|
I'm tasked, as many of us are, with maintaining a codebase that was written by my predecessor. I'm finding some parts disgusting, and other, more like... fun?
Like the use of 'ToLower()' to make string comparison more safe...
if (someString.ToLower().StartsWith("text", StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase))
-> Nice way to waste some cycles and memory for the Garbage Collector to play with!
if (someString.Substring(lastMarkend - 3, 3).ToLower() == "<Index>")
-> My little finger tells me, the functionality under this if must have been tested quite thoroughly.
NB: I've only changed the string names.
'As programmers go, I'm fairly social. Which still means I'm a borderline sociopath by normal standards.' Jeff Atwood
|
|
|
|
|
Oh oh! I've got the answer: #2 is false 
|
|
|
|
|
#1, if you start counting at the first number.
|
|
|
|
|
Shouldn't #2 be:
if (someString.Substring(lastMarkend - 3, 3).ToLower() == ("<Index>").ToLower())
|
|
|
|
|
That would work better for sure 
BTW, the string literal is just that, a string literal, when there are several 'consts'* defined some lines above
* without any const specifier or special naming of course!
'As programmers go, I'm fairly social. Which still means I'm a borderline sociopath by normal standards.' Jeff Atwood
|
|
|
|
|
#2 is even worse. The literal on the right is 7 characters long, the string on the left only 3.
|
|
|
|
|
Well spotted, I did stop at the case mismatch there!
'As programmers go, I'm fairly social. Which still means I'm a borderline sociopath by normal standards.' Jeff Atwood
|
|
|
|
|
I discovered this little gem courtesy of our lead developer.
Application.DoEvents();
Thread.Sleep(1000);
Application.DoEvents();
This is in a loop on the UI thread, called from a forms timer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application.DoEvents and Thread.Sleep are a classic combo that I have seen far too many times. 
Just because the code works, it doesn't mean that it is good code.
|
|
|
|
|
Coded by lazy programmers, for lazy programmers... This is what happens when you sleep at work! 
It's an OO world.
|
|
|
|
|
Just read this story in the lounge[^]. Reminds me of a true shame...
Our 'senior', SQL expert recently wrote some dynamic SQL SP recently.
He is fully aware of SQL injection and actually went about it keeping security in the back of his head.
This is what he came up with (just his idea, not the query)...
sql_statement = 'select '''@param''' from someTable'
I took a look at the query and asked him what in the hell all those apostrophes where doing there (the thing was full of it, lots of magic going on there!).
He said that was to prevent SQL injection. Can you imagine my reaction?
I broke it with a single search for "D'artagnan" 
It was then and there that I (a SQL rookie) thaught him about quotename[^]... 
It's an OO world.
modified on Tuesday, August 30, 2011 10:23 AM
|
|
|
|
|
Now can you get someone to teach you both about bound parameters 
|
|
|
|
|
Very true indeed! I was not aware of them (or perhaps I am, but not of the name). However, I'm not the SQL expert
It's an OO world.
|
|
|
|
|
Parameterized queries are safe in this context!
Well there are those 'Xperts' and 'Seniors! everywhere  Try this[^]
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know - it isn't in my code anymore...
I wrote this wonder this morning, and realized I could prune it down to just the one line:
private void SetRole(SMUser user, UserRole userRole, string roleName, List<string> inRoles, List<string> outRoles)
{
(((user.Roles & userRole) != 0) ? inRoles : outRoles).Add(roleName);
}
I mean, yes it works. But...
It's not there anymore: I changed the whole way I handle roles for other reasons. But still, It's a bit impenetrable...
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together.
Manfred R. Bihy: "Looks as if OP is learning resistant."
|
|
|
|
|
In my opinion, it's a nice piece of code, you should take it to the 'Clever code' forum. Readability is a problem though.
|
|
|
|
|
It's the readability I don't like at all - that is not clever, it's just downright nasty!
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together.
Manfred R. Bihy: "Looks as if OP is learning resistant."
|
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't qualify it as horror. It's just a little bit too clever.
With a good comment to explain it quickly, or a more explicit method name, it would be fine by me.
'As programmers go, I'm fairly social. Which still means I'm a borderline sociopath by normal standards.' Jeff Atwood
|
|
|
|
|
I have to agree its not really horrible; as long as it is well commented it is ok.
Just because the code works, it doesn't mean that it is good code.
|
|
|
|
|
If you feel the need to comment the code,then the code is a horror.
Good code shouldn't be dependent on comments to tell the system story.
Or at least that is my 2 cents
That said, this isn't a big horror, it clearly states what it does, 3 nitpick is the use of prefix in the SMUser class name, and that the name of the method is somewhat misleading, and that the method does two things that a) should be clearly specified in the method naming or b) refactored into two separate methods.
modified on Tuesday, August 30, 2011 6:21 AM
|
|
|
|
|
annathor wrote: If you feel the need to comment the code,then the code is a horror.
Surely you don't mean that commenting code makes any code a horror..?
|
|
|
|
|
No, not always, there are some rare cases where cluttering the code with comments are justified.
But if you look at some code and thinks "gosh I better comment it, so other people understands it" then it is an indication that the code is a horror, why do you need to explain the system whit a language that is not designed to describe a system, when you allready have described it with a language that is designed to excplain a system?
Wouldn't it be better to left click, refactor->rename and clean up the code so it tells the story you want it to tell, insted of trying to excplain the story by including a secondary language into your source files?
also comments tends to become misleading and/or misplaced as the system evolves, so instead of excplaining the system it just adds to the confusion.
so, hyperboled, I say, a well commented code is a indication that the system is dirty.
and commenting in itself can also make clean code dirty by breaking up the logic and lie to you while you read the code.
In most cases you could explain what the sysem is supposed to do better whit a programming language than whit english or swahili. And if you, god forbid, uses comments to add todos, changelogs or similar there are plenty of good tools out there for that.
|
|
|
|
|
Comments are beyond important.
As a simple proof, using your IDE of choice, check the intelisense for a command, where does that come from? Comments.
During development, it's a good idea to free-form what a class/variable/method is for, but how? Comments.
Write down what you intended to happen, where you intend it to be, how? Comments?
In short, comments should describe, in the natural language of the developers what the code is doing in the machine language. Simples.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done.
Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H
OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre
I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer
Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
|
|
|
|
|
I say you're just mostly wrong about that.
Often it's as important, if not more so, to know WHY something is coded like it is as to see the code itself. Comments should tie the parts together and provide a concise lead-in to the code itself. Not to say that logical procedure and variable naming isn't a huge help, but good comments can make big difference.
Of course the unfortunate thing is usually that bad code is accompanied by bad or no comments.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
