>>8
s/sintax/syntax/and_kill_me(with_fire) #new in Perl 6
>>9
How's that cleeaner? If anything, it's less clean, because you don't see as clearly how a loop starts (the next line is indented at the same position as the while), and you're wasting one line per loop, minimizing the amount of code you can see without scrolling.
Also, you fail at spacing.
>>13
Lol
>>14
Unnecessary "clarifications", such as if (x == false) ... people who eliminate pre- or post-increments from code because they're "confusing"
Ah, web designers!
Hungarian notation
I forgot Hungarian notation! It's pretty fucking annoying.
Fortran, since I'm in science and have to use it for a lot of things
SCCCCIIIIIIEEEEEEEEENNNNNNNNNCNCCCCCCCCCCCE!!!!!!!!
variable names and function names in shitCase
whatsThis() ? Why that's a function.
whatsThis ? Why that's a variable.
That's because you are using a language that fails badly. Let me explain:
Why do you make a difference between variables, functions, classes and structs? All should be objects bound to variables. (Structs are normal objects or dictionaries, not much different from value 3 or value "hello".) Then you have certain variables bound to objects which happen to be applicable, such as functions and classes (classes return new objects when applied). Sometimes, you apply applicable objects, such as f(). Other times, you store them somewhere, pass them to somebody, etc., like g(f) (where g would be an applicable object which, at some point, applies an applicable object f). Since applicable objects are objects, but they have an important property for functional programming, I want to tell them apart from other objects, so I name applicable objects with CamelCase, and non-applicable objects with lower_case. If I used shitCase for applicable objects which I don't call "classes", I would have trouble telling whether lol is applicable or not. (Yes, I'm a Python fag, a Scheme wanker, and a dynamic language weenie.)