• (cs) in reply to Zylon
    Zylon:
    they reinstated the _target attribute in HTML5.

    They (re)instated a whole bunch of crap in HTML5 and made code soup the norm.

    I'm not saying there isn't a whole bunch of useful stuff in HTML5; there is. But to say something is right because it was included/allowed for in HTML5 is pretty much akin to justifying spelling and grammar via finding matching examples on the internet.

  • Ralph (unregistered) in reply to dogmatic
    dogmatic:
    sorry you lost your flash game score little kid when you clicked to read the contests rules, shoulda right-clicked that link dontchya know
    Oops, almost missed that one! So explain to me again how you got that game running on little Timmy's computer without sending him any executable code?

    You see, this is the core problem.

    The web is for distributing knowledge.

    Ignorant cool-tards have turned it into a medium for distributing software.

    This is a fundamentally flawed idea that can never be made secure. We knew in the 1960s not to mix data and code! But then we forgot, I guess.

    But who cares about all the victims of this silliness? Timmy must have his dancing cartoons, mustn't he? And we can't think of any other way to get him some entertainment software. Pathetic.

  • (cs) in reply to dogmatic
    dogmatic:
    There are many times when a stateful web app cannot be easily restored with a back click.

    It's doable and it should be done. Don't pop up a new window on me because you're a lazy programmer.

    I have to work every day with other peeps' screwy web apps where the back button breaks stuff, and it gives me pleasure every day to think of awful things happening to those developers. Really awful things.

  • (cs) in reply to oheso
    oheso:
    But to say something is right because it was included/allowed for in HTML5 is pretty much akin to justifying spelling and grammar via finding matching examples on the internet.
    No, saying something is right because it's in a spec is exactly as valid as saying something is wrong because it's NOT in a spec, which is what Ralph tried to claim.

    Do try to keep up, would you?

  • (cs) in reply to Zylon
    Zylon:
    No, saying something is right because it's in a spec ...

    Inclusion in the spec does not make it mandatory.

    I am not Ralph. I understand his position. I don't keep to it myself exclusively, but I will say that by default sites I visit do not execute JS on my computer.

  • DataURI (unregistered) in reply to Ralph
    Ralph:
    dogmatic:
    sorry you lost your flash game score little kid when you clicked to read the contests rules, shoulda right-clicked that link dontchya know
    Oops, almost missed that one! So explain to me again how you got that game running on little Timmy's computer without sending him any executable code?

    You see, this is the core problem.

    The web is for distributing knowledge.

    Ignorant cool-tards have turned it into a medium for distributing software.

    This is a fundamentally flawed idea that can never be made secure. We knew in the 1960s not to mix data and code! But then we forgot, I guess.

    But who cares about all the victims of this silliness? Timmy must have his dancing cartoons, mustn't he? And we can't think of any other way to get him some entertainment software. Pathetic.

    [image]
  • (cs) in reply to oheso
    oheso:
    Zylon:
    No, saying something is right because it's in a spec ...

    Inclusion in the spec does not make it mandatory.

    Congratulations on insisting on following the conversation in your head, and not the one that's actually happening.

  • Sigivald (unregistered) in reply to Medinoc

    That is true, in its place.

    But what I noted in:

    Public Function Save() As Boolean
    Try
        SaveMeeting()
    Catch ex As Exception
        Throw ex
    End Try
End Function

    was that the obvious explanation is that the catch block is there to let you place a breakpoint to catch it in the act, rather than being 'real' code intended to do anything useful in and of itself.

    This makes even more sense if SaveMeeeting is, say, a method in a DLL that you don't have access to the internals of.

  • J (unregistered) in reply to dogmatic
    dogmatic:
    There are many times when a stateful web app cannot be easily restored with a back click. Sure you might be able to put everything in a session var, and restore from that, but that could be hours to days of work to implement... or you could just have the click spawn a new window. Try explaining to grandma that she has to fill out the 30 field form page again because she should've ctrl-clicked that link, or how about "sorry you lost your flash game score little kid when you clicked to read the contests rules, shoulda right-clicked that link dontchya know". Your arrogance is pretty funny though, you must be a real treat to work with.

    This is a job for one of those little floating page elements, warning you you're about to lose all your form data. Or better yet, the information she's looking for itself should go in a little floating box, instead of opening a new window.

    You can probably tell I don't know a whole lot about web development. I'm speaking from a user's perspective -- I prefer if the sites I visit never open new windows on their own.

  • (cs) in reply to J
    J:
    This is a job for one of those little floating page elements, warning you you're about to lose all your form data. Or better yet, the information she's looking for itself should go in a little floating box, instead of opening a new window.
    You know what those little floating boxes are called? "Windows".

    Don't try to re-invent the tools that the OS has already given you.

  • anon (unregistered)

    Congratulations, Ralph. You've just convinced anyone that previously thought there was no place for opening links in a new window to change their mind. Simply because they don't want to be on the same side as you.

  • Norman Diamond (unregistered)
    Michael:
    /**
 * Defines the value for none. Default is "none".
 */
public static String NONE = "none";
    The original code was: 
    /**
 * Defines the value for none. Default is "無".
 */
public static String NONE = "無";
    Then a foreigner tried to localize it but didn't know how. They changed the default instead of adding an option to deviate from the default.
  • Friedrice the Great (unregistered)

    OVERWHELMED, OVERWHELMED, OVERWHELMED, OVERWHELMED, OVERWHELMED, OVERWHELMED and More.

  • Norman Diamond (unregistered) in reply to Ralph
    Ralph:
    The web is for distributing knowledge.

    Ignorant cool-tards have turned it into a medium for distributing software.

    Yeah, I always wondered who allowed "ftp://" in URLs, and why. Next I wondered why someone allowed http to transport the same kinds of files.

  • J (unregistered) in reply to Zylon
    Zylon:
    J:
    This is a job for one of those little floating page elements, warning you you're about to lose all your form data. Or better yet, the information she's looking for itself should go in a little floating box, instead of opening a new window.
    You know what those little floating boxes are called? "Windows".

    Don't try to re-invent the tools that the OS has already given you.

    Yes, that's what I meant. Instead of a window, why don't you try a window?

  • Ralph (unregistered) in reply to anon
    anon:
    Congratulations, Ralph. You've just convinced anyone that previously thought there was no place for opening links in a new window to change their mind. Simply because they don't want to be on the same side as you.
    I didn't realize this was a popularity contest. I'll get back in line immediately sir!
  • Johnny come lately (unregistered) in reply to QJo
    QJo:
    There's a cogent reason for defining SLASH = "/" and PERCENT as "%". They're control characters. When you want to build a string using them, in certain contexts, you don't want to muddy the waters by having to remember to escape them. Often more trouble-free to do it this way.
    But, but...

    Oh, never mind, I see you're a troll....

  • Ching (unregistered) in reply to Stefan
    Stefan:
    /** * Defines the value for none. Default is "none". */ public static String NONE = "none";

    That ain't so bad. Probably just a text when a var. is empty. although something like String blankText = "none"; or would have been better.

    and if we ever decide that "none" is a valid value we can simply change it to "zilch"

  • Dongle (unregistered) in reply to oheso
    oheso:
    Otto:
    The "target" parameter is not valid in XHTML 1.0 Strict, so using it like that would not pass validation.

    You have to consider your use-case with HTML, basically. Which makes HTML the real WTF here.

    Links which open in new windows are TRWTF.

    Exactly. When surfing pr0n and you want videos in each window you can right click and explicitly choose what should be opened in a new window

  • Samran (unregistered) in reply to Nagesh
    Nagesh:
    Lot of code is writing because of comercial demand. If business want to have 83 params or 84 params in function, developer should do it. After all, the person holding the cheque book is always right!

    If you had told Shah Jehan, Taj mahal can not be built, he would have cut off your head and fed it to the pigs. Great monument in art always built on sacrifice.

    So don't worry if getting code to production ready state is going to upset a few people like your wife and children.

    Don't trust man with cheque book - he can't pay... Better work for company with cash or card
  • Chief (unregistered) in reply to Ralph
    Ralph:
    dogmatic:
    sorry you lost your flash game score little kid when you clicked to read the contests rules, shoulda right-clicked that link dontchya know
    Oops, almost missed that one! So explain to me again how you got that game running on little Timmy's computer without sending him any executable code?

    You see, this is the core problem.

    The web is for distributing knowledge.

    Ignorant cool-tards have turned it into a medium for distributing software.

    This is a fundamentally flawed idea that can never be made secure. We knew in the 1960s not to mix data and code! But then we forgot, I guess.

    But who cares about all the victims of this silliness? Timmy must have his dancing cartoons, mustn't he? And we can't think of any other way to get him some entertainment software. Pathetic.

    Damn-straight Ralphy. They should pay for it like we used to!!
  • JB (unregistered) in reply to anon
    anon:
    Congratulations, Ralph. You've just convinced anyone that previously thought there was no place for opening links in a new window to change their mind. Simply because they don't want to be on the same side as you.
    Not true - if anything he's strengthened my opinion...
  • Cheong (unregistered)
    "I had to look over some C# code written by a colleague of mine," notes John D, "the following lines represent just the tip of the iceberg of the pain that I had to go through while understanding the code."

    bool true1 =true; bool true12 = true; .... snip .... true1 = false; true1 = false;

    Don't mind. Just change the interpretation of these trueX variable as boolX and you'll be fine. (Or will it?)

  • (cs)

    Fixed that for them:

        if(t1 == '' || t2 == '' || t3 == '' || t4 == '' || t5 == '' || t6 == '' || t7 == '' || t8 == ''){
        alert("Please fill-up all the fields");
        dataok = false; return(dataok);}
    t4 = t5;
    if(t4 != t5){
        alert("Please enter the password again");
        dataok = false; return(dataok);}
    if(t9 == 0){
  • dogmatic (unregistered) in reply to Ralph
    Ralph:
    dogmatic:
    sorry you lost your flash game score little kid when you clicked to read the contests rules, shoulda right-clicked that link dontchya know
    Oops, almost missed that one! So explain to me again how you got that game running on little Timmy's computer without sending him any executable code?

    You see, this is the core problem.

    The web is for distributing knowledge.

    Ignorant cool-tards have turned it into a medium for distributing software.

    This is a fundamentally flawed idea that can never be made secure. We knew in the 1960s not to mix data and code! But then we forgot, I guess.

    But who cares about all the victims of this silliness? Timmy must have his dancing cartoons, mustn't he? And we can't think of any other way to get him some entertainment software. Pathetic.

    Hahaha oh man that's the best laugh I have all day. Thanks for taking the time out of filing your punch cards to discuss!

  • peter (unregistered) in reply to _
    _:
    You should quit trolling:
    Ralph:
    My Name:
    I don't know more than HTML basics
    Right, so you must be the guy who wrote 97% of the sites on the web, right? Or else the guy everyone else is copying? (Sigh!)
    My Name:
    link text

    I assume there is a way to do this without Javascript?

    Uh, yeah. You know, there was a web before someone got the profoundly indefensible idea to let every random idiot worldwide take control of your browser.

    link text

    That's it! Simple, right? But that's all you have to do! In fact that's all you should do.

    (Whine) But I want it to open in a new window...

    Fuck you and the horse you rode in on, arrogant asshole! It is MY computer not yours!!! If I want a new window I can right click and open the link in a new window or a new tab. That's my choice not yours. Go to hell.

    You're wrong, the feature was implemented for a reason. Sometimes (frequently) the user flow only makes sense to open as a popup or new tab. Just because you can't follow the simple flow of a website doesn't mean we should all become ludites.

    Name one.

    Opening a help window on a form that is now halfway filled out comes to mind.

  • David (unregistered) in reply to Ralph
    Ralph:
    The web is for distributing knowledge.

    Ignorant cool-tards have turned it into a medium for distributing software.

    This is a fundamentally flawed idea that can never be made secure. We knew in the 1960s not to mix data and code! But then we forgot, I guess.

    But who cares about all the victims of this silliness? Timmy must have his dancing cartoons, mustn't he? And we can't think of any other way to get him some entertainment software. Pathetic.

    (The scene: somewhere, in the past.)

    Luser: I shouldnt have to put in any effort whatsoever! The computer should just work!

    Marketroid: Yeah! You engineers, make it just work!

    Engineers: What? No. Just... no.

    PHB: Do it or youre fired.

    Engineers: Well, all right then. But this is a really bad idea.

    (The scene: some time later.)

    Luser: It broke and all my stuff is gone! Waa! Waa!

    Engineer (to second engineer): Fancy a cup of tears? I saved some for you.

    Second engineer: Mmm. Delicious!

  • will (unregistered)

    Don't have a problem with the GUID code.
    Worked on one system where the application language, middleware language, and database all had GUID function and all three created them in different formats. Finally standardized on just one and because of the nature of the project GUID had to be created but not used in the database you had stuff like that to get a GUID.

  • dk (unregistered) in reply to big picture thinker

    You're wrong. This will compile; and return 'False'.

    In VB.Net, you can ommit the 'return' and the method will return the default value (which is 'False' for boolean).

  • (cs)

    public static final String BACKSLASH = ""; public static final String QUOTE = """;

    hey, why is our code leaking out of our backslash?

  • (cs)

    About those constants, and how the submitter questioned they were real, I found this in our code the other day:

    $us = "_"; // underscore
  • (cs) in reply to the beholder
    the beholder:
    There's another situation: when you're writing an email on Gmail and you remember you need info that's in a message somewhere in your Inbox/Sent box/whatever. Why lose your current email when you can click the nice little diagonal arrow to pop your mail out and enable you to use the other window to search for the info you want?

    I never noticed that arrow before. I've always just middle-clicked on "Inbox", to open my inbox in another window. No silly javascript required.

  • Artem Chachanidze (unregistered) in reply to nobulate

    Recording ALL possible personal details abount clients is a common practice in Georgia (Country in Caucasus). (I'm one of the maintainers of that 'serious' banking app)

  • zirias (unregistered) in reply to Bednee
    Bednee:
    Actually, the way to open a link in a new window makes sense. The reason is that "target" attibute isn't valid in some XHTML doctype (I believe it's Strict, which else right). So in order to keep validity it has to be done this way.

    Indeed, definitely not a WTF. Even has a nice fallback for clients without javascript and avoids data duplication.

  • (cs) in reply to peter
    Ralph:
    (Whine) But I want it to open in a new window...

    Fuck you and the horse you rode in on, arrogant asshole! It is MY computer not yours!!! If I want a new window I can right click and open the link in a new window or a new tab. That's my choice not yours. Go to hell.

    This definitely depends on the audience. I know plenty of people in my vicinity who don't have a CS degree, who only use computers very irregularly and who can't distinguish between entering a URL in the address line of the browser and entering a search term in the Google window that happens to be their startup site. These people also have no clue that their mouse has more than just the left button. When I tell them to right-click to open the context menu, I am regularly met with blank stares -- or prolonged, astonished silence, when on the phone. To help these people out, I regularly make within-a-homepage-links open in the same window and outside-of-the-current-homepage-links open in a new tab. They love me for that. So it's not so much that I want it to open in a new window (I, personally, couldn't care less), it is more of an ease-of-use thing.

    peter:
    Opening a help window on a form that is now halfway filled out comes to mind.
    You are, of course, right in so far as most of the time, in these circumstances, we would lose the form content if the help came up inside the same window. But that is only because most web programmers don't know their asses from their elbows. Technical correct solutions are possible, and help-in-a-new-window is just the easy way out. Don't get me wrong, I don't hate new windows when they make sense, and they *do* make sense if the web developer doesn't know any better.
  • MORAN (unregistered) in reply to David
    David:
    Ralph:
    The web is for distributing knowledge.

    Ignorant cool-tards have turned it into a medium for distributing software.

    This is a fundamentally flawed idea that can never be made secure. We knew in the 1960s not to mix data and code! But then we forgot, I guess.

    But who cares about all the victims of this silliness? Timmy must have his dancing cartoons, mustn't he? And we can't think of any other way to get him some entertainment software. Pathetic.

    (The scene: somewhere, in the past.)

    Luser: I shouldnt have to put in any effort whatsoever! The computer should just work!

    Marketroid: Yeah! You engineers, make it just work!

    Engineers: What? No. Just... no.

    PHB: Do it or youre fired.

    Engineers: Well, all right then. But this is a really bad idea.

    (The scene: some time later.)

    Luser: It broke and all my stuff is gone! Waa! Waa!

    Engineer (to second engineer): Fancy a cup of tears? I saved some for you.

    Second engineer: Mmm. Delicious!

    I don't get it. Are you agreeing with him or not?
  • Jake (unregistered) in reply to Se
    Bednee:
    Se:
    Bednee:
    Actually, the way to open a link in a new window makes sense. The reason is that "target" attibute isn't valid in some XHTML doctype (I believe it's Strict, which else right). So in order to keep validity it has to be done this way.

    Agreed. That one isn't a WTF.

    Disagreed. Although the author of that particular snippet of code may have had no choice, it's most definitely a WTF to be forced to use Javascript over plain standard HTML to open a link in a new window. Forcing your own WTF upon thousands of other developers? Not only is that a WTF, it takes WTF to a whole different level.
  • TheSHEEEP (unregistered) in reply to Jake

    It's like WTF domination.

    Captcha - nisl. Fa-shizzle?

  • Mathew (unregistered) in reply to SergeS
    SergeS:
    My Name:
    link text

    I don't know more than HTML basics, so I assume there is a way to do this without Javascript? Otherwise, I don't see the wtf.

    Yes, but this is not valid XHTML way

    Sure, it is, you fail. It has nothing to do with XHTML - HTML strict doesn't allow it either.

    Not allowing the target-attribute is the real wtf. Just because some fascists wrongly believe this shouldn't be possible.

  • Mathew (unregistered) in reply to Dongle
    Dongle:
    oheso:
    Otto:
    The "target" parameter is not valid in XHTML 1.0 Strict, so using it like that would not pass validation.

    You have to consider your use-case with HTML, basically. Which makes HTML the real WTF here.

    Links which open in new windows are TRWTF.

    Exactly. When surfing pr0n and you want videos in each window you can right click and explicitly choose what should be opened in a new window

    Links to external websites should ALWAYS be opened in a new tab. If you don't agree you're a fucking retard that know nothing about ux.

  • Mathew (unregistered) in reply to Otto
    Otto:
    The "target" parameter is not valid in XHTML 1.0 Strict, so using it like that would not pass validation.

    You have to consider your use-case with HTML, basically. Which makes HTML the real WTF here.

    No, Otto, the WTF is you. HTML Strict doesn't allow the target-attribute (not, parameter - moron) either. Fucking wannabe.

  • (cs) in reply to Medinoc
    Medinoc:
    As a .Net developer, I ABHOR the "throw ex" construct: It strips the exception of its stack trace, making debugging harder.

    Or to put it another way:

    DestroyCallStackException up = new DestroyCallStackException();
throw up;
  • Glad (unregistered)

    Try SaveMeeting() Catch ex As Exception Throw ex End Try

    Will actually result in the stack being lost beyond the line Throw Ex.

    If you wanted the stack to keep earlier entries in the stack, then you will have todo: Try SaveMeeting() Catch ex As Exception Throw New Exception(ex.ToString(), e) End Try

    Well in C# anyway

  • omghi (unregistered) in reply to Medinoc

    How odd that .NET behaves that way. In the sane world of Java, catching e and throwing e a bit later preserves the original stack trace, as you're throwing exactly the same exception object you caught. Of course, catching e, and throwing new Exception() would lose it...

  • Herr Otto Flick (unregistered) in reply to oheso
    oheso:
    the beholder:
    Why lose your current email when you can click the nice little diagonal arrow to pop your mail out and enable you to use the other window to search for the info you want?

    Can give the user the choice without forcing it on him. IOW, a regular link with no target specified.

    FTFY.

    Because users are idiotic twats who need to be guided by the hand to do anything. This doesn't cover you? Tough shit matey, the world doesn't revolve around "making things perfect for oheso".

    It's people like you that ensure that the target attribute of an href is not valid in so many 'standards'*, because it upsets their semantic sensibilities of what HTML 'should be'. TRWTF is arguing about how evil opening a new window is to the extent that people use some crufty JS to work around the 'standard'.

    • The best thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.
  • (cs) in reply to Glad
    Glad:
    If you wanted the stack to keep earlier entries in the stack, then you will have todo: Try SaveMeeting() Catch ex As Exception Throw New Exception(ex.ToString(), e) End Try

    Well in C# anyway

    Or you could simply use Throw without argument.

  • Mathew (unregistered) in reply to Nappy
    Nappy:
    The HTML 4.0 specification took away the target attribute, but it added another attribute: rel. This attribute is intended to specify the relationship between the document that contains the link, and the target of the link. The specification defines a bunch of standard values for this attribute (e.g. next, previous, chapter, section), most of which have to do with relationships between small sections of a larger document. However, the spec leaves the developer free to use nonstandard values for site-specific purposes.

    http://www.sitepoint.com/standards-compliant-world/

    Please don't cite bs. the rel-attribute was there long before HTML4.

  • (cs) in reply to Ralph
    Ralph:
    Fuck you and the horse you rode in on, arrogant asshole! It is ***MY*** computer not yours!!! If I want a new window I can right click and open the link in a new window or a new tab. That's my choice not yours. Go to hell.
    You give the guy more credit than he deserves. I'd bet he used XHTML, validated the site and got the message saying that the target-attribute is not allowed, then figured this would be the way to solve that. Classroom example of someone who uses validation as a goal instead of a means to an end.
    Jake:
    Bednee:
    Se:
    Bednee:
    Actually, the way to open a link in a new window makes sense. The reason is that "target" attibute isn't valid in some XHTML doctype (I believe it's Strict, which else right). So in order to keep validity it has to be done this way.

    Agreed. That one isn't a WTF.

    Disagreed. Although the author of that particular snippet of code may have had no choice, it's most definitely a WTF to be forced to use Javascript over plain standard HTML to open a link in a new window. Forcing your own WTF upon thousands of other developers? Not only is that a WTF, it takes WTF to a whole different level.
    Validation is not a goal in itself. There is not a single browser out there that will break upon seeing a target="_blank". Worst case scenario, a browser will ignore it. It will never break the website. It will never cause the user problems.

    Twisting and turning yourself into the strangest code constructions just to conform to a guideline is the kind of mindless idiocy that ruins so many websites out there. A site does not have to validate as long as you can explain why it doesn't and why you need the feature that breaks validation. Choosing to break your site's functionality just to have a validating site shows to me you clearly haven't gotten the point.

  • Martin (unregistered)

    Actually there is a good reason why DB GUIDs are better. We've had a problem with Windows generating a repeating GUID about once every 20 000 times where SQL Server does not.

  • Mathew (unregistered) in reply to anon
    anon:
    Congratulations, Ralph. You've just convinced anyone that previously thought there was no place for opening links in a new window to change their mind. Simply because they don't want to be on the same side as you.

    Generally, complete retards don't change their mind that fast

Leave a comment on “FAIL FAIL,FAIL FAIL,FAIL FAIL and More”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article