Comment On OurBoolean

getList().at(0) is "TRUE" and getList().at(1) is "FALSE"? Yay...

Well that makes sense. The list allows one to iterate the values of OurBoolean and you never know how many boolean values there will be at compile-time.

It "optimizes for memory usage" by creating a 10-element list to hold boolean values...

Additional yay: all variables are strings! That makes it easier to do date processing and conditionals, because true==true confuses me, but "TRUE"=="TRUE" makes sense! yay.

TGIF!

And imagine how extendable that code is!

Say, you want to port your code to a quantum computer. You just modify the OurBoolean class to return a float in range of [0-1] instead of strings, and you're home!

Everyone knows that "File not found" is 404 in those days. So there have to be at least 405 boolean values. That list starts to make sense to me.

s.:

And imagine how extendable that code is!

Say, you want to port your code to a quantum computer. You just modify the OurBoolean class to return a float in range of [0-1] instead of strings, and you're home!

Don't forget to initialise your list with all possible floats.

OurBoolean > YourBoolean

And by calling it OurBoolean, he makes everyone responsible for this gem, not just him.

Vollhorst:

Everyone knows that "File not found" is 404 in those days. So there have to be at least 405 boolean values. That list starts to make sense to me.

TEH WINNAR!!!

By making it 'Our' boolean he manages to make it sound so much more romantic.
It's no longer YourBoolean, its OurBoolean. It's no longer YourCar, its OurCar. It's no longer YourCDs, its OurCDs.

I wonder who will get which half of the Boolean when the relationship breaks down.

Dibs on True!

An apprentice:

s.:

And imagine how extendable that code is!

Say, you want to port your code to a quantum computer. You just modify the OurBoolean class to return a float in range of [0-1] instead of strings, and you're home!

Don't forget to initialise your list with all possible floats.

That might take while, but that shouldn;t be a problem for the quantum computer to do automatically.
You'd first need to write a program for that tho, which will have toinclude OurBoolean, which will have to be initialized bij a quantum computer, which will need a program that...

I think there might be a problem in that ;)

Sure there is no problem. If you have a problem with some logical test just switch "TRUE" and "FALSE" in the list and you will have true at(1) and false at(0) changing the outcome. That is just great for testing!

You can even switch them while the program runs. Perfect for debugging and insane fun!

I also like how getList() isn't thread safe and that they allocate a new String object on every comparison by using toUppercase with equals instead of just using equalsIgnoreCase.

snoofle:

What in the world makes you think that the default allocation of <10> is anywhere near enough to store a boolean value?

IPPON!

The real WTF is that he never used the ArrayList.

First of all, I don't understand why so many people whant to reinvent the wheel. Maybe they should get a lesson about basic java? Never heard of boolean or Boolean? Very funny, I guess they like doing some hard work over again :-)

And if they absolutely want to create a new Boolean type, they could have used (OurBoolean.TRUE.toUpperCase.equals(result)) instead of (result != null && result.toUpperCase.equals(OurBoolean.TRUE))

they wouldn't have to do a null-check because NullPointerExceptions will be avoid if you change the arguments in the equals method.

While OurBoolean lacks a "FILE_NOT_FOUND", it looks like you can just add it later if you need it:

OurBoolean.getList().add("FILE NOT FOUND");

SoulReaver:

First of all, I don't understand why so many people whant to reinvent the wheel. Maybe they should get a lesson about basic java? Never heard of boolean or Boolean? Very funny, I guess they like doing some hard work over again :-)

And if they absolutely want to create a new Boolean type, they could have used (OurBoolean.TRUE.toUpperCase.equals(result)) instead of (result != null && result.toUpperCase.equals(OurBoolean.TRUE))

they wouldn't have to do a null-check because NullPointerExceptions will be avoid if you change the arguments in the equals method.

How do you dare to try to improve OurBoolean? It is OUR Boolean, not yours. Go write your own boolean!

Vollhorst:

getList().at(0) is "TRUE" and getList().at(1) is "FALSE"? Yay...

java.util.Collections.reverse(OurBoolean.getList());

Problem solved.

OurBoolean.getList().add("UNKNOWN");

Tom Hawtin:

Vollhorst:

getList().at(0) is "TRUE" and getList().at(1) is "FALSE"? Yay...

java.util.Collections.reverse(OurBoolean.getList());

Problem solved.

You just fucked up the whole system. It depends on False being on the first/zeroth position.

if(form.userWantsSpam().equals(OurBoolean.getList().at(0) || true){

}

I love it.

snoofle:

ThePants999:

It "optimizes for memory usage" by creating a 10-element list to hold boolean values...

What in the world makes you think that the default allocation of <10> is anywhere near enough to store a boolean value?

1 TRUE
2 "TRUE"
3 "True"
4 "true"
5 FALSE
6 "FALSE"
7 "False"
8 "false"
9 true
10 false
11 Boolean.TRUE
12 Boolean.FALSE
13 "Y"
14 "Yes"
15 "YES"
16 "y"
17 "yes"
18 "N"
19 "No"
20 "NO"
21 "n"
22 FileNotFound

You got FILE_NOT_FOUND, I see, but you left out VERYTRUE and VERYFALSE.

DaveK:

snoofle:

ThePants999:

It "optimizes for memory usage" by creating a 10-element list to hold boolean values...

What in the world makes you think that the default allocation of <10> is anywhere near enough to store a boolean value?

1 TRUE
2 "TRUE"
3 "True"
4 "true"
5 FALSE
6 "FALSE"
7 "False"
8 "false"
9 true
10 false
11 Boolean.TRUE
12 Boolean.FALSE
13 "Y"
14 "Yes"
15 "YES"
16 "y"
17 "yes"
18 "N"
19 "No"
20 "NO"
21 "n"
22 FileNotFound

You got FILE_NOT_FOUND, I see, but you left out VERYTRUE and VERYFALSE.

Gahh. And *I* forgot FAIRLYTRUE and FAIRLYFALSE. D'oh!

DaveK:

snoofle:

ThePants999:

It "optimizes for memory usage" by creating a 10-element list to hold boolean values...

What in the world makes you think that the default allocation of <10> is anywhere near enough to store a boolean value?

1 TRUE
2 "TRUE"
3 "True"
4 "true"
5 FALSE
6 "FALSE"
7 "False"
8 "false"
9 true
10 false
11 Boolean.TRUE
12 Boolean.FALSE
13 "Y"
14 "Yes"
15 "YES"
16 "y"
17 "yes"
18 "N"
19 "No"
20 "NO"
21 "n"
22 FileNotFound

You got FILE_NOT_FOUND, I see, but you left out VERYTRUE and VERYFALSE.

Also UNKNOWN, MAYBE, SEG_FAULT, THE_FUTURE_IS_UNCLEAR, TRY_AGAIN_LATER and PAULA

Yes we use this pattern a lot ourselves...

Its great if your client isnt quite sure how they want the values for TRUE and FALSE represented in the GUI....if they change their minds then its simple to just make a change to the code in one place...

Over all this is a Brillant Pattern.

SoulReaver:

they could have used (OurBoolean.TRUE.toUpperCase.equals(result)) instead of (result != null && result.toUpperCase.equals(OurBoolean.TRUE))

That would mean that reqult.toUppercase() is always equals to result.

Considering that this is used to check values from the database, there probably should be one for "NULL".

snoofle:

ThePants999:

It "optimizes for memory usage" by creating a 10-element list to hold boolean values...

What in the world makes you think that the default allocation of <10> is anywhere near enough to store a boolean value?

1 TRUE
2 "TRUE"
3 "True"
4 "true"
5 FALSE
6 "FALSE"
7 "False"
8 "false"
9 true
10 false
11 Boolean.TRUE
12 Boolean.FALSE
13 "Y"
14 "Yes"
15 "YES"
16 "y"
17 "yes"
18 "N"
19 "No"
20 "NO"
21 "n"
22 FileNotFound

good, but you missed out

23. TrueFalse

I would really like to know just what goes on in the mind of someone who is writing this. I just can't imagine how this could ever come into existence...

Of course, a lot of stuff on The Daily WTF fits that category...

Eyes. Goggles. Nothing.

Fixed:

ThePants999:

It "optimizes for memory usage" by creating a 10-element list to hold boolean values...

What in the world makes you think that the default allocation of <10> is anywhere near enough to store a boolean value?

1 TRUE
2 "TRUE", "True", "true"
5 FALSE
6 "FALSE", "False", "false"
9 true
10 false
11 Boolean.TRUE
12 Boolean.FALSE
13 "Y", "Yes, "YES", "y", "yes"
18 "N", "No", "NO", "n", "no"
23 FileNotFound
24 Maybe, MAYBE, maybe
27 Possibly, POSSIBLY, possibly
30 SOMETIMES, Sometimes, sometimes
33 TrueFalse, truefalse, TRUEFALSE, TF, tf
38 VERYTRUE, VeryTrue, verytrue, VT, Vt, vt
44 VERYFALSE, VeryFalse, veryfalse, VF, Vf, vf
50 UNKNOWN, Unknown, unknown, U, u
55 TRYAGAINLATER,TryAgainLater,tryagainlater,TAL,Tal,tal
61 TheFutureIsUnclear
62 SegFault
63 Paula
64 WTF
65 NOTTRUE,NotTrue,nottrue,NT,Nt,nt
71 NOTFALSE,NotFalse,notfalse,NF,Nf,nf


Thanks to all for corrections/ommissions

snoofle:

ThePants999:

It "optimizes for memory usage" by creating a 10-element list to hold boolean values...

What in the world makes you think that the default allocation of <10> is anywhere near enough to store a boolean value?

1 TRUE
2 "TRUE"
3 "True"
4 "true"
5 FALSE
6 "FALSE"
7 "False"
8 "false"
9 true
10 false
11 Boolean.TRUE
12 Boolean.FALSE
13 "Y"
14 "Yes"
15 "YES"
16 "y"
17 "yes"
18 "N"
19 "No"
20 "NO"
21 "n"
22 FileNotFound

Don't forget multiple language support:

23 "S"
24 "s"
25 "SI"
26 "Si"
27 "si"
28 "No[es]"
29 "NO[es]"
30 "no[es]"
31 "n[es]"
32 "Tu es loco, gringo."
33 "O"
34 "o"
35 "Oui"
36 "OUI"
37 "OUi"
38 "oui"
39 "n[fr]"
40 "NON"
41 "Non"
42 "non"
43 "Cochon americain"

The real WTF is that they used List instead of ArrayList.

G Money:

snoofle:

ThePants999:

It "optimizes for memory usage" by creating a 10-element list to hold boolean values...

What in the world makes you think that the default allocation of <10> is anywhere near enough to store a boolean value?

1 TRUE
2 "TRUE"
3 "True"
4 "true"
5 FALSE
6 "FALSE"
7 "False"
8 "false"
9 true
10 false
11 Boolean.TRUE
12 Boolean.FALSE
13 "Y"
14 "Yes"
15 "YES"
16 "y"
17 "yes"
18 "N"
19 "No"
20 "NO"
21 "n"
22 FileNotFound

Don't forget multiple language support:

23 "S"
24 "s"
25 "SI"
26 "Si"
27 "si"
28 "No[es]"
29 "NO[es]"
30 "no[es]"
31 "n[es]"
32 "Tu es loco, gringo."
33 "O"
34 "o"
35 "Oui"
36 "OUI"
37 "OUi"
38 "oui"
39 "n[fr]"
40 "NON"
41 "Non"
42 "non"
43 "Cochon americain"

*shudders*

El Dudarino:

The real WTF is that they used List instead of ArrayList.

Hey wait... They DID use ArrayList!!! This code is just fine...

El Dudarino:

The real WTF is that they used List instead of ArrayList.

There's nothing wrong with returning the interface to an object instead of the object itself. It's the one thing in that code that's NOT a wtf!

El Dudarino:

The real WTF is that they used List instead of ArrayList.

You mean because such obviously idiotical programmers managed to get one thing right?

snoofle:

ThePants999:

It "optimizes for memory usage" by creating a 10-element list to hold boolean values...

What in the world makes you think that the default allocation of <10> is anywhere near enough to store a boolean value?

1 TRUE
2 "TRUE"
3 "True"
4 "tr...

You didn't allow for typos.

I use to have a bunch of classmates that totally missed the point of having getters, like you show.

Objects were full of "getVector()" and "getList()". I started to argue with them about that, but quickly resigned...

snoofle:

ThePants999:

It "optimizes for memory usage" by creating a 10-element list to hold boolean values...

What in the world makes you think that the default allocation of <10> is anywhere near enough to store a boolean value?

You left off "flase"

SoulReaver:

And if they absolutely want to create a new Boolean type, they could have used (OurBoolean.TRUE.toUpperCase.equals(result)) instead of (result != null && result.toUpperCase.equals(OurBoolean.TRUE))

if result = "true";

then (OurBoolean.TRUE.toUpperCase.equals(result)) becomes ("TRUE".equals("true")), your way fails.

...just...wow...er...wow

Man this Initrode place is popping up all over the WTFs

gabba:

And by calling it OurBoolean, he makes everyone responsible for this gem, not just him.

Excuse me ... unless you can provide some proof this is mine, I refuse all responsibility.

This is copied directly from our code, with only the name of the company in the package changed to protect the innocent, not so innocent, and my job.

It's actually used in one place to populate a drop down list for a web page (yes, where 0 = TRUE and 1 = FALSE) but in a dozen places to check if a result is true or false. Where the result is NULL, it's assumed to be FALSE, except where it's assumed to be TRUE.

You left out a couple:

YEs
yES
yEs
nO

Michael:

SoulReaver:

And if they absolutely want to create a new Boolean type, they could have used (OurBoolean.TRUE.toUpperCase.equals(result)) instead of (result != null && result.toUpperCase.equals(OurBoolean.TRUE))

if result = "true";

then (OurBoolean.TRUE.toUpperCase.equals(result)) becomes ("TRUE".equals("true")), your way fails.

Not to mention that toUpperCase on OurBoolean.TRUE is, well, kinda silly?

snoofle:

ThePants999:

It "optimizes for memory usage" by creating a 10-element list to hold boolean values...

What in the world makes you think that the default allocation of <10> is anywhere near enough to store a boolean value?

1 TRUE
2 "TRUE"
3 "True"
4 "true"
5 FALSE
6 "FALSE"
7 "False"
8 "false"
9 true
10 false
11 Boolean.TRUE
12 Boolean.FALSE
13 "Y"
14 "Yes"
15 "YES"
16 "y"
17 "yes"
18 "N"
19 "No"
20 "NO"
21 "n"
22 FileNotFound

You also need values like "maybe', "perhaps", "unknown", "half-truth", "ask again later", 0, 1, "Zero", "one", "uno", "Zed" and so on to make this complete.

I can't believe you left out the Magic 8-ball list:

● As I see it, yes
● Ask again later
● Better not tell you now
● Cannot predict now
● Concentrate and ask again
● Don't count on it
● It is certain
● It is decidedly so
● Most likely
● My reply is no
● My sources say no
● Outlook good
● Outlook not so good
● Reply hazy, try again
● Signs point to yes
● Very doubtful
● Without a doubt
● Yes
● Yes - definitely
● You may rely on it

don't forget i18n - i bet we could get that list up to the hundreds in no time.

'oui',
'OUI',
'Oui',
'NON',
'non',
'Non',
'Nyet'
...

ThePants999:

It "optimizes for memory usage" by creating a 10-element list to hold boolean values...

Obviously you're not aware of the "time-memory" tradeoff.

G Money:

Don't forget multiple language support:

23 "S"
24 "s"
25 "SI"
26 "Si"
27 "si"
28 "No[es]"
29 "NO[es]"
30 "no[es]"
31 "n[es]"
32 "Tu es loco, gringo."
33 "O"
34 "o"
35 "Oui"
36 "OUI"
37 "OUi"
38 "oui"
39 "n[fr]"
40 "NON"
41 "Non"
42 "non"
43 "Cochon americain"

That's what? 2 languages?

Here's two more:

44 "ТАК"
45 "Так"
46 "так"
47 "НІ"
48 "Ні"
49 "ні"
50 "НІЯКИЙ"
51 "Ніякий"
52 "ніякий"
53 "ДА"
54 "Да"
55 "да"
56 "НЕТ"
57 "Нет"
58 "нет"

It looks like Hi and Het, but it is in fact Nie [like knee] and Nyet. Ніякий is left as an exercise for the reader.