Three D Donut In C Tastes Good

Someone's job security strategy is absolutely chef's kiss . Instead of writing clean, maintainable code, they've created a function that always returns 2, labeled it as "job security," and then made two helper functions that literally copy memory addresses to change the return value. Nothing says "I'll never be fired" like writing code that only you understand and using memcpy() to overwrite function implementations instead of, you know, just changing the original function. Because why write one line of code when you can write twenty that require a hazmat suit to maintain? Bonus points for the "NEVER call this function" comments that scream "I'm the only one who knows which landmines not to step on." Pure evil genius at work here.

The quantum uncertainty principle of code quality! When no one's watching, your code is a beautiful disaster of pointer arithmetic, bit shifting, and variables named "threehalfs" (probably implementing some obscure optimization hack). But the MILLISECOND someone glances at your screen, your code transforms into the most redundant, self-explanatory conditional statement in existence—literally checking if something is true to return true. It's like your code has performance anxiety and suddenly pretends to be following best practices. The compiler doesn't judge you, but that coworker walking by sure does!

The brutal reality of Assembly language summed up in one perfect Carl Sagan reference! When high-level languages let you just import a library and call makePie() , Assembly forces you to manually manage every electron in the universe. Want to print "Hello World"? First define the cosmos, build a CPU from quarks, and then spend 47 lines moving individual bytes into registers. It's like building a skyscraper with tweezers when everyone else is using cranes. No wonder Assembly programmers have that thousand-yard stare—they've seen the void between the bits.

When philosophers ask if a clone is the same person, programmers swoop in with the actual technical answer. Clone by reference? Same memory address, same person. Clone by value? New memory allocation, different person. Leave it to devs to solve ancient philosophical debates with a one-liner about pointers. This is why we're not invited to dinner parties.

Ah, the royal court of C++ where Bjarne Stroustrup sits on the throne while everyone else fights about memory management! The king created a language so powerful it can shoot you in the foot with surgical precision. Meanwhile, the seasoned C++ veterans who've spent two decades battling segmentation faults stand loyally by his side, while the "actual haters" and programmers from higher-level languages cower in the corner. And there's Ken Thompson, just hanging out, probably thinking "I created C, I started this mess and now I'm just here for the drama." The best part? Everyone's arguing about whether C++ is terrible while simultaneously using libraries written in it. The circle of programming life.

The simplicity-to-verbosity pipeline of programming languages in one perfect SpongeBob progression: Python's print - clean, simple, happy SpongeBob energy. Just works! C++'s cout - slightly more complex with those weird << operators, but still manageable. SpongeBob's starting to feel the strain. And then there's Java's System.out.println - the final boss of verbosity that makes you question your life choices. Poor SpongeBob looks like he's having an existential crisis just typing it out. The real nightmare isn't the syntax - it's that someone at Oracle decided "Hey, let's make developers type 21 characters where 5 would do!"