There’s so much excellent content on wiki.c2.com it’s ridiculous. Many of the things people rant about on HN, on Facebook, on Twitter, in their blogs, have already been debated to death over a decade ago on the original wiki. (And probably on usenet before that.)
At my first job in the early 00’s, c2.com escaped the workplace net filter since it was low bandwidth, so I’d be browsing it whenever I had a free minute.
I was exposed to more CS concepts in 6mo than the last two years of college. It helped me finally understand functional programming (which I then used on the job with XSLT), and got me learning Ruby&Io(via “what exactly are coroutines?”), which lead directly to my next job.
Continuations and Coroutines was pretty mind-expanding for a first page, as I was trying to understand a Tim Sweeney interview comment that monsters in UnrealScript “all moved at the same time”
This is great to hear someone else had a similar experience. I still (infrequently) point other programmers at it - though wikipedia has lots more of this information now.
Thank god they clarified that this is NOT a compliment, because I am not a C programmer, but back when I was, code with three *’s made me cringe in the rare cases I saw it, and made me cringe even harder if there were no parens or other indicators to help me understand what the @$##@ you were trying to do with this code.
They way I always thought of it, when I was doing C, was that each * was dimension of an array, so * would be [], ** would be [][], *** is [][][] etc. Did anyone else think of it that way?
Yes but IMO in that case I would always choose the [][] because they make it utterly clear what you are trying to do, whereas general pointer dereferencing could be anything.
Haha this reminds me of a code I have encountered at my first (full time) job. It was 3 star indeed, with function pointers. It was supposed to be unit test (in C), but this style was needed for code reuse because tests are repetative, you know :)
We ended up throwing out the complete garbage and rewriting the tests from scratch. Old times… :)
it’s worth pointing out that this is the original wiki. It’s recently been rewritten in JS, but they have stuck with their old conventions through lots of waves of stylistic changes that have influenced UX/web design. I’m sure they’d consider a pull request source code on github
Yeah, c2 has always had a conversational instead of authoritative tone; with little formatting conventions, so it can read as a stream of consciousness at times.
Yeah, the original was easier to read. It just had a plain, one-point-after-another style. I loved reading all the debates on there about things like LISP.
There’s so much excellent content on wiki.c2.com it’s ridiculous. Many of the things people rant about on HN, on Facebook, on Twitter, in their blogs, have already been debated to death over a decade ago on the original wiki. (And probably on usenet before that.)
At my first job in the early 00’s, c2.com escaped the workplace net filter since it was low bandwidth, so I’d be browsing it whenever I had a free minute.
I was exposed to more CS concepts in 6mo than the last two years of college. It helped me finally understand functional programming (which I then used on the job with XSLT), and got me learning Ruby&Io(via “what exactly are coroutines?”), which lead directly to my next job.
Any favorites for learning CS?
Continuations and Coroutines was pretty mind-expanding for a first page, as I was trying to understand a Tim Sweeney interview comment that monsters in UnrealScript “all moved at the same time”
This is great to hear someone else had a similar experience. I still (infrequently) point other programmers at it - though wikipedia has lots more of this information now.
I think I’ve read almost all of several sections of that site.
Totally amazing and worth the time, even if some pages are not very good.
[Comment removed by author]
Thank god they clarified that this is NOT a compliment, because I am not a C programmer, but back when I was, code with three *’s made me cringe in the rare cases I saw it, and made me cringe even harder if there were no parens or other indicators to help me understand what the @$##@ you were trying to do with this code.
They way I always thought of it, when I was doing C, was that each * was dimension of an array, so * would be [], ** would be [][], *** is [][][] etc. Did anyone else think of it that way?
Yes but IMO in that case I would always choose the [][] because they make it utterly clear what you are trying to do, whereas general pointer dereferencing could be anything.
Haha this reminds me of a code I have encountered at my first (full time) job. It was 3 star indeed, with function pointers. It was supposed to be unit test (in C), but this style was needed for code reuse because tests are repetative, you know :)
We ended up throwing out the complete garbage and rewriting the tests from scratch. Old times… :)
This thing is barely readable. What the fuck?
If you build a collaborative website, show the threads, the authors (BEFORE a new paragraph, not after), who added what and when.
This reads like a dump of opinions.
That’s pretty ironic given the subject.
it’s worth pointing out that this is the original wiki. It’s recently been rewritten in JS, but they have stuck with their old conventions through lots of waves of stylistic changes that have influenced UX/web design. I’m sure they’d consider a pull request source code on github
Yeah, c2 has always had a conversational instead of authoritative tone; with little formatting conventions, so it can read as a stream of consciousness at times.
Yeah, the original was easier to read. It just had a plain, one-point-after-another style. I loved reading all the debates on there about things like LISP.