I have this obsession with implementing event loops, even when they're completely unnecessary. I don't know why, it's just the style of coding that makes the most sense to me.
I like to give named parameters/pseudo-named parameters (dictionaries) to functions.
This isn't one of mine, but I encountered a project once where all the code files were named after lord of the rings characters. Like "treebeard" which was a file renderer.
>>1Same though. If I ever get autistic enough to make a programming language it's going to be designed around an event loop structure
i always use types im sure of i will know the size of. Like uint8_t or int8_t i think its way more comfortable than writing short or int and not directly know what size they will be (cause it depends on the operating system).I can be very indecisive about coding practices. I never know when in C to prefer global constants to macros (i often use macros cause they are known at compile time (in C++ this isnt a problem)) using one is better than having magic constants.
When I write code in Racket, I always use square brackets for everything that isn't an expression. I know it's probably horribly un-idiomatic, but I don't care. It makes it way easier for me to read my own code.
used to have one where I would call loop variables "iii" and "jjj" and "kkk" instead of "i" and "j" and "k"
>>6But, everything in Racket is an expression! Value of everything but price of nothing and all that.
I have the tendency (though unintentionally) to create patches of code that keep my program running, but are never called or referenced once by anything else. It becomes bloat since you want to get rid of it, but you can't because for some reason it's vital to the architecture I've created.
>>9That's called being a bad programmer.
>>10Yeah, I know :(