The absolute state of "the greatest Ruby programmer of all time"

the problem here is clear; the programmer believes coloring is going to make them program any better

what's wrong with the logic sir?
please enlighten us sir.

Attached: a33.png (558x614, 32K)

num2 >= num1 is unnecessary?

what's won't with the logic? In which case does it return a false result?

>THREE 3 (three) numbers
>FOUR four (4) comparisons (does ruby even have short circuiting?)
>!!ELSIF!! not elif or else if
>def like python but also end !!!!! AFTER RETURN
>FUCKING WITH BRANCH PREDICTION TOO
KEK IM DONE

yes, Jow Forums is really brainlet board

Missing 'end' for the 'if' block

Attached: 1357025609857.jpg (640x427, 99K)

if not (a >= b) then b= num1 is not necessary how are you this much of a brainlet

if it compiles i smiles :)

OP is fucking coward for not telling what he thinks is wrong.

He didn't call you a brainlet. You got it right. He called out everyone else who didn't get it. Then again, you are not a brainlet, but you do lack emotional intelligence.

do you know how to read, I confirmed post where user said that num2 >= num1 us not necesarry

See:

is this correct guisee?
def max(a, b, c):
ret = a
if (b > ret):
ret = b
if (c > ret):
ret = c
return ret

so this is the
>huge flaw

Return statements are unnecessary, the 'if' block will return the value of its chosen branch

This is how software gets bloated. It starts with things like this.

fair enough although I think a compiler could optimize this out

Literally the only person to get it right ITT

Poor phrasing. You should explain the "and". Let me try it. If the test for (num1 >= num2 && num1 >= num3) fails, then it stands that (num1 < num2 || num1 < num3). In either case num1 can't be the maximum, so we can ignore it from now on.

def max(num1, num2, num3)
if num1 >= num2 and num1 >= num3
num1
elsif num2 >= num3
num2
else
num3
end
end

No. Software gets bloated through unnecessary features and integrations, not trivial redundant code.

Ruby is dynamic enough that you can't do it.

Check out Example #3 in this
programiz.com/c-programming/examples/largest-number-three

You are retarded.
Redundancy can be used as a tool to help trainees understand logic better.
From what I gather in your picture, it is from a "course" video, so not only is it a justified use of redundancy, but it might be a deliberate one, too.

>huge flaw
My ass.

If I made a "course" recording, I'd plant redundancies like this everywhere purposefully. Even "advanced level" courses wouldn't be spared.
Good luck with your slippery slope though. Lovely thread.

Attached: rms and matz.png (512x512, 396K)

>70074707
>LOLALOOL

A I R S P A C E

t. pajeet

>Huge flaw
ok

It was clearly a troll thread from the start.
>the greatest Ruby programmer of all time
>huge flaw
>trivial code
These are dead giveaways.

25% loss of efficiency is a huge flaw

You are getting entertaining, OP.

def max (num1, num2, num3)
return Java.import.max(num1, num2, num3)
end

ez

Not OP, just saying. There's no justification to be a shitty programmer.

Protip: If you do this in a job interview, you don't get the job.

>JRuby

Attached: 1374796030634.jpg (600x595, 64K)

a lot comfyer than OP solution

>redundancy is a flaw
Lel thanks Jow Forums, I'm no longer going to keep backups xDDD

Assignments are worse than comparisons. Each assignment is 5, each comparison is 2

Shut up pajeet, your program is bloated and slow.

nothing personal ruby
max:
cmp esi, edx
mov eax, edi
cmovl esi, edx
cmp esi, edi
cmovge eax, esi
ret

The reason why no one sees anything wrong with the code is because there really is nothing logically wrong with the code. That doesn't mean it's bad code. Like many have stated:
num2 >= num1
is meaningless, there's also a missing "end" statement, and it's written in Ruby. But other than that there is no logical error. This function will suffice for most "introductory" courses as an explanation. I've taken the bait, but literally "half of Jow Forums won't find the huge flaw in this program" sounds like a porn clickbait. So yeah this is bait.

>slow
'Cause it's in Ruby.

Reminder that American universities stopped teaching micro-optimization because millennials found it too complicated.

Here in France, you'll fail the exam if your code has redundant waste of processing power. I guess that's why French companies are now leading software development.

>that's why French companies are now leading software development
Prove it, frogger.

I laughed hard
French are only good at surrendering

Have an examples?

With one exception.

>assignments are worse

Attached: assignments_are_worse_g.png (1217x614, 39K)

Dassault Systemes is the new industry standard

Yes, writing is a lot worse than reading.

???

Attached: laughs.jpg (240x210, 6K)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycles_per_instruction

Haven't seen any piece of French software in my entire life. Actually scratch that, OFF was made by a French guy.

Im sorry can you repeat that statement?

Attached: assignments_are_worse_g.png (1292x576, 107K)

see

>Haven't seen any piece of French software in my entire life
perhaps because you're a clueless zoomer

Attached: 250 IQ.png (346x180, 31K)

btfo or am i missing something here

>Reusing a variable like that
cringe

OP here, my first reply and the official mistake reveal

I meant that he forgot an "end" statement

Carry on

fucking shreked

that one compiles to the bottom one here
btw

What are you even doing?

Just do the following:

x= 1
y= 2
x > y

and then

x = 1
y = 2
x = y

and compare

None of that looks like any code posted here

isn't this a clear example of a recursive function enabling you to compare a much bigger amount of numbers?

???

Attached: filename.png (1262x261, 31K)

Try both:

int max (int x, int y, int z) {

if (x > y && x > z)
{
return x;
}

if (y > z)
{
return y;
}

return z;

}

and

int max (int x, int y, int z) {

if (x > y && x > z)
{
return x;
}
else if (y > z)
{
return y;
}
else return z;

}

why would you do that? spreading such awful lies?

Attached: firefox_2019-03-07_15-51-10.png (1886x647, 78K)

Ah, he was a troll.

I had no doubt that writing does take more CPU cycles than reading. It literally says it in the instructions of any microprocessor.

But I thought it might be the compiler being retarded at handling else's or brackets.

>turning off optimizations
>l-look at m-me mom
why are you even writing in C, you should be writing in hand-made assembly then

>still not showing your compiler options

usually writing is faster because it can be done asynchronously, wbereas reads must block until the data is fetched. do the timings in your processor documentation account for dram stalls?

It was literally at -O3 for both you autist retard
you shave off 2 cycles going from -O1 to -O2,
if you are that retarded about saving cycles you would have optimizations on like -Ofast, which changes absolutely nothing going from -O3 in the assignment case.

Attached: pepedistorted.jpg (639x582, 48K)

should've include this in your screencap
but you're right

Attached: firefox_2019-03-07_16-13-27.png (1906x332, 37K)

I would rather have redundant checks than too few checks.

based tertiary operator poster
btw what program is that?

le basade et rougepilled

int max(int num1, int num2, int num3)
{
return Math.Max( Math.Max(num1,num2), num3);
}

That "award" looks really disgusting. I wouldn't touch that desu.

def max(*args); args.max; end

btfo

>>def like python but also end !!!!! AFTER RETURN
fun/endfun is the patrician block style you uncultured shitter
indentation is fine too
braces is dogshit tier (especially because of retards who think the opening brace is a part of the if-statement (and also think that that if-statements with "one line" are a special case), so they put it to the right of the if as if it was a fucking python colon).

Attached: 1551130585975.png (550x550, 340K)

>huge flaw in this program
No comments

}

I don't know ruby so...
def mymax(first, *rest):
ret = first
for arg in rest:
if arg > ret:
ret = arg
return ret

print mymax(3,9,5,7,2,6)

>elsif
That's just wrong whatever the compiler says...

ITT Jow Forums tries really hard to nitpick a beginner ruby tutorial screenshot, and it doesn't go well.

>promoting use of redundancy code
Just fucking explain it to them how hard could the concept be?

>Grenoble
Basé

based

FUNC MAX(a,b,c)
asshole = []
asshole.push(a)
asshole.push(b)
asshole.push(c)

sort asshole

return asshole[length asshole -1]