The Daily WTF: Curious Perversions in Information Technology

2010-06-03 Reply Admin

[quote user="davedavenotdavemaybedave Those who teach are those who cannot do. Substitute it in and you get:

Those who can neither do, nor not do, criticise.

That is of course equivalent to 'Those who can both do and not do', which is a more comprehensible way to phrase it.[/quote]

I can both do and not do. I can (for example) both walk and not walk, as the occasion demands. Not at the same time, mind you...

2010-06-03 Reply Admin

Jay:
Cliff notes anyone:
Actually, that's how I convert numbers to strings since this is a compile error:
double d = 1.1; String x = 1.1; // compile error String x = "" + 1.1; // works

yes, with the Double class I could do this differently but the way I do it, it works fine.

Except that when you do it this way, Java first creates a StringBuilder object, then appends an empty string to it, then converts 1.1 to a string, then appends this to the StringBuilder, and then converts the StringBuilder to a String.

If instead you wrote

String x=Double.toString(1.1);

or

String x=String.valueOf(1.1);

Java would just convert 1.1. to a string and be done with it.

I don't know about Java, but in C# you can even do this:

1.1.ToString();

avflinsch · 2010-06-03 Reply Admin

Me:
dtobias:
Some of those pronunciations are in fact how English pronounced those things before the Great Vowel Shift of around 1500.

Fortunately, only a few of my professors had been teaching for that long...

Same here, except that those that were teaching that long were either teaching medieval history (a good thing) or electronic engineering (yes I had a weird set of majors)

2010-06-03 Reply Admin

Some Guy:
No. Just, no. Performing modulus division on a negative number always results in a negative number.
Let's go back to "frist" grade for a moment here, and do some "remainder division".

21 / 5 = 4R1. Simple. Dividing 5 goes into 21 4 times, leaving 1 leftover unit. Reversing this, we get 5 * 4 + 1 = 21.

Now, let's add the not-quite-so-frist grade concept of negative numbers into the fray.

-21 / 5 = X. We already know that we'll get -4, but what remains? The remainder is -1. Dividing a negative number by a positive one cannot result in a positive remainder. Why? Reverse the equation. 5 * -4 + X = -21. X becomes -1. So -21 / 5 = -4R-1. QED.

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/52343.html

"The same rule holds for negative values of a: -3 (congruent) 2 (mod 5)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_arithmetic

2010-06-03 Reply Admin

davedavenotdavemaybedave:
frits:
davedavenotdavemaybedave:
IT Girl:
Pete:
Are WTF's drying up is all code in the world becoming better.
I think we all know there are teachers in colleges and universities that don't have a clue. Those who can't do teach after all.

That's right, those who can do, those who can't teach, and those who can do neither, criticize.

Are you saying critics have superpowers? Because those who 'do neither' would be people who can both 'do' and 'not do' at the same time.

Just asking, y'know.

Let's try restating IT Girl's post:

Those who can neither do, nor teach, criticize.

What's the problem, exactly?

Those who teach are those who cannot do. Substitute it in and you get:

Those who can neither do, nor not do, criticise.

That is of course equivalent to 'Those who can both do and not do', which is a more comprehensible way to phrase it.

Nope, still don't have it right. Let's look at IT Girl's post again. Expanding the contractions we get:

"...those who can do, those who can not do teach..."

You added the "nor".

Just remember; do, or not do, there is no try.:-)

--Lego

2010-06-03 Reply Admin

Troy:
This is why experience = 10x(degree) + 0

There was a bug in your code, I've fixed it for you.

2010-06-03 Reply Admin

TheRider:
Doozerboy:
Hardest i ever laughed in my Java classes was when a fellow SECOND year student after seein the following code snippet on the board
int i = 1; double ii = 17.5;

said "is it called ii because it's a double?"
Now I'm curious. Why is it called "ii"?

Hello Sailor!

2010-06-03 Reply Admin

Lego:
davedavenotdavemaybedave:
frits:
davedavenotdavemaybedave:
IT Girl:
Pete:
Are WTF's drying up is all code in the world becoming better.
I think we all know there are teachers in colleges and universities that don't have a clue. Those who can't do teach after all.

That's right, those who can do, those who can't teach, and those who can do neither, criticize.

Are you saying critics have superpowers? Because those who 'do neither' would be people who can both 'do' and 'not do' at the same time.

Just asking, y'know.

Let's try restating IT Girl's post:

Those who can neither do, nor teach, criticize.

What's the problem, exactly?

Those who teach are those who cannot do. Substitute it in and you get:

Those who can neither do, nor not do, criticise.

That is of course equivalent to 'Those who can both do and not do', which is a more comprehensible way to phrase it.

Nope, still don't have it right. Let's look at IT Girl's post again. Expanding the contractions we get:

"...those who can do, those who can not do teach..."

You added the "nor".

Just remember; do, or not do, there is no try.:-)

--Lego

Those who can, do.

Those who can't, teach.

Those who can't teach, teach gym...

2010-06-03 Reply Admin

Mister Zimbu:
I have no clue:
Isnt that actually a 9 sided die? Well I guess 10 if you count the 0, but I've never seen a blank side of a die.
NINJA VANISH!!

I'm not sure what dice you're using, but most 6-sided dice I've seen DO have a side with a "0" on it.

Hmmm. Most 6-sided die I know have the dots 1 thru 6. Maybe we're talking dominoes with either blank or double-blank ;)

CaptainSmartass · 2010-06-03 Reply Admin

ipeet:
Reminds me of the Data Structures & Algorithms prof I had who put the following on the board:
public static void main() { doStuff(); }

public static void doStuff() { /* insert main() here */ }

Why was this done? "As a general principle, I like to keep the main function short and simple"

I do the same thing. IMO, the main() function should be bereft of logic to the greatest extent possible (a single if or case function is about all I'll put in there if I can help it). It should merely call other routines to do the actual work. This tends to help make the code much more readable.

2010-06-03 Reply Admin

SR:
Anonymouse:
It doesn't explain the "short-circuit" comment, but it could be that the prof was doing something out of habit. The +0 thing is occasionally used to cast something to an int. I also dimly recall doing something similar to tell the compiler to STFU about a warning.

If it was a duck-typed language you might get away with that. In Java, an int is an int is an int.

Except when it's an Integer

RogerInHawaii · 2010-06-03 Reply Admin

Lego:

Just remember; do, or not do, there is no try.:-)

--Lego

Oh my god I hate it when someone makes that incipient statement.

After I am done performing the task it is either done or not done. But while I'm working on the task I am trying to accomplish it. I'll give it my all, to the best of my ability. But until it is finally accomplished or I fail, the best I can say is that I am trying. "Try" does not in any way imply that I am putting in less than maximum effort.

Addendum (2010-06-03 14:53): Make that "insipid", not incipient.

2010-06-03 Reply Admin

What is the problem here? This is a perfectly cromulent thing to do on embedded systems.

da Doctah · 2010-06-03 Reply Admin

RogerInHawaii:
Lego:

Just remember; do, or not do, there is no try.:-)

--Lego

Oh my god I hate it when someone makes that incipient statement.

After I am done performing the task it is either done or not done. But while I'm working on the task I am trying to accomplish it. I'll give it my all, to the best of my ability. But until it is finally accomplished or I fail, the best I can say is that I am trying. "Try" does not in any way imply that I am putting in less than maximum effort.

That is why you fail....

cod3_complete · 2010-06-03 Reply Admin

Dr. Talbot looked at the code, with a puzzled expression. "That's amazing," he said, surprised. Jibran smiled, satisfied that his instructor was going to admit his mistake. "There must be a short circuit inside the computer that's causing the Java compiler to accept your version of my random number code!"

How can faculty see this level of incompetence day in and day out and not say something? The problem is that a lot of them are wtf coders themselves who would've been fired from just about any job out there but they were able to stay in school long enough to become academics. I knew plenty of folks who rarely produced programs that would compile much less be correct to turn in for assignments but they would somehow "ace" the tests and pass the class anyway. Sigh

2010-06-03 Reply Admin

"I've been waiting for you, Dr. Talbot. We meet again at last. The circle is now complete. When I left you, I was but the learner. Now I am the master"

"Only a master of WTF, Jibran"

2010-06-03 Reply Admin

RogerInHawaii:
Lego:

Just remember; do, or not do, there is no try.:-)

--Lego

Oh my god I hate it when someone makes that incipient statement.

After I am done performing the task it is either done or not done. But while I'm working on the task I am trying to accomplish it. I'll give it my all, to the best of my ability. But until it is finally accomplished or I fail, the best I can say is that I am trying. "Try" does not in any way imply that I am putting in less than maximum effort.

Incipient statement?

Try "insipid", that'll actually make sense.

davedavenotdavemaybedave · 2010-06-03 Reply Admin

Lego:
davedavenotdavemaybedave:
frits:
davedavenotdavemaybedave:
IT Girl:
Pete:
Are WTF's drying up is all code in the world becoming better.
I think we all know there are teachers in colleges and universities that don't have a clue. Those who can't do teach after all.

That's right, those who can do, those who can't teach, and those who can do neither, criticize.

Are you saying critics have superpowers? Because those who 'do neither' would be people who can both 'do' and 'not do' at the same time.

Just asking, y'know.

Let's try restating IT Girl's post:

Those who can neither do, nor teach, criticize.

What's the problem, exactly?

Those who teach are those who cannot do. Substitute it in and you get:

Those who can neither do, nor not do, criticise.

That is of course equivalent to 'Those who can both do and not do', which is a more comprehensible way to phrase it.

Nope, still don't have it right. Let's look at IT Girl's post again. Expanding the contractions we get:

"...those who can do, those who can not do teach..."

You added the "nor".

Just remember; do, or not do, there is no try.:-)

--Lego

I'm really not sure what point you're making. Frits quite correctly added the 'nor' when rearranging the sentence. Either way, it's obvious that logically you cannot be both something and its negation. Whatever X and not-X are, something cannot, by definition, be both at the same time.

Perhaps the double- and triple-negatives are the confusing part?

2010-06-03 Reply Admin

Ahh, yes, when I took DP 101 we all quickly learned you do not tell the instructor his code didn't compile, or here's what the computer really does. You just figure out what it takes to make it work, and turn in your result. Even the little old Mexican lady -- who needed to have the concept of "variables" explained over and over again every day -- understood that you don't challenge the teacher.

He reminded us frequently that he really had worked "in industry" a couple years, but decided that teaching was more noble, even though it paid less.

Captcha: ratis. Waiter, a ratis in my soup! Or, I'm staying at the ratisin hotel.

2010-06-03 Reply Admin

RogerInHawaii:
Lego:

Just remember; do, or not do, there is no try.:-)

--Lego

Oh my god I hate it when someone makes that incipient statement.

After I am done performing the task it is either done or not done. But while I'm working on the task I am trying to accomplish it. I'll give it my all, to the best of my ability. But until it is finally accomplished or I fail, the best I can say is that I am trying. "Try" does not in any way imply that I am putting in less than maximum effort.

Reference Fail

2010-06-03 Reply Admin

Krenn:
RogerInHawaii:
Lego:

Just remember; do, or not do, there is no try.:-)

--Lego

Oh my god I hate it when someone makes that incipient statement.

After I am done performing the task it is either done or not done. But while I'm working on the task I am trying to accomplish it. I'll give it my all, to the best of my ability. But until it is finally accomplished or I fail, the best I can say is that I am trying. "Try" does not in any way imply that I am putting in less than maximum effort.

Incipient statement?

Do "insipid", that'll actually make sense.

FTFY - there is no "Try".

goose · 2010-06-03 Reply Admin

Or simply ...

int d100_from(int first_d10, int second_d10) {
    return 100 - (10 * first_d10 + second_d10);
}

2010-06-03 Reply Admin

Then as I understand it something is wrong with Java's modulo operator. Modulo is supposed to return the remainder upon division by a x. But if you look at number theory specifically the division algorithm remainders are always positive or zero.

Specifically, the division algorithm states that given two integers a and d, with d ≠ 0

There exist unique integers q and r such that a = qd + r and 0 ≤ r < | d |, where | d | denotes the absolute value of d.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_algorithm

Interestingly enough I tested this in c++ and I ran into the same problem though I had to introduce the negative by using another random number to determine if we multiplied by -1 (since c++ random numbers are positive only). I wonder if it is how the languages are defined or if it is how the processor carries it out.

2010-06-03 Reply Admin

There must be a short circuit inside the server letting me post this comment!

2010-06-03 Reply Admin

Some Old Guy:
I had a Chinese professor in college for a course in assembly language. He was ok except when he wanted us to queer the registers.

Almost snorted coffee into my monitor :)

2010-06-03 Reply Admin

Any explanation that includes the phrase "...so that the computer actually understands that you want..." is not an explanation.

How do people get any CS degree without knowing that computers don't understand anything. Computers are not sentient and that everything is pure math to them.

2010-06-03 Reply Admin

Buddy:
Krenn:
RogerInHawaii:
Lego:

Just remember; do, or not do, there is no try.:-)

--Lego

Oh my god I hate it when someone makes that incipient statement.

After I am done performing the task it is either done or not done. But while I'm working on the task I am trying to accomplish it. I'll give it my all, to the best of my ability. But until it is finally accomplished or I fail, the best I can say is that I am trying. "Try" does not in any way imply that I am putting in less than maximum effort.

Incipient statement?

Do "insipid", that'll actually make sense.

FTFY - there is no "Try".

Buddy, you are my hero. /Feature

2010-06-03 Reply Admin

ajtacka:
That sounds like one of my high school English teachers. Yes, English teacher. She was Spanish (or Italian. I forget, it was a long time ago). We spent half of most classes trying to figure out what she was actually saying.

So you're the guy who started that Arizona law.

2010-06-03 Reply Admin

Maybe next time you won't sleep through my class.

2010-06-03 Reply Admin

How do you think an inductor works? And how did the chaired professor say it does?

2010-06-03 Reply Admin

davedavenotdavemaybedave:
IT Girl:
Pete:
Are WTF's drying up is all code in the world becoming better.
I think we all know there are teachers in colleges and universities that don't have a clue. Those who can't do teach after all.

That's right, those who can do, those who can't teach, and those who can do neither, criticize.

Are you saying critics have superpowers? Because those who 'do neither' would be people who can both 'do' and 'not do' at the same time.

Just asking, y'know.

That's how they get past the screening door.

2010-06-03 Reply Admin

davedavenotdavemaybedave:
Either way, it's obvious that logically you cannot be both something and its negation. Whatever X and not-X are, something cannot, by definition, be both at the same time.

Never studied quantum mechanics did you?

2010-06-03 Reply Admin

No idea how this got here, but I'm the one who actually went through this whole ordeal, or an exactly same one if there's another Jibran somewhere. And believe it or not, the teacher WAS actually 'knowledgeable' enough to give this gem of an advise. Made me laugh for at least 5 mins reading this here.

2010-06-03 Reply Admin

The example was almost correct if it was a C program.

In C, after you generate the random number, you have to add '0' to it, which basically adds the ascii code for 0. Having any numerical value (between 0 and 9) added to the ascii code for '0' will give you the ascii digits 0 through 9.

Java just knows it's an integer and returns it as such.

ipeet · 2010-06-03 Reply Admin

CaptainSmartass:
ipeet:
Reminds me of the Data Structures & Algorithms prof I had who put the following on the board:
public static void main() { doStuff(); }

public static void doStuff() { /* insert main() here */ }

Why was this done? "As a general principle, I like to keep the main function short and simple"

I do the same thing. IMO, the main() function should be bereft of logic to the greatest extent possible (a single if or case function is about all I'll put in there if I can help it). It should merely call other routines to do the actual work. This tends to help make the code much more readable.

Anonymous:
I don't want to support useless code and obviously it serves no purpose to spin the "stuff" off into a separate "doStuff()" method but I have to admit that I'm guilty of doing this myself - for exactly the reason given by your professor. I like the entry point of an application to be concise and readable; after all, it's the first bit of code that the next poor slob has to hit when he ends up maintaining your program. I just hate seeing big slabs of code in the main() method so even if it has a relatively simple job to do, I generally put that code in a separate function.

You both missed my actual point. The main function contains a single function call, and nothing else. In effect, the prof has renamed the main function. The java snippet is logically equivalent to the C code:

#define notMain main int notMain () { // The simplest possible main() is no main() at all!!! woo!!! }

Main has not been simplified, it's been moved

To digress a bit, IMHO, the 'keep main as simple as possible' rule is misguided. I've encountered no convincing rationale for treating main() any differently from any other function in an application, and the same reasoning one uses when deciding to create a subroutine in any other function applies to main. The biggest reasons to create a subroutine are to reuse code, or to segregate a large block of code with a common logical purpose. Usually, moving code which is not logically a subcomponent of a routine into a subroutine impedes understanding, so it is poor practice to arbitrarily move logic into a subroutine simply to make a routine shorter. This logic applies to main() in the same way it applies to any other function.

One always has to keep account for the fact that subroutines have an inherent cost in ease of understanding. When you move to a different location in source to view a subroutine, you have to keep contextual information in your own memory, rather than having it right in front of you.

The principle shouldn't be "Always keep main() as short as possible", it should be "Friends don't let friends pack an entire program into main(). Always use subroutines when they're called for."

But then, I'm a C programmer. Account for subjective sanity modifier offsets as necessary.

2010-06-03 Reply Admin

Randomth?

2010-06-03 Reply Admin

cod3_complete:
Dr. Talbot looked at the code, with a puzzled expression. "That's amazing," he said, surprised. Jibran smiled, satisfied that his instructor was going to admit his mistake. "There must be a short circuit inside the computer that's causing the Java compiler to accept your version of my random number code!"

How can faculty see this level of incompetence day in and day out and not say something? The problem is that a lot of them are wtf coders themselves who would've been fired from just about any job out there but they were able to stay in school long enough to become academics. I knew plenty of folks who rarely produced programs that would compile much less be correct to turn in for assignments but they would somehow "ace" the tests and pass the class anyway. Sigh

Let me guess, you never aced much of anything? Always so easy to pick em out.

2010-06-03 Reply Admin

ipeet:
To digress a bit, IMHO, the 'keep main as simple as possible' rule is misguided. I've encountered no convincing rationale for treating main() any differently from any other function in an application, and the same reasoning one uses when deciding to create a subroutine in any other function applies to main. The biggest reasons to create a subroutine are to reuse code, or to segregate a large block of code with a common logical purpose.

You missed a reason, the name "main" is simply nonsensical. "doStuff" isn't exactly more descriptive, but when I move stuff out of main it's usually because it is too generic. The whole point to OOP is that you put stuff in logical places and name them accordingly, otherwise it can be very hard to form a mental picture of the application (and you might as well be coding in C).

2010-06-03 Reply Admin

wtf:
davedavenotdavemaybedave:
Those who teach are those who cannot do. Substitute it in and you get:
Those who can neither do, nor not do, criticise.

That is of course equivalent to 'Those who can both do and not do', which is a more comprehensible way to phrase it.

I can both do and not do. I can (for example) both walk and not walk, as the occasion demands. Not at the same time, mind you...

You have made the case that you (and everyone else) criticize.

Of course the more accurate wording based on expansion of the critic's post is: Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who neither can, nor can't, criticize.

So the resulting set of those who criticize is empty.

2010-06-03 Reply Admin

Come on, people! It's a ten-sided dice, but given the RPG context, it's pretty clear: you roll 10's and then you add your player's initiative stat. Clearly, the instructor didn't fare too well when he created his College CompSci Cave Goblin Level 1.

2010-06-03 Reply Admin

Some Old Guy:
I had a Chinese professor in college for a course in assembly language. He was ok except when he wanted us to queer the registers.

MUST remember to turn off L to R converter... (or so the professor should have known)

2010-06-03 Reply Admin

RogerInHawaii:
Lego:

Just remember; do, or not do, there is no try.:-)

--Lego

Oh my god I hate it when someone makes that incipient statement.

And I hate it when people get a quote wrong. "Do not," not "not do." Oww, now my head hurts....

And to the guy with the 0 on his six-siders: How crappy are the characters you roll, given you've got a stat range of 0 - 15?

2010-06-03 Reply Admin

Those who can do................TRUE Those who can't teach...........FALSE Those who do neither criticize..File not found!

It is more fun when the instructor/professor actually knows the subject. It was demonstrated to me when he was having the whole class demonstrate string reversal programs for him and the class. One loaded the program and started it, to which the professor gladly typed in a palindrome as input. IT took a while, but he eventually explained what he was doing, much to the relief of the student. On a related note, don't use '-40' as input to a Celsius to Fahrenheit converter.

As for "adding zero", one computer I worked on when converting from double precision numbers to single precision numbers sometimes produced "denormalized" numbers. The solution was to add zero, which produced the properly normalized number. So sometimes it IS needed.

cod3_complete · 2010-06-03 Reply Admin

germinator:
cod3_complete:
Dr. Talbot looked at the code, with a puzzled expression. "That's amazing," he said, surprised. Jibran smiled, satisfied that his instructor was going to admit his mistake. "There must be a short circuit inside the computer that's causing the Java compiler to accept your version of my random number code!"

How can faculty see this level of incompetence day in and day out and not say something? The problem is that a lot of them are wtf coders themselves who would've been fired from just about any job out there but they were able to stay in school long enough to become academics. I knew plenty of folks who rarely produced programs that would compile much less be correct to turn in for assignments but they would somehow "ace" the tests and pass the class anyway. Sigh
Let me guess, you never aced much of anything? Always so easy to pick em out.

Nope you've got me confused with memories of your own life full of fail :-) Ha!!! Douchebag...

2010-06-03 Reply Admin

J:
Mister Zimbu:
I have no clue:
Isnt that actually a 9 sided die? Well I guess 10 if you count the 0, but I've never seen a blank side of a die.
NINJA VANISH!!

I'm not sure what dice you're using, but most 6-sided dice I've seen DO have a side with a "0" on it.

Hmmm. Most 6-sided die I know have the dots 1 thru 6. Maybe we're talking dominoes with either blank or double-blank ;)

Odd. Most dice I've seen don't have a blank side- there is a side with a zero on it.

It's opposite the site with six zeroes. :)

2010-06-03 Reply Admin

Seraphim:
Then as I understand it something is wrong with Java's modulo operator. Modulo is supposed to return the remainder upon division by a x. But if you look at number theory specifically the division algorithm remainders are always positive or zero.

It's just a matter of definition.

The number theorists start from defining a non-negative remainder and as a consequence have integer division always round down (or toward minus infinity, if you will).

Most programming languages start from defining integer division to round towards zero and as a consequence sometimes have negative remainders, as they still want to keep the equation a * (a div b) + (a mod b) = a.

2010-06-03 Reply Admin

Of course the +0 is necessary. It's there to account for integer round-off error.

SQLDave · 2010-06-03 Reply Admin

Some Old Guy:
I had a Chinese professor in college for a course in assembly language. He was ok except when he wanted us to queer the registers.

ROR!

2010-06-03 Reply Admin

#!/usr/bin/perl
if ('03' eq '3') { print "True\n" } else { print "False\n" }
if ('03' + 0 eq '3') { print "True\n" } else { print "False\n" }

Produces:

False True

Perl motto: there's more than one way to do it (and most of them make your eyes bleed and your soul go running to embrace Satan).

2010-06-03 Reply Admin

Cliff notes anyone:
Jayman:
Gotta love those college profs, educating the next generation of WTF'ers. I remember that at least one of my Comp Sci profs took great pride in the fact that he had no industry experience; he felt that being a life-long academic kept him "undiluted" by industry practices...

That's like someone that practices foul shots but never played a game of basketball and somehow thinks that he/she is a foul shot master. It's different i nteh game with adrenaline and a crowd and others depending on you though.

Are you really comparing your programming "career" with NCAA or NBA basketball? You wish.

Many "best practices" are not.

Don't forget where computation came from. Academia. Don't forget where functional programming came from. Academia. Don't forget where OO programming came from. Academia. If OO is as far as you have got, you are either 30 or 5,000 years behind, depending on who is counting.

Surpassing the Master

Leave a comment on “Surpassing the Master”