Ha. Cause there’s no getter. I get it. I think?
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 JavaC# 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
Is it Java?
Wait a minute, that’s an actual thing in java!? What the fuck Java I already didn’t like you and now you start pulling this shit? What even is the point of creating standards if you design backdoors to them
If you want to be able to eg. (de)serialize non-public fields of a type for any reason, you’ll need some way to get around the access restriction. Mocking is another use case – although it’s a philosophical discussion whether you should be mocking non-public fields.
And this isn’t just a Java thing, the comment you’re responding to has an example in C#, and you can do something similar in a lot of languages that support runtime reflection. Barring runtime reflection support you can do pointer math if the language supports it. Access restrictions on fields are there to stop casual misuse of private fields, but sometimes you actually may want to be able to step over those restrictions if you really know what you’re doing.
Reflection is sometimes a necessary evil. At least it makes it harder to abuse the class and if you do, then you are responsible if something goes wrong.
Yea, what @hydroptic@sopuli.xyz posted is actually Java
What even is the point of creating standards if you design backdoors to them
If you’re building in a backdoor anyways, why would the backdoor require 5 lines of weird reflection to get the type, type info, fieldinfo with the correct binding flags, and then invoking the method?
I think it’s kinda neat compared to C#, just being able to say “Ignore private/protected/internal keywords”
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?
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();
deleted by creator
now i get it, do i?
