Today on "How to do easy things the wrong way"...

Where did you find that?

*cries*

This would be a great lesson for beginners since it shows loops, try-catch blocks, and arrays all in one nifty function

@gorsamp I really hope there is some hidden sarcasm in that comment.

The tag still exist cause it has a name

Maybe the problem statement was to calculate the length without using the length property. Just saying maybe there’s a reason.

I read the tags...

@Gnu-Not-Unix Schrödinger’s tags

If everyone who knew about the tags dies the GC will get them.

What we are seeing here folks is what we are taught in an AP Computer Science A class.

AmountInArrayX = count(array)

Like really....

@abhishekb Still though, putting the try/catch inside the loop in stead of around it seems pretty inefficient, and if also looks pretty clumsy. Also, he could just have used an enhanced for loop with a counter like so:

‘for (Object o : array) i++;’

doing it that way prevents the exception from even being thrown.

@abhishekb
Oh and it’s probably cheating but just doing

‘return Arrays.asList(array).size()’

Would also get the job done without calling .length 🤓🙃

@ArcaneEye I thought it was java, but I guess they're pretty similar.

@ArcaneEye It has a .length public attribute. And I agree, it's ridiculous, but @abhishekb pointed out that it might be because of a challenge to calculate the length without using .length, so I thought it would be fun to take a look and come up with some other, i.m.o. more elegant ways :) (which still should never be used in any serious projects of course 😅 )

A C programmer probably wrote this

@stevemk14ebr yes, because C is known for its exception usage and managed arrays, right?

@ArcaneEye it's Java. The highlighting theme is the IDEA Dark theme and .NET doesn't have ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException and you'd probably use object instead of Object

I think the guy might know something we don't....

Nah. Tags don't exsist.

🤦