The Daily WTF: Curious Perversions in Information Technology

ContraCorners · 2011-08-02 Reply Admin

QJo:
Xami:
It's the perpetuation of this stereotype that frustrates me to no end playing poker with new players.
I'll see your x and raise you y!

No, you said I'll see your x. End of bet. You can't raise after that, it's a string bet that you're making with your mouth.

So what exactly is the correct terminology for matching the amount of money being put into the centre of the table, then adding a little bit more, with the intention that it go round the table once more?

"I'll raise you y."

hoodaticus · 2011-08-02 Reply Admin

gha:
The OP first states that fixing bugs is a high priority for him. Then, being a sensible developer, he finds that replacing an identifier that he did not know was syntactivally valid (due to his unfamiliarity with the language he's using) is even a higher priority than fixing bugs. That does not fit well with my definition of "sensible," sorry. To me, the WTF is with his assessment of priorities, not with the code.

A confusing variable name is a bug.

hoodaticus · 2011-08-02 Reply Admin

pjt33:
tristique:
I have a suspicion [strikeout]Microsoft Java[/strikeout] C# is much the same. And I thought we'd had arguments about it already, with the general consensus as the OP: If you want a class, make a class.
No, actually. C# enums can't contain methods or fields (other than the enumerated values if they count - I can't be bothered to check whether they're fields according to the language spec or something else). In addition, and very annoyingly, you can't use "T : Enum" as a bound on a type variable T.

Can't you use T : MyEnum ?

2011-08-02 Reply Admin

lucidfox:
Hortical:
Trisexualism? Fucking queers!

raises an eyebrow

[someone]Oh right, people's behavior is simply a product of their predetermined nature and theirs nothing that can be done to change it, so we should just learn to live with it.

[someone else]But wait... I thought that people were born blank slates and their inclinations were the result of social conditioning.

[someone]Well, maybe it's a bit of both, depending on the situation. For instance, when someone is trisexual, that's an inherent orientation that can't be changed, so it's not their fault, and we should subsidize their preferences so... I guess so they don't feel left out.

And when women aren't interested in computer science, that's the result of social conditioning, and it's not their fault, and we should make a great effort to overcome that conditioning, no matter how much it costs and how repeatedly unsuccessful it is.

[someone else]Perhaps, but I think the one thing we can agree on is that people who don't appreciate our protected classes are EVIL. There's NO excuse. It's THEIR fault they feel that way.

hoodaticus · 2011-08-02 Reply Admin

Hortical:
lucidfox:
Hortical:
Trisexualism? Fucking queers!

raises an eyebrow

[someone]Oh right, people's behavior is simply a product of their predetermined nature and theirs nothing that can be done to change it, so we should just learn to live with it.

[someone else]But wait... I thought that people were born blank slates and their inclinations were the result of social conditioning.

[someone]Well, maybe it's a bit of both, depending on the situation. For instance, when someone is trisexual, that's an inherent orientation that can't be changed, so it's not their fault, and we should subsidize their preferences so... I guess so they don't feel left out.

And when women aren't interested in computer science, that's the result of social conditioning, and it's not their fault, and we should make a great effort to overcome that conditioning, no matter how much it costs and how repeatedly unsuccessful it is.

[someone else]Perhaps, but I think the one thing we can agree on is that people who don't appreciate our protected classes are EVIL. There's NO excuse. It's THEIR fault they feel that way.

Like.

2011-08-02 Reply Admin

hoodaticus:
gha:
The OP first states that fixing bugs is a high priority for him. Then, being a sensible developer, he finds that replacing an identifier that he did not know was syntactivally valid (due to his unfamiliarity with the language he's using) is even a higher priority than fixing bugs. That does not fit well with my definition of "sensible," sorry. To me, the WTF is with his assessment of priorities, not with the code.
A confusing variable name is a bug.

I am not going into a philosophical discussion about the bases of common reference in language and communication, which is not an unusual argument in these times, trending toward (or should I rather say prone to?) the relativism. I shall only limit myself to pointing that by the Jargon definition, a variable name which is "unclear" by some random definition would not qualify as a bug. Unless one is going to argue on the precise meaning of "malfunction" is, which I am not.

pjt33 · 2011-08-02 Reply Admin

hoodaticus:
pjt33:
tristique:
I have a suspicion [strikeout]Microsoft Java[/strikeout] C# is much the same. And I thought we'd had arguments about it already, with the general consensus as the OP: If you want a class, make a class.
No, actually. C# enums can't contain methods or fields (other than the enumerated values if they count - I can't be bothered to check whether they're fields according to the language spec or something else). In addition, and very annoyingly, you can't use "T : Enum" as a bound on a type variable T.
Can't you use T : MyEnum ?

You can't subclass enums either, so you wouldn't want a type variable in that case. Unless your suggestion is to create a class MyEnum, enforce a convention that its subclasses should be lightweights, and give up on the language's enum types altogether, which could be tempting.

hoodaticus · 2011-08-02 Reply Admin

gha:
hoodaticus:
gha:
The OP first states that fixing bugs is a high priority for him. Then, being a sensible developer, he finds that replacing an identifier that he did not know was syntactivally valid (due to his unfamiliarity with the language he's using) is even a higher priority than fixing bugs. That does not fit well with my definition of "sensible," sorry. To me, the WTF is with his assessment of priorities, not with the code.
A confusing variable name is a bug.
I am not going into a philosophical discussion about the bases of common reference in language and communication, which is not an unusual argument in these times, trending toward (or should I rather say prone to?) the relativism. I shall only limit myself to pointing that by the Jargon definition, a variable name which is "unclear" by some random definition would not qualify as a bug. Unless one is going to argue on the precise meaning of "malfunction" is, which I am not.

I agree. It's not a bug - it's like a bug in that it should receive the same priority for fixing IMO.

hoodaticus · 2011-08-02 Reply Admin

pjt33:
hoodaticus:
pjt33:
tristique:
I have a suspicion [strikeout]Microsoft Java[/strikeout] C# is much the same. And I thought we'd had arguments about it already, with the general consensus as the OP: If you want a class, make a class.
No, actually. C# enums can't contain methods or fields (other than the enumerated values if they count - I can't be bothered to check whether they're fields according to the language spec or something else). In addition, and very annoyingly, you can't use "T : Enum" as a bound on a type variable T.
Can't you use T : MyEnum ?
You can't subclass enums either, so you wouldn't want a type variable in that case. Unless your suggestion is to create a class MyEnum, enforce a convention that its subclasses should be lightweights, and give up on the language's enum types altogether, which could be tempting.

It was more of a question than a suggestion. Apparently, the CLR doesn't support enum type constraints, which is why MS hasn't even tried to implement it.

2011-08-02 Reply Admin

hoodaticus:
gha:
hoodaticus:
gha:
The OP first states that fixing bugs is a high priority for him. Then, being a sensible developer, he finds that replacing an identifier that he did not know was syntactivally valid (due to his unfamiliarity with the language he's using) is even a higher priority than fixing bugs. That does not fit well with my definition of "sensible," sorry. To me, the WTF is with his assessment of priorities, not with the code.
A confusing variable name is a bug.
I am not going into a philosophical discussion about the bases of common reference in language and communication, which is not an unusual argument in these times, trending toward (or should I rather say prone to?) the relativism. I shall only limit myself to pointing that by the Jargon definition, a variable name which is "unclear" by some random definition would not qualify as a bug. Unless one is going to argue on the precise meaning of "malfunction" is, which I am not.
I agree. It's not a bug - it's like a bug in that it should receive the same priority for fixing IMO.

On the one hand there are bugs which cause problems for the end-user trying to use the software, on the other hand there are bugs which cause problems for other developers trying to maintain the software. Which is a higher priority? That's up to the developers to decide.

2011-08-02 Reply Admin

hoodaticus:
gha:
hoodaticus:
gha:
The OP first states that fixing bugs is a high priority for him. Then, being a sensible developer, he finds that replacing an identifier that he did not know was syntactivally valid (due to his unfamiliarity with the language he's using) is even a higher priority than fixing bugs. That does not fit well with my definition of "sensible," sorry. To me, the WTF is with his assessment of priorities, not with the code.
A confusing variable name is a bug.
I am not going into a philosophical discussion about the bases of common reference in language and communication, which is not an unusual argument in these times, trending toward (or should I rather say prone to?) the relativism. I shall only limit myself to pointing that by the Jargon definition, a variable name which is "unclear" by some random definition would not qualify as a bug. Unless one is going to argue on the precise meaning of "malfunction" is, which I am not.
I agree. It's not a bug - it's like a bug in that it should receive the same priority for fixing IMO.

You could argue that it's more like a bug-generating tool than a bug. Bad variable names produce defects.

Looking at it that way, it's more urgent than a bug, in the same way it's more important to fix a broken water main than it is to mop up the water on the floor.

C-Octothorpe · 2011-08-02 Reply Admin

airdrik:
hoodaticus:
gha:
hoodaticus:
gha:
The OP first states that fixing bugs is a high priority for him. Then, being a sensible developer, he finds that replacing an identifier that he did not know was syntactivally valid (due to his unfamiliarity with the language he's using) is even a higher priority than fixing bugs. That does not fit well with my definition of "sensible," sorry. To me, the WTF is with his assessment of priorities, not with the code.
A confusing variable name is a bug.
I am not going into a philosophical discussion about the bases of common reference in language and communication, which is not an unusual argument in these times, trending toward (or should I rather say prone to?) the relativism. I shall only limit myself to pointing that by the Jargon definition, a variable name which is "unclear" by some random definition would not qualify as a bug. Unless one is going to argue on the precise meaning of "malfunction" is, which I am not.
I agree. It's not a bug - it's like a bug in that it should receive the same priority for fixing IMO.
On the one hand there are bugs which cause problems for the end-user trying to use the software, on the other hand there are bugs which cause problems for other developers trying to maintain the software. Which is a higher priority? That's up to the sales department to decide.

FTFY

hoodaticus · 2011-08-02 Reply Admin

trtrwtf:
Looking at it that way, it's more urgent than a bug, in the same way it's more important to fix a broken water main than it is to mop up the water on the floor.

This sounds suspiciously like right-wing tea party extremism.

GFK · 2011-08-02 Reply Admin

hoodaticus:
trtrwtf:
Looking at it that way, it's more urgent than a bug, in the same way it's more important to fix a broken water main than it is to mop up the water on the floor.
This sounds suspiciously like right-wing tea party extremism.

I'd cut water supply for the whole city. Let people dig their own pit, that way they'd understand the true value of water.

EvanED · 2011-08-02 Reply Admin

Harrow:
'John continues, "I didn't even realize that _1 was a valid identifier..."'
John undoubtedly also does not know that '' is a valid identifier. (Or '', '', etc.)

Those latter identifiers ('' and '_') are reserved to the implementation, "and shall not be used".

They may be "valid MSVC or GCC C++-like language", but not valid C++ (or C).

airdrik:
On the one hand there are bugs which cause problems for the end-user trying to use the software, on the other hand there are bugs which cause problems for other developers trying to maintain the software. Which is a higher priority? That's up to the developers to decide.

If the bugs that are causing problems for the maintainers are making in significantly harder to understand or modify the code in response to bugs the users see, then they should have higher priority.

To ignore "this code is hard to understand" bugs because there are supposedly-more-important things is a pretty short-sighted view. Which would you rather do: spend 10 minutes every time you come back to this part of the code, refreshing your memory as to what all of the terrible names mean and how the convoluted code works, or an hour fixing it and then never doing that again? It doesn't take that many visits before the refactoring pays for itself.

frits · 2011-08-02 Reply Admin

GFK:
hoodaticus:
trtrwtf:
Looking at it that way, it's more urgent than a bug, in the same way it's more important to fix a broken water main than it is to mop up the water on the floor.
This sounds suspiciously like right-wing tea party extremism.

I'd cut water supply for the whole city. Let people dig their own pit, that way they'd understand the true value of water.

I'd buy the repair supplies with an American Express card but refuse to pay the bill because we shouldn't be spending money during tough times.

2011-08-02 Reply Admin

frits:
GFK:
hoodaticus:
trtrwtf:
Looking at it that way, it's more urgent than a bug, in the same way it's more important to fix a broken water main than it is to mop up the water on the floor.
This sounds suspiciously like right-wing tea party extremism.
I'd cut water supply for the whole city. Let people dig their own pit, that way they'd understand the true value of water.
I'd buy the repair supplies with an American Express card but refuse to pay the bill because we shouldn't be spending money during tough times.

The obvious solution is just to get another card with an even higher balance to pay off the first.

Infinite money?

2011-08-02 Reply Admin

GFK:
hoodaticus:
trtrwtf:
Looking at it that way, it's more urgent than a bug, in the same way it's more important to fix a broken water main than it is to mop up the water on the floor.
This sounds suspiciously like right-wing tea party extremism.
I'd cut water supply for the whole city. Let people dig their own pit, that way they'd understand the true value of water.

Thankfully, that would result in the people who can't figure it out dying of thirst.

I always wondered what to do about our customer base growing faster than our water supply. There were always thirsty people and it seemed hopeless to serve them all. The answer was staring us in the face all along, the problem wasn't the naturally limited water supply, the problem was our customers.

pjt33 · 2011-08-02 Reply Admin

hoodaticus:
Apparently, the CLR doesn't support enum type constraints, which is why MS hasn't even tried to implement it.

Well. MS designed the CLR. And they could add it without breaking backwards compatibility if they really wanted. Just needs a special attribute which the compiler recognises.

hoodaticus · 2011-08-02 Reply Admin

Hortical:
GFK:
hoodaticus:
trtrwtf:
Looking at it that way, it's more urgent than a bug, in the same way it's more important to fix a broken water main than it is to mop up the water on the floor.
This sounds suspiciously like right-wing tea party extremism.
I'd cut water supply for the whole city. Let people dig their own pit, that way they'd understand the true value of water.
Thankfully, that would result in the people who can't figure it out dying of thirst.
I always wondered what to do about our customer base growing faster than our water supply. There were always thirsty people and it seemed hopeless to serve them all. The answer was staring us in the face all along, the problem wasn't the naturally limited water supply, the problem was our customers.

This.

boog · 2011-08-02 Reply Admin

Hortical:
GFK:
hoodaticus:
trtrwtf:
Looking at it that way, it's more urgent than a bug, in the same way it's more important to fix a broken water main than it is to mop up the water on the floor.
This sounds suspiciously like right-wing tea party extremism.
I'd cut water supply for the whole city. Let people dig their own pit, that way they'd understand the true value of water.
Thankfully, that would result in the people who can't figure it out dying of thirst.

Or more likely thieving it from those who have it. You don't honestly think that somebody who desperately needs something to live would just roll over and die without putting up a fight, do you?

C-Octothorpe · 2011-08-02 Reply Admin

boog:
Hortical:
GFK:
hoodaticus:
trtrwtf:
Looking at it that way, it's more urgent than a bug, in the same way it's more important to fix a broken water main than it is to mop up the water on the floor.
This sounds suspiciously like right-wing tea party extremism.
I'd cut water supply for the whole city. Let people dig their own pit, that way they'd understand the true value of water.
Thankfully, that would result in the people who can't figure it out dying of thirst.
Or more likely thieving it from those who have it. You don't honestly think that somebody who desperately needs something to live would just roll over and die without putting up a fight, do you?

I think this would make for an EXCELLENT social experiment...

We just need volunteers. Come to think of it, I recall seeing some guys hanging out at the Home Depot looking for work.

boog · 2011-08-02 Reply Admin

C-Octothorpe:
We just need volunteers. Come to think of it, I recall seeing some guys hanging out at the Home Depot looking for work.

Unfortunately for us, people who are looking for work usually aren't looking to volunteer. I'm just sayin'.

hoodaticus · 2011-08-02 Reply Admin

boog:
Hortical:
GFK:
hoodaticus:
trtrwtf:
Looking at it that way, it's more urgent than a bug, in the same way it's more important to fix a broken water main than it is to mop up the water on the floor.
This sounds suspiciously like right-wing tea party extremism.
I'd cut water supply for the whole city. Let people dig their own pit, that way they'd understand the true value of water.
Thankfully, that would result in the people who can't figure it out dying of thirst.
Or more likely thieving it from those who have it. You don't honestly think that somebody who desperately needs something to live would just roll over and die without putting up a fight, do you?

I got marked down on a law school final for using "thieving", since I guess it's not an actual word. But for the life of me, I couldn't think of the verb form of the word "theft".

It's "steal", by the way.

hoodaticus · 2011-08-02 Reply Admin

boog:
C-Octothorpe:
We just need volunteers. Come to think of it, I recall seeing some guys hanging out at the Home Depot looking for work.
Unfortunately for us, people who are looking for work usually aren't looking to volunteer. I'm just sayin'.

Which is why you don't tell them they're volunteering until they've finished the job, moments before you've asked ICE to show up.

2011-08-02 Reply Admin

boog:
Hortical:
GFK:
hoodaticus:
trtrwtf:
Looking at it that way, it's more urgent than a bug, in the same way it's more important to fix a broken water main than it is to mop up the water on the floor.
This sounds suspiciously like right-wing tea party extremism.
I'd cut water supply for the whole city. Let people dig their own pit, that way they'd understand the true value of water.
Thankfully, that would result in the people who can't figure it out dying of thirst.
Or more likely thieving it from those who have it. You don't honestly think that somebody who desperately needs something to live would just roll over and die without putting up a fight, do you?

Of course they wouldn't. Which is how we uncover the even more terrible reality: you'll probably have to kill them.

The way you phrase it makes it sound like a hostage situation. People are feckless and incompetent or too numerous, but we still have to support them or they'll attack us.

I think it should be clear that there is no pretty end to this scenario. The number of people who need their hands held continue to outnumber the hand-holders by greater and greater margins until the system becomes unsustainable - it probably already has.

Or you can push them outside the city walls. Or you can neutralize them preemptively. Or you take care of them in exchange for taking their reproductive freedom.

You can choose to go extinct or you can be a survivor. They intend to survive too. They're perfectly willing to do so at your expense.

It's "progressive" and "enlightened" to replace oneself with people who don't give a damn about progress or enlightenment. Too many intelligent and empathic people are too willing to replace themselves with several times more unintelligent, uncaring, unmotivated and remarkably intolerant people. And it makes me sad that you'll let yourself be taken hostage and then eaten alive.

Please don't go extinct. Be a survivor.

C-Octothorpe · 2011-08-02 Reply Admin

boog:
C-Octothorpe:
We just need volunteers. Come to think of it, I recall seeing some guys hanging out at the Home Depot looking for work.
Unfortunately for us, people who are looking for work usually aren't looking to volunteer. I'm just sayin'.

Well, you obviously won't *tell* them that they're volunteering... You tell them that there's a lot of drywall to be put up, load them in a flatbed truck and voila, you've got your volunteers (well, hostages really, but that's just splitting hairs).

boog · 2011-08-02 Reply Admin

hoodaticus:
I got marked down on a law school final for using "thieving", since I guess it's not an actual word. But for the life of me, I couldn't think of the verb form of the word "theft".
It's "steal", by the way.

I know it sounds funny to say "thieving" like it's a verb, and that's exactly why I say it.

Of course, you should have challenged their marking-down-of-you, as a quick check of several fancy-schmancy interweb dictionaries reveals that thieve is a verb.

boog · 2011-08-02 Reply Admin

hoodaticus:
boog:
C-Octothorpe:
We just need volunteers. Come to think of it, I recall seeing some guys hanging out at the Home Depot looking for work.
Unfortunately for us, people who are looking for work usually aren't looking to volunteer. I'm just sayin'.
Which is why you don't tell them they're volunteering until they've finished the job, moments before you've asked ICE to show up.

Hey, as long as you tell them "thanks for your help" before they're shipped off.

boog · 2011-08-02 Reply Admin

Hortical:
boog:
Hortical:
GFK:
I'd cut water supply for the whole city. Let people dig their own pit, that way they'd understand the true value of water.
Thankfully, that would result in the people who can't figure it out dying of thirst.
Or more likely thieving it from those who have it. You don't honestly think that somebody who desperately needs something to live would just roll over and die without putting up a fight, do you?
Of course they wouldn't. Which is how we uncover the even more terrible reality: you'll probably have to kill them.

You'd better do so before you're exhausted from all the digging.

Hortical:
The way you phrase it makes it sound like a hostage situation. People are feckless and incompetent or too numerous, but we still have to support them or they'll attack us.

No, that's not how I worded it, that's just how you interpreted it. I did not say "we have to support them" - I just said that desperate people do desperate shit. Because they do.

Hortical:
I think it should be clear that there is no pretty end to this scenario. The number of people who need their hands held blah blah bullshit blah...

I think you're overlooking that a water supply system is not just a service for the have-nots, but also a service for the people-who-don't-want-to-be-bothered-by-third-world-shit-like-searching-for-water. I fit into this latter category.

2011-08-02 Reply Admin

John:
I didn't even realize that _1 was a valid identifier.

[_a-zA-Z][_a-zA-Z0-9]*

(or to put it another way, some people, when confronted with a problem, think "I know, I'll start this identifier's name with an underscore." Now they have two problems.)

boog · 2011-08-02 Reply Admin

C-Octothorpe:
boog:
C-Octothorpe:
We just need volunteers. Come to think of it, I recall seeing some guys hanging out at the Home Depot looking for work.
Unfortunately for us, people who are looking for work usually aren't looking to volunteer. I'm just sayin'.
Well, you obviously won't *tell* them that they're volunteering... You tell them that there's a lot of drywall to be put up, load them in a flatbed truck and voila, you've got your volunteers (well, hostages really, but that's just splitting hairs).

Sounds like a great idea, although may I suggest a closed-bed and a roof, as it would be more effective at preventing the hostages from fleeing (although the sides may make it harder to stack them).

2011-08-02 Reply Admin

boog:
Hortical:
The way you phrase it makes it sound like a hostage situation. People are feckless and incompetent or too numerous, but we still have to support them or they'll attack us.
No, that's not how I worded it, that's just how you interpreted it. I did not say "we have to support them" - I just said that desperate people do desperate shit. Because they do.

Absolutely they do. And if they indefinitely need your aid to keep from getting desperate, your options are to aid them indefinitely or get attacked.

I interpreted it that way because that's the conclusion I draw from the premise you set up. Do you have another conclusion? I welcome a reasonable worldview that isn't so ruefully pessimistic, but I've never seen one.

boog:

Hortical:
I think it should be clear that there is no pretty end to this scenario. The number of people who need their hands held blah blah bullshit blah...
^Rephrasing me^

Now I know you're an intelligent enough guy to reply with more than "bullshit".

I like having utilities too. Which is why I want the system to last. Or, when it becomes defunct, start replacing it.

Those who weighed down the last ship and sunk will naturally want to jump to the new, floating one. You can let them pile on and capsize it or take the oars and beat them back. But you can't give everyone a seat when they multiply non-stop.

It's your choice - don't get mad at me for laying it out to. If you want to bet on failures, then bet on failures. Goodbye.

C-Octothorpe · 2011-08-02 Reply Admin

boog:
C-Octothorpe:
boog:
C-Octothorpe:
We just need volunteers. Come to think of it, I recall seeing some guys hanging out at the Home Depot looking for work.
Unfortunately for us, people who are looking for work usually aren't looking to volunteer. I'm just sayin'.
Well, you obviously won't *tell* them that they're volunteering... You tell them that there's a lot of drywall to be put up, load them in a flatbed truck and voila, you've got your volunteers (well, hostages really, but that's just splitting hairs).
Sounds like a great idea, although may I suggest a closed-bed and a roof, as it would be more effective at preventing the hostages from fleeing (although the sides may make it harder to stack them).

Well, my thinking was don't go below 50, but I like your idea too... I think we need to study this further.

On a completely unrelated topic, I need to go to Home Depot, for, uh, supplies, for my, um, hole digging business. Yeah, that's the ticket...

EvanED · 2011-08-02 Reply Admin

Anonymous RegExpert:
John:
I didn't even realize that _1 was a valid identifier.
[_a-zA-Z][_a-zA-Z0-9]*
(or to put it another way, some people, when confronted with a problem, think "I know, I'll start this identifier's name with an underscore." Now they have two problems.)

Keeping my language lawyer hat on, that regex doesn't make much sense. If you want legal C++ identifiers, then it looks more like this:

(_[a-z0-9]|[a-zA-Z]) ([a-zA-Z0-9](_[a-zA-Z0-9])?)* _? | _

(It's possible that could be simplified a bit, especially if you use a non-regular regular expression.)

If you don't care about being legal C++, why not toss in some other symbols like $?

EvanED · 2011-08-02 Reply Admin

hoodaticus:
The enums in the OP specify versions. You can just see them being passed to methods to specify which version of behavior you want the method to follow. This is handled better by polymorphism, wherein behavior is specified by type rather than parameter.

Well, it can often be better-handled that way. Not always, and the problem is that C++-lineage languages only support single dispatch. So if you want the behavior to depend on the dynamic type of some var and you say "I must use polymorphism", you have to put that into var's types. But it quite often doesn't belong there, which puts you in the position of picking two weird options: put functionality somewhere that it doesn't logically belong, or forgo language-provided polymorphism.

boog · 2011-08-02 Reply Admin

Hortical:
boog:
Hortical:
The way you phrase it makes it sound like a hostage situation. People are feckless and incompetent or too numerous, but we still have to support them or they'll attack us.
No, that's not how I worded it, that's just how you interpreted it. I did not say "we have to support them" - I just said that desperate people do desperate shit. Because they do.

Absolutely they do. And if they indefinitely need your aid to keep from getting desperate, your options are to aid them indefinitely or get attacked.

I interpreted it that way because that's the conclusion I draw from the premise you set up. Do you have another conclusion? I welcome a reasonable worldview that isn't so ruefully pessimistic, but I've never seen one.

I'm not responsible for your conclusion; all I did was point out that people wouldn't simply die off, as you suggested they would. Your premise didn't make any sense to me.

But if you must know, my conclusion is that this is a false dilemma. The way you phrase it (strawmen are fun), the only options are to hand over to the have-nots, or die at the hands of their massive ever-growing numbers. Why are those my only two options? You say "if they indefinitely need your aid", but I honestly don't see that scenario (it'd be very different without the word "indefinitely"), which makes the whole discussion meaningless.

Hortical:
boog:
Hortical:
I think it should be clear that there is no pretty end to this scenario. The number of people who need their hands held blah blah bullshit blah...
^Rephrasing me^
Now I know you're an intelligent enough guy to reply with more than "bullshit".

D'awww, thanks! ;)

To clarify, by "bullshit", I don't mean that you're wrong necessarily; I mean that it sounds like more of the same tedious, rambling, mind-wandering bullshit, and so I decided to summarize it as such in the context of my response.

Please don't be offended; to be fair, I have summarized my own comments this way before.

hoodaticus · 2011-08-02 Reply Admin

boog:
hoodaticus:
I got marked down on a law school final for using "thieving", since I guess it's not an actual word. But for the life of me, I couldn't think of the verb form of the word "theft".
It's "steal", by the way.
I know it sounds funny to say "thieving" like it's a verb, and that's exactly why I say it.

Of course, you should have challenged their marking-down-of-you, as a quick check of several fancy-schmancy interweb dictionaries reveals that thieve is a verb.

See, if you challenge a law school test answer, you're no longer anonymous... which can be very detrimental to your score.

boog · 2011-08-02 Reply Admin

hoodaticus:
boog:
hoodaticus:
I got marked down on a law school final for using "thieving", since I guess it's not an actual word. But for the life of me, I couldn't think of the verb form of the word "theft".
It's "steal", by the way.
I know it sounds funny to say "thieving" like it's a verb, and that's exactly why I say it.

Of course, you should have challenged their marking-down-of-you, as a quick check of several fancy-schmancy interweb dictionaries reveals that thieve is a verb.
See, if you challenge a law school test answer, you're no longer anonymous... which can be very detrimental to your score.

Rotten lawyers, they think of everything!

2011-08-02 Reply Admin

boog:
But if you must know, my conclusion is that this is a false dilemma. The way you phrase it (strawmen are fun), the only options are to hand over to the have-nots, or die at the hands of their massive ever-growing numbers. Why are those my only two options? You say "if they indefinitely need your aid", but I honestly don't see that scenario (it'd be very different without the word "indefinitely"), which makes the whole discussion meaningless.

I think it's worth noting the difference of world view here.

You use the phrases "haves" and "have-nots", whereas I would draw the more significant division "cans" and "can-nots". A "have-not" could become a "have" but a "can-not" won't become a "can". Thus my assumption that the support would be indefinite.

Consider a logical growth curve. As a growing population reaches carrying capacity, it's numbers flatten off to a logical limit that the environment can support. This applies to humans as much as it applies to any other animal, but we'll use grasshoppers as an example.

Now when a population of grasshoppers reaches their carrying capacity, do who think they say to themselves "Gee, we can't possibly think of having kids in this economy"? No. They just keep trying to reproduce as much as possible and many of those offspring starve to death.

What do you think happens to members of species with personality traits that make them concerned about overpopulation and so don't reproduce?

What do you think happens when the grasshoppers with more food start giving to the ones that reproduced fecklessly and have starving offspring?

What do you think happens when forward-thinking grasshoppers encourage more growth amongst uncaring and irresponsible at the expense of their own reproduction?

Is it unreasonable to conclude that the population will end up consisting more and more of specimens with no foresight, inability to plan their reproductive practices, don't care about intellectual pursuit or social justice?

And once there are many people left who care about those poor starving grasshoppers, they will be no one to lend a helping hand and there will be even more starving, suffering grasshoppers.

I'm trying to offer food for thought and you tell me it tastes bad. What's your take on all this? You see it ending another way? How? You have to suggest something that makes more sense or I'll just keep spreading the message which you apparently don't like.

2011-08-02 Reply Admin

hoodaticus:
I got marked down on a law school final for using "thieving", since I guess it's not an actual word. But for the life of me, I couldn't think of the verb form of the word "theft".

I'm surprised it wasn't "burglarism"...

2011-08-02 Reply Admin

Hortical:
boog:
But if you must know, my conclusion is that this is a false dilemma. The way you phrase it (strawmen are fun), the only options are to hand over to the have-nots, or die at the hands of their massive ever-growing numbers. Why are those my only two options? You say "if they indefinitely need your aid", but I honestly don't see that scenario (it'd be very different without the word "indefinitely"), which makes the whole discussion meaningless.

I think it's worth noting the difference of world view here.

You use the phrases "haves" and "have-nots", whereas I would draw the more significant division "cans" and "can-nots". A "have-not" could become a "have" but a "can-not" won't become a "can". Thus my assumption that the support would be indefinite.

Consider a logical growth curve. As a growing population reaches carrying capacity, it's numbers flatten off to a logical limit that the environment can support. This applies to humans as much as it applies to any other animal, but we'll use grasshoppers as an example.

Now when a population of grasshoppers reaches their carrying capacity, do who think they say to themselves "Gee, we can't possibly think of having kids in this economy"? No. They just keep trying to reproduce as much as possible and many of those offspring starve to death.

What do you think happens to members of species with personality traits that make them concerned about overpopulation and so don't reproduce?

What do you think happens when the grasshoppers with more food start giving to the ones that reproduced fecklessly and have starving offspring?

What do you think happens when forward-thinking grasshoppers encourage more growth amongst uncaring and irresponsible at the expense of their own reproduction?

Is it unreasonable to conclude that the population will end up consisting more and more of specimens with no foresight, inability to plan their reproductive practices, don't care about intellectual pursuit or social justice?

And once there are many people left who care about those poor starving grasshoppers, they will be no one to lend a helping hand and there will be even more starving, suffering grasshoppers.

I'm trying to offer food for thought and you tell me it tastes bad. What's your take on all this? You see it ending another way? How? You have to suggest something that makes more sense or I'll just keep spreading the message which you apparently don't like.

Did you just summarize Idiocracy?

boog · 2011-08-02 Reply Admin

Hortical:
I think it's worth noting the difference of world view here.
You use the phrases "haves" and "have-nots", whereas I would draw the more significant division "cans" and "can-nots". A "have-not" could become a "have" but a "can-not" won't become a "can". Thus my assumption that the support would be indefinite.

A fair observation, but irrelevant. The point of my comment was that your false dilemma is just that. Your assumption that the support would be indefinite was merely an example: many "cans" have come from lengthy lineages of "can-nots" -- this seems to indicate other scenarios besides "indefinite aid vs. being attacked".

Hortical:
What do you think happens to members of species with personality traits that make them concerned about overpopulation and so don't reproduce?

Simple. They and their insufferable egos die off. What species wants such snooty people polluting its gene pool?

Hortical:
What do you think happens when the grasshoppers with more food start giving to the ones that reproduced fecklessly and have starving offspring?

The starving offspring will have happy little grasshopper tummies. Pssh! Obviously. </duh>

Hortical:
...blah blah more stuff about dysgenics and grasshoppers and shit blah...
I'm trying to offer food for thought and you tell me it tastes bad.

Don't blame the customers for your shortcomings as a thought-chef.

Hortical:
What's your take on all this? You see it ending another way? How? You have to suggest something that makes more sense or I'll just keep spreading the message which you apparently don't like.

I never said I don't like your message; in fact quite the opposite - I find dysgenics to be a very entertaining topic.

The only thing I really opposed you on (so far) was the notion that those who don't have the means to survive will simply die. I said that instead they will take from those who do. Because they would. Because they're desperate. You hastily jumped at the opportunity to criticize my suggestion that we support the ever-overpopulating "can-nots", when in fact I never made any such suggestion. You say you want to know my take on it? Why should I even bother, when you already assumed my opinion for me from the beginning?

Potato chips for the intellectual mind, this discussion is.

2011-08-02 Reply Admin

Any idiot can screw up any great feature. If you need baby proofing then enforce it yourself instead of screwing over those of us that can actually obey good practices.

2011-08-03 Reply Admin

Strange that he didn't know _1 was a valid, just look at boost::bind.

What would be more interesting is if someone had used the perfectly valid identifiers:

_ __

etc... ;)

Scarlet Manuka · 2011-08-03 Reply Admin

praesent:
EvanED:
Seriously, is there a language feature out there that we haven't seen multiple WTFs about?
White Space? I don't remember a WTF about White space....

Depends; do you count this?

2011-08-03 Reply Admin

How bad is this code? Let me enumerate the ways...

;->

EvanED · 2011-08-03 Reply Admin

Enormous Coward:
Strange that he didn't know _1 was a valid, just look at boost::bind.
What would be more interesting is if someone had used the perfectly valid identifiers:

_ __

etc... ;)

As I've mentioned before, only the first is perfectly valid.

2.10 para 2: "In addition, some identifiers are reserved for use by C++ implementations and standard libraries (17.4.3.1.2) and shall not be used otherwise; no diagnostic is required."

17.4.3.1.2, para 1: "Certain sets of names and function signatures are always reserved to the implementation: -- Each name that contains a double underscore (__) or begins with an underscore followed by an upper-case letter (2.11) is reserved to the implementation for any use"

(I only have a copy of the C++ standard, but it's probably the same for C.)

Ilya Ehrenburg · 2011-08-03 Reply Admin

EvanED:
As I've mentioned before, only the first is perfectly valid.

Maybe E.C. thought only of the syntax, which allows all of them as identifiers, in that sense, they're all valid. I agree that only the first is perfectly valid, though.

2.10 para 2: "In addition, some identifiers are reserved for use by C++ implementations and standard libraries (17.4.3.1.2) and shall not be used otherwise; no diagnostic is required."
17.4.3.1.2, para 1: "Certain sets of names and function signatures are always reserved to the implementation: -- Each name that contains a double underscore (__) or begins with an underscore followed by an upper-case letter (2.11) is reserved to the implementation for any use"

(I only have a copy of the C++ standard, but it's probably the same for C.)

More or less:

C99:
7.1.3 1 Each header declares or deﬁnes all identiﬁers listed in its associated subclause, and optionally declares or deﬁnes identiﬁers listed in its associated future library directions subclause and identiﬁers which are always reserved either for any use or for use as ﬁle scope identiﬁers. — All identiﬁers that begin with an underscore and either an uppercase letter or another underscore are always reserved for any use. — All identiﬁers that begin with an underscore are always reserved for use as identiﬁers with ﬁle scope in both the ordinary and tag name spaces. — Each macro name in any of the following subclauses (including the future library directions) is reserved for use as speciﬁed if any of its associated headers is included; unless explicitly stated otherwise (see 7.1.4). — All identiﬁers with external linkage in any of the following subclauses (including the future library directions) are always reserved for use as identiﬁers with external linkage.154) — Each identiﬁer with ﬁle scope listed in any of the following subclauses (including the future library directions) is reserved for use as a macro name and as an identiﬁer with ﬁle scope in the same name space if any of its associated headers is included. 2 No other identiﬁers are reserved. If the program declares or deﬁnes an identiﬁer in a context in which it is reserved (other than as allowed by 7.1.4), or deﬁnes a reserved identiﬁer as a macro name, the behavior is undeﬁned. 3 If the program removes (with #undef) any macro deﬁnition of an identiﬁer in the ﬁrst group listed above, the behavior is undeﬁned.

2011-08-03 Reply Admin

Theirs know whey these oh curd.

Captcha "jumentum": High velocity candy

An Enum or _2

Leave a comment on “An Enum or _2”