Break convention
` class foo: def init(cunt, bar): cunt.bar=True
`
this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2025
449 points (97.3% liked)
Programmer Humor
25180 readers
1632 users here now
Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
Rules
- Keep content in english
- No advertisements
- Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
nah, I'm never complaining about self in Python after having tried the this and that nonsense in JS.
oh, you're using a named function instead of an arrow fn? Guess what, this is not what it used to be anymore.
Oh, you assigned a method to a variable before calling it? Congratulations, this is now undefined.
Yes. There's no telling what this is. this could be anything. We tried to keep track of this, but no one knows when this will change.
I used to be with this, but then they changed what this was.
Now what I'm with isn't this, and what's this seems weird and scary to me.
This'll happen to you!
Wait there's a "that"???
Only if you define it.
const that = this
I remember that a long time ago. Oh god
I remember this too... what a nightmare.
it's common practice as a workaround to save this when changing contexts, since this may change under you, in callbacks and such
Kotlin:
this@outerFunction.bla
Yeah totally agree.
As a non-programmer who's occasionally dabbled with wxPython, I've entangled myself with self.parent.parent and their childs/siblings more than once. At that stage I know my project is done.
Sorry, I'm too Rust-pilled for this OOP nonsense
pub fn new() -> Self {
Self::self().self.unwrap()
}
Even regular Rust code is more "exciting" than Python in this regard, since you have a choice between self, &self, and &mut self. And occasionally mut self, &'a self, and even self: Box<Self>. All of which offer different semantics depending on what exactly you're trying to do.
I'll add that 100% of the above is understood by the compiler. Unlike Python or JavaScript where you don't know how bad you have it until the program is already running.
At least python has a decent runtime typing system
JS's type system feels like what you'd get by giving a monkey access to unlimited cocaine and a computer
Reminds me of java
I have Toolkit toolkit = Toolkit.getDefaultToolkit(); seared into my brain. Then there were the bean factories…
At least with Rust, there is a specific, defensible goal for why it does that.
Java is just over designed. All of java.io reads like somebody's Object Orientated Programming 101 final project, and they'd get a B- for it. Lots of things where you can see how they're abstracting things, but there's no thought at all in bringing it together in a tidy way.
Not like C# is all that much better. So much garbage in the fundamentals just because it was done that way at the start and "they can't change it now". The best example is the IList interface.
Theoretically this interface exposes both index-based access and collection-like modifications and as such would be perfect in a function if you need those two features on a type. In reality you can't use it as a function parameter because half the official types implementing IList aren't modifiable and throw a runtime error. E.g Arrays
Embrace the holy light of Dart
Oh god, I didn't knew that. That's funny.
That's a footgun sure but at least you can avoid it once you're aware of the problem.
I never write function signatures with mutable interfaces. It's always IEnumerable, IReadOnlyCollection, or IReadOnlyList; otherwise, use a concrete type. The latter is typical for private/protected methods that are called with instance members of a concrete type rather than public interfaces. If you want to mutate an object, you should own it. Public methods are invoked with data not owned by the instance.
For example, a lot of extension methods in LINQ have a signature IEnumerable --> IEnumerable, and internally the first thing they do is call .ToList(). The interface makes minimal assumptions about the input data, then puts it into a concrete type you can manipulate efficiently. You can similarly define a method for IReadOnlyList and explicitly make it mutable via .ToList(), rather than use IList and check .IsReadOnly. Both ensure correctness but the former does it at the type level, at design time, instead of relying on runtime checks.
C# is old and full of oldness. But it's also an excellent language that can be written beautifully if you know how. And there's lots of great code to learn from in the open-source dotnet core runtime repo and related projects.
Functional programming fixes the problem by simply not making it OO anymore, and while I'm personally a big fan of the paradigm there are situations where an OO approach is preferable (or even only to conform to a project's existing way of doing things).
What I described isn't necessarily functional. This is just a principle for ensuring objects represent clear and well-defined contracts. The idea is that to mutate something, you should own it; that means interfaces / public APIs, which can be called externally, should take immutable arguments. You can still mutate instance members internally because those are owned by the instance. If mutation is really necessary between two objects then it should be coordinated by an object owning them both.
Now my brain wants to relate Java somehow to beancounters.
Having a field called r#self is malicious madness
Explicit vs implicit. Ive always liked it being explicit like that. It's better than magic keywords in say ruby.
Personally the "spaces are code" gets on my nerves for the same reason. It's implicit to the language so you just have to remember.
Am I not YAMLy enough for your YAML club?
Heh yeah yaml is another one.
Kinda' looks like how a psychotic break feels:-?
Write a new method, make sure to reference self first. Write a new method, make sure to reference self first. Call the method, make sure to reference self first.
Yeah, I can see it.
You don't reference self when calling a method, what on earth are you talking about? You start with the instance when calling the method, like most/all other OOP languages.
Also there are benefits with the explicit self/this to access instance properties. In C++ you need to make sure all class properties/members have a naming scheme that does not conflict with potential parameter names or other names of other variables.