pouët.net

"pouët != scene && scene != pouët"

category: general [glöplog]
Beneath the pouet logo, the following slogan appears sometimes:
"pouët != scene && scene != pouët"

I wonder whether the person who wrote this is a programmer. Is it that he doesn't understand much about logics or is it that he assumes the pouet users to have so little understanding about logics that he made this statement so redundant?

Since "!=" is a commutative operator, "pouët != scene" implies that "scene != pouët", so it's obsolete to test for both.
added on the 2004-12-10 10:40:27 by Adok Adok
Take thy bike and ride my little friend.

(you mean "redundant" and not "obsolete").
added on the 2004-12-10 10:46:58 by hitchhikr hitchhikr
yeh, that dude sucks.
added on the 2004-12-10 10:47:08 by psenough psenough
let for the sake of incompleteness define that the &&-operator binds stronger than the != operator. that gives more meaning :D (ie. implies that pouet is false!)
alas the real world has many idiosyncracies that the digital form cannot wholeheartedly represent. in respect there are some few people who outfacing multiple contexts choose to depict their lack of complete understanding following ambiguous satire and higher cognitive comprehension of the obvious. i pity them.
added on the 2004-12-10 10:57:32 by psenough psenough
If && binds stronger than !=, then:

1) If scene == true, then scene && scene == true; then:
1.1) If the compiler evaluates from left to right
1.1.1) If pouët == true, then pouët != true is false. Then false != pouët is true. So we get true.
1.1.2) If pouët == false, then pouët != true is true. Then true != pouët is true. So we get true.
1.2) If the compiler evaluates from right to left:
1.2.1) If pouët == true, then true != pouët is false. Then pouët != false is true. So we get true.
1.2.2) If pouët == false, then true != pouët is true. Then pouët != true is true. So we get true.
2) If scene == false, then scene && scene == false; then:
2.1) If the compiler evaluates from left to right
2.1.1) If pouët == true, then pouët != false is true. Then true != pouët is false. So we get false.
2.1.2) If pouët == false, then pouët != false is false Then false != pouët is false. So we get false.
2.2) If the compiler evaluates from right to left:
2.2.1) If pouët == true, then false != pouët is true. Then pouët != true is false. So we get false.
2.2.2) If pouët == false, then false != pouët is false. Then pouët != false is false. So we get false.

So no matter whether the compiler evaluates from left to right or from right to left, we get: (pouët != scene && scene != pouët) == scene.
added on the 2004-12-10 10:59:45 by Adok Adok
!= have higher precedence level anyway so this operation is simply redundant. You can translate it by:

Code: if(pouet != scene) { if(scene != pouet) { Big BullShit here } }


Now that's it for the geek talk.
added on the 2004-12-10 11:00:11 by hitchhikr hitchhikr
hitchhikr: That's just what I said in my first posting. I assumed that != has a higher precedence level than && (in other words: != is evaluated first). This is the usual behaviour in languages such as C.
added on the 2004-12-10 11:02:51 by Adok Adok
But Rasmus' variant is also interesting, of course. From a theoretical aspect, that is.
added on the 2004-12-10 11:03:25 by Adok Adok
pouet uses its own coding language called lobsterssealbasherwithavenageancefromtheyear7006kingsizeextrabullmasterstrong

its for advanced minds only.
added on the 2004-12-10 11:07:10 by psenough psenough
you need to master the way of the bass before you can start trying to comprehend it.
added on the 2004-12-10 11:07:57 by psenough psenough
<scali>
I never said you were wrong. Just that it's "redundant" and not "obsolete".

Kind Rasmus is eventually mixing up && with & and in this case he's also wrong because the condition is verified if, for example, pouet=0 and scene=1 (just an arbitrary example).
</scali>

People understimate the true power of the bass, believe me.
added on the 2004-12-10 11:11:59 by hitchhikr hitchhikr
bass is god!
added on the 2004-12-10 11:14:34 by psenough psenough
Quote:
"Kind Rasmus is eventually mixing up && with & and in this case he's also wrong because the condition is verified if, for example, pouet=0 and scene=1 (just an arbitrary example)."

That's right. I've already shown all the possible cases in one of my postings. Feel free to correct any mistakes in case you find any.
added on the 2004-12-10 11:16:09 by Adok Adok
That's a work for SuperCali.
added on the 2004-12-10 11:18:34 by hitchhikr hitchhikr
how about you just jump on the cluetrain the next time it passes by, adok?
added on the 2004-12-10 11:39:17 by kusma kusma
Who the fuck cares. Stop whining, and code some productions intead of starting somewhat useless topics.
added on the 2004-12-10 11:48:19 by shash shash
move.l pouet(pc),d0
move.l scene(pc),d1
cmp.l d0,d1
beq.s .nope
cmp.l d1,d0
beq.s .nope
move.l dosbase(pc),a6
jsr _LVOOutput(a6)
move.l d0,d1
move.l #big_bullshit,d2
move.l #big_bullshit_len,d3
.nope
added on the 2004-12-10 11:53:24 by xeron xeron
Argh fuck i forgot the jsr _LVOWrite(a6)
added on the 2004-12-10 11:53:38 by xeron xeron
the only one who's probably got it is optimus.
added on the 2004-12-10 12:18:10 by dalezr dalezr
GET A LIFE™!
added on the 2004-12-10 13:38:35 by zomb zomb
dear adok,
you really are a fucking huge lamer.

lots of love,
the world.

added on the 2004-12-10 13:49:35 by smash smash
some ppl just have way too much sparetime on their hands :P
BB Image
added on the 2004-12-10 13:51:58 by Gargaj Gargaj

login