MinekPo1 [She/Her]

honestly I use .hh/.cc which is quite nice IMO . you can also use .hpp/.cpp but I don’t like it personally

reminder that .H can be used as a c++ header extension , along with .C for source files

honesty I never understood why people consider malbolge so bad . sure its difficult AF to do anything in and the complexity gets quite higher still , but IMHO its just to abstract to be painful , it feels to different to feel like something you should be able to understand .

honesty struggling to write simple operations in some of my own esolangs was way more mind-bendingly horrid than I think malbolge could be without making a compiler to it , while still feeling like I was programming .

to be fair I also made ArrayFuck so yeah

don’t worry , it can always get worse . source : I implemented a esoteric programming language of my own making with just a parser (no lexer !) and a tree walking interpreter while reimplementing a standard library and depending on undefined behavior in python . honestly I fear that code more each time I look at it

binary blobs aren’t really a security hole , since AFAIK the pypi team don’t check every package for malicious code before they get shown publicly . it just shifts the trust from pypi to the library authors

I’m think the answer there does not apply to the PHP version of regex though I’m not entirely sure

While I agree with you , the Open Software Initiative doesn’t :

Open source doesn’t just mean access to the source code.

So according to the OSI’s definition of open source , a project being public on github , but with out a license or with a license which does not comply with the requirements set out by the OSI

no it still doesn’t because unless that ai will code in assembly (which you could argue is a statically typed programming language with just one type , but lets not be pedantic) , it will still use programming languages , which means it will still matter if a language something is made is statically or dynamically typed .

even with the assumption that AI will be able to efficiency code in assembly , lets entertain the exponential growth version of ai often shown in fiction , it will still not be worth for that super intelligence to write in assembly (except for what we humans would call fun or for small cases where its necessary like os headers etc) because a compiler will do it faster and likely good enough , especially as it will then be able to make a better compiler . it will also likely not want to spend time/focus to scan the assembly code which is another advantage to not writing in pure assembly .

making that statement requires a complete lack of understanding how programming works along with an over"optimistic" view on the future of ai nya

to be fair , making a simple os is a fun side project , though I would recommend going with a toy VM rather than actual hardware

Not that it will matter in the AI future

that statement makes so little sense I feel like Mount stupid does not give it justice .

yeah but why is a single character string containing a tab equal to zero ???