This is possibly one of the more cursed single sentences I've ever seen in a job posting
-
Irenes (many)replied to Cassandra Granade 🏳️⚧️ last edited by
-
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] yeah, that actually sounds like it would be useful and work! So definitely not what they’re doing.
-
Cassandra Granade 🏳️⚧️replied to Irenes (many) last edited by
@ireneista @SnoopJ @aud @glyph Slide 116 or so of https://web.archive.org/web/20060819201513/http://research.sun.com/projects/plrg/PLDITutorialSlides9Jun2006.pdf has a good summary.
-
@SnoopJ @aud @glyph @xgranade most of our codebase where i work is COBOL and every few years we start talking to a new company that claims they can translate it into Java, but none have actually been able to deliver. my conspiracy theory is that any companies still left with mainframes and COBOL are far past the point of being able to transition from that, and these COBOL-away companies make all their money doing long expensive consultations before saying it won't work and finding another sucker. it's Lucy-pulling-the-football-out-from-under-Charlie-Brown-as-a-Service, or LptfofuCBaaS
-
Cassandra Granade 🏳️⚧️replied to Asta [AMP] last edited by
@aud @SnoopJ @glyph @ireneista Oh no, it was slightly worse than that even still. Any file in your project could have a compiler directive that changed the array base globally for the project. It wasn't even an option in your project, that might make some sense!
-
Asta [AMP]replied to Cassandra Granade 🏳️⚧️ last edited by
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] okay! Having not just focused on the LaTeX part this time but the ring and field one… that is… I want that.
Am I correct in thinking that would mean, like, compiler created operator overloads/implementations for arbitrary types for which you could define what the result must be?? -
SpookJ 👻replied to Cassandra Granade 🏳️⚧️ last edited by
@xgranade @ireneista @aud @glyph [record scratch] yup, that's me. You're probably wondering how I ended up in this situation.
-
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] … alright, well, when phrased that way, it is much less appealing.
