, but in the context of the article it was legitimately necessary to address the topic somehow; it’s not like it was written apropos of nothing as a commentary on transsexuality. As a CIS person, I also have a “percieved gender” with which I identify.

Would “post-transition gender” be a more sensitive term, or less?

Let me know if you find one that uses AI to find groupings of my search terms in its catalogues instead of using AI to reduce my search to the nearest common searches made by others, over some arbitrary popularity threshold.

Theoretical search: “slip banana peel 1980s comedy movie”
Expected results in 2010: Pages about people slipping on banana peels, mostly in comedy movies, mostly from the 80s.
Expected results in 2024: More than I ever wanted to know about buying bananas online, the health impacts of eating too many or not enough bananas, and whatever “celebrities” have recently said something about them. Nothing about movies from the 80s.

It’s definitely bad design, but in a pinch it is readable in landscape mode for me. Alternatively, if your browser has a “force desktop mode” option, that often makes badly-written websites useable, if annoying.

That XKCD reminds me of the case a year or three ago where some solo dev that no-one had ever heard of was maintaining a library that a couple of other very popular and major libraries depended on. Something somewhere broke for some reason, and normally this guy would’ve been all over it before most people even realized there had been a problem, but he was in hospital or jail or something, so dozens of huge projects that indirectly relied on his library came crashing down.

What upset me most was reading the community discussion. I didn’t see a single person saying, “How can we make sure that some money gets to this guy and not just the more visible libraries that rely so heavily on his work?”, even though the issue was obliquely raised in several places, but I did see quite a few saying, “How can we wrest this code out of this guy’s hands against his will and make multiple other people maintain it (but not me, I’m too busy) so we don’t have a single point of failure?”

I’d argue that you do need to be good at math to be an effective programmer, it’s just that that doesn’t mean what a lot of people think it means. You don’t need to know all the ins and outs of quadratics, integrals, and advanced trigonometry, but I think you do need to have a really solid, gut-level understanding of basic algebra and a bit of set theory. If you’re the sort of person whose head starts to swim when you see “y=3x+2”, you’re going to find programming difficult at best.

Whatever it may have become in later years, Alan Kay, who is often called “The Father of Object-oriented Programming”, outlined the message-passing idea as the main concept he was driving at, originally.

He also says that he probably misnamed it.

Here’s a discussion in which the man himself makes a (small) appearance: https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/46592/so-what-did-alan-kay-really-mean-by-the-term-object-oriented

I am currently working on a game for the Atari 2600, and you just gave a good outline of my code. And I love it.

I tend to agree. I think this attitude is something of a holdover from the early days of computer science, when of academics from all the other, existing fields, mathematicians were usually the best fit. Now that we have formal computer scientists, computer engineers, and software engineers, this is no longer the case.

In my experience, when someone from a purely mathematical background tries to program or explain something for programmers, they often (but not always, to be fair) insist vehemently on sticking to methods and algorithms that at best confuse the issue in a programming setting, and sometimes even run counter to how the computing hardware works, reducing performance. In these situations the rationale given is usually something along the lines of, “Listen, we mathematicians have been doing it this way for X hundred years, so that’s the way it should be done!”

I love low-level stuff and this still took me a little while to break down, so I’d like to share some notes on the author’s code snippet that might help someone else.

The function morse_decode is meant to be called iteratively by another routine, once per morse “character” c (dot, dash, or null) in a stream, while feeding its own output back into it as state. As long as the function returns a negative value, that value represents the next state of the machine, and the morse stream hasn’t yet been resolved into an output symbol. When the return value is positive, that represents the decoded letter, and the next call to morse_decode should use a state of 0. If the return value is 0, something has gone wrong with the decoding.

state is just a negated index into the array t, which is actually two arrays squeezed into one. The first 64 bytes are a binary heap of bytes in the format nnnnnnlr, each corresponding to one node in the morse code trie. l and r are single bits that represent the existence of a left or right child of the current node (i.e. reading a dot or dash in the current state leading to another valid state). nnnnnn is a 6-bit value that, when shifted appropriately and added to 63, becomes an index into the second part of the array, which is a list of UTF-8/ASCII codes for letters and numbers for the final output.

I thought that this was going to be a play on the phrase, “Don’t trust anyone over 30,” but it’s just a very short piece about Dunning-Kruger aimed specifically at some C++ concepts.

Assuming C/C++, dare we even ask what this teacher uses instead of switch statements? Or are her switch statements unreadable rat’s nests of extra conditions?

This is a good life lesson. We’re all idiots about certain things. Your teacher, me, and even you. It’s even possible to be a recognized expert in a field yet still be an idiot about some particular thing in that field.

Just because some people use a screwdriver as a hammer and risk injuring themselves and damaging their work, that’s not a good reason to insist that no-one should ever use a screwdriver under any circumstances, is it?

Use break statements when they’re appropriate. Don’t use them when they’re not. Learn the difference from code that many other people recommend, like popular open-source libraries and tutorials. If there’s a preponderance of break statements in your code, you may be using a suboptimal approach.

But unfortunately, for this course, your best bet is to nod, smile, and not use any break statements. Look at it as a personal learning experience; by forcing yourself sit down and reason out how you can do something without using break statements, you might find some situations where they weren’t actually the best solution. And when you can honestly look back and say that the solution with break statements is objectively better, you’ll be able to use that approach with greater confidence in the future.