← Home ← Back to /g/

Thread 106332761

46 posts 10 images /g/
Anonymous No.106332761 >>106332771 >>106332787 >>106332798 >>106332829 >>106334075 >>106334119 >>106334608 >>106335114 >>106335121 >>106335215 >>106335217 >>106336278 >>106336301 >>106336372 >>106336493 >>106336828 >>106339378
Recursion has no place in production code.
Anonymous No.106332771
>>106332761 (OP)
Aspersion has no place in /g/ code talk.
Anonymous No.106332787
>>106332761 (OP)
fuck off no coder
Anonymous No.106332798
>>106332761 (OP)
>TCOlet
Anonymous No.106332829 >>106334131
>>106332761 (OP)
I was going to post "sex" until I realized who that was
Anonymous No.106332849 >>106332973 >>106334140
when working with trees it is far cleaner than any iterative approach. also what if u are using a lisp op?
Anonymous No.106332973
>>106332849
it's too slow
Anonymous No.106334075 >>106334818 >>106335130 >>106339276
>>106332761 (OP)
why is her belly so dark can lighting really make this much of a difference
Anonymous No.106334119
>>106332761 (OP)
crazy watching her go from a fresh young woman to an old lady. time goes tick tock
Anonymous No.106334131 >>106334300 >>106334598
>>106332829
who's that?
Anonymous No.106334140
>>106332849
You can just make a queue and the rest of the code is EXACTLY the same, other than that you're now a manly chad writing imperative code
Anonymous No.106334300
>>106334131
a woman yuck
Anonymous No.106334598 >>106336919
I just think optimized-away tailrec constructs are neat.
>>106334131
Isn't that Penny from the BB theory?
Anonymous No.106334608
>>106332761 (OP)
Yeah, I guess.
It's a rule that NASA uses, so it's probably a good idea.
I'm still going to use it for throwaway stuff, though. I made this cool ass recursive solver in assembly last year that would invalidate the stack to exit. It was so cool.
Anonymous No.106334818 >>106335130 >>106339276
>>106334075
It doesn't even look like skin. Maybe she's wearing a body stocking of some sort? Spanx? Or it's just weird studio lighting.
Anonymous No.106334900 >>106334912 >>106339076
never used recursion, graph theory, dynamic programming or data structures like trees
working in enterprise btw
Anonymous No.106334912 >>106334980 >>106339086
>>106334900
Based.
You should try some recursion, though. It's pretty fun.
Just don't use it for anything important.
Anonymous No.106334980 >>106335015
>>106334912
It's too slow. Just use a loop and an array (stack ADT).
Anonymous No.106335015
>>106334980
There should be no real difference in speed.
Anonymous No.106335052 >>106335179
like everything else about programming and computer science, its just a bunc h of dudes jacking themselves off about theory and how smart they are
Anonymous No.106335114
>>106332761 (OP)
Built for bbc
Anonymous No.106335121
>>106332761 (OP)
I want to have sex with this woman.
Anonymous No.106335130 >>106335271 >>106339276
>>106334075
>>106334818
are you autistic?
Anonymous No.106335161
Retards have no place in production code
Anonymous No.106335179
>>106335052
Computers bees racis n shieet
Anonymous No.106335215 >>106335239
>>106332761 (OP)
what kind of retard would ever say this? write a parser with loops alone, see how it goes.
Anonymous No.106335217 >>106335323
>>106332761 (OP)
Yup, in any serious code over time you'll likely end up converting recursive code into iterative code with explicit stack to get more control over its execution.
Anonymous No.106335239 >>106335260 >>106335267
>>106335215
>write a parser

>t. unemployed
Anonymous No.106335260 >>106335277
>>106335239
>his job never required from him to write a handmade parser
ngmi, crudcuck
Anonymous No.106335267
>>106335239
I'm saving the world here, you ungrateful bastard!
Anonymous No.106335271
>>106335130
worse, a virgin
Anonymous No.106335277 >>106335310 >>106335340
>>106335260
if you had a brain you would switch majors right now. i can just about promise you are not finding entry level work in this market. consider that advice free of charge.
Anonymous No.106335310
>>106335277
You must do the needful on keyboards sar, it is mandatory for brahman code
Anonymous No.106335323
>>106335217
The jeet shitcoder drone
Anonymous No.106335340
>>106335277
>sar, please, we don't roll parsers there. redeem the code before it's too late!
i hate you fags so much, it's unreal.
Anonymous No.106336278 >>106340356
>>106332761 (OP)
Low IQ (ie, brown) people lack the ability to think abstractly. This is why they cannot effectively apply (let alone understand) recursion as it requires mentally tracking the stack.
Anonymous No.106336301
>>106332761 (OP)
I've used recursion in production code. It's fine. You just have to be careful to ensure it's bounded, that it optimizes appropriately, etc. Recursion is far more natural for expressing operations with trees than iterate approaches.
Anonymous No.106336372
>>106332761 (OP)
Unfortunately correct. The recursion is a fantastic way to think about problems using the human mind but computers get confused with recursive applications.
The recursive algorithms you see written in programming languages may be beautiful but they computers see the binary it produces. Real messy stuff.
traily !!zLGKB/yRaFq No.106336493
>>106332761 (OP)
Tree traversals, divide-and-conquer algorithms (e.g., quicksort), and parsing expressions commonly use recursion in production.
Anonymous No.106336828
>>106332761 (OP)
>pajeet doesn't know about tail call optimization

kek
Anonymous No.106336919
>>106334598
More like BBC theory amirite??
Anonymous No.106339076 >>106339086
>>106334900
>just don't use it for anything important
Anonymous No.106339086
>>106339076
meant for this >>106334912
Anonymous No.106339276
>>106334075
>>106335130
>>106334818
anons discover the concept of "shadows"
Anonymous No.106339378
>>106332761 (OP)
statement with 0 data or reference
Anonymous No.106340356
>>106336278
it's all fun and games until you forget what you did 1000 lines ago and fuck the whole stack up