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.
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.
Now just how did he procure the rest of the 5, is a mystery.
He cloned the supermarket.
Omg, you’re so right. I didn’t read it that way until you pointed that out.
I’m pretty sure I’ve heard effectively the same core joke but better composed. Can’t remember it though because at best it’s middling funny.
I dig this particular wit
Careful, there, you could be overthinking it!
I… like this joke and haven’t heard it before!
Is this allowed or do I have to shit on it to be cool?
Welcome to lemmy!
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
