This gets you the last *date* of the month, but if you’re actually looking for the “end” of the month and don’t want fencepost errors, you’d want the first of the next month (with no time component) and then use a strict less-than in your comparisons.

Not to be pernickity but I guess it is going to depend on the intention of the method. If a trial runs for a month then perhaps from a given date that would be the end of the month Smile | :)

However, the intention is not clear from the method name so one may very well assume that it represents the date for the last day in the month of the given date.

Personally, I feel that an extension method on DateTime should apply to all possible DateTime instances. Otherwise, it can be defined to match circumstances, as long as that is clear from the name.

"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.

30 days have September, all the rest I can't remember.

I resemble that remark.

"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.

This JavaScript code powers a 1,500 user intranet application : programminghorror[^]

So many things wrong with that...

What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?

The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.

Do questions with multiple question marks annoy you???

That can't be real. Come on. How stupid an entire team has to be to let this run in production. Has to be a joke. And if this is intranet, why are you bothered with form based authentication? Just do AD look up or something.

"It is easy to decipher extraterrestrial signals after deciphering Javascript and VB6 themselves.", ISanti[^]

I want to believe this is a joke too and that an entire team cannot be that stupid...
But I'm not so sure Sigh | :sigh:

I once worked for a company who had their own "security framework".
The idea was that you entered a username and password, the application would use those to login to SQL Server and if that succeeded you were logged in.
So a user in SQL Server was a user in the system and a user in the system couldn't exist without a user in SQL Server.
It supported Windows authentication too.
The application had a form to enter new users and those users would be added in SQL Server too.
It was a WinForms application on intranet so I guess it wasn't much of an issue, but it's really not how to do authentication WTF | :WTF:

I think we ran into some issues at one point though.

They built it when I was already an employee and I advised against it and advised a more "traditional" approach, but I was just a junior back then and according to the technical director this really was the best method.
Cost him months to build too Laugh | :laugh:

I just remembered the issue we ran into!
After a backup or some such, all users ended up being "orphaned" and everybody lost access to the database and the application.
Happened more than once too.
A 200+ employee company Laugh | :laugh:

Best,
Sander

sanderrossel.com
Migrating Applications to the Cloud with Azure
arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript
Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly

Only thing then left was to hand over keys to data center to users.

"It is easy to decipher extraterrestrial signals after deciphering Javascript and VB6 themselves.", ISanti[^]

We were lucky our users were enormous digital illiterates Laugh | :laugh:

Best,
Sander

sanderrossel.com
Migrating Applications to the Cloud with Azure
arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript
Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly

I had a client that was doing the same thing - fortunately they were updating their web app so I was able to rip all that out. However they also had code that would record every login event to a log file, recording the username and password in a publically accessible plain text file (within their LAN).

lw@zi wrote:
How stupid an entire team has to be

Just because it's a mid-sized organisation doesn't mean there's an "entire team". All too often the "IT Department" is one person (as a freelancer, I've been the "IT Department" to quite a few companies of that size and above). It may not even be an IT professional - this may be a tool knocked up for personal use, spotted by a manager, who said "roll that out to everyone and stick a username/password check on the front". If it's someone who spent 5 hours learning basic Javascript but no other IT background, it's no surprise stuff like this goes live. And it works so the manager would probably be delighted.

What I wonder more about is

JavaScript

if ("true" === "true") {
    return false;
}

Why???

The method is DoesUserWantToLogin, question is "Do you not want to login", response was true so return value was false. It is so straightforward. What is confusing you? Wink | ;)

"It is easy to decipher extraterrestrial signals after deciphering Javascript and VB6 themselves.", ISanti[^]

Not confused... just in wonderment!

I have a hard time believe that it is real...

"The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary." Vidal Sassoon, 1928 - 2012

I don't see the problem Confused | :confused:

Just disable the dev tools on the login page so no-one can see the api call.

I especially liked the

HTML

<!-- todo: put this in a diferent file -->

Yeah buddy, that's the biggest issue here...

"Five fruits and vegetables a day? What a joke!
Personally, after the third watermelon, I'm full."

That was a comment from QA. Too much code in one file.

"It is easy to decipher extraterrestrial signals after deciphering Javascript and VB6 themselves.", ISanti[^]

This reminds me of iSpy! Laugh | :laugh:

...or it reminds me of an instructor who's trademark was every test had a 'find 10 things wrong with this code block' question. Laugh | :laugh:

"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse

Open Data is the logical extension of Open Source Big Grin | :-D

It does not solve my Problem, but it answers my question

modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.

Someone went to a coding-bootcamp, and was so great at his work his code needn't be reviewed Laugh | :laugh:

Bastard Programmer from Hell Suspicious | :suss:

If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.

Here's my fantasy rewrite of some Javascript.

Which one do you find more understandable? Which one's function and structure is more instantly obvious? Be honest.

JS

var home = {
	cit : "Boston",
	get City () {
		return this.cit;
	},
	set City(val) {
		this.cit = val;
	}
};

Fantasy Rewrite

home
	City 'Boston'

That's sort of what i'm looking for. Notice the lack of punctuation. Notice judicious use of whitespace as syntax. Notice how the getter, setter, variable, and default value are all encapsulated into two words.

What language is like that?

What's "Human understandable"?

I mean, easy to understand at a glance.

Here's Game of Life in APL. Extremely concise! And totally NOT human-understandable.

{≢⍸⍵}⌺3 3∊¨3+0,¨⊢

Here's the Whitespace language. Extremely concise, and totally NOT human-understandable. Seeking characters found on a normal keyboard.

By "human-understandable", i DON'T mean "natural language" or "sounds like spoken English". I mean, provided you have learned the special programming syntax, and that learning that syntax is no more challenging or time-consuming than learning, say, Python.

What's "Concise"?

Here's some COBOL. Very human understandable. But not concise:

ADD YEARS TO AGE.
MULTIPLY PRICE BY QUANTITY GIVING COST.
SUBTRACT DISCOUNT FROM COST GIVING FINAL-COST.

What's "Practical"

By "practical" i mean, it's a wise choice for real-world programming. Ie, not just an academic experiment. It has community, tools, rich programming features.... things a language needs to be usable for real projects.

I wold go with some Lisp dialect. It looks weird until you get used to it, then all other languages look hard to understand.

The reason I found it easy is because the grammer is so simple there's really not much to learn.

Smalltalk has similar properties - the syntax literally fits on an index card.

"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.

BASIC.
The only problem with any of the modern BASIC variants is the the name.
It should have been changed years ago to something that sounds better.

BASIC is the direction that programming languages should have been taking for decades.
A programming language is a tool. A tool is something that makes work easier.
C, Java and the like make simple jobs complicated, and complicated jobs - well, we won't go there.

Unfortunately BASIC has been all but killed off because it scared the crap out of the C guys.
VB was arguably one of Microsoft's biggest successes - suddenly anyone smarter than a manager or an accountant could write useful programs. They weren't always fast, or efficient, but they solved real world problems, then and there.
And here lies one of the less understood issues with software - many, many programs are written as quick one offs to answer a question, or extract some data. They do not need the .NET framework or the latest C++ or Java support libs, or some horrendously expensive and complicated Studio Suite to create them
BASIC was able to do this AND produce high quality complicated full fledged applications.
And it still can.
My favourite is PowerBasic -
PowerBASIC[^]

There are a few others.

It seems to me that all the 'new' languages we see are based on C syntax.
A whole bunch of cryptic punctuation marks interspersed with some unreadable, unintuitive bits of code.
It's time to move on. C was never meant to last this long.
It was an interim replacement to FORTRAN, until the 'new' languages came along. Sadly they never did.

The Weird and The Wonderful

What's "Human understandable"?

What's "Concise"?

What's "Practical"