this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2025
648 points (97.6% liked)

Programmer Humor

28009 readers
1221 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Feyter@programming.dev
anzo@programming.dev
BurningTurtle@programming.dev
pylapp@programming.dev
648
More code = more better (lemmy.zip)
submitted 1 week ago by cm0002@lemmy.zip to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev
94 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 week ago

Even though this isn't C, but if we take from the C11 draft §6.8.5 point 6 (https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1570.pdf):

An iteration statement whose controlling expression is not a constant expression, that performs no input/output operations, does not access volatile objects, and performs no synchronization or atomic operations in its body, controlling expression, or (in the case of a for statement) its expression-3, may be assumed by the implementation to terminate

"new Random().nextInt()" might perform I/O though so it could still be defined behavior. Or the compiler does not assume this assumption.

But an aggressive compiler could realize the loop would not terminate if x does not become 10 so x must be 10 because the loop can be assumed to terminate.