Talha Mansoor – Blog

A Review of The Day of the Jackal by Frederick Forsyth

Sat, 14 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0000

Frederick Forsyth’s The Day of the Jackal is, quite simply, a masterclass in thriller writing. The moment you plunge into its pages, it grips you with the force of a vice, and you find yourself unable to wrestle free. I picked it up on a whim and didn’t put it down until the last word. The story’s unrelenting pace, meticulous detail, and fascinating characters are nothing short of arresting. This is not just a story about an assassination attempt—it’s a labyrinthine game of cat and mouse where you, the reader, stand in the middle, witnessing every move unfold.

At the center of it all is the Jackal, a nameless assassin who is hired for one of the most audacious missions ever—a plot to kill French President Charles de Gaulle in the 1960s. Forsyth spends so much time building the Jackal’s character that, against all logic and sense of morality, you almost root for him. His precision, his work ethic, his meticulous planning—they almost seduce you into admiration. There’s something magnetic about someone so fully committed to their craft. Even though he’s a cold-blooded killer who dispatches anyone hindering his progress without hesitation or remorse, you become engrossed by his journey. By the climax, when his plan falls just short, you can’t help but experience a pang of disappointment over his failure. It’s not because you want de Gaulle to die—you know from history that he won’t—but because the Jackal almost gets there. It’s like watching someone painstakingly construct a house of cards, only for it to tumble at the very last moment. Shocking in its precision, heartbreaking in its inevitability.

The following day the body of a man was buried in an unmarked grave at a suburban cemetery in Paris. The death certificate showed the body to be that of an unnamed foreign tourist, killed on Sunday August 25th, 1963, in a hit-and-run accident on the motorway outside the city. Present was a priest, a policeman, a registrar and two grave-diggers. Nobody present showed any interest as the plain deal coffin was lowered into the grave, except the single other person who attended. When it was all over he turned round, declined to give his name, and walked back down the cemetery path, a solitary little figure, to return home to his wife and children.

But Forsyth never lets you forget: the Jackal is a killer. He is not a hero. His cold pragmatism ensures that, admirable planning and determination aside, you do not shed a tear for him. His death feels earned, even if it holds a strange kind of tragedy.

On the other side of this battle is the methodical, brilliant police commissioner, Claude Lebel (his name would be stamped in my memory even if Forsyth hadn’t repeated it several times). Lebel isn’t flashy. He is no super-detective full of intrigue or grand monologues. His brilliance lies in his persistence and in his system. Forsyth shows us everything Lebel does, and, importantly, why he does it. It reminded me of watching Columbo—where you know the killer from the start and the joy comes from witnessing how the detective puts together the pieces to catch them. Here, too, you, the reader, know all the facts. You know who the killer is, what his plans are, and the immense scope of his operation. The thrill is watching Lebel narrow in on him through tireless, methodical police work. If anything, it increases the tension. You know where the Jackal is headed and why his plan is so dangerous, but you also know Lebel is closing in… bit by bit, detail by detail.

The stakes are heightened because of who the target is: Charles de Gaulle. A historical figure who, in this novel, comes across as vain, arrogant, and maddeningly stubborn. You don’t see much of de Gaulle himself—he exists more as a looming symbol than as a fully explored character. Yet, his arrogance is unmistakable. He demands that his image be protected at all costs. His staff—the real unsung heroes here—burn the candle at both ends, devising every possible measure to protect him, but de Gaulle refuses to change his routines or break from tradition.

‘For my part,’ said the Minister, ‘I can report on my conversation with President de Gaulle. He has refused point blank to change an item of his itinerary for the future to shield himself from this killer. Frankly, it was to be expected.

He comes across as the embodiment of France, and his staff protects him because, to them, he isn’t merely a man—he is France itself. I couldn’t help but think back to his iconic declaration: “You cannot arrest Sartre—Sartre is France.” In Forsyth’s world, de Gaulle unknowingly embodies the same sentiment about himself. He has become untouchable, a symbol as much as a man.

Forsyth does not delve too deeply into de Gaulle’s betrayal of his soldiers—those who served him in French colonies, drenched in the blood of colonial fighting, only to feel abandoned when de Gaulle changed France’s colonial policies. This betrayal is an undercurrent throughout the story, setting the stage for the assassination attempt, and it makes you wonder: was this a calculated political move by de Gaulle, or was he simply moving with the winds of necessity? The novel doesn’t attempt to answer this, but it lingers in the back of your mind as the events unfold.

They spent Francois’ leave together, she meeting him every evening after work in the salon to which she had gone in January 1960 from the training school. He told her of the betrayal of the French Army, of the Paris Government’s secret negotiations with the imprisoned Ahmed Ben Bella, leader of the FLN, and of the pending handover of Algeria to the melons.

And yet, for all the Jackal’s meticulous planning, the universe has other ideas. Despite his flawless forgery, his ability to assume different identities, and his near-obsessive precision, he fails. He learned French well enough to pass as a native, carried forged documents, and even acquired military medals to perfect his cover. He fooled everyone he came across. But because he was not truly French, he could not internalize certain cultural nuances—like the possibility that de Gaulle might bend to kiss someone. That single, human moment undoes everything.

A split second later he was staring down into the station forecourt as if he could not believe his eyes. Before the bullet had passed out of the end of the barrel, the President of France had snapped his head forward without warning. As the assassin watched in disbelief, he solemnly planted a kiss on each cheek of the man in front of him. As he himself was a foot taller, he had had to bend forward and down to give the traditional kiss of congratulation that is habitual among the French and certain other nations, but which baffles Anglo-Saxons.

It was later established the bullet had passed a fraction of an inch behind the moving head. Whether the President heard the whipcrack from the sound barrier, travelling on a narrow line down the flight path of the bullet, is not known. He gave no sign of it. The Minister and the official heard nothing: neither did those fifty metres away.

It drives home a painful truth: no matter how perfectly you plan, no matter how fine-tuned every detail is, life is unpredictable. The Jackal’s failure is not because of his lack of skill but because of chance. His plan was human, but the universe—it had other ideas.

Forsyth’s writing is nothing short of extraordinary. His research is meticulous to the point of obsession, and it gives the story an air of realism that very few thrillers achieve. It’s said that the method of obtaining a fake passport described in this book was shockingly accurate in the real world—Forsyth masterfully weaves fact and fiction into a seamless narrative. You feel immersed in his world because it’s so grounded in truth, even as it builds to wild heights. His prose is sharp, economical, and unrelenting, and he knows how to hold you on the edge of your seat.

Even now, thinking back to the novel, the tension lingers. The Jackal remains an unforgettable character—a man of ambition, precision, and ruthlessness. Lebel will always represent the triumph of method over chaos. And de Gaulle… well, he emerges as the symbol of a nation, flaws and all.

If you’re looking for a thriller that respects your intelligence and keeps you riveted from start to finish, The Day of the Jackal is the book for you. Forsyth doesn’t just write a story—he builds a world, one where every detail feels alive and frighteningly plausible. Everything about this book works, and it’s no wonder that Forsyth is rightly regarded as a master of his craft.

Michael Crichton – Jurassic Park

Thu, 14 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0000

About a decade ago, I was browsing for novels at a used bookstore. The shopkeeper pushed Jurassic Park into my hands. “You will like this book. It’s a best seller.”

The shop didn’t have any John Grisham novel that I hadn’t already read. I bought the Jurassic Park unenthusiastically, only after he assured me that he will get new books in his stock by next week. “I will give it a read once over the weekend; after all, I will get new novels next week. Who is this Michael Crichton, anyway?” I thought this is just a novelization of the movie Jurassic Park. At best, it would be just an okay novel.

I could not have been more wrong.

This novel started my long-standing interest in anything Michael Crichton. I devoured all his books. Read his non-fiction work. Looked up and listened to his all interviews and speeches that I could find on the internet. I don’t recall any other author whose death made me feel a personal loss.

On its face value, this novel is about an ambitious theme park that brings dinosaurs to life using modern genetic technology. The theme park develops critical problems during inspection before it is opened for the general public. Like a domino effect, these problems balloon to unmanageable proportions. Dinosaurs go berserk and destroy everything.

You see, dinosaurs brought back to life. You see the mayhem and deaths.

But that’s not all.

Like most of his other work, Crichton has a cautionary tale to tell. That technology is not neutral. That, for all our advancements and strides, we humans are pesky minuscule creations in the universe. That nature is unfathomably powerful that cannot be tamed. That are best-laid plans will go awry. That the arrogance and vanity is our ultimate undoing.

After already going through works of Neil Postman like Technopoly and Nicholas Carr’s The Shallows, I find the theme of Jurassic Park relatable.

There is a lot that we don’t understand and cannot predict or create a contingency plan for. We do it anyway. We then face the problems. We pour down a fortune and spend a lifetime fixing it. By the time we have perfected the solution, some other problem has become a full-blown crisis. Social commentators start hollering about it, a new generation of scientists focus their attention on it, and the cycle continues. We play with the forces that we know very little about.

For example, during the 1990s and early 2000, you would see the term “global village” threw around a lot. Technology, especially, the internet was supposed to bring us all together.

Fast forward to the late 2010s. Surprise surprise! We have hordes of people going against vaccination, the rise of racist movements, and whatnot. I see people in remote areas of Pakistan, using the same argument against vaccinations that I see on American Facebook groups and fringe websites.

It turned out that the internet provides a perfect medium to spread any ideology, information, or disinformation, and find and organize like-minded people. I wonder if the proponents of the “global village” imagined the possibility of fake news. Or even understood any of its implications.

The literary merits of the novel Jurassic Park are not much to write about. A large portion of the novel is expository. Although exposition is expected in sci-fi literature, this one takes it to the extreme. Ian Malcolm, who is author surrogate in the story, goes into long-winded speech every few pages. It is like is he hasn’t heard of brevity.

Most dialogs are not engaging and in some places, read like prose from a general knowledge or science book.

Some time characters disappear in the middle of the scene. It is as if Crichton decided to push them back and not to be bothered with them for a while. They would be present in the setting, but they won’t say a word. The writer does not tell you what they are doing. It reminds me of non-player character (NPC) in video games. Once the NPC has said its dialogues, it stands idly and does not engage with the game’s players.

I got this feeling when reading the part where Harding, Elli, and Gennaro are taking a ride in a separate jeep back to the Safari Lodge. The back and forth between the characters was artificial and forced. Gennaro decided to accompany Elli, possibly because he wanted to flirt with her. It is mentioned once, but you don’t see anything about it while they both are together.

Or when T-Rex attacked the car kids were in. During the attack, you do not see any reaction from Grant and Ian Malcolm, who were sitting in the other car.

Moreover, why did Arnold and others assume Grant and kids are alive when they went missing. It’s a big island with many different dinosaurs. For all they knew, they could be dead anywhere in the park or lying paralyzed in a ditch with broken limbs. The writer took a shortcut here to move the plot along.

You don’t get to know much about the background of the characters. Like the nature of the relationship between Hammond and his grandkids, Tim and Lex. He invites them over to impress upon Gennaro, the theme park aspect of the project, and to demonstrate the safety. When the kids are lost with dinosaurs running amok, he screamed on Arnold to bring his grandkids back. How does he react when they finally get back to the lodge? No idea. When the kids got to the visitor center, why didn’t they inquire about their grandfather? Also, you don’t get to see any physical bonding between them like hugs.

Clearly, Crichton is more focused on the theme and the plot. All these characters are just there to serve his narrative. In other words, it is not “A Game of Thrones,” where each character is drawn in intricate detail. Chrichton has a plot-driven story to tell. Dialogues and characters are not a priority at all.

Near the end, he kills Dr. Wu and then Hammond, the two vital people behind the project who were the driving forces. Apparently, he wasn’t planning to write a sequel at that time.

The best thing about Michale Crichton’s work is that with a minimal suspension of disbelief, you can immerse in his world. He provides enough details to create a believable fantasy.

Take gizzard stones, for example. Who would have thought that the cloned stegosaurus would need gizzard stones to grind the food? Or that they would get sick and suffer from “Imbalance, disorientation, labored breathing, and massive diarrhea.”

He added these minor details, and they pay off big time by making these dinosaurs a living, breathing thing in our eyes. We see them as complex living beings, and not as humongous thumping leathery creatures who just chew around all day.

Crichton provides graphs, charts, and code snippets. It makes you feel you are reading a deposition instead of a work of fiction.

Then there is the cut-throat and misleading attitude of Hammond. Totally believable.

Hammond is a shady character who uses his grandchildren as props. Crichton uses him to portray unabashed pursuit of greed and ambition with no moral compass.

We come across businesses that claim to offer the best product. “We spared no expense.” Only when contracts have been signed, and you are way too deep to step out, you realize you have been had.

For example, Hammond has clearly cut corners despite proclaiming otherwise. His staff does not have SOP and no contingency plans. They have not stress-test their systems or conduct extensive trials. Whatever resources they had proved to be very little.

Hammond didn’t fully understand what he is dealing with. In his pursuit of profits and vanity, he fails to acknowledge his errors and failures. When their lives are in jeopardy, he does not recognize the precariousness.

As the project approaches completion, he starts ignoring his star scientist Dr. Wu. Been there done that! An employee is useful until he wears out his usefulness. That’s how talent is treated at most companies.

It reminds me of the following exchange from the TV show, The Wire.

Wallace: Man, these shits is right. Yo.

Poot: Mm-hmm.

Wallace: It’s good with the hot sauce too, yo.

Poot: Most definite.

Wallace: Yo, D, you want some nuggets?

D’Angelo: Nah, go ahead, man.

Wallace: Man, whoever invented these, yo, he off the hook.

Poot: What?

Wallace: Mm. Motherfucker got the bone all the way out the damn chicken. ‘Til he came along, niggas be chewin’ on drumsticks and shit, gettin’ they fingers all greasy. He said, Later for the bone, nugget that meat up, make some real money.

Poot: You think the man got paid?

Wallace: Who?

Poot: The man who invented these.

Wallace: Shit, he richer than a motherfucker.

D’Angelo: Why? You think he get a percentage?

Wallace: Why not?

D’Angelo: Nigga, please, the man who invented them things, just some sad-ass down at the basement of McDonald’s, thinkin’ up some shit to make some money for the real players.

Poot: Naw, man, that ain’t right.

D’Angelo: Fucking “right.” It ain’t about right, it’s about money. Now you think Ronald McDonald gonna go down in that basement and say, “Hey, Mr. Nugget, you the bomb. We sellin’ chicken faster than you can tear the bone out. So I’m gonna write my clowny-ass name on this fat-ass check for you”?

Wallace: Shit.

D’Angelo: Man, the nigga who invented them things still workin’ in that basement for regular wage, thinkin’ up some shit to make the fries taste better, some shit like that. Believe.

Wallace: Still had the idea though.

Nerdy was forced to sign NDA and made to write a software he was not given enough details about. Of course, his software was going to fail. We get software bugs even when all the requirements are laid out clearly before any work has started.

I wonder, though, why nerdy was fixing bugs in the production code? Or why didn’t they run integration tests before deploying the system? I guess, like everything else, they also cut corners here.

Nerdy, too, is not without his faults. What did he think when he left the lodge in the pouring rain? He made a plan that was bound to fail. He fails and takes down the whole park with him. He overestimated his genius, just like Wu and Hammond, and was unable to realize he was out of this depth.

When comparing the movie and the book, I find the movie to be more entertaining. The movie version has only a five-minute exposition, rest is full of action sequences. Its visual effects still hold to this day.

Hammond and other slews of characters are more believable in the movie. Their personalities, expressions, and cues portray the characters believably. But if you are looking for detailed exposition and science. Then pick up this novel.

Removing Elements from Arrays the Right Way

Thu, 11 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0000

Imagine you’re working with a simple array, one that contains 16 integers.

const eg = [0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610];

Now, let’s say we need to weed out all numbers greater than 99 from our array. Sounds like a piece of cake, doesn’t it?

Your code will probably look like this,

JavaScript

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8


const eg = [0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610];

for (let i = 0; i < eg.length; i++) {
 if (eg[i] > 99) {
 // Remove element
 eg.splice(i, 1);
 }
}

But wait, once you print the updated array, you’ll notice something’s off.

[0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 233, 610];

Why are 233 and 610 still lounging in our array? They’re clearly above our cut-off of 99.

What went wrong?

Heads up: We’re using JavaScript for our examples, but the puzzle we’re tackling? It’s universal across all programming languages. Near the end, I have added examples in Golang, C#, C++, Python and JavaScript.

Let’s sprinkle our code with log statements to see what’s happening under the hood. You can view and run the code at this link.

JavaScript

 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15


const eg = [0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610];

console.log(`index\tvalue\tarray length`);

for (let i = 0; i < eg.length; i++) {
 console.log(`${i}\t\t${eg[i]}\t\t\t${eg.length}`);

 if (eg[i] > 99) {
 // Remove element
 eg.splice(i, 1);
 console.log(`Element at ${i} removed. Length is ${eg.length}`)
 }
}

console.log(eg)

The output is,

Output

index value array length
0 0 16
1 1 16
2 1 16
3 2 16
4 3 16
5 5 16
6 8 16
7 13 16
8 21 16
9 34 16
10 55 16
11 89 16
12 144 16
Element at 12 removed. Length is 15
13 377 15
Element at 13 removed. Length is 14
[ 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 233, 610 ]

Here’s where it gets interesting. When our loop hits index 12, it encounters the number 144. 144 is removed, which reduces array length to 15 from 16.

Then the index i is 14, and it reaches element 377. 377 is removed, which reduces array length from 15 to 14.

Then the index i reaches 15, but it fails the condition i < eg.length, which stops the result.

The loop ran only 14 times when it should have run 16 times. It happens because we modified the array length during the iteration.

If you think forcing the loop to run 16 times will fix the issue, then you are wrong.

Have a look at following incorrect code.

JavaScript

 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15


const eg = [0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610];

const len = eg.length;

console.log(`index\tvalue\tarray length`);

for (let i = 0; i < len; i++) {
 console.log(`${i}\t\t${eg[i]}\t\t\t${eg.length}`);

 if (eg[i] > 99) {
 // Remove element
 eg.splice(i, 1);
 console.log(`Element at ${i} removed. Length is ${eg.length}`);
 }
}

If you try to run this code, you will get “index out of bound” runtime errors.

Now, how do we solve this issue? We have three ways to do it the right way.

Solution 1 – Decrement index

One way to solve this problem is to decrement i whenever an element from the array is removed. This way index does not skip over the remaining elements of the array.

JavaScript

 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16


const eg = [0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610];

console.log(`index\tvalue\tarray length`);

for (let i = 0; i < eg.length; i++) {
 console.log(`${i}\t\t${eg[i]}\t\t\t${eg.length}`);

 if (eg[i] > 99) {
 // Remove element
 eg.splice(i, 1);
 console.log(`Element at ${i} removed. Length is ${eg.length}`);
 i--;
 }
}

console.log(eg);

Its output is

Output

index value array length
0 0 16
1 1 16
2 1 16
3 2 16
4 3 16
5 5 16
6 8 16
7 13 16
8 21 16
9 34 16
10 55 16
11 89 16
12 144 16
Element at 12 removed. Length is 15
12 233 15
Element at 12 removed. Length is 14
12 377 14
Element at 12 removed. Length is 13
12 610 13
Element at 12 removed. Length is 12
[ 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89 ]

You can view and run this code here.

Solution 2 – Iterate in Reverse

In this solution, you start from the last element of the array and continue backwards. This way, even if array length is modified, the loop iterates over all the remaining elements.

JavaScript

 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17


const eg = [0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610];

let i = eg.length;

console.log(`index\tvalue\tarray length`);

while (i--) {
 console.log(`${i}\t\t${eg[i]}\t\t\t${eg.length}`);

 if (eg[i] > 99) {
 // Remove element
 eg.splice(i, 1);
 console.log(`Element at ${i} removed. Length is ${eg.length}`);
 }
}

console.log(eg);

Its output is

Output

index value array length
15 610 16
Element at 15 removed. Length is 15
14 377 15
Element at 14 removed. Length is 14
13 233 14
Element at 13 removed. Length is 13
12 144 13
Element at 12 removed. Length is 12
11 89 12
10 55 12
9 34 12
8 21 12
7 13 12
6 8 12
5 5 12
4 3 12
3 2 12
2 1 12
1 1 12
0 0 12
[ 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89 ]

You can view and run this code here.

You can, of course, use a for loop in place of while.

for (i = eg.length - 1; i >= 0; i--) {}

You can view code with a for loop here.

Is this problem specific to some languages?

No! Whichever programming language you pick, if you iterate and remove array elements incorrectly, you will face this issue.

Here is the same problem replicated in Golang. If you run it, the program fails during runtime.

 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19


package main

import "fmt"

func remove(slice []int, s int) []int {
 return append(slice[:s], slice[s+1:]...)
}

func main() {
 eg := []int{0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610}
for i, el := range eg {
 if el > 99 {
 eg = remove(eg, i)
 fmt.Println(len(eg))
 }
 }

 fmt.Println(eg)
}

The output of the above program:

Output

./main
15
14
panic: runtime error: slice bounds out of range

goroutine 1 [running]:
main.remove(...)
 /home/runner/main.go:6
main.main()
 /home/runner/main.go:14 +0x25b
exit status 2

But if we turn around the code and start iteration is reverse, then the code works fine.

 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21


package main

import "fmt"

func remove(slice []int, s int) []int {
 return append(slice[:s], slice[s+1:]...)
}

func main() {
 eg := []int{0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610}
 l := len(eg) - 1
 for l >= 0 {
 if eg[l] > 99 {
 eg = remove(eg, l)
 }

 l = l - 1
 }

 fmt.Println(eg)
}

Best Solution

A succinct solution is to use functional programming.

Most modern programming languages are incorporating functional programming features. Thus, if a language supports new methods, you do not have to use the old fashioned loops to remove elements from an array.

In ECMA-262 5th edition, filter() method was added to the JavaScript.

We can rework the above example into a simple oneliner.

JavaScript

1
2
3
4


const eg = [0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610];
result = eg.filter((x) => x < 99);
// Output
console.log(result);

Either of the following way will work in C#.

Using Linq.

 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12


using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;

class MainClass {
 public static void Main (string[] args) {
 List<int> eg = new List<int>(){0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13,
 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610};
 var result = (from x in eg where x < 99 select x).ToList();
 result.ForEach(i => Console.WriteLine(i));
 }
}

Using predicate.

 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11


using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;

class MainClass {
 public static void Main (string[] args) {
 List<int> eg = new List<int>(){0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13,
 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610};
 eg.RemoveAll(i => i > 99);
 eg.ForEach(i => Console.WriteLine(i));
 }
}

C++ has std::remove_if method.

C++

 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22


#include <algorithm>
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>

int main() {
 std::vector<int> eg = {0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13,
 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610};
 eg.erase(std::remove_if(
 eg.begin(),
 eg.end(),
 [](int x) {
 return x > 99;
 }),
 eg.end());

 // Print result
 std::for_each(eg.begin(),
 eg.end(),
 [](const int &e) {
 std::cout << e << " ";
 });
}

You can run this code here.