|
+1000
Or referring to an app as "a software". Genius.
|
|
|
|
|
Philip Laureano wrote: Me: It's "code", not "codes".
You are a bit on the lazy side, when you only produced code where he managed to produce multiple codes?
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Douglas Adams, "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency"
|
|
|
|
|
I get the same gut churning reaction to the Americanism of "math" instead of "maths".
Panic, Chaos, Destruction.
My work here is done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone else object to "documentation" being referred to as "doco"? Abbreviations wouldn't normally bother me - but this really bugged me somehow!
|
|
|
|
|
I used to have a coworker who pronounced "registry" as "reg-istry" - the first syllable rhymed with "peg". ice pick. ear.
|
|
|
|
|
You should try working in South Asia. :-P
South Asian "English" usage has no concept of the indefinite-number noun. So..."codes", not "code"; "softwares", not "software" (or "programs"); "senior developer", not "village idiot".
Jeff Dickey
Seven Sigma Software and Services
Phone/SMS: +65 8333 4403
Yahoo! IM: jeff_dickey
MSN IM: jeff_dickey at hotmail.com
ICQ IM: 8053918
Skype: jeff_dickey
|
|
|
|
|
Jeff Dickey wrote: You should try working in South Asia. :-P
I'm already in Southeast Asia, and even as someone who speaks the local language (aside from English), it's a horror to behold. The only thing even more horrible is the code they write...
Btw, which country are you working from?
|
|
|
|
|
Found this recently during bug fix session in a "report format" library:
string varA = objectA.ID.Length > 20 ? objectA.ID.SubString(0, 30) : objectA.ID;
string varB = objectB.ID.Length > 20 ? objectB.ID.SubString(0, 15) : objectB.ID;
The questions started:
1) Why? Can't the report tool truncate excess characters? (answer is Yes)
2) Bug is subtle, so I didn't make much of it but they are a "senior engineer"
3) On 2nd line, if the ID is > 20 why do we truncate to 15, or return 20 if not?
Needless to say, code reviews are minimal at best. 
|
|
|
|
|
I've tried a couple of times to instigate code reviews at my place. But every time I do I seem to get more work placed on me so it never works.
|
|
|
|
|
That's a problem if you do code reviews as a piece of review work. It's much better to do code reviews regularly and give instant feedback - it's the best way to stamp out bad practices before they become bad habits.
|
|
|
|
|
Just came across this (C++)
#define for if( false );else for
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus
Do not feed the troll ! - Common proverb
|
|
|
|
|
One of the most horrific, IMHO.
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
|
|
|
|
|
This can be fixed easily:
#define false true
There ya go ...
|
|
|
|
|
or
#define NULL !0
|
|
|
|
|
That's the answer from one of my workmates:
That's a workaround for one of the more braindead shortcomings of
Microsoft Visual C++ 6.
In ISO/ANSI C++, if you declare a loop variable inside a for-statement,
that variable goes out of scope at the end of the loop, i.e. you can
do this:
for ( int i = 0; i < x; ++i )<br />
{<br />
}<br />
for ( int i = 0; i < y; ++i )<br />
{<br />
}
MSVC 6 chokes on this - "variable redefinition". The macro you see is
a workaround for this, "forcing" the loop variable into the else-scope
(which MSVC 6 handles correctly).
|
|
|
|
|
So the real WTF is that the author didn't write a paragraph long comment explaining the reason behind the definition?
Otherwise [Microsoft is] toast in the long term no matter how much money they've got. They would be already if the Linux community didn't have it's head so firmly up it's own command line buffer that it looks like taking 15 years to find the desktop.
-- Matthew Faithfull
|
|
|
|
|
It didn't have to be a paragraph long, but at least one line would have been nice.
Excellent exhibit for the next time someone tells you "real coders don't comment".
|
|
|
|
|
everything is relative for most things a single line it adequate but for something that looks to be a major WTF though I prefer a generous explanation.
Otherwise [Microsoft is] toast in the long term no matter how much money they've got. They would be already if the Linux community didn't have it's head so firmly up it's own command line buffer that it looks like taking 15 years to find the desktop.
-- Matthew Faithfull
|
|
|
|
|
dan neely wrote: the real WTF is that the author didn't write a paragraph long comment explaining the reason behind the definition?
Exactly. I'd hate to be a newcomer on the project and run across that 
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
|
|
|
|
|
That's enlightening... It still makes it a horror, but it goes back to it being Microsoft's horror for the variable scope issue in VC6. Still, a comment by the #define in the original would have been helpful.
Faith is a fine invention
For gentlemen who see;
But microscopes are prudent
In an emergency!
-Emily Dickinson
|
|
|
|
|
David Kentley wrote: but it goes back to it being Microsoft's horror for the variable scope issue in VC6
It still cannot be used in C, C++ does allow it. GCC with GNU extensions does allow it too.
|
|
|
|
|
MrMarco wrote: one of my workmates:
 Thanks to him for the explanation and to you for posting it here... I find it awesome that a true reason has been found to justify the mere existence of this line of code.
MrMarco wrote: The macro you see is
a workaround for this
 So, we are speaking about using awful code to counter awful bugs. Probably the climax of the coding horror (well, no, it could have been VB  ).
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus
Do not feed the troll ! - Common proverb
|
|
|
|
|
Rage wrote: So, we are speaking about using awful code to counter awful bugs.
That was really a feature, not a bug  (see my other comment in this thread). It became a bug only after the Standard was released.
|
|
|
|
|
MrMarco wrote: That's a workaround for one of the more braindead shortcomings of
Microsoft Visual C++ 6.
Exactly!
However, in defense of good ol' VC6, it was released before the Standard, and in early 1990's some other compilers were doing the same thing.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
