The Anti-If Campaign
-
So instead of
if (something) { ... }We now writeswitch (something) { case true: ... break; default: break; }Or something like that? I was rather surprised to see that a switch on a bool is valid (in C#).. I mean come on, how is that ever going to make any sense?harold aptroot wrote:
So instead of if (something) { ... } We now write switch (something) { case true: ... break; default: break; } Or something like that?
Worse than that - they advocate using polymorphism instead of control structures.
-
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
Now, I am thinking of starting an "anti-for" one;
How about just starting with an anti-absurdity movement?
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
an anti-absurdity movement?
Meh - the success of such a movement would make this world a dull place.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
So instead of if (something) { ... } We now write switch (something) { case true: ... break; default: break; } Or something like that?
Worse than that - they advocate using polymorphism instead of control structures.
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
Worse than that - they advocate using polymorphism instead of control structures.
:laugh: Somebody must have just picked up a GoF or Martin Fowler book.
And above all things, never think that you're not good enough yourself. A man should never think that. My belief is that in life people will take you at your own reckoning. --Isaac Asimov Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --Ralph Charell
-
harold aptroot wrote:
So instead of if (something) { ... } We now write switch (something) { case true: ... break; default: break; } Or something like that?
Worse than that - they advocate using polymorphism instead of control structures.
They sound like object programmers. You know, programmers who write slow code using mostly objects instead of primitive types, the kind of programmer that uses a dictionary<point,T> instead of a T[,] even though it has a known fixed size and will be filled completely..
-
harold aptroot wrote:
So instead of if (something) { ... } We now write switch (something) { case true: ... break; default: break; } Or something like that?
Worse than that - they advocate using polymorphism instead of control structures.
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
Worse than that - they advocate using polymorphism instead of control structures.
WTF? Ask them to implement a simple calculator using their polymorphism. Apart from been stupid this is not something new, we have predicates and the PROLOG from decades and if the memory serves, there is no conditional statements in this language.
The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
Worse than that - they advocate using polymorphism instead of control structures.
WTF? Ask them to implement a simple calculator using their polymorphism. Apart from been stupid this is not something new, we have predicates and the PROLOG from decades and if the memory serves, there is no conditional statements in this language.
The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
WTF? Ask them to implement a simple calculator using their polymorphism.
Hey, don't shoot the messenger - I am not a member of their campaign :)
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
Apart from been stupid this is not something new, we have predicates and the PROLOG from decades and if the memory serves, there is no conditional statements in this language.
Unfortunatelly, I am not familiar with Prolog. ML stlyle pattern matching[^] is sometimes a nice alternative to
if-elseblocks, though. -
harold aptroot wrote:
So instead of if (something) { ... } We now write switch (something) { case true: ... break; default: break; } Or something like that?
Worse than that - they advocate using polymorphism instead of control structures.
:omg: They exploit shape shifting parrots? Does PETA know about this?
Christopher Duncan www.PracticalUSA.com Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes Copywriting Services
-
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
Now, I am thinking of starting an "anti-for" one;
How about just starting with an anti-absurdity movement?
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001Hang on... I'm buying you a ticket to Washington, D.C.
Christopher Duncan www.PracticalUSA.com Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes Copywriting Services
-
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
WTF? Ask them to implement a simple calculator using their polymorphism.
Hey, don't shoot the messenger - I am not a member of their campaign :)
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
Apart from been stupid this is not something new, we have predicates and the PROLOG from decades and if the memory serves, there is no conditional statements in this language.
Unfortunatelly, I am not familiar with Prolog. ML stlyle pattern matching[^] is sometimes a nice alternative to
if-elseblocks, though.Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
Hey, don't shoot the messenger - I am not a member of their campaign
I know, it was a joke. :)
The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
So instead of if (something) { ... } We now write switch (something) { case true: ... break; default: break; } Or something like that?
Worse than that - they advocate using polymorphism instead of control structures.
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
Worse than that - they advocate using polymorphism instead of control structures.
There's nothing wrong:
Microsoftis doing it since '92, withMFC, ...oooops :-D On the serious side, (IMHO) there's really nothing wrong in using polymorphism instead of control structures when the OOP nature of the project naturally leads to. :)If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler. -- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong. -- Iain Clarke
[My articles] -
Just in case you haven't noticed, there is an "anti-if campaign[^] out there. Now, I am thinking of starting an "anti-for" one; and "anti-switch" one; and - well you get the picture. Too bad anti-goto is an old news.
Most developers have no understanding of Object Oriented programming beyond the text book definition. There are some great things you can do with correctly designed OO. One really neat pattern is the Null object pattern so instead of checking for null when you call a method you have a predefined action already established on null. But then I am a dreamer.
Need custom software developed? I do custom programming based primarily on MS tools with an emphasis on C# development and consulting. A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." --Stephen Crane
-
Just in case you haven't noticed, there is an "anti-if campaign[^] out there. Now, I am thinking of starting an "anti-for" one; and "anti-switch" one; and - well you get the picture. Too bad anti-goto is an old news.
soon, the only people who knows how computers actually work will be the people who write compilers.
-
Just in case you haven't noticed, there is an "anti-if campaign[^] out there. Now, I am thinking of starting an "anti-for" one; and "anti-switch" one; and - well you get the picture. Too bad anti-goto is an old news.
[quote] The perfect gift for programmers who decide to quit using IFs Price: € 20.00 (+20% VAT) + Shipping Minimum quantity: 5 T-Shirts ... Quantity (one size) [/quote]
If (size != yourSize)
{ you_have_110€+_less = true;
you_are_fucked_up = true;
]:laugh: :laugh: EDIT: I just saw the slogan at the bottom of this part[^]: "Anti-If Campaign you can quit if you want to join us" :doh: :doh: :doh:
Regards. -------- M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpfull answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
modified on Monday, January 4, 2010 3:28 PM
-
:omg: They exploit shape shifting parrots? Does PETA know about this?
Christopher Duncan www.PracticalUSA.com Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes Copywriting Services
Rumor has it that the parrots are kept in the same bunker that Dick Cheney is staying in and that both receive a healthy supply of crackers for good behavior.
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! Personal 3D projects Just Say No to Web 2 Point Blow
-
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
Now, I am thinking of starting an "anti-for" one;
How about just starting with an anti-absurdity movement?
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001That would cause the internet to implode. Too bad, it's a good idea! :)
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! Personal 3D projects Just Say No to Web 2 Point Blow
-
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
Worse than that - they advocate using polymorphism instead of control structures.
WTF? Ask them to implement a simple calculator using their polymorphism. Apart from been stupid this is not something new, we have predicates and the PROLOG from decades and if the memory serves, there is no conditional statements in this language.
The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
Never mind a calculator - implement a coin toss simulator for who goes first in a football match!
All those who believe in psycho kinesis, raise my hand.
-
soon, the only people who knows how computers actually work will be the people who write compilers.
Come in here, dear boy, have a cigar: you don't need to know how the machine actually works to write a compiler for our managed language. :-D
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler. -- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong. -- Iain Clarke
[My articles] -
Most developers have no understanding of Object Oriented programming beyond the text book definition. There are some great things you can do with correctly designed OO. One really neat pattern is the Null object pattern so instead of checking for null when you call a method you have a predefined action already established on null. But then I am a dreamer.
Need custom software developed? I do custom programming based primarily on MS tools with an emphasis on C# development and consulting. A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." --Stephen Crane
Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:
One really neat pattern is the Null object pattern so instead of checking for null when you call a method you have a predefined action already established on null.
Arguing the usefulness of such an object in
OOPlooks like arguing about the empty-set in set theory. However it really depends on the (project) context if you really need an Object Oriented approach or not. :)If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler. -- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong. -- Iain Clarke
[My articles] -
Just in case you haven't noticed, there is an "anti-if campaign[^] out there. Now, I am thinking of starting an "anti-for" one; and "anti-switch" one; and - well you get the picture. Too bad anti-goto is an old news.
-
Yeah, and I'm sick of seeing those variables all over the code like they run the place. Let's get rid of those also. :~
While you're at it, will you get rid of those stinking operators and loops? They're just noise.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
