Programmer Humor

33564 readers

1123 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

Keep content in english
No advertisements
Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics
- If the mod doesn't find it funny, you're banned. Ha-ha!... For real: do not use the community for "statements". There are other places for such content. Keep it chill and funny.

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

Feyter@programming.dev

anzo@programming.dev

BurningTurtle@programming.dev

pylapp@programming.dev

552

Pointers explained: (lemmy.world)

submitted 4 months ago by ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev

77 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

So, googling it, the general premise is you should use smart pointers instead to avoid crashes. Got it.

[–] DahGangalang@infosec.pub 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Smart pointers implies C++, which is not the right answer.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Unlike many other programming languages, which are often picked up on the go from tutorials found on the Internet, few are able to quickly pick up C++ without studying a well-written C++ book. It is way too big and complex for doing this. In fact, it is so big and complex, that there are very many very bad C++ books out there. And we are not talking about bad style, but things like sporting glaringly obvious factual errors and promoting abysmally bad programming styles.

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/388242/the-definitive-c-book-guide-and-list

[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Considering that most of the "answers" I've found on StackOverflow were complete dogshit, I'm wary of this reading list

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

Uh

I think I'll just let the cat drive instead

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

They all have footguns that cause different crashes.

If you want to do explicit memory access without inevitable safety problems, you need Rust. That's the whole hype with Rust.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

But... per-process-isolation is a hardware feature, no?

[–] psud@aussie.zone 2 points 3 months ago

So you really should implement it in your compiler so you don't contravene it

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Sure, that may be (it's definitely not in userspace). But don't forget it works by crashing your program.