Structure teh program

Dear /prog/, how do I learn to structure my shit properly?

Take a stick and refactor it into easily swallowed pieces.

Read a book.

Use [Tab]

>>4
You're in a lot of trouble.

>>4
Leah Culver?

>>4
FIOC?

>>6,7
same fag.

Use vim.

>>1
'########::'########::::'###::::'########::
 ##.... ##: ##.....::::'## ##::: ##.... ##:
 ##:::: ##: ##::::::::'##:. ##:: ##:::: ##:
 ########:: ######:::'##:::. ##: ##:::: ##:
 ##.. ##::: ##...:::: #########: ##:::: ##:
 ##::. ##:: ##::::::: ##.... ##: ##:::: ##:
 ##:::. ##: ########: ##:::: ##: ########::
..:::::..::........::..:::::..::........:::
:'######::'####::'######::'########::
'##... ##:. ##::'##... ##: ##.... ##:
 ##:::..::: ##:: ##:::..:: ##:::: ##:
. ######::: ##:: ##::::::: ########::
:..... ##:: ##:: ##::::::: ##.....:::
'##::: ##:: ##:: ##::: ##: ##::::::::
. ######::'####:. ######:: ##::::::::
:......:::....:::......:::..:::::::::

>>10
You're not helping.

>>11
He's right, though. I'm assuming >>1 has not read SICP already.

No seriously read SICP. In particular up to 2.2.3 which teaches breaking the problem into common discrete parts (i.e. patterns).

>>13
I think something like Code Complete may be more appropriate.

>>14
I think something like my anus may be more haxed

>>15
fuck, why do I laugh to these things. >.<

``Read SICP'' is actually the correct answer for OP's question.

>>17
Like it usually isn't.

>>13
k cool, reading this and hopefully it will help me improve my codingz

>>13
That's not what patterns is.

This book is for you who want to write the next killer app for
Internet, eCommerce, B2B, WAP, Bluetooth, and what-have-you.  Did you
know that most of those applications you use, be it Netscape, IE,
Word, Excel, VB, Shockwave, SQL Server, IIS, Servlet, etc., etc., are
all written using structured programming, the technology taught in
this book?  Almost no computer program nowadays don't use some form of
structured programming such as loops and subroutines.  So if you are
out to design the next killer application, this book is for you.
Written by CS celebrities, highly-acclaimed researchers and
innovators, and ACM Turing Award winners (widely regarded as the CS
equivalent of Nobel prize laureates) such as O. J. Dahl (inventor of
OOP, and more), C. A. R. Hoare (inventor of preconditions and
postconditions, and more) and E. W. Dijkstra (inventor of the Dijkstra
shortest-path algorithm, the dining philosopher problem, the mutex,
and more), this book is the crystallization of the experience and
wisdom of the programming pioneers and giants who wrote applications,
compilers, and OSes --- and proved them correct (bug-free) --- before
you were born, and is an indispensible investment of your money and
time.

E. W. Dijkstra
inventor of the dining philosopher problem
How posh.

>>20
He's talking about spotting recurring patterns and abstracting them away into separate algorithms.The PATTERNS you think of are band-aids for ENTERPRISE language deficiencies.

>>23
Every language has programming patterns; ask Norvig!

>>24
He isn't available at the moment but I've found this in his slide:
[url]http://norvig.com/lisp_talk_final_files/Slide0020.gif[/url]

>>25
[url]

>>25
Try looking at Design Patterns in Dynamic Programming Languages^[1]

[1] - http://norvig.com/design-patterns/ppframe.htm

>>25
[url] is not part of R⁵RB.

>>27
Peter Norvig won't return my e-mails. ;__;

>>29
That is stealing! Call the police.

>>27
I read it and I think I see what you're getting at. But most patterns in that that presentation we're classified as invisible in dynamic languages. Look at his example of subroutines. You had to figure out how to implement them but now they're in every language. Now look at his comparison of the abstract factory in C++ and dynamic languages. The code shows no sign of a design pattern in the latter.

>>27
This will help me to write code that doesn't look like shit?

>>32
No, because you're writing enterprise Sepples.

>>33
oh right, I'd rather write pure C

PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT

>>35
Or does it?

>>34

Nice, I'd rather get shit done

>>37
same here brah

yeah, wow, nothing helps me

>>35

Not if you're retarded