|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
First lettes of Runes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runes#Elder_Futhark_.282nd_to_8th_c..29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 06:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Standartisation of "Hello, world!"
Unless not possible due to language limitations, shouldn't all output the same? Python, PHP and Actioncode miss the comma. Python also misses the space (no idea if this is intentional). LSL has the comma, but the comment states that it doesn't. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 05:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to see something to the effect:
"foo" and "bar" are generally not used in formal documentation. They are something of an "in joke", and mark text as being meant for fellow coders, as not having been (or intended to be) formally reviewed - certainly not by persons outside the hacker culture. They may indicate that code is to do with a subject that is technical with respect to computer science itself - one might see them in comments on code relating to compilers or operating systems, but not in code relating to end user interfaces or business-level logic.
- But that also supports one of the parent's assertions - that it's a CS-specific nomenclature - by being used in a programming language spec. I agree that it's not about formality, but more about being CS-specific. I'd also like to note that ISO standards, by virtue of being largely written by industry insiders, vary wildly in terms of style of language (let alone vocabulary) used, and hence "foobar"'s use in a very specific ISO standard doesn't strongly imply its widespread use, nor its suitability thereof. C xong (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to clarify that 'foobar', 'foo', 'bar' and 'baz' are psuedocode terms and should never be used in real code. Generally psuedocode involves simplistic examples for reference only by other programmers and the use of the words such as 'foo' and 'bar' help to identify the code as such. It is not a hacker culture thing. Use of these naming conventions in real code is highly frowned upon and those who do are 'hacks', not 'hackers'. I agree with the above poster that just because the terms are referenced in an ISO standard has no bearing whatsoever. It is extremely bad practice to use such words in genuine code. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I recall a systems programmer working on Digital Equipment Machines (DEC) VAXes in the early 1980s, grinning that Digital had an acronym -- FUBAR -- for "Failed Unibus Address Register" -- and it accurately described the state of the entire system once such a catastrophic fault had happened. Someone with access to Unibus architecture/programming manual(s) may be able to verify this -- in which case, the "citation needed" marker on the Digital Equipment Machines reference could be resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 02:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I believe that the neutrality of the section "Criticism" isn't... well, neutral. It leans very heavily towards discouraging use of the hackerism. Is there any reliable and verifiable source that denounces foobar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 17:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- No there isn't, the whole paragraph consists of unsourced claims and weasel-wording. I removed it, but an IP user knee-jerked and reverted the whole junk back in again, followed by a well-meaning but IMHO ineficcent user inserting a bunch of maintainance tags. This whole paragraph should go, I see no need to cling to such sub-standard writing.-- Seelefant (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
History and etymology
Man, it's tough to read those example phrases, the fact that they are written like that (using inline quotations within an abstract narrative), despite what should be used in this; it is peculiar to see that stylization in the context of a Wikipedia article, stylistically, under the auspice of proper writing (for the sake of abstraction in non-fic. online encyclopedia.
I admit that the fact the EECS buildings were adjacent to Building 20 is an anachronism. Hackers were using "foo" and "bar" in the 50's before EECS had buildings there. At least, not the ones currently there. I leave it to a better historian than myself to uncover how close Building 20 was to the original LISP community. For all I know, LISP was invented in Building 20. As for my other additions to this section today, I was there 1980-1984. I know what I'm talking about. -- tbc (talk) 17:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Having been there is not sufficient to remove sourced claims and add unsourced claims. You may be right, but you need some evidence beyond your own memories to make those fairly significant changes. —Torchiest talk/edits 19:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
"german american" roots of the etymology - just a guess
is some computer programs the variable foobar apears. for german natives it reads like "furchtbar" - an attribute to something terrible. i guess there war some german military adviser in the vietnam war who's vocabulary contained a world for something like "terrible ugly". i heard somewere on the radio the marines call walky talkies in the end only "foobar" was understood. which sounds like the britisch "lurking horror" or so. the eymology sounds like that red from here in germany. in the movie rambo "krautmann" apears as a warrior adviser. some veterans of the vietnam war are done with the state. so what is the right etymology of the word foobar in american english ?
- Colloquial usage of the term (which I know rather spelled as phoo-ba) in English in place of "mistake", "mishap" has always made me assume a French etymology actually, in that it's rather derived from faux pas. Would be great if anybody could find a source for anything like that. --220.127.116.11 (talk) 02:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
A simple German-English dictionary search confirms the translation as "awful", "dreadful", "terrible", etc. Is a standard online dictionary a reliable source to be cited in the main page, since the translation is missing a citation? --Chocoholic Jedi (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Another early source
Cab Calloway and his Orchestra recorded "Foo A Little Ballyhoo" in New York City, September 18, 1944.
Someone posted a live performance broadcast August 14 1945 from The New Zanzibar New York City: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTfMC6h3lTY
[I have no idea who wrote it or when the score was copyrighted, so I can't add it to the article.]
Fubab: Beyond All Belief - We know how "fouled" up things are, we simply cannot believe it. I coined 'fubab' sometime in the mid-eighties while attending Arizona State University. If anyone knows where I might have heard it before that time, please let me know. Hpfeil (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Is that PHP example supposed to be the direct analog of the code above and below it? Constructing an array and then "imploding" it, while the other two are simple concats? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Moreover: Can anything PHP actually be called "code"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Baz and qux
Date of RFC3092
Scram switch, etc.
Was FOO displayed or F00. Because if you're working with something with 12 bits, loading a psw or register with F00 might be meaningful (or just funny if you know what "foo" is). Sort of a corollary to the mythic trouble report "Equipment doesn't work when selector knob is in the zero fox fox position". If so, the Foo in data processing may be a chicken and egg with F00.
Isn't Foobar derived from Fubar?
I'm an IT guy of 23 years experience, I always understood Foobar to be derived from military slang Fubar  - at least thats how the ex-Vietnam veterans who taught me IT used it. Eworrall (talk) 17:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)