Comment On Friday Java Jumble

Alex Papadimoulis:

  int getHttpPort() throws IllegalArgumentException {
    /// and which is the illegal argument?

  }

Sweets:

"lastName.charAt(0) == new String("*").charAt(0)"
Hey, whatever works right!

Unless timeliness is important.

SurfaceTension:

Alex Papadimoulis wrote:

int getHttpPort() throws IllegalArgumentException { /// and which is the illegal argument? }

That one is my fav. What's funny is due to some other method that's called within this one, the compiler probably forces him to put that throw statement there since he didn't handle it within this method. That's assuming the method's body isn't just a comment (:

Java will not let you throw in superfluous 'throws'.

Alex Papadimoulis:

 public horribleBreakingLoops() {
  try {
   for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
    if (i == 98) {
     // Yes, java does have 'break' to exit loops
     throw new Exception();
    }
   }
  } catch (Exception e) {}
}
 
protected int myHorrorIndex = new Integer("1").intValue();

Those two are quality [:)]

I do have a concern that this is real production code - I mean, where's the usual horde of wrappers and interfaces that seem almost a compiler requirement for Java code? [:)]

"protected int myHorrorIndex = new Integer("1").intValue();"

Why?!!

... No, really, why?

Did this guy have some vendetta against his employer and coworkers when he wrote this? Does he just hate java, Is he out to prove that java is a useless language, does he know something we don't about the simple statement:

protected int myHorrorIndex = 1;

As in, the statement I just wrote is horribly inefficient and could cause the world to collapse in on itself.

Was he smoking a good deal of crack when he wrote that? It just doesn't seem like inexperience, it seems more drug-induced.

SurfaceTension:

That one is my fav. What's funny is due to some other method that's
called within this one, the compiler probably forces him to put that
throw statement there since he didn't handle it within this method.

Great post, excellent stuff.  Best we've had in a while.

I, too, am a huge fan of:

protected int myHorrorIndex = new Integer("1").intValue();

That's a classic!

I agree

protected int myHorrorIndex = new Integer("1").intValue();

is the best one...it takes the idea of OOP to another level...."I can't just assign the number 1 to this integer variable, I need to construct a number 1 object, using a string, and then assign it! brilliant!" [H]

To understand this you have
to know something about how java works under the hood.  You see,
in Java, everything is represented as a string at the lowest
level

if( !a.equals(null) ) {
Won't this NPE if a is null, thereby totally defeating the purpose?

:

protected int myHorrorIndex = new Integer("1").intValue();

To understand this you have to know something about how java works under the hood.  You see, in Java, everything is represented as a string at the lowest level, so if you said myHorrorIndex = 1 it would have to convert it into a string before casting it to an int.  Casting can be a very expensive operation in terms of performance, so your best bet is to start with a string and use the intValue method to return an int directly like the author of this code did.  I think I saw an article on this once but I can't find it now.

Maybe in javascript that is true. Maybe.

I will not tolerate any more VB programmer comments after this.

znaps:

This one is my favourite for sheer demonstration that he doesn't have a clue about any of the language features.

public boolean compareObjects(Object obj1 , Object obj2) {
if (obj1.equals(obj2) == true)
return true;
else
return false;
}

 

This is my favorite just because of the absolute ignorance of basic programming concepts displayed.

1) Right off the bat you don't even need this function because it is exactly what the equals function does.

2) Ok, bad enough he wrote a function for it but they didn't even just return the value of the equals function. Nope, gotta write an if statement around it to check the value.

3) Ok, bad enough he used an if statement to check which boolean value to return but the coder has to check the return value of the equals function within the condition of the if statement itself.

I've never seen more idiotic code.

if (obj1.equals(obj2) == true)
   return true;

Whoa... how can he be sure that true is necessarily true? Shouldn't it be:

if (obj1.equals(obj2) == true) 
   if (true == true)
      return true;

--RA

:

protected int myHorrorIndex = new Integer("1").intValue();

To
understand this you have to know something about how java works under
the hood.  You see, in Java, everything is represented as a string
at the lowest level, so if you said myHorrorIndex = 1 it would have to
convert it into a string before casting it to an int.  Casting can
be a very expensive operation in terms of performance, so your best bet
is to start with a string and use the intValue method to return an int
directly like the author of this code did.  I think I saw an
article on this once but I can't find it now.

:

It almost looks like he read these guidelines and followed them...

GREAT link ! [Y]  (now THAT's a good anonymous post )

Rank Amateur:

if (obj1.equals(obj2) == true)
   return true;

Whoa... how can he be sure that true is necessarily true? Shouldn't it be:

if (obj1.equals(obj2) == true) 
   if (true == true)
      return true;

--RA

Rank Amateur:

if (obj1.equals(obj2) == true)
   return true;

Whoa... how can he be sure that true is necessarily true? Shouldn't it be:

if (obj1.equals(obj2) == true) 
   if (true == true)
      return true;

--RA

if (obj1.equals(obj2) == true && obj2.equals(obj1) == true)
      return true;

if (obj1.equals(obj2) == true && obj2.equals(obj1) == true && true == true && true != false)
      return true;

Hm.. could this be code from a kindergarten's "Java Programming 101" assignment?

Hope so ;)

Actually my favorite would have to be:

[code language="javascript"]public long fearOfCastingHorror() {
  return System.currentTimeMillis() + new 

Double(Math.random()).longValue();
  //instead of 

return System.currentTimeMillis() + (long)Math.random();
 }[/code]

Forget all the stuff about casting Doubles to longs.  You do realise that Math.random() returns a value between 0 and 1?  ie 0 <= Math.random() < 1. 

Given this little bit of knowledge, plus the fact that java converts to long by discarding the decimal portion, the result of (long)Math.random() will always be 0.

In otherwords, that whole Math.random thing is a NO-OP.  They might just as well have returned the System.currentTimeMillis()

WTF?
evnafets

All classics ;)

My flatmate was reviewing and tidying code at work. He didnt have the heart to fix the various gems of:

if(o.GetType().Equals("".GetType())) ...

It was changed to:

if(o.GetType().Equals("What idiot wrote this?".GetType())) ...

Changes submitted.... :P

Irrelevant:

wow, some great stuff in there. However...

bjmarte and drgonzo, you both get a metaphorical kick in the shin for having no sense of sarcasm. I don't understand how anyone could've missed that that comment was a joke.

Sorry, I don't think there is anything in your post to make it obvious that you were joking and I don't hang out here enough to know anything about you.  There are some pretty dumb comments sometimes.

Rank Amateur:

if (obj1.equals(obj2) == true)
   return true;

Whoa... how can he be sure that true is necessarily true? Shouldn't it be:

if (obj1.equals(obj2) == true) 
   if (true == true)
      return true;

--RA

SurfaceTension:

Alex Papadimoulis:

  int getHttpPort() throws IllegalArgumentException {
    /// and which is the illegal argument?

  }

That one is my fav. What's funny is due to some other method that's
called within this one, the compiler probably forces him to put that
throw statement there since he didn't handle it within this method.
That's assuming the method's body isn't just a comment (:

bjmarte:

:

protected int myHorrorIndex = new Integer("1").intValue();

To understand this you have to know something about how java works under the hood.  You see, in Java, everything is represented as a string at the lowest level, so if you said myHorrorIndex = 1 it would have to convert it into a string before casting it to an int.  Casting can be a very expensive operation in terms of performance, so your best bet is to start with a string and use the intValue method to return an int directly like the author of this code did.  I think I saw an article on this once but I can't find it now.

Maybe in javascript that is true. Maybe.

I will not tolerate any more VB programmer comments after this.

I'm not a java guy, but even if what he said IS true, he would have to recognize that the "1" in the statement above IS a string, so it would have to be parsed.  So this statement is doing the very thing that he claims it is intended to avoid.

Troll: 75%; Poor attempt at humor: 20%; Serious: 5%

Alex Papadimoulis:

 public boolean compareObjects(Object obj1 , Object obj2) {
  if (obj1.equals(obj2) == true)
   return true;
  else
   return false;
}

This one is my favorite.  If he had just condensed it down to "return obj1.equals(obj2);" he might have recognized the uselessness of the function.

For those of you who doubt that this may be production code, I have sad and breaking news for you. It is!!!

I used to have a co-worker, used to be a java programmer, and he was supposed to help me with a C# project I was working on. I promise you, this guy comitted EVERY SINGLE one of those atrocities up there, and then some!

Here's some of my favorites...

float value1 = 1.0f;
double value2 = double.Parse(value1.ToString());

--

OneOfMyControls instance1 = new OneOfMyControls();

instance1.Propery = someValue;

// Later in the code 5 source files later in a totally unrelated class

OneOfMyControls instance2 = new OneOfMyControls();

variable = instance2.Propery;

// Next, I get an e-mail stating the control I had written for him to use does not work, when he assigns a value to the property, the property does not get assigned. Yes, I did bang my head on the desk.

This is just the start....

mugs:

bjmarte:

:

protected int myHorrorIndex = new Integer("1").intValue();

To
understand this you have to know something about how java works under
the hood.  You see, in Java, everything is represented as a string
at the lowest level, so if you said myHorrorIndex = 1 it would have to
convert it into a string before casting it to an int.  Casting can
be a very expensive operation in terms of performance, so your best bet
is to start with a string and use the intValue method to return an int
directly like the author of this code did.  I think I saw an
article on this once but I can't find it now.

Maybe in javascript that is true. Maybe.

I will not tolerate any more VB programmer comments after this.

I'm not a java guy, but even if what he said IS true, he would have
to recognize that the "1" in the statement above IS a string, so it
would have to be parsed.  So this statement is doing the very
thing that he claims it is intended to avoid.

Troll: 75%; Poor attempt at humor: 20%; Serious: 5%

Anonymous:

OneOfMyControls instance1 = new OneOfMyControls();

instance1.Propery = someValue;

// Later in the code 5 source files later in a totally unrelated class

OneOfMyControls instance2 = new OneOfMyControls();

variable = instance2.Propery;

// Next, I get an e-mail stating the control I had written for him
to use does not work, when he assigns a value to the property, the
property does not get assigned. Yes, I did bang my head on the desk.

This is just the start....

That's bad object design anyway. You should stay far away from
having public fields in your classes. Who knows what code may get a
reference to the object and change the field without permission.

Anonymous:

Anonymous:

OneOfMyControls instance1 = new OneOfMyControls();

instance1.Propery = someValue;

// Later in the code 5 source files later in a totally unrelated class

OneOfMyControls instance2 = new OneOfMyControls();

variable = instance2.Propery;

// Next, I get an e-mail stating the control I had written for him
to use does not work, when he assigns a value to the property, the
property does not get assigned. Yes, I did bang my head on the desk.

This is just the start....

That's bad object design anyway. You should stay far away from
having public fields in your classes. Who knows what code may get a
reference to the object and change the field without permission.

Anonymous:

Anonymous:

OneOfMyControls instance1 = new OneOfMyControls();

instance1.Propery = someValue;

// Later in the code 5 source files later in a totally unrelated class

OneOfMyControls instance2 = new OneOfMyControls();

variable = instance2.Propery;

// Next, I get an e-mail stating the control I had written for him
to use does not work, when he assigns a value to the property, the
property does not get assigned. Yes, I did bang my head on the desk.

This is just the start....

That's bad object design anyway. You should stay far away from
having public fields in your classes. Who knows what code may get a
reference to the object and change the field without permission.

public string Foo {
   		get {
			return foo; 
		}
		
		set {
			foo = value;
		}
	}

Irrelevant:

wow, some great stuff in there. However...



bjmarte and drgonzo, you both get a metaphorical kick in the shin for
having no sense of sarcasm. I don't understand how anyone could've
missed that that comment was a joke.

What do you think of this piece of code:

...

hashTable.put(Integer.toString(key.hashCode()), object);

...

ananke:

What do you think of this piece of code:

...

hashTable.put(Integer.toString(key.hashCode()), object);

...

It's stupid.