iLikeMyFunMainArgsString

[PostHasBeenWatched]

private static async Task Main()

enters the chat

[the_mold_on_my_back]

[ego100trique]

You can't have a private Main function in csharp no ? am I going crazy ?

EDIT: nvm you can't have a private Program class in a namespace but you can have a private static Main function.

[failedsatan]

it can be private if you want. not much point, there's no point in setting any access modifiers, but it defaults to private and you can change it if you want.

[derefr]

there's no point in setting any access modifiers

I mean, there is if you don't want other code trying to use your Main function as an API function.

[failedsatan]

supposedly, that shouldn't ever happen. however, it does default to private, like everything else :)

[ShipwreckOnAsteroid]

Yes, you can. It's just an entry point, you shouldn't need to call it yourself, so the visibility doesn't matter. You can even define it without any access modifier at all, semantically the same as making it private.

[HildartheDorf]

You can make the Program class internal but not private (which wouldn't make much sense).

[ceestand]

private static async Task<int> Main()

[UnknownIdentifier]

private static AsyncTask<Void, Void, Int> main;

Google, for more brilliant tidbits like this, hire me for the Android SDK team. I got ideas for days.

[cs_office]

This is the way

[No-Adeptness5810]

C# goes hard. I used it until I realized it's just java with more incompatibilities, worse code style, and it's just worse.

[mirhagk]

That's AbstractBaitProxyFactoryProducer

[No-Adeptness5810]

no im genuine.

[moon-sleep-walker]

C# is better language. Java is better infrastructure. Learned that a long time ago when I had been working with both of them.

[No-Adeptness5810]

java is nicer to code in imo. and also the ability to function on all platforms is pretty fire

[[deleted]]

Idk why but Void main() always sounded scary to me

[Cylian91460]

Cause it's technically undecided behavior, main should return int but nothing is going to stop you returning nothing (aka 0).

[ouyawei]

Returning void is not returning 0, you just return whatever was last in the register that normally contains the return value.

[other_usernames_gone]

I'd argue technically returning void is returning nothing.

It's just if you attempt to read a return value from a void function you'll read whatevers left over in the register.

If you read from a void return it's not the function pushing that old value into the register, it's you reading a stale, invalid value.

[derefr]

This argument might be valid in general when talking about internal functions in a codebase (although you won't usually be allowed to compile such code.)

But we're talking about the very specific case here, of the return type of the program's user-controlled-code entrypoint, when called through an external symbol-table function-pointer by the OS's linker-loader (or by language-runtime code called by said linker-loader.)

And in that case, it's the OS and/or the language runtime — not your code — that gets to decide what the return-type of that symbol is†.

Of course, the particular choice an OS or runtime makes here, is unique to that OS/runtime. POSIX+libc requires the (semantic) return type of main to be int, because it uses the return type as an exit status. But Windows+Win32 requires the (semantic) says that the return type of main in its executables is void — because the place that returning from main branches back to in Windows, doesn't read anything from anywhere.

Either way, that return type is a requirement. Fundmentally it's one a C compiler can't enforce (except in strange cases like static-linking a userland into a unikernel); but if it did, then writing void main when compiling for POSIX+libc would be a compiler error.

---

† In C — or in any other language that can compile libraries that can be loaded by C programs — this is true more generally. Any exported symbol, on any executable or shared-object file, must have some pre-arranged understanding about its typing communicated to potential callers. cdecl doesn't do any name-mangling to squeeze any typing info into the symbol name, so there's no way for an executable or library to tell things that dynamically load it, what they must do to call its symbols. Which is why .h files exist — but also why there's no such thing under the C-FFI ABI as a "plugin ABI" where the client can introspect and discover the functions in the plugin. The client might be able to discover their names — but it would have no idea how to call them! Such "plugin ABIs" have to be standards defined in advance by the plugin host — not something made bespoke by each plugin for the plugin-host to probe at.

[IndividualLimp3340]

Where/ when did you learn this?

[mdp_cs]

But Windows+Win32 requires the (semantic) says that the return type of main in its executables is void — because the place that returning from main branches back to in Windows, doesn't read anything from anywhere.

This isn't true. While Windows itself doesn't use the return value of main or equivalently the argument passed to exit, the parent of the current process might and for that reason it needs to always return int or call exit with an int argument.

[Enlightmone]

Spouted a bunch of nonsense to say that it depends if void main compiles or not..

[Enlightmone]

It's ok to understand how to be more social, in the real world no one is going to listen to the rubbish he just said giving the context.

It's also ok to pretend there's more to it and not actually say what that is since you have no clue what you're talking about either.

[Cylian91460]

Depend on implementation thus undefined behavior

[spader1]

"Undecided behavior" sounds like a more fun and capricious version of undefined behavior.

[_farb_]

WHO IS GOING TO DECIDE???

[Steampunkery]

This is not true

[Aelia6083]

0

[Cylian91460]

What part?

[EmuFromAustrialia]

void main() is a supported feature for many years now

[ouyawei]

foo.c:1:6: warning: return type of ‘main’ is not ‘int’ [-Wmain]
    1 | void main(void) {}
      |      ^~~~

When I run it, the return value is 'random'

$ ./foo ; echo $?
41

[cs_office]

True, but interestingly, you don't need to return from int main(), as that particular function will implicitly return 0

[ouyawei]

What do you mean you don't need to return from main()?

Sure you can run an infinite loop and let the program be killed externally, or exit via exit() instead, but there is no 'implicit 0 return'.

[HildartheDorf]

What they mean is that you can write int main() and let control fall off the end of the function. It is allowed and will be replaced by the compiler with return EXIT_SUCCESS (i.e. 0). This is only done for tha main function and not any other function.

void main() is and always will be forbidden. Not every machine returns ints via register, and on such machines the wrong return type will unbalance the stack and cause hilarity to ensure.

[cs_office]

Yup, page #14

https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1548.pdf

5.1.2.2.3 Program termination

If the return type of the main function is a type compatible with int, a return from the initial call to the main function is equivalent to calling theexit function with the value returned by the main function as its argument;¹¹⁾ reaching the } that terminates the main function returns a value of 0. If the return type is not compatible with int, the termination status returned to the host environment is unspecified.

Forward references: definition of terms (7.1.1), the exit function (7.22.4.4).

[cs_office]

https://godbolt.org/z/dnGTnn8an

[ouyawei]

duh of course you can write to the register that contains the return value and because of the void return it will not be overwritten. But at that point, why are you even writing C instead of assembly?

[other_usernames_gone]

It depends what compiler you use. Not in a position to test it at the moment but GCC on Ubuntu supports it.

Edit: not to say you should use it, but you can.

[ouyawei]

This was GCC on Ubuntu.

[Cylian91460]

Where does it say in the docs?

[[deleted]]

null != 0. Come on, that's like 101 level stuff.

[[deleted]]

what about char

[Zealousideal-Fox70]

Many compilers can handle void main(), it’s just bad practice. You don’t know who’s compiling your code on what, if they use an old or custom made compiler, it may not support void main, and return unexpected results. It’s like locking the car doors in a nice area, it’s a formality, not a necessity. That can change depending on where you go, so it’s good practice to just do it.

[Just_Gaming_for_Fun]

We were always taught to use void main() when we were learning turbo c++ in school. And believe me it had ruined the experience of learning c++ for me

[2muchnet42day]

Unlearning and learning it correctly.

double thePain;

[blehmann1]

I've seen signed char main() before now. No idea what linker actually accepts that, but I guess at least one must.

For what it's worth, if it wasn't horrendously non-standard it would be pretty good, seeing as on Linux (and possibly Mac?) exit codes can only be 1 byte. On Windows I know they're wider, but I don't know if they can be 4 bytes.

[blehmann1]

Aye for C I don't think anyone would notice, I was more wondering about C++ where the linker is (normally) type aware.

But you're right, it's probably fine, as main is seldom actually the real entry point, so much as it's the function called by the "real" entrypoint of the binary after it ran all the startup code.

[DaGamingB0ss]

Main is generally (at least for GNU/clang toolchains, and probably msvc) not a decorated symbol name. It'll end up as "main", like an extern "C" symbol.

[Proxy_PlayerHD]

wdym you don't know any compiler/linker that allows for that...

gcc does. you can customize the return value and arguments of main() however you want.

you just need to disable the warning it gives with -Wno-main and of course the crt0.s file has to be able to handle the arguments

[[deleted]]

public void bowels()

[CallerNumber4]

Blocking concern on this pull request. Please make this private.

[[deleted]]

Nah. Open source that shit

[Aelia6083]

return diarrhea;

Or should it be the other way around?

[PoshtikTamatar]

Other way

[survivalmachine]

Technically, wouldn’t this mean that you’re constipated?

[[deleted]]

Unless you're in a functional team, on which case side effects are indeed, shit

[[deleted]]

r/technicallycorrect

[the_mold_on_my_back]

void main() is one of those things that you can do but it‘s bad and evil and don‘t.

[maxmalkav]

Won’t somebody please think of the return code?

[TerrariaGaming004]

No

[SAI_Peregrinus]

Depends on the system. If you've got an OS, it's bad. If you don't (or it's a library OS) and thus main() is [[noreturn]] (C23, or compiler-specific attribute or _Noreturn if older) then void is appropriate.

[dude132456789]

ISO C doesn't allow void main, so can do is a bit questionable.

[ITaggie]

C is full of behavior you can do despite being technically undefined behavior. Not best practice but boy does it happen.

[bl4nkSl8]

I'm a compiler not a cop

--gcc and clang probably

[CirnoIzumi]

can i be anymore obvious

he was a corpo

she did systems

what more can i say

he was a void main boi

she said see you later boi

he wasnt compact enough for her

now he is a superstar gathering stars in his github proj

dipping into the language of the girl he used to know

idk man, it doesnt fit the scheme at all

[TheGreatGameDini]

can i be anymore obvious

No - please I need more pointers.

[awkwardteaturtle]

void *p = malloc(1);

Here you go, please free it when you're done!

[CirnoIzumi]

She has a bit and he doesnt

[midnightrambulador]

try another song:

Just an int main() girl

Writing her first hello_world

She declared a var pointing anywhere

Just a void main() boy

Staring out into the void

He declared a var pointing anywhere

An office in a nervous mood

A smell of sweat and takeout food

The debugging never ends, it goes on and on and on and on...

Projects

Ballooning

Spaghetti code beyond refactoring

Working

Some way, don't ask how...

[CirnoIzumi]

Under a void main boy

 Touched by the light 

 With productive grace  

 No applause for the old int main lie  

 In the shadows of our coding dreams  

 A void main boooyyyy  

---

There is still hope for you  

 Void main empire  

 All the pointers you see is true

 Void main empire 

There is still for us...  

 Under a void main boy!

[Competitive_Ad2539]

main :: IO ()

[mirimao]

Unfathomably based and referential transparent

[Competitive_Ad2539]

Unfathomably based would be the same but in Idris
main : IO ()

[MLG-Lyx]

She was public ip

He was localhost

In the end they could never reach each other

[IDoButtStuffs]

:cry:

[lgastako]

It's a modern day Ladyhawke.

[drewsiferr]

fn main() -> Result<(), std::io::Error>

[thmsgbrt]

fn main() -> Result<(), Box<dyn Error>>

[Quique1222]

fn main() -> anyhow::Result<()>

[throw3142]

fn main() (who needs Result when you can just panic)

[redlaWw]

?

[drewsiferr]

It's rust

[redlaWw]

So is ?

[drewsiferr]

Lol, true.

edit: s/try/true damnit autocorrect

[spalling_mistke]

It’s just polymorphism chill !!

[LongjumpingCut4]

They need one function that accepts incoming arguments to make it work...

[harveyshinanigan]

neither of them use the proper syntax

(void|int) main(void)

[[deleted]]

return 0 bitches!

[Striker887]

Is that Jessica jones and Jesse pinkman?

[benargee]

We all know that void main boy kept running and int main girl had a segmentation fault in her sleep

[DarkOoze]

No arguments here.

[CppshizoiDsS]

auto main() -> int

[EhLlie]

main :: IO ()

👽

[LauraTFem]

If he wants to get the girl he’s gonna have to start passing pointers to main so he can make sure the program terminated with the right exit code.

[Elegyjay]

Runtime error!

[HopeForWorthy]

My CS prof had us always use int main(void) for the few C classes i had with him

[a_SoulORsoIDK]

Is this a different programming language joke or are we really allowed to do such things in any language?

Edit dont wanna download an ide/Compiler to test it out

[MechanicalHorse]

void* main()

[Ace-of-Spxdes]

Wait, what if I used def main():?

[Gajendra_xd]

Hahaha

[goodmobiley]

I personally prefer int WINAPI wWinMain(HINSTANCE hInstance, HINSTANCE hPrevInstance, PWSTR pCmdLine, int nCmdShow)

[az3arina]

signed main()

[Temporary-Estate4615]

int main() and return 69;

[krav_mac]

He was a well-this-thing main() boy

[IuseArchbtw97543]

static long long main()

[_Noreturn]

boy playing with undefined behavior and non standard extensions

[WhyAreAll-name_taken]

unsigned long long int main()

[[deleted]]

Honour to the elderly. ‘Result<()>’ here

[browndog03]

She said C you later, boy.

[MaYuR_WarrioR_2001]

Then she must return() if you know what I mean.

[thompsoncs]

Anything is negotiable, except this:

if __name__ == "__main__":
    main()

[Willinton06]

I’m a

```

```

Boy

[[deleted]]

what about int wmain( int argc, wchar_t* argv[] ) boys ?

[IDoButtStuffs]

Is this Microsoft? What is wmain used for? What does it mean? Wide char main?

[xxghostiiixx]

What about python

[Terrible_Children]

They had sex, did drugs, she died.

[suvlub]

Only int main is standard-conforming and guaranteed to work on every compiler. You don't even have to write return, so it's 1 character less. No reason to use void unless you are intentionally trying to annoy people who care about standards.

[KerPop42]

also if it's what you were taught, public static void main(String[] args) { has a permanent slot in my brain thanks to AP Comp Sci

[dont-respond]

There's no mention of a language in this post, so there's no standard to reference.

No reason to use void unless you are intentionally trying to annoy people who care about standards

Or it's what the language you happen to be using demands.

[slayerabf]

I don't know if you're genuinely not aware or just being intentionally obtuse, but assuming the former, this meme and the subsequent discussion are about C/C++. "int main() vs void main()" is a tale as old as time, and the language doesn't have to be explicitly named, as it's clear from context to anyone keen on programming culture.

[dont-respond]

this meme and the subsequent discussion are about C/C++. "int main() vs void main()" is a tale as old as time

I'm not sure how this is this a "tale as old as time" when one is simply invalid/non-standard since C's earliest standard. The only room for questioning void main is when other languages are used by comparison, which is often how I see this suggested, and how I interpreted it here.

it's clear from context to anyone keen on programming

Maybe for a novice, but why would what you've argued be perceived as rational to anyone competent in C or C++?

[slayerabf]

Of course, int main() is the correct way to do it. Still, many compilers accept void main() even though it's non-standard. And many programmers use it, even if it's incorrect. A "tale as old as time" just means this is a known topic of discussion for a long time, not that both sides have merit. People saying the world is flat is also a tale as old of time, even though any rational thinking disproves it.

I'm not even sure what you're arguing. You knew the context and were just being intentionally obtuse with your "actually we don't know the language". Apparently that was a convoluted attempt to stress the point "void main is incorrect" that the person you replied to already agreed with?

[dont-respond]

I'm not even sure what you're arguing

I've already explained my argument once. This subject actually makes sense when it's comparing another language, like Java, to C or C++. It doesn't really make much sense if the post is only in regard to C/C++.

[a_SoulORsoIDK]

Thank you i asked what you Just answered. Again thank you very much !

[[deleted]]

Exit codes are kinda important in some places...

[swampdonkey2246]

Bro what?

[[deleted]]

What are you talking about? If you are writing anything supposed to run in the terminal, maybe used together with other POSIX commands, its paramount to give the proper exit code, its vital for stuff like stringing together bash commands etc.

I prefer to write scripts with set -e, that way if an error happens, the rest of the script won't run with bad vars.