octave-maintainers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: How about an easter egg?


From: Júlio Hoffimann
Subject: Re: How about an easter egg?
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 09:15:41 -0300

Hi Jordi, hi all,

What i think is great for both, serious and fun mode, is something like the `import this` command in Python, this is the output for reference:

Beautiful is better than ugly.
Explicit is better than implicit.
Simple is better than complex.
Complex is better than complicated.
Flat is better than nested.
Sparse is better than dense.
Readability counts.
Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules.
Although practicality beats purity.
Errors should never pass silently.
Unless explicitly silenced.
In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess.
There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.
Although that way may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch.
Now is better than never.
Although never is often better than *right* now.
If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea.
If the implementation is easy to explain, it may be a good idea.
Namespaces are one honking great idea -- let's do more of those!

It's a cool joke and also teaches good practices in using the language. :-)

What do you think?

Regards,
Júlio.

2011/8/16 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso <address@hidden>
I know Octave is serious business, but... I've been wanting an easter
egg somewhere.

Can we have some good-humoured fun somewhere in the code without
upsetting anyone? I was thinking some of these are quite funny, and we
could put them into a "fact" command:

    http://stallmanfacts.com/

Some are redundant, some are dumb, some might be offensive, but I
think plenty are good-natured and we could use those. I like these,
for example:

    http://stallmanfacts.com/view/60
    http://stallmanfacts.com/view/135
    http://stallmanfacts.com/view/55
    http://stallmanfacts.com/view/7
    http://stallmanfacts.com/view/118
    http://stallmanfacts.com/view/2
    http://stallmanfacts.com/view/44
    http://stallmanfacts.com/view/207
    http://stallmanfacts.com/view/18

Users might then actually accidentally discover the fact command when
they are looking for the factorial or the factor functions. So it
would be an actual easter egg.

Or is any deviation from serious business just a bad idea?

- Jordi G. H.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]