[–] [deleted] 2 points 44 points (+46|-2) ago 

[Deleted]

[–] Troll [S] 0 points 55 points (+55|-0) ago 

I agree. Just imagine some guy making a class Patriarch that contains a whore method comprised of a dicksucking boolean that is always true. You'd have a whole campus rioting before he compiled that shit.

[–] SuperConductiveRabbi 1 points 27 points (+28|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Not only that, but guys would call it out as being stupid, immature, and cringe-worthy. But because it's a woman doing the same thing it's supposed to be cute.

Also it's pathetic that this is the level of instruction in that presentation. I was writing code like that before middle school. The good university courses I had threw the students into deep water and made them struggle to stay afloat. The good ones learned the shit and were serious. From that one slide I'm guessing that the class itself is as hand-holdy and wishy-washy as you'd expect from something going out of its way to appeal to "programing grrrlls"

[–] Caesarkid1 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I was bored one day.


Given;

<div id='women'>
     <div class='bitches'>
         <p>be triflin</p>
     </div>
     <div class='hoes'>
         <p>Ain't loyal</p>
     </div>
     <p>put a ring on it</p>
</div>

Alright so in this scenario the listed elements are "div" and "p". The listed ID is "#women". The listed classes are ".bitches" and ".hoes".

The #women div acts as a 'container' for '.bitches', '.hoes', the p element and all elements inside of '.bitches' and '.hoes'.

If you were to make a rule such as;

.bitches{
      display: none;
}

Only div '.bitches' and the p element with the text "ain't loyal" would be removed from the page. However if you were to add the rule;

#women {
    display:none;
}

Div #woman and all of its 'child' elements would be removed. The page would be blank.

.hoes p{
    display: none;
}

Would only remove the p element inside of the 'hoes' class. The .hoes div would still remain and take up space on the page.

#women > div{
    display: none;
}

[–] [deleted] 4 points 6 points (+10|-4) ago 

[Deleted]

[–] lexsird 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

You should teach code. I'd subscribe to your channel.

[–] gazillions 0 points 24 points (+24|-0) ago 

The entire feminist movement is predicated on abolishing professionalism. They view standards as masculine. You can watch videos of TV news pre 1970's when women wanted and got anchor positions and it's a different world. Factual, terse news reports that were not emotional, and didn't serve to "trigger" the viewer's emotions. In other words, the men were professional and contained.

[–] bob3333 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I'm surprised more people don't recognize this strategy. Have you ever played checkers with a kid who loses their temper when it's clear they're going to lose and they scatter the pieces to ruin the game? This is exactly what feminists and POCs do. They can't compete on merit so they destroy the game.

[–] RiverWind 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

[–] asdfe34 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Freeze at 1:25, there are more fuckup's here than the original

[–] dias17se 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Its not their fault, its some cuck white man who let them in.

Prove me wrong

[–] Morbo 0 points 27 points (+27|-0) ago 

She left out the case for age >= 30 && isFat && wallHit(true).

[–] copper_spartan 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

I think that's where you're supposed to throw an exception.

[–] vastrightwing 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Bada boom!

[–] wild-tangent 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

|| is fat

[–] prairie 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Also some function in the guy that has a parameter named hasRoastie.

[–] MadBro 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I was gonna say, all you need is to make that an OR statement.

[–] maelask3 0 points 26 points (+26|-0) ago 

  1. Why the fuck would you put the initialisation for Guy.girl and Guy.isUgly outside the constructor.
  2. That's going to give a compilation error because Girl does not have a default constructor.
  3. Why on earth would Girl have to be a field of the Guy class. Are we implying that all guys contain girls?

[–] Plant_Boy 0 points 16 points (+16|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Does 3. mean that girls are a property of guys?

[–] SpecialtyPizza 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

Anytime you create a guy then a new girl is created and assigned to him.

[–] therealsharpie 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

It's wishful thinking or her perception on reality.

I suppooose the code makes sense if you're a closed-minded idiot.

[–] ThisIsMyRealName 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

OOP problems

[–] roznak 0 points 19 points (+19|-0) ago 

Also the guy never gets a date since the girl is always age=0 and she will not date him noo mater if he is good or bad looking.

[–] Camamoow 0 points 19 points (+19|-0) ago 

Well assuming this is Java, it wouldn't even compile.

There is no "empty constructor" (Default constructor) defined. So, new Girl(), will not compile.

[–] wild-tangent 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

Or Csharp.

[–] Morbo 0 points 15 points (+15|-0) ago 

Well the default int value of 0 applies pretty well here since she is being extremely infantile.

[–] roznak 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

It gets even worse, property girl inside class Guy is private so he will never get to meet any girl ever. This guy is DOOMED!

[–] Gumbatron 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

Actually, the example wouldn't even compile. There is no constructor that takes no arguments. The Girl(int age) constructor would prevent the addition of an implicit constructor.

[–] Gumbatron 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

the Guy will just end up doing....

class Waifu extends Girl {

public boolean override willGoOutWithGirl(boolean isUgly) {

   return true;

}

}

[–] roznak 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

C# has a default constructor that takes no parameters. You dno't need to specify it. In this case all fields will automatically set to false, null or 0

[–] AmaleksHairyAss 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Isn't it undefined and importable?

[–] prairie 0 points 16 points (+16|-0) ago 

So the guy has the girl as his private property? Is that speaker Muslim?

[–] Gumbatron 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

It's probably a Freudian slip. She secretly wants to be dominated

[–] diodine 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

Horrible coding practices - ignoring the egyption brackets, heres a proper implementation (written by a man):

// proper object orientation of shit in https://kek.gg/i/63TqP-.jpg
// using more epic object orientation
// i have no idea if the lang in the image is c#, js, java, etc, so this isnt making full use of any feaures from those languages
// u could probably expand this by having a base class for both, yaddadada...

class Girl
{
    private int age; // private cuz u dont know their age just by looks...exactly...
    
    Girl(int _age)
    {
        age = _age;
    }
    
    public boolean willGoOutWithGuy(Guy guy)
    {
        return age >= 22 && isGuyUgly(guy);
    }
    
    private boolean isGuyUgly(Guy guy)
    {
        // can be expanded later
        return guy.isUgly;
    }
    
    public boolean willGoOut(Guy guy)
    {
        return willGoOutWithGuy(guy) && guy.willGoOutWithGirl(this);
    }
}

class Guy
{
    public boolean isUgly; // public cuz u can obv see if they're ugly
    
    // dont forget initializers daft hoe
    Guy(bool _isUgly)
    {
        isUgly = _isUgly;
    }
    
    // guy will basically fck any girl (systemic sexism?? maybe he wants to fuck dudes????)
    public boolean willGoOutWithGirl(Girl girl)
    {
        return true;
    }
    
    // check both
    public boolean willGoOut(Girl girl)
    {
        return willGoOutWithGirl(girl) && girl.willGoOutWithGuy(this);
    }
}

[–] ThirteenthZodiac 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

egyption brackets

Good name for that stupid bracketing style.

[–] MrBoneCrusher 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

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

[–] ELS_BrigadeWarning 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Egyptian brackets

The actual name is K&R style after the creators of C. The separate line style came from a literal Kike homosexual named Allman.

[–] MrKequc 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

You code should self document, stop writing comments

[–] dayofthehope 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

you are not using inheritance. they have some similarities you could join it together

[–] fistof_feilong 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

Wasn't there a picture or the Ubisoft company, all their programmers being now women. No wonder their games suck!

[–] Pawn 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

this is some nightmare level code just to call something from within another thing.

[–] aaronC 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Yeah, but it's like, total cute code lol!

load more comments ▼ (38 remaining)