|
Is a fat wife your butter half?
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Or is my wife's butt(er) fat?
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP. -- TNCaver
"When you have eliminated the JavaScript, whatever remains must be an empty page." -- Mike Hankey
"just eat it, eat it"."They're out to mold, better eat while you can" -- HobbyProggy
|
|
|
|
|
Say that to her and you'll be toast.
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
He'll have to bagel for forgiveness.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like she's closer to being your one-and-a-half.
|
|
|
|
|
Then she must be the bacon of your life!
Life is too shor
|
|
|
|
|
Don't tell her, or you'll be in a jam.
Hogan
|
|
|
|
|
Just mention this to her, and watch her become a bitter butter.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sorry gentlemen,
Maybe it was the huge nested if-statements I found a while back (6 if-else's all having at least 6 nested if-else's)...
Maybe it was the 700 line function I had to deal with...
Maybe it was the huge pieces of duplicated code that only differ by input type (that just so happen to have some of the same properties).
Maybe it was the function that's called "Validate", but also fetches data from the database, creates some objects and returns those objects for further processing...
Maybe it was just that my assignment is "copy all of those things because we don't want to reuse that code in a project that does exactly the same"...
Maybe it was all these things, gentlemen.
But the fact remains that today, I, Sander Rossel, am not feeling so happy 
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: I, Sander Rossel, am not feeling so happy
If you are one-hundred-per-cent unhappy, we are both depressed; if you are one-hundred-per-cent happy, we are both delirious. Other percentages: we should negotiate.
«Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.» Benjamin Franklin
|
|
|
|
|
Is that a movie/book quote?
Anyway, let the negotiations begin! I'll start with a 50/50 
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: Is that a movie/book quote?
I am an original in a world of copies 
«Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.» Benjamin Franklin
|
|
|
|
|
I am an original in a world of copies
|
|
|
|
|
Do you have access to our codebase? 
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe, is Jörgen Andersson your real name?
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: "copy all of those things because we don't want to reuse that code in a project
that does exactly the same"...
If they don't take it that seriously, then why do you? 
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
But they do, that's the problem.
We're seriously looking into creating a higher quality code base.
The idea is that we're not reusing the code because it's bad code.
The code is also complicated enough to make rewriting one hell of a job which will cost way too much time and will certainly introduce bugs...
Not sure what to do now 
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: The idea is that we're not reusing the code because it's bad code.
Unless you can explain what is bad and how you are going to prevent it, I'd predict a repetition.
Sander Rossel wrote: The code is also complicated enough to make rewriting one hell of a job which
will cost way too much time
Aight, imagine I am folding your parachute, and you are claiming "it takes too much time". It can't be taking "to much" time if it is done at the best speed possible; anything faster would create problems and hard landings are never fun.
Sander Rossel wrote: Not sure what to do now
Get some early sleep
Would this be a rewrite using the old code-base as an example? With the code as the documentation on 'what' it should do?
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy, Eddy, Eddy... You know it doesn't work that way
I've paid good money for the parachute premium package, and now that I'm coming to pick it up (or maybe I'm needing it asap!) you're telling me you're still folding and I can't have it (or maybe I should pay even more)?
Then what the hell did I pay for!?
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: you're telling me you're still folding and I can't have it (or maybe I should
pay even more)?
Sure you can have it, and I'd even help you out of the plane
Claiming it works otherwise is denying how time works; if you can haul two bricks per hour, and need 200 bricks, then simple math states that you will not finish any sooner by someone claiming "it ain't quick enough".
If it needs be done quicker, first quality will suffer; throw them bricks, fold that 'chute fast. After a while of cutting corners, someone comes and yells that the product is terrible and that it needs to be redone, since we need undamaged bricks, and people that survive the fall.
..and the cycle repeats.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
700 line functions should never be written, no matter the costs or time pressure.
Same for functions that are called "Validate", but do a whole friggin lot more than validating.
There really aren't excuses for that, except "some programmer really doesn't know his trade, or doesn't care enough about it."
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: 700 line functions should never be written, no matter the costs or time pressure.
True. Still, if he'd want a copy of that 'legacy-code' and understands the consequences.. but no, I am not going to even contemplate trying to understand that routine that is obvious commented in Klingon.
Sander Rossel wrote: Same for functions that are called "Validate", but do a whole friggin lot more
than validating.
Validate this regex.. say, why is that executing three webservice calls and causing two database-hits? 
Sander Rossel wrote: There really aren't excuses for that, except "some programmer really doesn't
know his trade, or doesn't care enough about it."
You just tried to convince me that this hypothethical programmer might have been limited in time severely. The amount of care we are allowed to spend is sometimes limited by outside forces
If you are not then the result would not repeat. Doesn't mean you get unlimited time, just the time that it realistically takes - something that cannot be guessed nor guaranteed.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
I know the programmer who did this, he wrote most of it last year, he's the lead on this project, he probably has twice my salary, and he's just a really crappy programmer.
Even if he has all the time in the world he'd write 700 line functions scattered with if-statements and duplicate code.
That said, he DOES care about the job. He makes long days, works on his days off, in the weekends, in the evenings, and he'll never complain.
Generally he's even a pretty nice guy.
Too bad he doesn't care more about best practices and a little code education.
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: That said, he DOES care about the job
Probably true, people care in different ways with changing motivations. If you do not consider every way to fold my parachute, what kind of parachute-folder does that make you?
And no, there will be no parachute-jumping during the CodeProject-meeting
Sander Rossel wrote: He makes long days, works on his days off, in the weekends, in the evenings, and
he'll never complain.
If a dev is that unmissable something is rather wrong. You already stated that
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: If they don't take it that seriously, then why do you
You know the answer to that, professional pride is a strong influence in our industry!
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
