|
steveb wrote: Nothing wrong with that statement
In fact it isn't wrong. But it is unnecessary (just added overhead).
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
[My articles]
|
|
|
|
|
if this was the production code of some server that kept on crashing while communicating with clients, the code snippet mentioned is the exact thing I would put in in place of the strcmp which in unsafe. yeah yeah there is strcmp_s, but that just come out in 2005. Code is probably older.
|
|
|
|
|
Well using temporary objects to wrap unreliable code doesn't make sense to me.
I simply won't use unreliable code on a server.
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
[My articles]
|
|
|
|
|
What, checking for null is to sophisticated for you?
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine.
- P.J. O'Rourke
|
|
|
|
|
After the description I have given, you see nothing wrong with creating two objects to do a string comparison and doing this every single time that two strings need to be compared in the app ?
All righty then.
This was in an industrial automation system. That might give a clue as to why I consider it to be horrific. Or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Star Vega wrote: I'm working on this horrible legacy... to give you an example, the main form contains about 48000 lines of code, containing gui, business and, yeah, all the data access. Nice, isn't it?
It's a horror. My former company had an MFC application featuring more than 100000  lines of code for the frame window.
Star Vega wrote: But here's (yet) the best part: if you want to display a checkbox at certain moments, why not surround the checkbox code in the form's designer code (auto-generated, remember) with an if-statement?
The difficult part is (you are guessing right!) that you have to rewrite this code very often (whén their code disappears, they don't have a clue). Clever as they are, they attached this text file with the code you have to rewrite so often.
Horror keeps running. 
Star Vega wrote: By the way, they offered me training - should I start looking for another company?
I did.
[added]
Someone of my former company saw this post, I suppose...
[/added]
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
[My articles]
|
|
|
|
|
The designer file is meant to hide the code used for the GUI. So better leave it hidden and do not try to touch it 
VladovsoftSoftware products for fitness and health club management, storehouses, shops and barcode generation.
|
|
|
|
|
Really? I will forward this message to my colleagues... 
|
|
|
|
|
Did you suggest they try .Visible=false ?
Or add it dynamically?
|
|
|
|
|
Star Vega wrote: they offered me training
Sounds like the tail wagging the dog.
Here's what you should do:
1. Find new job.
2. Offer them training.
If they refuse, give your notice. If they accept, withdraw the offer of training stating that it's a lost cause and give your notice.
Good luck!
BDF
A learned fool is more a fool than an ignorant fool.
-- Moliere
|
|
|
|
|
Star Vega wrote: when their code disappears, they don't have a clue
It's unbelievable. Are you embellishing the story or all of them are really mind-disabled?
Greetings - Gajatko
Portable.NET is part of DotGNU, a project to build a complete Free Software replacement for .NET - a system that truly belongs to the developers.
|
|
|
|
|
I wish it was a joke... there are 2 'developers' for this huge application. The company decided to replace this legacy.. finally.
By the way, I found their Access DB: it exists of 125 tables, in which I found one (1!) relation (no referential integrity, what did you expect?)
modified on Tuesday, July 22, 2008 7:55 AM
|
|
|
|
|
What was your post? Don't delete, others may find it interesting. Odd how you got 4 five votes for it 
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe a person who should not see this post actually did...
Greetings - Gajatko
Portable.NET is part of DotGNU, a project to build a complete Free Software replacement for .NET - a system that truly belongs to the developers.
|
|
|
|
|
<br />
namespace SampleCSharp<br />
{<br />
public class MyClass<br />
{<br />
public int myVar;<br />
}<br />
<br />
<br />
public class SampleClass<br />
{<br />
private void SampleClass_Load(object sender, EventArgs e)<br />
{<br />
MyClass objMyClass = new MyClass();<br />
objMyClass.myVar = 10;<br />
ChangeMyVar(objMyClass);
<br />
}<br />
public void ChangeMyVar(MyClass objMyClass)<br />
{<br />
objMyClass.myVar = 30;<br />
}<br />
}<br />
}<br />
EVEN THE WORD IMPOSSIBLE SAYS I M POSSIBLE.
|
|
|
|
|
by value.
This signature was proudly tested on animals.
|
|
|
|
|
So If I print the value anywhere inside the Load function will only print 10.
But it is not....
Its 30 after function call.
|
|
|
|
|
When the class object is passed into ChangeMyVar(MyClass objMyClass) it is passed by value. Saying it another way: a copy of the object is made and then used by the ChangeMyVar method. Since this is a copy any changes to it do not affect the original.
Bill W
|
|
|
|
|
It's passed by the lower intestinal tract.
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, so it is by value.
BDF
A learned fool is more a fool than an ignorant fool.
-- Moliere
|
|
|
|
|
I think by volume. 
Chris Meech
I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar]
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra]
|
|
|
|
|
Although not one of the choices in the original post, I think it's a good answer given that the OP is a load of, umm, excrement.
BDF
A learned fool is more a fool than an ignorant fool.
-- Moliere
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Meech wrote: think by volume.
...and alot of it too 
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
|
|
|
|
|
by the lower intestinal tract.
Then how its by value???
Once its passed, you wont get the original.......
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
