Programmer Humor

32031 readers

1302 users here now

Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)

Rules:

Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
No NSFW content.
Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

cat_programmer@lemmy.ml

213

"☹️".reverse() == "🙂" (sopuli.xyz)

submitted 3 weeks ago by hydroptic@sopuli.xyz to c/programmerhumor@lemmy.ml

29 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] TCB13@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I dint know many OO languages that don’t have a useless toString on string types

Okay, fair enough. Guess I never found about it because I never had to do it... JS also allows for "test string".toString() directly, not sure how it goes in other languages.

[–] skullgiver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Java would be "test string".toString(). C# has "test string".ToString(). Python has str("test string") (as str() is Python's toString equivalent). Rust has String::from("test string").to_string().

That's just from the top of my head. I'm sure there's more.

Edit: actually, I think Rust's to_string() may not be entirely useless, I think it may be used as a consuming placeholder for clone()? Not sure how that would be useful, but it's not a complete no-op at least.

[–] tmat256@lemmings.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

It's also incredibly useful as a failsafe in a helper method where you need the argument to be a string but someone might pass in something that is sort of a string. Lets you be a little more flexible in how your method gets called