Ha. Cause there's no getter. I get it. I think?
this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2024
397 points (91.6% liked)
Programmer Humor
19700 readers
213 users here now
Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
Rules
- Keep content in english
- No advertisements
- Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I get it.
No you don’t; there’s no getter.
Oh, now I get it.
Wait...
You don't get the context of this joke
var context = getContext();
var context = RuntimeSingletonFactory.getCurrentFactory().getCurrentRuntimeSingleton().getContext()
It’s also an inside Joke
And the Joker gets it, but you don’t.
Upon reflection, I do get the joke now.
This one gets it
They don't call me AbstractJokerAdapterFactoryProxy for nothin'
Where are your gods now?
public static Joke getTheJoke(Meme yourMeme) {
Field jokeField = Meme.class.getDeclaredField("joke");
jokeField.setAccessible(true);
return (Joke) jokeField.get(yourMeme);
}
Is it Java? It looked like ~~Microsoft Java~~ C# to me...
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
var meme = new Meme();
var joke = GetTheJoke(meme);
}
public static Joke GetTheJoke(Meme theMeme)
{
var memeType = typeof(Meme);
var jokeField = memeType.GetField("Joke", BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Instance);
return (Joke)jokeField.GetValue(theMeme);
}
There isn't an unnecessary level of capitalization; seems to be regular Java with Allman braces.
Frankly it's been a while since I wrote either one. I just assumed Java because of the naming convention, and I didn't see anything I took as obviously un-Java in the class definition
Because C# is a Java clone
If you have to cast your joke it isn't funny?
Could just change it to public static Object GetTheJoke, no?
public Joke Joke { private get; set; }
i hate this programming pattern with a passion.
Setters and Getters?
yes.
So what is a better paradigm in your opinion?
immutable objects, i like functional programming
Immutable members. Set in constructor then read only. The Builder pattern is acceptable if you're language is an obstacle.
found the functional programming purist
✅
So do you create new objects every time you need to change state?
You avoid having mutable state as much as possible. This is a pretty standard concept these days.
Can you please give me an example - let's say I have a big list of numbers and I need to find how many times each number is there.
I would expect a mutable dictionary/map and a single pass through. How would you do that without mutable datastructure?
Very standard use case for a fold or reduce function with an immutable Map as the accumulator
val ints = List(1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3)
val sum = ints.foldLeft(0)(_ + _) // 14
val counts = ints.foldLeft(Map.empty[Int, Int])((c, x) => {
c.updated(x , c.getOrElse(x, 0) + 1)
})
foldLeft is a classic higher order function. Every functional programming language will have this plus multiple variants of it in their standard library. Newer non-functional programing languages will have it too. Writing implementations of foldLeft and foldRight is standard for learning recursive functions.
The lambda is applied to the initial value (0 or Map.empty[Int, Int]) and the first item in the list. The return type of the lambda must be the same type as the initial value. It then repeats the processes on the second value in the list, but using the previous result, and so on until theres no more items.
In the example above, c will change like you'd expect a mutable solution would but its a new Map each time. This might sound inefficient but its not really. Because each Map is immutable it can be optimized to share memory of the past Maps it was constructed from. Thats something you absolutely cannot do if your structures are mutable.
So you have memory space which is reused... Which essentially makes it a mutable memory structure, where you update or add with new data keys... No?
No. Persistent Data Structures are not mutable. The memory space of an older version is not rewritten, it is referenced by the newer version as a part of its definition. ie via composition. It can only safely do this if the data it references is guaranteed to not change.
x = 2 :: 1 :: Nil -- [2, 1]
y = 3 :: x -- [3, 2, 1]
In this example both x and y are single linked lists. y is a node with value 3 and a pointer to x. If x was mutable then changing x would change y. That's bad™ so its not allowed.
If you want to learn more about functional programming I suggest reading Structures and Interpretation of Computer Programs or Learn You a Haskell for Great Good
Where getter?
Well you wouldn't get it
Java?
Is it possible to get the joke at runtime using the spectre exploit?
Not required. Looks like Java, just use reflection.
Stop making private jokes and start posting them publicly. We wanna laugh too, ya selfish bastid.
throw new SameJokeException();
now i get it, do i?