explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1306: Sigil Cycle

2013-12-28T14:50:48Z

108.162.236.13:

Shouldn't it be QBASIC$ (or QBASIC%), since in Basic the sigil is attached to the end of variable names? --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.108|173.245.53.108]] 13:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Could not find where categories can be added, here's a list of suitable categories: Charts, Computers, Comics presenting a compromise Internet, Programming [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.180|173.245.53.180]] 13:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

This comic de-emphasizes the value of sigils. It's very ironic that Randall chose C++, a language with symbols, to exemplify plain words. And C is a reason for not naming technologies after letters. Same with X. You have to search for "C programming language" or "X window system." It's very helpful to distinguish things with unique sigils, especially in this current age where we depend on full-text search. Just look at my login ID, tbc. I have been tbc on the Internet since 1981. But I eventually had to go by tbc0 (e.g. on Twitter) because tbc isn't unique enough. Google was named after 10^100 (an incomprehensibly large number reflecting their ambition). But that number is spelled googol. They own their spelling. Brilliant. Consider examples: iMac, iPhone iPad, Yahoo (a little weak), Facebook (they own that word). It's all about branding. Google Kleenex or Xerox and you'll see that they're excellent sigils. The problem is, those terms have become generic. Their brand is a little weaker for it. Finally, on Twitter, @and # unleash powerful features. — [[User:Tbc|tbc]] ([[User talk:Tbc|talk]]) 15:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
:C++ uses symbols, but it doesn't use one to denote that an identifier is a variable (like PHP) or the type of an identifier (like early BASIC, Perl, and arguably Twitter). And when I search for X, it's either X11 (the protocol) or Xorg (the widely used server implementation). And [[wikipedia:Barney_Google_and_Snuffy_Smith|Barney Google]] had it first. --[[User:Tepples|Tepples]] ([[User talk:Tepples|talk]]) 15:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Any way we can expand on the history of programming (if applicable)? Did these languages become popular in a certain order, or were they developed as a response to one another? Or is this comic simply Randall's journey through programming, not specifically tied to the popularity (or development) of certain coding languages? -- [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.227|108.162.216.227]]
:They pretty much appeared in the order listed. I don't think they represent Randall's experience (or really anything else); the differences in how they handle variable names/types is mostly a function of their different purpose, and Randall picked those specific examples simply to fit the timeline (e.g. sh and ksh have the same syntax as bash, but since they came before QBasic they would break the pattern).
The google mentioning isn't explained well enough imo. Instead if just saying "they have a service called google plus", it should be told how the + sign is used throughout the service, like every other instance in the article. I may do the edit myself, but it's not likely. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.237|141.101.98.237]] 15:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

"Ironically, it is the name if the language itself that includes symbols."

It's not very ironic. Variable names don't include symbols, but commands do. This statement should be rewritten.

int c = 0;

c++;

c += 1;

c = c + 1; {{unsigned ip|173.245.52.215}}

:I find it ironic that "C++" in a statement would be interpretted as "C" and only ''post''-incremented (i.e. only incremented when ''next'' referenced). Meaning "C++" is effectively the same as "C", in its own context. They should have named it "++C", if they wanted to indicate that it was ''itself'' improved upon the original value of C. ;) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.229|141.101.99.229]] 16:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

::This is an incorrect interpretation of the statement c++. c++ as a standalone statement, on a line by itself, will result in c being exactly one greater than before the statement (the value stored in that memory location will indeed be one greater); using prefix or postfix ++ in this context is functionally equivalent and most people just prefer using the postfix version. Where the distinction between the prefix and postfix versions come into play is in more complex statements where the operator's return value is not ignored. For example,

::int c = 1;
::int x = c++;

::x will be initialized to 1 because the postfix ++ operator returns the value of c before it was incremented, but the value stored in c will be 2 regardless of further reference. If, instead you initialized x using the prefix version, ++c, x would be 2 because the prefix version of ++ returns the incremented result. (Side note: it's often considered bad practice to rely on the return value of the increment and decrement operators.) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.227|108.162.219.227]] 20:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
:::No, I stand by what I say. I actually agree with your code, but freely parsing "I will use C++ for this project", as a phrase (at least the first time you utter it) might so easily be a statement that gives a direct result equal to "I will use C for this project". (It helps to have just the right geeky sense of humour, of course.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.229|141.101.99.229]] 21:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
::::Oh, I assure you, I am quite geeky. I could, for instance, argue that you're mixing the grammars of English and C++, a natural language and context sensitive language. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.227|108.162.219.227]] 22:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

:::::Personally, I see no problem. When you start programming in C++, you are writing code which is effectively C. Only when you program in C++ longer time, the code will improve. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 12:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

::::Wrong, as "I will use C++" actually does mean "I will use C++", because the moment you finished uttering it (command break), C indeed becomes one point greater ;) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.222.43|108.162.222.43]] 06:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

:::::Regarding the name of the language, Bjarne Stroustrup himself [http://www.stroustrup.com/bs_faq.html#name has said], "Connoisseurs of C semantics find C++ inferior to ++C." [[User:Elsbree|Elsbree]] ([[User talk:Elsbree|talk]]) 07:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

:It's still not ironic that the name includes symbols. I removed the word 'ironically', it doesn't make sense. {{unsigned ip|173.245.52.215}}

Extending the first comment above: Since the strip is known for being rather technically strict, it's odd that it says "word ... will START with", yet QBASIC variables END with symbols, and Google+ ENDS with a symbol.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.216|108.162.216.216]] 18:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

: That's not a problem with Google, because the ''sigil'' comes at the beginning there. But it's a problem with QBASIC, all right. —[[User:TobyBartels|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels|talk]]) 05:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Although C++ doesn't force you to use sigils, by convention programmers would still use sigils. Conventionally, variable names were named nCount, or fCost. The first character in the variable name indicated the data type. This convention was extended by Visual C++, and it started naming interfaces starting with I. Eventually, this convention fell by the wayside because IDEs started getting smarter and you would get code complete and some sort of information via a tooltip that eliminated the need for the Sigil --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.24|173.245.56.24]] 18:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
::{{w|Hungarian Notation}} (and similar schemes) aren't "sigils" (according to [[wikt:sigil|wiktionary]], a sigil in this context is non-alphanumeric, and the comic would seem to imply this also). --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.186|108.162.219.186]] 22:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC).

I think this explanation could do with some better explanation of the programming concepts it describes. Not every xkcd reader will be familiar with programming languages. --[[User:Mynotoar|Mynotoar]] ([[User talk:Mynotoar|talk]]) 21:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
: I've expanded the introduction for now to more fully explain programming languages and variables - it wasn't very clear to non-programmers - but I think the rest could use some work too. --[[User:Mynotoar|Mynotoar]] ([[User talk:Mynotoar|talk]]) 18:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

If "C++" "started" with a symbol, then I would agree that it is ironic that it appears in the graph in the position that it does. Since it does not, however, I must dispute your use of the word "ironic". [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.117|108.162.238.117]] 03:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

How could 'see plus plus' be pronounced any other way? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.239|141.101.98.239]] 11:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
: 'see add add'? --[[User:Mynotoar|Mynotoar]] ([[User talk:Mynotoar|talk]]) 22:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1301: File Extensions

2013-12-21T14:09:40Z

108.162.236.13:

The title text reference of "hand-aligned data" may refer to ASCII art. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.28|108.162.215.28]] 05:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC) Alan K.
:I'd think not, given that art isn't exactly data. My guess would be tables in the .txt - a .txt file is just raw text with no formatting, so putting a table in requires manually formatting it with a bunch of spaces/tabs. It's not hard, but can be time-consuming and obnoxious. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.47|108.162.219.47]] 23:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
::Any programmer would tell you to _never_ try and hand-align things with tabs. Different text editors will use anything from 3 to 8 spaces for a tab, meaning that what's aligned in your editor isn't in others.
I think it's also a notable point, that the better rated document formats are more data centric while the low rated formats mix text informations with design elements and finally become pure graphic formats, which often is an indication, that the author didn't use the accurate file type for (mostly) pure text informations.
Something I don't understand is the gap between jpg and jpeg. The first suffix is AFAIK only an abbreviation used by older DOS/MS Systems to fullfill the 8.3 limitation for filenames. The note about hand alignment might concern the fact, that hand alignment is more time expensive which might increase the amount of the the author spend in overthink the content before layouting. Also often automated layouting as supported by many modern writing application might lead to unexpected and sometimes wrong results, because the automatism has no semantical knowledge about the authors intention, which might lead to post processed errors
Sorry for my bad english, I'm not a natural writer
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.239|108.162.231.239]] 05:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
:"hand-aligned data" seems to me like (manually) space-indented paragraphs, perhaps even manual padding to achieve the desired justification (centering and right-and-left-margin-hugging). And of course neatly lining up an 'embedded table', perhaps originally extracted from a .csv output. Although a number of plain-text editors (in the days of CGA and pure terminal/fixedspace fonts) or text formatters and wrappers (e.g. Lynx, man-page creaters, etc) ''would'' do things like this for you. And still do. At least insofar as the justification and margining is concerned. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.229|141.101.99.229]] 08:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
If anyone has taken the time to hand align a text file (as in a README, or other info file), they want it to look attractive for people to read. Odd are you're not going to take the time to "hand pretty" the document just to be malicious. Back in the BBS days there were a large number of "online" groups who had "signature" text files which were (very probably) hand aligned, and made extensive use of extended ASCII codes to generate basic graphics. (Granted there were programs to help auto-generate "ascii art".) If you've ever seen these files you'd know. [[http://www.thuglife.org/tlv5/aabout.shtml Example 1]] - [[http://textfiles.com/piracy/NFO/ Example 2]] [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 14:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I find it interesting that .jpg and .jpeg are at different levels. Aren't those the same thing? --[[User:Mralext20|Mralext20]] ([[User talk:Mralext20|talk]]) 05:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps the .gif could contain suddenly unexpected scary/surprising frames? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.208.172|108.162.208.172]] 14:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

:That JPG/JPEG thing indeed seems strange. The more important distinction is between JPEGs that are photographs (fine) and those that are not (stupid). Also, pre-PNG, non-photograph GIFs could be just fine. And with all the accounting scandals we've seen, why would those spreadsheet formats get any credibility? -- [[User:Dfeuer|Dfeuer]] ([[User talk:Dfeuer|talk]]) 06:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
::Alongside .jpeg ('full' extension format) and .jpg (MS '8.3'-compatible extension format), I'd have expected .jpe (often full extension historically truncated on an 8.3 system), I must be honest. (And interesting that .docx doesn't co-inhabit the .doc line... or be somewhere else.) And the disparity betwixt the two versions of JPEG extension ''may'' relate to the tendency for a higher artefact-intensity of images back in the early days (when a better option than GIFs for... certain pictures... e.g. on Usenet between *nix workstations with vastly restricted bandwidths and storage capacities) compared to today's users (cameras that regularly store 10+MP pictures in low-loss JFIF files, and/or in Raw format!). But that may be a spurious or off-track reasoning on my part. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.229|141.101.99.229]] 08:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I measured the bars in photoshop to +/- 2pixels. If we scale .tex to a value of 100 like the transcript says, these are the values I get for the bar lengths (rounded to one decimal place)
.tex 100
.pdf 89.4
.csv 84.9
.txt 66.5
.svg 64.8
.xls 48.6
.doc 21.2
.png 15.1
.ppt 14.5
.jpg 3.4
.jpeg -8.4
.gif -35.8

Dunno if it is helpful - or even trusted given I'm a first time commenter - but there it is. Closer values than just estimating, though the eyeballed estimates aren't bad. Not going to adjust the actual transcript because I feel that's overstepping my bounds. {{unsigned ip|108.162.216.56}}
:Not at all, wikis are free to edit for a reason. If we didn't want new users to be editing pages, we could have turned that off long ago. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 07:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

'''As the information that is provided by the graph comes as png, we should probably not trust her. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.92.120|141.101.92.120]] 09:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)'''
: Ha, +1 Like :-) [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]])

I never saw image of cute cats lying to me ... I mean, the gif is STILL the preferred format for animation, mostly because it's the only one supported. Animation formats based on PNG didn't catched up, hard to say why ... on the other hand, gif animation apparently have huge number of weird extensions, judging by the number of animated images I found which don't render properly in anything EXCEPT the browser. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 10:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
:The cute cat may not be lying, but since the format is used in other context -- like banner ads, then the average GIF may well be lying, also I believe there have been many security issues with GIFs and JPGs as they have been used as an attack vector for internet-bad-guys to take over your computer -- so while security issues is not specifically the topic for todays strip, then that may be worth noticing as well [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]])
:It is also possible to create animations with svg which is (for good reason, I like that format) ranked higher. Especially for scientific purposes it can be handy. Unfortunately is the MediaWiki software unable to show them. For example in the previous comic is an animation of the Galilean moons shown. That is an gif but someone also uploaded an [[Wikipedia:commons:File:Galilean_moon_Laplace_resonance_animation_(en_-_monochrome_-_350x217).svg|svg animation]] and I would say it does look smoother than the gif. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.215|108.162.231.215]] 14:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
:The Grumpy Cat is not grumpy in real life - so cat pictures DO lie! [[User:Schmammel|Schmammel]] ([[User talk:Schmammel|talk]]) 15:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
'''What is the scale of the chart? Does 'top' = most trusted'? Never assume anything with xkcd.''' [[User:David.windsor|David.windsor]] ([[User talk:David.windsor|talk]]) 18:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
: Brilliant. I didn't think of that at all. But now that you mention it... a .gif would be like a small part of a video. And people tend to trust those more than a static picture. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.222.209|108.162.222.209]] 08:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course Randall does not really think that the file extension determines trustworthiness; the graph is tongue-in-cheek. Information can be trustworthy or untrustworthy no matter the format it's given in. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.221|108.162.216.221]] 18:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
:Yes, I believe the explanation somewhat misinterprets Randall's intentions, especially when it comes to the image formats. I interpret it not as a question of loss of information due to compression but instead a more general impression of when and by whom these formats are used and, as a consequence, the trustworthiness of the information conveyed through these formats. That would explain the jpg/jpeg distinction as (in my experience though I can't provide data that support it) .jpg is nowadays the preferred compressed format in professional contexts and .jpeg looks slightly childish. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.80.117|141.101.80.117]] 23:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Reading more into the linked info about viruses embedded in JPEGs, it appears that the only way to receive a virus from a JPEG file would be to have ''already'' received another virus from a standard executable file, where such a virus causes the computer to execute code in a JPEG file rather than simply display it as it normally would. Since such a possibility is independent of the file type (the first virus might just as well have enabled code execution in DOC files, for instance), I've removed that bit of info. [[User:Zowayix|Zowayix]] ([[User talk:Zowayix|talk]]) 03:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone explain the banner near the top of xkcd.com today, 10 Dec 2013? It reads,
"Dear Wikipedia readers: if everyone reading this _showed up at my house,_ (yellow highlight)I would be like "what {{unsigned ip|108.162.219.220}}
: I believe that is a reference to the similar banner that is on top of wikipedia right now asking for donations. --[[User:Jeff|Jeff]] ([[User talk:Jeff|talk]]) 18:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
::I don't see that banner, but it appears to be a play on Wikipedia's donation "pleas" that are often posted (including now) as banners at the top of Wikipedia which suggest that (to use the lates one:) "If everyone reading this donated, our fundraiser would be done within an hour". [[User:TheHYPO|TheHYPO]] ([[User talk:TheHYPO|talk]]) 18:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a bit ambiguous whether Randall's references (for example) to jpg and gif means he doesn't trust that the images are accurate because of artifacting and stuff, or whether he's referring to jpgs and gifs that occasionally circulate with text on them as if to present information (e.g., lifehack images, or cat memes...) [[User:TheHYPO|TheHYPO]] ([[User talk:TheHYPO|talk]]) 18:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

;missing suffices

Obviously .html & .htm are so far to the left, they're off the chart. :-)
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.117|108.162.249.117]] 17:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Any idea what file type was used to spread this hoax?
http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/apple-secret-bitcoin-mining-feature/
Various websites reporting on it use .JPG and .PNG, but I don't know what format the original graphic was.
[[User:InspectorClouseau|InspectorClouseau]] ([[User talk:InspectorClouseau|talk]]) 16:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd be pretty wary of .flv...
[[User:Nick Douglas|Nick Douglas]] ([[User talk:Nick Douglas|talk]]) 15:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)