Dude was too based for this world.

I don't get why this dude thinks he can essentially hijack /v/programming and treat it like his blog and post shitty programming advice.

Completely retarded. No, logging shouldn't be your first line of debugging, but when a piece of software craps out on a customer's computer then logs are essential to understanding the problem. Have you ever even had a real development job?

Anyone who uses the term "out-dated" in reference to programming needs to put a gun to their head. The programmers coming out of college and boot camps these days are giant cry-baby pansies who can't do anything without needing a million external libraries because they can't even program a fizz-buzz.

You haven't actually held a job programming, have you? No one sweats a single bead of sweat over shit like this in real life. The amount of instances of "people" you would need for this to even an item of concern would be fucking comical.

Using a whole line every time you need a closing paranthesis isn't clarity you dipshit. Maybe if your only experience in coding is dabbling with Python scripts someone else wrote, but if I'm going through a >50,000 LOC project then I don't have time for the amount of code visible on my screen to shrink by a third because some jackass thinks that "egyptian brackets" are somehow "obfuscating".

The code is shit, but what's wrong with using an int to store age? What would you use instead? unsigned int since ages can't be negative? short, or even byte, to save memory? I mean unless you are programming for an embedded device with super, super low memory then I don't see anything wrong with using an int.

The code is that bad. I'd be embarrassed to see a CS101 student write something like this. It's not a brainfart gotcha like a missing semicolon might be - the sample shows a fundamental misunderstanding of OOP. I mean it won't even compile for fuck's sake.

FYI never use == for string comparisons. Most languages have a specific method for comparing string (strcmp in C, String.equals() in Java). == should only be used on primitives (int, char, long, etc.). Strings are not primitives and are either char arrays like in C or actual objects like in Java and most other languages.

Egyptian brackets are great - they make the code more concise. What moron needs a whole line devoted to every single god damn curly brace?

Desktop programmer here. I despise the hipstery culture of web/app programmers and how they dominate /r/programming. They're all so faggy too. At least with desktop and game programming you have a few non-fags left, and there's almost none in embedded programming.

Are you referring to the break(n) idea ? (n being the number of loops to exit). Or, I was thinking further on it, perhaps have a way to label loops as well so that you can explicitly refer to what loop to break. Like:

loop1: for(int i = 0; i < num1; i++) {
    loop2: for(int j = 0; j < num2; j++) {
        if(a[i][j] == 'X') break(loop1);
     }
}

Honestly I've never felt a non-awkward way of handling the breaking out of nested loops. As I said, exceptions can be used to break out of a nested loop, but an error code isn't necessary an exception but could just be an expected condition telling us that processing is done, for example. In most of my code of that nature I use an extra boolean to indicate an exit condition, which I check at each loop level which I want to break out of. For example:

bool done = false;
for(int i = 0; i < num1 && !done; i++) {
    for(int j = 0; j < num2 && !done; j++) {
        if(a[i][j] == 'X') done = true;
     }
}

But it seems so much messier, especially if there are more than one loops or exit conditionals.

I'm honestly surprised that I've never come across any articles discussing this before, as I feel this is one of the few things in programming that has just always felt as if it's never had an elegant solution.

I have been disappointed by the direction programming has taken in these past 10 years. Especially current graduates. They care more about how many buzzwords they can fit into a solution and write an over-engineered mess crossing 4 languages running on top of 2 VMs with microservices and blah blah blah, when a single 20-line C program could solve it just fine. And they're so used to programming in languages that are so far removed from the actual CPU and talking to the OS that they barely understand how computers actually work these days.

I partly blame phones. Back when I was a kid we had actual computers and you had to know how to put stuff together and do a few things to actually get online. And programming and tweaking around with the technical settings was accessible and not hidden behind 10 different screens. Now kids just buy a phone and everything is done for them. Unless they're into PC gaming or something most kids these days probably wouldn't even know how to hook up a computer!

And of course CS is full of a bunch of betas, and with colleges requiring even STEM majors to take pathetic liberal art courses they eat this SJW shit up. Add in a bunch of diversity hires who shouldn't even be there but are anyway because they're dark skinned or a woman, even if you literally have to rewrite everything that they write.

Some people, like me personally, are more interested in the technical side of things and despise the human side of things. Technical people aren't interested in leadership. Computers are logical and make sense - people don't and are petty and obnoxious.

Exiting out of nested loops is really the only excuse I've seen for using gotos, but it's still a valid reason to use a goto. The alternative is to use some sort of exit flag that you set when you want to exit and check at each loop, but that can get just as messy, if not more, than just setting a goto to break out of the loops.

Perhaps a valid alternative would be to provide a numerical variable to break to specify how many levels you want to break out of, e.g. break(2) to break out of a double-nested loop. I wonder if this has ever been attempted?

Meh, overrated imo.

"Mentoring" is one thing. Having to explain your code every minute for 8 hours straight to a "diversity hire" whose only code experience is 2 months of "boot camp" isn't.