| « Prev | Page 1 | Page 2 | Next » |
Re: Classics Week: Chocolate Covered SQL
2007-05-09 13:09
•
by
Timmy
(unregistered)
|
|
Dup?
|
Re: Classics Week: Chocolate Covered SQL
2007-05-09 13:13
•
by
someone
(unregistered)
|
|
I'm sorry, I'm missing something here. Whats the SQL refrence?
|
Re: Classics Week: Chocolate Covered SQL
2007-05-09 13:14
•
by
SomeoneElse
(unregistered)
|
Thus the "Classic Week" Title! WTF? Can't anyone here read? |
Re: Classics Week: Chocolate Covered SQL
2007-05-09 13:15
•
by
SomeoneElse
(unregistered)
|
Look at the jpeg. right after the ingredients listing. |
Re: Classics Week: Chocolate Covered SQL
2007-05-09 13:16
•
by
Smitty
(unregistered)
|
its a package you would get in a store. rather than saying like Made from Facility 5, the sql code was returned rather than the data it would of returned. silly!!! |
Re: Classics Week: Chocolate Covered SQL
2007-05-09 13:16
•
by
Stephen
(unregistered)
|
|
Haha!
* may contain sql queries |
Re: Classics Week: Chocolate Covered SQL
2007-05-09 13:29
•
by
Dustin
(unregistered)
|
|
SQL is so 1990s, where's my MDX chocolate?!?
|
Re: Classics Week: Chocolate Covered SQL
2007-05-09 13:41
•
by
barf indeedy
(unregistered)
|
|
awesome!!!
|
Re: Classics Week: Chocolate Covered SQL
2007-05-09 13:54
•
by
doof
(unregistered)
|
|
Instant classic!
|
Re: Classics Week: Chocolate Covered SQL
2007-05-09 14:01
•
by
Control_Alt_Kaboom
|
|
Packed in an environment where Gluten, Nuts, Sesame seeds and slightly dodgy SQL code may be present.
:P |
Re: Classics Week: Chocolate Covered SQL
2007-05-09 14:23
•
by
shadowman
|
Perhaps they should idiot-proof it and change the title from Classics Week to We know these have been posted before, but we're re-running some oldies but goodies so please STFU week |
Re: Classics Week: Chocolate Covered SQL
2007-05-09 14:25
•
by
bstorer
|
Yes, I love candy! |
Re: Classics Week: Chocolate Covered SQL
2007-05-09 14:37
•
by
Gavin van
(unregistered)
|
|
The real, uh, failure is that they seem to be using an Access DB.
|
Re: Classics Week: Chocolate Covered SQL
2007-05-09 14:46
•
by
JCritt
(unregistered)
|
|
This one was my favorite. I remember reading it as I was writing a query.
/captcha smile :D |
Re: Classics Week: Chocolate Covered SQL
2007-05-09 14:58
•
by
Nick
(unregistered)
|
|
lol, thats funny
|
Re: Classics Week: Chocolate Covered SQL
2007-05-09 15:18
•
by
doof
(unregistered)
|
|
"idiot proof it"
No, just say: "Classics week! To report dups, bang head here --> * " |
Re: Classics Week: Chocolate Covered SQL
2007-05-09 15:24
•
by
Griff
(unregistered)
|
|
Frito-Lay has a new dip that includes the ingredient DATEM.
Yeah, I know it is an emusifier, but it always looks like a print code error to me. |
Re: Classics Week: Chocolate Covered SQL
2007-05-09 15:29
•
by
igitur
(unregistered)
|
|
Oh, and just for clarity... we are selecting from a TABLE... SELECT * FROM Equipment just wasn't clear enough.
|
Re: Classics Week: Chocolate Covered SQL
2007-05-09 15:37
•
by
RobertB
|
They kept having problems with that syntax. The database server kept instructing the assembly line robots to physicially SELECT pieces of equipment from the room. It wouldn't have been so bad, except that it turned out to be a blocking read, since the robot would lift the equipment from its moorings to indicate its "selected" status. The current syntax is scarcely better, though. When one robot Selects the [Equipment Table], the other robots don't have anywhere to put their error printouts before photographing them. |
Re: Classics Week: Chocolate Covered SQL
2007-05-09 15:38
•
by
bob the dingo
|
Haha, nice. Anyway, if they're gonna go for "classic" articles, they should go for articles from before this year, no? |
Re: Classics Week: Chocolate Covered SQL
2007-05-09 15:39
•
by
Bill Joy
(unregistered)
|
|
That's not SQL, that's MS SQL and there's a big difference. One's a standard the other is as incompatible with that standard as possible while plausibly retaining the name. It bears a passing resemblance at best.
|
Re: Classics Week: Chocolate Covered SQL
2007-05-09 15:44
•
by
Saarus
|
Perhaps they could just change is using a find and replace? You know, like when you click http://thedailywtfthedailywtfthedailywtf.worsethanfailure.com/Default.aspx Note my find, of course, but damn funny. |
Re: Classics Week: Chocolate Covered SQL
2007-05-09 15:45
•
by
Saarus
|
Damn... s/Note/Not/ in previous post. |
Re: Classics Week: Chocolate Covered SQL
2007-05-09 16:05
•
by
Bryan
(unregistered)
|
|
Did anyone else notice the space in the table name and the space in the column name????
|
Re: Classics Week: Chocolate Covered SQL
2007-05-09 16:34
•
by
igitur
(unregistered)
|
Yip. Not very elegant, but totally permissible, hence the square brackets around the names. |
Re: Classics Week: Chocolate Covered SQL
2007-05-09 16:47
•
by
Troy Mclure
(unregistered)
|
I think that allowing spaces in tables/columns is the most horrible idea evar! evar! |
Re: Classics Week: Chocolate Covered SQL
2007-05-09 17:27
•
by
too_many_usernames
|
A wise man once taught me: "Don't waste your time trying to make things idiot proof. Instead, aim to make them fool resistant." |
Re: Classics Week: Chocolate Covered SQL
2007-05-09 18:11
•
by
barf indeedy
(unregistered)
|
lol, true. But it's not a big difference. Just use the current ansi standards and don't use spaces. voila. (although CTPs are handy) |
Re: Classics Week: Chocolate Covered SQL
2007-05-09 18:18
•
by
BillyBob
(unregistered)
|
Huh? What's wrong with this? I know I always do: void fooFunction(void); struct barStruct; class foobarClass; int fubarInteger; float fuFloat; someTypeClass barfooObject; On a related note, I also like the following typedefs in C: #define ONE 1 #define TWO 2 #define THREE 3 #define FOUR 4 |
Re: Classics Week: Chocolate Covered SQL
2007-05-09 18:19
•
by
BillyBob
(unregistered)
|
Obviously too early in the morning as these are clearly not typedefs :-) |
Re: Classics Week: Chocolate Covered SQL
2007-05-09 19:16
•
by
Sigivald
(unregistered)
|
|
Say what, bill?
If MSSQL isn't <a href="http://www.dbazine.com/db2/db2-disarticles/gulutzan3">standard enough</a> for you, who is? IBM and Oracle hardly implement a perfect SQL1999 or SQL2003 either. In fact, I don't know that <a href="http://troels.arvin.dk/db/rdbms/">anyone</a> implements a complete "standard" SQL (and if so, which version? 99? 2003? 92? earlier?) (Don't like the T-SQL extensions? Nobody's forcing you to use them - MS won't make you, as near as I can tell.) |
Re: Classics Week: Chocolate Covered SQL
2007-05-09 20:04
•
by
Craig
(unregistered)
|
|
Only database I know that even tries to implement something other than SQL_old standard is www.nexusdb.com.
|
Re: Classics Week: Chocolate Covered SQL
2007-05-09 20:07
•
by
Craig
(unregistered)
|
Only database I know that even tries to implement something other than SQL_old standard is www.nexusdb.com. |
Re: Classics Week: Chocolate Covered SQL
2007-05-09 21:36
•
by
Anonymous
(unregistered)
|
|
So, the WTF is that they used SELECT *, instead of enumerating the column names, right?
|
|
No, the WTF is that SQL code is showing up on packaging.
|
Re: Classics Week: Chocolate Covered SQL
2007-05-09 23:15
•
by
bpk
(unregistered)
|
Thanks for enlightening him on that one dude, I think you really made a difference in someone's life today |
Re: Classics Week: Chocolate Covered SQL
2007-05-10 01:36
•
by
No One
(unregistered)
|
Dude! |
Re: Classics Week: Chocolate Covered SQL
2007-05-10 03:06
•
by
Kefer
|
Click... Click... Click... Doesn't do anything. |
Re: Classics Week: Chocolate Covered SQL
2007-05-10 04:27
•
by
*
(unregistered)
|
Sweet! |
Re: Classics Week: Chocolate Covered SQL
2007-05-10 04:59
•
by
Tarkeel
(unregistered)
|
|
Derby is the most SQL compliant DB I've dealt with. IIRC, it's SQL92 they use, but it's been a while so I don't remember.
|
Re: Classics Week: Chocolate Covered SQL
2007-05-10 05:07
•
by
TheJasper
|
Ever get the feeling that some people might be trying to be funny by saying these posts are repeats? |
Re: Classics Week: Chocolate Covered SQL
2007-05-10 05:44
•
by
damunzy
(unregistered)
|
|
What's mine say?!?
|
Re: Classics Week: Chocolate Covered SQL
2007-05-10 05:45
•
by
damunzy
(unregistered)
|
What's mine say? <That I am an idiot that can't quote correctly ;)> |
Re: Classics Week: Chocolate Covered SQL
2007-05-10 10:30
•
by
Dave
(unregistered)
|
|
Yeah, with the bracketed, space-containing field names, it's got to be Microsoft SQL Server or MS Access. I think the semicolon at the end clinches it for Access.
|
Re: Classics Week: Chocolate Covered SQL
2007-05-10 10:36
•
by
Frost Cat
(unregistered)
|
Would _have_ returned. But other than that, yes. |
|
The wtf for me is, this is all I see:
Is there supposed to be an image or something? If it's an external link, I'm betting it's Websensed. Websense. It so makes me want to get back to work. |
Re: Classics Week: Chocolate Covered SQL
2007-05-10 14:35
•
by
JohnB
(unregistered)
|
I've never tried this but ... apparently you can drop a url into Bablefish's "Translate a Web page" data entry box, select Russian to English and, when the fish translates the page, it doesn't appear to be coming a Websense-banned site. I'm just saying. (not first; not telling you my captcha; not end-of-file) |
Re: Classics Week: Chocolate Covered SQL
2007-05-10 15:09
•
by
Travis
(unregistered)
|
|
SELECT * FROM comments WHERE article = 'Classics Week: Chocolate Covered SQL'
|
Re: Classics Week: Chocolate Covered SQL
2007-05-10 15:36
•
by
Bob Thebastard in QA
(unregistered)
|
|
Wow, if the Quality Control is this good for the packaging, imagine how good the chocolates are!
|
| « Prev | Page 1 | Page 2 | Next » |