The Weird and The Wonderful

bluesboy847-Mar-07 2:16

bluesboy84

7-Mar-07 2:16

Sob!
However, if we're talking about pure ASP, in high school I just used sessions to grant persistency between pages. Dunno if this can be done in .NET, i'm not into it Wink | ;)

Dave Kreskowiak2-Mar-07 10:12

Dave Kreskowiak

2-Mar-07 10:12

Jeez! They shared a ComboBox, so what's so hard about the data in it!?!

Dave Kreskowiak
Microsoft MVP - Visual Basic

Duncan Edwards Jones3-Mar-07 0:54

Duncan Edwards Jones

3-Mar-07 0:54

I saw an equivalnet at a client site ages ago where the main form had several hundred labels on the bottom, each with "Visible=False".
Turned out the dev was using them as "variables that have a change event" D'Oh! | :doh:

'--8<------------------------
Ex Datis:
Duncan Jones
Merrion Computing Ltd

Bit operations in VBScript

kryzchek6-Mar-07 12:39

kryzchek

6-Mar-07 12:39

I came across something similar when I was hired at my current company. I was porting a VB.NET application to C# and noticed that the original developer was using DataGrids as business logic class members to hold data. I guess he wasn't familiar with the System.Data namespace.

Chris Maunder1-Mar-07 13:03

Chris Maunder

1-Mar-07 13:03

Let me start with one of my own from my days when I either didn't understand or didn't trust VBScript

Function TestBit(Value, Bit)
	TestBit = ((CLng(Value) And CLng(Bit)) > 0)
End Function

All I'll say is that I was young and foolish.

cheers,
Chris Maunder

CodeProject.com : C++ MVP

Ed.Poore2-Mar-07 9:06

Ed.Poore

2-Mar-07 9:06

Chris Maunder wrote:
didn't understand

Most likely since I've seen this code in C, C#, VB...

Shog⁹2-Mar-07 9:29

Shog⁹

2-Mar-07 9:29

Chris Maunder wrote:
didn't trust VBScript

Can hardly blame you there... damn context-sensitive "and"s...

----

It appears that everybody is under the impression that I approve of the documentation. You probably also blame Ken Burns for supporting slavery.

--Raymond Chen on MSDN

David Rush5-Mar-07 9:59

David Rush

5-Mar-07 9:59

That reminds me of a previous boss who made us initialize all C++ pointers to null TWICE (just to make sure)

Lutosław8-Mar-07 11:43

Lutosław

8-Mar-07 11:43

"pointer = null; pointer = null;"?

Well... very interesting. However, I suppose it doesn't make the problem solved.

I would rather use:

"while (pointer != null) pointer = null;"

First real one...

Christian Graus1-Mar-07 12:44

Christian Graus

1-Mar-07 12:44

When I was first learning C#, I had an attitude about it. I was hardcore C++ before that. Now, I love C#, but anyhow...

So, I was writing a unit test, and I needed to have every third item do something in a list. I forget what. I knew about Math., and I looked for Math.Mod. Obviously, it's not there, it's the % operator. Which I should have known. But, I was having a bad day, and, cursing C#, I wrote my own mod function.

A year or so later, this code was found by someone and sent to the entire company on our social mailing list. I knew right away what I'd done, and I'm glad it happened ( what I did was atypical at the time, but now I'd all the more remember it and dig deeper for obvious stuff that isn't where I first look for it ), but I sure did feel a goose when I saw it and realised that what I wrote was superfluous.

C# was my first major language change ( I'd done Python and other stuff, but always C++ at the core, C# was my first change of core language ). I suspect I was a case study for how NOT to approach such a major change. Hopefully the next time things change like that, I'll take it better.

I guess the other lesson to be learned out of this is the importance of code reviews, which this particular company does not do, to this day ( I floated it once or twice and got laughed to scorn ).

Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
"I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )

Colin Angus Mackay1-Mar-07 21:32

Colin Angus Mackay

1-Mar-07 21:32

Christian Graus wrote:
the importance of code reviews, which this particular company does not do, to this day ( I floated it once or twice and got laughed to scorn ).

I've floated that idea and the response has been it would be wonderful to do, but we don't have the time.

Upcoming events:
* Glasgow: Geek Dinner (5th March)
* Edinburgh: Web Security Conference Day for Windows Developers (12th April)

My: Website | Blog | Photos

Scott Dorman2-Mar-07 4:27

Scott Dorman

2-Mar-07 4:27

Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
I've floated that idea and the response has been it would be wonderful to do, but we don't have the time.

The response back should be:

How much time have we spent doing things over because they weren't done right the first time? A code review would have prevented that.

-----------------------------
In just two days, tomorrow will be yesterday.

David Crow2-Mar-07 10:20

David Crow

2-Mar-07 10:20

Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
...but we don't have the time.

It's amazing how many companies find time to redo something, though.

"We don't have time to do it correct up front, but we have plenty of time to fix it on the backend."

"Approved Workmen Are Not Ashamed" - 2 Timothy 2:15

"Judge not by the eye but by the heart." - Native American Proverb

peterchen6-Mar-07 5:57

peterchen

6-Mar-07 5:57

Code Complete has real-world statistics on which techniques spot the most defects. Code Reviews win (with the suggestion that just reading code by different people do the trick for defect finding). And empirical evidence that Increasing QA cost does usually not increase overall cost.

Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Velopers, Develprs, Developers!
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
Linkify!|Fold With Us!