• Harrow (unregistered) in reply to methinks
    methinks:
    ...people who do something like that should be subject to an occupational ban for every carreer except sweeping pavements.
    I know this coder and he was previously fired from his job sweeping pavements for lack of performance.

    He did really well at first but as the days went by he got further and further from the trash can...

    -Harrow.

  • (cs) in reply to Mark
    Mark:
    I don't know what units that time limit is in, but the entire universe is only about 410240038000000000 seconds old.

    The universe is only ~7.6e+60 Plank units, so I don't think it matters.

  • (cs) in reply to Joe

    I think all those 9s are just 1 short of a Brazillion

  • Zapp Brannigan (unregistered) in reply to ozBash
    ozBash:
    which means all the zeroes after about 300 are meaningless.
    TRWTF: these are 9s, not 0s
    I would have used 11s.
  • Spearhavoc! (unregistered)

    I think if the SQL server sees this it'll wait one second longer before returning a result purely out of spite. I mean, this is a pretty serious dig at its performance. A server's got to have pride.

  • trwtf (unregistered) in reply to Zapp Brannigan
    Zapp Brannigan:
    ozBash:
    which means all the zeroes after about 300 are meaningless.
    TRWTF: these are 9s, not 0s
    I would have used 11s.

    The original coder was allergic to b's.

  • (cs) in reply to Joe
    Joe:
    "Setting the time limit to 0 will give no limit" - this means checking the documentation to make sure that that's what happens, and testing to make sure that the implementer read the documentation the same way.

    Quicker to enter a gigantic number and not worry about the documentation.

    Any development methodology which uses shortcuts to avoid checking documentation and doing unit tests is fundamentally flawed.

    Or did I miss your [sarcasm][/sarcasm] tags? I do overlook those sometimes.

  • Rimshot (unregistered) in reply to trwtf
    trwtf:
    Zapp Brannigan:
    ozBash:
    which means all the zeroes after about 300 are meaningless.
    TRWTF: these are 9s, not 0s
    I would have used 11s.

    The original coder was allergic to b's.

    Dah Dum Tish

  • JJ (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous
    Anonymous:
    Brandon:
    My Question, why is the code resetting the timeout to that rediculous number for every insert, rather than one time at the beginning of the file. Does the simple SQL insert really take till the end of time?
    I have seen this misspelling so many times recently. Is this one of those me-me things you young folk like to throw around?

    In other news, get off my lawn you damn kids! But seriously, did I miss the memo on "rediculous" or what?

    You can only be rediculous after you've been diculous in the first place.

  • trwtf (unregistered) in reply to Rimshot
    Rimshot:
    trwtf:
    Zapp Brannigan:
    ozBash:
    which means all the zeroes after about 300 are meaningless.
    TRWTF: these are 9s, not 0s
    I would have used 11s.

    The original coder was allergic to b's.

    Dah Dum Tish

    Thank yew, thank yew. I'll be here all week, be sure to try the veal.

  • (cs)

    Technically, PHP could emit a warning that the constant supplied is too large to fit into the "int" parameter (whether it's 32- or 64-bit) that the function accepts...

    Dan.

  • (cs) in reply to frits
    frits:
    Mark:
    I don't know what units that time limit is in, but the entire universe is only about 410240038000000000 seconds old.

    The universe is only ~7.6e+60 Plank units, so I don't think it matters.

    Well It's a rare WTF that can appropriately be expressed in Plank units... Now we only need one which can be expressed in mega parsecs cubed :-)

    Yazeran

    Plan: To go to Mars one day with a hammer.

  • pgl (unregistered)

    set_time_limit(0); // from the manual: "If set to zero, no time limit is imposed."

  • trwtf (unregistered) in reply to pgl
    pgl:
    set_time_limit(0); // from the manual: "If set to zero, no time limit is imposed."

    Now that's the real wtf. What if I'm really, really, really impatient? PHP will do exactly the wrong thing!

  • (cs) in reply to Joe
    Joe:
    Which, for a Brazilian, is very unusual indeed.

    Wait... How many is a Brazillion again?

  • Sean (unregistered) in reply to freakinhuge

    Ah yes, it's a sailboat, right?

  • (cs) in reply to trwtf
    trwtf:
    What if I'm really, really, really impatient?
    Easy. Just use 10^-131000.

    (And no, I won't write out a wall of 0's, so you're welcome everybody.)

  • ÃÆâ€â„ (unregistered) in reply to chiselwright
    chiselwright:
    nobulate:
    This code could use some _serious_ refactoring! 
    for (i=0; i < 473040000000000000; i++) {
    sTimeout .= "9";
}
set_time_limit(sTimeout);

    If you're going to refactor, you may as well do it "properly".

    sTimeout = str_repeat("9", 131008);
set_time_limit(sTimeout);

    No dangling variables!

    set_time_limit(str_repeat("9", 131008));
  • bollocks (unregistered) in reply to ÃÆâ€â„
    ÃÆâ€â„:
    chiselwright:
    nobulate:
    This code could use some _serious_ refactoring! 
    for (i=0; i < 473040000000000000; i++) {
    sTimeout .= "9";
}
set_time_limit(sTimeout);

    If you're going to refactor, you may as well do it "properly".

    sTimeout = str_repeat("9", 131008);
set_time_limit(sTimeout);

    No dangling variables!

    set_time_limit(str_repeat("9", 131008));

    Not enough 9s for my taste.

    set_time_limit(str_repeat(str_repeat("9", 131008)),131008);
  • (cs) in reply to pgl
    pgl:
    set_time_limit(0); // from the manual: "If set to zero, no time limit is imposed."

    Good to know! I wonder why that wasn't mentioned in the article itself...

  • by (unregistered)

    I dare somebody goes back to the full article, press CTRL + F, and type 9...

    :)

  • ArtemC (unregistered)
    From my tests, somewhere between 10*10^250 and 10*10^300 is where the setting value changed from an actual number in scientific notation to INF...

    Modern computer science is getting ever closer to pinpointing the actual value of Infinity...

  • (cs)

    10^13196.50 millenia can't be that long, can it?

    Addendum (2010-12-09 13:59): We can further put this into perspective, as this value is only 10^131089.387 multiples longer than the span of time between the big bang and right now. Only.

  • (cs)
    ArtemC:
    From my tests, somewhere between 10*10^250 and 10*10^300 is where the setting value changed from an actual number in scientific notation to INF...
    Modern computer science is getting ever closer to pinpointing the actual value of Infinity...

    Before any mathematicians climb out of their graves to kill us all for such blasphemy, read this. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/archimedes/infinity.html

  • trwtf (unregistered)
    ArtemC:
    From my tests, somewhere between 10*10^250 and 10*10^300 is where the setting value changed from an actual number in scientific notation to INF...
    Modern computer science is getting ever closer to pinpointing the actual value of Infinity...

    In fact, this is Bill Gates' secret plan: to create a repository of stupid approximating infinity, so we can then count the stupid and nail down infinity once and for all.

    The beauty of this is that it itself is a phenomenally stupid idea. Brillant!

  • (cs)

    I suspect that the developer actually used that "Number 9" song that John Lennon made and used the output of that for his time out.

    You know the one I'm talking about ... the one that only says "number 9, number 9, number 9" a zillion times while a lot of weird noises play in the background.

  • (cs) in reply to danixdefcon5
    danixdefcon5:
    I suspect that the developer actually used that "Number 9" song that John Lennon made and used the output of that for his time out.

    You know the one I'm talking about ... the one that only says "number 9, number 9, number 9" a Brazillion times while a lot of weird noises play in the background.

    FTFY

  • (cs) in reply to Anonymous
    Anonymous:
    Brandon:
    My Question, why is the code resetting the timeout to that rediculous number for every insert, rather than one time at the beginning of the file. Does the simple SQL insert really take till the end of time?
    I have seen this misspelling so many times recently. Is this one of those me-me things you young folk like to throw around?

    In other news, get off my lawn you damn kids! But seriously, did I miss the memo on "rediculous" or what?

    I am starting to wonder if these misspellings like "loose","rediculous","genious","grammer" are actually mistakes, or if they have actually become internet memes like "pwn" or "teh".

  • Religious Nutjob (unregistered) in reply to frits
    frits:
    Mark:
    I don't know what units that time limit is in, but the entire universe is only about 410240038000000000 seconds old.

    The universe is only ~7.6e+60 Plank units, so I don't think it matters.

    No, the universe is only 5000 years old. Get it right people!p

  • (cs) in reply to by
    by:
    I dare somebody goes back to the full article, press CTRL + F, and type 9...

    :)

    And then press highlight all...

  • by (unregistered)

    Can i haz new WTF plz?

  • Mac O'Essex (unregistered) in reply to by
    by:
    I dare somebody goes back to the full article, press CTRL + F, and type 9...

    :)

    OK...and?

  • by (unregistered) in reply to Mac O'Essex
    Mac O'Essex:
    by:
    I dare somebody goes back to the full article, press CTRL + F, and type 9...

    :)

    OK...and?

    I did it with IE8 and it locked it up... Although IE8 could be TRWTF. That, and VB... Am I doing this right?

  • Capitan Oblivio (unregistered) in reply to 0xDeadBeef
    0xDeadBeef:
    ArtemC:
    From my tests, somewhere between 10*10^250 and 10*10^300 is where the setting value changed from an actual number in scientific notation to INF...
    Modern computer science is getting ever closer to pinpointing the actual value of Infinity...

    Before any mathematicians climb out of their graves to kill us all for such blasphemy, read this. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/archimedes/infinity.html

    What was the point of that? We already knew all of that stuff. And that guy is talking about Dedekind-infinite sets, which is strictly different from "plain" infinity. Every infinite set is Dedekind-infinite, but there are funky Dedekind-infinite sets which are not infinite. You need non-standard models of ZF to prove it, though. Basically, you can bring the computational concept of "laziness" into ZF to do it.

  • jverd (unregistered) in reply to deltafalcon
    deltafalcon:

    More to the point, how would you express that many nines in words.

    Easy. That many nines is one wtfillion minus one.

    :-)

  • (cs) in reply to Jerry
    Jerry:
    K:
    Frank:
    Values between 10^300 and 10^308 in PHP are reserved for error codes.
    I hadn't realized PHP had that many different error codes.
    10^8 errors ought to be enough for anyone... even php.

    This is only true because the programmer can instantiate each error multiple times.

  • Time enough for for love (unregistered) in reply to Scythe
    Scythe:
    The real WTF is the lack of imagination of the person who wrote this. Suppose the value is in miliseconds:

    One day is +- 8,64 * 10^7 One year is +- 3,15 * 10^10 THE AGE OF THE UNIVERSE is +- 4,33 * 10^23

    I guess this program was meant to last till the end of the world.

    Not the end of the world, the end of time itself.

  • Anonymous (unregistered) in reply to by
    by:
    Mac O'Essex:
    by:
    I dare somebody goes back to the full article, press CTRL + F, and type 9...

    :)

    OK...and?

    I did it with IE8 and it locked it up... Although IE8 could be TRWTF. That, and VB... Am I doing this right?

    I did it with Firefox and it selected the first 9. Well done for still using IE though, you're in an elite group of people there. Elite as in there are only about 4 of you worldwide.
  • (cs) in reply to S
    S:
    Jerry:
    K:
    Frank:
    Values between 10^300 and 10^308 in PHP are reserved for error codes.
    I hadn't realized PHP had that many different error codes.
    10^8 errors ought to be enough for anyone... even php.

    That's not 10^8 error codes. That's 10^308 - 10^300, which is at least 10^307 error codes. Still, better to just be on the safe side with possible error codes.

    10^308 - 10^300 is, practically speaking, 10^308. Unless you want eight significant digits.

  • davee123 (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous
    Anonymous:
    Well done for still using IE though, you're in an elite group of people there. Elite as in there are only about 4 of you worldwide.

    About 60% of our web clients use MSIE ... (wait for it) ... 6! Of course, they're not individual users, they're all corporations that obviously pay diddly-squat for upgrading their staff's browsers and operating systems.

    We were still in shock when we did the analysis, though-- that was back in the summer of 2010, BTW, although I doubt it's changed much given the disparity. And FWIW, that's out of in the vicinity of about 5,000 users (probably some of whom share the same "community-piece-of-crap workstation".

    DaveE

  • (cs) in reply to Martian Kyo (double posting)
    Martian Kyo (double posting):
    Wow It's a schooner!

    Beer? B-E-E-R?

  • F (unregistered) in reply to Lech
    Lech:
    Is it longer than universe will (probably) last?

    Wait and see.

  • Azza (unregistered)

    I didnt see any zeros after 300 :)

  • trwtf (unregistered) in reply to davee123
    davee123:
    Anonymous:
    Well done for still using IE though, you're in an elite group of people there. Elite as in there are only about 4 of you worldwide.

    About 60% of our web clients use MSIE ... (wait for it) ... 6! Of course, they're not individual users, they're all corporations that obviously pay diddly-squat for upgrading their staff's browsers and operating systems.

    We were still in shock when we did the analysis, though-- that was back in the summer of 2010, BTW, although I doubt it's changed much given the disparity. And FWIW, that's out of in the vicinity of about 5,000 users (probably some of whom share the same "community-piece-of-crap workstation".

    DaveE

    All of the work machines at my office are stock Windows desktop stuff, and they're so locked down it's just not worth the bother to put in a help ticket just to put a real browser on it. There's about a thousand more IE users.

  • Ian Barwick (unregistered) in reply to Mystify
    Mystify:
    8-core 3Mhz processor
    When I were a lad back in the early 80's our 3Mhz processors only had the one core, but we were happy then. Does CP/M support parallel execution these days?
  • (cs) in reply to Zapp Brannigan
    Zapp Brannigan:
    ozBash:
    which means all the zeroes after about 300 are meaningless.
    TRWTF: these are 9s, not 0s
    I would have used 11s.

    You're all wrong; those are 99s, not 9s.

  • Jaco (unregistered) in reply to TST

    Good one, good one! Makes it even more funnier!

  • Herby (unregistered)

    Now for something different... For a larger number, prefix with "0x". For a smaller number, prefix with "0", but that only works on a K&R (original, pre ANSI) compiler, for as every knows: "Everybody's favorite trivial change: 8 and 9 are not octal digits" (page 261, first line!).

    OR as one might say: "For suitably large values of 9".

  • Peter (unregistered) in reply to Herby
    Herby:
    For a smaller number, prefix with "0", but that only works on a K&R (original, pre ANSI) compiler, for as every knows: "Everybody's favorite trivial change: 8 and 9 are not octal digits" (page 261, first line!).
    In my copy, it's page 260.
  • DaSilva (unregistered) in reply to TST

    I seriously lolled

Leave a comment on “Really, Really Freaking Huge Time Limit”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article