• Frist (unregistered)

    Friust

    The cmment psoted so it must be rite.

  • Iggy (unregistered)

    #include <stdio.h> int main (void) {

    return (5);

    printf("Hello World!");

    }


    see, it compiles, Hello World Fails, no Bugs

  • np (unregistered)

    "It compiles, ship it" That is our slogan at work. Glad to see our CTO is Nick.

  • Ronan (unregistered)

    If it compiles, the computer understand what you tell it to do. That doesn’t mean what you told it to do is what you wanted it to do.

  • Totally Valid! (unregistered)
    bleeding-edge web technology, ... a cobweb-laden mainframe!
    More-funny if you read, ... like-a this!
  • CaptainOblivious (cs) in reply to Ronan

    If it compiles, the computer understand what you tell it to do. That doesn’t mean what you told it to do is what you wanted it to do.

    Now I get it!

  • Balu (unregistered) in reply to Ronan
    Ronan:
    If it compiles, the computer understand what you tell it to do. That doesn’t mean what you told it to do is what you wanted it to do.
    Tell us some more, Captain Obvious!
  • A Guy (unregistered)

    That's why we use PHP: no compiler means there are no errors

  • sulis (unregistered) in reply to Balu
    Balu:
    Ronan:
    If it compiles, the computer understand what you tell it to do. That doesn’t mean what you told it to do is what you wanted it to do.
    Tell us some more, Captain Obvious!
    Apparently it's not obvious to some 'programmers'.
  • Coward (unregistered) in reply to Balu
    Balu:
    Ronan:
    If it compiles, the computer understand what you tell it to do. That doesn’t mean what you told it to do is what you wanted it to do.
    Tell us some more, Captain Obvious!
    Actually I wish the graduates here understood that...
  • TGV (cs) in reply to CaptainOblivious
    CaptainOblivious:
    >If it compiles, the computer understand what you tell it to do. >That doesn’t mean what you told it to do is what you wanted it to do.

    Now I get it!

    I still don't get it. Can you explain it to me, not using one of Fred's difficult metaphors, but perhaps in terms of fixed-point algebra?

  • dv (unregistered) in reply to TGV
    TGV:
    CaptainOblivious:
    >If it compiles, the computer understand what you tell it to do. >That doesn’t mean what you told it to do is what you wanted it to do.

    Now I get it!

    I still don't get it. Can you explain it to me, not using one of Fred's difficult metaphors, but perhaps in terms of fixed-point algebra?
    Fixed point algebra? Just because you can write 1/0, which is perfectly sane and understandable to anyone, it doesn't mean that you can actually compute that expression.

  • RFox (unregistered) in reply to Iggy

    Just change the specs: Write a command line program that returns a status of 5 ..compiles and is correct.

    Iggy:
    #include <stdio.h> int main (void) {

    return (5);

    printf("Hello World!");

    }


    see, it compiles, Hello World Fails, no Bugs

  • The MAZZTer (cs) in reply to Iggy
    Iggy:
    #include <stdio.h> int main (void) {

    return (5);

    printf("Hello World!");

    }


    see, it compiles, Hello World Fails, no Bugs

    Not a good example, a good compiler will give you a warning for unreachable code.

  • Balu (unregistered) in reply to The MAZZTer
    The MAZZTer:
    Iggy:
    #include <stdio.h> int main (void) {

    return (5);

    printf("Hello World!");

    }


    see, it compiles, Hello World Fails, no Bugs

    Not a good example, a good compiler will give you a warning for unreachable code.

    Not GCC. XCode neither. See "goto fail;".

  • I (unregistered) in reply to A Guy
    A Guy:
    That's why we use PHP: no compiler means there are no errors
    You're not using Node.js for absolutely everything? Get with the times, old guy.
  • ¯\(°_o)/¯ I DUNNO LOL (unregistered) in reply to RFox
    RFox:
    return (5);
    There should be a special kind of hell for people who put parens on all their return statements. It's a statement, not a function!

    But I would have mercy on those who don't know when sizeof can be used without parens.

  • ZoomST (unregistered) in reply to Balu
    Balu:
    The MAZZTer:
    Iggy:
    #include <stdio.h>
    int main (void)
    {
    return (5);
    printf("Hello World!");
    }
    --- see, it compiles, Hello World Fails, no Bugs
    Not a good example, a good compiler will give you a warning for unreachable code.
    Not GCC. XCode neither. See "goto fail;".
    When going for C examples, better use typical null pointer for great results:
    #include <stdio.h>
    int main (void)
    {
        char *p = NULL;
        printf("Hello World!\n");
        printf("p = %c\n", *p);    /* BOOOOM! */
        return (0);
    }
    Some other variations will do as well. No need for motors! Dude, IT COMPILES.
  • QJo (unregistered) in reply to The MAZZTer
    The MAZZTer:
    Iggy:
    #include <stdio.h> int main (void) {

    return (5);

    printf("Hello World!");

    }


    see, it compiles, Hello World Fails, no Bugs

    Not a good example, a good compiler will give you a warning for unreachable code.

    I was asked to help one of our c programmers once (I was a FORTRAN man and my knowledge of c was rudimentary, but I was available at the time and I had a reputation for being able to troubleshoot in multiple contexts).

    "So what's wrong?" was my initial question.

    "I dunno, man, it just won't work. It compiles okay ..." and he proceeded to do so. The act of compilation caused a copious and rapid flow of warning messages to vomit out all over the screen.

    "Um ... have you tried investigating what those warnings are?"

    "Nah, they're just warnings man, you don't need to give a damn about warnings ..."

  • anonymous (unregistered)

    Less code analogies, more stupidity 'splaining!

    How bad was it? Brillant Nick teach-yourself-C-in-21-days code block? How could Fred cobble together this code with little to no mainframe access? Nice caffeine-powered weekend at JumboStore?

  • ZoomST (unregistered) in reply to ¯\(°_o)/¯ I DUNNO LOL
    ¯\(°_o)/¯ I DUNNO LOL:
    RFox:
    return (5);
    There should be a special kind of hell for people who put parens on all their return statements. It's a statement, not a function!

    But I would have mercy on those who don't know when sizeof can be used without parens.

    Dude, IT COMPILES. In addition, there is no parens in that statement. Maybe you are referring to parenthesis or brackets. Since I'm guessing, you may be trying to say parents. There should be a special kind of hell for people who misuse the words that way twice. Or not. Take it easy, the computer will not care about the parenthesis, and I don't see it being such an eyesore that makes the code unreadable. Well, if they abuse it in a LISP fashion, then the hell must be open for them.

  • Smug Linux User (unregistered)

    Works means expected output with expected input. To prove it works many forms of expected input are to be provided and checked with many forms of expected output.

  • foo AKA fooo (unregistered) in reply to dv
    dv:
    TGV:
    CaptainOblivious:
    >If it compiles, the computer understand what you tell it to do. >That doesn’t mean what you told it to do is what you wanted it to do.

    Now I get it!

    I still don't get it. Can you explain it to me, not using one of Fred's difficult metaphors, but perhaps in terms of fixed-point algebra?
    Fixed point algebra? Just because you can write 1/0, which is perfectly sane and understandable to anyone, it doesn't mean that you can actually compute that expression.

    No, sorry, still don't get it. Could you perhaps provide an example of biology, or chemistry, or perhaps history of arts? I'm sure that will really help, thanks.
  • foo AKA fooo (unregistered) in reply to QJo
    QJo:
    I was asked to help one of our c programmers once (I was a FORTRAN man and my knowledge of c was rudimentary, but I was available at the time and I had a reputation for being able to troubleshoot in multiple contexts).

    "So what's wrong?" was my initial question.

    "I dunno, man, it just won't work. It compiles okay ..." and he proceeded to do so. The act of compilation caused a copious and rapid flow of warning messages to vomit out all over the screen.

    "Um ... have you tried investigating what those warnings are?"

    "Nah, they're just warnings man, you don't need to give a damn about warnings ..."

    (Puts in -Werror.)

    "Look, now they're errors!"

    "Oh yeah, you're right. I better start fixing those errors now. Thanks man!"

  • Doctor_of_Ineptitude (unregistered) in reply to QJo
    QJo:
    The MAZZTer:
    Iggy:
    #include <stdio.h> int main (void) {

    return (5);

    printf("Hello World!");

    }


    see, it compiles, Hello World Fails, no Bugs

    Not a good example, a good compiler will give you a warning for unreachable code.

    I was asked to help one of our c programmers once (I was a FORTRAN man and my knowledge of c was rudimentary, but I was available at the time and I had a reputation for being able to troubleshoot in multiple contexts).

    "So what's wrong?" was my initial question.

    "I dunno, man, it just won't work. It compiles okay ..." and he proceeded to do so. The act of compilation caused a copious and rapid flow of warning messages to vomit out all over the screen.

    "Um ... have you tried investigating what those warnings are?"

    "Nah, they're just warnings man, you don't need to give a damn about warnings ..."

    Working on Embedded Systems, I have become a stickler for no warnings left. And I use the highest warning levels sanely possible. That and unit tests (writing them for such systems is a bitch) means that my code basically works as intended. Learning that making a working product requires a lot more than just writing the code for it took a lot of sweat.

  • anonymous (unregistered) in reply to foo AKA fooo
    foo AKA fooo:
    dv:
    Fixed point algebra? Just because you can write 1/0, which is perfectly sane and understandable to anyone, it doesn't mean that you can actually compute that expression.
    No, sorry, still don't get it. Could you perhaps provide an example of biology, or chemistry, or perhaps history of arts? I'm sure that will really help, thanks.
    If you isolate a rare specimen, it may not be the one you're looking for. Dude, IT BITES!

    If you artificially synthesize a compount, it may not be the one you were trying to create. Dude, IT EXPLODES!

    If you give come canvas a couple of brush strokes, it may not become the masterpiece you intended. Dude, IT IS MODERN ART!

  • AN AWESOME CODER (unregistered)

    TRWTF is using "they use *nix" as some sort of certification that they can program.

  • QJo (unregistered) in reply to foo AKA fooo
    foo AKA fooo:
    QJo:
    I was asked to help one of our c programmers once (I was a FORTRAN man and my knowledge of c was rudimentary, but I was available at the time and I had a reputation for being able to troubleshoot in multiple contexts).

    "So what's wrong?" was my initial question.

    "I dunno, man, it just won't work. It compiles okay ..." and he proceeded to do so. The act of compilation caused a copious and rapid flow of warning messages to vomit out all over the screen.

    "Um ... have you tried investigating what those warnings are?"

    "Nah, they're just warnings man, you don't need to give a damn about warnings ..."

    (Puts in -Werror.)

    "Look, now they're errors!"

    "Oh yeah, you're right. I better start fixing those errors now. Thanks man!"

    As a FORTRAN specialist, I wasn't to know about -Werror. The context of the position in the company was such that I was encouraged to trust the competency of my colleagues (basically: "Stop pointing out all these bugs in the code, man, hey, like, stop fixing stuff man, you're making the rest of us look bad, man ...") and so had got into the habit of expecting them to know what they were doing.

    I started building a file containing code snippets to capture some of the more amusing bloopers, like YEAR2 = MOD (YEAR4, 1900) found during the course of the millennialisation project. I believe that file is no longer with us, or it would have been milked for this site long ago.

  • QJo (unregistered) in reply to Doctor_of_Ineptitude
    Doctor_of_Ineptitude:
    QJo:
    The MAZZTer:
    Iggy:
    #include <stdio.h> int main (void) {

    return (5);

    printf("Hello World!");

    }


    see, it compiles, Hello World Fails, no Bugs

    Not a good example, a good compiler will give you a warning for unreachable code.

    I was asked to help one of our c programmers once (I was a FORTRAN man and my knowledge of c was rudimentary, but I was available at the time and I had a reputation for being able to troubleshoot in multiple contexts).

    "So what's wrong?" was my initial question.

    "I dunno, man, it just won't work. It compiles okay ..." and he proceeded to do so. The act of compilation caused a copious and rapid flow of warning messages to vomit out all over the screen.

    "Um ... have you tried investigating what those warnings are?"

    "Nah, they're just warnings man, you don't need to give a damn about warnings ..."

    Working on Embedded Systems, I have become a stickler for no warnings left. And I use the highest warning levels sanely possible. That and unit tests (writing them for such systems is a bitch) means that my code basically works as intended. Learning that making a working product requires a lot more than just writing the code for it took a lot of sweat.

    This.

  • pjt33 (cs) in reply to QJo
    QJo:
    "Nah, they're just *warnings* man, you don't need to give a damn about *warnings* ..."
    The boy is smoking and blowing smoke rings into the air. The girl gets irritated with the smoke and says to her lover: "Can't you see the warning written on the cigarette packet: smoking is injurious to health!" The boy replies: "Darling, I am a programmer. We don't worry about warnings, we only worry about errors."
  • Lorne Kates (cs) in reply to pjt33
    pjt33:
    QJo:
    "Nah, they're just *warnings* man, you don't need to give a damn about *warnings* ..."
    The boy is smoking and blowing smoke rings into the air. The girl gets irritated with the smoke and says to her lover: "Can't you see the warning written on the cigarette packet: smoking is injurious to health!" The boy replies: "Darling, I am a programmer. We don't worry about warnings, we only worry about errors."

    I don't get it. Can you tell the joke again but differently?

  • qazwsx (unregistered) in reply to anonymous
    anonymous:
    foo AKA fooo:
    dv:
    Fixed point algebra? Just because you can write 1/0, which is perfectly sane and understandable to anyone, it doesn't mean that you can actually compute that expression.
    No, sorry, still don't get it. Could you perhaps provide an example of biology, or chemistry, or perhaps history of arts? I'm sure that will really help, thanks.
    If you isolate a rare specimen, it may not be the one you're looking for. Dude, IT BITES!

    If you artificially synthesize a compount, it may not be the one you were trying to create. Dude, IT EXPLODES!

    If you give come canvas a couple of brush strokes, it may not become the masterpiece you intended. Dude, IT IS MODERN ART!

    I'm afraid I still don't understand. Can you give it to me in plumbing terms, with an Italian accent?

  • Doodpants (unregistered) in reply to ZoomST
    ZoomST:
    Dude, IT COMPILES. In addition, there is no parens in that statement. Maybe you are referring to parenthesis or brackets. Since I'm guessing, you may be trying to say parents. There should be a special kind of hell for people who misuse the words that way twice. Or not.
    The proper abbreviaton for "parentheses" is, of course, "paro".
  • Balu (unregistered) in reply to qazwsx
    qazwsx:
    anonymous:
    foo AKA fooo:
    dv:
    Fixed point algebra? Just because you can write 1/0, which is perfectly sane and understandable to anyone, it doesn't mean that you can actually compute that expression.
    No, sorry, still don't get it. Could you perhaps provide an example of biology, or chemistry, or perhaps history of arts? I'm sure that will really help, thanks.
    If you isolate a rare specimen, it may not be the one you're looking for. Dude, IT BITES!

    If you artificially synthesize a compount, it may not be the one you were trying to create. Dude, IT EXPLODES!

    If you give come canvas a couple of brush strokes, it may not become the masterpiece you intended. Dude, IT IS MODERN ART!

    I'm afraid I still don't understand. Can you give it to me in plumbing terms, with an Italian accent?

    Oll-e da paips arr connected well, but still-e de shit-e may hit-e de fan-e.

  • foo AKA fooo (unregistered) in reply to QJo
    QJo:
    foo AKA fooo:
    QJo:
    I was asked to help one of our c programmers once (I was a FORTRAN man and my knowledge of c was rudimentary, but I was available at the time and I had a reputation for being able to troubleshoot in multiple contexts).

    "So what's wrong?" was my initial question.

    "I dunno, man, it just won't work. It compiles okay ..." and he proceeded to do so. The act of compilation caused a copious and rapid flow of warning messages to vomit out all over the screen.

    "Um ... have you tried investigating what those warnings are?"

    "Nah, they're just warnings man, you don't need to give a damn about warnings ..."

    (Puts in -Werror.)

    "Look, now they're errors!"

    "Oh yeah, you're right. I better start fixing those errors now. Thanks man!"

    As a FORTRAN specialist, I wasn't to know about -Werror. The context of the position in the company was such that I was encouraged to trust the competency of my colleagues (basically: "Stop pointing out all these bugs in the code, man, hey, like, stop fixing stuff man, you're making the rest of us look bad, man ...") and so had got into the habit of expecting them to know what they were doing.

    My comment was of course tongue-in-cheek. I wouldn't expect anyone with such a codebase to suddenly realize the foolishness of their ways upon seeing -Werror. (But if you can use it, it's a great protection against your own laziness.)

    I started building a file containing code snippets to capture some of the more amusing bloopers, like YEAR2 = MOD (YEAR4, 1900) found during the course of the millennialisation project. I believe that file is no longer with us, or it would have been milked for this site long ago.
    Wow, that's brillant! If 1984 is stored as 84, and 2014 as 114, this formula works perfectly (until 3800, but who would care about that). And it's so self-documenting, see even I who never wrote any FORTRAN could understand it. Can I use this formula, please?
  • anonymous (unregistered) in reply to qazwsx
    qazwsx:
    anonymous:
    foo AKA fooo:
    No, sorry, still don't get it. Could you perhaps provide an example of biology, or chemistry, or perhaps history of arts? I'm sure that will really help, thanks.
    If you isolate a rare specimen, it may not be the one you're looking for. Dude, IT BITES!

    If you artificially synthesize a compount, it may not be the one you were trying to create. Dude, IT EXPLODES!

    If you give come canvas a couple of brush strokes, it may not become the masterpiece you intended. Dude, IT IS MODERN ART!

    I'm afraid I still don't understand. Can you give it to me in plumbing terms, with an Italian accent?

    Me-a goes down da pipe, ma not finds-a mushroom!

  • henke37 (cs) in reply to A Guy
    A Guy:
    That's why we use PHP: no compiler means there are no errors
    But PHP is compiled...
  • anonymous (unregistered)

    Mamma mia dude, IT-A STAR!

  • TurboPascalFTW (unregistered) in reply to Ronan
    Ronan:
    If it compiles, the computer understand what you tell it to do. That doesn’t mean what you told it to do is what you wanted it to do.

    Yep, that's what my high school comp sci teacher used to say: "Computers are high-speed idiots, they do exactly what you tell them to do."

  • A Guy (unregistered) in reply to henke37
    henke37:
    A Guy:
    That's why we use PHP: no compiler means there are no errors
    But PHP is compiled...

    not by me

  • PedanticCurmudgeon (cs)

    Make them code in Haskell. They won't be able to get anything to compile. Problem solved!

  • Steve The Cynic (cs)

    I'd have to assign ARWTF status to Fred and/or his attempts at explaining the problem. Seriously, did he really try to explain to a programmer using weak non-programming metaphors?

    Try this next time:

    Fred, speaking: Look, here's a line of code I'm about to compile. I want to add X and Y together and store the result in Z. Fred, typing: Z = X - Y; Fred, speaking: Will that compile? Nick: um, yes Fred: Is it going to do what I *wanted*? That is, is it going to add X and Y? Nick: um, no Fred: So "it compiles" isn't good enough, is it?
    If Nick still doesn't get it, haul out the GAU-8 from your back pocket and ...

    Oh, and yes, I know it won't compile as a stand-alone statement, thanks for letting me know about that.

  • QJo (unregistered) in reply to Steve The Cynic
    Steve The Cynic:
    I'd have to assign ARWTF status to Fred and/or his attempts at explaining the problem. Seriously, did he really try to explain to a programmer using weak non-programming metaphors?

    Try this next time:

    Fred, speaking: Look, here's a line of code I'm about to compile. I want to add X and Y together and store the result in Z. Fred, typing: Z = X - Y; Fred, speaking: Will that compile? Nick: um, yes Fred: Is it going to do what I *wanted*? That is, is it going to add X and Y? Nick: um, no Fred: So "it compiles" isn't good enough, is it?
    If Nick still doesn't get it, haul out the GAU-8 from your back pocket and ...

    Oh, and yes, I know it won't compile as a stand-alone statement, thanks for letting me know about that.

    Nick: But dude, it's wrong[/]! Fred: But it compiles, right? Nick: But dude, it's [i]wrong[/]! Fred: That's not the point: using your logic, because it compiles, it must be right -- agreed? What you said to me just now is: if it compiles, it must be right, yeah? Nick: But dude, it's [i]wrong[/]! Fred: So, just because your code compiles, that doesn't mean it's right? Nick: But dude, it [i]COMPILES!

    And around and around, in ever increasing circles.

  • QJo (unregistered) in reply to QJo
    QJo:
    Steve The Cynic:
    I'd have to assign ARWTF status to Fred and/or his attempts at explaining the problem. Seriously, did he really try to explain to a programmer using weak non-programming metaphors?

    Try this next time:

    Fred, speaking: Look, here's a line of code I'm about to compile. I want to add X and Y together and store the result in Z. Fred, typing: Z = X - Y; Fred, speaking: Will that compile? Nick: um, yes Fred: Is it going to do what I *wanted*? That is, is it going to add X and Y? Nick: um, no Fred: So "it compiles" isn't good enough, is it?
    If Nick still doesn't get it, haul out the GAU-8 from your back pocket and ...

    Oh, and yes, I know it won't compile as a stand-alone statement, thanks for letting me know about that.

    Nick: But dude, it's wrong[/]! Fred: But it compiles, right? Nick: But dude, it's [i]wrong[/]! Fred: That's not the point: using your logic, because it compiles, it must be right -- agreed? What you said to me just now is: if it compiles, it must be right, yeah? Nick: But dude, it's [i]wrong[/]! Fred: So, just because your code compiles, that doesn't mean it's right? Nick: But dude, it [i]COMPILES!

    And around and around, in ever increasing circles.

    Buggritt -- I cocked up the styletags. Sorry.

  • Windows Hater (unregistered) in reply to AN AWESOME CODER
    AN AWESOME CODER:
    TRWTF is using "they use *nix" as some sort of certification that they can program.

    Nah. It just means they will have a CHANCE at being good programmers, and not have drank the cool-aid.

  • OlderNDirt (unregistered) in reply to AN AWESOME CODER
    AN AWESOME CODER:
    TRWTF is using "they use *nix" as some sort of certification that they can program.

    Correct. Clearly this should have said "they have beards" for the proper effect!

  • itiswhatitis (unregistered)

    Garbage in, Garbage out.

  • Obvious Corporal (unregistered) in reply to CaptainOblivious

    I just tell it to ... "Do what I mean, not what I say!"

    captcha: usitas You can usitas a supposed-itory

  • abarker (cs) in reply to ZoomST
    ¯\(°_o)/¯ I DUNNO LOL:
    In addition, there is no parens in that statement. Maybe you are referring to parenthesis or brackets. Since I'm guessing, you may be trying to say parents. There should be a special kind of hell for people who misuse the words that way twice. Or not.
    For those who aren't familiar with this abbreviation, and don't know how to use a dictionary (or search engine) I easily found this definition.

    As you are admittedly guessing, I thought I'd give you something definitive.

  • Evan (unregistered)

    comment! correctly But spellchecks my

Leave a comment on “Flawless Compilation”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

« Return to Article