That Moment When Your Code Works

The classic programmer journey from self-righteousness to self-sabotage in three easy steps: First, you write a verbose, descriptive function name that perfectly documents what it does. You feel virtuous. Clean code! Self-documenting! Then, you realize typing that monstrosity repeatedly is killing your productivity. So you create a wrapper function with a shorter name. Problem solved! Finally, you're faced with your creation in production code: if (cumming()) - and suddenly you remember why code reviews exist. Your future maintainers will either die laughing or hunt you down with pitchforks. And this, friends, is why naming things remains one of the two hardest problems in computer science.

The eternal developer struggle: spending four hours trying to force a flip-flop through a sock when you could've just spent five minutes reading the manual. The documentation is right there, beckoning with its sweet knowledge, but no—we'd rather perform sock contortionism while muttering "this should work" for the 47th time. And then have the audacity to complain that the library is "poorly designed" when our sock-sandal monstrosity inevitably fails. The real tragedy? We'll do it again tomorrow.

Every developer's relationship with Copilot in two frames. First you're all polite about it, nodding along like "ah yes, very innovative, love what you've done with the place." Then reality kicks in and you're frantically googling how to turn off the AI that keeps autocompleting your variable names into Shakespearean sonnets. It's like having an overly enthusiastic intern who won't stop suggesting "improvements" to your perfectly functional code. Sure, it can write a binary search tree, but can it stop interrupting me every three seconds? Didn't think so.

Content C C Sharp C Octothorpe C HASHTAG

Content What programmers think they are I'm Cool Rick! What programmers actually are adult swim

Someone asks if a mysterious black box has demons in it. The response? "Yea but they're based." Another person questions what they're based on, and the answer is simply: "C++." The joke is a play on "microservices" vs "microdaemons" (daemons being background processes in Unix/Linux, pronounced like "demons"). The title references how people still call them "services" instead of the technically correct "daemons"—and jokes that they forgot the 'A' in daemon. But the real gold here is the "based" pun. In tech, we say something is "based on" a technology (like "based on C++"), but the internet slang "based" means being unapologetically yourself. So when someone asks if it has demons, the answer works on both levels: yes it has daemons (background processes), and yes they're based (written in C++). Chef's kiss of a double entendre. The fact that C++ is the foundation makes it even funnier—because of course the demons would be written in the language that's basically controlled chaos with pointers.