RAW POWER OF ITERATIVE LOOP

Bask in the glory of such genius:
http://dis.4chan.org/read/prog/1323226650/65

>>38
This would mean that you can handle two times less memory.

>>40
i usually compile with relaxed typecasts checks, Digital Mars C option -Jm

>>41
You could sacrifice a little capability for safety, if you really need safety.
If you accidentally pass negative numbers, not intending it, the enterprise_safe_malloc will catch them.

>>43
If you pass in a signed number any enterprise compiler will warn you that you're doing it fucking wrong and basically tell you your program could have undefined behavior


Anyone that isn't retarded wouldn't ignore something like that.

>>44
I don't see any warnings:
http://codepad.org/eiQyfkhn

>>45

>cat mall.c
#include <stdlib.h>

int main()
{
        malloc(-1);
}

>gcc -Wconversion mall.c
mall.c: In function 'main':
mall.c:5:2: warning: negative integer implicitly converted to unsigned type [-Ws
ign-conversion]



Yes Fronzenvoid, you're retarded.
codepad
You think codepad is going to warn you about being a moron?

>>46
I wouldn't need relying on the compiler, since the enterprise_safe_malloc work on all compilers and all user configurations.
Its moron-proof, enteprise-proof, and it provide you with all the safety you much desire.
You can't go wrong with enterprise_safe_malloc despite anything you try.

>>47
You truly are retarded frozenvoid.

C isn't suppose to be moron-proof so that morons like yourself won't break things when you try to do stuff that you don't understand like assigning -1 to a unsigned int.

For the many morons out there, like yourself, the compiler is suppose to catch your moronic acts so you don't go off sending your shitty code to the public.

I wouldn't need relying on the compiler
but you already do rely on it to compile your code to begin with so how about you use it properly.
Based on your performance from this thread i would also suggest getting *lint and using it because im sure your code is filled with errors and bugs all over the place due to your retarded train of thought.


You might as well just go use java.

If wanted safety, i won't use Java. Ada is much safer.

>>49

If Ada means safety, I'd rather just stay unsafe and use sepples.

Ada
http://russlav.ru/pict/alkashi23.jpg

http://russlav.ru/alkogolizm/demotivator-alko-1.html

>>49
Yeah, Ada's safety worked out great for the Ariane 5.

>>53
Its the safest choice available and its pretty optimized compared to Java.

In what world is allowing creating functions like UC_16S_EN_16NS and using it a safe feature? Casting from big storage types to smaller storage types should be made harder with some sort sort information destruction monad. I'm starting to think Ada might be a glorified BASIC with better typing. After the Ada mandate ended projects started using SEPPLES. The JSF uses SEPPLES. wtf
http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/JSF-AV-rules.pdf

he forgot to enclose his macro parameters in parentheses when he used them
:(

>>56
I usually don't need it, since i don't abuse my macros and writing extra parens is not my style.

>>57
I usually don't need it,
since i only abuse functions implemented by macros and
writing cleaner, safe, and unambiguous expressions is not my style.

>writing cleaner, safe, and unambiguous expressions is not my style.
I just don't dedicate time to it, the macro was just copypasted in a few seconds
If i was optimizing the stuff and using it often, i could rewrite it. Its not some paradigm
"Frozen writes unmaintable code" is just an assumption: the code is written mostly for my own use, i don't really think
you should reuse something like void.h like you do with libraries, you should write your own header which fits your needs/style better(call it macro.h or generic.h if you like).
If you expect to reuse code which i write(actually the code i write for /prog/) you will be limited into the functionality and style i designed, so
don't expect me following some rules.I (personally) dislike standards and rules, but as long as they don't interfere with the process i accept them. Some standard serve a concrete, useful purpose, some are purely arbitrary: i don't have to follow everything to write code. It just needs to compile.

I just don't dedicate time to it, the macro was just copypasted in a few seconds
Copy and paste... Okay I guess? No.

If i was optimizing the stuff and using it often, i could rewrite it. Its not some paradigm
Agree. But won't you spend a lot more time to understand your own code which you wrote some time (days, weeks, months...) ago?

"Frozen writes unmaintable code" is just an assumption: the code is written mostly for my own use, i don't really think
you should reuse something like void.h like you do with libraries, you should write your own header which fits your needs/style better(call it macro.h or generic.h if you like). If you expect to reuse code which i write(actually the code i write for /prog/) you will be limited into the functionality and style i designed, so
Aw shit. I really believed that you in fact were a better programmer outside /prog/, maybe doing something useful!

don't expect me following some rules.I (personally) dislike standards and rules, but as long as they don't interfere with the process i accept them.
Okay, I do too, I find that they somewhat limit my way of thinking. But be advised that this attitude looks childish, in the same way that teens don't like their houses' rules.

Some standard serve a concrete, useful purpose, some are purely arbitrary: i don't have to follow everything to write code. It just needs to compile.
Agree, you seem very practical. With the same argument, I can tell you that racket seems superior to me, and can code anything that compiles and solves my problems. Plus: in much less time than I would do with C, and writing understandable code for at least the next few months.

After all, I do not hold any grudges against you. ОК товарищ?

>>59
1. you write shitty code that doesn't always port
2. you style of writing is ugly as shit and non-readable
3. you don't know how to program
4. you don't know C barely
5. you don't know what the standard is
6. you are retarded

>>59
the code is written mostly for my own use, i don't really think
i don't really think
Do you feel?

>>61
and YHBT.

>>62
Enough with tamasing and other stupid anime shit.

>>64
What are you talking about?

raw power of doubles

>>62
When you ask me "Do you think or feel when coding" i won't be able to tell.
I certainly don't think when i have the program mentally constructed: i just write it down.
I certainly have to think to create new algorithms or functionality: but what i think is about what i feel the program needs.
Synergy between blindly following your vision creative "Flow" and conscious, rational inventing of new stuff is very productive when its combined.

>>67
KEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKE

FV should try career of stand-up comedian.

Now, in this case, we're declaring ShapeType to be a typedef'ed name of an anonymous enumeration. ShapeType is really just an integral type, and should only be used to declare variables which hold one of the values listed in the declaration (that is, one of kCircle, kRectangle, and kOblateSpheroid). You can assign a ShapeType variable another value by casting, though, so you have to be careful when reading enum values.

I found an annoying bug that happens when you move to the next floor. It stays loading forever.
Thankfully, because the game auto-saves every time you go to the next floor, you can try to load the game. It may require a few tries.