The Daily WTF: Curious Perversions in Information Technology

2014-05-13 Reply Admin

John:
I want a refund on this WTF.

But you read it, so you enjoyed it.

2014-05-13 Reply Admin

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.

But... a warning doesn't stop it from compiling...

2014-05-13 Reply Admin

John:
I want a refund on this WTF.

Dude. It loads.

2014-05-13 Reply Admin

Doctor_of_Ineptitude:
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.

I even like to turn on as many of the MISRA C options as I possibly can stand without it becoming too... "MISRA-ble".

And then you still have to worry about compiler bugs... and electrical glitches and bad solder joints, too.

abarker:
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.

"To view the definition of paren, activate your Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary FREE TRIAL now!"

An excellent definition, if I do say so myself.

AndyCanfield · 2014-05-13 Reply Admin

"Do what I mean, not what I say!"

I often want to scream at PC software "Do what I say, not what you think I mean! Your programmer was an idiot"

2014-05-13 Reply Admin

Turns out Yoda was a Lisp programmer.

herby · 2014-05-13 Reply Admin

May:
Turns out Yoda was a Lisp programmer.

No, sorry, he used FORTH!!

herby · 2014-05-13 Reply Admin

Sure it compiles. This is like indicating you want a cosine function, and the program (as written) returns a sine.

Then someone proposes unit tests, and only gives 45 degrees as the value point. Oh, well.

Of course, one could use the xkcd method of random numbers (as an example).

2014-05-13 Reply Admin

Can we get a doco for when it's OK to use parens and when we must use "parenth- (the full word)"?

2014-05-13 Reply Admin

Why... just tell them to write a program that uses printf() to print string variable, and pass it parameter without "&" before the variable name.

It compiles, but fails at run time. Easy to prove.

It shocks me to see a on-the-job programmer that don't understand the difference between compile time error and run time error.

2014-05-13 Reply Admin

TurboPascalFTW:
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."

we had lecturers who used to say things like: "Computers are fundamentally stupid machines" "Computers are great, but they make very fast, very accurate mistakes"

2014-05-14 Reply Admin

foo AKA fooo:
No, sorry, still don't get it. Could you perhaps provide an example of biology ...

No problem. Nowadays you can synthesize any sequence of DNA you want, as long as the base pairs match each other, the resulting DNA molecule is chemically stable and everything seems right. Now if you put this DNA in an egg cell, there is obviously no reason why it should not grow and produce an animal or plant of a new unknown species.

2014-05-14 Reply Admin

ZoomST:
¯\(°_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.

He was referring to parentheses not parenthesis.

ZoomST:
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

Yes indeed, twice, you're something special aren't you?

2014-05-14 Reply Admin

TurboPascalFTW:
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."

Wanna bet?

2014-05-14 Reply Admin

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.

That's OK, it passed the parser. (Parsing is as close as I get to compiling.)

2014-05-14 Reply Admin

GunShowTrash:
>Work for Now Defunct Military Aircraft Company.

Am I locked into this scenario?

GunShowTrash:
>Subcontractor writing ATLAS compiler (It's an old test language). >Still being developed; no compiler errors but generated bad code. >Subcontracter also writing test programs for avionics in ATLAS too, at same time.

Huh? How did they test the test programs when all they had was an untested test language compiler?

2014-05-14 Reply Admin

Steve The Cynic:
abarker:
¯\(°_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.
In the URL, I see "www.merriam-webster.com" and not "www.oed.com", so it can hardly be called definitive. "Definitive" perhaps, or allegedly definitive, but not definitive.

I suppose that's your thesis?

2014-05-14 Reply Admin

ZoomST:
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.

You meant to code this:

printf("*p = %c\n", *p);

but your missing * was in (or rather, not in) a place where its absence wouldn't cause a failure even in standard C.

If I recall correctly, MIPS had to map virtual address page 0 to be valid instead of invalid because that was easier than fixing all the dereferences of null pointers in BSD.

Now suppose you had this:

printf("*p = %s\n", p);

BSD would print

*p = (null)

instead of going BOOOOM.

It's not just BSD. One time when Windows 2000 was rebooting from a BSOD and displaying on the text console (a really useful place for this) a scrolling list of all the files that were getting deleted by native mode CHKDSK, some of the filenames were displayed as (null). It is better that Windows XP and later get that list into the application log (I wonder why not the system log but anyway it's still better than the way Windows 2000 displayed it). I wonder if the undecipherable index numbers are places where Windows 2000 had dereferenced null pointers or if they're something else.

2014-05-14 Reply Admin

itiswhatitis:
Garbage in, Garbage out.

Garbage goes in, garbage comes out. Never a miscommunication, you can't explain that!

2014-05-14 Reply Admin

Cheong:
It shocks me to see a on-the-job programmer that don't understand the difference between compile time error and run time error.

You might even call this a WTF...

2014-05-14 Reply Admin

Evan:
lushr:
They should have been using a dependently typed programming language - then, if it compiles, then they also have a computer-generated proof of correctness!
I haven't quite played with dependently-typed languages or proof assistants, but I have dabbled a little with the likes of ML and Haskell. And as much as I like them, my experience aligns more closely with "the difference between something that can go wrong and something that cannot possibly go wrong is that when the thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong, it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." :-)

Standard design procedure. If you have the mindset "This can go wrong", then you will take steps to ensure it is accessible / maintainable. If, through naivety or intellectual arrogance you have thought yourself into the cul-de-sac of "This cannot possibly go wrong", then it's more than possible you are going to put it at the back in the corner behind all the things that can go wrong.

In the programming context, the latter mindset usually means hardwiring magic numbers throughout, rather than entertaining the possibility that they may need to change in the future.

2014-05-14 Reply Admin

AndyCanfield:
"Do what I mean, not what I say!"
I often want to scream at PC software "Do what I say, not what you think I mean! Your programmer was an idiot"

Autocorrect on Micturosoft products is my bugbear.

Specifically, when I'm writing a piece, I do not necessarily want it to put capitals automatically at the start of every line.

I blench at the number of emails coming out of our office to customers with the following structure:

"First you need to enter:

     run myProg (myParams)

Where myParams is the parameter list as defined ..." etc.

That capital W causes pain and makes the customer think we are illiterate and amateurish.

2014-05-14 Reply Admin

Plastic:
Can we get a doco for when it's OK to use parens and when we must use "parenth- (the full word)"?

What on earth is wrong with "brackets"?

Steve The Cynic · 2014-05-14 Reply Admin

QJo:
Plastic:
Can we get a doco for when it's OK to use parens and when we must use "parenth- (the full word)"?

What on earth is wrong with "brackets"?

Americans think that "brackets" means "square brackets" and they also think that only "parentheses" means "round brackets". And let's not get started about «chevrons»...

Then again, calling () paretheses does allow a "parenthetical remark" to make sense (a remark that is in parentheses).

Shrug. I'm originally British, but I've lived among the Americans (yes, I know that makes it sound like they are a primitive tribe in some jungle somewhere - if the cap fits, nut something with it), and currently I live in France. Living in places full of foreigners is always good for a surreal experience, mostly because of the vagaries of spoken language, but occasionally because of incompatible meanings of gestures. The French are prone to indicating the number two by sticking two fingers up at me (or at each other), and I have to suppress the urge to give them a good talking-to about rude gestures.

2014-05-14 Reply Admin

Steve The Cynic:
QJo:
Plastic:
Can we get a doco for when it's OK to use parens and when we must use "parenth- (the full word)"?

What on earth is wrong with "brackets"?
Americans think that "brackets" means "square brackets" and they also think that only "parentheses" means "round brackets". And let's not get started about «chevrons»...

Then again, calling () paretheses does allow a "parenthetical remark" to make sense (a remark that is in parentheses).

Shrug. I'm originally British, but I've lived among the Americans (yes, I know that makes it sound like they are a primitive tribe in some jungle somewhere - if the cap fits, nut something with it), and currently I live in France. Living in places full of foreigners is always good for a surreal experience, mostly because of the vagaries of spoken language, but occasionally because of incompatible meanings of gestures. The French are prone to indicating the number two by sticking two fingers up at me (or at each other), and I have to suppress the urge to give them a good talking-to about rude gestures.

The two-fingers gesture should be rude only when used by the English to the French, and it dates from the Battle of Agincourt. During the Hundred Years War (we are such amateurs in the art of warfare nowadays, we can't get a decent war to last longer than a couple of decades), when the French captured an English archer, they would chop off his arrow-fingers before ransoming him back to England. At the Battle of Agincourt, it was the archers of the English who effectively won the battle. As a gesture of arrogance and victory, they would show the French their two arrow fingers. Even now the gesture is a delight to use.

2014-05-14 Reply Admin

Steve The Cynic:
abarker:
¯\(°_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.
In the URL, I see "www.merriam-webster.com" and not "www.oed.com", so it can hardly be called definitive. "Definitive" perhaps, or allegedly definitive, but not definitive.

Try this one.

2014-05-14 Reply Admin

Dude, they use *nixes!

Also, I think the offender was so attached to the idea of compile-time error-checking because the nature of the problem he was dealing with was low-level. If the bug was in the output being invalid or the program was too slow it would probably be easier for him to understand that it's the programmer's fault. But since it was a crash, he was blaming the tool-chain. In some environments it makes sense. I.e. if the browser is crashing, I am more inspired to blame IE not the javascript I wrote. When the PHP segfaults, it's easier to blame the PHP creators thant the php code. Of course the story looks much different in case of C, as there are many dangerous constructs that let you shoot in your foot, but the story does not tell us what language the app was written in.

2014-05-14 Reply Admin

QJo:

The two-fingers gesture should be rude only when used by the English to the French, and it dates from the Battle of Agincourt.

That's a myth. Much as I wish it was otherwise, it is a myth with no basis whatsoever in truth, beyond the fact that there was indeed a Battle of Agincourt at which English archers - as well as French rain - were very effective.

Steve The Cynic:
Then again, calling () parentheses does allow a "parenthetical remark" to make sense (a remark that is in parentheses).

I usually make my parenthetical remarks between dashes.

2014-05-14 Reply Admin

This story should be made up. That level of incompetence is simply not possible to achieve.

2014-05-14 Reply Admin

Carrie:
Steve The Cynic:
Then again, calling () parentheses does allow a "parenthetical remark" to make sense (a remark that is in parentheses).

I usually make my parenthetical remarks between dashes.

The real WTFs are:

Confusing the grammatical construct (i.e. "parenthesis") with the symbology used to indicate it. As Carrie points out -- appositely -- you can use different symbols to indicate a parenthesis, using whichever is appropriate, and it's an instance (a stupid one, in my mind) of confusing the medium with the message to name a specific instance of the symbols as the construct it indicates.
Calling "()" parentheses, calling "[]" brackets and calling "{}" braces. We sensible Europe-side English-speakers call them "round brackets", "square brackets" and "curlies".

2014-05-14 Reply Admin

QJo:
Carrie:
Steve The Cynic:
Then again, calling () parentheses does allow a "parenthetical remark" to make sense (a remark that is in parentheses).

I usually make my parenthetical remarks between dashes.

The real WTFs are:

Confusing the grammatical construct (i.e. "parenthesis") with the symbology used to indicate it. As Carrie points out -- appositely -- you can use different symbols to indicate a parenthesis, using whichever is appropriate, and it's an instance (a stupid one, in my mind) of confusing the medium with the message to name a specific instance of the symbols as the construct it indicates.

Calling "()" parentheses, calling "[]" brackets and calling "{}" braces. We sensible Europe-side English-speakers call them "round brackets", "square brackets" and "curlies".

What's sensible about using two words when one would be enough?

2014-05-14 Reply Admin

right:
QJo:
Carrie:
Steve The Cynic:
Then again, calling () parentheses does allow a "parenthetical remark" to make sense (a remark that is in parentheses).

I usually make my parenthetical remarks between dashes.

The real WTFs are:

Confusing the grammatical construct (i.e. "parenthesis") with the symbology used to indicate it. As Carrie points out -- appositely -- you can use different symbols to indicate a parenthesis, using whichever is appropriate, and it's an instance (a stupid one, in my mind) of confusing the medium with the message to name a specific instance of the symbols as the construct it indicates.

Calling "()" parentheses, calling "[]" brackets and calling "{}" braces. We sensible Europe-side English-speakers call them "round brackets", "square brackets" and "curlies".

What's sensible about using two words when one would be enough?

What's sensible about using four syllables ("parentheses") when three ("round brackets") would be enough?

2014-05-14 Reply Admin

herby:
May:
Turns out Yoda was a Lisp programmer.
No, sorry, he used FORTH!!

(are you (correct technically)) (uses Yoda (not (grammar postfix) prefix)) (however (are there (few (examples useful)) (of (grammar (non infix))))) (pardon please (liberties my) (in (manner this)))

2014-05-14 Reply Admin

chubertdev:
Anomaly:
Parentheses are not just for function calls. You can use them to force orders of operations in expressions.
(x + y) * n is different then x + y * n for almost all cases.

Yeah, but in:
return (5);
The parentheses are considered redundant.

I just tested this in PyCharm (which I just happened to have open, and does seem to be quite the code nanny), and it does display a warning, which I would have to agree with, regardless of language.

What was the warning? "WARNING: You have too much time on your hands, so here's something you can worry about since you have nothing else to do."

Steve The Cynic · 2014-05-14 Reply Admin

QJo:
Carrie:
Steve The Cynic:
Then again, calling () parentheses does allow a "parenthetical remark" to make sense (a remark that is in parentheses).

I usually make my parenthetical remarks between dashes.

The real WTFs are:

Confusing the grammatical construct (i.e. "parenthesis") with the symbology used to indicate it. As Carrie points out -- appositely -- you can use different symbols to indicate a parenthesis, using whichever is appropriate, and it's an instance (a stupid one, in my mind) of confusing the medium with the message to name a specific instance of the symbols as the construct it indicates.

Calling "()" parentheses, calling "[]" brackets and calling "{}" braces. We sensible Europe-side English-speakers call them "round brackets", "square brackets" and "curlies".

One might argue that the (or, at least, a) WTF is not noticing that a mild joke was in fact a joke. I must learn to be less subtle.

2014-05-14 Reply Admin

QJo:
AndyCanfield:
"Do what I mean, not what I say!"
I often want to scream at PC software "Do what I say, not what you think I mean! Your programmer was an idiot"

Autocorrect on Micturosoft products is my bugbear.

Specifically, when I'm writing a piece, I do not necessarily want it to put capitals automatically at the start of every line.

I blench at the number of emails coming out of our office to customers with the following structure:

"First you need to enter:
     run myProg (myParams)
Where myParams is the parameter list as defined ..." etc.

That capital W causes pain and makes the customer think we are illiterate and amateurish.

If haven't figured out to how to turn off the auto correct function in Outlook, then I'm afraid you ARE amateurish.

2014-05-14 Reply Admin

Norman Diamond:
Now suppose you had this:
printf("*p = %s\n", p);
BSD would print
*p = (null)
instead of going BOOOOM.
It's not just BSD. One time when Windows 2000...some of the filenames were displayed as (null).

Nope. It's also GCC, ICC, and Clang on Linux (I don't know to what extend libc is reused between the different compilers so maybe it's not a surprise that they're all the same) and VS2010. I don't know what standards say should happen.

QJo:
Standard design procedure. If you have the mindset "This can go wrong", then you will take steps to ensure it is accessible / maintainable.

Well, I'm more talking about it in terms of when people say that a strongly-typesafe language like ML means that when it compiles it's probably correct... they're not entirely serious when they say that, but (1) nor am I and (2) I think everyone would say there's a nugget of truth behind it. I'm also not really talking about how things change over time, but even just getting it to work right in the first place; I found debugging SML code for one class project in particular to be about the most frustrating debugging experience of my life. Some of that is probably some discomfort and unfamiliarity with the languages, but there are also big tool issues IMO.

QJo:
The real WTFs are: 1. Confusing the grammatical construct (i.e. "parenthesis") with the symbology used to indicate it.

"Parenthetical remark" is the usual term in the US for the actual grammatical construct -- which applies to other indications as well. The same thing happens with ellipsis to; it almost always indicates "..." itself rather than the omitted thing.

2014-05-14 Reply Admin

Evan:
Nope. It's also GCC, ICC, and Clang on Linux...

Just for the record, I have no idea why I said "Nope" there. Just ignore it. :-)

2014-05-14 Reply Admin

Should have asked the dude to explain the difference between OMVS and Unix.

2014-05-14 Reply Admin

"(x + y) * n is different then x + y * n for almost all cases."

There are an infinite number of cases where that statement is true and an infinite number of cases where it is false (x=0). How is that "almost all" ?

2014-05-14 Reply Admin

QJo:
right:
QJo:
Carrie:
Steve The Cynic:
Then again, calling () parentheses does allow a "parenthetical remark" to make sense (a remark that is in parentheses).

I usually make my parenthetical remarks between dashes.

The real WTFs are:

Confusing the grammatical construct (i.e. "parenthesis") with the symbology used to indicate it. As Carrie points out -- appositely -- you can use different symbols to indicate a parenthesis, using whichever is appropriate, and it's an instance (a stupid one, in my mind) of confusing the medium with the message to name a specific instance of the symbols as the construct it indicates.

Calling "()" parentheses, calling "[]" brackets and calling "{}" braces. We sensible Europe-side English-speakers call them "round brackets", "square brackets" and "curlies".

What's sensible about using two words when one would be enough?
What's sensible about using four syllables ("parentheses") when three ("round brackets") would be enough?

Need I to introduce you to its two-syllable abbreviated form, "parens"?

2014-05-14 Reply Admin

John:
"(x + y) * n is different then x + y * n for almost all cases."
There are an infinite number of cases where that statement is true and an infinite number of cases where it is false (x=0). How is that "almost all" ?

"Given a property P, if P(x)∼x as x->infty (so, using asymptotic notation, the number of numbers less than x not satisfying the property P is o(x), where o(x) is one of the so-called Landau symbols), then P is said to hold true for almost all numbers. For example, almost all positive integers are composite numbers (which is not in conflict with the second of Euclid's theorems that there are an infinite number of primes)."

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AlmostAll.html

2014-05-14 Reply Admin

Coyne:
My adviser in college demonstrated it this way: We were in his office. He challenged us to write a simple program to take a person out of his office and to the entry desk.
In general, the result was something like: "Stand up, turn right, walk forward to the door, turn the knob, open the door, walk forward, turn right, walk forward to the desk."

Having obtained the above instructions in writing on his blackboard, and after confirming that we all were satisfied with them, he then rose from behind his desk, went to the door (which had been closed) and opened it.

"How does your program work now?" he asked.

I've never seen a shorter or more effective demonstration of the cause and nature of bugs.

Ha - good one, I like that - thanks!

What I might have done:

Write a program that incriminates someone in some illegal or otherwise nasty stuff. Following execution of programm, person named would be taken to front desk - and beyond - by security. Job done!

:->

2014-05-14 Reply Admin

(object I (to (aspersion your)) (of Lisp)) (is (code Lisp) (and simple readable logical))

I object to your aspersion of Lisp Lisp code is simple, readable and logical

(are you (correct technically)) (uses Yoda (not (grammar postfix) prefix)) (however (are there (few (examples useful)) (of (grammar (non infix))))) (pardon please (liberties my) (in (manner this)))

You are technically correct Yoda uses postfix grammar, not prefix There are few useful examples non infix grammar Please pardon my liberties in this manner

God damn I hate pure polish notation …

Zemm · 2014-05-14 Reply Admin

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

I read that as that it would make it easier to program the middleware. Though I was expecting that the WTF was going to be the intermediate server was Windows based... Possibly even an old repurposed desktop still running windows 95 or something!

2014-05-14 Reply Admin

Evan:
Norman Diamond:
Now suppose you had this:
printf("*p = %s\n", p);
BSD would print
*p = (null)
instead of going BOOOOM.
It's not just BSD. One time when Windows 2000...some of the filenames were displayed as (null).
Nope. It's also GCC, ICC, and Clang on Linux (I don't know to what extend libc is reused between the different compilers so maybe it's not a surprise that they're all the same) and VS2010. I don't know what standards say should happen.

That's exactly the point. Standards don't say what should happen. BOOOM is not guaranteed. (null) is not guaranteed. That's how undefined behaviour is defi

2014-05-15 Reply Admin

anonymous:
QJo:
right:
QJo:
Carrie:
Steve The Cynic:
Then again, calling () parentheses does allow a "parenthetical remark" to make sense (a remark that is in parentheses).

I usually make my parenthetical remarks between dashes.

The real WTFs are:

Confusing the grammatical construct (i.e. "parenthesis") with the symbology used to indicate it. As Carrie points out -- appositely -- you can use different symbols to indicate a parenthesis, using whichever is appropriate, and it's an instance (a stupid one, in my mind) of confusing the medium with the message to name a specific instance of the symbols as the construct it indicates.

Calling "()" parentheses, calling "[]" brackets and calling "{}" braces. We sensible Europe-side English-speakers call them "round brackets", "square brackets" and "curlies".

What's sensible about using two words when one would be enough?
What's sensible about using four syllables ("parentheses") when three ("round brackets") would be enough?
Need I to introduce you to its two-syllable abbreviated form, "parens"?

What's sensible about arbitrarily assigning two different words to differentiate between similar objects when there are simple descriptive phrases which anyone familiar with the symbols in question is incapable of confusing?

Matt Westwood · 2014-05-15 Reply Admin

anonymous:
QJo:
right:
QJo:
Carrie:
Steve The Cynic:
Then again, calling () parentheses does allow a "parenthetical remark" to make sense (a remark that is in parentheses).

I usually make my parenthetical remarks between dashes.

The real WTFs are:

Confusing the grammatical construct (i.e. "parenthesis") with the symbology used to indicate it. As Carrie points out -- appositely -- you can use different symbols to indicate a parenthesis, using whichever is appropriate, and it's an instance (a stupid one, in my mind) of confusing the medium with the message to name a specific instance of the symbols as the construct it indicates.

Calling "()" parentheses, calling "[]" brackets and calling "{}" braces. We sensible Europe-side English-speakers call them "round brackets", "square brackets" and "curlies".

What's sensible about using two words when one would be enough?
What's sensible about using four syllables ("parentheses") when three ("round brackets") would be enough?
Need I to introduce you to its two-syllable abbreviated form, "parens"?

"Parens"? Jesus H Christ on a lavatory built for two, what an ugly word! Even uglier than wind-farms and M-D-Y convention.

jes · 2014-05-15 Reply Admin

Oh the horror. An expression in parentheses where the parentheses aren't strictly necessary. Expect the world to end before midnight.

What an miereneuker's obsession to care if return values are wrapped in parens

jes · 2014-05-15 Reply Admin

How is a set of superfluous parentheses a grievous sin? WTF is this obsession with such things?

Flawless Compilation

Leave a comment on “Flawless Compilation”