|
Would I make it that easy? 
Well ... maybe tomorrow, we'll see.
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
This is where I was:
A backwards state: etats
contains Chicago: etchicagoats
it surrounds Atlanta: etchicatlantaagoats
confused: No clue what the hell this is anagram of.
Had no clue that this is about geography.
"It is easy to decipher extraterrestrial signals after deciphering Javascript and VB6 themselves.", ISanti[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Super Lloyd wrote: French-English-Indian link
Does it have anything to do with the French (British) Indian war?
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't know of this yet another great example of historical social interaction between French and English!
|
|
|
|
|
All 5 films get the XP rating (for eXecrable Physics). 
It's good (?) to know that ridiculous scripts and insults to the intelligence aren't limited to Hollywood. 
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Hollywood movies are excessively realistic by comparison!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Which I coined... "Spaghetti are forever"
Let's say you have this scary complicated piece of code that no one understand. Yet it exhibit some issues.
After much effort you understand it and make a much simpler version. Chances are people will not accept the changes (can't commit without code review in some places, like my current place). For the simple reason that they have doubt the simple version is the same, since the current complicated version is gobbledigook no one understand.
The only committee approved solution to fix the spaghetti code issue is to wedge a few extra if statements in the middle of that some other quadruple nested if statements.
And so the spaghetti worsen...
|
|
|
|
|
Is that ISO 1701, 1701A, 1701B, 1701C, 1701D, or 1701E?
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, you forgot NX 01[^]!
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
I've been trying for ages to forget NX-01!
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Says the guy who loves Discovery so much. I see another Enterprise pattern emerging here...
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
Nah, soon it'll be the Reliant pattern.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity."
- Hanlon's Razor
|
|
|
|
|
Nailed it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nah ... no dilithium! 
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
I can neither confirm nor deny the presence of dilithium onboard the carriers. I can confirm the presence of deuterium oxide, but not the amount of deuterium oxide. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
YES! UNIT TESTS.
And Integration Tests! If it's spaghetti code to start with then it probably has some pretty heavy dependencies on other classes, too. Don't mock or stub out those other classes. It's the only way to be sure.
Once you've stepped through every line of code and you have 80% + coverage of the class YOU will be THE expert.
Refactor the code with no logical changes on one change set. No bug fixes or enhancements allowed. Add lots of comments as you figure out why some line of code was added that seems counter-intuitive! Add a unit test to cover that line so that if anyone ever changes it or inverts the logic your test will catch it.
After the refactor, knock yourself out. You are now the SME.
|
|
|
|
|
So you need two developers to agree on some code to send it on, toward production?
How often that happened?
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge". Stephen Hawking, 1942- 2018
|
|
|
|
|
Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter wrote: How often that happened?
Probably oftener than being agree with management  
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
I have some disagreements with management, but never about code!
All I need is a co-worker to block my code, because 'I would do it otherwise'...
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge". Stephen Hawking, 1942- 2018
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refactoring code is generally seen as fairly high risk when there is a lot of code to change.
Do you use unit tests much where you work?
I would write some unit tests for the current code then refactor to prove that the unit tests are not broken.
Of course - the proof of not having broken anything will only be as good as your unit tests.
Good luck!
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
