Saturday, April 9, 2005

Mmm, structs...

Is it bad that I'm starting to think that structs look pretty? At least that's better than thinking them tasty, right?


Joseph said...

As long as you don't go into the realm of structS being "sexy"

Lisa R said...

Umm... what are structS? *g*

Forrest said...

But they're so much less pretty in C than in C#... C's structs seem like cheap whores in comparison.

Arthaey Angosii said...

Joe: Structs, sexy? That's just sick.

Forrest: No, no. See, C structs are simple and thus have a certain clean elegance to them. C++ are more useful and fancy, but not as pretty. Like 26. Very pretty number. See? ;)

Loodle: Ah, poor non-programmer. You can think of a struct as a little bundle of related information. For example, you could have a "person" struct that bundles together, say, name and age:

struct person {
string name; /* programmers: it's typedef'd, go away */
int age; /* "int" is short for "integer" */

Then, elsewhere in the program's code, I could create a person struct and get its bundled information back out of it:

struct person someone = {"Arthaey", 21};
display(; /* displays "Arthaey" */
display(someone.age); /* displays 21 */

Even you could do this! It's easier than zMud scripting, maybe. :)

Forrest said...

C#'s structs tho, can be just as simple, but they let you do so much more if you like. There is that little bit of rtti but i think that's justifiable.