A Code By Any Other Name

Content usage: git push options repository refspec... -V, --verbose -9, --quiet --repo repository -all --mirror -d, --delete --tags -n, -dry-run --porcelain -f be more verbose be more quiet repository push all refs mirror all refs delete refs push tags (can't be used with --all or --mirror) dry run machine-readable output to pay respects force-with-leaserefname:expect require old value of ref to be at this value --force-if-includes require remote updates to be integrated locally --recurse-submodules ( checkon-demand no) control recursive pushing of submodules --thin use thin pack --receive-pack receive-pack receive pack program --exec receive-pack receive pack program -U, --set-upstream set upstream for git pullstatus --progress force progress reporting --prune prune locally removed refs --no-verifv bypass pre-push hook --follow-tags push missing but relevant tags --signed (yes no if-asked) GPG sign the push --atomic request atomic transaction on remote side -0, --push-option server-specific option to transmit -4, -- ipv4 -6, --ipv6 ProdrammerHumor.io use IPv4 addresses only use IPv6 addresses only

Content String.prototype.split() JS Python String split() Go strings.Split() I, ava String.split () RAILS split (String) phP explode

Content My friend's reaction when i write his 600 C Code in 10 lines on python

Content Sign In username password Remember me Your password must contain at least three of the following four: upper case letter. lowercase letter. number. symbol. You can remove the following constraints with a small donation: upper case letter Buy: 1.99 lowercase letter Buy: 1.99 number letter Buy: 1.99 symbol letter Buy: 1.99 Login

The code is a perfect example of why game developers shouldn't be allowed near RNGs unsupervised! 😂 What we're looking at is a glorious mess of Python where someone created two nearly identical functions ( count_greater_than_11 and count_greater_than_5 ) that generate random numbers between 1-20 and increment a counter when the number exceeds a threshold. But wait! The function names and comments don't even match - one says "greater than 11" in the comment but checks for > 10 in the code, while the other claims to check for > 5 but actually checks for > 4! And then there's that lonely is_divisible_by_7 function at the bottom, just hanging out with no apparent connection to anything else. It's like someone started implementing their own version of RNG bias with specific magic numbers, got bored halfway through, and shipped it anyway. This is probably why that boss battle feels unfairly difficult every 7th attempt...

Java sitting at 174 points like it's collecting war crimes. SQL and PHP are basically tied for "I'm not proud of what I've done" at 58 and 52 respectively. Python's surprisingly low at 12—guess people are too busy writing one-liners to feel ashamed. But the real plot twist? JavaScript only has 6 shame points. Either JS developers have achieved enlightenment and transcended shame, or they've been doing it wrong for so long that they've simply forgotten what good code looks like. My money's on the latter. Fortran and COBOL making the list is chef's kiss—respect to the ancient ones still maintaining that legacy banking system from 1972. MATLAB bringing up the rear with 2 points because the three people still using it are too busy with matrix multiplication to care about shame.