The Daily WTF: Curious Perversions in Information Technology

Nyne · 2006-03-10 Reply Admin

All I can say is.. holy crap

2006-03-10 Reply Admin

trollable:
ParkinT:
A committee is defined as:
A group of people who individually can do nothing and

Collectively agree nothing can be done.

Hmm... In general they can not agree even on that.
At least not before the third meeting.

I like Heinlein's definition better.

"A committe is a lifeform with 6 or more legs and no brain"

2006-03-10 Reply Admin

Anonymous:
trollable:
ParkinT:
A committee is defined as:
A group of people who individually can do nothing and

Collectively agree nothing can be done.

Hmm... In general they can not agree even on that.
At least not before the third meeting.

I like Heinlein's definition better.

"A committe is a lifeform with 6 or more legs and no brain"

oops -- "committee"

januarys · 2006-03-10 Reply Admin

gwenhwyfaer:
Anonymous:
Whether you choose the British English version with the 's', or the American English (aka English v1.1) version with the 'z', really depends on what floats your boat!
Not just American English - as any Colin Dexter fan would tell you, the '-ize' variants are the preferred spelling at Oxford (both the dictionary and the archaic educational institution). Although why we haven't ended up with '-izms' I don't know.

The only one i can think of is baduizm.

I observe computer geekizm. Something about a man marinated in a little pretense, seasoned by a 'we only do it this way' point of view, I can't turn down. (I may be the flirtiest woman on this posting board but at least I'm honest.)

WTF Batman · 2006-03-10 Reply Admin

Anonymous:
Hang on a mo, isn't that also very likely susceptible to SQL Injection attacks? No obvious filtering in there...

I think, in this case, the SQL is DOING the injecting.

In Soviet Russia, Mr. T. injects YOU!!

marvin_rabbit · 2006-03-10 Reply Admin

januarys:
gwenhwyfaer:
Anonymous:
Whether you choose the British English version with the 's', or the American English (aka English v1.1) version with the 'z', really depends on what floats your boat!
Not just American English - as any Colin Dexter fan would tell you, the '-ize' variants are the preferred spelling at Oxford (both the dictionary and the archaic educational institution). Although why we haven't ended up with '-izms' I don't know.

The only one i can think of is baduizm.

I observe computer geekizm. Something about a man marinated in a little pretense, seasoned by a 'we only do it this way' point of view, I can't turn down. (I may be the flirtiest woman on this posting board but at least I'm honest.)

Ahhhhhh. When you talk geeky it makes my MOSFET's tingle!

ParkinT · 2006-03-10 Reply Admin

marvin_rabbit:
januarys:

gwenhwyfaer:
Anonymous:
Whether you choose the British English version with the 's', or the American English (aka English v1.1) version with the 'z', really depends on what floats your boat!
Not just American English - as any Colin Dexter fan would tell you, the '-ize' variants are the preferred spelling at Oxford (both the dictionary and the archaic educational institution). Although why we haven't ended up with '-izms' I don't know.

The only one i can think of is baduizm.

I observe computer geekizm. Something about a man marinated in a little pretense, seasoned by a 'we only do it this way' point of view, I can't turn down. (I may be the flirtiest woman on this posting board but at least I'm honest.)

Ahhhhhh. When you talk geeky it makes my MOSFET's tingle!

Only if you are as old as me, you may remember this one;

{two versions}

http://www.rhymezone.com/r/gwic.cgi?loc=fp&Path=jokes/1//

http://www.elsop.com/wrc/humor/farad.htm

BTW: You all guessed too low on my age.

2006-03-10 Reply Admin

I watched A-Team as a kid, and i'm only 25. It's was my favorite show at the time.

2006-03-10 Reply Admin

I'm trying to come up with a hilarious pun using the phrase "dBA Baracus" but it's just not coming...

2006-03-10 Reply Admin

Anonymous:
Alex Papadimoulis:

Josh: Javascript in a SQL Query? Seriously?
Murdock: What's wrong with that? It's more efficient that way.

Ah yes, the famous bogus "efficiency" argument. Never prioritised against other little things like maintainability or basic common sense, never justified with actual metrics. The unmistakeable shibboleth of the pseudo-guru.

It is not done just because of efficiency I suspect. The technique to use a relational model is not that weird. It just means that your program, instead of consisting of source code, is put in database. The tools to manage a database are much stronger than the tools to manage a source-file.

Sure, in this particular case wrapping the thing up in a function or class would just as easily gave you the 'alter-everywhere' ability. But having to perform one update statement is not that much 'less' maintainable. Its like a type-checked omniscience search & replace.

It would be less maintainable if you had to alter it at several places to make the update. That would be a WTF, but this I must say, is not that much a WTF in my opinion, except that its not very industry standard. So you better clearly document what you did and why.

I actually wonder wether or the project was a success? Embedding code in a database does not seem such a weird thing. A spread-sheet program essentially embeds code in a document and turned out be very usable for even the biggest idiots on the planet. Who would have guessed back then?

So replacing big text-files that serve as the source-code, you put the program logic in a database. Its definately a different way of doing things, but even the most horrific change in structure of the program could be accomplished by updating the program through some sql-statements. Its like template-based programming on steroids.

Could the author give us more information how this thing worked out? What were the problems that came up using this approach?

2006-03-12 Reply Admin

XML? LOL ring ring w00t.

I got like two years ago on the other line ... something about returning their latest new thing.

2006-03-12 Reply Admin

mrsticks1982:

I will take 35

I will take 2 and call you in the morning.

2006-03-12 Reply Admin

Anonymous:
As far as I am aware, optimalization doesn't exist in the English language. Maybe you were looking for optimisation, or even optimization?

I thought it was an intentional joke. But maybe I misoverestimated him.

2006-03-12 Reply Admin

Anonymous:
jvancil:
I'm guessing it was a code generating tool...

Oh, it sounds like they have an entire team of code generating "tools".

I've been reading this site most days for 6 months, I don't get through all the comments but that is the simply best comment ever, and probably applicable to almost every other entry on this site, I think this post should automatically be entered if some idiot adds... 1st!!!

2006-03-12 Reply Admin

Anonymous:
Anonymous:
Alex Papadimoulis:

Josh: Javascript in a SQL Query? Seriously?
Murdock: What's wrong with that? It's more efficient that way.

Ah yes, the famous bogus "efficiency" argument. Never prioritised against other little things like maintainability or basic common sense, never justified with actual metrics. The unmistakeable shibboleth of the pseudo-guru.

It is not done just because of efficiency I suspect. The technique to use a relational model is not that weird. It just means that your program, instead of consisting of source code, is put in database. The tools to manage a database are much stronger than the tools to manage a source-file.

Sure, in this particular case wrapping the thing up in a function or class would just as easily gave you the 'alter-everywhere' ability. But having to perform one update statement is not that much 'less' maintainable. Its like a type-checked omniscience search & replace.

It would be less maintainable if you had to alter it at several places to make the update. That would be a WTF, but this I must say, is not that much a WTF in my opinion, except that its not very industry standard. So you better clearly document what you did and why.

I actually wonder wether or the project was a success? Embedding code in a database does not seem such a weird thing. A spread-sheet program essentially embeds code in a document and turned out be very usable for even the biggest idiots on the planet. Who would have guessed back then?

So replacing big text-files that serve as the source-code, you put the program logic in a database. Its definately a different way of doing things, but even the most horrific change in structure of the program could be accomplished by updating the program through some sql-statements. Its like template-based programming on steroids.

Could the author give us more information how this thing worked out? What were the problems that came up using this approach?

I'm the SOTF (Submiter of the) and I'd be happy to share a bit more about it. I'll start by saying that the anonymized version makes it sound a lot worse than it really is. The site this is from recently went into beta testing and so far the clients love it.

The html embeded into the database is just a template of the tag needed for each type of content. So there is a row for videos, a row for flash, etc. The acctual content gets stored in another table with file name, size, parameters, etc. This way you can update, for example, all the flash pieces to pass a new parameter without going through all the pages with flash pieces. Not a bad idea for a really big site, but this one is fairly small and really didn't need this. All it did was turn a 15 minute job into a 2 hours job, which is where I found the javascript thing. If this had been better documented, it would have saved a lot of searching through code and the conversation with "Murdock."

Unlike what the anonymized version says, this was not caused by skipping over architecture and design, but was cause by overdesign. Also, the "a-team" wasn't behind schedule, they were just working on different projects while I built the site backend and a few changes to the frontend.

So in short, the site is a success, but it is overdesigned and therefor takes longer to maintain than it should for a site it's size.

And now I really want to show up for work on monday in a black van with a mohawk and about 15 pounds of gold necklaces.

2006-03-13 Reply Admin

Anonymous:
Anonymous:

In 2005, a crack application programming unit was sent on sabbatical by a corporate board of directors for a build they didn't commit.

These men promptly escaped a maximum security server farm to the Silicon Valley underground.

Today, still wanted by Microsoft, they survive as coders of fortune.

If you have a web app,

if no one else can help,

and if you can find them...

maybe you can hire...

the A-Team.

BANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANG

Genius. That's made my day.

*bows* That introduction has been burned into my brain ever since I watched it as a teen. I finally found a use for it. Heh.

--
$0.02

2006-03-13 Reply Admin

Actually, waiting with bated breath (watching the pot) will cause the desired effect - faster code. Any motion you take in any direction will bring you closer to approaching the speed of light (even ever so slightly) which will slow you down and make the code appear to fly like gang-busters. Theory of relativity and all that. [;)]

- Can't the pope just stick his staff in the bloody ocean and bless all that water at once? That would take care of the world's rampant vampire/smurf problem in one fell swoop but does nothing for politicians/lawyers. [:(]

TomCo

2006-03-16 Reply Admin

Maybe we could embed the xml-database in javascript, running on IE's JScript-"engine", which itself runs on windows for embedded systems... evil_grin

Stoffel · 2006-03-16 Reply Admin

I forget where it is I read it, but there was a dev house somewhere that would automatically count the number of statements in the C code base to measure productivity.

Somebody realized it measured statements simply by counting semicolons.

It started innocently enough--every while loop became a for loop, and then the extra "accidental" semicolons started appearing at the ends of lines.

Ultimately, someone realized that the parser also didn't escape comments. Then things got ugly.

/* ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /
/ ;; Function: foo(int n) ;; /
/ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /
/ ;; Description: This fun... */

(you get the idea)

Embedding The Embedded Embedding

Leave a comment on “Embedding The Embedded Embedding”