[RogueDrifter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GhostHacker9 what\'s the problem in that?

What\'s the use in that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by GhostHacker9 Let\'s put an end to this crap.Using stock or not using stock in a script doesn\'t matter.stock is just a keyword for letting compiler to know if this corresponding function is not been used , then don\'t compile it into the pcode.I know people are obsessed with it and will redirect me to Vince\' thread.But that thread is just bunch of crap expressing one\' personal opinion.

https://sampforum.blast.hk/showthread.php?tid=570635

[GhostHacker9]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RogueDrifter What\'s the use in that?

Take a look where he is calling that duh

Quote:

Originally Posted by RogueDrifter https://sampforum.blast.hk/showthread.php?tid=570635

Ok i think i have to repeat it again

Quote:

Originally Posted by GhostHacker9 I know people are obsessed with it and will redirect me to Vince\' thread.But that thread is just bunch of crap expressing one\' personal opinion.

if you people didn\'t get what i meant take a look at here (one of the comment in that thread itself)
http://forum.sa-mp.com/showpost.php?...3&postcount=39

[Gammix]

Its not a personal opinion or crap. I know it doesn\'t effect the performance but the tutorial tells you how to write code properly with convention.

You could also argue about #define then, its just text replacement, doesn\'t effect the performance anyway.

[GhostHacker9]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gammix Its not a personal opinion or crap. I know it doesn\'t effect the performance but the tutorial tells you how to write code properly with convention. You could also argue about #define then, its just text replacement, doesn\'t effect the performance anyway.

proper convention? since when not using stock modifier become proper convention? what makes it proper? Using it won\'t affect the performance or shit it\'s just a modifier.So why people are bothered or instructing people to remove that?Neither you or that thread points out that.FYI that thread has been created over the hatred towards some morons in this community who started to call functions "stock".That\'s why it\'s a personal opinion...

[Gammix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GhostHacker9 proper convention? since when not using stock modifier become proper convention? what makes it proper? Using it (while writing fs or gm) won\'t affect the performance or shit it\'s just a modifier.So why people are bothered or instructing people to remove that?Neither you or that thread points out that.

It always has been part of convention. You should search about what actually convention is, clearly you are not understanding my or the thread point.

PHP Code:

// BAD convention
new Float:skgsgs; // i\'ll store health in this yay!

// GOOD convention
new Float:health; // clearly this variable is for health

// BAD convention
stock internalFunction() { // hey this function looks like it belongs to an include
}

// GOOD convention
internalFunction() { // hey this function is definitely part of the script, filterscript
} 


[GhostHacker9]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gammix It always has been part of convention. You should search about what actually convention is, clearly you are not understanding my or the thread point. PHP Code: // BAD convention new Float:skgsgs; // i\'ll store health in this yay! // GOOD convention new Float:health; // clearly this variable is for health // BAD convention stock internalFunction() { // hey this function looks like it belongs to an include } // GOOD convention internalFunction() { // hey this function is definitely part of the script, filterscript }

There is a proper reason for bad naming convention is a improper convention.But that\'s not the case of using stock modifier.I think you should rethink what you even saying.


People in this community blindly believing what others saying.If a reputed person says it\'s a proper convention they believes it and starts to mimic it without thinking how it can be a proper convention.

[Hunud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GhostHacker9 There is a proper reason for bad naming convention is a improper convention.But that\'s not the case of using stock modifier.I think you should rethink what you even saying. People in this community blindly believing what others saying.If a reputed person says it\'s a proper convention they believes it and starts to mimic it without thinking how it can be a proper convention.

Alright buddy.


You are reputed person, should i trust you now when you wrote this ?

[RogueDrifter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GhostHacker9 There is a proper reason for bad naming convention is a improper convention.But that\'s not the case of using stock modifier.I think you should rethink what you even saying. People in this community blindly believing what others saying.If a reputed person says it\'s a proper convention they believes it and starts to mimic it without thinking how it can be a proper convention.

https://sampforum.blast.hk/showthread.php?tid=570635

[BigETI]

The stock keyword should be constrained to libraries only, and avoided by gamemodes and filterscripts. stock is a keyword to remove the warning for unused functions. A script is not going to use all function of a library, so it\'s acceptable that such warning can be avoided. Inside a gamemode or filterscript it is good to know what functions are unused to avoid garbage code produced by accident or deprecation, which improves mainainability and readability of a script.

[GhostHacker9]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigETI The stock keyword should be constrained to libraries only, and avoided by gamemodes and filterscripts. stock is a keyword to remove the warning for unused functions. A script is not going to use all function of a library, so it\'s acceptable that such warning can be avoided. Inside a gamemode or filterscript it is good to know what functions are unused to avoid garbage code produced by accident or deprecation, which improves mainainability and readability of a script.

Yes i agree and i\'m pretty sure 90% of this community know what stock modifier is.But that\'s not what i\'m talking about.How does using stock modifier on fs or gm is abusing or improper convention when boiler plates provided by the community itself uses it? It suppress the warning ,yes,but it can also be useful for finding the function definition.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hunud Alright buddy. You are reputed person, should i trust you now when you wrote this ?

I don\'t think you clearly understood what we are discussing here...


To be clear i\'m not complaining here i\'m having a decent discussion or argument on people bashing over releases (fs or gm) that uses stock modifier instead of focusing on what actually matters.

[BigETI]

If you are talking boiler plates in form of functions provided by a set of includes, then by definition it is a library. If you mean boiler plates in form of code snippets posted at forums or github/gist, then you shouldn\'t follow an arguably wrong code convention. Either way why should it be constrained to the stock modifier to help find function definitions? If you use a proper IDE, then you can find any code definition assotiated to your script.

[Y_Less]

Stock suppresses the warning when a function isn\'t used.

If you are writing a library, you are providing a set of optional functions to do different things. For any given use, not all of those functions may be required, thus a warning would be annoying. Hence stock in libraries.

If you are writing a mode, that is a single set piece of functionality. Everything is there for a reason and should do something. If you have a function in a mode that isn\'t used that\'s a mistake. Thus without stock the compiler will point out your mistake so you can either call it or remove it.

So yes, using stock in a mode is objectively wrong, it isn\'t just the opinion of a few members.

[GhostHacker9]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Y_Less So yes, using stock in a mode is objectively wrong, it isn\'t just the opinion of a few members.

So in conclusion "objectively" using stock modifier is improper or abusing.So telling people to remove stock modifier from a filterscript also won\'t make any sense.That\'s what i\'m telling from the beginning.

[Y_Less]

Err, what? If it shouldn\'t be there, telling people so is correct. Warnings are the compiler trying to tell you about problems with your code, ignoring them is ignoring useful diagnostics.

[GhostHacker9]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Y_Less Err, what? If it shouldn\'t be there, telling people so is correct. Warnings are the compiler trying to tell you about problems with your code, ignoring them is ignoring useful diagnostics.

My question is what change it going to create?

[Y_Less]

It will correctly display warnings.

[RogueDrifter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GhostHacker9 To be clear i\'m not complaining here i\'m having a decent discussion or argument on people bashing over releases (fs or gm) that uses stock modifier instead of focusing on what actually matters.

That was one point out of a long post where i hinted out a few things that could be improved in this fs so you\'re pretty much irrelevant,


furthermore Y_Less is trying to say it\'s better using a normal function without the stock modifier to know when you\'re either using or not using that function so if you\'re not using it then why even leave it there in the FS unused? simply put.

[Viz]

Eyvallah reis, bakma şerefsizlere. Зamur atıyorlar sana.

[GhostHacker9]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Y_Less It will correctly display warnings.

Alright that\'s a valid point.I didn\'t think of that.(Sorry for late reply )

[Wiggles0riginal]

Paylaşım iзin teşekkьrler Jensenn. Oldukзa faydalı bir sistem.