[notinventedhear]

> '''"""''';print("Hello, World!");"""'''"""

This is still one line of code.

It is a valid python program . This is because python will join strings that are adjacent strings (eg. "foo " "bar" is evaulated just like "foo bar") and while multiline strings are commonly used as comments they are evaluated as a string-literal rather than a comment.

[jeanjogr]

You missed the point. All the examples obviously all have at least one line of code, otherwise there would be no program to display "Hello, World!" at all. The goal is to have a program that is _counted as 0 line by the software "sloc"_ even though it is not 0 line.

[Supermancho]

Did he or did you? Some arbitrary game of how you count lines of code is not interesting enough to make the front page.

Using an arbitrary metric that is not commensurate with reality is inaccurate. The point is that the title is clickbait for what amounts to a singularly exploited bug in a tool, not what was purported. Literally the same misinformation goes on in the political space all the time, where it is lamented. If it's related to quirky coding eventualities, it's lauded.

That's the point.

[Dylan16807]

You can argue against the merits of this game or call this clickbait, and that's okay. But someone that blithely points out that there is in fact code, not even realizing the game exists, is missing the point.

There is a big difference between disagreeing with a point versus not realizing the point is there.

[Supermancho]

The point was made and you chose to derail as if it didn't exist, in bad faith to act smug. Good luck with that.

[Dylan16807]

Which point? Are you talking about the point notinventedhear made? That point was not useful and the initial reply was not derailing and that wasn't me making that reply.

If you're talking about something else, I have no idea what you mean at all.

And nobody here has said anything in bad faith. Why do you think there was bad faith?

[Supermancho]

> This is still one line of code.

> But someone that blithely points out that there is in fact code, not even realizing the game exists, is missing the point.

notinventedhear didn't miss the point.

He disputed the topic (and implication) which is not "the game" but a description that is factually incorrect. You don't want to agree, that's fine. It's not subtle or complicated. To claim anyone misunderstands where this premise comes from, is a bad faith interpretation, which you inexplicably double down on.