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
![](/static/devrant/img/pipeless-devrant-banner-white.png)
From the creators of devRant, Pipeless lets you power real-time personalized recommendations and activity feeds using a simple API
Learn More
Search - "logic gem"
-
Logic Gem found at work today.
if (value != null) {
return value;
} else {
return null;
}
😂 😂😂😂😂😂10 -
I bring you all another gem from my computer science course, this time from my OOP class.
The first assignment we made for this class was a simple CLI shop, where you would have basically three main classes:
- A Product class that you extend to create different types of products.
- A Cart class that manages a list of products (basically an ArrayList<Product>) and has some useful methods
- A CLI class to display a simple interface to the user and call methods on a Cart.
Basic OOP stuff, so far so good.
Then for our second assignment the teacher asked us to make Cart a generic class, where you would say Cart<Bagel> and you would only be able to put bagels in it. This makes absolutely no fucking sense, this is not a good use case for generic types since
1) you would never limit your customer's cart to one type of product at compile time.
2) in Cart, you have to cast the generic type to Product to extract any information from the product, like when getting product prices to calculate the total price, so might as well use a fucking ArrayList<Product>
I'm just saying what he's asking us to do has (to our fictional shop's business logic) absolutely no advantage over subtyping.
Also, why the fuck teach generic constraints when you can just tell your students "just cast T to Product", right?
Like fucking hell, couldn't you spend like 10min to come up with a decent assignment that actually teaches generic types the right way? ffs
And just so no one can say "but wut simple assignment would you give to teach students generic types?", here's a simple and much, much better alternative: implementing your own ArrayList. Done. Can't get much better than that, it's a legit use case and teaches you the basics.
Sorry man, you're a great person, you really are, but you suck as a teacher.3 -
Just stumbled on this little gem.
Apple's logic: 1+2+3 = 23
At this point I think Apple has just given up on quality. They are all about aesthetics nowadays.
#onlyApplewillmessupacalculator11 -
Ah, the ancient art of copy-paste development – where originality goes to die and bugs come out to play. It's like a cursed incantation that tempts even the best of us into the dark abyss of shortcuts.
You think you're saving time by copying that snippet from Stack Overflow, but little do you know, you've just invited a horde of gremlins into your codebase. Suddenly, your once-cohesive architecture looks like a patchwork quilt sewn by a drunkard.
And let's not forget the thrill of debugging when you realize that the copied code references variables that don't even exist in your context. "Ah, yes, I remember copying this gem at 2 AM. What could possibly go wrong?"
But wait, there's more! Copy-pasting also introduces a special kind of chaos when updates are needed. You find yourself fixing the same bug in five different places because you couldn't be bothered to encapsulate that logic in a reusable function.
So here's a heartfelt salute to all the copy-paste warriors out there, bravely navigating the treacherous waters of borrowed code. May your future coding endeavors involve more thinking, less CTRL+C, and a lot fewer late-night bug hunts!1 -
Being a developer allows you to enjoy using most of the creative skills artists also put to use (writing structured prose, design, semantics, ergonomics, ethics), while adding logic, job safety, and a decent paycheck to the mix.
Also: puts you in a good position to readily take advantage of new digital goodies (eg bitcoin), and to understand the gem that is developer humor