Y’all laugh but this man has amazing code coverage numbers.
To be fair, the question is “Write a function that simultaneously determines if the number is even and works as a timer”
sleepSort meets sleepIsEven
Can you imagine being a TA and having to grade somebody’s hw and you get this first thing? lmao
That code is so wrong. We’re talking about Jason “Thor” Hall here—that function should be returning 1 and 0, not booleans.
If you don't get the joke...
In the source code for his GameMaker game, he never uses
trueorfalse. It’s always comparing a number equal to 1.Frankly, it’s what I did, too, after coming out of Uni-level C.
My code was goddamn unreadable.
It’s the same for a lot of people. Beginners are still learning good practices for maintainable code, and they’re expected to get better over time.
The reason people are ragging on PirateSoftware/Jason/Thor isn’t because he’s bad at writing code. It’s because he’s bad at writing code, proclaiming to be an experienced game development veteran, and doubling down and making excuses whenever people point out where his code could be better.
Nobody would have cared if he admitted that he has some areas for improvement, but he seemingly has to flaunt his overstated qualifications and act like the be-all, end-all, know-it-all of video game development. I’m more invested in watching the drama unfold than I should be, but it’s hard not to appreciate the schadenfreude from watching arrogant influencers destroy their reputation.
He’s totally one of those people that’s sort of attractive and has an authoritative voice so s lot of people have probably folded to him in arguments through his life. I don’t like making generalizations like that about people but this isn’t the first time he’s acted like this. The one that really took the cake was the whole hardcore WoW raid debacle.
The TL;DR is, as well as not trying to really spend time on the parts that don’t matter, he did some things that may or may not have been the right thing to do in the situation depending on your perspective. But whenever any of his guild mates or other viewers would criticize him he’d be so adamant that no, he didn’t do anything wrong, he did exactly what he was supposed to do, etc. People would even explicitly tell him “hey, what’s pissing us off now isn’t that you did it, it’s that you’re so adamant you couldn’t have possibly made a mistake, you’re not willing to see our perspective. You’re not willing to admit that maybe you could’ve been wrong. You’re not willing to apologize.” And still, his reaction to this was to triple down and just insist he didn’t do anything wrong.
Like I literally even saw a clip of him talking to someone and he said “a lot of people think I’m being condescending when really I’m just providing context.” And the guy talking to him points out “yeah, it’s a problem that you think anyone disagreeing with you doesn’t understand the situation, it’s like you think they’re stupid.” It’s like it short circuited his brain. It’s like he’d never considered it.
So yeah, I have a pretty low opinion of him. But I also recognize that maybe all these clips are taken out of context, who knows. It’s not like my opinion really matters. I don’t work with him or know him. I don’t care about streamers. I don’t really watch them.
I am working with C in embedded designs and I still use 1 or 0 for a bool certain situations, mostly lines level.
For whatever pea-brained reason, it feels yucky to me to set a gpio to true/false instead of a 1/0.
GPIOs are usually controlled by a single bit of a register anyway. Most likely you need to do something like:
// Set high PORTB |= 1 << PINB5; // Set low PORTB &= ~(1 << PINB5);I am a lazy dev (not really, clients always want fast code), so I use the provided HAL libraries 99.9% of the time.
But I have seen code where someone would write something like
gpio_write(PIN_X, true)and it always stood out to me.
Define on as true or something? Or maybe that’s more confusing. I’m not a C dev so I’m not gonna pretend to understand idiomatic microcontroller code lol.
This joke was not written by the dude pictured. The author wrote a book of funny code jokes.
When did Thor become the dev for Yandere Simulator?
pro hacker tip: you can optimize this by using “num” for the variable name instead of “number”
I prefer the cryptic each variable gets a single letter of the alphabet.
The end user yearns for their machine to be utilized fully, so instead of that, you can import full deepseek model to do the task
def is_even(n: int) -> bool: if n < 0: return is_even(-n) r = True for _ in range(n): r = not r return rHe loves me, he loves me not
Could also be done recursive, I guess?
boolean isEven(int n) { if (n == 0) { return true; } else { return !isEven(Math.abs(n - 1)); } }
I hope that the language’s
ints are at most 32 bits. For 8 bits it could even be written by hand & the source code for a 32 bit version would only take upavg_line_len * 4GiBspace for the source code of the function. But it might take a bit of time to compile a version that supports the full range of 64 or 128 bit ints.My mate, Paul, says all numbers after 700 repeat, we just give them different names so you think they’re going up.
all you have to to is throw an exception if the number is bigger than 100, who even needs numbers that big anyways?
bool isEven(int value) { return (int)(((double)value / 2.0) % 1.0) * 100) != 50; }I’ll join in
const isEven = (n) => !["1","3","5","7","9"] .includes(Math.round(n).toString().slice(-1))I’ve actually written exactly that before, when I needed to check the lowest bit in an SQL dialect with no bitwise operators. It was disgusting and awesome.
that’s some good code right there
This is YandereDev levels of bad.
this is yanderedev.
no the code is
private bool isEven(int number){ bool result = true; while (number > 0){ number = number - 1; if (result == true) result = false; else result = true; } return result; }(P.S.: Only works for positive numbers)
This works for both positive and negative numbers:
private static bool isEven(int number) { bool result = true; while (number < 0) { number = number - 1; if (result == true) result = false; else result = true; } while (number > 0) { number = number - 1; if (result == true) result = false; else result = true; } return result; }Output:
isEven(4) = True isEven(5) = False isEven(-4) = True isEven(-5) = False
