Fuck Object Oriented Programming

>implying the R&D that NASA put in had absolutely no effect on electronics or the computing industry

Was MC Ride one of those niggas?

Everyone knows the Moon landing was faked, and it's still a bigger achievement than the entire Android API.

Do you open doors or do you input a door into the process of opening doors to obtain an opened door?

Did a window have a brick thrown through it or did the process of brick throwing consume a window and output a broken window?

Depending on how you answer these questions may show whether you are an OOD or functional programmer.

int IntegerRetrieverManagaer::GetInteger(int i) { return i; } //Returns i, which is an integer

what are turbo-codes

What the fuck does a brick or smashed window have to do with programming? Is this what they teach at these new Indian Universities?

found the brainlet who cant into FP

Death Grips is not rly a """band""" per se--they are an experimental art exhibition anchored by sound and vision.

No!
Object Oriented Programming fucks you

agreed. fuck it

Attached: 1540392422170.jpg (220x229, 19K)

Oh goody, the brainfart crew is visiting from /tv/. It's always a joy when we have visits.

And fuck POINTERS

Attached: 1536504694822.png (332x332, 148K)

Experimental Hip-Hop group.

zoomer spotted

(sexually)

> the moon is real
get help

>If you write in a procedural way your code is automatically spaghetti
Separating data and logic provides greater modularity than tightly coupling the two together. take a loop at some Data Oriented Design stuff

btw functional programming sucks

>CLOS
Fucking this

>muh DOD
You keep doing you, mr spaghetti.

>Ties types to logic
>Thinks his code is not spaghetti

>what is encapsulation
>what are invariants
DOD is a meme paradigm for brainlets that are in denial about their shitty procedural code.

I am actually a brainlet. I understand and appreciate pointers and I know how to use them well, but I hate dealing with them.

Attached: 1518044584578.png (485x443, 24K)

coupling data and logic is basically turning them into a module, thats the point
It's not like that prevents you from writing data orientated code either

>uses loops inzread of recursive methods
What if I'm writing something where the stack has to remain as small las possible?

>some Data Oriented Design stuff
Is that a euphemism to Department of Defence?

*allocates struct*
yeah fuck OOP

Attached: 1493851741527.png (400x450, 286K)

>listening to the rambling of functional plebs
it's not worth it senpai

its a joke post my friends

I don't know what you're talking about citizen

Attached: 1517969997672.jpg (708x708, 41K)

>yfw you see a math sperg larping as software engineer

Attached: kramer-serenity-now.gif (704x528, 1.65M)

dynamic polymorphism is expensive and nearly always unnecessary if the space of possible types is closed
in cases where it's necessary, using variant/sum types often lead to better architecture
this is especially true for languages that support generics

in software like games runtime polymorphism is necessary, but you see that game developers develop their own object systems
(e.g. entity system) rather than relying on classic OOP

inheritance is just a bad idea unless used cleverly as part of something like policy based design and mixins

that doesn't mean you should avoid classes and objects altogether of course, but giving classes "behavior" as opposed to separating data and algorithms only makes sense for certain types

>imagine actually using oop
You fell for the biggest CS meme around
youtube.com/watch?v=GKYCA3UsmrU

Serious question, why would you use recursion over loops? Isn't recursion harder on system resources and slower?

Recursion is less efficient and less readable. Every time you recall the function, whatever parameters are passed are placed back onto the stack.

Recursion adds a lot of overhead to the stack at run time since each call to that function gets pushed to the stack for languages that aren't tail-call optimized. However, recursion often seems like a very natural and elegant solution to many problems and can make your code simpler and smaller. It's really a trade off between simpler code and code that has slightly better time complexity and much smaller space complexity.

Oh okay, that's what I thought. Also I'm not sure if I'm a brainlet or not, but I can never find myself ever thinking recursively or being able to fully understand what is going on in a recursive implementation of a program. It's really just not first instinct to me to use recursion. I believe it's an important concept considering how much it's talked about. How do I into recursion?

Don't. The 'codelet' post was just a bait from some uni undergrad who doesn't know what he's talking about.
Stick with recursion because it's clearly the better option.
See godbolt.org/ if you want to dive deeper for yourself.

recursion is easier to program for something like a tree traversal than doing it with iteration
and if you're doing an iteration that requires you to manually iterate a stack you might aswell forget it and make it recursive and use the languages stack instead

I dont understand how people have trouble understanding recursion
It's just running another copy of a function
try traversing a tree or hierarchy structure and you'll see why it's useful

Recursion is something that has a few uses and is very suited to a small set of programs but gets hailed as revolutionary by mathfags despite being unworkable for most problems. It's no surprise you struggle to think recursively, because it is unintuitive and for the most part a bad idea to do so. Indeed, part of the reason it comes up so much is because it is so unintuitive that they try as hard as possible to get people to understand it and use it as a benchmark for who really "knows" their stuff and who does not. Try thinking about tree structures like filesystem directories then ignore 90% of the people trying to force recursion onto the things for which it is not suited out of self-congratulatory mathfag masturbation.

>Recursion is something that has a few uses
I've never written a real program: the post

Do you feel like expanding on that?

"They taught me in uni that this is good so I believe it without shipping an actual efficient product!!!"

anything that does anything remotely complex is going to have recursive calls all over the fucking place, not in the "I'm using recursion instead of iteration" sense but in the sense that you're accessing part A which is accessing object B which accesses part C with its own part A and so on

>in software like games runtime polymorphism is necessary, but you see that game developers develop their own object systems
>(e.g. entity system) rather than relying on classic OOP
Can you expand on this a bit more. I'm interested in the entity system part. Thanks!

You must be new. Just stick to lurking :)
The literal only difference between recursion and looping is the marginal performance dip when using recursion, depending on how many parameters you are recalling the function with.
You can do 'recursive things' by looping..

games use classic OOP, he's talking about some meme silver bullet architecture that uses something akin to a database of components

>You must be new
I've been a programmer for 25 years
If you're doing something recursive via looping that requires a stack it's usually pointless, use the built-in stack, it's going to be faster
And I wasn't talking about recursive algorithms, more the fact that entire programs are fairly recursive, if you look at the call stack at runtime

can you access the stack in all languages tho?
>Unironically asking

if it's a compiled language with a debugger then you can look at it

some algorithms aren't primitively recursive, so you have no choice but to use recursion. Other than that, like others have said, use loops.

I want to get into handmade hero, but looking at the amount of videos gives me the sense that it's really slow

calling it meandering would be an incredible understatement

Tail-end recursion

>>uses loops instead of exclusively using recursive methods
But loops are more effecient and better optimized by compilers, albeit sometimes harder to code.
Doesn't that mean that a codelet would use recursive methods instead of loops?

no u

programacion orientada a objetos is literally POO

Attached: 1540920882785.jpg (470x960, 96K)

Why? redpill me on OOP.

The only language I know well is C++, which I taught myself, so I have no exclusively non-oop experience

Yeah recursion in most languages is more demanding and slower.

Oop isn't actually bad, especially in languages like Crystal, C++ and python, where it's not forced upon you. The problem that people here have is usually that a lot of modern programmers insist on putting everything in a class when it's just not necessary. Also, languages like Java shove OOP so far down your throat that you choke on it. When used reasonably and with moderation, oop can make a lot of tasks easier to understand. Oh, and there are also the retards who don't want to learn encapsulation, inheritance, and so forth so they just call it "stupid" and "complicated."

> python
> oop

Pick one. Its shoehorned so horribly in that garbage language its not even funny. C++ is built for oop if not use c

>Also, languages like Java shove OOP so far down your throat that you choke on it
>Wah wah java is evil wah wah java is bad wah wah why can't X language be more popular than java wah wah
Face it, there is a reason that Java is number one. The ultimate red pill is that Java is a superior language.

Oh, I see. This even gets annoying reading C++ source code. So many people try to create classes for everything when it woulld often be much easier to understand if they were to just use more basic concepts such as vectors, typedefs, pairs, etc..

Table-oriented is the superior paradigm and you all know it.

>niggas on the moon
of course you did, based amerimutt

Huh? You can always use iterative methods. For non-primitive recursive functions you just have to manage a stack.