|
Reminds me of the (once) popular developer site Expert's Exchange that has the domain name ExpertSexChange.com. 
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
mofo.com still takes you to Morrison Forester Law firm. Presumably, not a firm you'd want to be representing your adversary.
Keep Calm and Carry On
|
|
|
|
|
They is also the psychiatry company TheRapist.com ...
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
And the pen company, PenisLand.net ...
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
In contrary what the name suggests, this was a verry cumbersome to use website.
Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
|
|
|
|
|
In one project I worked on was a factory for creating new objects, called General Object Dispenser, or GOD.
|
|
|
|
|
Reminds me of an abbreviation for a c++ class name established by an apprentice with us: WTF - World Transfer Format
|
|
|
|
|
actually, there is sexual innuendo in a lot of coding, tech, etc.
i.e. Dependency Injection, Master/Slave (and racist), mount an ISO, etc.
had a discussion years ago with fellow colleagues that a lot of these terms were created by sex starved nerds. Part of me still feels this way.
With all that said, the descriptions still have value in that they are factually descriptive to what they do or stand for, sadly in some instances.
|
|
|
|
|
It has also been known in the Canadian and UK parliaments:
Quote: Allow me to say that the honourable member is pursuing a vigorous and upstanding policy...
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Utas wrote: a vigorous and upstanding policy
Isn't that usually the result of Neil Parish searching for "information about tractors"? 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
|
a long time ago, I was developing a GUI for playback of radar data. To keep my life interesting, I had all sorts of comments that conveyed why I was limiting what the user was trying to design:
if (gForces > MAX_Gs)
{
// simulation over, you killed the pilot
}
etc.
I failed my code review on the grounds that I might offend the customer who might look at the source code. So, I gave up trying to be funny in my code.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
Many years ago, happily sharing code with a coworker, I'd have that S.exception in my code. He just said "no".
I did not see it when I wrote it; any S, with exception leads there though.
My mind is at coding when I write, not wether it is acceptable. My code ain't woke, just working.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
I also realized what I've done after setting a breakpoint there.
Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
|
|
|
|
|
Also, never abbreviate analysis 
|
|
|
|
|
Noun (en-jun-neer)
Someone who does precision guesswork based on unreliable data provided by those of questionable knowledge.
See also Wizard, Magician
PartsBin an Electronics Part Organizer - An updated version available!
JaxCoder.com
|
|
|
|
|
It sums up my experience so far. The best is always when the customers give strict but poorly worded requirements and then isn't capable of explaining what they actually want.
GCS/GE d--(d) s-/+ a C+++ U+++ P-- L+@ E-- W+++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
I was asked, a few years ago, to do a little job not connected to what I was meant to be doing. Anyway, this little prog would take some info from a draughtsman then work out what components would be required, draw plans for the builders to follow and generate an order form for stores.
I produced EXACTLY what was requested. The "boss"* then passed it to a different "project manager" who changed the spec. I again delivered exactly what was asked for.
* a man with no perceivable skill in any field other than his wise choice of having the MD as a father.
Repeat the above a few times. Every "project manager" would have different features they wanted (and didn't want) to see. By this stage, whenever some feature was no longer required, I kept it in there out of sight, knowing the next person would ask for it back.
This went on for about a month with all requests for a final, agreed, WRITTEN DOWN spec completely ignored and culminated with the "boss" describing it as "crap software."
|
|
|
|
|
Tempus fugit, elit consequat faucibus. It happens, get over it. I assume you were paid for all this work so what's the beef?
Get a job as a project manager and see how well you do at getting the requirements for a non-trivial project right first time, with nothing changing before it's delivered, tested and complete. Good luck with that.
|
|
|
|
|
I work in automotive so requirements are set in stone, the issue is that it's a highly tiered sector with many consultants, so the person who manages the actual development team usually knows little to nothing about automotive, development and often who and where they are.
GCS/GE d--(d) s-/+ a C+++ U+++ P-- L+@ E-- W+++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
Similar thing happened to me.
I was working a contract, converting a traditional windows forms app to a cloud app. This was pre Wasm, so we basically had to write a "System.Drawing" implementation in JavaScript (Well Typescript actually, but you get the point)
We didn't quite get a "System.Drawing" implementation, but we did put together (With the help of MXGraph) a reasonably good canvas system, that allowed us to produce labels and barcodes and design things graphically the way the desktop app used too.
There was a part of the desktop app that stored per user settings in an access database, and the CEO made it quite clear that he DID NOT want the web app using the old access way of doing things, he had quite reasonably read up on things a bit and listened to what the dev team was telling him, and agreed with a centralised database as is normal for a web app.
The app then got handed over to the PM who was originally responsible for the desktop app, and who knew how the desktop app worked intricately, and who was very familiar with the desktop app code, and it was at this point the fun started.
It didn't matter how much we told him, that the web is NOT like the local file system, you can't just have the browser open files like Access DB's, it didn't matter how much we told him that the browser could not just pick and choose how and where to save/store things without user intervention, he was having none of it.
The entire spec was redrawn so we where basically trying to 100% duplicate in the browser, the way the desktop app was written, and when he was told things like "browser security" & "sandboxing" would physically prevent us from doing stuff in a particular way, his answer was always "Nonsense, it's software, anything is possible if you just take the time to work out how"
Just so he could get stuff saved automatically by the app, without human intervention, on the local file system, he had us write a local service, that was installed as part of the set-up on the users machines. This service was then looked for on "localhost" by the javascript code running in the browser when ever the user logged into the web app, the javascript then used the service to do all sorts of underhand things, such as force saving of files to a USB key chain without the user of the app knowing, just so he could maintain his dominance in understanding the code from the old app.
Eventually I left before the project was finished, and last I spoke to any of my own collegues, the app had been hacked several times, and had still not been publically launched 4 years later.
|
|
|
|
|
den2k88 wrote: customers give strict but poorly worded requirements and then
... won't let you talk to the actual user. I've had numerous cases where I was explicitly disallowed from talking to the people requesting a feature and it was clear the business contact was an MBA drone.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
This. The times I could cut the middleman has been the best - usually happens in the vicinity of holidays, since managers go in vacation and leave the actual engineers alone to hold the fort.
GCS/GE d--(d) s-/+ a C+++ U+++ P-- L+@ E-- W+++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for confirming that I have been doing it right all these years. 
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: We, the unwilling, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have done so much, for so long, with so little, we are now qualified to do anything with nothing.
~ Konstantin Josef Jireček - Clickety[^]
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
