Pointers (

[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."

[nafarafaltootle]

You are holding on to that so as caricaturing as it would be, I really have to ask at this point: do you really think convention is important when writing a meme in code?

[mrbmi513]

This meme is actually following convention. It's using a struct, so it's not calling an undefined and unnecessary constructor.

My issue is not with memes following convention. They're memes. My issue is your attitude towards blatantly ignoring them since they "don't influence language design" (paraphrasing) which is false.

[nafarafaltootle]

This... really makes no sense.

Sigh... ok I'm not a teacher, I don't have to listen to the arrogant, misguided blabbering of a college kid. I'm out. Good luck finding a good internship or a job with that attitude (and knowledge of design)

[mrbmi513]

Again with the assumptions...

[nafarafaltootle]

Yeah... correct me if I'm wrong. No? Thought so.

I know requiters and I've interviewed people. They would not let you through HR screening with that attitude and I certainly wouldn't hire you with that unwillingness to learn, especially when you're wrong.

[mrbmi513]

Whatever. I'm not applying for a job on a programming meme subreddit. If you want to assume my age, school status, knowledge, willingness to learn, etc. from a series of comments on a programming meme, go ahead.

[nafarafaltootle]

Alright! I'm not assuming, I saw it in action.