Pointers: The Memory Monster Only Veterans Can Tame

The classic "things are easy when you've mastered them" pattern. Experienced C++ devs saying pointers aren't hard is like billionaires claiming money doesn't matter or supermodels saying looks are irrelevant. Meanwhile, the rest of us are still trying to figure out why our program just segfaulted because we dereferenced a null pointer for the 17th time today. Sure, pointers are "easy" after you've spent 5 years debugging memory leaks and dangling references.

Ah yes, the anti-programming manifesto from someone who clearly had their code compile on the first try and couldn't handle the success. The author seems to believe computers should just magically do math without being told how. Next they'll expect their car to drive without a steering wheel because "wheels are circles, not driving devices." My favorite part is complaining about recursive methods with threads while typing this rant on a device powered by... wait for it... programming. That's like yelling at clouds for raining while standing under an umbrella. And that final while(true){ print(money); } snippet? If only it were that easy. I've been running that code for years and my bank account remains stubbornly unimpressed.

Behold the C++ developer in their natural habitat: manually managing memory while flexing on "easier" languages. These magnificent creatures believe that if you're not wrestling with pointers and segmentation faults before breakfast, you're not really programming. They've built biceps from carrying the weight of all those header files and abs from tensing up every time they forget to delete what they malloc'd. Modern languages with garbage collection? That's for the weak. Real programmers prefer their languages like they prefer their coffee—unnecessarily complex and likely to keep you up at night debugging.

The Linux kernel devs have spoken! Why bother with those pesky GNU coding standards when you can just set them on fire? It's the ultimate programmer power move. Forget tabs vs spaces debates - we're now in the "print and burn your style guide" era. Torvalds would be proud of this chaotic energy. Nothing says "I write kernel code my way" like the ashes of formatting rules gently floating away...

The C++ standards committee is literally speedrunning version numbers like it's a competitive sport. We've got C++26, C++29, C++32, C++33, and then there's ISO C just chilling in the graveyard like the ancient relic it is. While C++ is out here releasing a new standard every time you blink, poor old C is still stuck with C11 and C17, basically fossilizing in real-time. By 2050, C++ will probably be at version C++127 with built-in time travel features, while C developers will still be manually managing memory like it's 1972. The generational gap between these two is absolutely SENDING me—one's evolving faster than a Pokémon on steroids, the other's preserved like a prehistoric mosquito in amber.

The eternal computer science debate that makes absolutely no sense to normal humans: endianness. On the left, the logical person crying because "end" should refer to what comes last (little-endian should be MSB first). On the right, Danny Cohen smugly enjoying the chaos he created by naming it backwards - where "big end" refers to the most significant byte coming first. For the uninitiated: endianness determines how multi-byte values are stored in memory. It's like arguing whether to read a number from left-to-right or right-to-left, except we've been fighting about it since the 1980s and nobody will ever surrender.