Thread replies: 20
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
File: 1471743416857.jpg (60KB, 500x600px) Image search:
[Google]
60KB, 500x600px
This is perfectly fine in C#define QUEUE_NEXT(q) (*(QUEUE **) &((*(q))[0]))
#define QUEUE_PREV(q) (*(QUEUE **) &((*(q))[1]))
#define QUEUE_PREV_NEXT(q) (QUEUE_NEXT(QUEUE_PREV(q)))
#define QUEUE_NEXT_PREV(q) (QUEUE_PREV(QUEUE_NEXT(q)))
>>
>>59088069
You can write retarded and overcomplicated things in any language.
>>
>>59088120
I was stating how beautiful those macros are.
>>
>>59088120
>thinking OP's code is retarded and, of all things, complicated (at all)
>>
>>59088069
>I'm incompetent to write anything other that childish procedural code
: the thread
>>
>>59088207
>procedural code is for children
>object-oriented code is for adults
>war is peace
>freedom is slavery
>ignorance is strength
>>
Are you literally mentally challenged? Do you even realize you fucking autistic sperglord what 4 kilobytes mean to a modern computer? Jesus fucking christ I swear to god those idiots are going to die of stupidity before 40.
>>
>>59088191
There's absolutely nothing about direct text substitution macros that's not retarded.
>>
C++ master race. Classes are zero-overhead C structs by default. Methods only do expensive virtual calls if you explicitly define them to be virtual. It's pretty nice desu. You can make a java-like monstruosity, but if you do you have only yourself to blame because you couldn't not be aware of the overhead.
>>
This is perfectly fine in Cdest[0] = palookupoffse[0][bufplce[0][(place=vplce[0])>>bits]]; vplce[0] = place+vince[0];
dest[1] = palookupoffse[1][bufplce[1][(place=vplce[1])>>bits]]; vplce[1] = place+vince[1];
dest[2] = palookupoffse[2][bufplce[2][(place=vplce[2])>>bits]]; vplce[2] = place+vince[2];
dest[3] = palookupoffse[3][bufplce[3][(place=vplce[3])>>bits]]; vplce[3] = place+vince[3];
>>
>>59088176
You should add a second set of parentheses around your arguments and around the output. Better safe than sorry when dealing with macros.
>>
>>59088069
This is perfectly fine in C.struct line {
int length;
char contents[0];
};
>>
>>59088231
object-oriented code is for children too, brainlet
>>
>>59088207
Procedural code is the best model of how computers actually work, though.
>>59088297
Why wouldn't it be? Array declarations are just pointers to storage allocated on the stack or in bss. A zero-size array would mean the same thing as an uninitialized pointer.
>>
>>59088378
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
>>
main[-1u]={1};
This is fine in C.
http://codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/69189/build-a-compiler-bomb not mine
>>
>>59088243
I could elaborate but I'll just say that's your opinion.
You can either seek the reasoning behind my statement or simply tell yourself you're right, makes no difference to me.
>>
>>59088069
OOP IN THE LOO
>>
>>59088484
There is literally nothing wrong with this.
>>
>>59088484
There are completely valid reasons for using a negative array index.
Thread posts: 20
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2