Comments on: Object-Oriented Masturbation

By: codemenkey

codemenkey — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 02:41:18 +0000

@ferricguy: you forgot to build the **** and Ball classes, which should be inherited from the abstract base class Genitalia. also, you’ll need a Hand class to write the Hand.fap(Genitalia g) and Hand.fondle(Genitalia g) methods. polymorphic fapping ftw.

By: Robert

Robert — Wed, 20 May 2009 02:45:22 +0000

@Howard: It’s essential in many cases. My point is that it’s sometimes abused and used in cases where it has limited or no advantages and lots of disadvantages. In this case performance, readability, and code size. The advantages: none.

By: Adam

Adam — Thu, 07 May 2009 21:56:22 +0000

I personally believe that OOP is a good approach when used correctly. I’m working with a large code base and I think I would loose my sanity if I did everything procedurally and not encapsulate. It does give your code structure and does future proof your applications, if designed properly from the start.

By: Howard

Howard — Tue, 05 May 2009 21:52:08 +0000

I see your point, and agree to an extent, so long as you’re clear (as you do state) that OOP can be useful in some cases.

By: Robert

Robert — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 01:33:44 +0000

@ferricguy: Pretty clever. I modified your post to give it syntax highlighting so it’s easier to read.

By: ferricguy

ferricguy — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 23:36:48 +0000

#include 
#include 
#include 

using namespace std;

int fap(long CockInHand, int Hornyness);

int main()
{
    int Kleenex = 1, IsHorny = 9000;
    bool gotPorn = true, IsAlone = true;
    long Unit = 0;

    if((IsAlone || gotPorn) == true)
    {
        IsHorny  ;

        if(IsHorny > 9000)
        {
            Kleenex = fap(Unit, IsHorny);
        }
    }

    if(Unit < IsHorny)
    {
        cout << "FAP HARDER BOY!!\n\n";
        Kleenex = fap(Unit, IsHorny * 2);
    }

    cout << "oh -- Oh -- OH --- OOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHH!!!!\n";
    return 0;
}

int fap(long CockInHand, int Hornyness)
{
    bool splooge = false;
    int rub = 0, FingerInAss = 0;
    long double result = 0, eJack = (sizeof(CockInHand) * Hornyness);
    int climax = ((sizeof(Hornyness) * eJack) / (Hornyness / (sizeof(CockInHand))));

    if(splooge == false)
    {
        for(rub = 0; rub <= climax; rub  )
        {
            FingerInAss = 1;

            while(FingerInAss == 1)
            {
                cout << "fap! ";
                FingerInAss = 0;
            }
        }

        splooge = true;
        cout << "\n\n";
    }

    if(splooge == true)
    {
        result = sqrt(eJack);
    }

    return result;
}

fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! FAP HARDER BOY!! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! fap! oh -- Oh -- OH --- OOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHH!!!!

By: Robert

Robert — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:16:00 +0000

@Ryan: Not really. You could add support for multiple languages by simply abstracting the localized text into a variable. It’s easy.

Writing a one liner as OO is wasteful no matter how you look at it. If you need to handle several operations it doesn’t take any longer to rewrite into OO than to add the functionality to the OO form of it. Prematurely turning every line of code into an object is the wrong way to program.

By: Allen

Allen — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 08:33:05 +0000

This is why maybe you should wait to feel the burn from not using OO, before you start using it. Same goes for development methods, huge frameworks whatever. Feel compelled first.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 07:03:12 +0000

OOW Has hit the nail on the head. Add the requirement “Support multiple languages” or “Allow several different operations to be performed” to your problem and suddenly an OOP solution starts to make more sense.

By: Jim Battle

Jim Battle — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 17:33:51 +0000

I bought the book, “Refactoring,” by Fowler, sight unseen, as it was highly recommended. As I read through it, it seemed as if the goal was to convert straight-forward code into code exact as described in this complain. Yes, refactoring is good, but it can be carried too far, and it seemed like Fowler carries it too far.