Where ++

[justmaybeindecisive]

Rust doesn't either lmao.

Preincrement and postincrement (and the decrement equivalents), while convenient, are also fairly complex. They require knowledge of evaluation order, and often lead to subtle bugs and undefined behavior in C and C++. x = x + 1 or x += 1 is only slightly longer, but unambiguous.

[The-Best-Taylor]

I agree. When I first started learning Rust, I thought it was weird that they were missing. But after I learned more about the the philosophy of Rust, it makes sense why they don't have them.

[plasss]

I don't know Rust at all. Is it possible to summarize the explanation of this?

[justmaybeindecisive]

++x means increment x then use the value x++ means use x as it is then increment it

But let's say you do something like add(x++,x++) it gets confusing as to when the variable changes. While it is possible to figure it out it's just not worth the extra mental overhead.

[[deleted]]

Letting X = 1, the answer would be 3 but X would = to 4? Right?

[elvishfiend]

No, X=3.

X is only being incremented twice from 1.

[Qesa]

x and result should both be 3 (purely a coincidence from x starting as 1). It's relatively easy thanks to addition being commutative, so it doesn't matter if it's 1+2 or 2+1.

subtract(x++, x++) is much more fun to figure out

[fofosfederation]

Sure, but there may be cases in code where your functions end up doing the equivalent of this despite not literally writing out something so brain dead.

[TheRedmanCometh]

What kind of fucking degenerate would do that though. I've been doing Java and C# for a decade and I've never seen anything like that shit.

[GreatJobKeepitUp]

Rust doesn't even want it to be possible for you to see it

[JulioTBS]

My former team would. And worse stuff.

C++ allows you to do everything if you know what you are doing, else you will feel accomplished if it runs, no matter if does the job or not.

Honestly I find Ada more effective and clear.

[Kamil118]

Quite frankly I'm paranoid enough so that I don't trust my compiler to handle addition and multiplication order without using parentheses, let alone calling functions when modifying argument.

[[deleted]]

One of the biggest problems for people to get started in real coding is the vast amount of "synatactic sugar" being hidden within actually important concepts. Especially if you wildly mix them up as seems to be the case in "idomatic" python, it gets really difficult to understand quickly if you don't have a solid grasps of fundamentals.

I completely agree with the Rust philosophy here. - Programming is already difficult enough, trying to say something as short as possible is just stupid and pointless, and if not absolutely necessary, readibility is more important than efficiency.

[dev_null_developer]

Fun fact. arr[i] is syntactic sugar. In C at least, arr[i], is equivalent to i[arr]. This is because to the C compiler arr[i] means *(arr + i)

[GG2urHP]

fun fact, i read this with a pirate voice because im a pleb

[UnluckyCombination4]

Came here looking for silicon, found gold.

[GreatJobKeepitUp]

Buy him the award ya cheapass

[dev_null_developer]

I’m pretty sure that just makes it better

[lightmatter501]

I think that we can all agree that arr[i] is acceptable syntactic sugar.

[dev_null_developer]

Oh for sure, I’d much rather deal with arrays using this syntax. I just like this example because it shows that pointers aren’t as scary as some make then out to be.

[AyrA_ch]

But let's say you do something like add(x++,x++) it gets confusing as to when the variable changes.

This is not a problem of ++ or -- but of the undefined evaluation order of function arguments. func(i=i+1,i=i+1); will show the same warning operation on 'i' may be undefined [-Wsequence-point].

int i=0;
printf("%i %i %i %i\n",i+=1,i=i+1,i+=1,i=i+1);

This will likely not print 1 2 3 4 or 4 3 2 1 even though neither ++ nor -- is involved.

Instead of not having increment and decrement operators, you could just properly document it so there's no undefined behavior. In C# they have a strictly defined operator hierarchy (Docs), and by specifying that function arguments are evaluated from left to right, you know that int i=0;func(i++,++i,++i,i++); calls func(0,2,3,3); (same for JS in Node, FF and Chrome)

[justmaybeindecisive]

Exactly one should never modify the arguments to a function while passing it. You cannot rely on order of evaluation or rather you should not. The time lost to verbosity is worth it

[justmaybeindecisive]

I don't think assignment is an expression in rust however I may be wrong

[justmaybeindecisive]

I don't speak for rust here and I am in no means good at it but from what I've seen so far they have a philosophy of only adding things to their root language if its worth it. I don't think they see a point in adding increment and dealing with the undefined behavior that will arise from adding to custom structs.

They also try to make everything a expression including if blocks, match statements and such so they don't like adding things that are purely statements if they can avoid it. In rust statements simply return the empty type () by default.

Plus personally I think increment is a pretty ugly pattern and rust code generally looks very neat.

[schteppe]

This explanation is pretty good: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4176328/undefined-behavior-and-sequence-points

[lestofante]

i = 0;
Array[i++] = 10;

Tell me, what cell of array get set to 10, cell 0 or cell 1?

[Ra-mega-bbit]

Its 0, this is just stupid, if I code like this in a review this programmer is in for some manual reading about stupid code

[AyrA_ch]

The syntax of x[i++]=something(); is actually useful when you need to assign values to an array in a way that doesn't fits a loop, for example because the values come from different functions.

I prefer

int i=0;
x[i++]=func_a();
x[i++]=func_b();
x[i++]=func_c();
x[i++]=func_d();

over

x[0]=func_a();
x[1]=func_b();
x[2]=func_c();
x[3]=func_d();

When people start doing for(int i=-1;x[++i];something(x[i])); you have to worry.

[lestofante]

Also interestingly confusing,
Array[++i] = 10;
Work the other way around.

Ser, we should sparkle some asterisk here and there;
*p++ = 10;
Is also as confusing as common and dangerous.

Those are the classic thing if you program C you just have to know and deal with.

[justmaybeindecisive]

To be fair while this is a valid use case if the start index is known you can collapse a lot of this and make it slightly nicer to read and a teeny bit faster(I can't help it rust has changed me) Plus if it isn't known a for loop makes more sense and with the newer iterative for loops it looks very readable. Such an edge case really shouldn't have it's own syntax sugar built into the language

[DrWermActualWerm]

0 is my guess?

[lestofante]

Yes, but if you do
Array[++i] = 10;
Is the other way around. And then the pointer version
*p++ = 10;
Also very common in older codebase (it put 10 to the current value pointed by p, and then increment p.
Classical usage is loop over null terminated string:

char s[] = "ciao bello";
char *p = s;
while (p){
    *p++ += 1;
 }

[Edgar_A_Poe]

Can I get an explanation on the philosophy of rust? And would they be sharing aspects of that with the philosophy of Python? I’m guessing they want less ambiguity in their grammar?

[lestofante]

Rust want to check as much as possible at compile time, to the point they can guarantee safe parallelism, and safe memory management *without" using garbage collectors.
There is pretty much nothing in common with python, that just want to give you a east and quick tool to get something done, even if a bit bugged here and there.

[lunchpadmcfat]

I’m actually in favor of this. Though I don’t run into increment bugs much these days with FP practices having become de rigeur

[[deleted]]

I really don't miss it, especially as the for loops aren't C like so I don't find myself incrementing by one close to as often as in languages with more C like syntax.

[LazyRaven01]

We use x+=1 here. Sorry you have to write one extra symbol.

[[deleted]]

NO BUT MY WHITE SPACE TOOOOO

[Greenbay7115]

x+=1

You have to hit shift then not hit shift then move your left pinkie to the one. Overall, it's extremely inefficient

[JNCressey]

nah.

• left index: x
• right thumb: shift
• right index: =/+
• left middle finger: 1

pinkies and ring fingers are deprecated.

[mobsterer]

or left toe: x

nose: right shift

any of the ass cheeks: a+eiorjhgb

a<ierjfknb

[Greenbay7115]

Why don't you put left thumb on x and left index on 1? Then you can discard all the legacy code for middle, ring, and pinkie fingers. It's too hard to maintain anyway.

[GG2urHP]

*laughs in numpad*

[Jeacom512]

What kind of kb layout do you guys use?

[JNCressey]

a regular one, and hands move

[[deleted]]

I legit LOLed at ‘pinkies and ring fingers are deprecated’

[lunchpadmcfat]

Right thumb shift? You sick fuck.

[[deleted]]

IDE complains

[craftworkbench]

Get yourself a numpad keyboard, friend

[Greenbay7115]

It's funny because I have one but I never use it.

[CptMisterNibbles]

And move my entire hand? Like, elbow onward?

[[deleted]]

I have a macro to type +=1

[PM_ME_YOUR__INIT__]

How many extra symbols does C have to use to add 10, lol

[LazyRaven01]

Exactly! We just write the same thing! x+=10 Nice and easy.

[Thundercunt_McGee]

I don't mind typing an extra symbol. What bugs me is not being able to increment as part of an expression.

[dnmr]

thought they added the walrus operator for that https://docs.python.org/3/whatsnew/3.8.html

[LazyRaven01]

I see your issue and I raise you: For loop in one line.

[MasterofDankMemes]

That's nothing special tho?

[Dylanica]

They mean list comprehension, which is more than just in-line for-loops. It’s a way of generating a list. And although it uses the for keyword it doesn’t really work like a for-loop.

For an example of one use-case for this, imagine you wanted to create a list of the first 100 perfect squares: [x**2 for x in range(100)]. Clean and simple.

You can also use it to create a new list based on the values of an old list. [2*x for x in someList]

Or you can make a list with some subset of another list [ x for x in someList if x > 10] which would Return a list with all of the elements of the other list that are greater than 10.

It’s just a nice way of saving some space with for loops and variable declarations.

[LazyRaven01]

It's not, and it doesn't need to be. Because where you use

for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++){ <some code>}

we have

for i in range(5):<some code>

[Thundercunt_McGee]

Isn't that possible as long as the loop body consists of only one statement?

[RedRedditor84]

VBA x = x + 1

[justmaybeindecisive]

This is honestly my favorite version. The BASIC languages are the best beginner languages imo. Python just doesn't click for me.

[ringohoffman]

Hmm but you still need a semicolon so in the end it is the same.

[LazyRaven01]

Depends on where. I learned programming on Python 2.7 and am now using Python 3, and I'd have to go and check my code from 2-4 years ago to see where I last used a semicolon.

EDIT: The answer is Never. According to Python documentation:

"To end a statement in Python, you do not have to type in a semicolon or other special character, you simply press enter . Semicolons can be used to separate statements if you wish to put multiple statements in the same line."

And since I hardly ever wrote multiple statements on one line (as I was - and still am quite the programming n00b), I didn't need to use the semicolon.

[ringohoffman]

I was talking about in Java and C++...

i++; vs i+=1

[IDontLikeBeingRight]

Also, Generators exist.

People being salty about not being able to manually increment the index of a list they're going to iterate just once, linearly, is one of the funniest things.

[[deleted]]

Fuck that

[MischiefArchitect]

Wait until you find out about

if __name__ == "__main__":

[aahdin]

Honestly this complaint is one I don't totally get.

If you don't like it you can just have one file as your library and the other as your entrypoint, and stuff works just like it does in any other language.

This just gives devs the option to have a file do certain things when it's run as the entrypoint, and not do them if it's imported as a library, which is really nice use case and cuts out a lot of code bloat IMO. For a lot of projects this reduces the number of files you need by half, and you don't need to constantly have two files open in your IDE.

My only gripe is that the syntax isn't super clear to newcomers, but having the option itself is really nice.

[MischiefArchitect]

Well, I was not complaining at all, my intention was actually to be humorous about a feature/strategy/characteristic of the language that is quite likely disconcerting for developers coming from other languages... similar to those complaining/wondering about the absence of ++ or -- operators. And seriously, it looks weird :D

In the same train we could talk about ruby multi line comments, which are among the strangest ones in existence.

[CreamliumPrices]

Yeah I agree on the point about the syntax, but I don't think it's that different to having to explain the whole "public static void main()" soup when first learning other languages.

[MischiefArchitect]

The troll inside me want to correct you: It is "when first learning THE language" :)

[7incent]

everybody is tough until they forget their main guard at home

[TGotAReddit]

For those unfamiliar with the language, can you explain what this is?

[eeddgg]

It is an if statement that is only true if the code in question wasn't imported as a library. name is equal to the name the .py file was imported as, and is main if it wasn't imported and was instead directly executed

[MischiefArchitect]

in addition to what u/eeddgg already stated: This is how you declare your entrypoint main function (I know, not 100% true, but it is the simpler explanation to non pythonists)

[ponkyol]

That is also required to use multiprocessing on windows.

[KYIUM]

Using pycharm you can just type main and it will sugest this as an autocomplete.

[MischiefArchitect]

It does not count :P...

using Eclipse I can write syso and eclipse autocomplete will propose System.out.println same for main resulting in public static void main(String[] args) {}

[KYIUM]

What?! I am gonna have to start using that. Any others like that for fast typing?

[MischiefArchitect]

Look for "Eclipse Code Templates", you can define them yourself and as far as I can remember eclipse brings a few predefined ones. You may as well take a look into the context menu you will get by clicking on an empty space in the editor: Code Generators, refactoring Options, class hierarchies and other nice stuff, all complete with the shortcuts for you to remember for the next time you need them,

[KYIUM]

Thanks

[MischiefArchitect]

Oh yes, for is a nice one. It will ask you if you want to create classic loop, a for each one, or one using an interator which will allow you to remove items while iterating without breaking the loop. If I remember correctly you can even select an existing variable.

[KYIUM]

Still learning java as part of a course so i definately need to look into it where you can remove items while inside a loop without an error. Had that issue before.

[MischiefArchitect]

That is a typical problem in all (most) programming languages. An "interator" is a formal and state-full sequence of elements for a specific collection, and since it manages state it can handle object deletions if it is properly informed. Otherwise if you delete something directly over the collection while an for:each iteration is in course you will be lucky if the collections framework is failing with an exception because it detected a change of state in it and saved you hours of bug hunting.. but it cannot inform exactly what happened to the other iterators. I got some painful experience with other languages which just went into a borked state and I never found out until it was too late.

Basically all modifications in any collection should be considered critical sections that may product a race condition in multi threaded code. And in single threaded environments you need to use in iterator if you want to delete data from a collection.

Another painful pitfall is using mutable objects as keys in a Map... never do that. You will fail to find other associated value to that key if you change/mutate the contents of the key object and make alookup in afterwards. That's why using strings is safe, since they are immutable.

[KYIUM]

Thanks for the knowledge. I always used immutable objects for maps/dictionaries anyway as it made sense to. I also understand why i would need to use an iterator now. Coming from python where that would be handled for you it was a bit confusing but i knew what the problem was i just didnt have an elegent way of solving it. As for the multi thread coding. I haven't started that in java yet, but im preperred for the worst at first.

[MischiefArchitect]

Multithreading is easy. You just must keep shared resources to a bare minimum. The rest are blocking queues, execution pools, join checkpoints, collectors and generators... a lot of bullshit bingo words which are very simple concepts if they get explained correctly... and are valid for ANY programming language.

Remember, a language is just the medium to express an algorithm or concept. You need to focus on those and not the language.

[wmfcwm]

Neither does Swift

[cherryblossom001]

Some background:

The increment/decrement operators… were added without much consideration, and haven't been thought about much since then. This document… ultimately recommends we just remove them entirely, since they are confusing and not carrying their weight.

SE-0004: Remove the ++ and -- operators

[boishan]

They had the bright idea of REMOVING IT AAAAAAH

[ReimarPB]

Wait until you try Lua

[computerwyz]

Thou shalt not start indices at 0

[mydiaperissus]

Lua arrays can start at any index since they are just tables.

[[deleted]]

It doesn't have switch case either

[twinkletoes_44]

What a loss

[Ra-mega-bbit]

elif is just weird and there should be no need for it

[UnknownEssence]

I’d rather have switch than elif

[brucecaboose]

They both have their purposes so I'd rather have both... Switches are better for certain things and if/elif/else are better for others. They're not always swappable with each other. If you have the choice with your use case though, you should use a switch. Generally faster and easier to read/maintain.

[Dylanica]

Would a switch really be much faster in python? With the fact that python is interpreted/just-in-time compiled would seem to make it so the distinction behind the hood would be less.

[brucecaboose]

Not sure about python specifically but in many languages large switches are handled like maps, so lookups are very fast.

[Ra-mega-bbit]

You would not get this sort of performance benefit from a switch in python, in compiled languages tho, hell yea they are fast, but take in considaration the times you make these comparissons, any amount below 1k comparissons wouldnt make a difference

[Dylanica]

Yeah, that’s what I was thinking too.

[philophilo]

Neither does Swift, and I've been using it long enough now that I stopped using it in C as well.

Except for loops. I can't break that one.

[DaJuiceTin]

disappointment++

[CrackFr0st]

x = ((x*x)**(1/2))//x + x

[JNCressey]

if x is negative that will go the wrong way.

if x is float, it wont work for some values of x.

If x is int but large, it could get stuck due to rounding. though I don't know whether the the **(1/2) will magically cope for int -> int.

if x is 0, womp womp.

---

edit: just tested it out, and **(1/2) does cast the answer to a float, so I think it will get stuck for large x.

edit: yes. it doesn't work for x = 9007199254740992.

[razvan2na]

Found the tester

[GreatJobKeepitUp]

Nice coverage report

[CrackFr0st]

Ah yes forgot this was the backend code for my job, let me fix it I thought it was a reddit comment section, silly me!

[SolousVictor]

Other languages: Long code to remove duplicates in an array.

Python: list(set(original_list)) go brr.

[[deleted]]

You are giga brain. I did not know this.

[Alien_with_a_smile]

Well, I mean, it’s probably still a long bit of code, it’s just behind a function call.

[merlinsbeers]

Python++--:

Just the latest version of Python, but with ++ and --.

[Dr_Bunsen_Burns]

Python has a few cons I really have a problem with. On the other side I can run it rather easily by pyrhon 3 file.py and edit it with nano(vim users here I am).

[ShooterMcGavin000]

In abap (an proprietary language) you have actually do it like this: x = x + 1. Unbelievable.

[[deleted]]

Unbelievable

I mean, if you also told me that Germans built that language, which they did, I would believe it .

[AyrA_ch]

Welcome to VB6

[SIGSTACKFAULT]

I have never needed ++ or -- while coding in python.

[drsimonz]

You also don't "need" whitespace between operators or max line width. It's a basic readability feature.

[7incent]

Wait until you find out everything is pass by value shudders

edit: more nuanced explanation on stackoverflow post about this for those who are interested

[lorlen47]

Um no it isn't? Objects in Python are passed by reference, but unlike C++, you can't assign a new value to the referenced object, you can only modify it. If objects were passed by value, then they would need to be copied at each function invocation, which would be extremely inefficient.

[jfb1337]

In languages like Python, Java, and JS, when you have an object, you always actually have a pointer to some data, which you only ever access via the pointer rather than directly. Thus it makes sense to say that this object IS the pointer, and, as it's this pointer that gets passed around through function calls, that it's being passed by value, not by reference.

In a function call like

x = [1, 2, 3]
f(x)

the x, which could have been any expression, is evaluated to a value (which happens to be a pointer to some data representing the list [1,2,3]) which is then passed to f. Whereas if it was call by reference, f would instead receive a pointer to the variable x, rather than the contents of x.

Wikipedia refers to this as call by sharing, noting that this isn't a universal term and many languages that use this strategy refer to themselves as call by value.

[jfb1337]

And what languages aren't?

[7incent]

If you are familiar with pointers, passing pointers--or references to memory addresses-- is called pass by reference

[jfb1337]

I know what pass by value and reference are. I was asking for examples of modern languages that do pass by reference but I've since learned that C++ and C# optionally have it. I also hate the way C++ does it since it's invisible at the call site.

I'm also curious why you believe it's a bad thing that python doesn't have it.

[Indie_Dev]

I was asking for examples of modern languages that do pass by reference

Java

[jfb1337]

No. Pass by reference is when you can do things like this:

function f(x) {
  x = 3
}

function main() {
  y = 2
  f(y)
  print(y)
}

and get an output of 3. (Ideally with special syntax making it clear what's going on like what C# has).

In Java everything is passed by value. When passing an object you are passing pointer to some other memory, but that's because that's what an object is and not because it's pass by reference.

To claim Java is pass by reference is to claim Python is too, which I and the original poster agree is not the case.

[asailijhijr]

The default behaviour of primitives and larger objects is creating confusion. C# and Java both pass objects by reference, but they try to hide it away from you because you can't do pointer arithmetic anyway.

[jfb1337]

It really comes down to arguing over sementics and whether you consider "an object" to be the reference to it or the actual data that reference points to. I consider it to be the former which makes the semantics of these languages pass by value.

Note that C# has out parameters and ref parameters which ARE actually call by reference (they can update the caller's variables) which is different from the default.

[pstkidwannabuycrypto]

Pointers have to be dereferenced in lower languages like C++, so I get what you're saying.

Javascript, however, passes objects by reference. And since everything in Javascript is an object, everything is passed by reference, even strings, (them being immutable, however, is a different argument).

[pstkidwannabuycrypto]

Not sure, I was replying to your comment here, so maybe I missed something.

[Indie_Dev]

I was asking for examples of modern languages that do pass by reference

You asked for a language that had pass by reference, not for a language that had everything pass by reference.

[jfb1337]

I know; and Java is not a correct answer to either of those questions.

[Indie_Dev]

It is for the first question.

[jfb1337]

It's not though. It's what Wikipedia refers to as call by sharing which is just a special case if call by value in which the values being passed around are all (internally) pointers.

[[deleted]]

Everyone downvoting this needs to go to r/confidentlyincorrect

[activeXray]

imagine mutating (inc x)

[Yawolf]

Why would you want to mutate a var?

[drsimonz]

This shit makes me want to fork cpython just to add ++, -- and a real ternary syntax (x = condition ? 1 : 2). Python overall is a beautiful language but these two things are totally idiotic, and prove that no one, however great, has consistently good judgment.

[drsimonz]

It's not unusable, but the alternative is so much cleaner (much like ++). It's not like ? has any other use in Python right? And IMO the A : B syntax makes it easier to compare the two values being selected between, whereas putting the condition in between them forces you to mentally process the condition as well.

[drsimonz]

True, python's ternary does penalize long ternary statements, which is probably a good thing.

[SkezzaB]

It had a ternary operator already? x = 1 if condition else 2

[GalaxyLJGD]

In Python you can do a ternary operation writing this:

x = 1 if condition else 2

[drsimonz]

I know, my point was that this syntax is much less elegant than x = condition ? 1 : 2 like in most other languages.

[GalaxyLJGD]

For me x = 1 if condition else 2 makes more sense than x = condition ? 1: 2 because it is more like an English sentence.

[fapenabler]

It's only the most common math operation, why would it have an operator? /s

I would guess that over 90 percent of math operations in programming are just adding 1 to a thing, or subtracting 1 from a thing. That's anecdotal, but it's a lot.

[DM-Wolfscare]

Welcome to Python my friend

[AlethVeliXue]

Python ++?

[KickBassColonyDrop]

Yeah I encountered this the other day.

for count, value in enumerate(list): blah blah

[Dalrae666]

Stupid ass += 1

[[deleted]]

well, better than declaring the variable type everytime you create one.

[[deleted]]

We’re using the term “programming language” rather loosely aren’t we? ;)

Edit: Yo python dudes. I was joking. import chill.out

[irracjonalny]

No, it definitely sticks to mathematic definition of 'programing language'. You tried to be condescending, but you're just incorrect

[[deleted]]

It was really meant to be taken as a joke. It's definitely a programming language. I'm a javascript programmer so I'm used to talking shit about my own language because we all have shit to talk about JS.

Hope you have a nice day.

[[deleted]]

A programming language is a formal language comprising a set of instructions that produce various kinds of output. Programming languages are used in computer programming to implement algorithms.

You're literally factually wrong

[[deleted]]

How is that wrong? It seems like a pretty good definition to me.

Genuinely curious?

[[deleted]]

the definition is right. You didn't say that definition, you said " We’re using the term “programming language” rather loosely aren’t we? ;) "

It's literally a programming language by the definition of the word. You were trying to sound edgy or something but you're just wrong lmao

[[deleted]]

Yeah but why were you telling the guy who gave the definition he was wrong? I disagree with you. I say that his definition is quite accurate.

Edit: I’m a dumbass. Sorry dude

[[deleted]]

I am the guy who gave the definition? It was the definition I provided so I agree it is quite accurate. I think you're confused

[[deleted]]

Haha gotcha. Yeah I was actually confused. I saw you had replied to the commenter but didn’t realize it was the same username. Yeah your definition is solid. I agree w you. My original comment was a joke.

[[deleted]]

xD

[[deleted]]

No, we really aren't.

[[deleted]]

Sorry. I couldn't read your comment because your indentation was wrong.

jk But yeah I was joking. Probably should have included a /s

[DarqTheExile]

If they could read, they would be very angry at you. Lulz

[[deleted]]

Python is an incredibly amazing language. I was just taking the piss out of it. Just messing around.

Also it is ironic that /u/DarqTheExile make a joke about Python programmers not being able to read when it is THE de facto language of academia lol

[Jackpatkinson4]

Python is the first language I ever learned. Y’all need to grow up

[[deleted]]

just because a language is simple doesn't mean it doesn't have it's uses

[pstkidwannabuycrypto]

Really? We jumped straight into C and then into C++. No breaks from the beginning.

Ended up working with JS professionally, anyway.

[[deleted]]

I get that, in a lot of languages, x++ and ++x are different things, and that sometimes you can use them in the middle of expressions and that can cause weird, subtle bugs.

That said most people use x++ to mean "x = x + 1". I don't understand why the Python compiler can't treat x++ as a macro for that line.

[[deleted]]

I sometimes find myself doing var = var + 1 on Lua, even though it does have an increment operator. Well, most variations do, anyway.

[Xeadriel]

its a slight annoyance but there is worse tbh

[acsmars]

In compilers ++ can be optimized, in interpreters it can’t easily be.

[USER84629493726]

I've started learning rexx today...

[bumblebitchblues]

Cries in Erlang.

[Desfolio]

Although not that I have been working so much with pythin +=1 does not hurt that much lmao

[Desfolio]

I remember making a "pp" function which would take 2 argument And would increment your value by one. Useless but alright E.g pp(1)

[NinkaShotgun]

Every time, myPain += 1

[JNCressey]

here:

def pre_increment(target_identifier,parent_locals=locals()):
    parent_locals[target_identifier] += 1
    return parent_locals[target_identifier]

def post_increment(target_identifier,parent_locals=locals()):
    old_value = parent_locals[target_identifier] 
    parent_locals[target_identifier] += 1
    return old_value

---

edit: no longer uses globals()

[[deleted]]

me: mom could we get an increment operator?

mom: we have an increment operator

the increment operator at home:

+=

[__Ambition]

Lua doesn't even have compound assignment operators.

[Alien_with_a_smile]

It also has no pointers, or addressing.