• Ebbe (unregistered)
    Intertrode said that Initech's developers were "monkeys" (...). Initech thought that Intertrode developers were elitist.
    Let's see: - Initech uses an Access-based frontend. Check, they're monkeys allright. - Intertrode uses XML. Check, they're as elitist as they come.
  • Watson (unregistered) in reply to Flippit
    Flippit:
    ...just as easily been accessed via the search box...
    Maybe the search box approach was tried, but the result was the same as the one I always get when I use it: dozens of hits on "AddComment.aspx" and never on the article itself.
  • (cs)

    Simply beautiful... It reminds me of a system developed by a company I've worked for. That company was called by a customer because the customer had two project, each one developed independently by a different company, that had to talk to each other. Obviously there was no way the two project could work together as everyone spoke of "proprietary interfaces" and the likes. So a third company (mine) was called to develop a third project that made the two project talk to each other...

    Ah... the old "new economy" days... (geez...)

  • onomatopoeia (unregistered)

    And where's the coffe coming out? I can't steer my enterprise without coffee.

    Project closed

  • El Supremo (unregistered)

    A C# COM DLL?

  • (cs) in reply to ChadN
    ChadN:
    rjnewton:
    Please STFU.

    Perhaps a more proper response in these cases is "Please STWTFU."

    ITYM "Please SMTWTFS."

    HTH.

  • taiki (unregistered)

    there's no QBasic layer over tty using a serial modem?

  • Anon_Coder (unregistered)

    When they turned it on they got the following output:

    ++?????++ Out of Cheese Error. Redo From Start.

  • Tarkeel (unregistered) in reply to Anon_Coder
    Anon_Coder:
    ++?????++ Out of Cheese Error. Redo From Start.
    Reboot World.
  • Antidragon (unregistered) in reply to SuperousOxide
    SuperousOxide:
    Flippit:
    The DailyWTF was great when it stuck to the original format (hell, it was great when it was called DailyWTF!), but c'mon, man. I've already seen these "classics."

    At least this classic is from 2 years ago. Most of the classics we've seen lately have been from earlier this year.

    2 years? I've been lurking here for that long? Damn, no wonder I'm hungry....

  • (cs) in reply to Adam Petaccia
    Adam Petaccia:
    Where's the misused Excel-as-database step?

    The XML doc is the representation of the Excel sheet. :)

    With Web 2.0 and all that jazz....

  • Frank Nestel (unregistered)

    I dunno if SAP is as famous software as it is in Germany. At least I'd say, I've seen SAP software which integrated kind of the same way. Starts when you need to install a C Compile a JDK (not JRE) and Python as first step of the installation.

  • (cs) in reply to Evo
    Evo:
    Although that's partly because of the silly wishes of my boss, and his inability to know what he wants before I start working on something...
    Ah, the glory of a spec sheet which must be signed by the customer before development begins!

    On the other hand, if it's your boss, then it's just a matter of doing what it is he's paying you to do. There are times when we have to just stop and remind ourselves, the main reason we're doing this is because we keep getting hungry on a regular basis.

  • RIP Mitch (unregistered)

    The real WTF, obviously, is who's Loudly and why is their name not capitalized in the article?

  • barf 4eva (unregistered) in reply to rjnewton
    rjnewton:
    Flippit:
    ...why else would you dig into the past entries to pull out something that could've just as easily been accessed via the search box or archives link?

    BTW, your "classics" really are distracting -- any chance we'll see you move back to positing only original, non-repeated stories?

    The DailyWTF was great when it stuck to the original format (hell, it was great when it was called DailyWTF!), but c'mon, man. I've already seen these "classics." *********************************************************************

    Please STFU.

    A couple weeks ago, when we were getting early 2007 "Classics", that would have been a valid point. This one actually did reach back a way. I for one, had never seen this article before, and I did get a giggle from it.

    I agree! But still, cmon, change the name back to "the daily what in the f$%^ were these people thinking man?". :P Nah, I'm over it. I enjoy the classics. For relatively noobish peeps to the site such as myself, it's a good read!

  • Mack (unregistered) in reply to Evo

    Or maybe your inabillity to find a way get the requirements from him and create a proper analysis for him to sign on before starting any kind of work. And I would bet that there is not a lot of documentation and that the code itself is not really documented. This is nice for the guy who will come and fix your stuff...

    Don't worry a lot of ppl are like you and even possess architech and phd degrees. They just make it work and go get a better salary from another sucker...

  • (cs) in reply to ParkinT
    ParkinT:
    Sgt. Preston:
    jimlangrunner:
    Beautiful. Just Beautiful.

    Rube Goldberg could do it better, though.

    Or Wile E. Coyote.
    Or Doctor Frankenstein

    I think we're getting somewhere. They can join forces and do it together! Then we can get design-by-committee thrown in for free.

  • Flippit (unregistered) in reply to Vischar
    Vischar:
    Flippit:
    ...why else would you dig into the past entries to pull out something that could've just as easily been accessed via the search box or archives link?

    BTW, your "classics" really are distracting -- any chance we'll see you move back to positing only original, non-repeated stories?

    The DailyWTF was great when it stuck to the original format (hell, it was great when it was called DailyWTF!), but c'mon, man. I've already seen these "classics." *********************************************************************

    Give me a break... Read the post before this one on the main page... They've been a little busy...

    You're like the few people at my office who complain about the free lunch we get on Fridays... I've never worked anywhere that gave us free lunch every week, but sure enough, there are people that bitch about it because we had Chick-Fil-A one week.

    You're getting something pretty awesome for free... Stop complaining please.

    They're obviously not "busy" enough to copy a post from the past, are they?

  • Flippit (unregistered) in reply to rjnewton
    rjnewton:
    Flippit:
    ...why else would you dig into the past entries to pull out something that could've just as easily been accessed via the search box or archives link?

    BTW, your "classics" really are distracting -- any chance we'll see you move back to positing only original, non-repeated stories?

    The DailyWTF was great when it stuck to the original format (hell, it was great when it was called DailyWTF!), but c'mon, man. I've already seen these "classics." *********************************************************************

    Please STFU.

    A couple weeks ago, when we were getting early 2007 "Classics", that would have been a valid point. This one actually did reach back a way. I for one, had never seen this article before, and I did get a giggle from it.

    Feel Free to GMC, Chief - they could "reach back" to the first post they did and start posting them in order today. What would be the value in that besides giving you the giggles? None.

    I suppose you like watching re-runs too.

  • Porpus (unregistered) in reply to Mio

    Yeah, this is actually pretty easy to accomplish. I have referred to it as "reverse interop." In general, it's not done much. Of course, when you just paste your architecture together at random, any number of unusual things can happn.

  • Porpus (unregistered) in reply to Mio
    Mio:
    FredSaw:
    C++ is used for COM. VB6 is/was used for COM. I wasn't aware that C# was used for COM. No managed code?

    Any .NET assembly can have a COM Interface exposed. (There's a little check box somewhere in the project properties page in Visual Studio). So even if it uses a COM interface, it's still managed code.

    Yeah, this is actually pretty easy to accomplish. I have referred to it as "reverse interop." In general, it's not done much. Of course, when you just paste your architecture together at random, any number of unusual things can happen.

  • (cs) in reply to Flippit
    Flippit:
    ... I suppose you like watching re-runs too.

    Wow! You must be psychic! Yes, if the original was good, and of sufficient depth, I do indeed like watching reruns. [Though I don't have an idiot box at home] A good book even more so--I've read Kesey's first two novels at least twice, and "Sometimes a Great Notion" could definitely sustain a third reading, and reveal things I didn't catch the first two readings. Likewise the Tolkien works.

    So tell me, is the "one pass is enough" approach also the way you review code?

  • (cs)
    ...and you don't talk to loudly around it...
    Who's "loudly", and why does the system dislike you talking to him/her? :P
  • monkey (unregistered)

    I thought it was beautiful!

  • dolo54 (unregistered)

    I can hear the developer now... "That's so crazy... IT JUST MIGHT WORK!!!"

    I especially like the part where it opens a word doc to do a function call. That's just a badass cowboy move if I ever saw one. Like "you ain't gonna BELIEVE this part!"

Leave a comment on “Classic WTF: Integration Nation”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article