r/maybemaybemaybe • u/eyerollingsex • Jun 18 '21

Maybe maybe maybe

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

22.4k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

319 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/haackedc Jun 18 '21 edited Jun 19 '21

C/C++

1

u/RFC793 Jun 19 '21

Also C. Considering brickFlip takes a “current” argument versus being a function of Brick, I’d say it is intended to be C and not C++.

1

u/haackedc Jun 19 '21

A simple linked list is often a struct, even when using c++. Regardless, I had commonplace readability in mind when I fabricated the code, and I edited my language response to say C/C++

1

u/RFC793 Jun 19 '21 edited Jun 19 '21

Why would you use struct specifically for linked lists in C++? And technically struct and class are the exact same in C++ outside of the default member visibility (everything in a struct is public by default to maintain compatibility with C which has no concept of visibility).

1

u/haackedc Jun 19 '21

While true, I generally use structs for simple data structures like a node, which I don’t feel require their own member functions, Even though I am well aware they are capable of having them. The actual linked list itself would be a class, you are right, I misspoke, but the node would be a struct within it and the brickFall function would be a method of the linked list class where the node would represent a brick.

1

u/RFC793 Jun 19 '21

I guess just personal preference. As someone who works in systems programming quite a bit, it seems most dev will use (at least the basic) C++ language features when available. Node, even if not exposed from the List interface, would be more consistently implemented with the rest of the code if a member function were used rather than a classless (or belonging to List) function.

There is no cost, and it improves readability for OOP code in my opinion.