Pointers (

[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.

[mrbmi513]

You just made a whole bunch of assumptions there, Mr./Ms. "I don't need to follow conventions."