>>68422738>Irrelevant. It's not necessarily an advantage.
It certainly is in this case, and I've already told you why, yet you keep ignoring it.>You can do the exact same thing with his approach.
Technically yes. By parsing, generating a fuckton of classes and using reflection (which isn't even used in the final proposed solution). Way more complicated, for no practical benefit.
Or you can just use external data and be done with it.>You're lying blatantly now. It was explicitly one of your points.
It was a *bonus*, as I said, not the central point. You're blatantly nitpicking and arguing in bad faith at this point.>You're lying blatantly again. You did use hard-coding.
Take the function somewhere else, pass it another external table, possibly automatically generated, and it will still work. None of the solutions proposed in the article can do that.
The "hard coding" I used was to illusttate the example, and it's still a better solution. It doesn't require a table to be hard coded in principle.>Using negative adjectives and making unsubstantiated assertions is not an argument.
No, unless you motivate it, which I did.>I've given you enough chances to demonstrate that you're not actually an inbred mongrel. You evidently cannot do so. Moving on. :)
I gave you a chance to prove me wrong and post your solution, yet you didn't post a single line of code. The only conclusion is that you can't program and come here just to pick fights to feel better about your lack of skills.