10
JSONCoder
25d

Secret of success

Comments
  • 1
    I would technically tell you to go to /dev/null but this is actually a decent one.
  • 7
    Wait, do I get that right? You try again and again until you succeed once, after which you improve once, then you die?
  • 1
    @Benedikt no, there is no exit from this loop. He will never die πŸ˜…
  • 6
    Kinda cringy imho
    First line would have been enough πŸ˜‚
  • 4
    @Sumafu If noSuccess (which should be !success) is true, the loop will end. And yeah, it actually means that you only improve once, after your first success, then the program ends. Not to mention that retrying should have a backoff mechanism. No exceptions.
  • 1
    That is C and you missed some braces , you are fucked
  • 2
    @munabedan Single line blocks work in pretty much all compilers.
  • 1
    @Lor-inc my mistake, may your life keep running
  • 1
    You will fail more often. If you don't learn from those then you are screwed. You will learn more from failures than from successes.
  • 1
    Inprove()..?
    Uhhh. Ok
  • 8
    Ugh that indentation.
  • 0
    This tat implies he or she will never have success no matter how many times they try or improve. Kinda depressing isn't it?
  • 1
    No method definition for improve(), try again().
    booleans Success and noSuccess are not defined, Life.h is undefined as well.
  • 2
    @Benutzername I was thinking the same thing. That's like 2 tabs? Wtfff
  • 0
    @Ranchu it says inprove. Not improve.
  • 4
    Two boolean variables for the same semantic... ok.

    I feel like people should vet such tattoos or prints on devRant. People are so critical, due to their job requiring precision, that only the coolest shit would make it through.

    Stuff like a cool regex for "Fuck you" or a codegolf virus in batch or something.

    So I suppose tryAgain().
  • 1
    @codecrow in fact not, on closer inspection you'll see a middle line where the m is.
  • 1
    while(!success)
    {
    success = tryAgain(); // always returns false
    if (success) { improve(); }
    }

    Better yes? I'm assuming success is scoped outside the while block. I don't know how to to the bot formatting.
  • -1
  • 1
  • 0
    Where is the function definition and main? Is this a .h file?
  • 0
    Eventually you will get a YouAreDeadException
  • 2
    This is as embarrassing as a spelling error in a tattoo.

    I didn’t realize the secret to success was declaring two values success and noSuccess instead of just one, “success” except you don’t actually declare them but rather just use them, outside of a function body no less and have them set by aliasing instead of a return value. And not using curly brackets on single statement ifs.
  • 1
    @Benedikt not even. Because we know nothing about how success and noSuccess are even set. And why there are two I don’t know
  • 1
    One improvement happens after success and then... this program ends. Very metaphorical, but lacks realism :)
  • 1
    It’s amazing that people are trying to code review a fu**ing tattoo πŸ˜‚
  • 1
    @KAS89 why not, it's ugly.
  • 0
    @codecrow the tattoo or the code? πŸ˜‚
  • 0
    @KAS89 "fu**ing tattoo"

    I guess we all see different things in that tattoo. Is there hidden imagery in there? I just don't see the fu**ing in that tattoo.
  • 0
    The if check is redundant I am sorry but since you tattoo this you have to live with itπŸ˜…

    Have fun
  • 0
    @Yggdrasil well should have read the comments beforehand so many of you beat me to the punch😁
  • 2
    Wait, you didn't actually tattoo this on yourself, did you? Please tell me this is a random image from the internet.
  • 2
    While we are at it, can we talk about the syntax highlighting in that thing?
  • 3
    This reminds me of the guy who thought he got the kanji for dragon on his chest. Turned out he actually had kanji for monkey on his chest.
  • 0
    @Demolishun Still better than "no cards, only cash". It was a story on the internet a while ago.
  • 0
    I liked my life code from 2017 better, and its in Ruby!

    https://devrant.com/rants/942103/...
Add Comment