Uppity

« Return to Article
  • Nag-Geoff 2011-12-12 09:04
    That silly frist comment!
  • DVD 2011-12-12 09:08
    A nerdy rewrite of the script for 'Falling Down' might be appropriate. Might be.
  • dkf 2011-12-12 09:10
    Global variables? Terrible naming? Aargle!
  • The poop of DOOM 2011-12-12 09:12
    TRWTF is the name Aargle Zymurgy
  • XXXXX 2011-12-12 09:25
    int up, Up, UP, uP, _up, _UP, _uP, up_, uP_;
    int uup, uUp, uUP, uuP, _uup, _uUP, _uuP, uup_, uuP_;
    int down, Down, DOWN, doWN, _down, _DOWN, _doWN, down_ doWN_;
    int ddown, dDown, dDOWN, ddoWN, _ddown, _dDOWN, _ddoWN, ddown_ ddoWN_;
    int left, Left, LEFT, leFT, _left, _LEFT, _leFT, left_ leFT_;
    int right, Right, RIGHT, riGHT, _right, _RIGHT, right_, riGHT_;
    int lleft, lLeft, lLEFT, lleFT, _lleft, _lLEFT, _lleFT, lleft_ lleFT_;
    int rright, rRight, rRIGHT, rriGHT, _rright, _rRIGHT, rright_, rriGHT_;
    int bb, Bb, BB, bB, _bb, _BB, _bB, bb_, bB_;
    int aa, Aa, AA, aA, _aa, _AA, _aA, aa_, aA_;

  • faoileag 2011-12-12 09:26
    This is *so* pre 1964! Where are strange, charm, bottom & top?

    captcha appellatio - the appellation of various flavours of "up"
  • Konami 2011-12-12 09:26
    ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ← → ← → B A
  • AdamJS 2011-12-12 09:31
    You know, I would assume that there would already exist a tool for dealing specifically with these situations.
  • Maurizio 2011-12-12 09:32
    At least, C has static binding for global variable.

    I had the fun to study and rewrite a natural language parser written in 60s style LISP, no parameters, and all the passing using dynamically binded global variables (an horror that was not mainstream anymore in lisp long before common lisp).

    Difficult to understand, impossible to maintain ...

  • Steve The Cynic 2011-12-12 09:32
    These "modestly complex" functions are, compared to some code I've had the misfortune to work with, models of simplicity. 10 to 40 lines? Mere nothings. I've seen functions with 2500 lines, in 1.6MB source files...
  • Uncle Remus 2011-12-12 09:34
    Uppity is a racist term, I'm not saying its usage is racist here, but it is a racist term. Its etymology is traced directly back to slave states in the U.S. as a term for a Black person who dosen't know their place.

    http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/11/yep-uppity-racist/45321/.
  • The poop of DOOM 2011-12-12 09:35
    AdamJS:
    You know, I would assume that there would already exist a tool for dealing specifically with these situations.

    That'd be Excel, then export it as CSV, followed by running it through one of the various CSV to XML convertors available, then parsing that XML in your code.
  • RN 2011-12-12 09:44
    Is it racist when no-one knows that it is?

    Does God exist anymore when no-one remembers him?

    All these questions...
  • faoileag 2011-12-12 09:45
    If you read the article again, you might stumble upon the clause:
    "A lot of people have no idea that the word "uppity," [i]when applied to black people[i], has racist connotations" (markup by me).

    So I wouldn't think it problematic in the sense of code discussions - unless applied to a coder of known african-american origin, of course.
  • NothingToSeeHere 2011-12-12 09:46
    The poop of DOOM:
    AdamJS:
    You know, I would assume that there would already exist a tool for dealing specifically with these situations.

    That'd be Excel, then export it as CSV, followed by running it through one of the various CSV to XML convertors available, then parsing that XML in your code.

    I think the tool he was referring to is called "fire", as in "Kill it with fire."
  • trtrwtf 2011-12-12 10:01
    ThaT's FuCked _Up
  • boog 2011-12-12 10:03
    int up, Up, UP, uP, _up, _UP, _uP, up_, uP_;
    Since then, I bet the contractor's rates have gone up, Up, UP!
  • qbolec 2011-12-12 10:04
    FR_IsT_
  • boog 2011-12-12 10:05
    Uncle Remus:
    Uppity is a racist term, I'm not saying its usage is racist here, but it is a racist term. Its etymology is traced directly back to slave states in the U.S. as a term for a Black person who dosen't know their place.
    We should totally start boycotting TheDailyWTF.

    You first.
  • Turd 2011-12-12 10:06
    Uncle Remus:
    Uppity is a racist term, I'm not saying its usage is racist here, but it is a racist term. Its etymology is traced directly back to slave states in the U.S. as a term for a Black person who dosen't know their place.

    http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/11/yep-uppity-racist/45321/.


    Cool story bro.

    CAPTCha: aliquam
  • TimT 2011-12-12 10:07
    Sounds like someone ported the application from some ancient version of BASIC (as existed on the Commodore 64 or TRS-80). Or maybe that was the only language they knew when they started writing C.
  • Uncle Remus 2011-12-12 10:08
    faoileag:
    If you read the article again, you might stumble upon the clause:
    "A lot of people have no idea that the word "uppity," [i]when applied to black people[i], has racist connotations" (markup by me).

    So I wouldn't think it problematic in the sense of code discussions - unless applied to a coder of known african-american origin, of course.
    OK I get it. It's like when white people call each other the N-bomb-- Totally not racist, just stupid.

  • TheSHEEEP 2011-12-12 10:12
    boog:
    Uncle Remus:
    Uppity is a racist term, I'm not saying its usage is racist here, but it is a racist term. Its etymology is traced directly back to slave states in the U.S. as a term for a Black person who dosen't know their place.
    We should totally start boycotting TheDailyWTF.

    You first.


    Hm... if people going mad about grammar are grammar nazis, are people going mad about such stuff political correctness nazis?

    Wait, is nazi somehow a negative word? Hmm..
  • boog 2011-12-12 10:15
    TheSHEEEP:
    boog:
    Uncle Remus:
    Uppity is a racist term, I'm not saying its usage is racist here, but it is a racist term. Its etymology is traced directly back to slave states in the U.S. as a term for a Black person who dosen't know their place.
    We should totally start boycotting TheDailyWTF.

    You first.


    Hm... if people going mad about grammar are grammar nazis, are people going mad about such stuff political correctness nazis?
    Who's going mad?
  • Mikerad 2011-12-12 10:16
    TheSHEEEP:
    boog:
    Uncle Remus:
    Uppity is a racist term, I'm not saying its usage is racist here, but it is a racist term. Its etymology is traced directly back to slave states in the U.S. as a term for a Black person who dosen't know their place.
    We should totally start boycotting TheDailyWTF.

    You first.


    Hm... if people going mad about grammar are grammar nazis, are people going mad about such stuff political correctness nazis?

    Wait, is nazi somehow a negative word? Hmm..


    Only if you are talking about Germans.
  • Uncle Remus 2011-12-12 10:17
    TheSHEEEP:
    boog:
    Uncle Remus:
    Uppity is a racist term, I'm not saying its usage is racist here, but it is a racist term. Its etymology is traced directly back to slave states in the U.S. as a term for a Black person who dosen't know their place.
    We should totally start boycotting TheDailyWTF.

    You first.


    Hm... if people going mad about grammar are grammar nazis, are people going mad about such stuff political correctness nazis?

    Wait, is nazi somehow a negative word? Hmm..
    Calling people Nazis does a disservice to the world by comparing the perpetrators of the horror of the holocaust to stuffy tight-asses on the internet. By the way, your ellipsis is missing a dot....
  • misha 2011-12-12 10:21
    Mikerad:

    Only if you are talking about Germans.


    I did say it, but I think I got away with it.
  • TheSHEEEP 2011-12-12 10:26
    But if you are German (as I am, though I prefer European) and go mad about people going mad about ridiculous stuff (as I did), are you then a nazi nazi?
  • qwerty 2011-12-12 10:30
    I call BS. Nobody would name their kid Aargle.
  • snoofle 2011-12-12 10:31
    TheSHEEEP:
    But if you are German (as I am, though I prefer European) and go mad about people going mad about ridiculous stuff (as I did), are you then a nazi nazi?

    Not sure I like where this is going.....
  • abrasha 2011-12-12 10:35
    Godwin's law...
  • TheSHEEEP 2011-12-12 10:36
    abrasha:
    Godwin's law...


    Correct. Thought I might as well be the one ;)
  • hartmut 2011-12-12 10:39
    This one very much looks like a classic from the "Computer Stupidities" files, "Programming" section:

    http://www.rinkworks.com/stupid/cs_programming.shtml (search for _up)

    I'm pretty sure it has been in that list for at least 10 years by now already ...
  • iToad 2011-12-12 10:41
    Some people wouldn't know what refactoring was if it bit them on the ass.
  • Zapp Brannigan 2011-12-12 10:48
    Every professional C programmer knows to prevent collisions, append an underline character ('_') to the front of each variable. It's the only way to be sure.
  • Pim 2011-12-12 10:57
    The poop of DOOM:
    TRWTF is the name Aargle Zymurgy

    Indeed. Google for him, and you'll find his "about" page, featuring such people as Beccaboo Aero and Hannibal Kennedy. Come on, what do they think they are pulling?
  • Recursive Reclusive 2011-12-12 11:05
    Uncle Remus:
    faoileag:
    If you read the article again, you might stumble upon the clause:
    "A lot of people have no idea that the word "uppity," [i]when applied to black people[i], has racist connotations" (markup by me).

    So I wouldn't think it problematic in the sense of code discussions - unless applied to a coder of known african-american origin, of course.
    OK I get it. It's like when white people call each other the N-bomb-- Totally not racist, just stupid.


    No, it's not like that at all. It has nothing to with race. It can, like all negative or derogatory words, be used in a racist context, but that doesn't make it a racist word.

    See: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/uppity
  • U. Ppity 2011-12-12 11:05
    faoileag:
    If you read the article again, you might stumble upon the clause:
    "A lot of people have no idea that the word "uppity," [i]when applied to black people[i], has racist connotations" (markup by me).

    So I wouldn't think it problematic in the sense of code discussions - unless applied to a coder of known african-american origin, of course.

    Curiously, you chose to emphasis that part with boldly black letters. That looks more racist than titling this article Uppity...
  • OldCoder 2011-12-12 11:09
    NothingToSeeHere:
    The poop of DOOM:
    AdamJS:
    You know, I would assume that there would already exist a tool for dealing specifically with these situations.

    That'd be Excel, then export it as CSV, followed by running it through one of the various CSV to XML convertors available, then parsing that XML in your code.

    I think the tool he was referring to is called "fire", as in "Kill it with fire."

    Actually, the first tool which came into my head on reading this was "a shotgun".
  • geoff 2011-12-12 11:10
    abrasha:
    Godwin's law...
    Stop it, you Godwin nazi.
  • foo 2011-12-12 11:12
    If those functions "only differed from each other by which global variable they operated on", shouldn't they all be the same length which it should be possible to state a little more precisely than "between 10 and 40 lines"?
  • DaveK 2011-12-12 11:17
    Recursive Reclusive:
    Uncle Remus:
    faoileag:
    If you read the article again, you might stumble upon the clause:
    "A lot of people have no idea that the word "uppity," [i]when applied to black people[i], has racist connotations" (markup by me).

    So I wouldn't think it problematic in the sense of code discussions - unless applied to a coder of known african-american origin, of course.
    OK I get it. It's like when white people call each other the N-bomb-- Totally not racist, just stupid.


    No, it's not like that at all. It has nothing to with race. It can, like all negative or derogatory words, be used in a racist context, but that doesn't make it a racist word.

    See: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/uppity
    Actually, see something with some etymology to it. If I told you that the word originated around 1875-1880 in the USA and its first recorded use was in "Uncle Remus", would you then perhaps accept that it was a variant of the earlier English term "uppish" that was coined specifically to refer to blacks?

    See: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=uppity&searchmode=none.
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/uppity

    <sings> Fuck you Akismet, fuck you A-kis-met, fuck you fuck you very muu-uuu-uuu-ch! </sings>
  • DaveK 2011-12-12 11:22
    foo:
    If those functions "only differed from each other by which global variable they operated on", shouldn't they all be the same length which it should be possible to state a little more precisely than "between 10 and 40 lines"?
    I think it's saying that there were several functions, of between 10 and 40 lines, each of which existed in multiple overloaded versions that were identical but for the global they operated on.

  • DrBen 2011-12-12 11:28
    I immediately thought of that, too. Same submitter? Or stolen? Or, a lousy yet prolific programmer who keeps making the same mistakes?

    Computer Stupidities is another great site, by the way.
  • QJo 2011-12-12 11:38
    This one has the feel of being an urban legend. I remember reading something similar from a contractor who was offered the job of maintaining a codebase with exactly this problem and having taken one look he turned the job down - but not before he had an anecdote to tell. This may well be that anecdote, but it was a good decade or more ago that I read it.

    And I now notice someone else has made the same observation as me.
  • geoffrey 2011-12-12 11:46
    The submitter fails to mention whether or not the code in question worked. If it does/did, then it should not matter how it is implemented.

    A WTF is product that does not work, not code that doesn't meet the personal aesthetics of a particular programmer.
  • UncleAldo 2011-12-12 11:52
    RN:

    Does God exist anymore when no-one remembers him?


    If there are no more references to it, it should be garbage collected, I think.
  • DaveK 2011-12-12 11:53
    geoffrey:
    The submitter fails to mention whether or not the code in question worked. If it does/did, then it should not matter how it is implemented.

    A WTF is product that does not work, not code that doesn't meet the personal aesthetics of a particular programmer.
    Fail troll is fail.
  • Puppity 2011-12-12 11:53
    geoffrey:
    The submitter fails to mention whether or not the code in question worked. If it does/did, then it should not matter how it is implemented.

    A WTF is product that does not work, not code that doesn't meet the personal aesthetics of a particular programmer.


    No, *that* would be a normal failure. A Worse-Than-Failure would be (for example) code which *does* work, but nobody can figure out how the hell it does it.
  • DaveK 2011-12-12 11:54
    UncleAldo:
    RN:

    Does God exist anymore when no-one remembers him?


    If there are no more references to it, it should be garbage collected, I think.
    Does God have an intrinsic reference counter? Or was all that biblical stuff about "separating the sheep from the goats" an early description of a primitive mark-sweep algorithm?
  • Bert 2011-12-12 12:04
    They're Second Life names by the looks of it.
  • Polar Bear 2011-12-12 12:26
    int comment, Comment, cOmment, coMment, comMent, commEnt, commeNt, commenT, COMMENT, COmment, COMment, COMMent, COMMEnt, COMMENt, CoMment, ComMent, CommEnt, CommeNt, CommenT, ......;
  • Argle 2011-12-12 12:27
    It's a great website and I sent quite a few contributions to the site back in the day. Unfortunately, it's become un-maintained. Frankly, I forgot that was one I submitted to them.

    For the sake of completeness, I should probably mention another project with horrible naming. However, this one has some excuses.

    The "program" is actually a suite of relatively simple programs (still buried in a sub-folder on the computer I'm using to write this) and written in C++ using Code Warrior so it targets both Windows and Mac OS/9. It was all originally created for the Apple back in the day, so it's absolutely no surprise that as it was maintained over the years it still had a lot of global variables like A1, B1, B2, etc.

    Then add a later maintenance programmer fond of "descriptive" names and nestled among the A1 type names were GotThemByTheShortAndCurlies and MarkOfTheBeast666. As I recall, the MarkOfTheBeast666 held some kind of catastrophic error value.
  • foo 2011-12-12 12:30
    UncleAldo:
    RN:

    Does God exist anymore when no-one remembers him?


    If there are no more references to it, it should be garbage collected, I think.
    That would explain why God is so obsessed with people thinking about and worshipping him. (At least according to organized religion.)
  • Jack Strikes Back 2011-12-12 12:37
    Argle:
    It's a great website and I sent quite a few contributions to the site back in the day. Unfortunately, it's become un-maintained.

    Sounds quite a bit like this site.
  • BillClintonsThirdTerm 2011-12-12 12:58
    Uncle Remus:
    Uppity is a racist term, I'm not saying its usage is racist here, but it is a racist term. Its etymology is traced directly back to slave states in the U.S. as a term for a Black person who dosen't know their place.

    http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/11/yep-uppity-racist/45321/.


    Nigga Please
  • Fred 2011-12-12 13:12
    20 functions in it, all modestly complex (between 10 and 40 lines) that only differed from each other by which global variable they operated on
    Those functions are called getters and setters, right? OOP FTW!
  • Coyne 2011-12-12 13:19
    boog:
    int up, Up, UP, uP, _up, _UP, _uP, up_, uP_;
    Since then, I bet the contractor's rates have gone up, Up, UP!


    His rates would have to go "up, Up, UP!" After all, his maintenance effort is going up, Up, UP!
  • Zekses 2011-12-12 13:37
    They did not have the internetz back then, so he obviously did not know that he should commit suicide.
  • Coyne 2011-12-12 13:40
    Argle:
    Then add a later maintenance programmer fond of "descriptive" names and nestled among the A1 type names were GotThemByTheShortAndCurlies and MarkOfTheBeast666. As I recall, the MarkOfTheBeast666 held some kind of catastrophic error value.


    Let me guess: GotThemByTheShortAndCurlies was set to TRUE just before displaying that message, "Program internal error encountered. Select OK to terminate without saving."

    Right?
  • White Fang 2011-12-12 14:27
    A better language would allow bolding, italics and subtly different fonts to obfuscate the code.

    Personally, I have failed to grok in fullness the manifest benefits provided by case sensitive languages.
  • Zekses 2011-12-12 14:34
    Well, for me it's isSomething as a variable ad IsSomething as a function that returns it :)
  • other 2011-12-12 14:35
    TheSHEEEP:
    But if you are German (as I am, though I prefer European) and go mad about people going mad about ridiculous stuff (as I did), are you then a nazi nazi?


    It seems to follow the "double negative" rule.
    "nazi" => "is a nazi"
    "nazi nazi" => "is against nazis"
    nazi**N and N is odd => "is a nazi"
  • Simply Zunesis 2011-12-12 14:39
    other:
    TheSHEEEP:
    But if you are German (as I am, though I prefer European) and go mad about people going mad about ridiculous stuff (as I did), are you then a nazi nazi?


    It seems to follow the "double negative" rule.
    "nazi" => "is a nazi"
    "nazi nazi" => "is against nazis"
    nazi**N and N is odd => "is a nazi"
    "nazi**N"
    I started to read that as Nazi Nigger.

    What's a Nazi Nigger? A black person who wants to purify the country of whites?
  • DaveK 2011-12-12 14:40
    Coyne:
    Argle:
    Then add a later maintenance programmer fond of "descriptive" names and nestled among the A1 type names were GotThemByTheShortAndCurlies and MarkOfTheBeast666. As I recall, the MarkOfTheBeast666 held some kind of catastrophic error value.


    Let me guess: GotThemByTheShortAndCurlies was set to TRUE just before displaying that message, "Program internal error encountered. Select OK to terminate without saving."

    Right?
    Or maybe it was just a subtle comment from the maintenance programmer on how much follow-on work he expected to get from the poor mugs who were saddled with the application...

  • Matt Westwood 2011-12-12 14:42
    U. Ppity:
    faoileag:
    If you read the article again, you might stumble upon the clause:
    "A lot of people have no idea that the word "uppity," [i]when applied to black people[i], has racist connotations" (markup by me).

    So I wouldn't think it problematic in the sense of code discussions - unless applied to a coder of known african-american origin, of course.

    Curiously, you chose to emphasis that part with boldly black letters. That looks more racist than titling this article Uppity...


    You bunch of spastics.
  • Troy 2011-12-12 14:47
    Uppity may be racist, but the etymology is:

    uppity Look up uppity at Dictionary.com
    1880, from up + -ity; originally used by blacks of other blacks felt to be too self-assertive (first recorded use is in "Uncle Remus"). The parallel British variant uppish (1670s) originally meant "lavish;" the sense of "conceited, arrogant" being first recorded 1734.

  • Troy 2011-12-12 15:00
    DaveK:
    Recursive Reclusive:
    Uncle Remus:
    faoileag:
    If you read the article again, you might stumble upon the clause:
    "A lot of people have no idea that the word "uppity," [i]when applied to black people[i], has racist connotations" (markup by me).

    So I wouldn't think it problematic in the sense of code discussions - unless applied to a coder of known african-american origin, of course.
    OK I get it. It's like when white people call each other the N-bomb-- Totally not racist, just stupid.


    What if I told you uppish originally meant someone with plenty of money

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/uppish



    No, it's not like that at all. It has nothing to with race. It can, like all negative or derogatory words, be used in a racist context, but that doesn't make it a racist word.

    See: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/uppity
    Actually, see something with some etymology to it. If I told you that the word originated around 1875-1880 in the USA and its first recorded use was in "Uncle Remus", would you then perhaps accept that it was a variant of the earlier English term "uppish" that was coined specifically to refer to blacks?

    See: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=uppity&searchmode=none.
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/uppity

    <sings> Fuck you Akismet, fuck you A-kis-met, fuck you fuck you very muu-uuu-uuu-ch! </sings>
  • da Doctah 2011-12-12 15:10
    If I may be so adventurous as to turn against the prevailing tide of this thread and mention the actual content of the opening post....

    I once had the pleasure of working with a text editor that had apparently been designed by several groups who didn't often communicate with one another. One group had assumed the paradigm in which the text remained stationary and the user's viewpoint scrolled in front of it, while the other had decided that the window remained in place while the text scrolled behind it.

    The result was that by repeatedly scrolling "up", you would eventually arrive at the "bottom" of the file.
  • evilspoons 2011-12-12 15:14
    da Doctah:
    If I may be so adventurous as to turn against the prevailing tide of this thread and mention the actual content of the opening post....

    I once had the pleasure of working with a text editor that had apparently been designed by several groups who didn't often communicate with one another. One group had assumed the paradigm in which the text remained stationary and the user's viewpoint scrolled in front of it, while the other had decided that the window remained in place while the text scrolled behind it.

    The result was that by repeatedly scrolling "up", you would eventually arrive at the "bottom" of the file.


    All touch-screen devices and OS X Lion with a multi-touch trackpad, you mean?
  • Ralph 2011-12-12 15:34
    da Doctah:
    If I may be so adventurous as to turn against the prevailing tide of this thread and mention the actual content of the opening post....

    I once had the pleasure of working with a text editor that had apparently been designed by several groups who didn't often communicate with one another. One group had assumed the paradigm in which the text remained stationary and the user's viewpoint scrolled in front of it, while the other had decided that the window remained in place while the text scrolled behind it.

    The result was that by repeatedly scrolling "up", you would eventually arrive at the "bottom" of the file.
    I have a program (proprietary, therefore crap) where the programmers decided instead of fixing the serious bugs that would result in incorrect financial transactions, or crashes that lose your data, it would be "cool" to implement their own scrolling routine so that when you scroll down a line, the entire screen would repaint line by line from the bottom up only to do it all over again (slowly) if you hold down the arrow key.

    Programmers who indulge their compulsions of misplaced "coolness" over actual usefulness need to be sent to another planet, preferably one without air. And that includes 99.44% of so called "web developers" who only know how to do client side code.
  • iToad 2011-12-12 15:40
    Zapp Brannigan:
    Every professional C programmer knows to prevent collisions, append an underline character ('_') to the front of each variable. It's the only way to be sure.


    Actually, you can expand your range of variable names considerably by using the same core name, but using different numbers of leading and trailing underscores. The range can be further expanded by using all variations of upper and lower case letters in the name.

    This is an example of a code cockroach. It is an indicator of trouble ahead. You never seem to have just one cockroach. When you see one of them, there are probably a whole lot more of them just waiting to be found.
  • gimbar 2011-12-12 16:10
    already seen functions with about 10000 lines of code?
    that's my daily work. "it's historical grown" is what my boss keeps saying
  • Matt Westwood 2011-12-12 16:42
    gimbar:
    already seen functions with about 10000 lines of code?
    that's my daily work. "it's historical grown" is what my boss keeps saying


    ... hysterical groan ...
  • Gunslinger 2011-12-12 16:44
    qwerty:
    I call BS. Nobody would name their kid Aargle.


    They didn't. The doctor misspelled Argyle.
  • Peter 2011-12-12 17:35
    int up, Up, UP, uP, _up, _UP, _uP, up_, uP_;


    I can just picture the author using slightly different pronunciation to tell these apart.
  • snea 2011-12-12 17:37
    Ralph:
    da Doctah:
    If I may be so adventurous as to turn against the prevailing tide of this thread and mention the actual content of the opening post....

    I once had the pleasure of working with a text editor that had apparently been designed by several groups who didn't often communicate with one another. One group had assumed the paradigm in which the text remained stationary and the user's viewpoint scrolled in front of it, while the other had decided that the window remained in place while the text scrolled behind it.

    The result was that by repeatedly scrolling "up", you would eventually arrive at the "bottom" of the file.
    I have a program (proprietary, therefore crap) where the programmers decided instead of fixing the serious bugs that would result in incorrect financial transactions, or crashes that lose your data, it would be "cool" to implement their own scrolling routine so that when you scroll down a line, the entire screen would repaint line by line from the bottom up only to do it all over again (slowly) if you hold down the arrow key.

    Programmers who indulge their compulsions of misplaced "coolness" over actual usefulness need to be sent to another planet, preferably one without air. And that includes 99.44% of so called "web developers" who barely know how to do client side code.

    FTFY
  • genitus 2011-12-12 17:38
    iToad:
    Zapp Brannigan:
    Every professional C programmer knows to prevent collisions, append an underline character ('_') to the front of each variable. It's the only way to be sure.


    Actually, you can expand your range of variable names considerably by using the same core name, but using different numbers of leading and trailing underscores. The range can be further expanded by using all variations of upper and lower case letters in the name.

    This is an example of a code cockroach. It is an indicator of trouble ahead. You never seem to have just one cockroach. When you see one of them, there are probably a whole lot more of them just waiting to be found.

    http://thc.org/root/phun/unmaintain.html

    using l33t speak can be effective to
  • Psyckers 2011-12-12 17:56
    It is interesting how a simple little WTF chuckle about needless combinations in code has in itself created needless comments about the code in question.

    I guess this circular thinking is what makes the world go round.
  • Coyne 2011-12-12 18:17
    iToad:
    This is an example of a code cockroach. It is an indicator of trouble ahead. You never seem to have just one cockroach. When you see one of them, there are probably a whole lot more of them just waiting to be found.


    Worse, some environments breed them.

    Take a bunch of programmers, throw them into a proprietary environment sink or swim; with no mentoring, poor standards enforcement, and a code-cowboy culture...and you've never seen so many cockroaches.

    Been there, seen it.
  • Francis 2011-12-12 18:49
    FRIENDLY BRUTAL FATAL ANIMALITY!!!
  • Francis 2011-12-12 18:50
    Konami:
    ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ← → ← → B A


    FRIENDLY BRUTAL FATAL ANIMALITY!!!
  • Luiz Felipe 2011-12-12 19:05
    UncleAldo:
    RN:

    Does God exist anymore when no-one remembers him?


    If there are no more references to it, it should be garbage collected, I think.

    +100
  • Luiz Felipe 2011-12-12 19:07
    gimbar:
    already seen functions with about 10000 lines of code?
    that's my daily work. "it's historical grown" is what my boss keeps saying

    Once i had a single function with 2000 lines, in reality, the function was only metadata, only one big switch and multiples calls.
    Then i replaced it with xml.
  • Zemm 2011-12-12 19:39
    BillClintonsThirdTerm:
    Uncle Remus:
    Uppity is a racist term, I'm not saying its usage is racist here, but it is a racist term. Its etymology is traced directly back to slave states in the U.S. as a term for a Black person who dosen't know their place.

    http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/11/yep-uppity-racist/45321/.


    Nigga Please


  • Abbas 2011-12-12 19:44
    I increasingly get the impression that (at least) 90% of the kids here have never actually worked on real systems (maybe they're the web devs mentioned earlier, who knows). Then I realise it's really a much higher percentage....
  • anonymous 2011-12-12 20:03
    It seems to me that this story is already posted elsewhere long before...

    http://www.rinkworks.com/stupid/cs_programming.shtml
  • Cheong 2011-12-12 20:40
    Hey, at least they're not using OoOOo... :P
  • geoffrey 2011-12-12 21:26
    Abbas:
    I increasingly get the impression that (at least) 90% of the kids here have never actually worked on real systems (maybe they're the web devs mentioned earlier, who knows). Then I realise it's really a much higher percentage....


    You are probably right. Many of these maverick web programmers think it's so easy to manage REAL enterprise development. They don't know what it's like in the real world where there is little room for petty ideals.
  • blank 2011-12-12 22:38
    Pim:
    The poop of DOOM:
    TRWTF is the name Aargle Zymurgy

    Indeed. Google for him, and you'll find his "about" page, featuring such people as Beccaboo Aero and Hannibal Kennedy. Come on, what do they think they are pulling?


    my guess would be they're all professional golfers.
    based purely on that assumption, i've decided not to investigate further.
    do i win?

  • Matt 2011-12-12 23:42
    Came here to say this. This is obviously ripped off.
  • David 2011-12-13 00:16
    May as well note the _UP is reserved for the implementation for all purposes, having a leading underscore followed by a capital letter. As a nice simple word, an implementation is likely to use that identifier in one of its libraries, as it is perfectly entitled to do so.
  • Gibbon1 2011-12-13 01:06
    geoffrey:
    Abbas:
    I increasingly get the impression that (at least) 90% of the kids here have never actually worked on real systems (maybe they're the web devs mentioned earlier, who knows). Then I realise it's really a much higher percentage....


    You are probably right. Many of these maverick web programmers think it's so easy to manage REAL enterprise development. They don't know what it's like in the real world where there is little room for petty ideals.


    That's somewhat my impression. The comment about the programmer not understanding function parameters starts making me think the original code was written for a microprocessor with very little RAM and or no stack. In those situations you end up with code like that. And often the person writing it isn't really an experienced programmer. Yet, crappy as it is, the code probably worked, shipped and made money. Which for me is the true test.
  • Ari 2011-12-13 01:51
    AdamJS:
    You know, I would assume that there would already exist a tool for dealing specifically with these situations.


    There is. It's called "Good Coding" but it's pretty expensive, so most use some cheap knockoff.
  • Kempeth 2011-12-13 02:39
    Uppity the fool...
  • Martin 2011-12-13 03:16
    God doesn't exist even if everyone remembers him.
  • StJohn 2011-12-13 03:31
    Aargle Zymurgy. Sounds like an anagram.
  • Patrick Jacquot 2011-12-13 04:01
    It's really "a pity" to see how words become taboo because they were misused
  • +9 2011-12-13 04:20
    Well this is unexpected...
    TRWTF in Java? Sure. TRWTF in C? Oh, no...
  • Warlaan 2011-12-13 04:29
    int up, Up, UP, uP, _up, _UP, _uP, up_, uP_;
    #define __UP up
    #define ___UP Up
    #define ____UP UP
    #define _____UP uP
    #define ______UP _up
    #define _______UP _UP
    #define ________UP _uP
    #define _________UP up_
    #define MAX_FILESIZE__ uP_

    There, problem solved.
  • Ru 2011-12-13 04:51
    geoffrey:
    The submitter fails to mention whether or not the code in question worked. If it does/did, then it should not matter how it is implemented.

    A WTF is product that does not work, not code that doesn't meet the personal aesthetics of a particular programmer.


    I'm sad that no-one else has risen to your trolling, so allow me.

    On behalf of every single code monkey who has ever had to do code maintenance... you are an idiot. Don't treat code as a write-only medium; it will need to be read and understood in the future. Unless of course your work is utterly worthless and never seen or used by anyone other than yourself, in which case you deserve everything you've got.
  • L. 2011-12-13 06:00
    Ralph:

    Programmers who indulge their compulsions of misplaced "coolness" over actual usefulness need to be sent to another planet, preferably one without air. And that includes 99.44% of so called "web developers" who only know how to do client side code.


    Don't presume too much, they don't know how to do client side code.

    Just take a look at any website today, people in the web dev business can't code for shit, they don't even get HTML and CSS right --
  • SQLDave 2011-12-13 06:21
    da Doctah:
    If I may be so adventurous as to turn against the prevailing tide of this thread and mention the actual content of the opening post....

    I once had the pleasure of working with a text editor that had apparently been designed by several groups who didn't often communicate with one another. One group had assumed the paradigm in which the text remained stationary and the user's viewpoint scrolled in front of it, while the other had decided that the window remained in place while the text scrolled behind it.

    The result was that by repeatedly scrolling "up", you would eventually arrive at the "bottom" of the file.


    That's because the universe is circular.
  • Ralph 2011-12-13 06:51
    Gibbon1:
    geoffrey:
    Abbas:
    I increasingly get the impression that (at least) 90% of the kids here have never actually worked on real systems (maybe they're the web devs mentioned earlier, who knows). Then I realise it's really a much higher percentage....


    You are probably right. Many of these maverick web programmers think it's so easy to manage REAL enterprise development. They don't know what it's like in the real world where there is little room for petty ideals.


    That's somewhat my impression. The comment about the programmer not understanding function parameters starts making me think the original code was written for a microprocessor with very little RAM and or no stack. In those situations you end up with code like that. And often the person writing it isn't really an experienced programmer. Yet, crappy as it is, the code probably worked, shipped and made money. Which for me is the true test.
    Ridiculous! If we took you seriously, by that definition Microsoft would be a good software company.
  • bjolling 2011-12-13 07:33
    Gunslinger:
    qwerty:
    I call BS. Nobody would name their kid Aargle.


    They didn't. The doctor misspelled Argyle.
    Maybe he was dictating it.
  • geoffrey 2011-12-13 07:39
    Ralph:
    Gibbon1:
    geoffrey:
    Abbas:
    I increasingly get the impression that (at least) 90% of the kids here have never actually worked on real systems (maybe they're the web devs mentioned earlier, who knows). Then I realise it's really a much higher percentage....


    You are probably right. Many of these maverick web programmers think it's so easy to manage REAL enterprise development. They don't know what it's like in the real world where there is little room for petty ideals.


    That's somewhat my impression. The comment about the programmer not understanding function parameters starts making me think the original code was written for a microprocessor with very little RAM and or no stack. In those situations you end up with code like that. And often the person writing it isn't really an experienced programmer. Yet, crappy as it is, the code probably worked, shipped and made money. Which for me is the true test.
    Ridiculous! If we took you seriously, by that definition Microsoft would be a good software company.


    I guess it depends on what your definition of "good" is. If it means "makes useful software for billions of people worldwide," then I'd say they're one of the best. If your definition is some obscure set of conditions about which only a few care, then maybe they're not.
  • Silfax 2011-12-13 08:57
    The poop of DOOM:
    AdamJS:
    You know, I would assume that there would already exist a tool for dealing specifically with these situations.

    That'd be Excel, then export it as CSV, followed by running it through one of the various CSV to XML convertors available,


    You forgot - printing out the xml, placing it on a wooden table, photographing it, scanning the printed photo, storing the digital image in a database, then extracting the image and passing it thru some ocr software

    then parsing that XML in your code.
  • Lefty 2011-12-13 09:13
    Steve The Cynic:
    These "modestly complex" functions are, compared to some code I've had the misfortune to work with, models of simplicity. 10 to 40 lines? Mere nothings. I've seen functions with 2500 lines, in 1.6MB source files...


    My personal favorite was an 8,000+ line switch statement in a project I used to work on.
  • Pim 2011-12-13 09:22
    geoffrey:
    Ralph:
    Ridiculous! If we took you seriously, by that definition Microsoft would be a good software company.

    I guess it depends on what your definition of "good" is. If it means "makes useful software for billions of people worldwide," then I'd say they're one of the best. If your definition is some obscure set of conditions about which only a few care, then maybe they're not.

    We may be only a few, but we're slowly growing in numbers! And one day, we'll make our move! And we will declare Microsoft obsolete! And we will take over the world!

    Huh, ehm, oh, I can dream can't I.
  • Wehey 2011-12-13 09:32
    L.:
    Ralph:

    Programmers who indulge their compulsions of misplaced "coolness" over actual usefulness need to be sent to another planet, preferably one without air. And that includes 99.44% of so called "web developers" who only know how to do client side code.


    Don't presume too much, they don't know how to do client side code.

    Just take a look at any website today, people in the web dev business can't code for shit, they don't even get HTML and CSS right --


    Don't generalize too much, makes you come across a bit of a dick. I for one am currently working on a ASP.net MVC project which uses both server side and client side (As you would expect) And everyone here seems adept at both. Working in web dev does not automatically make you a bad coder, its just easier for bad coders to get away with it.
  • Nagesh 2011-12-13 10:53
    Ralph:
    Gibbon1:
    geoffrey:
    Abbas:
    I increasingly get the impression that (at least) 90% of the kids here have never actually worked on real systems (maybe they're the web devs mentioned earlier, who knows). Then I realise it's really a much higher percentage....


    You are probably right. Many of these maverick web programmers think it's so easy to manage REAL enterprise development. They don't know what it's like in the real world where there is little room for petty ideals.


    That's somewhat my impression. The comment about the programmer not understanding function parameters starts making me think the original code was written for a microprocessor with very little RAM and or no stack. In those situations you end up with code like that. And often the person writing it isn't really an experienced programmer. Yet, crappy as it is, the code probably worked, shipped and made money. Which for me is the true test.
    Ridiculous! If we took you seriously, by that definition Microsoft would be a good software company.


    Market is ultimate determinator of things. if market is continue to buy microsoft product, it makes it good.
  • foo 2011-12-13 11:07
    Ralph:
    Gibbon1:
    Yet, crappy as it is, the code probably worked, shipped and made money. Which for me is the true test.
    Ridiculous! If we took you seriously, by that definition Microsoft would be a 2/3 good software company. Their code ships and makes money.
    FTFY
  • just me 2011-12-13 11:39
    Nagesh:
    <snipped quotes>

    Market is ultimate determinator of things. if market is continue to buy microsoft product, it makes it good.


    That's a nice dream isn't it; but in practice, for software, free market often doesn't really work:

    - Once you have chosen a product built something on top of it, you depend so much on its particularities that the cost of switching to another vendor / product becomes prohibitive.

    - Once a product (especially OS) has enough momentum, most people use it because it's what everybody uses. Any alternative would have to offer tremendous advantages to make up for the lack of interoperability. This makes it extremely hard for newcomers to enter the market.

    - Most of the time your choice is severly limited by external constraints or simply by the lack of alternatives.

    I'm sure I could re-phrase this same point in many other ways if I thought about it a little bit more...
  • Nagesh 2011-12-13 11:46
    just me:
    Nagesh:
    <snipped quotes>

    Market is ultimate determinator of things. if market is continue to buy microsoft product, it makes it good.


    That's a nice dream isn't it; but in practice, for software, free market often doesn't really work:

    - Once you have chosen a product built something on top of it, you depend so much on its particularities that the cost of switching to another vendor / product becomes prohibitive.

    - Once a product (especially OS) has enough momentum, most people use it because it's what everybody uses. Any alternative would have to offer tremendous advantages to make up for the lack of interoperability. This makes it extremely hard for newcomers to enter the market.

    - Most of the time your choice is severly limited by external constraints or simply by the lack of alternatives.

    I'm sure I could re-phrase this same point in many other ways if I thought about it a little bit more...


    Lack of alternative means you're first in market place. Early bird get worm. if you find hole and you fill need before anyone realise about hole in place, than it is natural for you to be first. Steve job find hole and decide to build iPOd. Apple became world-famous after that. Rest is history. Morita find hole and build walkman. rest is history. Bill Gates did this with Microsoft. There is no use crying over what could have been. If there is no alternative, nobody stop you from building it.

    Toad is number 1 product for database development team, though they are always heard cursing it day in and day out. If there is better product someone will build it one day, but in meanwhile, they must use toad because it is better than sqlPlus.
  • Gdub 2011-12-13 12:02
    This differs from other industries how? You infer infrastructure, proprietary components and the status quo are not factors in nearly all other businesses from service to manufacturing to utilities etc.
  • Meep 2011-12-13 12:18
    Gibbon1:
    geoffrey:
    Abbas:
    I increasingly get the impression that (at least) 90% of the kids here have never actually worked on real systems (maybe they're the web devs mentioned earlier, who knows). Then I realise it's really a much higher percentage....


    You are probably right. Many of these maverick web programmers think it's so easy to manage REAL enterprise development. They don't know what it's like in the real world where there is little room for petty ideals.


    That's somewhat my impression. The comment about the programmer not understanding function parameters starts making me think the original code was written for a microprocessor with very little RAM and or no stack. In those situations you end up with code like that.


    Nice work! That's a beautiful rendition of the "that's how it's done on an embedded system" troll.
  • Franz Kafka 2011-12-13 12:27
    Nagesh:

    Lack of alternative means you're first in market place. Early bird get worm. if you find hole and you fill need before anyone realise about hole in place, than it is natural for you to be first. Steve job find hole and decide to build iPOd. Apple became world-famous after that. Rest is history. Morita find hole and build walkman. rest is history. Bill Gates did this with Microsoft. There is no use crying over what could have been. If there is no alternative, nobody stop you from building it.


    This is a joke, right? Was the hole MP3 player or MP3 player that doesn't suck? Also, you know people knew who apple was before that, right?

    Nagesh:

    Toad is number 1 product for database development team, though they are always heard cursing it day in and day out. If there is better product someone will build it one day, but in meanwhile, they must use toad because it is better than sqlPlus.


    It'd almost have to be, wouldn't it?
  • Tim 2011-12-13 12:40
    just me:
    Nagesh:
    <snipped quotes>

    Market is ultimate determinator of things. if market is continue to buy microsoft product, it makes it good.


    That's a nice dream isn't it; but in practice, for software, free market often doesn't really work:

    - Once you have chosen a product built something on top of it, you depend so much on its particularities that the cost of switching to another vendor / product becomes prohibitive.

    - Once a product (especially OS) has enough momentum, most people use it because it's what everybody uses. Any alternative would have to offer tremendous advantages to make up for the lack of interoperability. This makes it extremely hard for newcomers to enter the market.

    - Most of the time your choice is severly limited by external constraints or simply by the lack of alternatives.

    I'm sure I could re-phrase this same point in many other ways if I thought about it a little bit more...
    That's why you choose hardware and software that implements standards instead of garbage that is designed to trap you as its highest priority.

    Kinda like the web. Everything can interoperate with everything (to the extent that they properly follow the standards). The standard format for a document should never be "use Word" but rather "conform to this document layout standard, whatever platform you use to create it". Then, you can talk to everybody, instead of just other dupes who got conned into using the same product.
  • Nagesh 2011-12-13 13:20
    Tim:
    just me:
    Nagesh:
    <snipped quotes>

    Market is ultimate determinator of things. if market is continue to buy microsoft product, it makes it good.


    That's a nice dream isn't it; but in practice, for software, free market often doesn't really work:

    - Once you have chosen a product built something on top of it, you depend so much on its particularities that the cost of switching to another vendor / product becomes prohibitive.

    - Once a product (especially OS) has enough momentum, most people use it because it's what everybody uses. Any alternative would have to offer tremendous advantages to make up for the lack of interoperability. This makes it extremely hard for newcomers to enter the market.

    - Most of the time your choice is severly limited by external constraints or simply by the lack of alternatives.

    I'm sure I could re-phrase this same point in many other ways if I thought about it a little bit more...
    That's why you choose hardware and software that implements standards instead of garbage that is designed to trap you as its highest priority.

    Kinda like the web. Everything can interoperate with everything (to the extent that they properly follow the standards). The standard format for a document should never be "use Word" but rather "conform to this document layout standard, whatever platform you use to create it". Then, you can talk to everybody, instead of just other dupes who got conned into using the same product.


    Dear Tim,
    Use of Microsoft word is most convenient then anything else.
    So I don't see reason not to use word.

    Love,
    CEO of Severe Companies Of This World.
  • Nagesh 2011-12-13 13:22
    Franz Kafka:
    Nagesh:

    Lack of alternative means you're first in market place. Early bird get worm. if you find hole and you fill need before anyone realise about hole in place, than it is natural for you to be first. Steve job find hole and decide to build iPOd. Apple became world-famous after that. Rest is history. Morita find hole and build walkman. rest is history. Bill Gates did this with Microsoft. There is no use crying over what could have been. If there is no alternative, nobody stop you from building it.


    This is a joke, right? Was the hole MP3 player or MP3 player that doesn't suck? Also, you know people knew who apple was before that, right?

    Nagesh:

    Toad is number 1 product for database development team, though they are always heard cursing it day in and day out. If there is better product someone will build it one day, but in meanwhile, they must use toad because it is better than sqlPlus.


    It'd almost have to be, wouldn't it?


    Yes, people knew apple, but not all around world. Due to iPod and later iPhone and even later iPad, people all around world know Apple and Steve Jobs legacy.

    You are missing point of my argument and getting into non-necesary debate about Toad being better than Sql Plus.
  • Argle 2011-12-13 13:28
    The "happy ending" to this was that the company who wanted the changes found out there was a clause in his contract requiring him to make the specific changes gratis. Hopefully for him he liked to modify his own code.
  • Argle 2011-12-13 13:34
    heh! That reminds me of the day I discovered that _ was a legitimate C variable name and I just *had* to write a demo program with _, __, etc.
  • no laughing matter 2011-12-13 13:36
    Meep:
    Gibbon1:

    That's somewhat my impression. The comment about the programmer not understanding function parameters starts making me think the original code was written for a microprocessor with very little RAM and or no stack. In those situations you end up with code like that.


    Nice work! That's a beautiful rendition of the "that's how it's done on an embedded system" troll.

    It's OKish. For a "beautiful rendition" i find the part about the non-existing file systems kind of lacking!

    Learn you're meme folks, the details matter(horn)!
  • A. Blackman 2011-12-13 13:56
    BillClintonsThirdTerm:
    Uncle Remus:
    Uppity is a racist term, I'm not saying its usage is racist here, but it is a racist term. Its etymology is traced directly back to slave states in the U.S. as a term for a Black person who dosen't know their place.

    http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/11/yep-uppity-racist/45321/.


    Nigga Please


    Really... LOL!!!
  • geoffrey 2011-12-13 13:56
    Tim:
    just me:
    Nagesh:
    <snipped quotes>

    Market is ultimate determinator of things. if market is continue to buy microsoft product, it makes it good.


    That's a nice dream isn't it; but in practice, for software, free market often doesn't really work:

    - Once you have chosen a product built something on top of it, you depend so much on its particularities that the cost of switching to another vendor / product becomes prohibitive.

    - Once a product (especially OS) has enough momentum, most people use it because it's what everybody uses. Any alternative would have to offer tremendous advantages to make up for the lack of interoperability. This makes it extremely hard for newcomers to enter the market.

    - Most of the time your choice is severly limited by external constraints or simply by the lack of alternatives.

    I'm sure I could re-phrase this same point in many other ways if I thought about it a little bit more...
    That's why you choose hardware and software that implements standards instead of garbage that is designed to trap you as its highest priority.

    Kinda like the web. Everything can interoperate with everything (to the extent that they properly follow the standards). The standard format for a document should never be "use Word" but rather "conform to this document layout standard, whatever platform you use to create it". Then, you can talk to everybody, instead of just other dupes who got conned into using the same product.


    Imagine telling "conform to this document layout standard, whatever platform you use to create it" to someone with whom you are doing business that is a complete novice user, without mention of any specific products. Let me know how long it takes you before you get frustrated and say "just send it to me in Word."

    People who are late to the party always want the front runners to slow down for them. Sorry, I don't feel the need to dumb down my Office documents so they work with OpenOffice.
  • trtrwtf 2011-12-13 14:11
    bjolling:
    Gunslinger:
    qwerty:
    I call BS. Nobody would name their kid Aargle.


    They didn't. The doctor misspelled Argyle.
    Maybe he was dictating it.


    Maybe he died while dictating it.
  • Tim 2011-12-13 14:27
    geoffrey:
    Imagine telling "conform to this document layout standard, whatever platform you use to create it" to someone with whom you are doing business that is a complete novice user, without mention of any specific products. Let me know how long it takes you before you get frustrated and say "just send it to me in Word."

    People who are late to the party always want the front runners to slow down for them. Sorry, I don't feel the need to dumb down my Office documents so they work with OpenOffice.
    Imagine telling "use a web browser" to someone with whom you are doing business that is a complete novice user, without mention of any specific products. Let me know how long it takes you before you get frustrated and say "just send it to me in some program and I'll go buy a copy of whatever it is you picked".
  • Coyne 2011-12-13 14:28
    Lefty:
    Steve The Cynic:
    These "modestly complex" functions are, compared to some code I've had the misfortune to work with, models of simplicity. 10 to 40 lines? Mere nothings. I've seen functions with 2500 lines, in 1.6MB source files...


    My personal favorite was an 8,000+ line switch statement in a project I used to work on.


    Since we're talking about favorites, mine was the 37 nested levels of IF statements in the 2000+ line paragraph.
  • Buddy 2011-12-13 16:19
    White Fang:
    A better language would allow bolding, italics and subtly different fonts to obfuscate the code.

    Personally, I have failed to grok in fullness the manifest benefits provided by case sensitive languages.


    I like case insensitivity myself, but computer languages don't use it mostly because case sensitivity in international environments is hard. Consider that in Turkish upper('i') != 'I' and in German lower('SS') != 'ss'. Case sensitivity is a no-brainer to implement. For a significant percentage of people, e.g. a lot of locales in Asia, case does not exist in their written languages. For the rest, case sensitivity is an easy concept to comprehend.

    I once considered adding a "coding locale" feature so that a developer can specify which locale the code was written in and have those rules applied as required - case sensitivity, date, time, number, currency formats, etc. This can be a different locale than the code actually uses in the UI, etc.

    However, this runs into problems very quickly. For example, what about included files, does the locale inherit, cascade, reset, etc? You can have global variables accessed by different modules, each interpreting to its own locale rules. At this point, one is defining locale rules for every string variable, individual methods, files, etc., and it becomes a nightmare.
  • Buddy 2011-12-13 16:32
    foo:
    UncleAldo:
    RN:

    Does God exist anymore when no-one remembers him?


    If there are no more references to it, it should be garbage collected, I think.
    That would explain why God is so obsessed with people thinking about and worshipping him. (At least according to organized religion.)


    1. You shall not allocate reference counts to other gods.

    2. You shall not instantiate aliases against which others may allocate reference counts, whether by accident or intent. All such aliases will be destroyed without hesitation, all links followed until nullity achieved.

    3. You shall not increment your reference count unnecessarily to artificially increase your status.

    4. Allow garbage collection to proceed as scheduled.

    ... the rest
  • John 2011-12-13 16:36
    Buddy:
    case sensitivity in international environments is hard. Consider that in Turkish upper('i') != 'I' and in German lower('SS') != 'ss'.
    This is why we never should have allowed all those other countries onto our World Wide Web!
  • Jim 2011-12-13 17:10
    StJohn:
    Aargle Zymurgy. Sounds like an anagram.
    I reckon someones had a list of names - a phone book, perhaps and they've taken the very first name as the first name, and the very last name as the last name....

    Hmm....
  • Mike 2011-12-13 17:20
    geoffrey:
    Ralph:
    Gibbon1:
    geoffrey:
    Abbas:
    I increasingly get the impression that (at least) 90% of the kids here have never actually worked on real systems (maybe they're the web devs mentioned earlier, who knows). Then I realise it's really a much higher percentage....


    You are probably right. Many of these maverick web programmers think it's so easy to manage REAL enterprise development. They don't know what it's like in the real world where there is little room for petty ideals.


    That's somewhat my impression. The comment about the programmer not understanding function parameters starts making me think the original code was written for a microprocessor with very little RAM and or no stack. In those situations you end up with code like that. And often the person writing it isn't really an experienced programmer. Yet, crappy as it is, the code probably worked, shipped and made money. Which for me is the true test.
    Ridiculous! If we took you seriously, by that definition Microsoft would be a good software company.


    I guess it depends on what your definition of "good" is. If it means "makes useful software for billions of people worldwide," then I'd say they're one of the best. If your definition is some obscure set of conditions about which only a few care, then maybe they're not.
    I'm not even sure if geoffery is trolling anymore....

    People bag MS because there's always some small corner case that they want something for that isn;t quite covered by MS software. Their principle is closer to "make everyone happy some of the time" (and yes, all of you who say "I've never been happy with even an iota of any one of their products", I ask you "Why do you use them?")

    Do they write good code? We don't know - how many of us have actually seen the source (other than little snippets which could be controlled doses of misinformation).
    Does their software work? Remarkably well, considering the (seemingly infinite, I dare say) variety in configuration that exists in computers that run it.
    Are they making big bucks? Undoubtedly.
    Do most of the people who bag them wish they had a job there? I suspect so.

    So we have a company making (significant) money on a range of Software Products that are flexible enough to run on a host of Hardware/OS configurations. People actually want to work for them, and (despite recent trends) they still hold majority market share in many of the areas they produce software in.

    Does Windows annoy me? Not constantly.
    Does the Office suite annoy me? I use Word, Excel, PowerPoint almost daily. Some of the features (autoformat) get annoying at times, and sometimes it's cumbersome to do things I want and get documents looking how I like - but perhaps what I want is unreasonable.

    Why (other than their recruitment questions, which have been discussed here thoroughly) do people keep insisting that MS is crap? They provide reasonable products for their target audience. I don't understand why anyone would even touch Access with a 10 ft barge pole, but there's obviously a market for it....
  • Jim 2011-12-13 17:25
    Wehey:
    L.:
    Ralph:

    Programmers who indulge their compulsions of misplaced "coolness" over actual usefulness need to be sent to another planet, preferably one without air. And that includes 99.44% of so called "web developers" who only know how to do client side code.


    Don't presume too much, they don't know how to do client side code.

    Just take a look at any website today, people in the web dev business can't code for shit, they don't even get HTML and CSS right --


    Don't generalize too much, makes you come across a bit of a dick. I for one am currently working on a ASP.net MVC project which uses both server side and client side (As you would expect) And everyone here seems adept at both. Working in web dev does not automatically make you a bad coder, its just easier for bad coders to get away with it.
    This ^1000

    Everyone wants a website. It is easy to make pretty pictures on a webpage and appear competent to someone who doesn't know anything about the mystical world of computers. Ergo many shops make the mistake of hiring cheap web developers because of the pretty unicorns (sorry Remy). In the old days, people who used Computer Systems were often semi-technical, and the computer would be used to aid or replace some laborious task. Today people seem to think it's practically illegal not to have a website - so they use google to find "cheap website". This can only ever end in tears, because Joe Peanut who once created and eBay account for his Grandma and has since personalised his facebook page now believes he is an expert in programming, and advertises his web development expertise.

    That said, I still think Web Devs are pretend programmers....
  • A. Blackman 2011-12-13 17:29
    the big dog is always the target.

    Like Oracle's usurpation of java will result any any improvements to the language?

    that's Rhetorical.
  • FER 2011-12-13 18:02
    Nagesh:
    just me:
    Nagesh:
    <snipped quotes>

    Market is ultimate determinator of things. if market is continue to buy microsoft product, it makes it good.


    That's a nice dream isn't it; but in practice, for software, free market often doesn't really work:

    - Once you have chosen a product built something on top of it, you depend so much on its particularities that the cost of switching to another vendor / product becomes prohibitive.

    - Once a product (especially OS) has enough momentum, most people use it because it's what everybody uses. Any alternative would have to offer tremendous advantages to make up for the lack of interoperability. This makes it extremely hard for newcomers to enter the market.

    - Most of the time your choice is severly limited by external constraints or simply by the lack of alternatives.

    I'm sure I could re-phrase this same point in many other ways if I thought about it a little bit more...


    Lack of alternative means you're first in market place. Early bird get worm. if you find hole and you fill need before anyone realise about hole in place, than it is natural for you to be first. Steve job find hole and decide to build iPOd. Apple became world-famous after that. Rest is history. Morita find hole and build walkman. rest is history. Bill Gates did this with Microsoft. There is no use crying over what could have been. If there is no alternative, nobody stop you from building it.

    Toad is number 1 product for database development team, though they are always heard cursing it day in and day out. If there is better product someone will build it one day, but in meanwhile, they must use toad because it is better than sqlPlus.
    Spot on - you can't be the real Nagesh...

    There's two types of people in the world, those who complain that it's not fair, and those that go out and do something about it.

    Gates, Jobs, Zuckerberg and outside IT Branson etc weren't just "lucky" - they created products people wanted. It's easy to make the points about Gates exploiting a prohibitive market, but if someone made something demonstratively better it would gradually become the norm. Gates has created the situation himself, and if he is now exploiting it then it shows good business nous not flaws in a free market.

    How about all of us code monkeys who are collectively better than M$'s code Monkeys get together and make a better product. Oh wait, the Open Source community is already doing that. Let's see how it goes....
  • Ralph 2011-12-13 18:07
    Since you're making a decent effort to keep the trolling alive, and I'm bored...
    Mike:
    People bag MS because there's always some small corner case that they want something for that isn;t quite covered by MS software.
    Or maybe they bag MS because they think most of what they sell is polished turds.
    Mike:
    all of you who say "I've never been happy with even an iota of any one of their products", I ask you "Why do you use them?"
    I pretty much don't, except when forced by an employer. And yes, depth of MS lock-in is one of the factors I consider when choosing an employer.
    Mike:
    Do they write good code? We don't know
    I do. Good code follows design principles worked out by computer scientists over the decades, and therefore doesn't crap all over itself nearly as often.
    Mike:
    Does their software work? Remarkably well
    Or perhaps, just barely enough to stay ahead of the expectations of the ignorant masses.
    Mike:
    considering the (seemingly infinite, I dare say) variety in configuration that exists in computers that run it.
    Sounds like you might be one of those programmers who thinks "we have to test this on the fifty most popular platforms" instead of "I'll comply to standards and then it will work on everything else that complies with standards." Instead, as mentioned earlier, some vendors do their best to lock you in instead of allowing standards.
    Mike:
    Are they making big bucks? Undoubtedly.
    If that's relevant, than I guess the biggest Mafia boss is the best person in your neighborhood.
    Mike:
    Do most of the people who bag them wish they had a job there? I suspect so.
    I just threw up in my mouth and not just a little bit.
    Mike:
    Does Windows annoy me? Not constantly.
    Well there's a lofty target we can all strive to reach.

    I curse Bill Gates and Co. on the average of several times a day for the dumb things they've done to save an hour that still cost extra work for their victims years later. Like ending every line with two characters (return, newline) instead of one.
    Mike:
    Why... do people keep insisting that MS is crap?
    Hmmm, no reason at all, I guess. Merely the random coincidence of a million voices screaming and then being snuffed out.
  • Matt Westwood 2011-12-13 18:08
    Mike:
    geoffrey:
    Ralph:
    Gibbon1:
    geoffrey:
    Abbas:
    I increasingly get the impression that (at least) 90% of the kids here have never actually worked on real systems (maybe they're the web devs mentioned earlier, who knows). Then I realise it's really a much higher percentage....


    You are probably right. Many of these maverick web programmers think it's so easy to manage REAL enterprise development. They don't know what it's like in the real world where there is little room for petty ideals.


    That's somewhat my impression. The comment about the programmer not understanding function parameters starts making me think the original code was written for a microprocessor with very little RAM and or no stack. In those situations you end up with code like that. And often the person writing it isn't really an experienced programmer. Yet, crappy as it is, the code probably worked, shipped and made money. Which for me is the true test.
    Ridiculous! If we took you seriously, by that definition Microsoft would be a good software company.


    I guess it depends on what your definition of "good" is. If it means "makes useful software for billions of people worldwide," then I'd say they're one of the best. If your definition is some obscure set of conditions about which only a few care, then maybe they're not.
    I'm not even sure if geoffery is trolling anymore....

    People bag MS because there's always some small corner case that they want something for that isn;t quite covered by MS software. Their principle is closer to "make everyone happy some of the time" (and yes, all of you who say "I've never been happy with even an iota of any one of their products", I ask you "Why do you use them?")

    Do they write good code? We don't know - how many of us have actually seen the source (other than little snippets which could be controlled doses of misinformation).
    Does their software work? Remarkably well, considering the (seemingly infinite, I dare say) variety in configuration that exists in computers that run it.
    Are they making big bucks? Undoubtedly.
    Do most of the people who bag them wish they had a job there? I suspect so.

    So we have a company making (significant) money on a range of Software Products that are flexible enough to run on a host of Hardware/OS configurations. People actually want to work for them, and (despite recent trends) they still hold majority market share in many of the areas they produce software in.

    Does Windows annoy me? Not constantly.
    Does the Office suite annoy me? I use Word, Excel, PowerPoint almost daily. Some of the features (autoformat) get annoying at times, and sometimes it's cumbersome to do things I want and get documents looking how I like - but perhaps what I want is unreasonable.

    Why (other than their recruitment questions, which have been discussed here thoroughly) do people keep insisting that MS is crap? They provide reasonable products for their target audience. I don't understand why anyone would even touch Access with a 10 ft barge pole, but there's obviously a market for it....


    After today's fuckup where we came pretty fucking close to missing a deadline because of everybody's laptop simultaneously installing a whole farceload of Windows 7 updates without even asking our permission first? Bunch of cunts.
  • mongy 2011-12-13 18:12
    Coyne:
    Lefty:
    Steve The Cynic:
    These "modestly complex" functions are, compared to some code I've had the misfortune to work with, models of simplicity. 10 to 40 lines? Mere nothings. I've seen functions with 2500 lines, in 1.6MB source files...


    My personal favorite was an 8,000+ line switch statement in a project I used to work on.


    Since we're talking about favorites, mine was the 37 nested levels of IF statements in the 2000+ line paragraph.
    Mine was the 3000+ methods created (each with at most 3 lines in them) to avoid having a long method. It really simplifies the code, and having the actual functionality nested in 10 layers of what is essentially wrapper code was really efficient.

    Okay, I joke a little, but I hate arbitrary rules about how complex code is allowed to be (10 branch points per method seems common). Yes we should keep things simple, but this doesn't necessarily mean creating cascading methods which hide functioanlity rather than simplify support.
  • Mike 2011-12-13 18:32
    Ralph:
    Since you're making a decent effort to keep the trolling alive, and I'm bored...

    Not sure if I'm flattered or offended...

    Ralph:
    Mike:
    People bag MS because there's always some small corner case that they want something for that isn;t quite covered by MS software.
    Or maybe they bag MS because they think most of what they sell is polished turds.

    And yet they insist on using their products. Perhaps polished turds are a lot more valuable than you think

    Ralph:
    Mike:
    all of you who say "I've never been happy with even an iota of any one of their products", I ask you "Why do you use them?"
    I pretty much don't, except when forced by an employer. And yes, depth of MS lock-in is one of the factors I consider when choosing an employer.

    Fair enough. If everyone was voting with their feet like you, MS would be losing Market share quicker than it is.

    Ralph:
    Mike:
    Do they write good code? We don't know
    I do. Good code follows design principles worked out by computer scientists over the decades, and therefore doesn't crap all over itself nearly as often.
    I'm not sure what you mean about MS code crapping on itself. If you mean that errors occur when different MS components interact then I have to ask do you believe that the same development teams write all MS code? They have a vast number of independent products. I'm not sure that there's too much evidence of "Good Design Principles" not being followed - do all Open Source projects interact with each other seamlessly? At the end of the day the independence of Open Source projects is roughly how I would imagine projects within MS - different teams (including managers, designers, coders etc)

    Ralph:
    Mike:
    Does their software work? Remarkably well
    Or perhaps, just barely enough to stay ahead of the expectations of the ignorant masses.

    Well enough for the target audience to be staying on board, I notice.

    Ralph:
    Mike:
    considering the (seemingly infinite, I dare say) variety in configuration that exists in computers that run it.
    Sounds like you might be one of those programmers who thinks "we have to test this on the fifty most popular platforms" instead of "I'll comply to standards and then it will work on everything else that complies with standards." Instead, as mentioned earlier, some vendors do their best to lock you in instead of allowing standards.
    Indeed, locking you in is their prerogative. But how many of the standards you talk about exist because people saw how MS collared the market? XML dates from 1996, SGML only 10 years before that. Such standards were somewhere between unheard of and unproven at the time MS was making it's Office Suite.

    Ralph:
    Mike:
    Are they making big bucks? Undoubtedly.
    If that's relevant, than I guess the biggest Mafia boss is the best person in your neighborhood.

    No, but the Mafia may well be the best run organisation in my area.
    Write a crap product (I'm sure you can), and show me how you make money from it.

    Ralph:
    Mike:
    Do most of the people who bag them wish they had a job there? I suspect so.
    I just threw up in my mouth and not just a little bit.
    Sorry to make you sick, but I think many of the people who bag MS have aspirations of working there one day.
    Ralph:
    Mike:
    Does Windows annoy me? Not constantly.
    Well there's a lofty target we can all strive to reach.

    I curse Bill Gates and Co. on the average of several times a day for the dumb things they've done to save an hour that still cost extra work for their victims years later. Like ending every line with two characters (return, newline) instead of one.
    One bad decision, admittedly reasonable impact (especially if we're working between Windows and another OS), but it's a lot of headache from 1 mistake, it isn't a pattern of repeated screw ups. Shoudl they fix it, or is that going to create potential compatibility issues? (Did they used to sell disk space - I imagine there's a lot of "returns" stored on disk)
    Ralph:
    Mike:
    Why... do people keep insisting that MS is crap?
    Hmmm, no reason at all, I guess. Merely the random coincidence of a million voices screaming and then being snuffed out.
    But that's the point isn't it - they get snuffed out. Why? Because the voice is an insignificant minority. The general population simply doesn't care enough. Maybe, if there is such room to make far more robust programs and gain the market share you could go out and do it?

    Perhaps it's just a lot of apathy, or more likely the world is not actually as unimpressed by MS as some people like to believe
  • Mike 2011-12-13 18:36
    Matt Westwood:
    Mike:
    geoffrey:
    Ralph:
    Gibbon1:
    geoffrey:
    Abbas:
    I increasingly get the impression that (at least) 90% of the kids here have never actually worked on real systems (maybe they're the web devs mentioned earlier, who knows). Then I realise it's really a much higher percentage....


    You are probably right. Many of these maverick web programmers think it's so easy to manage REAL enterprise development. They don't know what it's like in the real world where there is little room for petty ideals.


    That's somewhat my impression. The comment about the programmer not understanding function parameters starts making me think the original code was written for a microprocessor with very little RAM and or no stack. In those situations you end up with code like that. And often the person writing it isn't really an experienced programmer. Yet, crappy as it is, the code probably worked, shipped and made money. Which for me is the true test.
    Ridiculous! If we took you seriously, by that definition Microsoft would be a good software company.


    I guess it depends on what your definition of "good" is. If it means "makes useful software for billions of people worldwide," then I'd say they're one of the best. If your definition is some obscure set of conditions about which only a few care, then maybe they're not.
    I'm not even sure if geoffery is trolling anymore....

    People bag MS because there's always some small corner case that they want something for that isn;t quite covered by MS software. Their principle is closer to "make everyone happy some of the time" (and yes, all of you who say "I've never been happy with even an iota of any one of their products", I ask you "Why do you use them?")

    Do they write good code? We don't know - how many of us have actually seen the source (other than little snippets which could be controlled doses of misinformation).
    Does their software work? Remarkably well, considering the (seemingly infinite, I dare say) variety in configuration that exists in computers that run it.
    Are they making big bucks? Undoubtedly.
    Do most of the people who bag them wish they had a job there? I suspect so.

    So we have a company making (significant) money on a range of Software Products that are flexible enough to run on a host of Hardware/OS configurations. People actually want to work for them, and (despite recent trends) they still hold majority market share in many of the areas they produce software in.

    Does Windows annoy me? Not constantly.
    Does the Office suite annoy me? I use Word, Excel, PowerPoint almost daily. Some of the features (autoformat) get annoying at times, and sometimes it's cumbersome to do things I want and get documents looking how I like - but perhaps what I want is unreasonable.

    Why (other than their recruitment questions, which have been discussed here thoroughly) do people keep insisting that MS is crap? They provide reasonable products for their target audience. I don't understand why anyone would even touch Access with a 10 ft barge pole, but there's obviously a market for it....


    After today's fuckup where we came pretty fucking close to missing a deadline because of everybody's laptop simultaneously installing a whole farceload of Windows 7 updates without even asking our permission first? Bunch of cunts.
    That is unfortunate, but I wonder whether it's prudent to suggest that your Systems Admins (or whoever keeps your systems running) might be more at fault than MS in that instance. I'm pretty sure "automatic updates" are not compulsory and can be switched off...

    Should note that MS aren't the only people who do automatic updates.

    Of course, we could go back to the good old school systems where things don't automatically improve themselves (which would be a good thing IMO).
  • Meta Ethical 2011-12-13 18:37
    Diary of a forlorn intelligence, says this code makes one bar no mind from the spluttering faded vox populus.

    With that said, I would try down first. The variations are easier.
  • Bill G 2011-12-13 20:18
    Mike:
    Matt Westwood:
    Mike:
    geoffrey:
    Ralph:
    Gibbon1:
    geoffrey:
    Abbas:
    I increasingly get the impression that (at least) 90% of the kids here have never actually worked on real systems (maybe they're the web devs mentioned earlier, who knows). Then I realise it's really a much higher percentage....


    You are probably right. Many of these maverick web programmers think it's so easy to manage REAL enterprise development. They don't know what it's like in the real world where there is little room for petty ideals.


    That's somewhat my impression. The comment about the programmer not understanding function parameters starts making me think the original code was written for a microprocessor with very little RAM and or no stack. In those situations you end up with code like that. And often the person writing it isn't really an experienced programmer. Yet, crappy as it is, the code probably worked, shipped and made money. Which for me is the true test.
    Ridiculous! If we took you seriously, by that definition Microsoft would be a good software company.


    I guess it depends on what your definition of "good" is. If it means "makes useful software for billions of people worldwide," then I'd say they're one of the best. If your definition is some obscure set of conditions about which only a few care, then maybe they're not.
    I'm not even sure if geoffery is trolling anymore....

    People bag MS because there's always some small corner case that they want something for that isn;t quite covered by MS software. Their principle is closer to "make everyone happy some of the time" (and yes, all of you who say "I've never been happy with even an iota of any one of their products", I ask you "Why do you use them?")

    Do they write good code? We don't know - how many of us have actually seen the source (other than little snippets which could be controlled doses of misinformation).
    Does their software work? Remarkably well, considering the (seemingly infinite, I dare say) variety in configuration that exists in computers that run it.
    Are they making big bucks? Undoubtedly.
    Do most of the people who bag them wish they had a job there? I suspect so.

    So we have a company making (significant) money on a range of Software Products that are flexible enough to run on a host of Hardware/OS configurations. People actually want to work for them, and (despite recent trends) they still hold majority market share in many of the areas they produce software in.

    Does Windows annoy me? Not constantly.
    Does the Office suite annoy me? I use Word, Excel, PowerPoint almost daily. Some of the features (autoformat) get annoying at times, and sometimes it's cumbersome to do things I want and get documents looking how I like - but perhaps what I want is unreasonable.

    Why (other than their recruitment questions, which have been discussed here thoroughly) do people keep insisting that MS is crap? They provide reasonable products for their target audience. I don't understand why anyone would even touch Access with a 10 ft barge pole, but there's obviously a market for it....


    After today's fuckup where we came pretty fucking close to missing a deadline because of everybody's laptop simultaneously installing a whole farceload of Windows 7 updates without even asking our permission first? Bunch of cunts.
    That is unfortunate, but I wonder whether it's prudent to suggest that your Systems Admins (or whoever keeps your systems running) might be more at fault than MS in that instance. I'm pretty sure "automatic updates" are not compulsory and can be switched off...

    Should note that MS aren't the only people who do automatic updates.

    Of course, we could go back to the good old school systems where things don't automatically improve themselves (which would be a good thing IMO).
    Thanks, I agree
  • Nag-Geoff 2011-12-13 21:08
    I see that the bunch of righteous cunts have jumped on the "I hate M$" bandwagon.

  • Argle 2011-12-13 21:20
    Jim:
    StJohn:
    Aargle Zymurgy. Sounds like an anagram.
    I reckon someones had a list of names - a phone book, perhaps and they've taken the very first name as the first name, and the very last name as the last name....

    Hmm....

    Very astute. It was something like that. :-)
  • Jeremy 2011-12-13 22:06
    geoffrey:
    The submitter fails to mention whether or not the code in question worked. If it does/did, then it should not matter how it implemented..


    One of the characteristics of obfuscated code is that is very difficult to verify that it works. (NB "works" is here defined as "always does what it is supposed to do", not "I ran it a few times and didn't immediately notice anything wrong")
  • 9700_of_yore 2011-12-13 22:30
    Argle:
    Jim:
    StJohn:
    Aargle Zymurgy. Sounds like an anagram.
    I reckon someones had a list of names - a phone book, perhaps and they've taken the very first name as the first name, and the very last name as the last name....

    Hmm....

    Very astute. It was something like that. :-)


    It actually reminds me of the COBOL program I wrote to create Birth Certificates for Cabbage Patch Kids, "way back when". . .

  • Trerro 2011-12-13 22:38
    Up, up, Down, down, Left, Right, left, right, B, A, Start
  • Flooger 2011-12-13 22:50
    Jeremy:
    geoffrey:
    The submitter fails to mention whether or not the code in question worked. If it does/did, then it should not matter how it implemented..


    One of the characteristics of obfuscated code is that is very difficult to verify that it works. (NB "works" is here defined as "always does what it is supposed to do", not "I ran it a few times and didn't immediately notice anything wrong")
    Mate, it compiled with no errors and only a few harmless warnings - at least the warnings looked harmless. This is production ready. Testing is just for Wusses who don't trust their code.
  • Matt Westwood 2011-12-14 01:16
    Nag-Geoff:
    I see that the bunch of righteous cunts have jumped on the "I hate M$" bandwagon.



    We certainly have. Microsoft products get worse with every upgrade. Office 2010 is outrageously bad.
  • Matt Westwood 2011-12-14 01:18
    Flooger:
    Jeremy:
    geoffrey:
    The submitter fails to mention whether or not the code in question worked. If it does/did, then it should not matter how it implemented..


    One of the characteristics of obfuscated code is that is very difficult to verify that it works. (NB "works" is here defined as "always does what it is supposed to do", not "I ran it a few times and didn't immediately notice anything wrong")
    Mate, it compiled with no errors and only a few harmless warnings - at least the warnings looked harmless. This is production ready. Testing is just for Wusses who don't trust their code.

    Didn't even bother to compile it. Look, I *know* it works, I'm good at my job innit?
  • Mike2 2011-12-14 02:12
    Matt Westwood:
    Nag-Geoff:
    I see that the bunch of righteous cunts have jumped on the "I hate M$" bandwagon.



    We certainly have. Microsoft products get worse with every upgrade. Office 2010 is outrageously bad.
    Office 2010 certainly takes some adjustment, and we'll see what turns out with it.

    As for the rest of it, Microsoft was resisting Standardisation at about the same time Compaq was trying to do the same thing with hardware (I think they were using PS/2 while everyone else was using a chunky Keyboard plug and a Serial Mouse cable). They became the standard. Perhaps Microsoft would have too if they weren't so paranoid about people stealing their IP (and you could argue that much of their IP was the result of collaboration with other companies anyway). One way or another, I use windows because almost everything I need is available on Windows, but not necessarily on other OS's. I use MS Office because despite minor headaches it gives me, alternatives I've tried are for more frustrating. In short, I hear a lot of people preaching the evils of Microsoft, but I see very few people giving evidence that better alternatives exist.

    I know people will argue the OS here, but that's horses for courses. For a server, maybe I like something *nix (I don't need a GUI) for a home PC, windows is fine!!! May not be the best, but it works and tends to be more compatible with much of the software (read games) I use.....but hey - I'm not saying it's better than your *nix boxes - nor that you shouldn't use them if you're that way nclined....
  • Matt Westwood 2011-12-14 02:44
    Mike2:
    Matt Westwood:
    Nag-Geoff:
    I see that the bunch of righteous cunts have jumped on the "I hate M$" bandwagon.



    We certainly have. Microsoft products get worse with every upgrade. Office 2010 is outrageously bad.
    Office 2010 certainly takes some adjustment, and we'll see what turns out with it.

    As for the rest of it, Microsoft was resisting Standardisation at about the same time Compaq was trying to do the same thing with hardware (I think they were using PS/2 while everyone else was using a chunky Keyboard plug and a Serial Mouse cable). They became the standard. Perhaps Microsoft would have too if they weren't so paranoid about people stealing their IP (and you could argue that much of their IP was the result of collaboration with other companies anyway). One way or another, I use windows because almost everything I need is available on Windows, but not necessarily on other OS's. I use MS Office because despite minor headaches it gives me, alternatives I've tried are for more frustrating. In short, I hear a lot of people preaching the evils of Microsoft, but I see very few people giving evidence that better alternatives exist.

    I know people will argue the OS here, but that's horses for courses. For a server, maybe I like something *nix (I don't need a GUI) for a home PC, windows is fine!!! May not be the best, but it works and tends to be more compatible with much of the software (read games) I use.....but hey - I'm not saying it's better than your *nix boxes - nor that you shouldn't use them if you're that way nclined....


    2010 wouldn't be so bad if there weren't so many bugs in it. For the first three weeks of using it, I encountered several bugs which I now know enough to work round, which means I can use it but it limits its convenience to me. If that's its expected benaviour, then you can shove your fucking Microshit apologism up your arse.
  • Fletch 2011-12-14 03:55
    He should have tried some other languages. These days, with the help of Google translate, you could have hundreds of different names without even changing case.
  • L. 2011-12-14 04:49
    Wehey:
    L.:
    Ralph:

    Programmers who indulge their compulsions of misplaced "coolness" over actual usefulness need to be sent to another planet, preferably one without air. And that includes 99.44% of so called "web developers" who only know how to do client side code.


    Don't presume too much, they don't know how to do client side code.

    Just take a look at any website today, people in the web dev business can't code for shit, they don't even get HTML and CSS right --


    Don't generalize too much, makes you come across a bit of a dick. I for one am currently working on a ASP.net MVC project which uses both server side and client side (As you would expect) And everyone here seems adept at both. Working in web dev does not automatically make you a bad coder, its just easier for bad coders to get away with it.


    Dude, asp.net
  • L. 2011-12-14 04:52
    Jim:
    Wehey:
    L.:
    Ralph:

    Programmers who indulge their compulsions of misplaced "coolness" over actual usefulness need to be sent to another planet, preferably one without air. And that includes 99.44% of so called "web developers" who only know how to do client side code.


    Don't presume too much, they don't know how to do client side code.

    Just take a look at any website today, people in the web dev business can't code for shit, they don't even get HTML and CSS right --


    Don't generalize too much, makes you come across a bit of a dick. I for one am currently working on a ASP.net MVC project which uses both server side and client side (As you would expect) And everyone here seems adept at both. Working in web dev does not automatically make you a bad coder, its just easier for bad coders to get away with it.
    This ^1000

    Everyone wants a website. It is easy to make pretty pictures on a webpage and appear competent to someone who doesn't know anything about the mystical world of computers. Ergo many shops make the mistake of hiring cheap web developers because of the pretty unicorns (sorry Remy). In the old days, people who used Computer Systems were often semi-technical, and the computer would be used to aid or replace some laborious task. Today people seem to think it's practically illegal not to have a website - so they use google to find "cheap website". This can only ever end in tears, because Joe Peanut who once created and eBay account for his Grandma and has since personalised his facebook page now believes he is an expert in programming, and advertises his web development expertise.

    That said, I still think Web Devs are pretend programmers....


    What else could they be ?

    When most of them can't code shit by hand, use dreamweaver or joomla or some other ghey piece of failware written by faildevs because they thought it'd be great if more faildevs like them could sell random crap.
  • Jack Strikes Back 2011-12-14 08:26
    *looks at calendar*: 12/14
    *looks at article*: 12/12
    *looks at article website*: reads the word "daily"
    *scratches chin": (yeah right).
  • amischiefr 2011-12-14 16:16
    XXXXX:
    int up, Up, UP, uP, _up, _UP, _uP, up_, uP_;
    int uup, uUp, uUP, uuP, _uup, _uUP, _uuP, uup_, uuP_;
    int down, Down, DOWN, doWN, _down, _DOWN, _doWN, down_ doWN_;
    int ddown, dDown, dDOWN, ddoWN, _ddown, _dDOWN, _ddoWN, ddown_ ddoWN_;
    int left, Left, LEFT, leFT, _left, _LEFT, _leFT, left_ leFT_;
    int right, Right, RIGHT, riGHT, _right, _RIGHT, right_, riGHT_;
    int lleft, lLeft, lLEFT, lleFT, _lleft, _lLEFT, _lleFT, lleft_ lleFT_;
    int rright, rRight, rRIGHT, rriGHT, _rright, _rRIGHT, rright_, rriGHT_;
    int bb, Bb, BB, bB, _bb, _BB, _bB, bb_, bB_;
    int aa, Aa, AA, aA, _aa, _AA, _aA, aa_, aA_;


    You forgot start.
  • Nagesh 2011-12-14 16:22
    amischiefr:
    XXXXX:
    int up, Up, UP, uP, _up, _UP, _uP, up_, uP_;
    int uup, uUp, uUP, uuP, _uup, _uUP, _uuP, uup_, uuP_;
    int down, Down, DOWN, doWN, _down, _DOWN, _doWN, down_ doWN_;
    int ddown, dDown, dDOWN, ddoWN, _ddown, _dDOWN, _ddoWN, ddown_ ddoWN_;
    int left, Left, LEFT, leFT, _left, _LEFT, _leFT, left_ leFT_;
    int right, Right, RIGHT, riGHT, _right, _RIGHT, right_, riGHT_;
    int lleft, lLeft, lLEFT, lleFT, _lleft, _lLEFT, _lleFT, lleft_ lleFT_;
    int rright, rRight, rRIGHT, rriGHT, _rright, _rRIGHT, rright_, rriGHT_;
    int bb, Bb, BB, bB, _bb, _BB, _bB, bb_, bB_;
    int aa, Aa, AA, aA, _aa, _AA, _aA, aa_, aA_;


    You forgot start.


    What fun in waste of time like this? You people having nothing beter to do?
  • frink 2011-12-14 16:58
    Ralph:

    I curse Bill Gates and Co. on the average of several times a day for the dumb things they've done to save an hour that still cost extra work for their victims years later. Like ending every line with two characters (return, newline) instead of one.

    wtf? crlf is the standard, see RFC 0821 (SMTP), RFC 1939 (POP), RFC 2060 (IMAP), or RFC 2616 (HTTP).

    Personally, I blame MS for inventing Ajax, which has held back web development by at least a decade.

    your the real wtf...
  • Rollyn01 2011-12-14 17:36
    I'm glad I'm not the only one who hates Ajax. I still want to know why some people think it was the precursor of Java.


    Captcha: tation. It wasn't a good tation sandwich.
  • da Doctah 2011-12-14 22:07
    Rollyn01:
    I'm glad I'm not the only one who hates Ajax. I still want to know why some people think it was the precursor of Java.


    Alphabetical order?
  • geoffrey 2011-12-15 10:41
    frink:
    Ralph:

    I curse Bill Gates and Co. on the average of several times a day for the dumb things they've done to save an hour that still cost extra work for their victims years later. Like ending every line with two characters (return, newline) instead of one.

    wtf? crlf is the standard, see RFC 0821 (SMTP), RFC 1939 (POP), RFC 2060 (IMAP), or RFC 2616 (HTTP).

    Personally, I blame MS for inventing Ajax, which has held back web development by at least a decade.

    your the real wtf...


    Ajax has ruined the lives of developers who value making their code pretty over enhancing the user's experience in an application.

    Users should understand that their needs are secondary to the ego of the developer.
  • Ol Bob 2011-12-15 13:20
    <grumble>

    Damn converted COBOL programmers...
  • Brian White 2011-12-16 11:31
    DaveK:
    Recursive Reclusive:
    Uncle Remus:
    faoileag:
    If you read the article again, you might stumble upon the clause:
    "A lot of people have no idea that the word "uppity," [i]when applied to black people[i], has racist connotations" (markup by me).

    So I wouldn't think it problematic in the sense of code discussions - unless applied to a coder of known african-american origin, of course.
    OK I get it. It's like when white people call each other the N-bomb-- Totally not racist, just stupid.


    No, it's not like that at all. It has nothing to with race. It can, like all negative or derogatory words, be used in a racist context, but that doesn't make it a racist word.

    See: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/uppity
    Actually, see something with some etymology to it. If I told you that the word originated around 1875-1880 in the USA and its first recorded use was in "Uncle Remus", would you then perhaps accept that it was a variant of the earlier English term "uppish" that was coined specifically to refer to blacks?

    See: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=uppity&searchmode=none.
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/uppity

    <sings> Fuck you Akismet, fuck you A-kis-met, fuck you fuck you very muu-uuu-uuu-ch! </sings>



    1880, from up + -ity; originally used by blacks of other blacks felt to be too self-assertive.


    A term made up by blacks to refer to blacks is a racist term?

    The parallel British variant uppish (1670s) originally meant "lavish;" the sense of "conceited, arrogant" being first recorded 1734.


    The british term is 150 years older than uppity, and was not created to talk about blacks. Did you read any of the page you linked?
  • frits 2011-12-16 12:28
    Brian White:
    A term made up by blacks to refer to blacks is a racist term?
    You're right, Brian "White". "House N-Bomb" is totally not racist.
  • Christophe 2011-12-16 13:30
    int up, Up, UP, uP, _up, _UP, _uP, up_, uP_;

    Chance for him(her) C is case sensitive :
  • Ol Bob 2011-12-16 15:06
    Mike2:
    Matt Westwood:
    Nag-Geoff:
    I see that the bunch of righteous cunts have jumped on the "I hate M$" bandwagon.



    We certainly have. Microsoft products get worse with every upgrade. Office 2010 is outrageously bad.
    Office 2010 certainly takes some adjustment, and we'll see what turns out with it.

    As for the rest of it, Microsoft was resisting Standardisation at about the same time Compaq was trying to do the same thing with hardware (I think they were using PS/2 while everyone else was using a chunky Keyboard plug and a Serial Mouse cable).


    One of the advantages of being older is that one was there when "it" happened, for at least some values of "it". In this case, PS/2. PS/2 was an *IBM* thing...went along with OS/2...went away about the same time. Designed to be a PC manufactured in an automated facility, with the "catchy" (???) slogan of "How you gonna do it? You're gonna PS/2 it!" (<bleah!>) it succeeded mostly in inspiring jokes ("Hey, IBM - PS/OnIt!"). My experience was that they were unusually unreliable - had a couple of top-end models that died shortly after arrival. Of course IBM replaced them, but it left a bad taste in the mouth. Also suffered from low performance - at a time when the top-end Intel chip was the 80386 clocked at 20 MHz (oooh!) IBM's top-end machine was only clocked at 16 MHz. I was miffed that my cheap clone box at home was faster than the spiffy new PS/2 I had at work that cost twice as much. Incompatible with existing boards + high prices + low performance = recipe for disaster. You can see how well they lasted.
  • frink 2011-12-16 20:07
    fuck off bob
  • Rollyn01 2011-12-16 21:21
    frink:
    fuck off bob


    Don't tell him to fuck off. Tell him to fuck on a cactus. That way, he's being told to be productive.
  • method1 2011-12-17 13:57
    I used to maintain a DOS ISAM database ERP system that had its own language. All variables were global. You could have subroutines,but still with global variables. There was a limit on name length as well. At least in the version I used you could have if..then.. else & elseif with blocks of statements terminated by an endif & while loops.
    In the previous version everything was done in the trad spaghetti style with gotos. We tried to maintain an off-the-peg ERP system in that version for another company. You could reference database fields directly with a dot notation, so you could create a table that was never saved to disk for use as variables in a program. They had done this, but just named the table "M" and all the fields were just numbered like M.1.0.0.1, M.1.0.1.1, and so on for a hundred or so names. The language allowed comments, but the purpose of these variables was uncommented and could only be inferred. Debugging errors in their Stock Control was entertaining to say the least.
    The improved version we used, despite the global variables, still was fairly cool for an 1990ish DOS-based ERP system.
  • Fela 2011-12-22 17:56
    RN:
    Is it racist when no-one knows that it is?

    Does God exist anymore when no-one remembers him?

    All these questions...


    No and no.

    Both are man made, abstract definitions; the only meaning in them is what everyone gives them.

    About the OP... I don't have anything to say. Parameters are the most basic concept.
  • Sam I am 2012-01-19 15:49
    Now, Imagine a source file with 40 functions in it, all modestly complex (between 1000 and 4000 lines) that only differed from each other by which global variable they operated on.
  • daGerman 2012-04-12 10:19
    That's all about the famous Nietzsche conjecture.