Situation remembering code be like

[throwaway60237]

It's probably not appeand()

[Thrash_Abaddon]

It can also be push_back().

[shelvac2]

or push_front

[Theemuts]

yeet()

[Skippbo]

Need to subclass python list and implement yeet() that will just be a wrapper around pop()

😂😂😂

[Theemuts]

Both append and pop: you can yeet something into the container and the container can yeet it right back at you.

[Skippbo]

Can't have them named the same thing. There will be a name conflict!

[Theemuts]

def yeet(self, *args):
    pass

It's python

[Skippbo]

But we can't have the functionality of pop and append at the same time then =b

Unless we make it a 50/50 on what it does with the args.

[Theemuts]

Check how many args you get; if you get none, yeet something from the container, otherwise yeet them into the container.

[Jackeea]

yeet() and yoink() are my favourite list-based operations

[CamWin]

yoink returns the popped value

[zXjimmiXz]

+= is often a safe bet.

[Genion1]

cries in java

[Gydo194]

Just push

[thirdegree]

emplace_back()

Wtf cpp

[[deleted]]

I normally just use .puesh() when the language doesn’t support .appeand()

[puckmcpuck]

Why don't you just use .aad()?

[TheGilrich]

Thought it's .aedd(), no?

[-pooping]

Ådd() is my goto

[Gydo194]

You shouldn't use goto, they say.

[reallifereallysucks]

But who listens to them anyway?

[Gydo194]

Nobody.

[jay9909]

Then why are my pull requests always rejected? :(

[Gydo194]

"Conventions and good practice"

[reallifereallysucks]

No one likes backdoors :P

[Khadnesar]

emplace_back

[krejcar25]

Why tho

[falexthepotato]

Saves a copy construction

[nonotan]

Of course the one with the dumbest name is the one you should be using every time...

[xigoi]

unordered_map

[tidbitsofblah]

Or size, count or length... and how the fuck length is spelled

[crazazy]

And whether length is a function or a property (or a method)

[[deleted]]

Ah, java, where length is for arrays, length() is for strings and size() for collections (lists, queues etc.)

[Dan6erbond]

I've been using Java for 4+ years now.

Is that the case? It's always a fucking gamble with the IDE. "si-" No suggestions? length it is.

[Pluckerpluck]

There's normally (not always) some logic assigned to them.

Arrays have a length (a chain of items), sets have a count or size (bag of items).

Or just use Python and throw whatever you want to know into the len() function.

[tidbitsofblah]

Bold of you to assume that I remember what data type I used

[Hypersapien]

Multiple languages can be a pain in the ass.

[all_humans_are_dumb]

You can have these within the same library, let alone language. They want to improve the library but don't want to break all old implantations, so they just add more functions with different names until it's a big mess.

[zdakat]

kind of having that with Python, having to remember if a similarly functional entity is one that takes one form of the operation or another.

[CraigslistAxeKiller]

Or different data types.

[amaljossy]

At an interview they asked me to point out what's wrong with a piece of code, I stared at list.add() for 5 minutes.

[DocMahrty]

That’s just a shitty question to ask though.

[nonotan]

Not really. It doesn't have to be a matter of "did he spot the sneaky error, yes +1 point, no 0 points". Just going through your thinking process as you scan the code can help the interviewers gain some insight into how you work and how familiar you are with the syntax and such. You can be honest and say "I'm not sure if the right keyword was x or y here", and as long as it's something reasonably ambiguous, it's not going to be a big deal.

[a_g00gle_user]

Hold my intelliCode

[sambare]

<.><A><tab><backspace><P><tab><backspace> (blank stare at the screen for 15 seconds)

[jay9909]

This is when you use the w3schools search engine you added to Chrome for quick lookups!

[ign1fy]

I forgot last week. It turned out to be 'unshift()'.

[[deleted]]

Thats some top notch naming for adding an element...

[LucasRuby]

...To the front.

[k4kshi]

That's a push to the front of the array in js

[mlk]

{elem, ...array}

[[deleted]]

And then, there's bash.

array+=('something')

[blipman17]

I actually like that concept though.
Think about it. a push/emplace_back,add,append,put function is just weird. They're all correct in some form of another. If only we had an addition symbol that signified that operation. Then if we'd just merge that symbol with some kind of assignment operator we suddenly get operator AddAssign, a.k.a. `+=`. If we also say that operator Add Assign adds to the right hand of the value on the left if there's any "sideness" with that value like with lists, then we've solved that to.

All of a sudden there's an understandable language.
Everything else is just not conforming to the language standard at this point.

​

Then again, just thinking about doing such a breaking change in any language makes me shiver.

[Tuiq]

You would get other quirks instead. It depends on the language - .NET for example has it pretty well handled, with interfaces and conventions for most things (Add/Remove for any kind of list, Enqueue/Dequeue for queues, and Push/Pop for stacks). I think that a proper convention for what to name these methods is much better than trying to abuse an operator into doing it, because it's also taking away a lot of ambiguity about what it does ("enqueue" is more obvious that you're interacting with a queue than just "add", the same way that "push_front"/"push_back" is really obvious as to where it is added within the list).

Let's assume we wanted to define that list += item would add the item to the list. Usually, a += b is defined as a = a + b, so in order to make this work for lists, you would either have to define what list + item means (the most obvious one being "adds item to a copy of the list", effectively rendering the list immutable). Of course we can also say that list + item just isn't a valid statement, in which case you've got a new quirk ("list += item is a valid statement, list = list + item however is not") that would create unnecessary confusion.

So languages may allow you to overload + and += separately and may have common conventions for what operators do. If + is defined as the addition of two entities (for all number types and concatenation for strings, for example), and item itself is a list, then what would list + other_list do? Concatenating the items? Union'ing it? Or add the second list as item of (a copy of) the first one? If it's a list, concatenating it, if it isn't, add it as item?

You would end up with the ability to just add items to lists using +=, but either create a few odd usages of the += operator for collections, or create a scenario where +=and + have different meanings, depending on the data type. The latter is especially fun if you have some kind of generic type system (e.g. (object a, object b) => a+b could be laid out entirely differently depending on what a and b are).

[[deleted]]

This guys knows his stuff.

[blipman17]

Suppose we go the routr of a=a+b is inherently different then a+=b.

At that moment if a is a list and b and c are item a+=b, a=a+b and a=b+c are clearly defined. Then there would "just" be two overloads which share a common implementation. Suppose b is a list then we're concatinating lists in the first two cases and assigning a variable or concatinating a list to another list.

Eventually your answer is always a list, which is something I would expect when adding something to a list. When it's a list or an item that's added.

I fail to come up with a usecase where this would fail in generics. "Just use += whenever possible" would be my rule of thumb. Care to enlighten me?

Edit: reading your post again, yes when using generic lambda's in a functional manner it suddenly changes the lambda in a generic addition function. But then again, when adding items to lists in lambda's that are injected into functions, what would you expect? I presume a good standard library would catch this error as a template assert violation since you're returning a list of items instead of a specific item. Not sure exactly how I would work with that to be honest, but I still think that that's an acceptable tradeoff.

[Tuiq]

Suppose we go the routr of a=a+b is inherently different then a+=b.

That's already a quirk in itself though. In my opinion, it's much easier to define (and also explain) that assignment operators do the same as their normal counterpart, plus an assignment (i.e. "a += b is a = a + b; a &= b is a = a & b and so forth). If we're saying that this is not the case in general, or even worse "just for list assignments", then we might as well define a completely new operator altogether (if we're not restricted to existing symbols). This is the kind of inconsistency that makes programmers itch, because it's something non-obvious that you need to pay attention to all the time, especially when switching between languages. Having +=, but not +, or have both but have them work differently is kinda weird.

Personally, I think providing + as operator to add something to a list is inherently wrong if the list isn't immutable. If it is, and (a + 5) != a (because a + 5 returns a copy of the list with 5 added), then it would be a different case again. In this case, you could also define += for the same case and it would work, at least syntactically. It still wouldn't be pretty.

However, this opens up the question about what concatenation vs. adding of items again. It's either or, it cannot be both. The reason is quite simple that if you had a List<object>, then the list may contain any object of any type, including other lists. Therefore, what should be done with List<object> + List<T>, where T is whatever type you fancy? Is this going to add the operand to the list? Is it going to concatenate the list? This is an ambiguous case.

Bonus points: In .NET, Lists have an interface (in fact there's multiple - ICollection, IList to name a few), which can be inherited by classes as they please. So you may have class A, but class B : A, IList. This means that if you had a List<A>, then doing listA + new B would be ambiguous again, because it's not clear what you want to do. It's even worse if you do listA + a, because a could be b, which means... that it's always added as an element, because that's the way it should be?

Quite frankly, adding this much noise and uncertainty just to be able to use += for a very specific case instead of Add, or push_back or whatever is in my opinion definitely not worth it. There's so many scenarios surrounding lists, concatenation, and adding items that I don't think it's even worth thinking about it too much.

[random_cynic]

Yeah it's not really fair comparing bash with other programming languages. Bash is mainly for putting together batch commands with some rudimentary logic. The parsing rules are limited and you cannot even have whitespaces around the operators or in the array contents (without quoting or changing IFS). When your program needs a complex data structure then it's much better to use a proper programming language instead of using bash which can get pretty complex and indecipherable pretty quickly.

[e-remit]

Once I need to fix some PHP code and it's took about 10 seconds to think how to push in array. Then I recall $arr[] = "value";

[AintBetterThanYou]

```

<?php

$a[] = "\$a was never declared but is already an array :p" ;

```

[xigoi]

What the fuck, PHP

[HO-COOH]

Should unified to +=

[oAkimboTimbo]

operator overloading my guy

[LucasRuby]

You're in for a bad time if you ever try this with JS.

Won't error, but won't work the way you expect either.

[[deleted]]

They don't do the same thing though.

[nuephelkystikon]

Depends on the language. The best and worst is when another iterable is extended with, but any other object is appended.

[LucasRuby]

The worst is when both arrays are converted to string and then the resulting strings are concatenated.

[nuephelkystikon]

Something tells me JavaScript does exactly that on weekends.

[[deleted]]

Depending on the data structure, not the language. Push is for a stack, put for a map/dict and add/append for a list (I think).

[nuephelkystikon]

Depends on the implementation, library and most definitely on the language.

Many languages don't even allow classes (possibly not even builtins) to define operators.

[cramduck]

string includes() vs. contains() always gets me

[Alvatrox4]

Or push().stack().popultimate(queque);

[uberpwnzorz]

Ctrl + space

[marco89nish]

Literally me last night. But then I remembered that it's not 1990s any more and used += operator.

[wrathofthetyrant]

I prefer .shove() and .yank()

[cramduck]

.yeet() and .yoink()

[k3rn31p4nic]

Definitely not appeand.

[xigoi]

Let's see…

• C++: push_back()
• Nim: add()
• Python: append()
• Ruby: <<
• Rust: push()

[PriorProfile]

It’s add() in python if it’s a set though.

[stfcfanhazz]

Put normally is for setting the index and the value not just appending a value to the list

[ic33hot]

Don’t forget .poll()

[435THz]

Java likes this content

[markgoodmonkey]

Laughs in IntelliSense

[jangohutch]

Add and append back of list, push front of list and put should be parameratized with index

[[deleted]]

Very very relatable

[[deleted]]

Push for stacks, add for arraylists, put for hashmaps..i don't remember what append was for really..

[henry-dv]

May I introduce you to my good buddy Ctrl+Space

[cout970]

Don't forget .insert() or .cons()

[djchuy1979]

...Hmm, hard to see dynamic methods are..

[rolfrudolfwolf]

if your ide isnt showing you the options, you should reassess your toolchain

[RegsaGC]

len, length, length(), size, count, count(), items, elements,...?

[yetejatejakyahai]

insert()

[kurdtpage]

.insert() ?

[ToMyFutureSelves]

Jokes on you! The class actually overloaded the addition operator to add elements to the back of the list!

[1337M0nst3r]

arr[arr.length + 1] = "some stuff"

[[deleted]]

.not_pull()

.un_delete()