|
Two years ago, they let our Fortify license expire.
So there we were (a couple of weeks ago) - a week from deployment, and the IA dept said we have to run Fortify against our code before we could deploy. Well, a colonel somewhere said that's absurd, and said the deployment *WILL* go on as scheduled, but that afterwards, the Fortify scan will be run and addressed.
So we did that - over 6000 issues, over 800 that we category 1 and 2 (the issues we have to fix).
I think everyone was surprised and impressed that the new template code only had 15 issues. 
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
Is a cow with no legs ground beef?
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!
|
|
|
|
|
There is ruminate for doubt.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
That's due to urinate talent.
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr.PhD P. E.
Comport Computing
Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
|
|
|
|
|
No idea, but it would probably find it very difficult to moove.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
|
WShat's even funnier is that in central Texas, the chicken ranch was a whore house, Gives an interesting meaning to boneless.
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr.PhD P. E.
Comport Computing
Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
|
|
|
|
|
What do you call a deer with no eyes?
No idea.
What do you call a deer with no eyes and no legs?
Still no idea.
|
|
|
|
|
Roland M Smith wrote: What do you call a deer with no eyes?
No idea.
What do you call a deer with no eyes and no legs?
Still no idea.
What do you call a deer with no eyes, no legs and no balls?
Still no ******* idea
I'll take my coat now.
But I never wave bye bye
|
|
|
|
|
thought ground beef would be more like: this[^]?
Message Signature
(Click to edit ->)
|
|
|
|
|
That sounds udderly dirty.
At least the steaks are low.
|
|
|
|
|
When it moves, is it only by bovine intervention?
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
How cud that be? I've hoof a mind to milk this further, but diary expose myself to followups?
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Where would you find a cow with no legs????
(Wherever you left it!)
Socialism is the Axe Body Spray of political ideologies: It never does what it claims to do, but people too young to know better keep buying it anyway. (Glenn Reynolds)
|
|
|
|
|
IDK, is Charles with no legs ground chuck?
“The palest ink is better than the best memory.” - Chinese Proverb
|
|
|
|
|
Do you put them in the stable?
In Word you can only store 2 bytes. That is why I use Writer.
|
|
|
|
|
public IDictionary<string,ICollection<(CfgRule Rule,string Symbol)>> FillPredictK(IEnumerable<string> prefix, IDictionary<string, ICollection<(CfgRule Rule, string Symbol)>> result=null)
{
if (null == result)
result = new Dictionary<string, ICollection<(CfgRule Rule, string Symbol)>>();
return result;
}
Trying to implement this:
The PREDICT-k Function[^]
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
Cards against humanity: programmer edition?
|
|
|
|
|
yep. or self-flagellating my way to better code. how much self-inflicted emotional abuse will it take to get me an LL(k) table generation algorithm?
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
Psst...it's much less grating if you make your default assignment properly in the first place.
Also, declare some classes every one in while! At least an interface: IRuleSymbolCollection or something!
public IRuleSymbolCollection FillPredictK(IEnumerable<string> prefix, IDictionary<string, IRuleSymbolCollection> result = new Dictionary<string, IRuleSymbolCollection>()){...}
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity."
- Hanlon's Razor
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Minier wrote: IRuleSymbolCollection or something
My thoughts exactly 
|
|
|
|
|
Do you have any idea how many of those little one off types I'd have to define for this code if I did that?
These tuples are used for like one calculation. And there's all kinds of different ones.
It doesn't make sense to define types for them since they are just purely data holders for the purpose of computational functions. The functions themselves represent mathematical equations and the math behind them also uses tuples.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
I get that, but you can fulfill an interface with a tuple rather than a concrete type.
Even if that interface only exists for this method, the moment you wrote it more than once it became worth moving the definition to an interface for single-point refactoring.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity."
- Hanlon's Razor
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Minier wrote: I get that, but you can fulfill an interface with a tuple rather than a concrete type.
Color me stupid (it's late in my defense), but I don't understand.
That's what I am doing, as far as I can tell. You changed my tuple to a concrete type.
Nathan Minier wrote: Even if that interface only exists for this method, the moment you wrote it more than once it became worth moving the definition to an interface for single-point refactoring.
One of the side effects of this method coming from math is the math is like 40 years old and has been proved to death so the odds of refactoring this method are almost nil, short of me for some reason changing to entirely different collection interfaces which I also probably won't do since I derive them strictly from the math involved (which one i use i mean, IEnumerable (stream or minimal set), ICollection (unordered set), IList (ordered set), IDictionary (set with grouping)
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
codewitch honey crisis wrote: You changed my tuple to a concrete type.
No, an interface is not a concrete type.
codewitch honey crisis wrote: One of the side effects of this method coming from math is the math is like 40 years old and has been proved to death
Absolutely, and if your tuples were nothing but primitives this argument would hold water. The types you're using in the tuple are not primitives, though, and you might well want to modify or replace those at some time.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity."
- Hanlon's Razor
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
