634
Zero to Hero in 1 hour (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev
54 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 41 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

15 steps. You're not counting the top, and the bottom is step 0 and we all know counting starts there.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 35 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Both of you are nerds.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    sometimes i start my iterator with = -1. As I only +=1 it with a condition and I know that it will return true on the first cycle. I'll chuck array[iterator] and need it to be 0 to start with ofc.

    I just have no idea how to not do this, but it looks so bad, i need a i8 instead of a u8 at least because of this

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    What? My intuition is there's always gotta be some equivalent nicer refactor that could do away with such an awkward construct.

    In what kind of situation would that be totally unavoidable?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    I could tell you my recent cenario, but it wouldn't get us anywhere. because I know that it's avoidable, but it'd take for me to run a different logic for only first element of my array. which is doable, but it'd make the code like 5 extra lines longer, harder to read/follow. But I just simply choose to put -1 and boom it's fixed, just works.

    another solution would be (without context) is to add one more variable and one more check to my foreach, but that takes more memory and cpu, I usually choose the i = -1, it's ugly but not as ugly as other solutions would be

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent