• Georgem (unregistered) in reply to ClaudeSuck.de
    ClaudeSuck.de:
    pitchingchris:
    Georgem:
    In this position, today, in my role, I'd simply make the change, and that would be that. No meeting first to discuss it, I'd just be tasked with "speed this up, will ya?" and get a pat on the back when I was done.

    Sounds like cowboy coding to me.

    Sounds like: "You soon will be fired" to me, in such an environment.

    You'd be fired for speeding code up?

  • (cs) in reply to tgape
    tgape:
    As I understand it, if you submit something to the CA and they deem it to be incorrectly marked, the person who marked it gets dinged, and nothing happens to you (theoretically.) If they deem it to be correctly marked, and it was marked as some type of classified, you get dinged

    If you meant this the way it reads, this sort of gamesmanship explains a lot. Since people are risking their own career to submit something for review, obviously nothing will ever get submitted - better to just keep your head down. If this attitude is representative of the military establishment as a whole, well...

    All because the CA wants to reduce their workload by making it dangerous to make work for them. TRWTF.

  • SAMO(c) (unregistered)

    My program manager asked me to fix the EC unit, so I applied X amps at Y volts to circuit C with waveform D and then E happened. LONG LIVE Z!

  • Anon (unregistered) in reply to Mike D.
    Mike D.:
    IIRC, Pascal's enums were weird. You couldn't assign values to them and converting to/from ints was painful and illegible (store it, take address-of, typecast pointer, dereference).

    In Wirth's Pascal there was the ORD() function to convert from enum to integer. For the other direction you'd use a variant record (two fields with different types at the same offset) since there were no typecasts...

  • John (unregistered) in reply to pjt33

    I was wondering if that should be 'pawed over the code', 'pored through the code' or (as you seemed to be saying) turned to water and 'poured through the code'.

    I vote for the second version, and I think a dictionary would agree with me.

  • Sergey (unregistered)

    I remember a time when this sort of thing would haunt me... too.

    http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2009-07-26/

  • Mason Wheeler (unregistered)

    For everyone who keeps asking why they didn't pass by reference:

    I've seen part of the right answer. Pascal has had var parameters to pass by reference since the very beginning. But you can't pass constants to them since they need to be mutable.

    But there's more to it than that. Even if none of the strings being compared were constants, you couldn't do it this way. Wirth's Pascal didn't have a generic string type, and all strings have to be declared explicitly by size. But a var parameter requires an exact match, since whatever you send is mutable. If you were to pass a string[20] to a var parameter declared as a string[255], you'd be risking a buffer overflow.

    This is why our hero couldn't do string comparison by reference. (This problem no longer exists in modern Pascal dialects, of course.)

  • Mike (unregistered)

    Okay, really... I've seen my share of WTFs but this is the first one to actually make me ANGRY. How STUPID can some people be??

Leave a comment on “The Confidential Upgrade”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article