• CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    28 days ago

    And TBF neither is brainfuck. It was a bit of a cheeky example, but I wanted to really emphasise the range of differences between languages, and language-like things.

    I have trouble believing that every language is exactly as easy to organise code in. I’ll give you that it’s possible in every language (and assembly) to organise code, but that’s far too low a bar for practical measurement. Technically you can dig a ditch with a rusty spoon, too…

    If Roller Coaster Tycoon had well organised code, that was down to way more effort being expended to make it that way.

    • NeatNit@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      28 days ago

      I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree. If any project in any language has well-organized code, it’s down to a ton of effort.

      Assembly is harder to code in, period. It’s even harder when your code is a total mess and you didn’t plan ahead. For a large assembly project to survive at all, some structure is as necessary as oxygen. And not to mention, there are far fewer projects written in assembly anyway.

    • NeatNit@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      28 days ago

      Oh, and if you really want a tough language, try Malbolge. The ratio of structured code to spaghetti code in that one is 0:1 - there are 0 instances of non-spaghetti code, and 1 instance of spaghetti code. I refuse to believe there’s any more code other than the Hello World example.