/dpt/ - Daily Programming Thread

What are you working on, Sup Forums?

Old thread:

Other urls found in this thread:

a.4cdn.org/g/threads.json').json()
x64dbg.com/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

/dpt/ has nothing to do with programming.
Prove me wrong.

...

So like this?
print('\n'.join([thread.get('no') for thread in data[0][0].get('threads')]))

I want to do terrible things to Aoi !

for thread in threads:
print(thread['no'])

What's Aoi?

Hand translating a disassembled binary back into C to find some exploits for a class.

Why not use IDA?

>tfw you're so deep in programming you do shit like this to feel any sort of challenge or excitement

Had to look up what that is. Seems it's proprietary, and its decompiler features cost money.

xDD upboat

You're doing reverse engineering and you had to look up what IDA is. Welp.

It is very much proprietary and very much not affordable, hence the time honored tradition of using a cracked version for personal use.

lighten up user

>You're doing reverse engineering and you had to look up what IDA is
Doing it for a class assignment. I don't tend to do reverse engineering on a regular basis. Hence, objdump and gdb being my main tools of choice.

Aight, good luck with that then.

he's a phd student

he should be using make files to make things like that.

I'm just kidding, btw. No one should use make files.

What's even the point of makefiles when you have bash?

>he's a phd student
Master's student. Applying for PhDs.

import requests

pages = requests.get('a.4cdn.org/g/threads.json').json()

for page in pages:
print(page['threads'][0]['no'])


Result:
51971506
58858808
58870264
58840163
58864638
58869361
58860492
58870524
58866730
58865603


The json response is a list and each list item is a dictionary so you have to unwrap it to get to the meat

Hi Sup Forums. Not sure if I should ask this here but I'm trying to decide what language I should invest in learning next.

I tried doing Java for a week but it annoys the fuck out of me. I gave C a run and had way more luck.. it seems way more simple. Which one should I stick with?

lol, just realized this should be grabbing e.g. 150 results, not 10. Forgot to iterate through every post on every page, oh well

I'm a hobbyist C programmer, I've made tools I need and things just for educational purposes (rootkits, mouse driver) and I sort of want to get back into it. I'm not interested in making games (i.e. snake, xo, etc.) but want to start off with some mathematical stuff (encryption algorithms etc.). What's a good book or resource to start with and what can I use that stuff for really?

Modern C++, of course.

What aspects of Java did you not like?

You can try doing the Matasano Crypto Challenge, it's pretty good

I always see debates of which is better, C or C++. Without giving a biased response, can you explain the reasoning?

I still might try Java some more, but when I was using C it felt far more simple in terms of the language. I know C++ is fairly similar as well in this sense, so maybe it's the way to go.

Today I have tried C++ and Qt. It was interested. I will to do it again.

x64dbg.com/
>Decompiler (Snowman)
it supports x32 too

Why would a decompiler support digital mixers?

>I tried doing Java for a week but it annoys the fuck out of me.
What annoys you in particular?

Just the overall syntax and I really can't stand the class based shit. Camel Case is annoying me too. Also list literals are.. strange I guess? I read you can use double curly braces to make a literal list, but then I've read that's "dirty code".

I've programmed stuff in Python, C, Lisp, Scheme (SICP meme), and even gave Haskell a try and I'm just really not feeling Java so far. I really want to like it because it seems like it has a vast amount features and stuff to do with it, but it's just not clicking with me yet.

>Without giving a biased response, can you explain the reasoning?
I can give you my point of view, which I think is fair and balanced, but the whole thing with bias is you don't necessarily know when you have one, so keep that in mind.

It's a well known fact that C++ is almost a subset of C, and thus it becomes the user's responsibility to decide what high-level features to use in a particular situation.

The great force of C++ is that it combines low-level close to the metal performance and high level abstractions, while always giving you a choice.
If you want to write C-with-classes, you can. If you want super high-level abstractions, that's available as well, and if you need to solve a performance problem, you can always drop all the way down to inline assembly.

Now the problem with that is that by lifting complexity into the language, C++ assumes that the programmer is smart and qualified.
You can write crap in any language, but a bad C++ programmer can create abominations that are truly a sight to behold.

In languages like C or Go, the tool is much simpler, instead all the complexity gets shifted into your codebase.
The language is simpler to understand and harder to misuse, but as a result you have to work around all the missing features in your codebase, wasting a lot of time and creating more opportunities for stupid bugs.

C is a (t)rusty old knife, and C++ is a machete. You can be more efficient, but if you don't take the time to master it you'll cut yourself.

C

...

>Qt

>C++ is almost a subset of C

????

As if it is something bad.

superset*

Ida 5.0 is freeware, for non-commercial use

Gdb is trash?

Yeah, the "G" in there kinda gives it away

I'm trying to learn the basics of quantum information, but it's going very hard.
I'm using my old notes, John Watrous lectures and some book about it.

That's true, but if you're not going to be their customer anyways, you might as well not restrict yourself to the old version.

In fact, by getting to appreciate the full power of the tool, you might one day be in a position when you'll want to buy it.

A debugger is something that fundamentally wants a GUI. There are console debuggers just like there are console image manipulation programs, but that's just not the best tool for the job.

>A debugger is something that fundamentally wants a GUI
A debugger isn't sentient therefore it can't possibly want something.

Why are there 2 threads?

You're arguing semantics. You can feel smug, but the point still stands.

#AutismSpeaks

>You're arguing semantics
How does that make me wrong? If it doesn't, why did you feel the need to write this?
>the point still stands
It doesn't. You didn't correct yourself and your initial point is blatantly false.

>#AutismSpeaks
>#
Is this some ribbit meme?

>How does that make me wrong? If it doesn't, why did you feel the need to write this?
It makes your argument invalid by definition, because you're not trying to argue the point, instead you're making a strawman and punching that.

I'm of course not arguing that debuggers are sentient and can want things. You're deliberately taking literally something that isn't literal.

That, or you have autism.

Because people are retards and don't respect the bump limit, and now it turned into a fucking stupid race.
The worst thing is, BOTH of the threads are invalid, as they were both posted before the bump limit in the previous thread.

>It makes your argument invalid by definition
Yes, something which isn't an argument and wasn't even intended as one isn't an argument by definition.
>because you're not trying to argue the point
Why exactly would I want to do this if I agree with most things you have said? Also there's no argument to be had here since you didn't make any valid statements in your first sentence. An obviously wrong sentence can't be a "point". We can argue if I disagree with the corrected version though, but since you haven't provided one I can't do anything yet.
>instead you're making a strawman and punching that
Seems like you don't even know what "strawman" means.
>I'm of course not arguing that debuggers are sentient and can want things
Good. Why did you write it then?
>You're deliberately taking literally something that isn't literal.
How else am I supposed to take this? If I say "2 + 2 = 4" do you not take this as me saying I think "2 + 2 = 4" is a true statement?
You implied that the following is true, which it obviously isn't - "A debugger can want things". I just called you out on it.
>That, or you have autism.
Are you implying me supposedly having autism somehow detracts from the truth value of anything I've said so far?

So you do have autism.

>Are you implying me supposedly having autism somehow detracts from the truth value of anything I've said so far?
I think that you misunderstood what I was saying entirely, and that you having autism means this discussion is not going to go anywhere useful because you'll keep misinterpreting obvious things, so I'm going to end it there.

I'm not even interested in who's right and wrong, I don't want to talk to you because you're annoying. Feel free to feel right.