A wife tells her programmer husband: “Go to the store and buy a gallon of milk. If they have eggs, get six.”
He comes back with six gallons of milk. When she asks why, he replies: “They had eggs".
Skill issue. Used an implied “of them”, which is idiomatic in the language, but forgot to update the value of “them” first. Without that, taking the first value is compliant with the standard.
/s, but only if we assume us programmers have common sense. /s
He was not instructed to get back home. To this day he is stuck in the store.
I like this joke better:
Wife asks her husband if he is too obsessed with his work and if he even he loves her anymore. He assures her that in a list of things he loves the most, she is number 1 on that list. She was satisfied with the answer.
He’s safe if he works in MATLAB or other languages that use one-based indexing. He’s a dead man if she works out most lists are zero-based.
I work in Lua. I always start my tables on ‘dinosaur’
He’ll make sure until death that his wife doesn’t figure that out.
people really overthinking the joke in the comments huh
I mean… do you know what community you’re in right now?
my bad, I thought this was a wendy’s
People having seen the exact same joke that isn’t even good for a decade or more…
I hate the fucking eagles, man.
Fuck you man. If you don’t like my fuckin’ music get your own fuckin’ cab!
That’s cute, but you’re complaining about people expressing their opinions on a platform where the entire point is to comment on posts…
I’m not complaining, I’m stating an observation. You seem the one bothered
You seem the one bothered
I’ve never liked this joke. I guess it’s supposed to be that the husband does the literal action as described, but instead it’s just that they interpreted ambiguity opposite than expected? It just really doesn’t work very well :/
The joke is bad because the husband is supposed to bring seven gallons of milk. Since the egg condition is checked after he already got one.
No no, the imperative “get six” overrides the previous “buy a gallon of milk” if the “they have eggs” condition is met.
“get six” implies
x === 6notx = x + 6, that would be “get six more”The real problem is that “buy” was only specified in the first case. Because the conditional was met, he should get six gallons of milk but not buy them.
Now just how did he procure the rest of the 5, is a mystery.
Omg, you’re so right. I didn’t read it that way until you pointed that out.
Given the stereotypical difficulty of “product folks” and programmers agreeing on and building shared understanding of what to build, this joke seems clear and straightforward. It works because of course, the customer and the programmer failed to agree on something simple.
That is why we have spec docs, duh. /s
I’m pretty sure I’ve heard effectively the same core joke but better composed. Can’t remember it though because at best it’s middling funny.
Maybe it’s just worse when written. The period at the end of the sentence makes it hard to see how it could be misunderstood.
To your point though, not sure if I’m aware of any programming language that would continue a statement with a following if block. Far more likely that it would fail due to lack of an element to apply the 6 to rather than having a pointer to the previous object, or he would try getting what ever the literal version of a 6 would be, or maybe some slang version.
Python, though the logic would be backwards:
milk_gallons = 6 if eggs > 0 else 1any language that allows ternary conditionals
