Don't mind me, just writing maintainable, legible, commented and documented code. What's that, an email validation? Let me just
/^(([^<>()\[\]\.,;:\s@\"]+(\.[^<>()\[\]\.,;:\s@\"]+)*)|(\".+\"))@(([^<>()[\]\.,;:\s@\"]+\.)+[^<>()[\]\.,;:\s@\"]{2,})$/i

The hardest part of exams: not being able to write legible '{}' symbols

Can we all just have a moment of silence for BASIC...

Got caught in a YouTube spiral watching nostalgia need and never realised how big and important BASIC was when it came to home PC's (I'm 21 so have no actual experience with said PC's)...

Also that leads me to the question as to why BASIC isn't still used?

It's actually a really legible language ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

In other news, I have been forbidden by my boss to implement any security or performance improvements into the company infrastructure as this holds no business value. Furthermore, passwords are not to be a random alphanumeric+special-chars string but something legible.

To my client who wants a two-column formatted email built with tables in Constant Contact to appear in the same two-column format on mobile devices: You're lying when you say your previous developer achieved a legible, mobile, tiny screen email this way. I know because I can see the previous email formatting. In fact, I cloned that exact email and merely swapped out the content. You really do not understand what you're asking for.

An 'older' client, who is a respected doctor, needed a web site to sell a book he authored about cycling trips.

Simple... I thought... Until he literally sent me all the content.. hand written... on pen and paper... via snail mail... Along with barely legible Hand-drawn maps... fml

Your one-line JavaScript arrow functions AREN'T LEGIBLE! You've just memorized their shape. It's OK. But don't lie to yourself. They look super stupid. They aren't for humans.

Thinking abut changing game engines entirely form GameMaker (Instability and lack of communication), mentioned in a previous rant I was going to look into Godot and Unity but starting to think it might just be worth building my own engines from the ground up in either C# or C++ (after i learn more of it)...

Just want to know if any other dev's out there have done this and what experience they had with it, or if there are any legible documents out there regarding it?

Does anyone find it odd that my school's CAD and engineering program can't design a poster with legible words?

How do you handle error checking? I always feel sad after I add error checking to a code that was beautifully simple and legible before.
It still remains so but instead of each line meaning something it becomes if( call() == -1 ) return -1; or handleError() or whatever.
Same with try catch if the language supports it.
It's awful to look at.
So awful I end up evading it forever.
"Malloc can't fail right? I mean it's theoetically possible but like nah", "File open? I'm not gonna try catch that! It's a tmp file only my program uses come oooon", all these seemingly reasonable arguments cross my head and makes it hard to check the frigging errors. But then I go to sleep and I KNOW my program is not complete. It's intentionally vulnerable. Fuck.
How do you do it? Is there a magic technique or one has to reach dev nirvana to realise certain ugliness and cluttering is necessary for the greater good sometimes and no design pattern or paradigm can make it clean and complete?

What we will miss, if he really softens:

In fact, if the reason is stated as "it makes debugging easier", then I fart in your general
direction and call your mother a hamster.

In short: just say NO TO DRUGS, and maybe you won't end up like the Hurd people.

Of course, I'd also suggest that whoever was the genius who thought it was a good idea to read things ONE F*CKING BYTE AT A TIME with system calls for each byte should be retroactively aborted. Who the f*ck does idiotic things like that? How did they not die as babies, considering
that they were likely too stupid to find a tit to suck on?

Gnome seems to be developed by interface nazis, where consistently the excuse for not doing something is not "it's too complicated to do", but "it would confuse users".

I think the stupidity of your post just snuffed out everything

I think the OpenBSD crowd is a bunch of masturbating monkeys, in that they make such a big deal about concentrating on security to the
point where they pretty much admit that nothing else matters to them.

That is either genius, or a seriously diseased mind. - I can't quite tell which.

Christ, people. Learn C, instead of just stringing random characters together until it compiles (with warnings).

"and anybody who thinks that the above is

(a) legible
(b) efficient (even with the magical compiler support)
(c) particularly safe

is just incompetent and out to lunch.

The above code is sh*t, and it generates shit code. It looks bad, and
there's no reason for it."

"Geometry can produce legible letters, but art alone makes the beautiful. Art begins where geometry ends, and imparts to letters a character transcending mere measurement." - Paul Standard

rant.author != this

Christ people. This is just sh*t.

The conflict I get is due to stupid new gcc header file crap. But what
makes me upset is that the crap is for completely bogus reasons.

This is the old code in net/ipv6/ip6_output.c:

mtu -= hlen + sizeof(struct frag_hdr);

and this is the new "improved" code that uses fancy stuff that wants
magical built-in compiler support and has silly wrapper functions for
when it doesn't exist:

if (overflow_usub(mtu, hlen + sizeof(struct frag_hdr), &mtu) ||
mtu <= 7)
goto fail_toobig;

and anybody who thinks that the above is

(a) legible
(b) efficient (even with the magical compiler support)
(c) particularly safe

is just incompetent and out to lunch.

The above code is sh*t, and it generates shit code. It looks bad, and
there's no reason for it.

The code could *easily* have been done with just a single and
understandable conditional, and the compiler would actually have
generated better code, and the code would look better and more
understandable. Why is this not

if (mtu < hlen + sizeof(struct frag_hdr) + 8)
goto fail_toobig;
mtu -= hlen + sizeof(struct frag_hdr);

which is the same number of lines, doesn't use crazy helper functions
that nobody knows what they do, and is much more obvious what it
actually does.

I guarantee that the second more obvious version is easier to read and
understand. Does anybody really want to dispute this?

Really. Give me *one* reason why it was written in that idiotic way
with two different conditionals, and a shiny new nonstandard function
that wants particular compiler support to generate even half-way sane
code, and even then generates worse code? A shiny function that we
have never ever needed anywhere else, and that is just
compiler-masturbation.

And yes, you still could have overflow issues if the whole "hlen +
xyz" expression overflows, but quite frankly, the "overflow_usub()"
code had that too. So if you worry about that, then you damn well
didn't do the right thing to begin with.

So I really see no reason for this kind of complete idiotic crap.

Tell me why. Because I'm not pulling this kind of completely insane
stuff that generates conflicts at rc7 time, and that seems to have
absolutely no reason for being anm idiotic unreadable mess.

The code seems *designed* to use that new "overflow_usub()" code. It
seems to be an excuse to use that function.

And it's a f*cking bad excuse for that braindamage.

I'm sorry, but we don't add idiotic new interfaces like this for
idiotic new code like that.

Yes, yes, if this had stayed inside the network layer I would never
have noticed. But since I *did* notice, I really don't want to pull
this. In fact, I want to make it clear to *everybody* that code like
this is completely unacceptable. Anybody who thinks that code like
this is "safe" and "secure" because it uses fancy overflow detection
functions is so far out to lunch that it's not even funny. All this
kind of crap does is to make the code a unreadable mess with code that
no sane person will ever really understand what it actually does.

Get rid of it. And I don't *ever* want to see that shit again.

def longVariableNamesEverywhere(*args):
"""
Not a substitute for docstrings and code comments.
"""
#TODO: insert witty and legible code.
#TODO: learn to read code.

return "Rant and self-deprecation complete."