jkercher

Okay smarty-pants. What if I want a generic map then ;)

Yes and no. If you want to make something like a generic dynamic array, you can do it with type erasure (`void*`), but then your code is no longer typesafe. I would find that more fragile. The preprocessor allows you to add constructs that make it behave like any other modern language.

As an aside, clangd can dereference a macro in place to make debugging easy.

Please tell me this is sarcasm...

I think you nailed it. And that would make sense and should be expected. 99.9% of the world's software (the training data) is several orders of magnitude away from max performance.

Another possible confusing thing for an LLM is that getting close to max doesn't necessarily require any "tricks." A big part of getting in the ballpark is just not doing anything you don't have to. If program A is faster than program B, most of the time is not some magic algorithm. It's that program A just did less stuff.

I don't know man. It's just zero. Dereferencing it just crashes your program (assuming an operating system). This kind of just reads like a fear of pointers. Corrupted/out-of-range pointers are, at least, a real problem.

Meh, I think NULL is fine in C. It's an extra, valid state to represent pointers at no cost. Unlike the more hand holdy languages, it's quite rare for a pointer in C to have the ability to be NULL since, more often than not, it's pointing at something known. It's actually quite rare to see NULL checks unless it's API code or something like that. I can see this being more of a problem in a managed language where anything can be NULL at any time.

Ha. I'm probably in the more anti AI camp, but if it could free us from the plague that is Python thinking, I might change my tune. 2 seconds might feel negligible in the real world, but it is damn near an eternity in the supercomputers we're all running.

Sam?

You make that sound worse than it is. On the overall topic, you have 0 supply chain risk, and the whole thing is local. Also, your code from 2009 is still valid. That would be a foreign concept in some languages like Python.

I too have used a similar strategy of packing variables together. I even came up with a name for it. I called it a "building."

Tangentially related. Don't ever put "." in your PATH. I used to do this to avoid typing the "./" to execute something in my current directory. BAD IDEA. It can turn a typo into a fork bomb. I took down a production server trying to save typing two characters.

One of the advantages to the pointer + length approach is free substrings. This inline approach doesn't allow that.

Couldn't agree more. I have a project at work from 2016 that builds multiple different HMIs (C++) along with 2 embedded systems (C). They all have to play nicely with each other as they share some structures and can all be updated in the field with a single file on a USB stick. So there is a bash script that builds everything from a fresh clone, makes update files, and some other niceties. Then, there is a single python script that generates a handful of tables from a json file.

Guess which part of the build I spent fixing the other day... It wasn't the ~200000 lines of c/c++ or the 1000+ line bash script. No. It was 100 lines of python that was last touched 2 years years ago. Python really doesn't work as a scripting language.

I certainly would not use it prescriptively as I said originally. I wouldn't use any poker book prescriptively. You make your own style and pull pieces from others just like any other trade. I like the way Joe does X.. I like the way Jane does Y.. I have my own way to do Z. That becomes my style.

There are nuggets of wisdom in every poker book I've read even if I disagree with some parts or some are just flat out wrong. Super System, in particular, provided insights into the mind of one of the greatest player of all time. I particularly liked the psychological view on things. If nothing else, it provides context for the ones that came before you. Its been 15+ years since I read it, but beyond the fundamentals, I recall picking up (hopefully not misattributing anything here)...

- a quick, in-your-head method of calculating odds based on outs

- psychology of playing runs and others perceptions of you at the table

- the pitfalls of playing AA

- a realistic look at "tells"

- the general psychology of aggression

- how/where tight players make money and how/where aggressive players make money

Super System is the seminal book of poker. It is the book that your opponents are most likely to have read. As I alluded in my original comment, you wouldn't want to be the only person at the table who doesn't recognize someone playing the super system to the letter. IIRC, the goal was to make the player just appear lucky. It was meant to be confusing. It's like reading K&R as a C programmer. Sure, some of the information might not hold up today, but it provides a lot of context.