It really should be named "++ Buffistas Building a Better Board".

Yeah. But I think fewer people are familiar with that syntax.

Also, I think it's more important to have the basic thread name first than to have it be compilable.

I think it's more important to have the basic thread name first than to have it be compilable.

That logic never worked on any of my CS profs. (Nor any of my compilers, for that matter)

t /natter

It really should be named "++ Buffistas Building a Better Board".

I thought the whole idea was that it was supposed to be a riff off of the name "C++." t knows nothing about C syntax...

I thought the whole idea was that it was supposed to be a riff off of the name "C++."

Yes. But the name "C++" is a riff off of incrementing variables in C, which can actually be done two ways - eg: x++ or ++x. Putting the '++' after the variable means the variable is "looked at" before it's incremented. So, if Buffistas_Building_a_Better_Board = 1, and you have the expression y = Buffistas_Building_a_Better_Board++, y will = 1, as Buffistas_Building_a_Better_Board is not incremented to 2 until after y is assigned. OTOH, the expression y = ++Buffistas_Building_a_Better_Board will result in y=2 (as well as Buffistas_Building_a_Better_Board=2).

OK, that was way too much explanation, right?

OK, that was way too much explanation, right?

Yep, and it also perfectly matches the explanation I was given of why it really ought to be ++C

There should be more math. This could be mathier.

Yep, and it also perfectly matches the explanation I was given of why it really ought to be ++C

OTOH, if the variable only needs to be incremented, not "looked at," then the convention seems to be putting the ++ after the variable - eg, for-next loops are usually done like this:

for(x = 1; x < 10; x++){
  blah blah;
}

eta: Don't ask me what "blah blah" does, or I shall be forced to make something up....

head explodes