Join devRant
Do all the things like
++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatar
Sign Up
Pipeless API
From the creators of devRant, Pipeless lets you power real-time personalized recommendations and activity feeds using a simple API
Learn More
-
When you're reading up GfG you really only care about having an illustrative example of the thing. Code standards, reliability etc. don't matter at all.
I suspect the fragility is because it was written to solve some competitive programming question and they tell you exactly what kind of input you get - if the input makes it clear that you'll never get a 2 then there's no point programming that case in (bacause time), for example, even though "properly" the algorithm should handle that case. -
@hatemyjob Python doesn't use fucking Pascal case.
-
@AlgoRythm to be fair you can use whatever case you want. It still compiles and runs. And if it's consistent across the code - it even looks OK.
It might look unusual to an eye of someone who's been complying to one set of standards [snake_case]. But it works and as long as it's consistent - it's their adopted code style -
@netikras it can't be consistent unless you're only using your code and rewriting the standard libraries.
Fuck people like this who go against the standard language style.
Another GeeksForGeeks rant
Wisecrack got me a bit interested in primes (just a passing interest). I looked up their python implementation of "Sieve of Atkin". Wow, is it bad.
First of all, they use PascalCase instead of underscore_natation so that's points off right there.
Their function takes a limit as a parameter (pretty obviously).
Their program breaks if you pass a prime number as a limit. That's right, if you give it a 2, it breaks. Pretty pathetic.
Reading the comments, their Java implementation is wrong too.
For fucks sake guys, if you're going to have an algorithm blog at least write good algorithms.
rant