• (cs)

    The frist WTF was using C++.

  • lesle (unregistered)

    Alex, as an old COBOL programmer, thank you for knowing that COBOL is all caps.

  • Paula Bean (unregistered)

    Frist! tristique

  • Jim the Tool (unregistered)

    The real WTF is the USA amirite?

    No wait, it's the USA thinking that they are the best at anything good.

  • Valhar2000 (unregistered)

    So is this the story of how Mr. McGee made his first entry into TDWTF? Because the description of the system he setup to process the records certainly sounds like an unmaintainable mess.

    I suppose that, at times, one must make such things to get the job done, but still, it must grate.

  • Doctor_of_Ineptitude (unregistered) in reply to nerd4sale
    nerd4sale:
    The frist WTF was using C++.

    While I may be brain damaged to reply to a frist, C++ is not a WTF. And a powerful one at that. It can shoot you in the foot and launch you into space at the same time. But it isn't a WTF. Like Voldemort said, There is only power and those too weak to wield it.

  • the way go fuck yourself you euro trash (unregistered) in reply to Jim the Tool
    Jim the Tool:
    The real WTF is the USA amirite?

    No wait, it's the USA thinking that they are the best at anything good.

    /int/

  • dubs (unregistered)

    checkem

  • (cs)

    "... five decades later, COBOL programmers are still paying for that arrogance today."

    No, that should read: "... five decades later, COBOL programmers are still being paid (mightily) for that arrogance today."

  • (cs) in reply to lesle
    lesle:
    Alex, as an old COBOL programmer, thank you for knowing that COBOL is all caps.

    Little known fact: COBOL is case-insensitive.

    Little known fact 2: it looks even worse in lowercase.

  • Jeff Grigg (unregistered)

    Actually, I'd think that the single well written C++ program that was written after Pat's departure was probably more maintainable than the SED/LEX/YACC/C/C++ cobbled together mess that Pat wrote. Pat's solution was probably more of a WTF than he realizes.

    And yes, I have written similar programs.

  • (cs)

    Pat certainly does bear a high burden of guilt for the WTFs in this one. He wrote a module to compile COBOL data declarations into C(++) declarations and translator code. This in and of itself isn't a major WTF.

    No, the major WTF (and it belongs 100% to Pat) is that he appears to have written this based on the current state of the data declarations actually found in the source code rather than starting at the beginning, with the language definition.

    Of course that isn't as easy as it sounds, because you need access to the definition of the COBOL dialect used by the client, but they should have been able to furnish enough information for Pat to be able to proceed.

    Sorry, Pat, but that's the way I see it.

  • (cs) in reply to Matt Westwood
    Matt Westwood:
    "... five decades later, COBOL programmers are still paying for that arrogance today."

    No, that should read: "... five decades later, COBOL programmers are still being paid (mightily) for that arrogance today."

    Actually it should read: "... five decades later, COBOL programmers are still being paid mightily compensation for the pain and suffering caused by that arrogance today."

  • (cs)

    So this year 4th of July is a friday; normally thedailywtf.com publishes "Error'd" on friday.

    So the 4th of July is the day the thedailywtf.com-readers attempt to forget they ever pretended to try commenting on discurse and celebrate a day without discurse through wild displays of patriotism and fireworks.

  • (cs) in reply to nerd4sale
    nerd4sale:
    The frist WTF was using C++.
    nerd4sale is TRWTF.

    But seriously, is there a better compiled language or is nerd4sale just trolling?

  • (cs) in reply to Zacrath
    Zacrath:
    nerd4sale:
    The frist WTF was using C++.
    nerd4sale is TRWTF.

    But seriously, is there a better compiled language or is nerd4sale just trolling?

    There are many many many compiled languages better than C++ (even C is better, as it is much less complicated), but Pats task was to parse data described by a COBOL-format record and using any other language than COBOL is necessarily a WTF, because it means reinventing the square COBOL-wheel.

  • Hello world (unregistered)

    Today is the 4th of July, or 4/7/2014. But that's April 7th in the US! Therefore TRWTF is the rest of the world, USA #1!

  • DQ (unregistered) in reply to Hello world
    Hello world:
    Today is the 4th of July, or 4/7/2014. But that's April 7th in the US! Therefore TRWTF is the rest of the world, USA #1!

    USA #1! ?? Then why did we kick your ass in Brazil?

    Someone from Belgium.

  • (cs)

    It seems to me that all the changes to the COBOL program would have required numerous changes to the Oracle DB schema, if that was in any sensible NF. Yet everything in the story is related to his tools only writing new C++ programs to process the input.

    That implies that he was using some kind of really bogus artificial key/name/value structure in the tables. In fact, it implies such a bogus structure so strongly I'm willing to bet that is TRWTF.

  • foxyshadis (unregistered)

    Was it really too difficult to just use a COBOL compiler to parse COBOL? Just add a little glue code and you have a little translation library that can reformat the data any way you like, or expose the variables directly for your SQL-interfacing side to modify the schema as necessary and upload.

    Brownie points if you can get the SQL working directly in COBOL.

    I love that he's willing to own up to the fact that he created a bigger problem trying to solve a small problem, though. A refreshing bit of humility. (Cue Raymond Chen's aphorism about regular expressions.)

  • Dave (unregistered)

    TRWTF is not using Excel. It'll happily read any COBOL formats you care to give it, with minimal tweaking, and spit the results into an Access DB. OK, you then have to convert that to something useful, but that's a solved problem.

    As horrible as it is to admit, the first thing any programmer should ask is 'can I do this in Excel?'.

  • (cs) in reply to ggeens
    ggeens:
    lesle:
    Alex, as an old COBOL programmer, thank you for knowing that COBOL is all caps.

    Little known fact: COBOL is case-insensitive.

    Little known fact 2: it looks even worse in lowercase.

    Maybe modern COBOL was case-insensitive, but in 1976 it certainly was case-sensitive. IBM's compiler only recognized the upper-case EBCDIC letters.

    I found that out when I typed a COBOL program into an IBM 2741 terminal (a souped-up IBM Selectric typewriter). For reasons known only to the operating system's designers, upper-case letters (C1 through C9, D1 through D9 and E2 through E9) were printed as lower-case, and lower-case as upper-case. SO MY COBOL PROGRAM FAILED TO COMPILE. until i retyped the whole thing in e e cummings mode.

  • Norman Diamond (unregistered) in reply to foxyshadis
    foxyshadis:
    Was it really too difficult to just use a COBOL compiler to parse COBOL? [...] I love that he's willing to own up to the fact that he created a bigger problem trying to solve a small problem, though. A refreshing bit of humility. (Cue Raymond Chen's aphorism about regular expressions.)
    What was Raymond Chen's aphorism about regular expressions? Would it be something like this: Some people, faced with a problem that can't be solved by regular expressions, say "I know what, I'll use a context free grammar." Then they have two problems.

    Well, I can do better than that. Sure, context free grammars are a big help in writing compilers, but they don't handle semantics. Some people, faced with a problem that can't be solved by context free grammars, say "I know what, I'll use a context sensitive grammar." Or they put some C sections in their yacc code for each parsed section.

    Don't forget Turing's contribution. Some people, faced with a problem that can't be solved by context sensitive grammars, say "I know what, I'll use a type 0 grammar." Then they have two problems, because they have to solve a CAPTCHA in order to post it. Actually I'm not sure how many problems they have because no one knows if some of them are solvable.

  • Norman Diamond (unregistered) in reply to newfweiler
    newfweiler:
    Maybe modern COBOL was case-insensitive, but in 1976 it certainly was case-sensitive. IBM's compiler only recognized the upper-case EBCDIC letters.
    I don't think I know any C compiler that would accept keywords in upper case either. (The standard doesn't.)
    newfweiler:
    I found that out when I typed a COBOL program into an IBM 2741 terminal (a souped-up IBM Selectric typewriter). For reasons known only to the operating system's designers, upper-case letters (C1 through C9, D1 through D9 and E2 through E9) were printed as lower-case, and lower-case as upper-case. SO MY COBOL PROGRAM FAILED TO COMPILE. until i retyped the whole thing in e e cummings mode.
    I don't believe you. I typed lots of input into IBM 2741 terminals. If I was editing a plain text file, the case remained exactly as typed. If I was typing into what we would call a shell today (in a command line) or typing source code directly into an interpreter (sort of like BASIC systems used to do), the shell or the interpreter would fold the input into UPPER CASE. The operating system provided a parameter in the API for programs to say if they wanted the input to be folded into UPPER CASE or not.

    IBM 3270 terminals had weirdness in hardware unless you paid extra. If you typed lower case you would get lower case, and if you typed upper case you would get upper case, but you didn't know which you had unless you had a good memory, because the SCREEN DISPLAYED IT ALL IN UPPER CASE. The ability to display lower case was an optional extra, and if you bought it you'd see the text exactly as you typed it.

  • Salad (unregistered)

    TRWTF is calling football soccer. What is wrong with you?

  • (cs) in reply to newfweiler
    newfweiler:
    ggeens:
    lesle:
    Alex, as an old COBOL programmer, thank you for knowing that COBOL is all caps.

    Little known fact: COBOL is case-insensitive.

    Little known fact 2: it looks even worse in lowercase.

    Maybe modern COBOL was case-insensitive, but in 1976 it certainly was case-sensitive. IBM's compiler only recognized the upper-case EBCDIC letters.

    I found that out when I typed a COBOL program into an IBM 2741 terminal (a souped-up IBM Selectric typewriter). For reasons known only to the operating system's designers, upper-case letters (C1 through C9, D1 through D9 and E2 through E9) were printed as lower-case, and lower-case as upper-case. SO MY COBOL PROGRAM FAILED TO COMPILE. until i retyped the whole thing in e e cummings mode.

    You had a terminal that good?

    The one I had displayed upper and lower case both in upper case; and not only that, but it would actually allow you to type lower case, which it displayed as upper case.

    Talk about TRWTF.

  • (cs) in reply to Salad
    Salad:
    TRWTF is calling football soccer. What is wrong with you?

    No, no no... The real WTF is that anyone would use the name "football" to refer to games played mostly with the hands. Without that WTF, we wouldn't even have needed the word "soccer" because football would be football.

  • aliquam (unregistered) in reply to Zacrath
    Zacrath:
    nerd4sale:
    The frist WTF was using C++.
    nerd4sale is TRWTF.

    But seriously, is there a better compiled language or is nerd4sale just trolling?

    I whish you were trolling, but sadly I know that you and so many other people actually believe that. Is there any better? Yes of course! Pascal, Lisp, Fortran and a lot of other, just to name some of outdated ones. Or how about Haskell, LUA, Object Pascal, even fucking D and Go are better. The real Question is: Which are worse? At the top of my head I could only name Visual Basic and COBOL.

  • Norman Diamond (unregistered) in reply to aliquam
    aliquam:
    Zacrath:
    nerd4sale:
    The frist WTF was using C++.
    nerd4sale is TRWTF.

    But seriously, is there a better compiled language or is nerd4sale just trolling?

    Yes of course! Pascal, Lisp, Fortran and a lot of other, just to name some of outdated ones.
    You have a compiler for Lisp?

  • Christopher (unregistered) in reply to Norman Diamond
    Norman Diamond:
    aliquam:
    Zacrath:
    nerd4sale:
    The frist WTF was using C++.
    nerd4sale is TRWTF.

    But seriously, is there a better compiled language or is nerd4sale just trolling?

    Yes of course! Pascal, Lisp, Fortran and a lot of other, just to name some of outdated ones.
    You have a compiler for Lisp?
    I have at least three Lisp compilers installed on my system: clisp, sbcl, and gcl. That's counting only the Common Lisp compilers. I probably have more Lisp compilers installed if you include other Lisp dialects like Racket, Scheme, and Clojure.

    Lisp has had a compiler (written in Lisp, no less) since 1962, a mere 4 years after the language was created.

    I have a feeling I just fed a troll.

  • DQ (unregistered) in reply to DQ
    DQ:
    Hello world:
    Today is the 4th of July, or 4/7/2014. But that's April 7th in the US! Therefore TRWTF is the rest of the world, USA #1!

    USA #1! ?? Then why did we kick your ass in Brazil?

    Someone from Belgium.

    OK, shutting up now :(

  • eStan (unregistered) in reply to foxyshadis

    Was it really too difficult to just use a COBOL compiler to parse COBOL?

    If they had access to the correct COBOL compiler, that would probably have been ideal.

    With the right compilation options, the compiler would emit a data division map and/or a variable name xref.

    Those together would be a more structured starting point than the raw source code for a parser.

  • (cs) in reply to Salad
    Salad:
    TRWTF is calling football soccer. What is wrong with you?

    You know soccer is was coined by English people, right? It's a shortening of Association Football, with 'er' stuck on the end.

    What you don't seem to realize is that there are like 5 different kinds of football, even in England and greater Britain. Association Football is what you commoners commonly, but wrongly, call "football".

    TL;DR: It's "Association Football" or "Soccer". "Football" is just ambiguous.

    Addendum (2014-07-06 14:10): Also, "The word "soccer" was in fact the most common way of referring to association football in the UK until around the 1970s, when it began to be perceived incorrectly as an Americanism."

  • David Emery (unregistered)

    There's code in the GNAT (Open Source/GNU) Ada compiler suite to parse COBOL PIC statements. That code could have been adopted and linked to C/C++, or at least used to understand and 'steal' the algorithms/design.

    And it's really not true that COBOL doesn't handle change well, it does provide 'abstractions' by its named data elements. What's significant is the COBOL PIC clauses define a specific physical representation. without this, it would have been damn hard to understand exactly what's on those tape blocks for tightly packed data.

  • Norman Diamond (unregistered) in reply to Christopher
    Christopher:
    Norman Diamond:
    aliquam:
    Zacrath:
    nerd4sale:
    The frist WTF was using C++.
    nerd4sale is TRWTF.

    But seriously, is there a better compiled language or is nerd4sale just trolling?

    Yes of course! Pascal, Lisp, Fortran and a lot of other, just to name some of outdated ones.
    You have a compiler for Lisp?
    I have at least three Lisp compilers installed on my system: clisp, sbcl, and gcl. That's counting only the Common Lisp compilers. I probably have more Lisp compilers installed if you include other Lisp dialects like Racket, Scheme, and Clojure.

    Lisp has had a compiler (written in Lisp, no less) since 1962, a mere 4 years after the language was created.

    I have a feeling I just fed a troll.

    I forgot that compiling to bytecode is considered compiling.

  • Bjarne Hopper (unregistered) in reply to nerd4sale

    No, it was attempting to combine COBOL and C++

    I worked briefly with some COBOL programmers and they wre actually really productive, despite the horribly verbose language they had to program in. The performance of the compiled code is seriously good too. But I'd rather eat my own shoes than actually write it for a living myself.

  • (cs) in reply to Zacrath
    Zacrath:
    nerd4sale is TRWTF.
    Well, that's obvious but rather beside the point.
    But seriously, is there a better compiled language or is nerd4sale just trolling?
    [untroll]Let's see, you already have Cobol, Lex/Yacc, C (ok, that's usually your interface with Lex/Yacc) and then you need YAL (Yet Another Language) like C++ to finish the job?[/untroll] Why not throw in a bit of Perl too? And of course both Java and C# to streamline the process. And let's not forget to use Ruby, just because we can.
  • (cs) in reply to Captain Oblivious
    Captain Oblivious:
    Salad:
    TRWTF is calling football soccer. What is wrong with you?
    You know soccer is was coined by English people, right? It's a shortening of Association Football, with 'er' stuck on the end.

    What you don't seem to realize is that there are like 5 different kinds of football, even in England and greater Britain. Association Football is what you commoners commonly, but wrongly, call "football".

    TL;DR: It's "Association Football" or "Soccer". "Football" is just ambiguous.

    Addendum (2014-07-06 14:10): Also, "The word "soccer" was in fact the most common way of referring to association football in the UK until around the 1970s, when it began to be perceived incorrectly as an Americanism."

    Language has this funny habit of changing. Just because the Brits invented it (which is hardly a recommendation for anything) doesn't mean that it the the "correct" way.

    You can look at it in two ways.

    1: It's a game with a ball, that you play with your feet. Therefore, foot-ball. Following that line of thought, the most popular American sport should rightly be called "hand-egg".

    2: EVERYBODY in the world (outside North America and probably Australia) means the same thing when they say "football". Even the French, well known for translating every single foreign word into French, call it "football" and "jouer au foot". Germans call it "Fußball", the Dutch "voetbal" and in Spanish speaking countries they call it "futbol". One notable exception is Italian where they call it "calcio", but that's the name of a similar game from the middle ages.

    Football is by a very wide margin the most popular sport in the world. The KNVB (Dutch FA) has 1.2 million members on a population of 16.5 million; the DFB (German FA) has 6.8 million members on a population of 80 million and is the largest sport organisation in the world.

    When you refer to the World Cup or the world champions, you don't need to ask for what sport it is. It's football.

    Sure, in certain countries it's not the most popular sport (like American football, ice hockey, cricket or Aussie rules football), but outside those countries nobody really gives a damn about those sports, or what name you give to Association football.

    And even though football might not be the most popular sport in those countries, still many of them (USA, Australia) take part in the World Cup, and put in a great fight. Belgium against the USA was probably the best match of the tournament.

    However, unless these countries develop the same love for the Beautiful Game as is the case in Europe, Latin America and Africa, they have no chance of ever becoming world champions. It's not enough to train hard and be very talented: you need to have viewing audiences of more than 50% of the entire population, and countless children dreaming of lifting that cup one day, wearing the colours of their country.

  • QJo (unregistered) in reply to tin
    tin:
    Salad:
    TRWTF is calling football soccer. What is wrong with you?

    No, no no... The real WTF is that anyone would use the name "football" to refer to games played mostly with the hands. Without that WTF, we wouldn't even have needed the word "soccer" because football would be football.

    The word "soccer" is occasionally used in the UK. The word derives from "association football" which is the version of the football rules used by the Football Association (the sweet FA) of Britain (? I believe: same used for the Scottish League as well).

    As far as I was aware it is still acceptable to use the word "soccer" in the UK so as to strictly distinguish it from the game which Americans call "football" which is a misnomer, as applying the foot to the ball is not part of that particular game.

    Also don't forget Rugby football, which was invented in Rugby School by William Webb Ellis in the 19th Century (google for details). It is now known as "rugby" or "rugger" and has (at least) two versions in the UK: Rugby League and Rugby Union, and is traditionally followed in Wales. Rugby is the direct ancestor of its softer padded version American Football and also Australian Rules football, which is a harder version.

    Soccer is in fact a girls' game, and American football a game for children. Real men play rugby or Aussie Rules.

  • letatio (unregistered) in reply to Norman Diamond
    Norman Diamond:
    Christopher:
    Norman Diamond:
    You have a compiler for Lisp?
    I have at least three Lisp compilers installed on my system: clisp, sbcl, and gcl. That's counting only the Common Lisp compilers. I probably have more Lisp compilers installed if you include other Lisp dialects like Racket, Scheme, and Clojure.

    Lisp has had a compiler (written in Lisp, no less) since 1962, a mere 4 years after the language was created.

    I have a feeling I just fed a troll.

    I forgot that compiling to bytecode is considered compiling.
    At least some of those compilers generate machine code.

  • secundum (unregistered) in reply to Dave
    Dave:
    TRWTF is not using Excel. It'll happily read any COBOL formats you care to give it, with minimal tweaking, and spit the results into an Access DB. OK, you then have to convert that to something useful, but that's a solved problem.

    As soon as there is some OCCURS or REDEFINES in the definition you run into problems.

  • CigarDoug (unregistered) in reply to Severity One
    Severity One:
    However, unless these countries develop the same love for the Beautiful Game as is the case in Europe, Latin America and Africa, they have no chance of ever becoming world champions. It's not enough to train hard and be very talented: you need to have viewing audiences of more than 50% of the entire population, and countless children dreaming of lifting that cup one day, wearing the colours of their country.
    It's hard to get excited about a game that usually has a final score of 0-0, or in a real struggle, 1-0. Even more so a game where a tie or even a loss doesn't eliminate you from the competition.

    Many Americans who paid even partial attention to the World Cup (me, not even that) had the same reaction: "Oh, we lost. So that's it, then. What? We're not eliminated? WTF?!"

    One more thing: Why doesn't FIFA have an 'S'? It is soccer we are talking about, right?

  • AC (unregistered) in reply to Norman Diamond
    Norman Diamond:
    I forgot that compiling to bytecode is considered compiling.

    Assumptions. Check them.

    Transcript from my current Lisp session, for your consideration:

    CL-USER> (disassemble 
	  (compile
	   (defun plus (x y)
	     (declare (fixnum x y)
		      (optimize (speed 3) (safety 0) (debug 0)))
	     (the fixnum (+ x y)))))
402007DF04:
       0:      4157             push  r15
       2:      55               push  rbp
       3:      4889E5           moveq rbp, rsp
       6:      4989DF           moveq r15, rbx
       9:      4803FE           addq  rdi, rsi
      12:      B901000000       move  ecx, 1
      17:      4889EC           moveq rsp, rbp
      20:      5D               pop   rbp
      21:      415F             pop   r15
      23:      C3               ret   
      24:      90               nop   
      25:      90               nop   
      26:      90               nop   
      27:      90               nop

    The function has been riddled with optimization and type declarations to keep the assembly short. Lisp by default keeps things safe by checking types, using real integers instead of a fixed number of bits, etc, which tends to be verbose in assembly.

  • Armed Citizen (unregistered) in reply to DQ
    DQ:
    Hello world:
    Today is the 4th of July, or 4/7/2014. But that's April 7th in the US! Therefore TRWTF is the rest of the world, USA #1!

    USA #1! ?? Then why did we kick your ass in Brazil?

    Someone from Belgium.

    Because you weren't REALLY playing football. Y'all were just toe-poking a round ball into a couple of nets. REAL football involves bodily contact by large, corn-fed American's practicing Newton's Laws of Motion on each other!

  • (cs) in reply to QJo
    QJo:
    As far as I was aware it is still acceptable to use the word "soccer" in the UK so as to strictly distinguish it from the game which Americans call "football" which is a misnomer, as applying the foot to the ball is not part of that particular game.
    And that's where you're wrong. It's not a large part, but it's a part.

    Also, the correct pronunciation of real (American) football is "fuhball".

  • Jay (unregistered) in reply to Severity One
    Severity One:
    It's not enough to train hard and be very talented: you need to have viewing audiences of more than 50% of the entire population, and countless children dreaming of lifting that cup one day, wearing the colours of their country.

    Yes, you can tell that a civilization has reached dizzying heights when millions of people devote their lives to the goal of dressing in a funny costume and kicking a round rubber object around a big empty field.

    Personally, I am absolutely baffled why people take sports so seriously. So a group of people who live within a 1000 miles of me played a game with a group of people who live farther away. And I'm supposed to get all excited about which group won? Why?

  • Jay (unregistered) in reply to Jim the Tool
    Jim the Tool:
    The real WTF is the USA amirite?

    No wait, it's the USA thinking that they are the best at anything good.

    If it makes you feel better about the meager achievements of your own pitiful country to make hollow jabs at the truly great, well, go ahead.

  • (cs) in reply to Captain Oblivious
    Captain Oblivious:
    Salad:
    TRWTF is calling football soccer. What is wrong with you?

    You know soccer is was coined by English people, right? It's a shortening of Association Football, with 'er' stuck on the end.

    What you don't seem to realize is that there are like 5 different kinds of football, even in England and greater Britain. Association Football is what you commoners commonly, but wrongly, call "football".

    TL;DR: It's "Association Football" or "Soccer". "Football" is just ambiguous.

    Addendum (2014-07-06 14:10): Also, "The word "soccer" was in fact the most common way of referring to association football in the UK until around the 1970s, when it began to be perceived incorrectly as an Americanism."

    Also, in American football, the ball used to be snapped with the foot as well as the hand. Field goals also used to score more points than touchdowns; thus, the kicking game was more important. It was once feasible to move the ball, at least laterally, with the foot, in a game that was pretty much a merger of a soccer-like game and a rugby-like game.

    Unlike Brits, we don't change the name of a game when we feel like it.

  • Jay (unregistered) in reply to Steve The Cynic
    Steve The Cynic:
    No, the major WTF (and it belongs 100% to Pat) is that he appears to have written this based on the current state of the data declarations actually found in the source code rather than starting at the beginning, with the language definition.

    Of course that isn't as easy as it sounds, because you need access to the definition of the COBOL dialect used by the client, but they should have been able to furnish enough information for Pat to be able to proceed.

    Sorry, Pat, but that's the way I see it.

    If he was writing a product to be marketed commercially, then sure, he should consult the spec and handle every possible case.

    But as he's just developing a product to be used internally, and indeed to just be run by himself, what's the point of writing code for a whole bunch of cases that may never occur? It seems to me that it makes good sense to just code for the cases that you know will actually happen, and as additional cases arise, update the code to handle them.

    Sorry Steve, but that's the way I see it.

  • (cs)

    And this classic:

    [image]

Leave a comment on “Classic WTF: The Program Generator Program”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article