Old habits die hard

Even after writing ks of lines of Python over the course of 1+ ys, I still catch myself putting freaking semicolons on the end of lines, :mad: and the interpreter always has kittens over it.
Anyone else get frustrated by cross-language habit bleeding - even when you are well aware of the right thing to (not) do?

Haha, I've been doing the opposite. Been forgetting semicolons at the end of lines in C++ code.

Doing this in C or js because I've been working in perl concurrently:

Code:

---

return whatever if somecondition;

---

Doing this in perl because I've been working in C or js concurrently:

Code:

---

if (somecondition) return whatever;

---

Perl requires braces around "return whatever" in this case.

Quote:

---

semi-colons

---

In javascript, semi-colons are optional. To me, this is a dubious feature; ultimately it's not good because it makes the code whitespace dependant, when it is otherwise a common practice to compact js by ripping the whitespace out. But sometimes I feel I am being anal by using them, so I don't bother. Other times, I am proud to be anal. After a few revisions, I end up with code that has that is "somewhat dusted" with semi-colons.

Another big one is the string concatenate operator, which is + in js but . in perl.

I'm learning java now and I can see ! being an issue. It only applies to booleans:

Code:

---

error: bad operand type int for unary operator '!'

---

Oh GFY. Zero is false. Everyone knows that.

Taking a Java course, and the other day just couldn't figure out why my compiler was throwing a tantrum over the following code:

Code:

---

std::string[] myStrings;

---

Had to look at it real hard before i realised the brackets go after the name in C++, whereas in Java they go after the type (Which makes far more sense to me anyways.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MK27

In javascript, semi-colons are optional. To me, this is a dubious feature; ultimately it's not good because it makes the code whitespace dependant, when it is otherwise a common practice to compact js by ripping the whitespace out.

---

Yeah, that's exactly how I feel about it. As such, I almost always use them in JS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MK27

Another big one is the string concatenate operator, which is + in js but . in perl.

---

Surprisingly, I've not had much of an issue here. You cat with '+' in Python as well as JS, but '.' in PHP. But my favorite in that area, is _definitely_ shell script, where you just sit them next to each other with no operator. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MK27

Oh GFY. Zero is false. Everyone knows that.

---

Sounds like your trying to make Java more C-like. In Java, aren't booleans suppose to be treated more separately from integers, in concept and code design? In some ways I think this was good decision, i mean, programming history aside, 0 is 0, false is false, they're not quite the same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neo1

Had to look at it real hard before i realised the brackets go after the name in C++, whereas in Java they go after the type (Which makes far more sense to me anyways.)

---

I sort of agree, in fact, instead of declaring pointers with the "official" style, like "int *ptr", I put it on the other side of the whitespace, like "int* ptr". As you say, it makes more sense.
However, I wouldn't completely agree on the array. Tn old C, arrays were _not_ first class in any way, so it would make sense to put it either way, and they chose after.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yarin

In Java, aren't booleans suppose to be treated more separately from integers, in concept and code design?

---

Evidently, just none of the material I read up to that point said this explicitly. Which makes a kind of sense. Why would there be any relationship between booleans and integers? I just assumed it in that regard.

TBH I think booleans are near pointless sugar in any language; I'll use them just because that is convention. The idea that they are communicatively important implies that this could somehow make up for a complete lack of commentary or documentation. So rather than noting somewhere, "returns 1 if successful or 0 otherwise" (or as is common in the absence of booleans, the reverse), I just use boolean? Does that explain what true and false will indicate? In which case I either need to consult the documentation or scrutinize the code myself, meaning using a boolean instead of an int did not communicate much of value.

OTOH, who doesn't like sugar? After all, you can't have too many keywords.

Quote:

---

In some ways I think this was good decision, i mean, programming history aside, 0 is 0, false is false, they're not quite the same thing.

---

Agreed. I would imagine if a language like java were your first, it might seem counter-intuitive to think of zero (or any number) as false. Or true.

Another whoops because of perl, involving semi-colons:

Code:

---

if (somecondition) { return x }

---

Notice, no semi-colon, which is legal in perl if there is only one line inside the braces (but, you must use braces regardless). Since most other languages don't require braces there, where this comes up is simple methods:

Code:

---

int getX () { return X }

---

Further encouraged by the fact that is okay in js...

i++

Not in python.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whiteflags

i++

Not in python.

---

At least you have the += operator though. In MATLAB, a language solely for numerics, there's neither i++ or i += 1.

Edit: They aren't in FORTRAN either.

Yeah, not having ++ in Python isn't so bad, because it's mostly used in C(++) for iteration. And iteration is done differently in Python. And when you do need it, +=1 isn't so bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Epy

At least you have the += operator though. In MATLAB, a language solely for numerics, there's neither i++ or i += 1.

Edit: They aren't in FORTRAN either.

---

I recently discovered that += isn't in QuakeC, either. :eek: Who in their right might would exclude such an essential operator from their language?

I thought this thread was about my habits. Even if you guys don't think it's bad, it still gets me. I have to think about it every time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yarin

I recently discovered that += isn't in QuakeC, either. :eek: Who in their right might would exclude such an essential operator from their language?

---

Lua has neither `++` nor `+=`. I was unreasonably upset about this.

Fortran has neither. And that is a good thing, if you are a mathematician.