What did she mean by this code?

class Guy extends Girl

everything is always about themselves and sex

who cares

There's no age in the guy class.

13 is the most redpilled age of consent

prove me wrong

>new Girl()
But Girl does not have a parameterless constructor

This

Attached: 1526572726492.png (600x459, 108K)

I would report her to the dean as an ugly guy for hurting my feelings.

>class Guy {
> private Girl girl = new Girl();
wrong, Girl constructor requires integer as an argument

This.
how can she fuck up something so simple?

it's default constructor if you don't declare any in c#

>willGoOutWithGuy(boolean isUgly)
not:
>willGoOutWithGuy(Guy guy)

She's shit.

Girls are object and each guy owns one of them

I'd tell this bitch to take a hike because she is a womanlet and i'm only into girls who are near my height.
If she wants to discriminate with genetics, there's plenty of handsome guys who can slap back on the same terms. Let it end in an ironic cycle.

Attached: 1502978408561.jpg (384x384, 82K)

everything is always about themselves and sex

But she declared it you stupid piece of shit.
It's fine if she only cares if the guy is ugly or not, but I agree with you, she should have passed an object guy to see if he had money too.

why would you have a girl inside the guy class? thats really bad design, it should be
guy.will_girl_go_out_with_me(girl)

women deserve to be oppressed

everything is always about themselves and sex

Yup. Incels really need to get a life.

I like my code better.
sudo rm -rf /*

everything is always about themselves and sex

Can we shorten this forced samefag meme to EATAS?

>It's fine if she only cares if the guy is ugly or not

It leads to code that's hard to read and almost impossible to maintain.

It's also prone to bugs because you can pass any boolean to willGoOutWithGuy(), not necessarily the boolean representing the guy's ugliness.

"age" in line 7 is undefined, this shit wouldn't even run.

Prime case of EATAS unfortunately

>guy has a girl

The girls age is zero. The guy is a pedophile.

ILAILAIPM

>goes up in front of hundreds of people thinking she's smart and hilarious
>writes code that won't even compile
LOL

>c# with java naming conventions

Someone send help

if this is java it won't even compile with the Girl() constructor

>22 is pre-defined
So when 8 year old girl uses this code, it means she will only date pretty guy who is 22 or older. GG roastie for promoting pedophilia reported to github stuff and university campuss.

That’s not what the code does, at all. I think you may have brain problems

>private Girl girl = new Girl();
this shit syntax gets me every time

>guy owns the girl
l m a o

Not just that but the girl is an object

>private boolean isUgly
>Implying your looks are private and not accessible by everybody

--no-preserve-root

Doesnt && evaluate first value and when it's not applicable it automatically evaluates to false without evaluating the second one?
Wouldn't it be better to put isUgly first then?

you're fucking retarded, even more than the cunt with the downs-syndrome code in the OP
learn how lexical scope works

how do you fags consistently manage to be even more retarded than literally vegetable-brained women

Don't need that flag since you're acting on sub-directories of / and not / itself. It won't remove everything, but your system and data will be fucked.

in languages with short-circuiting, like Java, C, and C++, this is correct
in this case though, it wouldn't really make a difference which is evaluated first, since there are situations in which you may be predisposed to checking either one before the other
you need to keep in mind also that this code design is worse than what someone taking a fucking 101 community college programming course would write

then entire point of object-oriented programming is code compartmentalization and data obfuscation with the purpose of abstraction, neither of which this fucking accomplishes
it fails at the most fundamental level to justify its object-oriented nature

i have a burning desire to see her drawn and quartered for being anywhere near a position where she can influence others as some sort of mentor, teacher, or instructor

should use sudo shred -whatever_options /* instead to make sure the data is unrecoverable

just do sudo dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/ then you fuck up the partition table and filesystem too

Note that the constructor that initialises the member variable is never called.

kek

There's no lexical scope, that's a constructor argument which should be defined on creation.
Additionally, since age is instantiated private prior to the call, there's no chance it's being referenced outside the class.

You should apologize for being a dipshit.

You don't need to explicitly call constructors, they're called automatically when you instantiate the object.

The problem is that age is never defined on object creation.

based

fuck i didn't catch that. hilarious

what the fuck are you talking about faggot
when the constructor Girl(int nigger) is called, age is initialized to nigger
when age is referenced on line 7, it uses whatever value age was given from the constructor when the object was created, and it knows to use that age variable because of lexical scoping
the fact that it is private has nothing to do with anything, it is never nor does it need ever be called outside of the class
you should kill yourself for being such a waste of precious chromosomes

>The problem is that age is never defined on object creation.
do you know how to read you fucking retard
this.age = age;
if you don't know what this means stop posting

he says, that the constructor initializing "age" wouldn't get called, only the default one

there is no default one

>
>>>fuck i didn't catch that. hilarious
You don't call constructors, moron. They're called automatically when the object is created... that's WHY they're called constructors.

>when the constructor Girl(int nigger) is called, age is initialized to nigger
Constructors ARE NOT CALLED.
In class Guy, when Girl object is created, an integer value should have been passed.

>private Girl girl = new Girl(23);

That value is --automatically-- passed to the constructor:

>Girl(int age)

which is then set as a member of the object

>this.age =age;

Holy fuck, at least have a basic understanding of what you're talking about.

Java classes allways have a default constructor unless you overwrite them, in this case it's beeing overloaded

>You don't call constructors, moron
holy shit you can not be serious with this post right now

>Constructors ARE NOT CALLED.
oh my god he said it again

i love it when retards who have not even the slightest clue of what they're talking about parade around on the internet like their wikipedia-surfing is an actual substitute for knowledge

Hahaha, you're right.

apart from your autistic (and incorrect) rambling about whether constructors are called or not, how does your post in any way contradict the first post to which you replied?

also nice reddit spacing, moron

>does reddit spacing
>calls others out for reddit spacing
what did he mean by this?

Brilliant!

Come up with something for sperm so it can be SPERM EATAS

expressing the art of meta humor

Attached: 1526351558125.png (576x597, 60K)

You should post posting when professionals are discussing.

I'm So Meta Even This Acronym

hello, Pajeet
no, your job as IT manager of your local McDonalds does not make you a professional
i hope you have a nice day, Pajeet

Reread until it clicks, then reevaluate your choice in profession.

the acronym spells out REDDIT
what did you mean by this?

nice one

jej

It has a parameterless constructor by default.
>You don't have to provide any constructors for your class, but you must be careful when doing this. The compiler automatically provides a no-argument, default constructor for any class without constructors. This default constructor will call the no-argument constructor of the superclass. In this situation, the compiler will complain if the superclass doesn't have a no-argument constructor so you must verify that it does. If your class has no explicit superclass, then it has an implicit superclass of Object, which does have a no-argument constructor.
docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/javaOO/constructors.html

class Human extends Female implements Slut

you're a fucking retard and no one thinks your pedantry and autism is in any way enlightening or charming
i'd love to see any professor or industry "professional" react to you sperging out and trying to correct them when using completely standard terminology

>you don't call
>automatically called
>value automatically passed
No you idiot, when you use a constructor you are calling it.

all this bitching about imaginary offenses to women lately, but then one goes and writes this shit? hypocrites

thank you for having some sense and a 3-digit IQ

But it has a constructor with a parameter in the girl class

Based

>for any class without constructors

Does no one care this code is vulnerable to shotacon attacks? As long as guy is not ugly, he can have any age, even negative.

>implying you wouldn't court a handsome spermatozoid
disgusting. get the fuck out immediately.

You don't explicitly use constructors. When you create the class, the constructor is called automatically. For instance, you can have multiple constructors - which is called is determined *automatically* depending on circumstance.
In this case, the difference is that the problem is with the instantiation call of the object and not a problem in the class definition.

>You don't explicitly use constructors
that doesn't change the fact that creating an object calls a constructor function/method
people are saying that a man's heart beats, and you're trying to tell them they're wrong because the man doesn't explicitly tell his cardiac muscles to contract
you really need to reevaluate your life

asalamalakum

>that doesn't change the fact that creating an object calls a constructor function/method
Thank you for admitting your wrong.
>people are saying that a man's heart beats, and you're trying to tell them they're wrong because the man doesn't explicitly tell his cardiac muscles to contract
you really need to reevaluate your life
I'll take 'Completely Unrelated Metaphors' for 500, Alex!

so can someone gib source?

>Thank you for admitting your wrong.
i know english isn't your first language, Rajeesh, but you should really try to follow along with the conversation
please, bring this up to literally any professor or "industry professional" and see what they have to say
that is, after they refer you to a psychiatrist for your crippling autism

Can ultimately make everything about themselves & sex.

> ITT: Brainlets

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-05-17 at 22.03.26.png (2880x1800, 472K)