The Weird and The Wonderful

The Weird and The Wonderful forum is a place to post Coding Horrors, Worst Practices, and the occasional flash of brilliance.

We all come across code that simply boggles the mind. Lazy kludges, embarrassing mistakes, horrid workarounds and developers just not quite getting it. And then somedays we come across - or write - the truly sublime.

Post your Best, your worst, and your most interesting. But please - no programming questions . This forum is purely for amusement and discussions on code snippets. All actual programming questions will be removed.

Re: I don't got time for no stinking opera!

enhzflep23-Jul-12 2:12

enhzflep

23-Jul-12 2:12

That's close enough for me.

It's line 1,618 of Edit.aspx

Re: I don't got time for no stinking opera!

Chris Maunder30-Jul-12 15:16

Chris Maunder

30-Jul-12 15:16

Yep - that's exactly what it does. With the evolution of "security" in browsers, handling Paste events has become more and more painful, so much so that the only way I can reliably handle it is to watch every elephanting keystroke in order to work out when a Paste event has happened and what was Pasted.

Except that Opera totally screws it up. I gave up.

You should see the server-side comments... Blush | :O

cheers,
Chris Maunder

The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP

Re: I don't got time for no stinking opera!

Brisingr Aerowing30-Jul-12 15:24

Brisingr Aerowing

30-Jul-12 15:24

What hasn't Opera screwed up?

Bill Gates is a very rich man today... and do you want to know why? The answer is one word: versions.
Dave Barry
Read more at BrainyQuote[^]

Re: I don't got time for no stinking opera!

enhzflep23-Jul-12 2:11

enhzflep

23-Jul-12 2:11

That's close enough for me.

It's line 1,618 of Edit.aspx

What condition, or lack thereof, am I even testing for again???

nedmech20-Jul-12 13:24

nedmech

20-Jul-12 13:24

Condensed and renamed to protect the guilty...

Public Sub TestThis(bFlag as Boolean, objVar as Object)

    If (Not bFlag) And (bFlag <> Not CBool(objVar Is Nothing)) Then
         'do some stuff
    End If
End Sub

I know the CBool is completely unneeded. But I'm having a heck of a time understanding what this little snippet was supposed to be testing for, or how it even came into existence in the first place. It seems like it would be cleaner to just test:

(Not bFlag) And Not (objVar Is Nothing)

There are actually several other instances of this kind of test that I think are just there for a confusion factor. They all follow the same basic pattern of:

(Not boolean1) And (boolean1 <> boolean_test_condition)

In order for the whole test to be True, the first Boolean must be False, so boolean test condition on the right side MUST be True. Why even bother comparing the test condition result against the first value?

(Not boolean1) And boolean_test_condition

I'm so ripping my hair out every time I have to dive into legacy code like this. Good thing it's Friday!

Re: What condition, or lack thereof, am I even testing for again???

Brisingr Aerowing21-Jul-12 4:27

Brisingr Aerowing

21-Jul-12 4:27

public void WriteCode(ICodeContext ctx)
{
     throw new BrainNotFoundException();
}

Bill Gates is a very rich man today... and do you want to know why? The answer is one word: versions.
Dave Barry
Read more at BrainyQuote[^]

Re: What condition, or lack thereof, am I even testing for again???

Bernhard Hiller23-Jul-12 2:21

Bernhard Hiller

23-Jul-12 2:21

That's called obfuscation.
Theoretically, it could be intended (protection against reverse engineering, or just abuse of the colleagues who have to maintain that code).
But more often, it happens due to other factors. E.g. the law of thermodynamics: things get worse under pressure. Or medical conditions like hypocaffeinemia.

It's duplicated, too lazy to fix.

CocusArg19-Jul-12 9:15

CocusArg

19-Jul-12 9:15

'i've added that, although duplication of process (because im loading stuff)
 ' lets see
 Select Case ListIT
 Case 1: nList = oArti.List1
 Case 2: nList = oArti.List2
 Case 3: nList = oArti.List3
 Case 4: nList = oArti.List4
 Case 5: nList = oArti.List5
 Case 6: nList = oArti.List6
 Case 7: nList = oArti.List7
 Case 8: nList = oArti.List8
 Case 9: nList = oArti.List9
 Case Else
   'in theory, it should never came here
   nList = 1
 End Select

I think, array is a vulgar word for someone. Funny thing, I didn't understood what in the name of lord does that (variables were not descriptive about content they have) Also, funny comments! Laugh | :laugh:

(code was originally written in spanish)

Re: It's duplicated, too lazy to fix.

Andrei Straut19-Jul-12 23:06

Andrei Straut

19-Jul-12 23:06

CocusArg wrote:
'in theory, it should never came here

I've learned that placing such a comment will make your code go to any lengths (apparently even changing variable values out-of-the-blue) to take that path...

Also, speaking of funny comments, my colleague found this little gem in a PHP script:

//Do this the old-fashioned way, i don't trust PHP's 'i++'
$i = $i + 1;

Full-fledged Java/.NET lover, full-fledged PHP hater.
Full-fledged Google/Microsoft lover, full-fledged Apple hater.
Full-fledged Skype lover, full-fledged YM hater.

Re: It's duplicated, too lazy to fix.

CDP180220-Jul-12 0:21

CDP1802

20-Jul-12 0:21

What do you have against PHP? It's soooo easy to learn and it has been used for soooo many big projects.

At least artificial intelligence already is superior to natural stupidity

Re: It's duplicated, too lazy to fix.

Andrei Straut20-Jul-12 2:57

Andrei Straut

20-Jul-12 2:57

Yes, and at the same time, it makes it awwwwwwfully easy to code badly.
You can code badly in absolutely any language, but bad code written in PHP just.has.that.special.flavor.

[rant start]
Now, assume we have some code (PHP) along the lines of:

$invoice_no = 1;

//some code

//Then someone comes who does not read docs, or has no idea that invoice_no should be an int, and does something with the following effect:
$invoice_no = $invoice_no . 'INV_123#';

//Some other code
return $invoice_no;

Now, try to do this in Java for instance:

int invoice_no = 1;
invoice_no = invoice_no + "INV_123#";
return invoice_no;

The compiler would be all over the place, screaming like a newborn baby. And that's just off the top of my head.

And speaking of compiler and autocomplete, how about contructs like:

$invoice_no = 'Whatever';

//Code

return $invoiceno; //first occurrence of $invoiceno, the IDE doesn't complain about it, is undefined, but you sucker will only know at runtime, from a !!!Notice!!!

Or that you can't really enforce a type parameter on a method (of course, there's get_class, but you'll only know about it at runtime).

Or autocomplete. I'a big fan of autocomplete. Now, I've done PHP with both Eclipse and Netbeans. Try to get autocomplete for something like:

$db = DatabaseService::getInstance();
$line = $db->getPoLineById($line_id);
$product = $db->searchProduct('id', $line->getProductId()); //This is where the magic ends. No autocomplete for 'line->'

Or debugging. var_dump, really? Now, I know there's XDebug, but try using that in a 4GB PHP project (I'm talking about a Magento website). Good luck with that.
[rant end]

Now, I do believe your remark was sarcastic. For being sarcastically funny, have a 5! Laugh | :laugh:

Full-fledged Java/.NET lover, full-fledged PHP hater.
Full-fledged Google/Microsoft lover, full-fledged Apple hater.
Full-fledged Skype lover, full-fledged YM hater.

Re: It's duplicated, too lazy to fix.

CDP180220-Jul-12 3:18

CDP1802

20-Jul-12 3:18

Andrei Straut wrote:
Now, I do believe your remark was sarcastic

Thanks. Indeed I don't jump off bridges just because it's especially easy on this particular bridge or many people have done so before. Not even the lemmings really do that. Smile | :)

I have started to ignore languages which are interpreted or are advertised as being especially noob-friendly on 8 bit machines. Especially the 'noob-unfriendly' things (like type safety) usually are supposed to help you and I have no interest in learning how to bypass them or constantly discussing why it's a bad idea to bypass them.

At least artificial intelligence already is superior to natural stupidity

Re: It's duplicated, too lazy to fix.

Andrei Straut20-Jul-12 3:31

Andrei Straut

20-Jul-12 3:31

CDP1802 wrote:
Especially the 'noob-unfriendly' things (like type safety) usually are supposed to help you and I have no interest in learning how to bypass them

So true. Now, please do go and convince everyone of this. Laugh | :laugh:

Full-fledged Java/.NET lover, full-fledged PHP hater.
Full-fledged Google/Microsoft lover, full-fledged Apple hater.
Full-fledged Skype lover, full-fledged YM hater.

Re: It's duplicated, too lazy to fix.

CDP180220-Jul-12 3:38

CDP1802

20-Jul-12 3:38

Hopeless. Those who go for 'easy' usually don't see the need for any pesky constraints and want to keep on going without them.

At least artificial intelligence already is superior to natural stupidity

Efficiency redux

John Hunley18-Jul-12 5:51

John Hunley

18-Jul-12 5:51

Just unearthed the following gem to display a progress bar:

C++

// display the battery gauge and percentage
switch(uiBattBarPosition)
{
   case(0):
      DisplayMessage(MAC_MSG_PTR(SS_BATTERY_CHARGE),s,"");
      break;
   case(1):
      DisplayMessage(MAC_MSG_PTR(SS_BATTERY_CHARGE),s,"\xff");
      break;
   case(2):
      DisplayMessage(MAC_MSG_PTR(SS_BATTERY_CHARGE),s,"\xff\xff");
      break;
   case(3):
      DisplayMessage(MAC_MSG_PTR(SS_BATTERY_CHARGE),s,"\xff\xff\xff");
      break;
   case(4):
      DisplayMessage(MAC_MSG_PTR(SS_BATTERY_CHARGE),s,"\xff\xff\xff\xff");
      break;
   case(5):
      DisplayMessage(MAC_MSG_PTR(SS_BATTERY_CHARGE),s,"\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff");
      break;
   case(6):
      DisplayMessage(MAC_MSG_PTR(SS_BATTERY_CHARGE),s,"\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff");
      break;
   case(7):
      DisplayMessage(MAC_MSG_PTR(SS_BATTERY_CHARGE),s,"\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff");
      break;
   case(8):
      DisplayMessage(MAC_MSG_PTR(SS_BATTERY_CHARGE),s,"\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff");
      break;
   case(9):
      DisplayMessage(MAC_MSG_PTR(SS_BATTERY_CHARGE),s,"\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff");
      break;
   case(10):
      DisplayMessage(MAC_MSG_PTR(SS_BATTERY_CHARGE),s,"\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff");
      break;
   case(11):
      DisplayMessage(MAC_MSG_PTR(SS_BATTERY_CHARGE),s,"\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff");
      break;
   case(12):
      DisplayMessage(MAC_MSG_PTR(SS_BATTERY_CHARGE),s,"\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff");
      break;
   case(13):
      DisplayMessage(MAC_MSG_PTR(SS_BATTERY_CHARGE),s,"\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff");
      break;
   case(14):
      DisplayMessage(MAC_MSG_PTR(SS_BATTERY_CHARGE),s,"\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff");
      break;
   case(15):
      DisplayMessage(MAC_MSG_PTR(SS_BATTERY_CHARGE),s,"\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff");
      break;
   case(16):
      DisplayMessage(MAC_MSG_PTR(SS_BATTERY_CHARGE),s,"\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff");
      break;
   case(17):
      DisplayMessage(MAC_MSG_PTR(SS_BATTERY_CHARGE),s,"\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff");
      break;
   case(18):
      DisplayMessage(MAC_MSG_PTR(SS_BATTERY_CHARGE),s,"\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff");
      break;
   case(19):
      DisplayMessage(MAC_MSG_PTR(SS_BATTERY_CHARGE),s,"\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff");
      break;
   case(20):
      DisplayMessage(MAC_MSG_PTR(SS_BATTERY_CHARGE),s,"\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff");
      break;
}   // end of switch

Makes you wonder if these people were getting paid by the line.

Re: Efficiency redux

dan!sh 18-Jul-12 5:54

dan!sh

18-Jul-12 5:54

Is 20 cases optimum for this approach or he was wrong there as well?

"The worst code you'll come across is code you wrote last year.", wizardzz[^]

Re: Efficiency redux

John Hunley18-Jul-12 9:02

John Hunley

18-Jul-12 9:02

We were using a 2x20 character display, so the "gas gauge" went from 0 to 20 bars.

Re: Efficiency redux

dan!sh 18-Jul-12 17:14

dan!sh

18-Jul-12 17:14

Lucky you! If that gauge went to insanely high values, your eyes must have been bleeding by now. Smile | :)

"The worst code you'll come across is code you wrote last year.", wizardzz[^]

Re: Efficiency redux

BillW3318-Jul-12 6:40

BillW33

18-Jul-12 6:40

Yeah, if a boss measures programmer’s value by the number of lines they produce then they will get a lot of verbose code. OTOH, I think this guy just didn’t know how to do the task efficiently.

Just because the code works, it doesn't mean that it is good code.

Re: Efficiency redux

Andrei Straut18-Jul-12 8:08

Andrei Straut

18-Jul-12 8:08

CIDev wrote:
Yeah, if a boss measures programmer’s value by the number of lines they produce then they will get a lot of verbose code

Oh, you mean, elegant, concise code, along the lines of (Java code):

breadcrumbs.setText((breadcrumbs.getText().equals("")) ? pressedItem : breadcrumbs.getText() + " -> " + pressedItem);

will actually get me less money?

Screw that, i'll just go with

StringBuilder builder = new StringBuilder();
if(breadcrumbs.getText().equals("")) {
	builder.append(pressedItem);
} else {
	builder.append(breadcrumbs.getText());
	builder.append("->");
	builder.append(pressedItem);
}
breadcrumbs.setText(builder.toString());

Screw simplicity, that should get me 9 times more money Thumbs Up | :thumbsup:

And yes, I'm a fan of ternaries Smile | :)

And now, seriously, we should come up with a measurement tool for efficiency / readability, and not lines of code.

Full-fledged Java/.NET lover, full-fledged PHP hater.
Full-fledged Google/Microsoft lover, full-fledged Apple hater.
Full-fledged Skype lover, full-fledged YM hater.

Re: Efficiency redux

Brady Kelly18-Jul-12 19:25

Brady Kelly

18-Jul-12 19:25

Andrei Straut wrote:
And yes, I'm a fan of ternaries

Brother!

Re: Efficiency redux

BillW3319-Jul-12 1:45

BillW33

19-Jul-12 1:45

Hey, bros, I like ternaries too. Smile | :)

Just because the code works, it doesn't mean that it is good code.

Re: Efficiency redux

Andrei Straut19-Jul-12 3:26

Andrei Straut

19-Jul-12 3:26

CIDev wrote:
Hey, bros, I like ternaries too.

We should make a club. "The Ternary Project" sounds just about right Smile | :)

Full-fledged Java/.NET lover, full-fledged PHP hater.
Full-fledged Google/Microsoft lover, full-fledged Apple hater.
Full-fledged Skype lover, full-fledged YM hater.

Re: Efficiency redux

BillW3319-Jul-12 7:16

BillW33

19-Jul-12 7:16

Andrei Straut wrote:
We should make a club. "The Ternary Project" sounds just about right

Sounds good, especially since there are 3 of us. Wink | ;)

Just because the code works, it doesn't mean that it is good code.

Re: Efficiency redux

Andrei Straut19-Jul-12 9:03

Andrei Straut

19-Jul-12 9:03

CIDev wrote:
Sounds good, especially since there are 3 of us.

Look, we even have a website now. It's just perfect!

Full-fledged Java/.NET lover, full-fledged PHP hater.
Full-fledged Google/Microsoft lover, full-fledged Apple hater.
Full-fledged Skype lover, full-fledged YM hater.

Use Ctrl+Left/Right to switch messages, Ctrl+Up/Down to switch threads, Ctrl+Shift+Left/Right to switch pages.