There’s no need for FOR loops when you can use WHILE for everything

>There’s no need for FOR Jow Forums when you can use /b/ for everything

>there is no need for WHILE loops when you can use recursion for everything

struct should only have public member variables, no methods and nothing private

class should only have public methods, private methods and private members

Use this style and you will be enlightened

all loops and gotos are just jne

>who needs loops when you have recursion
brainlets

>there's no need for FOR loops when you have functors, applicative functors and monoids

Attached: brainfuck wojak.jpg (710x473, 116K)

Not eveyrthing is x86

>Java have structs
hurr durr

theres no need for loops when you can just make new threads

Why write software when you can make application specific logic?

Except recursion has linear space-complexity while iteration has only constant space-complexity.

Technically yes depending on the language, example when C is compiled in assembly

>Technically yes depending on the language
It's not language dependent. All loops are gotos.

not him but all languages aren't compiled the same way

No language, when run, supports loops.

>there are people who unironically don't know when yo use a while and when to use a for
Hell I have seen this, it is so pathetic that it hurts, you need to literally have an IQ below 50 to not understand something so simple.

Oh please, I've seen people in engineering courses struggle with the concept of loops of any kind. "If" statements are already pushing their limits.

yeah they shit themselves when they find out what a switch statement is

stop being so pedantic

stop being so wrong.

If loops are better.

stop being a giant pretentious faggot
I'm not even the user you were arguing with retard

begone thot

Except that we have tail recursion for constant space-complexity

and for everything else it's bne

>there's no need for programming languages when you can just write in binary
>there's no need for calculators when you can just use an abacus
>there's no need for TV when you can just read a book
>there's no need for cars when you can just walk
>there's no need for water running to your house when you can just bathe in the nearest natural water source

Those are all false analogies

they're not even analogies. they're just stupid reductionist statements like OP's