Is this a Nut?

Rust is more like: unless you can mathematically prove to me that this is equivalent to a nut there is no ducking way I'll ever let you compiled this.

StackOverflow: Question closed as duplicate. Someone else already asked whether or not something is a nut.

Java: "Sorry, but the developers of Peanut didn't declare it to implement the Crackable interface, even though it has all the relevant methods, so if you want to treat it like a nut your choices are write a wrapper class or call those methods using Reflections"

C# should actually be "What Java said, except it's ICrackable".

In Java, it's not called the Crackable interface.

It's the Nuttable interface.

I am static_casting the nut_t*. Pray I don't static_cast it any further.

C can STRUCTurise classes tho

Ruby: No, it has been redefined as the number 5 so buckle your seatbelts, kiddos, cuz shit's about to get wild!

"What Java said."

Okay, that one made me chuckle.

All those memes picturing C++ as unsafe and unstable yet the server that serves these memes is running mostly C/C++ and has an uptime of months.

Excel: 12th of Nutuary 1970

C++: Nuh, uh ...

template <typename T>
concept Crackable = requires(T obj) {
    { obj.crack() };
};

auto crack(Crackable auto& nut) {
    nut.crack();
}

I just dabbled in javascript again, and that description is spot on!

console.log('javascript operators are b' + 'a' + + 'a' + 'a');

Ce n'est pas une cacahuète

But... It's a legume?!

Whatever the Tiger 2-XL was "programmed" in, it's the best.

wheres scala?