Bad Programming Practics

File: cumberthis.gif (385KB, 300x177px) Image search: [Google]

385KB, 300x177px

int a;

not int a = 0;

In c always fucking init your frigging variables.

>>55492194
This so much

Don't know why for-loop got cut from the standard either, comfy as fuck for looping

>>55492194
Why would int a; always be a bad idea?

>>55492399
For loops still exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C11_%28C_standard_revision%29

>>55492194
Sometimes you read input into your variables, so it doesn't matter.

Here's a basic one, is x larger than y.

1) Any language
2)

if (x >= y)
     return true;
else
     return false;

Creating objects or new variables inside a loop over and over instead of defining them outside the loop once.

>>55492552
it's initialized to garbage, whatever value happens to be on the stack at the time. it's a best practice to always set a deterministic value.

if you have good code analysis tools it's not necessary as they will warn you if you attempt to read before setting it.

>>55492756
I don't get it. Why couldn't it just be :

return x >= y;

Using loops when you can use a matrix in Matlab

Setting the return value as a class property and returning null from the method. Specifically PHP but could be a lot.

>>55493091
because faggots can't into if. That faggo is probably a first year CS

writing code in python

writing a UI

>c++
>#include "class.h"
>#include "class.cpp"

>>55493091
>>55495227
>2) Post bad practices so we can remind ourselves to stop doing them
That's the point you idiots

>>55495333
why is that UI specific?
And why bad practice? I always do it (although I never code UIs)

>>55496023
Using c++ is the biggest mistake here.

>>55491155
1) Java
2) using it unironically

>>55496602
What's wrong with C++?

>>55496640
everything, but I'll start:
> cin/cout and related hacks
> OOP language without GC in (current year)
> dozens of different variants of each primitive data type (oh, you want an integer? that's actually called "uint16" in our code!)
> hilarious lack of infix operator defines/overloads
> bad for functional

>>55496695
what a meme post

>>55492552
It's not always a bad idea, but usually unnecessary. Unless you have a specific reason not to, give it a value on declaration.

Using static types.

>>55496880
this, it's 2016

in C++ you don't need to shoehorn in class inheritance where it isn't necessary... and it's almost never necessary

>>55492814
the compiler will actually just fix this for you lol

>>55497139
>compiler optimizing what you don't want it to optimize

>>55497374
Why the fuck does it do it then?

>>55497374
ok autist

>>55497549
If you're telling me your compiler compiles your code so that creating new objects within a loop has the same effect outside, considering every object's constructors may affect something static, then your compiler is shit

>>55497565
How is it autistic?

>>55491155
Python:

def list_square(li):
  length = len(li)
  for i in range(0, length):
    li[i] = li[i] * li[i]
  return li

>java
>actually using it

>>55492756
>>55493091
return x >= y; is less legible senpai.

The one thing I wish would be weeded out by a mass genocide is opening the wrapper on the same line as the if/loop statement.

>>55496695
The alternatives are either not OOP, are bloated as fuck, or you use C# and are stuck developing on and for Windows.

>>55500071
also C# is bloated as fuck

>>55496640
People with two-digit IQs don't like it.

>>55492194

This guy is retarded.

Class name{
int a;
name(){
a=1;
}
}

Look, I used int a; and it's completely normal and proper in this context.

File: 1448400541726.png (14KB, 438x499px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 438x499px

>>55500137
>name() {

>>55496640
It's too hard for dumb people.

Remember, we want programming to be an "inclusive" skill!

>>55500137
Nigga it's 2016, use constructor initializations.

>>55491155
Python

Making something that should be a function a class whose constructor returns the object you want.

>>55500137
A class member isn't a variable. And that's not C. That's not even C++.

>>55500515
He said Class, not class.

>>55497571
Uh, you're an idiot. There is no "may"; the compiler knows if your object's constructors affect something static or not.

>not using switches

If (i == 4) return 5;
If (i == 6) return 7;
If (i == 8) return 9;
Etc
Etc

>ruby
Method Overload

module sex
  def fuck
    ...
  end
  def pussy
    ...
  end
  def penis
    ...
  end
end
a.pussy.penis.fuck

Just Don't