[–] 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

A good way to feel that for yourself is by programming a little program in Assembly and C.

Make sure the program needs to loop a bit and perhaps also require some if/ else logic.
A simple one would be to read a 1000 integers and return the sum.

In C, you would do something like:

int MAX = 1000;
int accumulator = 0;
int counter = 0;
while (counter < MAX)
{
    accumulator = accumulator + value_at_next_memory_location_by_counter;
    counter = counter + 1;
}

In assembly, you would go (writing pseudo, because I have forgotten most assembly stuff):

set reg1 = 1000 // For max value
set accumulator = 0 // just choose a register and consider it an accumulator. older CPUs have a fixed accumulator and you can only operate on that. I am not considering that here
set reg2 = 0 // For counter
tag LOOP:
set flag if true reg2 < reg1
jump if false -> END
move from memory location @counter(reg2) to reg3
add accumulator reg3
add reg2 1
goto -> LOOP
tag END:

I also realised that you could just try using C with goto instead of any loops and would realise similar things, but I'm not in the mood to rewrite my comment.


In conclusion, it is easier to understand something like BASIC, if you haven't been introduced to other languages, but these {} structures end up making it easier to catch control flows at a glance.
That's also the argument I use when telling people to have opening and closing brackets of the same level at the same indent, while people prefer stuff like:

if {
...
} else {
...
}
  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 22 points 8 months ago* (10 children)

    Equals schmequals.
    It could be a ⇨ and it would be the same as JSON because it is still a single symbol used as a separator.

    a distinction without a difference

    Now, if it took multiple separators, each giving some specific different meaning, then it would be a something else.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    I see. So the reason I didn't get it was because you were not really joking. Also, I seem to not have much background information of the domain you are talking in, so can't continue thee conversation in my current condition.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago* (3 children)

    I just took the above comment as continuing the joke, but this explanation actually confuses me more.
    Well, I don't really think you need to be very clear in this case. Jokes are more fun when you "get" them rather than have them explained.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago*

    Just checked the video and...
    Oof! That's pretty much a political awareness video and far from an ad.

    There is no way they can risk mass political awareness regarding the new legislations that they are frantically attempting to tunnel through.
    100% ban material.


    If I were UK govt. I would be internally calling this a "National Security" issue.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago

    I also find it important to consider what they think of as "benefitting themselves".

    If good vs bad is dependent upon their actions, then someone extremely selfish can be seen as "good", just if they have enough ability to think long term and desire a future that would end up making them act "good".

    If good vs bad is dependent upon their thoughts, then good luck finding out what people think. What they say will be completely different from what they think and a lot of them just realise they can easily get away with contradicting themselves as long as they do so in front of someone powerless.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • view more: ‹ prev next ›