This is false. Lisp uses parentheses where other languages use (), [], {} or nothing at all. For example, in C I can write int i = 0, but the equivalent Lisp code involves three pairs of parentheses. Or take something like a[i] = f(i + 1) / 2 + p. The equivalent Lisp code is something like (setf (aref a i) (+ (/ (f (+ i 1)) 2) p)), and you can't tell me that's not a lot of parentheses.

I like the original.

If you had let me write the C++ code, I could have literally destroyed your dataset in a couple of seconds.

C) It's an obvious joke.

Because let x: y is syntactically unambiguous, but you need to know that y names a type in order to correctly parse y x. (Or at least that's the case in C where a(b) may be a variable declaration or a function call depending on what typedefs are in scope.)

POV: You open vim for the first time.

The same is true of std::endl. std::endl is simply defined as << '\n' << std::flush; nothing more, nothing less. In all cases where endl gives you a "properly translated" newline, so does \n.

std::endl provides zero portability benefits. C++ does have a portable newline abstraction, but it is called \n, not endl.

@stebo02 @Bogus5553 Neither of them require a return value, but void main isn't legal C++.

Strictly speaking, it should be

Unsafe block syntax in C++

{  ...}

https://github.com/Jaennaet/pISSStream/blob/main/pISSStream/pISSStreamApp.swift looks like code.

@hstde @Spore Even better, the alphabetical index of function names was generated in English first and then translated, meaning the documentation looks like a scrambled mess in any other language because it is alphabetized according to what the English equivalent would be. #excel