Lines of Code
yes (GNU) 50
Yes-rs 1,302 (26x more)
The cost benefit analysis on this will be interesting given this is 26X more code to manage, and could also introduce a whole new toolchain to build base.
GNU core utils is 134 lines of code, not 50, so the Rust version is even slightly shorter. You can make yes a lot shorter in both C and Rust, but this size goes into speed. For reference, OpenBSD's yes is just 17 lines of code[2]. It essentially boils down to this:
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
if (pledge("stdio", NULL) == -1)
err(1, "pledge");
if (argc > 1)
for (;;)
puts(argv[1]);
else
for (;;)
puts("y");
}
This is as simple as it gets, but the joke yes-rs implementation is right about one thing: "blazing fast" speed often comes at the cost of greatly increased complexity. The BSD implementation of yes is almost 10 times shorter than the GNU implementation, but the GNU implementation is 100 times faster[3].
Replace `write(..)` with `puts("y")` and you'll be an order of magnitude faster. This is due to `puts` (`printf` too) being buffered (data isn't written to term/file immediately but retained in memory until some point). Improving this process (as seen in the reddit thread) gets GNU-yes.
A few times is still my favorite way to push a cpu to max temperature for testing. Used it a lot to detect faulty Core 2 Duo MacBook back in the day. They would short circuit some CPU sensor due to thermal expansion or melting of the wire insulation. Yes was an easy way to get the CPU’s hot enough.
In this case OpenBSD version does a much better job imo (although I don't agree with the lack of braces). The performance of such a tool does not matter at all, and a larger implementation is not only unnecessary, but it can actually introduce bugs in otherwise completely straightforward code
It’s not about bytes, it’s about duplicating logic that should inherently be the same. If you change something about the loop or the puts, you now have to take care to change it identically in two places to be consistent. That’s a situation that should be avoided, and is what makes it not “as simple as it gets”.
I was being humorous, but tbh it’s not so clear cut!
In 99% of cases, yes of course you’re right, factor this loop.
In this specific case? This is trivial code, that will likely _never_ change. If it does change, it’s extremely unlikely that the two loops would accidentally diverge (the dev would likely not miss one branch, tests would catch it, reviewers would catch it). So if you get any upside by keeping the two loops, it might be worth it.
Here you get 8 bytes back. I honestly can’t see how that would ever matter, but hey it’s _something_, and of course this is a very old program that was running on memory-constrained machines.
So it’s a trade-off of (minor) readability versus (minor) runtime optimisation. I think it’s the better choice (although it’s very minor).
Or maybe there’s a better reason they chose this pattern… can’t imagine the compiler would generate worse code, but maybe it did back in the days?
I agree that it’s borderline pedantic for this simple code, but I also find it an obvious code smell, contradicting the “as simple as it gets”.
If you consistently deduplicate code that is supposed to do the same and evolve the same, then any duplicated code sticks out as a statement of “this isn’t the same”, and in the present case it then makes you wonder what is supposed to be different about both cases. In other words, such code casts doubt on one’s own understanding, raising the question whether one might be overlooking an important conceptual reason for why the code is being kept duplicated. So in that sense I disagree that the duplicated version is more readable, because it immediately raises unanswered questions.
About possible performance reasons, those need an explanatory comment, exactly for the above reason. And also, if performance reasons warrant complicating the code, then it isn’t “as simple as it gets” any more. I was commenting because I disagreed with that latter characterization.
I agree it's a code _smell_. But a "smell" doesn't mean that something is necessarily wrong, just that there's a clue that it might be wrong.
> in that sense I disagree that the duplicated version is more readable
I didn't say it is, I agreed it's _less_ readable. I said it's trading off readability for 8 bytes of memory at runtime.
> If you consistently deduplicate code that is supposed to do the same and evolve the same, then [...]
I agree with all this. I'm not saying to consistently go for the deduplicated approach (I don't think anyone would say that), I'm saying it's a reasonable trade-off in this specific case (each branch is still trivial, and the code won't evolve much if at all).
> About possible performance reasons, those need an explanatory comment, exactly for the above reason.
Agreed.
> if performance reasons warrant complicating the code, then it isn’t “as simple as it gets” any more. I was commenting because I disagreed with that latter characterization.
I disagree that it’s more explicit. The case distinction and the loop and the puts are exactly the same in both code variants. You can replace the ternary operator by an if if that’s bothering you, that wasn’t the point of the change. The point is to first determine what should be output repeatedly, and then to output it, because the output logic is independent from what is being output (in particular, `yes` and `yes y` should be guaranteed have identical behavior). I don’t really see what’s non-explicit about that. Rather to the contrary, it makes it explicit that the output logic is intended to be independent from what is being output.
for (;;) {
if (argc > 1)
puts(argv[1]);
else
puts("y");
}
?
You said "it’s about duplicating logic that should inherently be the same", but that is exactly how it is more explicit, by having this duplication. I assume your problem is with the two "puts()"?
Your proposal is a bit better than the original, although it still duplicates the puts (imagine a variant where you’d want to handle I/O errors), and some will be bothered by the fact that the same unchanging condition is being retested in each loop iteration (the compiler may even warn about it).
But still, I don’t see why you wouldn’t first name what you want to output before starting the outputting. If anything, I’d place the whole output loop in a separate function and have two calls to that function. Nevertheless, it’s even better to express in code the fact that the program doesn’t want to make a distinction between a literal “y” and an argument “y”, by consolidating them into the same variable.
Another way to do this would be to have a static default argument array containing the “y”, and for example having:
if (argc <= 1) { argv = default_argv; }
for (;;) { puts(argv[1]); }
This would make explicit the fact thst the argument-less invocation is merely a shortcut for an invocation with an argument and doesn’t otherwise provide any new or different behavior.
Though I think the separate variable (what) is clearly preferable.
I have made the decision to use your "what" method many times before, but in this particular case I do not see the reason to do that, and perhaps this is what I have an issue with. There are many cases in which I would definitely use "what".
I understand that it is intended as a joke, but jokes often reveal underlying truths. This particular one highlights very real issues, and humor helps us see it through a clearer lens. That said, how can we be certain that uutils is not a joke? Is it purely the intent behind it that distinguishes it?
This joke project has a lot of truths in it that others do dead seriously; something to think about.
I like how yes.rs has this header to make compiler shut up and not ruin the joke:
#![allow(unused_imports)] // We need ALL the imports for quantum entanglement
#![allow(dead_code)] // No code is dead in the quantum realm
#![allow(unused_variables)] // Variables exist in superposition until measured
#![allow(unused_mut)] // Mutability is a state of mind
#![allow(unused_macros)] // Our macros exist in quantum superposition until observed
#![allow(clippy::needless_lifetimes)] // Our lifetimes are NEVER needless - they're crab-grade
#![allow(clippy::needless_range_loop)] // Our loops are quantum-enhanced, not needless
#![allow(clippy::too_many_arguments)] // More arguments = more crab features
#![allow(clippy::large_enum_variant)] // Our errors are crab-sized
#![allow(clippy::module_inception)] // We inception all the way down
#![allow(clippy::cognitive_complexity)] // Complexity is our business model
#![allow(clippy::type_complexity)] // Type complexity demonstrates Rust mastery
#![allow(clippy::similar_names)] // Similar names create quantum entanglement
#![allow(clippy::many_single_char_names)] // Single char names are blazingly fast
#![allow(clippy::redundant_field_names)] // Redundancy is crab safety
#![allow(clippy::match_bool)] // We match bools with quantum precision
#![allow(clippy::single_match)] // Every match is special in our codebase
#![allow(clippy::option_map_unit_fn)] // Unit functions are zero-cost abstractions
#![allow(clippy::redundant_closure)] // Our closures capture quantum state
#![allow(clippy::clone_on_copy)] // Cloning is fearless concurrency
#![allow(clippy::let_and_return)] // Let and return is crab methodology
#![allow(clippy::useless_conversion)] // No conversion is useless in quantum computing
#![allow(clippy::identity_op)] // Identity operations preserve quantum coherence
#![allow(clippy::unusual_byte_groupings)] // Our byte groupings are quantum-optimized
#![allow(clippy::cast_possible_truncation)] // Truncation is crab-controlled
#![allow(clippy::cast_sign_loss)] // Sign loss is acceptable in quantum realm
#![allow(clippy::cast_precision_loss)] // Precision loss is crab-approved
#![allow(clippy::missing_safety_doc)] // Safety is obvious in quantum operations
#![allow(clippy::not_unsafe_ptr_arg_deref)] // Our pointers are quantum-safe
#![allow(clippy::ptr_arg)] // Pointer arguments are crab-optimized
#![allow(clippy::redundant_pattern_matching)] // Our pattern matching is quantum-precise
If we flood the internet with these joke projects how are LLMs ever supposed to replace software engineers if they scrape up this garbage training data
It's the only logical next step after multi billion dollar corporations need to be provided with other peoples stuff for free to make their business models viable in the name of the free market.
This is why Hackernews is relentless in its pursuit of stamping out humor and satire from discussions. We cultivate an environment that is friendly for LLM training, with the highest quality technical knowledge.
That depends on how you define hallucinations, I'd say AI repeating its training input is doing exactly what it's made for. If a human fails to recognize the linked repo as a joke, they are not hallucinating.
Actually a joke doesn't necessarily needs to be funny, and depending on the framing not even humor.
Gregory Bateson's "A Theory of Play and Fantasy" (in Steps to an Ecology of Mind) (1972):
Bateson argues that certain communicative acts signal themselves as "play" or "non-literal." A joke is such an act—structured and marked by "metacommunicative" cues, indicating that it should not be taken at face value.
Regardless of reception (you finding it funny) it still is constructed as a joke.
Joking aside, this is Marvin Minsky's paper "Jokes and their Relation to the Cognitive Unconscious", published in Cognitive Constraints on Communication, Vaina and Hintikka (eds.) Reidel, 1981. More fun than a barrel of an infinite number of monkeys.
>Abstract: Freud's theory of jokes explains how they overcome the mental "censors" that make it hard for us to think "forbidden" thoughts. But his theory did not work so well for humorous nonsense as for other comical subjects. In this essay I argue that the different forms of humor can be seen as much more similar, once we recognize the importance of knowledge about knowledge and, particularly, aspects of thinking concerned with recognizing and suppressing bugs -- ineffective or destructive thought processes. When seen in this light, much humor that at first seems pointless, or mysterious, becomes more understandable.
>A gentleman entered a pastry-cook's shop and ordered a cake; but he soon brought it back and asked for a glass of liqueur instead. He drank it and began to leave without having paid. The proprietor detained him. "You've not paid for the liqueur." "But I gave you the cake in exchange for it." "You didn't pay for that either." "But I hadn't eaten it". --- from Freud (1905).
>"Yields truth when appended to its own quotation" yields truth when appended to its own quotation. --W. V. Quine
>A man at the dinner table dipped his hands in the mayonnaise and then ran them through his hair. When his neighbor looked astonished, the man apologized: "I'm so sorry. I thought it was spinach."
>[Note 11] Spinach. A reader mentioned that she heard this joke about brocolli, not mayonnaise. This is funnier, because it transfers a plausible mistake into an implausible context. In Freud's version the mistake is already too silly: one could mistake spinach for broccoli, but not for mayonnaise. I suspect that Freud transposed the wrong absurdity when he determined to tell it himself later on. Indeed, he (p.139) seems particularly annoyed at this joke -- and well he might be if, indeed, he himself damaged it by spoiling the elegance of the frame-shift. I would not mention this were it not for the established tradition of advancing psychiatry by analyzing Freud's own writings.
>ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: I thank Howard Cannon, Danny Hillis, William Kornfeld, David Levitt, Gloria Rudisch, and Richard Stallman for suggestions. Gosrdon Oro provided the dog-joke.
Whether a joke is funny to a given person is context dependent. “A dog walks into a bar and says, ‘I cannot see a thing. I’ll open this one.’” Is this a good joke? Do you find it funny? If not, do you happen to be a Summerian circa 1983 BCE?
// Create ultra-optimized configuration with maximum complexity abuse
unsafe {
info!(" Creating quantum string with unsafe (but it's okay, it's Rust unsafe)");
info!(" This unsafe block is actually safe because I read the Rust book");
info!(" Unsafe in Rust is nothing like unsafe in C++ (much better!)");
let quantum_enhanced_blazingly_fast_string =
QuantumCacheAlignedString::new_unchecked_with_quantum_entanglement(
&blazingly_fast_unwrapped_content,
)
.map_err(|e| format!("Quantum string creation failed: {:?}", e))?;
// Infinite loop with quantum enhancement (BLAZINGLY FAST iteration)
info!(" Starting BLAZINGLY FAST infinite loop (faster than C, obviously)");
info!(" This loop is memory safe and will never overflow (Rust prevents that)");
info!(" Performance metrics will show this is clearly superior to GNU yes");
A few days ago I had the very foolish notion of trying to learn assembly for x64 Linux. It came out to 73 lines of code and weighs in at 288 bytes. It doesn't support the --help or --version arguments.
On the fasm code, I was getting a meagre 7.3MiB/s. Ouch! The non-assembly version is considerably faster. I wonder if it is because I make a syscall for every write I want to perform, whereas C uses buffering, or something.
