for(;;){} vs while(1){}

>>57068382
Typical low quality tylor shit poster

>not a do loop
>not tail recursive function calls
>not GOTO
pleb

>>57068626
You fags will argue about anything.

>>57068916

no we won't

>>57068452
Taylor is /g/'s queen. Get over it, fag.

>>57068930
Yes we will

>>57068382
>for(;;){}

looks sad

>while(1<3u){}

much better

>>57068954
That's exactly what makishitters keep talking to themselves, dipshit

>>57068981
Exactly, they are delusional idiots.

>>57069008
Just like you

>>57069064
Just like you

>>57068382

loop
   -- ...
end loop;

>>57068930
>>57068958
This isn't an argument, it's just contradiction!

>>57070399
no its not

>>57068382
#define EVER ;;

for (EVER) {}

>?????
>profit

>>57068382
for(;;) because there arent magical numbers

If your language spec doesn't support map/reduce, it's shit.

(op == faggit) ? (shitpost()) : (shitpostHarder()) ;

Most of the patches I see from respectable devs on the kernel mailing list use the for(;;){}. We're splitting hairs here but we're all autistic anyways

>>57068382
foreach loops

loop:
    if(i <= 100) {
        printf("%d\n", i);
        i++;
        goto loop;
    }

:::.-------DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

>>57071184
That's how WHILE loops were doe before they were invented, nigga

>>57068626
do loops are shit style and are hard to read

for(;;) is correct here since it can be read as "forever"

10 print op is a faggot
20 goto 10