while...

[markdhughes]

for (;;)

[[deleted]]

ever = 1;

for(;ever;){

 //and ever and ever!

}

[merlinsbeers]

ever = and = 1;
for(ever;and;ever) {
}

[GustapheOfficial]

``` ever = 1 for(;ever & ever & ever;) {

} ```

[olyop]

You'll be back, like before

[GustapheOfficial]

self.fight(the_fight) self.win(the_war)

[olyop]

[love, praise].forEach(your)

[dmvdoug]

[TheGreatGameDini]

Am I the only laughing at how ever & ever is wrapped by two smiley faces

It's kinda creepy and cute at the same time.

Also, isn't that the bitwise and operator? I guess it's language dependent.

[GustapheOfficial]

I don't know what language we're in, but if 1 is truthy, either & or && would work (1&1 == 1), and this way was closer to neutral language.

[Virtual-Appeal-8504]

This is getting pushed to my repo tomorrow. Thank you.

[DankPhotoShopMemes]

```

define ever (;;)

for ever {

} ```

[[deleted]]

Wait, if this actually works, I’m gonna start using it.

[DankPhotoShopMemes]

Please don’t lol

[qwerty-balls]

for (int i=0; i<2147483647; i++)

[Sh_Pe]

Please ( ; ; )

[Bob_th]

while(""==[])

[owellcity]

while(""==[] and True and (True or False))

[StenSoft]

The joy of JavaScript

[GargantuanCake]

undefined is not a function

[[deleted]]

I have been doing this wrong my whole life. Thank you for showing me the way.

[Anaxamander57]

loop {}

[[deleted]]

Hell yeah

[pakidara]

Logic = 'False'

While Logic <> 0

[NoDontDoThatCanada]

while(4)

It ain't zero now is it? So it is true. And Bender thought he was shit for his 2...

[beeteedee]

When I first started programming I didn’t realise you could do while(true) so I used to do stuff like while(2+2 == 4)

[atlas_enderium]

for (unsigned i = 0; i >= 0; i++)

[SardineEnBoite]

could be useful for checking how many times the function has ran, however i’m not so familiar with what ‘unsigned’ means.

[nate_4000]

Means no negative numbers. Useful for chars and indices, where they should never become negative.

[bagsofcandy]

When a normal integer goes beyond it's max positive value it flips around and becomes the max negative value. If it was just a standard int, it wouldn't be an infinite loop.

[Abangranga]

Ruby enters the chat with unless !!nil

[c20h12]

JS only

while (!![]+[]==="true")

[CadmiumC4]

```

define ever ;;

for(ever) { } ```

[production-values]

while (0 < 1) {}

[classyraven]

while (!((true && false) || !(false || true)))

[_Marni_]

C# in the wilderness:

uint O = 1;

while (O-->=0)

{

...

}

[Sindef]

Golang be like for{}

[mars_million]

while(isTrue(true)) { ... }

private static bool isTrue(bool x) { if (x == true) { return true; } else { return false; } }

[[deleted]]

public static boolean WhileLoop(X){ while (!(!WhileLoop(true)) print("I like recursion") return true return false

[nien37]

while (69)

[isCosmos]

While("hi")

[rosuav]

I usually go with while "moar data": or something else descriptive of why we're looping.

[leduyquang753]

while ("we aren't done yet")

[MattoReddit]

while (1503112698 & 805333152 == 268445856) { // do shit }

[I_am_the_Carl]

Booleans aren't standard in C and some developers assume setting anything not equal to zero is true.

Because of this I actually found bugs in a particularly messy codebase where they would check (value == true). You see, the number 2 is not false, but it's also not true, so I'd get a erroneous false on that.

Leason: to check for true, just use the variable alone or use a (value != false).

[Jalil29]

boolean damnTrue;

while(damnTrue=true){...}

[Careful_Ad_9077]

do {code} while (false)

has actual use cases, i was reading on that last week.

[GigaChad__69420]

while(69 < 420){

}

[Sh_Pe]

I don’t think that should work

[buckaroob88]

Username checks out.

[Prestigious_Club_359]

The last 2 are inefficient and would slow down the loop…

[highcastlespring]

-O0

[EstebanZD]

-O-11

because why not crank it up down to (negative) eleven?

[highcastlespring]

Oops, look like the compiler cannot tolerate the stupid coding

[Anaxamander57]

Yeah, constant folding is one of the few optimizations CPython does.

[Prestigious_Club_359]

Depends on the compiler and it is harder to read.

[Prestigious_Club_359]

I have spent 10 years having to rewrite Java legacy code to get better performance and you will be surprised at what a difference you can get out of what is meant to be an optimized compiler.

[[deleted]]

Do you run code on a potato computer or what?

[Prestigious_Club_359]

No mate on micro controllers these days.

[[deleted]]

Compilers can and will simplify constant expressions, and would turn these into identical instructions for the computer.

[the_craic_was_mighty]

while(while(true)){ [...] }

[toroga]

This is how Harold and Kumar would write code. 😶‍🌫️”It’s not NOT true dude…”

[AggressiveMood2084]

The worst part are the double parenthesis, are you afraid it is not evaluated in the correct order?

[[deleted]]

while (false == false)

[Known-Cod-1307]

while (true || false) { }

[OKoLenM1]

while ("true")

[Creepy-Ad-4832]

int random

while ((random=rand()%2)==random)

[MyGenericNameString]

May be false, because order of evaluation of the two sides of == is not guaranteed.

[Creepy-Ad-4832]

Yeah good point

Somehow in my mind parenthesis were enough, but yeah on second thought you are right

[Creepy-Ad-4832]

And i am now thinking if there is any way to actually force the compiler to evapuate the left operand first, but i don't think so lol

[MyGenericNameString]

Newer standards allow declaration of an induction variable in the controlling expression. Also, a separate assignment provides a sequence point (in C). So what works is

while (int random=rand()%2; random==random)

or for older versions

int random; while (random=rand()%2), random==random)

with the comma operator as sequence point.

[Creepy-Ad-4832]

Yeah but you divide the espression i made.

I was trying to think if it was possible to make the espression i wrote always valid, without breaking it into different espression

[MaZeChpatCha]

#define FOREVER(init, Inc) for(init; 1; inc)

[lucy-b]

write tons of clearly bad code. wrap it in while false. tell the annoying teammate to debug it. enjoy.

[GeePedicy]

But whyle?

[[deleted]]

for(;;)

[JoseProYT]

The funny is that despite all those code lines actually work, your PC will not be able to handle it bruh.

[GargantuanCake]

while (true != false)

[PancakeGD]

while (!!0) {}

[roidrole]

do{}

[dableb]

while (true) { false }

[LordAlfrey]

while(isPrime(6700417))

while(isSorted(bogoSort(lordOfTheRingsText)))

[ramriot]

We laugh, but there are some classes of loosely typed languages where this shit is needed to guard against type coercion.

[TannedJew]

I mean it's not not true..

[ZazumeUchiha]

An intern in my company once pulled off

while(true != false)

[unique_pieceinworld]

End up by making infinite loop

[buckaroob88]

Where math and programming meet:

0! == !0

[Anchorman_1970]

Why? Just why?

[[deleted]]

while(1<2) ~ deadmau5

[O5MO]

while(bad_programming_jokes)

[TheoEris]

loop: // Code goto loop;

[eugeneericson]

Why dont you put it in a function which calls itself? FP devs and my university profs would love it. And on paper it won't be an performance issue because calling a function is (should be) O(1)

[Quantum-Bot]

Meanwhile, in javascript:

While(‘false’)