I have 20 years programming experience writing HUGE Programs that you couldnt even comprehend. I wrote an ANSI C compiler when I was 12 years old.
You should just accept everything I say, I dont HAVE to give any reasons for my arguments because I am an EXPERT PROGRAMMER.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-28 8:32
`(OvO)'
O'RLY??
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-28 9:31
If I gave you some source code, could you write a program that would decide if it had an infinite loop definitively?
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-28 12:15
YES
the program would look like
PRINT "true";
or
PRINT "false";
depending on the source code you give me.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-28 12:58
I have 30 years programming experience writing HUGE Programs that you couldnt even comprehend. I wrote an x86 assembler in assembler when I was 12 years old.
You should just accept everything I say, I dont HAVE to give any reasons for my arguments because I am an EXPERT PROGRAMMER.
I have 300 years programming experience writing HUGE Programs that you couldnt even comprehend. I wrote an x86 assembler in assembler when I was 6 years old.
You should just accept everything I say, I dont HAVE to give any reasons for my arguments because I am an EXPERT PROGRAMMER.
I have over 9000 years programming experience writing HUGE Programs that you couldnt even comprehend. I wrote 90% of the software released since I was 2 years old.
You should just accept everything I say, I dont HAVE to give any reasons for my arguments because I am an EXPERT PROGRAMMER.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-28 16:49
I hacked for God when he made the Earth.
I know your every reaction and move.
Furries and scat lovers are my "Easter Eggs"
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-29 1:19
I have over 32,767 years programming experience writing HUGE Programs that you couldnt even comprehend. I wrote Windows Vista using nothing but vi, make, and gcc.
You should just accept everything I say, I dont HAVE to give any reasons for my arguments because I am an EXPERT PROGRAMMER.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-29 2:22
I have over 65,535 years programming experience writing XBOX-SIZED programs that you couldn't even begin to comprehend with 100% of your brains. I wrote the first ANSI C compiler when I was -12 years old, using ANSI C.
You should just accept everything I say, I don't HAVE to give any reasons for my arguments because I am an ALMIGHTY PROGRAMMER.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-29 2:37
LOL your methods have undefined behaviour you fail.
I am the bone of my editor.
ascii is my body, and binary is my blood.
I have created over a thousand shell scripts.
Unknown to sigkill.
Nor known to sigquit.
Have withstood pain to create many functions.
Yet, those hands will never hold anything.
So as I type, "Unlimited Hacker Works."
>>20
UTF-16 makes you weeaboo. Quit being a fucking weeaboo, shithead.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-29 14:43
Half of my functions are anonymous.
win
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-29 15:29
>>21
UTF-16 is the sane solution for string manipulation. Save for surrogates, which are seldom used and you can very well afford the effects if you want to use them, you have O(1) length (with a decent strings library) and O(1) indexing.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-29 15:47
I have over 9000 lifetimes of fapping experience writing HUGE Penis that you couldnt even comprehend. I wrote 90% of the penis released since I was 2 years old.
You should just accept everything I say, I dont HAVE to give any reasons for my arguments because I am an EXPERT FAPPER.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-29 15:54
I am an expert coprogrammer. You may have seen my work in public toilets the world over!
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-29 15:55
>>23
You're talking about UCS-2 there, dude. UTF-16 can still have extension words.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-29 17:05
FUCKING ENCODING FAGS GTFO IM AN EXPERT PROGRAMMER
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-29 20:13
>>26
No, he mentioned the 'extension words'; they're called surrogate pairs. Of course, you can't really have both surrogate support and O(1) indexing (unless you keep a pointer to every single character). You can optimize your implementation though. You could keep a flag that indicates whether the string doesn't have surrogate pairs (indexing is O(1)), has only surrogate pairs (also O(1)), or is mixed (indexing becomes more difficult). If you have long mixed strings and really need fast indexing for some reason, that's still fairly easy to optimize (eg. keep a table with pointers to every Nth char.. I suppose this would also be O(1)).
As for O(1) length, that's completely trivial, you just keep a separate byte count and char count in your string object.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-29 20:37
>>28
Ok, sure, that'll still be O(1), if orders of magnitude slower than a simple "lea eax,[ebx+ecx*1]" or some such. Then again, long as you're cache-bound I suppose it doesn't make a difference, and for processing text one character at a time there's not much competition.
I'd likely do it with UCS-4 though. It's only twice as hueg as UCS-2 and applications generally don't have enough strings for it to make much of a difference.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-30 3:35
BIG O NOTATION MEASURES ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE MORON
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-30 18:20
>>26
I already said that in >>23, so you failed at reading or knowledge of Unicode. >>23 Save for surrogates
Is anyone on this board NOT an expert programmer??
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-31 8:47
ALL THE LADIES LOVE ME, BECAUSE IM EDIBACA/
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-31 14:24
I have over 1 month programming experience, and I wrote Windows XP when I was 42.
You should just accept everything I say, I don't HAVE to give any reasons for my arguments because I am an ALMIGHTY PROGRAMMER, and 97% of the planet uses my OS.