[1] Retarded indentation
[2] use of goto
[3] Struct is not typedef'd
[4] Using &poop instead of a proper pointer
[5] Variables not declared at top of function (ANSI C requires it)
[6] global elements have no namespacing
[7] Expressions are not properly grouped (foo.bar < GIZMO_SNUFKIN_THRESHOLD / 2 is ambigious, what gets executed first? parentheses are your friends)
Name:
Anonymous2011-01-21 18:40
>>1 [5] Variables not declared at top of function (ANSI C requires it)
Sure, but in many cases it makes the code look much more complex than it is.
[1] Yes.
[2] Dijkstra never used Lisp.
[3] Not retarded, because it gives you a whole extra namespace to work with.
[4] How is this an issue?
[5] Not sure I have much to say on this. The compiler'd be all "oh look, you declared foo after your first function call, that's cool, i'll just move it up there"
[6] Isn't that C's problem and nothing to do with style?
[7] >>3,7
Gotos are considered harmful in context of lack of structured programming. We have it now and it's ok to use controlled gotos, setjmps, continuations, exceptions and the like.
1) Agree
2) FUCK YOU OP ``FAGGOT''
3-) Agree
Name:
Anonymous2011-01-22 7:21
>>14 setjmps, continuations, exceptions and the like
"wah. I'm such an artist, I cannot stand the look of GNU's standards instead of being a real programmer and take everything as it is"
Why don't you gb2mdickie
being a real programmer and take everything as it is
There's a certain amount of "suck it up" you need to put up with as a programmer, but this phrasing is just wrong. Nobody interested in programming is satisfied with the way things are and that's sort of the point.
Name:
Anonymous2011-01-22 9:24
>>19
My point is that standards are established to assist expectations, and you just have to suck it up if old standards look ugly today's context.
Yes, I do recognise that sometimes, compromises in beauty have to be made for the sake of structure and compromises in structure have to be made for the sake of beauty.
Name:
Anonymous2011-01-22 9:30
>>20
So... compromises in compromises have to be made for the sale of compromises?
[1] agreed
[2]
>shitty programmers can't use goto. it makes programs too complex for them
>OMG GOTO IS HARMFUL, IT IS EVIL DON'T USE IT
[3]
uh, why? it is beneficial to see it is a struct or not
[4]
when you need address of poop, you use &poop. what is the problem?
[5]
then use a better compiler
[6]
lol, namespacing
[7]
division and multiplication are pretty much the first operations executed. foo.bar < GIZMO_SNUFKIN_THRESHOLD / 2 would be 0 if < is executed first (1/2 == 0/2 == 0). you have to be an idiot to confuse this
OMG GOTO IS HARMFUL, IT IS EVIL DON'T USE IT
Most people wo use goto have not the slightest idea ````why'''' they use it.
when you need address of poop, you use &poop. what is the problem?
When you want a pointer, you declare a pointer. When you want a reference, you declare a reference. If you do otherwise, you deserve to be murdered in the most gruesome way.
then use a better compiler
It's a standard for a goddamn reason.
lol, namespacing
At this point, I've realized that you never wrote anything remotely useful, or will ever get popular with your non-existant software.
division and multiplication are pretty much the first operations executed. foo.bar < GIZMO_SNUFKIN_THRESHOLD / 2 would be 0 if < is executed first (1/2 == 0/2 == 0). you have to be an idiot to confuse this
It's about grouping, and not about this particular statement. you have to be an idiot not to know what groups are :3
Name:
Anonymous2011-01-22 10:39
>>28 It's a standard for a goddamn reason. I bet you never alias your pointers either, do you, FAGGOT?