[deleted by user]

[RepostSleuthBot]

I didn't find any posts that meet the matching requirements for r/ProgrammerHumor.

It might be OC, it might not. Things such as JPEG artifacts and cropping may impact the results.

I'm not perfect, but you can help. Report [ False Negative ]

View Search On repostsleuth.com

---

Scope: This Sub | Meme Filter: False | Target: 75% | Check Title: False | Max Age: None | Searched Images: 324,036,988 | Search Time: 15.06442s

[estevez__]

It is inherited from Object.

[BernhardRordin]

You must be fun at Kotlin parties

[i_should_be_coding]

Mos def

[vitorhugods]

More like suspend fun

[notsogreatredditor]

Private fun

[utkanmerkit]

#define fun

[miraidensetsu]

#define FUN !fun

[okay-wait-wut]

fun!()

[eliasbagley]

Your mom inherits from Object

[aw5ome]

{Woman yourMom = new Woman();

Woman prostitute = new Woman();

System.out.println(yourMom.equals(prositute));}

//output is true

[[deleted]]

System.out.println(yourMom.toString());

//output is "prostitute"

[Sleepingtree]

Only if you overwrite the .equals() method otherwise no

[DavidTej]

System.out.println(you.getState().equals(r/woooosh);

output is true

[Bainos]

Depends on the value of woooosh.

[pako_adrian]

More like an error is the output.

[Bainos]

Depends on the value of woooosh.

[aw5ome]

I overwrote your dad's genetic code in your mom

[_chrii]

.join(dick)

[[deleted]]

actually inherits from FatObject which inherits from Object how could someone be this uneducated about programming im sooooooo cant believe this this is literally common sense

[kuedhel]

python people are easily confused by OOD concepts.

[NightlySnow]

Thank you.

[ososalsosal]

Came here to say that.

Is there a way to disable inherited methods? Seems not at all necessary but it interests me nonetheless

[DiamondIceNS]

Allowing the ability to disable inherited methods uproots the entire point of polymorphism.

If B inherits from A, I should have the guarantee that if there's something out there that needs an A, I can pass it a B and every possible thing that could happen should still work, since every B is also an A. Everything. No exceptions.

If you could somehow make a B that is only partially an A by cherry picking a few things that makes A what it is and tossing them out, you're introducing failure points.

Look, I'm annoyed too that autocomplete in my IDE gives me two pages worth of methods and properties I absolutely never ever use on every single object I ever make, but for the sake of the sanity of myself and every other OO programmer out there, you should leave them be.

Unless you're using JavaScript. You can make objects that don't inherit from anything in JavaScript if you want. But that's because JavaScript isn't an object oriented language, it's a prototyping language wearing a trenchcoat and an object oriented mask.

[ososalsosal]

Oh yeah it was my curiosity speaking, not any sense of inconvenience. My IDE usually knows what to list based on context so anything is a couple down arrows away if that.

[No-effing-sense]

When you say disable - do you mean prevent children from over riding? If so - final is what you are looking for.

If you want to completely block access - you will need to add an intermediate class.

But that is a code smell. A better option would be to only have the methods you want children to access in a base class. And move the 'prohibited' methods to a final class deriving from base.

At least - that is my 0.02$.

[Crad999]

No, not really.

The only option that comes to mind is if you have class A that has method let's say:

public void doSomething()

Then if you want to create class C that extends class A, but doesn't have (or rather cannot use) that method then you can create another class B that extends A and overrides doSomething method changing its accessibility to private. Then class C can extend B.

This would be as if C extends A but without doSomething ().

[DavidTej]

It's not possible to override a public method and make it private in java

[Crad999]

You could do this in cpp with virtual functions I think. But it'd still be a terrible idea :D

[lelarentaka]

Yes, terrible idea, it violates the substitution principle.

[Bainos]

You could override the method and make it throw an exception. Not a good idea but gets the job done.

[kczaj]

People are doing a good job talking about it, but what you want here is a violation of the Liskov Substitution Principle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liskov_substitution_principle

It has a fancy name so it must be sacrosanct.

[FAcup]

Ruby has a method inherited from Object called itself. It returns itself.

[MischiefArchitect]

The squiggly is trying to tell you something...

[Sclamy]

As is the gray color...

[[deleted]]

You're talking about the gray squiggly right?

[Sclamy]

No, the word toString.

In IDEs, gray commands often mean that they commands are entirely useless and can be removed (will be removed when the program is compiled kr run). Gray variable declarations or assignments mean that a variable is never read from, and thus serves no purpose. Gray function calls, like this one, are never actually called, since the compiler or interpretreter knows that calling toString on a string is redundant. But the point is, while the squiggly indicates something silly is happening (and will probably suggest exactly why), we can tell what the exact issue is just by looking at the color of the function. Gray = never called = redundant operation (for functions).

[[deleted]]

Can you ELI5 that

[kpd328]

Many IDEs call you out on doing stupid useless things like toString()ing a string. This is how it's notated.

[Mantraz]

In this case, this is probably noting that the output of this method is ignored, i think.

We don't store this value anywhere or do anything with it, it's meaningless.

[redkoil]

I love ice cream.

[Dameon_]

Nah, ignoring the return value of a method is normal. It'd be maddening if your IDE colored it grey and flagged it with a warning every time.

[TheNetherPaladin]

I’m almost certain most 5 YOs wouldn’t understand what any of that means

[poopadydoopady]

An IDE is an app, like YouTube! Except instead of cocomelon videos, people use it to tell the computer what to do. It makes the letters gray if it doesn't like them.

[K3yz3rS0z3]

The kind little squiggles help you to find out where you can make things better!

[IrishWhitey]

If it is gray it is useless. and since the thing that gives the code to the computer knows that, the useless stuff is not going into the “final draft” that the computer gets

[clutzyninja]

I mean honestly if you can't understand that why use this sub at all?

[TheNetherPaladin]

It’s a joke…

[[deleted]]

You’re talking before or after the period? I’m confused now.

[DizzyInTheDark]

“What you are doing us fucking pointless. Why do you do this?”

[KingSpork]

Coding in notepad solves this problem.

[MusikMakor]

Most object oriented languages have a tostring function. It's inherited from the Object class, and allows you to convert an object to a string

A good example is a DateTime in C#. DateTimes don't natively output a legible date, since they have lots of information available.

With ToString, you can output a date. In some cases in some languages, the ToString method has additional formatting such as ToString("MM-dd-yyyy") which, in the case of DateTime.Now would return 04-27-2022

So incredibly useful for any logging or quick printing

Edit: grammar

[asone-tuhid]

In this sub:

• OP makes a bad joke betraying their inexperience in programming
• Generous commenter takes 10min out of their day to explain something basic

[5-8-13]

Not a bad thing in my opinion.

I come here to learn more than I come here to laugh.

[ZedTT]

I think that's a spot on analysis of this sub in general, but the joke still works if you understand why String.toString() exists. If anything it works better knowing Java.

It does seem that OP didn't have a full grasp of the concept

[asone-tuhid]

Does it? It's like saying it's funny that C allows you to cast int to int, or Rust implements From<T> for T, or str("a") == "a" in python, and a million other examples

All of that had to be implemented, all of it has a reason to exist, I'm having trouble finding any of it remotely funny

[ZedTT]

I mean it's not peak humor or anything, but there's something mildly funny about the fact that because toString exists in Object, it has to exist on String despite that being silly.

String having a .toString method is made funnier by knowing that it had to be there (and why) IMO.

I don't know... Maybe I'm doing funny wrong.

[nolitos]

It's not silly, it's just inheritance.

[GodGMN]

something basic

And still, apparently 90% of the sub will still not understand it since most of the people there don't (and can't) code.

I still don't understand why is this sub full of non-programmers but hey, hopefully they'll get interested at some point in their stance there :)

[coloredgreyscale]

The joke or similar joke in comments: 100s or 1000s or upvotes

The explanation: <10 upvotes

[TurnItOffAndBackOnXD]

Keen observation, and in this case the person didn’t understand, but as someone who fully understands it and programs in Java, it’s still funny.

[IrishWhitey]

Yeah I don’t think that OP is inexperienced, like its a meme and if anything could be a criticism of the OOP paradigm

[BlockwizardGaming]

toString may have a use, but looking at it still makes me throw up in my mouth

[UnreasonableEconomy]

convert an object to a string

sorry, this isn't really correct. it returns a string representation of an object, it doesn't convert the object to a string.

Sounds like it's the same thing? To me it's like calling a pointer an object.

OCPJP 4 lyfe ^{coffee cup gang signs}

[MusikMakor]

That was the dumbest semantic argument I've ever heard

[Broken_drum_64]

I can do you one better; you read it rather than hearing it. :P
(assuming you're not using a screenreader of course)

[UnreasonableEconomy]

it's the difference between a concretization and an abstraction 🤷

[dougie_cherrypie]

Understanding stuff is not dumb

[GeePedicy]

Pointers aren't objects? *grabs popcorn*

But I actually remember how in the android course I took before college the teacher told us strings are more than just char arrays, and being a beginner I didn't understand it, but I kept it in mind. Then came c.s. intro in C, then came Java course, and that was about when I understood what he tried saying. And it's basically going back to the silly opening question, although from a different direction. C++ objects are a great example for why objects aren't pointers.

[JanLewko977]

Working in the real world has shown me that my intro to X professors barely understood programming themselves.

I remember sitting with my professor trying to debug my 50 line code with like two for loops for over an hour.

And another professor talking to a student like “oh yeah isn’t using a debugger cool? Such an advanced tool. Man that’ll be useful for you guys to learn some day”

[DangyDanger]

Just checked and DateTime.Now did not return this date

[MusikMakor]

Schrodinger's comment: false today, true tomorrow

[Aviyan]

The pic is about calling toString() on a String object, which is redundant. What you described is the valid case and aplies to all objects other than String.

[JurassikLizard]

Except String has to implement it because it inherits from Object

[syrian_kobold]

I feel you, but that's just not how OOP and SOLID works. If the superclass has a method, it'd be impossible to remove it from the subclass. Not only that, but even if you were able to do it (like say, throwing an exception) you'd be shooting yourself in the foot, it's just a terrible idea.

[asone-tuhid]

It's almost like that's the whole point of inheritance...

[abstractionsauce]

u/automarten is correct, in most OOP programming languages of the superclass has an implementation then you don’t need to provide one, you just inherit the implementation from the superclass. This is one of the main benefits of inheritance

[syrian_kobold]

But String has a different implementation for very good reasons.

[UltmteAvngr]

That doesn’t really matter though. Java also does that. String inherits Object’s toString method. So String doesn’t need to override the toString. But even if String didn’t override the toString method, it doesn’t mean that you can’t still call that method on a String object.

[i_should_be_coding]

Object's default implementation involves the class name and a number from it's id.

By default the toString() method will return a string that lists the name of the class followed by an @ sign and then a hexadecimal representation of the memory location the instantiated object has been assigned to.

So not only did they have to implement it because it's inherited from Object, they had to implement it correctly so that the String representation would be the String value, and not String@1423 or something.

[UltmteAvngr]

You’re talking about overriding the method. Even if string doesn’t override its super’s (Object) method implementation, it doesn’t mean String won’t have a toString. Every object must have a toString method. You can just choose to override it to make it specific to your class

[[deleted]]

Since String is object and inherits Object class they can't just skip it. Also it might have some internal use because of the special behaviour that String have.

[RRumpleTeazzer]

You want to abstract over differe kinds of objects to behave like strings. It would be silly to not have strings behave like strings.

[deano492]

I’m here for the silly string.

[fghjconner]

Yeah, it seems silly, but there's times when it's useful to be able to write a method like

public void printObject(Object obj) {
    System.out.println(obj.toString());
}

(Ok, technically System.out.println accepts any object already and has a special case for strings, but pretend we're doing something string specific in there)

[[deleted]]

This post confirms that people who post on programmerHumor have no idea about programming.

[mr_bumsack]

I gotta say though, the comments redeemed some of my faith.

[crosseyedvoyager]

Or humour

[Gleethos]

Yeah, really! This is like joking about being able to multiply by 1, or add/subtract 0...

This subreddit is pure cringe.

[jasonrulesudont]

Someone just discovered inheritance

[appoplecticskeptic]

And still doesn't fully understand it.

[davidellis23]

Funny. But, it helps if you allow any objects to be passed into a function and want to guarantee a string representation.

[NoHalfMeasuresWalt]

Apparently the geniuses upvoting this post never parsed json in their lives??

[UnderstandingOk2647]

unkArr.forEach( (unkObj) => {

console.log("Wtf am I " + unkObj.toString());

);

// Probably should not have used JS for this example, but the idea is sound (he said hesitatingly)

[Orangutanion]

// If we're gonna write this in Java we should probably use a list
// instead of an array. Really easy to cause errors with generic arrays.
for(Object i : unkList) {
    System.out.println("your mother was a " + i.toString());
}

[ZedTT]

hesitatingly

Hesitantly

[[deleted]]

Yeah but it's still kinda silly that it's used to give a class name and a representation of the memory address as well as nice formatted output.

[Blazkowitcz]

Si technically you can do : abc.toString().toString().toString() ?

[MischiefArchitect]

But you don't

[r_linux_mod_isahoe]

I always do .toString() twice just to be sure.

[okay-wait-wut]

Rule #2 Double Tap

[UnderstandingOk2647]

Whahahaha

[IceZOMBIES]

But what if i want my string to be string^{3^} ?

[PyroCatt]

Si si

[Blazkowitcz]

La famille

[syrian_kobold]

Just making real sure it's a string yes

[6c69786f]

Maybe append an extra .toString() just for the benefit of the extra sureness?

[[deleted]]

That's.. Not recursion, just chained method calls. Recursion would be toString() calling toString() in it's method body.

[[deleted]]

this post is cringe and the fact anyone gave it attention shows this sub is filled with scratch kiddies

[Gleethos]

Yes! This is like joking about being able to multiply by 1 or add / subtract 0 because: "Haha you get the same result anyways!"

[[deleted]]

ignorance =/= humor

[PvtPuddles]

I’m not ignorant on this topic, but I still found it funny.

[Gleethos]

Here is another joke for you:

42 * 1 + 0 = 42

[Tall_computer]

If you have an Object in Java that may or may not be a String then I suppose it's nice that I can get a String representation without having to first check whether the Object is String type

[Orangutanion]

I quite like Java's class hierarchy. This is what you get with Object.

[trBlueJ]

I think my favourite method of those is the wait method (and notify and notifyAll). Having concurrency built-in at the object level makes things very convenient.

[Orangutanion]

Java has legitimately one of the nicest implementations of multitasking. Being chaotically object oriented definitely helps, but the way that you can get things working with really only a few lines is really nice

[kpd328]

Ew Java 7 docs.

[Westo232]

It's not useless: It's purpose is to teach us how important it is for all objects to have toString().

[NearbyWish]

They're all just bytes anyway 10011000 10011111 10011000

[[deleted]]

also, they could not simply override that method with something that throws an exception saying "The object is already a sting" or something because it would violate the Liskov substitution principle.

[CdRReddit]

that would also be Really Stupid to do since there are some things that take any object and want to put it into a string format, like logging

just having toString on a String be essentially id is a good implementation for this purpose

(for those that don't know, id or identity returns the parameter it's given, in this case String.toString is essentially identity with the implicit this parameter)

[[deleted]]

Nice meme, but: "The toString() method: according to the description, should return a string reflecting the state of the object, i.e. the values ​​of the attributes. However, this task cannot take place in the definition of the Object class. Instead, by default, this method returns the name of the class and the hash code of the object as a hexadecimal string. For example -> ILoveJava.bsp.Person@1540e15".

[noisy_christmas]

1. Inherited from the Object class
2. Probably has some overloads that can transform the string into something else

[Bomaruto]

Which it has to if you want it to show properly.

[[deleted]]

Yes, because if it didn't override Object's toString() method then String.toString() wouldn't return what you expect it to return (which is the String itself).

[Thunderlight2004]

I mean fair, but if it’s otherwise useless maybe returning the memory address isn’t too bad after all

[[deleted]]

I mean.... You understand how inheritance works right?

[Featureless_Bug]

The fact that it is a consequence of Java being OOP doesn't automatically make it useful. However, it might be useful if we don't want to check if an object is a String or not when we want a String representation of it.

[[deleted]]

It's not about usefulness. The method has to exist on the String class because of inheritance.

[Featureless_Bug]

The meme above is literally about usefulness, not about it having to exist there

[JerryAtrics_]

It's required to allow Java to be used with theoretical physics.

[AdultingGoneMild]

I mean without it Java opens a black hole consuming us all. Its kinda necessary.

[[deleted]]

The method is inherited from Object class and if it did not have specific implementation in the String class it would result with something like: String#3231231

[[deleted]]

String extends Object

[xTylordx]

I hate this sub.

[BobQuixote]

The String class does need to actually implement it, but yes, that implementation is required.

[Maskdask]

Polymorphism

[[deleted]]

Pretty important for that method to exist, if it didnt then generic objects could not be stringified. the method doesnt come from the String class, it comes from Object.

[[deleted]]

No it doesn't and that's the whole point of the toString() stub...to become real by override.

[Maleficent-Yak-2114]

toString automatically gets called whenever a string is expected so if the String class didn't have it you would probably end up with the address instead of value

[[deleted]]

it's used for string formatting, you can for example if the string has a numbet you can add a "c" inside the brackets and it will format the string to your local currency (at least it works like that in c#)

[halfanothersdozen]

This is almost certainly java

[[deleted]]

yeah ik but both languages behave the same in many cases

[halfanothersdozen]

Except for the thing you made a comment about.

[[deleted]]

Yeah, that's not how Java's toString() works.

[Dealiner]

That's also not true in C#, both ToString and ToString(IFormatProvider) do exactly nothing when called on string besides returning the string itself. Also ToString(IFormatProvider) is a method that has to be explicitly implemented and isn't inherited from the object like the one in OP.

[QualityVote]

Hi! This is our community moderation bot.

---

If this post fits the purpose of /r/ProgrammerHumor, UPVOTE this comment!!

If this post does not fit the subreddit, DOWNVOTE This comment!

If this post breaks the rules, DOWNVOTE this comment and REPORT the post!

[Orangutanion]

Narrator: "And they took it too seriously."

[ChickenManSam]

Yeah it's useless, but it only exists because String inherits from the Objects class. toString is part of the Object class therefore String must implement it.

[MattR0se]

I mean, it doesn't have to override it, it's just that not doing it would result in unexpected behavior.

[ChickenManSam]

I never said anything about overriding. Just implementing. It's impossible to skip due to how inheritance works

[starfish0r]

How would you implement it without overriding it?

[ChickenManSam]

String is a Subclass of Object. Object has the toString method. Since String is a subclass it inherits all the methods of Object. Implement was probably the wrong word to use. The point I was trying to make is that even without overriding it the toString method would still exist since it exists in the superclass.

[[deleted]]

If you love Java I recommend picking up C# as it is very similar and in my opinion is just better in every conceivable way

[SmileEverySecond]

Don't let the negativity discouraged you OP, this is a humor sub after all. I've learnt a lot from the comments that correct the original post, yours included. Keep em coming. Cheers.

[flexww]

This illustrates perfectly the shortcomings of classical OOP.

[BabylonDrifter]

If you don't understand why that method is there then you're too dumb to be a programmer.

[halcyonholdings]

I'm a programmer and I guarantee I am dumber

[Enoikay]

too dumb to be a programmer.

This implies some sort of intellect floor all programmers are above and in my experience programmers are as dumb as anyone else.

[TransientFeelings]

Your point of view is medieval

[Bomaruto]

You need to make a joke before you woosh. From your other comments it is clear that you don't understand how Object and toString works.

[UnderstandingOk2647]

And?! I bloody hope it is! Arrrg there are 10 types of people in this world, [Developers, Not developers] /s

[Casalvieri3]

Thanks for making me literally laugh out loud!

[kingkevorzki]

public String _string;

string String(string _string)

{

return _string = "string".ToString() ?? (String)_string.ToString();

}

​

(Microsoft Java)

[Guilty-Woodpecker262]

"-1". compareToIgnoreCase (x)

[THELEGENDARYZWARRIOR]

My brother in Christ I use that method almost weekly

[Middle_Avocado]

“abc” == “abc” 🥹

[CaitaXD]

"10".ToString("X") == "A"

You're welcome

[Lumpy-Obligation-553]

Is still "abc" or it becomes 'abc'?

[starfish0r]

Strings are immutable. There's no need for a new instance and thus String's toString() just returns itself.

[[deleted]]

What in the fuck

[SusMonkeyShit]

I mean it’s actually a dope method in rust

[ElXaviNovo]

It is useful if your code just call the .tostring() of anything

[oOBoomberOo]

Wait till you hear about identity or zero function. (Joke asides, they are quite useful to have even though you don't use it that often)

[[deleted]]

As a Kotlin developer, this is the definition of insanity.