• my name is missing (unregistered) in reply to Dark

    I really think this is way beyond Peter, more of a Paula principle: "see how brillant I am".

    I once worked for a silicon valley company briefly (help desk software). The original code was written for unix by one of the founders, who was considered a genius (but not by most of the employees). On occasion he would edit some random code in the code repository without telling anyone, I suppose to keep his hand in. Of course it never compiled and generally caused random failure and much swearing by the real engineers. 

  • Keloran (unregistered)

    I notice how its only after i create my RSS reader that you decide todo this, hehe

    i know what hte WTF here is, integrating JS into an SQL statement, opening it upto real issues, if only people would learn to seperate code/content/visuals in a way that is understood by 90% of developers, but only about 30% actually do it that way

     

    nice CAPTCHA, paste (on a pink background too, mmm makes me think of having crab sandwiches now)
     

  • Steamer25 (unregistered) in reply to [exa]

    If he were really clever he would have compressed the code by lumping frequent blocks of text together and then parsed the results with regular expressions.

  • Anonymous (unregistered) in reply to Steamer25

    Anonymous:
    If he were really clever he would have compressed the code by lumping frequent blocks of text together and then parsed the results with regular expressions.

    Wow, I didn't know Satan could use a computer.  How's it going?

    I think a lot of these "programmers" have bad enough coding practices on their own without you placing these kinds of ideas in their minds!

  • (cs) in reply to foxyshadis
    foxyshadis:
    Anonymous:

    The horror...he's using + to concat strings in SQL when everyone knows it's ||.  Then he escapes quotes with \' when everyone knows it's ''.

    That's the WTF, right?  ;-) 

    The quotes are for PHP's benefit, not SQL's. PHP is the outermost layer (someone has to run that SQL after all). SQL isn't going to care about double-quotes when it's opened with single quotes. I've never even heard of || to concatanate anything, short of incredibly painful C++ operator overloads, but then I'm no SQL guru.

    I guess technically the HTML's still being done at the PHP layer... even if it has to take a round trip through the database first. o.O

     

    || is used for oracle. Apparently SQL = Oracle. I guess I have been wrong for a very long time! 

  • (cs) in reply to Freek

    Anonymous:
    What? No XML?

    HTML is XML :-)

  • (cs)
    Alex Papadimoulis:

    1 - The Shrug-- Gets the job done, efficient, all that; but just plain boring.
    2 - The Nod -- Creative, as in, using a single 32-bit integer variable to store two 16-bit integers.
    3 - The Raised Left-Eyebrow -- Very creative, as in, combining all function arguments into a single pipe-delimited string
    4 - The "Now That's a Neat Trick!" -- The ultimate in cleverness, as in, code that rewrites itself but maintains the original using generated comments

    Number 2 isn't that uncommon in fixed structure-based APIs.  Number 3 isn't unheard of in silly APIs.  Along those lines, we have to work with a SOAP-based web service, where all the actions take one parameter and return one value.  Both the parameter and return are XML documents with the useful information in them.  So, I can use a SOAP toolkit to handle the web service, but still have to use a XML package to process the arguments.  All they're missing is the wooden table.
     

  • (cs) in reply to Dark
    Anonymous:
    themagni:

    union address
    {
      int32 location;
      int8[4] sub;
    }

    This way, the 32-bit address could be manipulated using simple mathematics yet be passed to the SPI bus as the 8-bit numbers required by the M25PX0.

    For example, after saving a 10-byte value: 

    address.location += 10;

    And when writing to the SPI:

    SPI_WRITE( SPI_WRITE_ENABLE );
    SPI_WRITE( address.sub[ 0 ] );
    SPI_WRITE( address.sub[ 1 ] );
    SPI_WRITE( address.sub[ 2 ] );


     

    If you do it that way, endianness will bite you. There's no guarantee that sub[0] is the low byte. This might not matter if you're writing for specific hardware... but even hardware is hardware-independent these days. PCI cards can be plugged into PowerPC machines.

    It's best to write some macros that use >> and & to extract specific bytes.

     

    It was hardware specific to the M25PX0, a 3-wire SPI chip, specifically compiled for a 16LF88 and burnt into the Flash. If someone managed to get out an iron and some solder and change the chips, then they deserved what they got. ;)

    I'm going to add a disclaimer onto my signature. That's twice that I've looked silly due to my...background.
     

  • Anony Moose (unregistered)

    Clever is good.
    Convoluted is very very bad.

    A neat trick doesn't just do something in a complicated way, it does it in a simple and powerful way. A clear 1 line statement beats an almost clear 10 line function, but both beat an obscure 1 line statement.

  • (cs)

    It's such a fine line between stupid, and clever.

    -- David St. Hubbins 

  • Bloodbob (unregistered)

    Alot of people seem to be suggesting using SQL to create HTML is a WTF. However big companies like Oracle do it look at Oracle application server. You would create all your HTML in PL/SQL.

  • (cs) in reply to Bloodbob

    Anonymous:
    Alot of people seem to be suggesting using SQL to create HTML is a WTF. However big companies like Oracle do it look at Oracle application server. You would create all your HTML in PL/SQL.

    PL/SQL is not that same like SQL.

  • (cs) in reply to mrsticks1982
    mrsticks1982:
    foxyshadis:
    Anonymous:

    The horror...he's using + to concat strings in SQL when everyone knows it's ||.  Then he escapes quotes with \' when everyone knows it's ''.

    That's the WTF, right?  ;-) 

    The quotes are for PHP's benefit, not SQL's. PHP is the outermost layer (someone has to run that SQL after all). SQL isn't going to care about double-quotes when it's opened with single quotes. I've never even heard of || to concatanate anything, short of incredibly painful C++ operator overloads, but then I'm no SQL guru.

    I guess technically the HTML's still being done at the PHP layer... even if it has to take a round trip through the database first. o.O

     

    || is used for oracle. Apparently SQL = Oracle. I guess I have been wrong for a very long time! 

    Actually || is the official SQL standard concatonation operator... any DB that lets you use + is doing it as a favor so as not to confuse the programmer types.

  • Jesse (unregistered) in reply to Hubert Farnsworth
    Hubert Farnsworth:

    Anonymous:
    What? No XML?

    HTML is XML :-)

    Technically, HTML is not XML.  XHTML is XML.  HTML has some tags which break the rules of XML.  For example, <img> tags don't need to be closed in HTML, but all tags need to be closed in XML.

     

  • (cs) in reply to Jesse

    This makes me think of common trait of witnessed across many domains.

    There are three general levels of competence as somebody progresses in the knowledge of a particular domain.

    1. The Beginner
      • The Beginner is learning the basics
      • Tends to be careful and apply, to the best of his knowledge, best practices
      • Applies only the basics, doesn't stray very far into 'advanced' territory
      • Makes many small mistakes
    2. The Intermediate(worst case)
      • The Intermediate is learning more advanced techniques
      • Believes his abilities are far superior to those around him
      • Tries to apply these great new advanced techniques to every problem, even if it isn't needed
      • Is very susceptible to buzzwords, hacks, and tricks.
      • Uses his vast knowledge of advanced techniques to build/perform the most amazing WTF's ever seen
      • Will generally not advance to greater levels
    3. The Intermediate(best case)
      • This intermediate is usually under the tutelage of a good Master
      • Learning new advanced techniques, but with the context of when they are needed.
      • May abuse advanced techniques from time to time, but comes to learn from the mistakes
    4. The Master
      • We have come full circle
      • The Master uses mostly the basics, although with an effectiveness not seen in other levels.
      • Most of those amazing advanced techniques are sitting in his toolbox gathering dust, but they are there if they are really needed.
    I've seen this pattern in coding, martial arts, architecture...  Seems to be a common theme.
  • Olddog (unregistered) in reply to smbell
    smbell:

    This makes me think of common trait of witnessed across many domains.

    There are three general levels of competence as somebody progresses in the knowledge of a particular domain.

    1. The Beginner
      • The Beginner is learning the basics
      • Tends to be careful and apply, to the best of his knowledge, best practices
      • Applies only the basics, doesn't stray very far into 'advanced' territory
      • Makes many small mistakes
    2. The Intermediate(worst case)
      • The Intermediate is learning more advanced techniques
      • Believes his abilities are far superior to those around him
      • Tries to apply these great new advanced techniques to every problem, even if it isn't needed
      • Is very susceptible to buzzwords, hacks, and tricks.
      • Uses his vast knowledge of advanced techniques to build/perform the most amazing WTF's ever seen
      • Will generally not advance to greater levels
    3. The Intermediate(best case)
      • This intermediate is usually under the tutelage of a good Master
      • Learning new advanced techniques, but with the context of when they are needed.
      • May abuse advanced techniques from time to time, but comes to learn from the mistakes
    4. The Master
      • We have come full circle
      • The Master uses mostly the basics, although with an effectiveness not seen in other levels.
      • Most of those amazing advanced techniques are sitting in his toolbox gathering dust, but they are there if they are really needed.

    I've seen this pattern in coding, martial arts, architecture...  Seems to be a common theme.

    What's your point?

  • DaBookshah (unregistered) in reply to Olddog

    What's your point?

    Dude...........its TDWTF. That was way, way too logical.

  • UTU (unregistered) in reply to Just Another WTF
    Just Another WTF:
    mrsticks1982:
    foxyshadis:
    Anonymous:

    The horror...he's using + to concat strings in SQL when everyone knows it's ||.  Then he escapes quotes with \' when everyone knows it's ''.

    That's the WTF, right?  ;-) 

    The quotes are for PHP's benefit, not SQL's. PHP is the outermost layer (someone has to run that SQL after all). SQL isn't going to care about double-quotes when it's opened with single quotes. I've never even heard of || to concatanate anything, short of incredibly painful C++ operator overloads, but then I'm no SQL guru.

    I guess technically the HTML's still being done at the PHP layer... even if it has to take a round trip through the database first. o.O

     

    || is used for oracle. Apparently SQL = Oracle. I guess I have been wrong for a very long time! 

    Actually || is the official SQL standard concatonation operator... any DB that lets you use + is doing it as a favor so as not to confuse the programmer types.

     

    Furthermore, in PHP, the concatenation operator is full stop, not plus (which is an arithmetic, not string, operator) ... just telling this to keep them programmer types on their toes; someday someone might decide they won't allow arithmetic operations on strings anymore :)

  • (cs) in reply to [exa]

    This is nothing...last place I worked had an entire web content management system written in perl.



     

  • (cs) in reply to smbell
    smbell:

    This makes me think of common trait of witnessed across many domains.

    There are three general levels of competence as somebody progresses in the knowledge of a particular domain.

    1. The Beginner
      • The Beginner is learning the basics
      • Tends to be careful and apply, to the best of his knowledge, best practices
      • Applies only the basics, doesn't stray very far into 'advanced' territory
      • Makes many small mistakes
    2. The Intermediate(worst case)
      • The Intermediate is learning more advanced techniques
      • Believes his abilities are far superior to those around him
      • Tries to apply these great new advanced techniques to every problem, even if it isn't needed
      • Is very susceptible to buzzwords, hacks, and tricks.
      • Uses his vast knowledge of advanced techniques to build/perform the most amazing WTF's ever seen
      • Will generally not advance to greater levels
    3. The Intermediate(best case)
      • This intermediate is usually under the tutelage of a good Master
      • Learning new advanced techniques, but with the context of when they are needed.
      • May abuse advanced techniques from time to time, but comes to learn from the mistakes
    4. The Master
      • We have come full circle
      • The Master uses mostly the basics, although with an effectiveness not seen in other levels.
      • Most of those amazing advanced techniques are sitting in his toolbox gathering dust, but they are there if they are really needed.

    I've seen this pattern in coding, martial arts, architecture...  Seems to be a common theme.

     

    And now, to make a metaphor out of this for no damned reason other than it pleases me to do so and might get a laugh.

     If the problem is "Put this nail in this wooden board"...

     
    The beginner will use a hammer and will take several swings to drive the nail in completely.

    The Intermediate (Worst Case) will decide to use a 10-pound sledgehammer and will get the beginner to hold the nail so it doesn't move. It will only take a few swings to drive the nail in completely..and three broken fingers, two sets of x-rays and a cast.

    The Intermediate (Best Case) will pick up the sledgehammer, realize it is too big and will grab a hammer after checking with his boss (the Master) but will probably still get the beginner to hold the nail. It takes two smacks to sink the nail.

    The Master tells the beginner to get a hammer and drive the nail with one swing. He'll then look at his watch, decide it's been about 2 minutes since his last coffee break, and will leave to get a cup of java.

     

  • (cs) in reply to ammoQ

    >>2 - The Nod -- Creative, as in, using a single 32-bit integer variable to store two 16-bit integers.
    >>3 - The Raised Left-Eyebrow -- Very creative, as in, combining all function arguments into a single pipe-delimited string

    >IMO 2 is by far more tricky than 3. 3 is almost normal in the age of HTTP and XML


    public class TwoInOne {	public static void main(String[] a){

    int x, y, z; //x is 32 bit, y and z may be 16 bit values

y=8;   //sample values, must be non-negative
z=16;  //implement sign extension if you want

//pack
x=(y&lt;&lt;16)|(z&amp;0x0000FFFF);

//unpack
y = (x&gt;&gt;16);
z = (x&amp;0x000FFFF);
	

    

    } }
  • Andrés M. (unregistered)

    I've already seen that kind of SQL where I work :P

  • (cs)
    Alex Papadimoulis:

    1 - The Shrug-- Gets the job done, efficient, all that; but just plain boring.
    2 - The Nod -- Creative, as in, using a single 32-bit integer variable to store two 16-bit integers.
    3 - The Raised Left-Eyebrow -- Very creative, as in, combining all function arguments into a single pipe-delimited string
    4 - The "Now That's a Neat Trick!" -- The ultimate in cleverness, as in, code that rewrites itself but maintains the original using generated comments


    <font face="tahoma,arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Sometimes I'm guilty of achieving #2 (sometimes even #3) in my attempt to 'cleverness' and 'neat trickiness' but I never dared to do this outside my pet projects. Though sometimes when I review these codes something will struck me and then, "Man, what was I thinking?"

    </font>
    Anonymous:

    Clever is good.
    Convoluted is very very bad.

    A neat trick doesn't just do something in a complicated way, it does it in a simple and powerful way. A clear 1 line statement beats an almost clear 10 line function, but both beat an obscure 1 line statement.


    <font face="tahoma,arial,helvetica,sans-serif">I agree, that's what the REAL neat trick is.



    </font>
  • (cs) in reply to foxyshadis
    foxyshadis:

    quotes. I've never even heard of || to concatanate anything, short of incredibly painful C++ operator overloads, but then I'm no SQL guru.

     Oracle uses || to concatanate strings.  Check out the I-Hate-Oracle Club forum on this site for an idea of how much fun Oracle is to work with.

  • csrster (unregistered) in reply to ParkinT
    ParkinT:
    Anonymous:

    Multi-Tear architecture.

    Now THAT is clever!!

    But is it "tear" as in "ripped to tiny little shreds" or "tear" as in "weeping uncontrollably".

     

    --

    Colin 

  • fhgi (unregistered) in reply to csrster

    But is it "tear" as in "ripped to tiny little shreds" or "tear" as in "weeping uncontrollably".

    Since thats "or" you're using and not "xor" the answer is yes.

  • (cs)

    I hope that finally convinces everyone using Apple WebObjects that you don't need to separate database, application and output...

    One of the best WTF's i've seen in a while!

    Coditor

  • LondonLad (unregistered) in reply to L33+e
    Anonymous:

    Aww, come on! That code isn't so bad. If he had only used styles, it would be possible to alter the presentation somewhat.

    So you say it's not maintainable? I don't know about that? You can look at the code pretty briefly and get a good idea of what it does, which is probably more than you could if it were abstracted away in layer upon layer of indirection.

    And even if it isn't maintainable, that code is so brief that you can afford to write it once, and if you ever need to alter something, throw it away and write it anew.

    Sometimes you can spend weeks and months building up a service-oriented, multi-tiered, abstract, open standards, bells-and-whistles framework, and if all you need to do is produce a simple report then you've grossly over-engineered the solution.

     

    Oh dear! I expect some of your code has been on here! Bet you spend about 20 hours a day maintaining your one dimensional code.

    Hope I never join your company and I hope you never leave - sounds like they need you!!

     

  • (cs) in reply to AndrewVos

    <font size="2">nevermind.</font>

  • Nachoo (unregistered) in reply to Jesse
    Anonymous:
    Hubert Farnsworth:

    Anonymous:
    What? No XML?

    HTML is XML :-)

    Technically, HTML is not XML.  XHTML is XML.  HTML has some tags which break the rules of XML.  For example, <img> tags don't need to be closed in HTML, but all tags need to be closed in XML.

     

     

    HTML is SGML.

    XHTML is XML. 

     

    captcha: awesomeness - Score 6: Works as coded right after being put on a wooden table... 

  • Nachoo (unregistered) in reply to Nachoo

    and XML is SGML btw.

     Reminds me of...

     .. Clark loves Louis

    ..Louis loves Superman...

     ...Clark is Superman.

     

  • C (unregistered) in reply to Hubert Farnsworth
    Hubert Farnsworth:

    Anonymous:
    What? No XML?

    HTML is XML :-)

     No, HTML is SGML not XML.
     

  • (cs) in reply to my name is missing
    Anonymous:

    I really think this is way beyond Peter, more of a Paula principle: "see how brillant I am".

    I once worked for a silicon valley company briefly (help desk software). The original code was written for unix by one of the founders, who was considered a genius (but not by most of the employees). On occasion he would edit some random code in the code repository without telling anyone, I suppose to keep his hand in. Of course it never compiled and generally caused random failure and much swearing by the real engineers. 

     That's why where I work, we gave the owner read only permissions on the repository. That way he can play all he wants, without doing any actual damage.

  • (cs) in reply to csrster
    Anonymous:
    ParkinT:
    Anonymous:

    Multi-Tear architecture.

    Now THAT is clever!!

    But is it "tear" as in "ripped to tiny little shreds" or "tear" as in "weeping uncontrollably".

     

    --

    Colin 

    That is the great thing about the English language.  It contains a rich vocabulary; offering many choices to explicitly express yourself, yet it is full of ambiguity.

    English is a Crazy Language

  • Harry (unregistered) in reply to ParkinT

    Oh come on.. that's hardly clever!

    What you need to do next is 'optimize' it all, instead of creating the HTML when you pull the data out.. you need to insert data with the HTML already mixed in.

    You want a design change or to change a URL? "Sorry boss, we'd have to change the html in 14,000,000 rows to do that... give us 6 months or so and
    everything will be in the company font".

    I've seen it a few times already, and it makes me cringe just to think that people are allowed near any sort of rdbms.

  • (cs) in reply to Nachoo
    Anonymous:

    and XML is SGML btw.

    Nope. Last time I checked, SGML didn't allow />. 

  • (cs) in reply to achille
    achille:

    >>2 - The Nod -- Creative, as in, using a single 32-bit integer variable to store two 16-bit integers.
    >>3 - The Raised Left-Eyebrow -- Very creative, as in, combining all function arguments into a single pipe-delimited string

    >IMO 2 is by far more tricky than 3. 3 is almost normal in the age of HTTP and XML

     

    No it's not. I use bitmasks all the time. 3 is not normal and is generally not used except by clever programmers. Sure, "1934|somestring|true|true|etc..." works fine in most cases, but what happens if one of the strings has a |?

    It's also much worse than a string array. 

  • (cs) in reply to TeeSee
    TeeSee:
    Anonymous:

    and XML is SGML btw.

    Nope. Last time I checked, SGML didn't allow />. 

    http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-sgml-xml-971215M

  • 4tehwin!!! (unregistered) in reply to Nachoo
    Anonymous:

    and XML is SGML btw.

     Reminds me of...

     .. Clark loves Louis

    ..Louis loves Superman...

     ...Clark is Superman.

     

     

    ...and then they hit up the san francisco night scene

  • Anon Coward (unregistered) in reply to 4tehwin!!!

    Yeah, stop spreading ugly rumours about Louis.  He's just going through a confusing time right now.  When he's ready, he'll tell us whether he's gay or not.  And either way, he's still our friend.

  • anonymous (unregistered) in reply to TeeSee

    TeeSee:
    No it's not. I use bitmasks all the time.

    You mispelled unions?  

  • (cs) in reply to Sean

    I've done 3 fairly often in file I/O (since a file is basically a single string, delimiter splitting is a good answer for a lot of simple stuff), and also in Java applets (reading arrays from <param> tags is only acheivable this way afaik). I've only occasionally used 2, the messing around to get at the data usually takes away any advantage (even not counting the maintenance issue if you don't document yourself). I think the only time I've used this technique in any sort of anger was:

    union Colour {
 int32 value;
 byte[4] A,R,G,B;
}

    I dunno, this WTF isn't so bad. The mixing of database 'real data' and HTML is very shallow, as this query is called from the PHP; the 'correct' way would be to get the data and then make up the HTML in PHP (right?), so at least everything is where it should be (in the interface layer, i.e. the PHP), even if it's munged together in a mildly WTFy way.

  • jer (unregistered) in reply to Anon

    Cry baby! Cry?

  • Scott (unregistered) in reply to mkb

    See, that's the beauty of The Cleverness Scale. A prerequisite for a 1 is "Gets the job done".  A score of 1 means the code is only as clever as it has to be. Heck, it's even "efficient".

  • M. Smith (unregistered) in reply to Pedersen
    Anonymous:

    I've never even heard of || to concatanate anything,

    Allow me to introduce you to PostGreSQL, which uses it for concatenation of strings. 

     Now that is a wtf!

    And I thought Perl using a '.' for concatentation was bad...

  • (cs) in reply to neven
    neven:
    Needs more Javascript.
    Needs more cowbell!
  • (cs) in reply to L33+e
    Anonymous:

    Sometimes you can spend weeks and months building up a service-oriented, multi-tiered, abstract, open standards, bells-and-whistles framework, and if all you need to do is produce a simple report then you've grossly over-engineered the solution.

    The reason developers like to build flexibility even into simple applications is because we all know that requirements change like the wind. End users/business users will look at a finished product and say, "It's great, but it would be even better if it could do X!" As developers, we understand that the average individual does not understand how software is engineered, and that adding requirements late in the game can require months of reworking, so instead of whining about it, hopefully we just learn to make things flexible and maintainable.

  • (cs) in reply to AndrewVos
    Anonymous:

    Javascript never really was "pretty" was it. Maybe once, for a day or two.

    Do I really need to change my rss settings :(

    Javascript can be pretty, when you write it as you'd write... say... python.

    Anonymous:
    Anonymous:

    How is this "clever"? The main sin I see is mixing more HTML + JavaScript than is needed (could have made more use of JS functions, or styles instead of colors).

    What I define as "clever" is the massive barely-documented n-tier superstructures that are employed for the most trivial of apps. Sometimes, the simplest solution works the best, and sometimes that's a plain old SQL query.

     Mixing HTML and Javascript is fine.

    No it's not, it's an abomination unto Tim Berners Lee.

    Anonymous:

    Seperating your application into data, logic and presentation layers is just good practice.

     

    Indeed, and this statement also applies to the web pages themselves

    HTML and Javascript are different web pages, the former is the data, the latter is the behaviour, mixing them together results in blobs of ugly and unmaintainable horror.

    Anonymous:
    Hubert Farnsworth:

    Anonymous:
    What? No XML?

    HTML is XML :-)

    Technically, HTML is not XML.  XHTML is XML.  HTML has some tags which break the rules of XML.  For example, <img> tags don't need to be closed in HTML, but all tags need to be closed in XML.

     

    Technically, HTML is an SGML application which is the less-braindead ancestor of XML. And the <img> tag is self-closing, it's always closed period. And that's very far from the only difference between HTML and XHTML (you could also talk about minimizable attributes, elements that really don't require to be closed such as <p> or <li> or case sensivity).

    Anonymous:

    and XML is SGML btw.

    No, closed empty tags such as <img /> are completely invalid in SGML. Thus XML is at best incorrect SGML, and feeding XHTML to HTML parsers relies on "bugs" in the parsers to work.

  • (cs) in reply to M. Smith
    Anonymous:
    Anonymous:

    I've never even heard of || to concatanate anything,

    Allow me to introduce you to PostGreSQL, which uses it for concatenation of strings. 

     Now that is a wtf!

    And I thought Perl using a '.' for concatentation was bad...

    Still better than awk's use of a space for concatenation.

  • rycamor (unregistered)

    Hmm... let's see:

    - given that this is PHP, and CONCAT() and DATE_FORMAT() are standard MySQL functions (although using "+" for concat is I think a typo of the anonimyzer here), it looks likely that MySQL is the DBMS in question.

    - "managing data for "93% of all health care facility inspections"
     

    There is the real WTF. The horror.

    Next we will find that MySQL was responsible for 93% of the data for fresh vegetable packing plant inspections. The whole spinach scare is starting to make sense.

    Using MySQL for lightweight non-critical web-oriented databases: fine. Using it for mission-critical data which could affect one's health and life: wrong wrong wrong.

    Why is the IT industry constantly trying to use the wrong tool for the job?
     

Leave a comment on “Now That's A Neat Trick”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article