that's obviously ascii (most significant bit is zero across the board); could you have at least have given it to me in hexadecimal so i could type less and just stick it in a hex editor…?

fucking normies recognizing nothing but binary code as "that computer thingy."

@wyatt imagine if it was written in octal, everyone would get completely confused

@SRAZKVT i'd catch it but it'd take longer

@SRAZKVT (i wrote enough K&R C to recognize it somewhat quickly. old c didn't support hexadecimal, only octal or base 10)

@wyatt binary is what everyone sees as computerey stuff, hexadecimal ? all the kids who did "hacking" with inspect element have seen it as well and also know it's probably computerey stuff. but octal ? they'd all think it's a weird large number that surprisingly doesn't have any nines in it

@SRAZKVT not if they've used chmod

@wyatt yea i don't have much of a reason to go below c11 personally

@SRAZKVT you are wrong
(C89 is a lot more important to know than K&R C but C89 is my standard still)

@wyatt first time i touched chmod was in uni when i was 18, it is very much possible for people to spend their entire life without ever seeing octal

@SRAZKVT i touched it at 13 or so because i had to learn how to mark a file as executable and the +x thing wasn't adopted outside of gnu to my knowledge at that point

@SRAZKVT gonna hit you with the book on this one
it wont hurt much, it's a pretty small paperback

@wyatt i have many compilers available that all support c11 and all the platforms i care about can have a compiler at least somewhat easily patched to support enough of c11 that my stuff works on them

and i get the ability to use alignof and anonymous structs and unions

@SRAZKVT i program in real mode

@SRAZKVT (no actual violence implied, just couldn't resist the pun, sorry)

@SRAZKVT also anonymous anything usually tends to annoy me more than it helps but i think that's just a quirk of mine rather than any holy truth

@wyatt in fact those two are pretty much the only things of c11 i actually use so

@SRAZKVT C99 is what i use if i really want to know the sizes of data types across platforms (stuff like uint8_t and such). But C89 is all I really need

@wyatt real mode doesn't change much bc cpus can still has alignment requirements and not needing as much of a useless gap is nice

and anonymous structs and unions are just free

@SRAZKVT you're wrong, it changes a lot because have fun finding a C11 compiler that will build real-mode code

@SRAZKVT remember also it has to fit in a single 64K code segment

@wyatt right but i don't do real mode, and patching an existing one to have those two features is (as long as your compiler is properly written) not hard

@SRAZKVT you have to have a tiny libc and you have to have it generate 16-bit code and i think you vastly underestimate the complexity of doing this or i would not be using turbo c.
even open watcom requires a DOS extender to work

@wyatt also it's not like patching code to add bulshit names to anonymous structs is hard, and if you run in real mode, you likely know the alignment of types antway

@SRAZKVT plus you have to port stuff to the DOS API or do everything in raw interrupts, you have to have port I/O implemented, etc etc

@wyatt @SRAZKVT I have a newer copy of that book (The C Programming Language Second Edition). Still the same version, just printed more recently.

@SRAZKVT and the compiler itself needs to be able to run on the hardware it's targeting or I get stabby

@me @SRAZKVT it's a common book