Innovation in Q&A
-
I've seen a lot of this modifier in my time. Heck, I've been known to write a lot of code using absurd. BTW - it's a compiler switch which is probably why you've never seen it. It defaults to true.
This space for rent
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
It defaults to true.
Only in VS 2008 and below: in the later versions it has an "Absurdity Level" which runs from 0 to 10. The default is 10 for new QA projects.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
-
I just found this in a comment to a question:
Quote:
...because the code you show is absurd.
I know abstract classes, but have not yet heard officially of absurd classes, but I have seen many of them. Will we now need a new class modifier?
// absurd class
public absurd class Foo
{
// absurd method
public absurd void DoSomethingAbsurd();
}What will be the impact in terms of inheritance? Must absurd methods be overridden? Or may they not be overriden at all? Edit: Will there be such a thing as purely absurd classes, where every method and property is declared as absurd? Will the absurdity level someone mentioned below be the inheritance depth of absurd base classes?
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats. His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
Good idea to add this keyword to C++ and mark the Boost Library classes with it.
-
I just found this in a comment to a question:
Quote:
...because the code you show is absurd.
I know abstract classes, but have not yet heard officially of absurd classes, but I have seen many of them. Will we now need a new class modifier?
// absurd class
public absurd class Foo
{
// absurd method
public absurd void DoSomethingAbsurd();
}What will be the impact in terms of inheritance? Must absurd methods be overridden? Or may they not be overriden at all? Edit: Will there be such a thing as purely absurd classes, where every method and property is declared as absurd? Will the absurdity level someone mentioned below be the inheritance depth of absurd base classes?
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats. His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
I believe it's an attribute
[Absurd]
public class Foo
{
} -
I just found this in a comment to a question:
Quote:
...because the code you show is absurd.
I know abstract classes, but have not yet heard officially of absurd classes, but I have seen many of them. Will we now need a new class modifier?
// absurd class
public absurd class Foo
{
// absurd method
public absurd void DoSomethingAbsurd();
}What will be the impact in terms of inheritance? Must absurd methods be overridden? Or may they not be overriden at all? Edit: Will there be such a thing as purely absurd classes, where every method and property is declared as absurd? Will the absurdity level someone mentioned below be the inheritance depth of absurd base classes?
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats. His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
-
I believe it's an attribute
[Absurd]
public class Foo
{
}In C++, I suggest that we expand this as follows: [[Absurd]] [[Ludicrous]] [[Plaid]] Furthermore, in , we should add: make_normal::type make_absurd::type make_ludicrous::type make_plaid::type is_normal::value is_absurd::value is_ludicrous::value is_plaid::value (Similar to make_signed::type and is_signed::value) Is anyone volunteering to put it in proper proposal format? :)
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
-
I just found this in a comment to a question:
Quote:
...because the code you show is absurd.
I know abstract classes, but have not yet heard officially of absurd classes, but I have seen many of them. Will we now need a new class modifier?
// absurd class
public absurd class Foo
{
// absurd method
public absurd void DoSomethingAbsurd();
}What will be the impact in terms of inheritance? Must absurd methods be overridden? Or may they not be overriden at all? Edit: Will there be such a thing as purely absurd classes, where every method and property is declared as absurd? Will the absurdity level someone mentioned below be the inheritance depth of absurd base classes?
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats. His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
The problem is that when code with the absurd keyword is run, it throws an event that decrements my _faith_in_humanity counter.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli
-
The problem is that when code with the absurd keyword is run, it throws an event that decrements my _faith_in_humanity counter.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli
Simply have none and you will never be disappointed anymore. :-)
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats. His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
-
I just found this in a comment to a question:
Quote:
...because the code you show is absurd.
I know abstract classes, but have not yet heard officially of absurd classes, but I have seen many of them. Will we now need a new class modifier?
// absurd class
public absurd class Foo
{
// absurd method
public absurd void DoSomethingAbsurd();
}What will be the impact in terms of inheritance? Must absurd methods be overridden? Or may they not be overriden at all? Edit: Will there be such a thing as purely absurd classes, where every method and property is declared as absurd? Will the absurdity level someone mentioned below be the inheritance depth of absurd base classes?
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats. His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
Huh? I thought
allclasses in Java were absurd. :suss: [Execution in the Kingdom of Nouns](https://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/03/execution-in-kingdom-of-nouns.html)... such stuff as dreams are made on
-
Huh? I thought
allclasses in Java were absurd. :suss: [Execution in the Kingdom of Nouns](https://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/03/execution-in-kingdom-of-nouns.html)... such stuff as dreams are made on
megaadam wrote:
Execution in the Kingdom of Nouns
Some people really have worries. Instead of thinking about their tasks at hand, they obscess over how something is written. The worst is going out of your way to establish style rules. I have seen style rule documents which were honestly more complicated than our tax laws. One million rules, with at least another million exceptions to each. Code reviews were mustly about discussing new rules or exceptions than accomplishing anything productive. What a waste of time. Paradigms like object orientation or functional programming look at things from different angles. They all have different strengths and weaknesses. It is absolutely subjective which ones suit you best. For example, I hate functional languages. I understand the concept, but having to use them is no pleasure at all for me. On the other hand I can sit there and merrily write down machine code or assembly, full of pointers, memory management, jumps (= GOTOs) and a general lack of abstraction, which apparently very many have extreme problems with. So the level of absurdity in ane language or another is strictly in the eye of the beholder.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats. His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
-
megaadam wrote:
Execution in the Kingdom of Nouns
Some people really have worries. Instead of thinking about their tasks at hand, they obscess over how something is written. The worst is going out of your way to establish style rules. I have seen style rule documents which were honestly more complicated than our tax laws. One million rules, with at least another million exceptions to each. Code reviews were mustly about discussing new rules or exceptions than accomplishing anything productive. What a waste of time. Paradigms like object orientation or functional programming look at things from different angles. They all have different strengths and weaknesses. It is absolutely subjective which ones suit you best. For example, I hate functional languages. I understand the concept, but having to use them is no pleasure at all for me. On the other hand I can sit there and merrily write down machine code or assembly, full of pointers, memory management, jumps (= GOTOs) and a general lack of abstraction, which apparently very many have extreme problems with. So the level of absurdity in ane language or another is strictly in the eye of the beholder.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats. His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
-
I just found this in a comment to a question:
Quote:
...because the code you show is absurd.
I know abstract classes, but have not yet heard officially of absurd classes, but I have seen many of them. Will we now need a new class modifier?
// absurd class
public absurd class Foo
{
// absurd method
public absurd void DoSomethingAbsurd();
}What will be the impact in terms of inheritance? Must absurd methods be overridden? Or may they not be overriden at all? Edit: Will there be such a thing as purely absurd classes, where every method and property is declared as absurd? Will the absurdity level someone mentioned below be the inheritance depth of absurd base classes?
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats. His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
-
CodeWraith wrote:
I hate functional languages
So do I. But then I know people waaaay smarter than me who love them :sigh:
... such stuff as dreams are made on
It has nothing to do with being smart or not. Every problem may look like a nail to someone who only has a hammer. Owning a tool box does not mean that you are not allowed to have preferences. No matter what they say, no tool in the box is the perfect answer to every problem.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats. His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
-
Simply have none and you will never be disappointed anymore. :-)
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats. His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
You are speaking nonsense to power today with eloquence ! Me appreciate :)
«... thank the gods that they have made you superior to those events which they have not placed within your own control, rendered you accountable for that only which is within you own control For what, then, have they made you responsible? For that which is alone in your own power—a right use of things as they appear.» Discourses of Epictetus Book I:12
-
CodeWraith wrote:
I hate functional languages
So do I. But then I know people waaaay smarter than me who love them :sigh:
... such stuff as dreams are made on
None of the people smarter than I am love me the same way I love them.
«... thank the gods that they have made you superior to those events which they have not placed within your own control, rendered you accountable for that only which is within you own control For what, then, have they made you responsible? For that which is alone in your own power—a right use of things as they appear.» Discourses of Epictetus Book I:12
-
I just found this in a comment to a question:
Quote:
...because the code you show is absurd.
I know abstract classes, but have not yet heard officially of absurd classes, but I have seen many of them. Will we now need a new class modifier?
// absurd class
public absurd class Foo
{
// absurd method
public absurd void DoSomethingAbsurd();
}What will be the impact in terms of inheritance? Must absurd methods be overridden? Or may they not be overriden at all? Edit: Will there be such a thing as purely absurd classes, where every method and property is declared as absurd? Will the absurdity level someone mentioned below be the inheritance depth of absurd base classes?
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats. His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
You should not need to create a keyword for the most common state of play (e.g. many languages have
unsignedas a modifier but few havesignedas most numbers are signed). So, based on the programs that I have seen and virtually all of the ones that I have written, we need a modifier / attribute for the exceptional situations. I, therefore, suggest[NotAbsurd]or, in extreme cases,[Sensible]. This would save having to litter the source with redundant[Absurd]attributes / qualifiers -
You should not need to create a keyword for the most common state of play (e.g. many languages have
unsignedas a modifier but few havesignedas most numbers are signed). So, based on the programs that I have seen and virtually all of the ones that I have written, we need a modifier / attribute for the exceptional situations. I, therefore, suggest[NotAbsurd]or, in extreme cases,[Sensible]. This would save having to litter the source with redundant[Absurd]attributes / qualifiersThe explain
unsafe. :D -
I just found this in a comment to a question:
Quote:
...because the code you show is absurd.
I know abstract classes, but have not yet heard officially of absurd classes, but I have seen many of them. Will we now need a new class modifier?
// absurd class
public absurd class Foo
{
// absurd method
public absurd void DoSomethingAbsurd();
}What will be the impact in terms of inheritance? Must absurd methods be overridden? Or may they not be overriden at all? Edit: Will there be such a thing as purely absurd classes, where every method and property is declared as absurd? Will the absurdity level someone mentioned below be the inheritance depth of absurd base classes?
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats. His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
public enum LoggingLevel
{ Silent
, Quiet
, Normal
, Verbose
, Pedantic
, AdAbsurdum
}
