A wife tells her programmer husband: “Go to the store and buy a gallon of milk. If they have eggs, get six.”
He comes back with six gallons of milk. When she asks why, he replies: “They had eggs".
He was not instructed to get back home. To this day he is stuck in the store.
Skill issue. Used an implied “of them”, which is idiomatic in the language, but forgot to update the value of “them” first. Without that, taking the first value is compliant with the standard.
/s, but only if we assume us programmers have common sense. /s
I like this joke better:
Wife asks her husband if he is too obsessed with his work and if he even he loves her anymore. He assures her that in a list of things he loves the most, she is number 1 on that list. She was satisfied with the answer.
He’s safe if he works in MATLAB or other languages that use one-based indexing. He’s a dead man if she works out most lists are zero-based.
I work in Lua. I always start my tables on ‘dinosaur’
He’ll make sure until death that his wife doesn’t figure that out.
people really overthinking the joke in the comments huh
I mean… do you know what community you’re in right now?
People having seen the exact same joke that isn’t even good for a decade or more…
I’ve never liked this joke. I guess it’s supposed to be that the husband does the literal action as described, but instead it’s just that they interpreted ambiguity opposite than expected? It just really doesn’t work very well :/
The joke is bad because the husband is supposed to bring seven gallons of milk. Since the egg condition is checked after he already got one.
No no, the imperative “get six” overrides the previous “buy a gallon of milk” if the “they have eggs” condition is met.
“get six” implies
x === 6notx = x + 6, that would be “get six more”The real problem is that “buy” was only specified in the first case. Because the conditional was met, he should get six gallons of milk but not buy them.
Omg, you’re so right. I didn’t read it that way until you pointed that out.
