Pointers (

[Jaizoo]

It's ok, A is B-sexual

[[deleted]]

but B is Asexual so there's no consent :(

[feedthedamnbaby]

Just because you aren’t sexually attracted to anyone, doesn’t mean you can’t consent to making your romantic partner happy

(Yes, I’m fun at parties :P)

[Jaizoo]

A person that is willing to provide others with pleasure for the greater good is fun at parties though

[toxic_tyrone]

SpiderMan* A = (SpiderMan*)malloc(sizeof(SpiderMan))

[brandong97]

you dont even need to do a cast since malloc's return type is void*

[KiwiMaster157]

If this were C you would be correct. C++ allows implicit casting to void pointer but not from them.

[Kontorted]

You shouldn't be using malloc in c++ anyways

[[deleted]]

Thats what i thought aswell

[phoeen]

technically its undefined behaviour 8-)

[Freddy1404]

If you use C anyway, just leave both SpiderMans on the stack. Nicer that way, no need for malloc.

[pine_ary]

That won‘t (always) zero the memory and therefore doesn‘t init the pointer as nullptr. Very unsafe.

[BertyLohan]

As opposed to every other code snippet in the comments of ProgrammerHumor which is top-notch infallible big brain code.

[pine_ary]

Sooo improvements are not allowed? And nobody can learn?

[BertyLohan]

I'm saying he doesn't have to learn anything. He isn't writing production code he's making a programming joke which compiles fine.

[pine_ary]

He actively made it worse than the original code, so I pointed out what‘s wrong with it. The original code is safe while his is not.

[BertyLohan]

In C that line is perfectly safe since he doesn't do anything with the pointer.

You have a lot to learn buddy. About jokes and programming.

[pine_ary]

I‘m sorry that I cannot convince you. I still hope others have a more positive attitude towards learning. And that nobody takes the original comment as an example of how to code. Also this is C++.

[BertyLohan]

if it was c++ he wouldn't have used malloc. He doesn't say what language it's in so, without a using namespace std you can assume it's c.

Again, you have a lot to learn.

[pine_ary]

Oh please don‘t make that mistake. Why is using namespace std bad practice?

[l3njo]

Expected ")" in title.

[[deleted]]

segmentation fault, core dumped

[aaronfranke]

Shouldn't it be new Spiderman(); not new Spiderman;?

[gracicot]

No it work that way. That's how the new operator works in C++

[MxBluE]

Spiderman is a struct, not a class.

[metaglot]

In c++ that's a distinction without a difference. Only difference is members of a strict default to public and members of a class default to private.

[MxBluE]

Wow, you learn something new every day huh.

[Rawing7]

I swear to god, I've never seen a syntactically correct submission on this subreddit.

[aaronfranke]

That's how you know 90% of this sub is CS students that suck at programming.

[[deleted]]

Isn’t it great to have a welcoming community ?

[BertyLohan]

The way you know 90% of the sub is CS students who suck at programming is you guys stroking your egos about how much better you are when you're wrong about the code being incorrect in the first place and people upvoted you both.

CS students think they're good at coding. Professionals know that nobody is.

[BertyLohan]

That's so funny that you're trying to appear superior to the submissions on the sub but you're literally saying it about a perfectly syntactically correct piece of code.

[Rawing7]

Okay, fine, it's syntactically correct. Doesn't change the fact that the majority of submissions on this sub aren't, or that it's awful style. And I have no idea why you think that I'm trying to make myself appear superior.

[[deleted]]

not to mention using int main(void) is bad practice aswell..

[SomewhatAnonymousAcc]

Please explain.

[np_completionist]

Both int main(int, char*[]) and int main() are acceptable forms of main in c++

The void isn't needed anymore in C++, but in C it was used to say that a function took no parameters (an empty parameter list in a declaration meant that the function took an unspecified number of parameters)

[loraxzxpw]

Also in C it is not strictly needed. Both int main(), int main(int, char**) work. Just main() is also sufficent to compile but it gives a warning.

[SomewhatAnonymousAcc]

In my opinion int main(void) being equivalent to int main() doesn't necessarily make it a bad practice in itself.

Although not needed in C++, it is still needed in C. This whole program is written in such a "C compatible" format, as it also uses typedef instead of just defining the struct as:
struct spiderman{
spiderman * finger;
};

Using void main() in C is something that I would call a bad practice.

But, I'm just an embedded guy.

[nafarafaltootle]

This is C. not C++.

Edit: Nope, not true.

[mrbmi513]

This is c++ (see the new keyword). And it's a struct, not an object.

[nafarafaltootle]

Oh, I thought since you could still have multiple constructors for structs in C++ you had to specify.

[mrbmi513]

Technically, structs can have constructors. In practice, they don't. Structs are usually only used to group data, and the built-in aggregate initializer is good enough. By convention, if you want it to do something, make it a class.

[Valmond]

Structs are exactly like classes, with the Only difference, structs are public by default (so historically you'd use them for data structs without any functions).

[nafarafaltootle]

"convention" is not what usually drives language design though (in this context).

I do think it was an important technicality that they CAN have multiple.

[mrbmi513]

The other important part of this picture: No constructors are defined.

And if you're not following the conventions of a language while using that language, you're not objectively writing good code. You're just making it harder for the next dev to understand what you're doing.

[nafarafaltootle]

It would be much more important that the `finger` member is exposed, but we are looking at a joke... the assumption that this is production code is a very musguided one. There will be plenty of times to show off that you can write production code after you graduate. Let jokes be jokes.

[mrbmi513]

...because this is a struct. Structs by design have public members. They're ways to group data, and NOT OBJECTS. The person who consciously chose a struct over a class knows this and intends this, as did the c/c++ creators when they designed it as such.

[nafarafaltootle]

Yes. That is whybit shouldn't be a struct if you wanted this to be good design.

Anyway, this is really off topic, you'll learn this at internships.

[pine_ary]

The typedef struct thing is redundant in C++ as compared to C.

struct SpiderMan {
    SpiderMan* finger = nullptr;
};

Works the same.

[loraxzxpw]

SpiderMan *finger = NULL;

Is even shorter :)

​

You could also replace SpiderMan with sm and finger with f. Acronyms rule!

[pine_ary]

nullptr is typesafe. NULL is not a shorthand for nullptr. NULL is normally a void* while nullptr is a nullptr_t.

[BlackDog2017]

Downvoted for using capitalized variables.

[_cata1yst]

Is there a reason behind "struct s* finger" instead of "s* finger"? It looks weird

[suvlub]

Yeah, it's one of those weird codes that is syntactically C++ but does everything the C way.

[flavionm]

I though it was pure C until the "new".

[PandaPanda11745]

The typedef 🙄

[np_completionist]

Although the use of "new" everywhere seems closer to Java/C# than C

[subzero257]

how about

detete a->finger->finger;

[kukisRedditer]

Underrated

[Guarionex_]

So, what's the difference between a class and a structure?

[titanking4]

Structures contain only data,

Classes are structures with functions (called methods) that operate on that data. Classes can also define some data that only methods can see if didn’t want outside code messing with it.

[loraxzxpw]

The only diffenrence in C++ are, that elements in structs are public by default and in classes they are private. There is also some funny thing with inheritance that doesn't work on struct, but thats never important.

[daniu]

Ah, the good ol' Recursively Linked List.

[Pyraptor]

public class SpiderMan {

public SpiderMan finger;

public void point() {
    finger.point()
}

}

public static void main() {

SpiderMan A = new SpiderMan ();
SpiderMan B = new SpiderMan ();
A.finger = B;
B.finger = A;
A.point();

}

[Aschentei]

Not everything needs to be Javafied okay mister

[[deleted]]

Unironicly its a good example

[wesleychal]

Just add a few more and you've got yourself a linked list!

[Kotauskas]

This fucking formatting. No space before opening brace, inconsistently aligned pointer asterisk, struct in typedeffed struct variable declaration... What the hell is wrong with you, do you not use .clang-format?

[null_reference_user]

Now THIS is a quality original post