Without void * there would be no malloc(), calloc(), free(), qsort(), etc.
More importantly, there is no void * in the article.
Even more importantly, it's a "silly puzzle" as already mentioned in the article. How do you conclude from that C programmers who love such puzzles don't understand OO? That's a very unscientific thing to say.
malloc/calloc and free are the only legitimate outliers in my opinion.
What I was getting at is that most C programmers simply do not understand programming at all and write utter trash. A lot of the stuff I've seen is failing to use type safety in C.
The submitter also retitled "The Rise and Fall of Bitcoin" to "The rise and... rise of Bitcoin". He seems to like pushing some agenda. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3275203
13 comments
[ 0.24 ms ] story [ 43.9 ms ] threadtl;dr: void* is a code smell.
All of it builds off of `void( * )(int * )`, which is a pointer to a function taking a pointer to `int` and returning `void`.
More importantly, there is no void * in the article.
Even more importantly, it's a "silly puzzle" as already mentioned in the article. How do you conclude from that C programmers who love such puzzles don't understand OO? That's a very unscientific thing to say.
What I was getting at is that most C programmers simply do not understand programming at all and write utter trash. A lot of the stuff I've seen is failing to use type safety in C.