The Daily WTF: Curious Perversions in Information Technology

ParkinT · 2012-05-31 Reply Admin

Derek was probably paid a salary. The "old-timer" was paid by total SLOC count.

{And I get paid for being FIRST}

2012-05-31 Reply Admin

So a piece of functioning but long-winded code was refactored by a junior developer. And the WTF is?

2012-05-31 Reply Admin

first.visible := false; second.visible := false; third.visible := false; fourth.visible := false; fifth.visible := false; sixth.visible := true;

Also, is this Pascal? Or is there some new Pascal-looking language out there?

2012-05-31 Reply Admin

It's definitely Turbo Pascal. Delphi to be more precise.

2012-05-31 Reply Admin

Blargles:
first.visible := false; second.visible := false; third.visible := false; fourth.visible := false; fifth.visible := false; sixth.visible := true;
Also, is this Pascal? Or is there some new Pascal-looking language out there?

Looks like Delphi.

2012-05-31 Reply Admin

"Image4.Visible := t = 1;"

Yuck.

Every "x = y" where x ends up not being y is scary, to say the least.

2012-05-31 Reply Admin

Looks like Delphi to me.

2012-05-31 Reply Admin

TheSHEEEP:
"Image4.Visible := t = 1;"
Yuck.

Every "x = y" where x ends up not being y is scary, to say the least.

In other languages, that'd be "Image4.Visible = t == 1;".

2012-05-31 Reply Admin

OMG, they posted it. I submited this code about month ago, I thought it wasn't good enough, perhaps it took them that long just to decipher my non-native-english. Thanks!

arh · 2012-05-31 Reply Admin

first:
So a piece of functioning but long-winded code was refactored by a junior developer. And the WTF is?

The WTF is that they seemed spending a lot of time reminding the junior developer that he was a junior, and then scoffing at him when he optimized their code. That's exactly the kind of "mentors" you'd like to avoid.

Flash · 2012-05-31 Reply Admin

'Phmph,' he grumbled, 'my way worked fine, too.'

This old-timer just demonstrated that he hadn't learned an important lesson of writing software: that "working fine" is not enough. Our code has to be maintainable, too. It should be easy to understand for the next person who comes along. If there are bugs, they should be easy to find. If a change is needed, it should be easy to make.

nonpartisan · 2012-05-31 Reply Admin

ParkinT:
Derek was probably paid a salary. The "old-timer" was paid by total SLOC count.
{And I get paid for being FIRST}

So why should the old timer be annoyed? He got his pay. And a professional programmer like that can just massage new code into 500 lines where 50 would do.

Callin · 2012-05-31 Reply Admin

We don't take too kindly to your optimization around here. You best learn your place fast, son.

2012-05-31 Reply Admin

Actually the delphi syntax makes more sense - the '=' sign has been used to express equality, not assignment, long before C was invented (or computers altogether, for that matter). Using '==' for that TRWTF and if your early programming days were not that long ago you might remember mistakenly using = instead of ==, just because it's more natural - I'm pretty sure everyone does that (except people who use Pascal/Delphi, that is)

ochrist · 2012-05-31 Reply Admin

Derek:
OMG, they posted it. I submited this code about month ago, I thought it wasn't good enough, perhaps it took them that long just to decipher my non-native-english. Thanks!

No, that's just because Alex is an older, more experienced programmer and wants you to know your place.

2012-05-31 Reply Admin

I noticed that on many of the companies projects used the same pattern where the main window five different buttons and three stock photos.

Who proofreads these articles?

2012-05-31 Reply Admin

anon:
Who proofreads these articles?

Nagesh, by the look of it...

Roby McAndrew · 2012-05-31 Reply Admin

I can see this from both sides.

I remember being young and keen, and thinking "Hey, I can do this a lot more concisely".

The old code is verbose, but it's not THAT ugly and unmaintainable. I guess it evolved that way. Cutting and pasting working code to get unchanged functionality is kind of good practice.

We all josh the junior and as long as it is "all in good fun" where's the harm? Having your code précised to this degree would be kind of irritating, and I might well have a bit of grumble.

2012-05-31 Reply Admin

anon:
I noticed that on many of the companies projects used the same pattern where the main window five different buttons and three stock photos.

Who proofreads these articles?

Older and more experienced editors, obviously.

2012-05-31 Reply Admin

Some languages use = for both comparison and setting. This is generally considered bad.

Most languages, including Pascal, don't. This is generally considered good.

Many languages resolve this by using == for comparison but some don't. This is generally considered irrelevant.

Many people can only understand what they're used to. This is generally considered stupid.

2012-05-31 Reply Admin

Bob:
Some languages use = for both comparison and setting. This is generally considered bad.
Most languages, including Pascal, don't. This is generally considered good.

Many languages resolve this by using == for comparison but some don't. This is generally considered irrelevant.

Many people can only understand what they're used to. This is generally considered stupid.

Wise words. You have my respect.

2012-05-31 Reply Admin

Image4.Visible = (1 == t);

The real wtf is default control names

2012-05-31 Reply Admin

Bob:
Some languages use = for both comparison and setting. This is generally considered bad.
Most languages, including Pascal, don't. This is generally considered good.

Many languages resolve this by using == for comparison but some don't. This is generally considered irrelevant.

Many people can only understand what they're used to. This is generally considered stupid.

I wish the last statement would be true...

2012-05-31 Reply Admin

meh:
I wish the last statement would be true...

err, was! was true! phew, saved it.

gramie · 2012-05-31 Reply Admin

This IS Delphi code, and the problem you C/Java/etc. coders have with the "=" and "==" may be because you don't know Pascal syntax:

a := 'Bob'

assigns the value 'Bob' to the variable 'a'.

(note the ':=' as the assignment operator)

a = 'Bob'

checks for equality.

toshir0 · 2012-05-31 Reply Admin

Roby McAndrew:
The old code is verbose, but it's not THAT ugly and unmaintainable.

Ok, now try to actually *look* at this fucking rotten pile of ugliness again and do apologize to us all.

Roby McAndrew:
Cutting and pasting working code to get unchanged functionality is kind of good practice.

Ok, you got me. Obvious troll is obvious, I know...

2012-05-31 Reply Admin

While it depends on the environment, the first version looks to be more efficient. It only sets values if things have changed. The second version by Derek, while more concise, will be called every time the mouse moves on the form, doing the same comparisons, and setting values. It may not make a difference, again depending on the environment. On the developer's machine, it might be fine, but when the office assistant runs the program, the form may blink every time she moves the mouse.

Also, I personally don't like the pattern of setting a value to the result of a comparison (Image4.Visible := t = 1;). It may be concise, but it isn't clear. Its not that hard, or that much more code to actually use an if statement, but its tons clearer. In the current case, I'd probably go with a switch, though. Not sure you want to be clear and efficient, though. That's pushing it.

toshir0 · 2012-05-31 Reply Admin

Bob:
Some languages use = for both comparison and setting. This is generally considered bad.
Most languages, including Pascal, don't. This is generally considered good.

Many languages resolve this by using == for comparison but some don't. This is generally considered irrelevant.

Many people can only understand what they're used to. This is generally considered stupid.

Generally, general statements are bullshit.

(lol as much as you want at this recursive stupidity, but I heard it said on TV some years ago, as confidently as anything, by a person I used to like much before the very saying of this sentence...)

2012-05-31 Reply Admin

Roby McAndrew:
Cutting and pasting working code to get unchanged functionality is kind of good practice.

Not to be rude, but I can't disagree with this more. Cutting and pasting working code is a good way to introduce subtle bugs because you forgot to change the one variable that actually needed to be different. It also complicates things needlessly if the behavior ever needs to be changed globally.

Good practice is: read the code, understand the code, rewrite the code. If you find similar code is needed in more than one place, you are missing a refactoring opportunity if you just cut and paste. Anyone who doesn't practice this should probably do the rest of us a favor and change careers. The old saying 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it' has no place in software development, or IT in general for that matter. IT is change; either embrace it or get left behind.

2012-05-31 Reply Admin

Bob:
Many people can only understand what they're used to. This is generally considered stupid.

I used to work in a C shop. All C, all the time. One of the old-timers complained when I used the '?:' conditional operator.

    x = (a > b) ? a : b;

Like that, only with meaningful variable names.

"What's this? That's not even legal C, that's just a proprietary compiler extension! What do you mean, 'it is legal'? Prove it! So what if it's in Kernighan and Ritchie? Who are they? Anyway, no one understands it. You need to change it to an if..else block."

Amazing what some of these old timers think they know...

Me, I'm just happy that it's 2012 and I can finally start using some of the constructs presented in the C99 spec.

2012-05-31 Reply Admin

In VB it would be "Image4.Visible = t = 1" Scary.

2012-05-31 Reply Admin

Roby McAndrew:
Cutting and pasting working code to get unchanged functionality is kind of good practice.

This is TRWTF. Cutting & pasting working code eventually turns into "several dozen similar, but not quite the same" versions. Then QA wonders why a bug is fixed "here", but not in the other 20 places where it exists. And then your manager wonders why it takes so long just to fix a simple bug.

Cut/Paste <> Code Reuse. There's a reason most languages support references to libraries, or at the bare minimum you use an "include".

Yazeran · 2012-05-31 Reply Admin

maw:
In VB it would be "Image4.Visible = t = 1" Scary.

Ok THIS (if true) is by far the worst thing I have heard of VB (I have personally never written anything in VB and now I want to even less...)

Yazeran

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

2012-05-31 Reply Admin

Remind again how this:

begin Image4.Visible := true; Image9.Visible := false; Image11.Visible := false; Image7.Visible := false; Image5.Visible := false;
  Image2.Visible := true;
  Image8.Visible := true;
  Image10.Visible := true;
  Image6.Visible := true;
  Image3.Visible := true;

  Image12.Visible := true;
  Image13.Visible := false;
  Image14.Visible := false;

  semafor_pic1 := true;
  semafor_pic2 := false;
  semafor_pic3 := false;
  semafor_pic4 := false;
  semafor_pic5 := false;
end;

James C. L.:
only sets values if things have changed.

?

callcopse · 2012-05-31 Reply Admin

James C. L.:
While it depends on the environment, the first version looks to be more efficient. It only sets values if things have changed. The second version by Derek, while more concise, will be called every time the mouse moves on the form, doing the same comparisons, and setting values. It may not make a difference, again depending on the environment. On the developer's machine, it might be fine, but when the office assistant runs the program, the form may blink every time she moves the mouse.
Also, I personally don't like the pattern of setting a value to the result of a comparison (Image4.Visible := t = 1;). It may be concise, but it isn't clear. Its not that hard, or that much more code to actually use an if statement, but its tons clearer. In the current case, I'd probably go with a switch, though. Not sure you want to be clear and efficient, though. That's pushing it.

Pretty sure that the redraw will not occur if the visibility is simply set to what it is already, though you'd need to verify. Even if that was not the case that would be no excuse for the impenetrable and unnecessary length of the original.

For me, I would be fine with a parenthesised version like so: Image4.Visible := (t = 1);

I'd probably include a comment as a clear statement of intent too.

2012-05-31 Reply Admin

Sizik:
TheSHEEEP:
"Image4.Visible := t = 1;"
Yuck.

Every "x = y" where x ends up not being y is scary, to say the least.

In other languages, that'd be "Image4.Visible = t == 1;".

Wirth deliberately gave Pascal those operators as a teaching tool. Assignment is not commutative and the colon in a := b; makes that clear. Equality is a single = in ordinary algebra, where (a = b) is the same as (a = b).

Just because something is not common doesn't mean it's not better!

2012-05-31 Reply Admin

Tasty:
Sizik:
TheSHEEEP:
"Image4.Visible := t = 1;"
Yuck.

Every "x = y" where x ends up not being y is scary, to say the least.

In other languages, that'd be "Image4.Visible = t == 1;".

Wirth deliberately gave Pascal those operators as a teaching tool. Assignment is not commutative and the colon in a := b; makes that clear. Equality is a single = in ordinary algebra, where (a = b) is the same as (a = b).

Just because something is not common doesn't mean it's not better!

ever heard Wirth ranting about C++? he seems to be very convinced about the superiority of his languages

Nagesh · 2012-05-31 Reply Admin

Chelloveck:
Bob:
Many people can only understand what they're used to. This is generally considered stupid.

I used to work in a C shop. All C, all the time. One of the old-timers complained when I used the '?:' conditional operator.
    x = (a > b) ? a : b;
Like that, only with meaningful variable names.

"What's this? That's not even legal C, that's just a proprietary compiler extension! What do you mean, 'it is legal'? Prove it! So what if it's in Kernighan and Ritchie? Who are they? Anyway, no one understands it. You need to change it to an if..else block."

Amazing what some of these old timers think they know...

Me, I'm just happy that it's 2012 and I can finally start using some of the constructs presented in the C99 spec.

In my view, it is more sense making to have more lines of code for future maintenance guy to understand that code. The more cryptic code is difficult to understand. I am sure mr Atwood, mr Spalsky and mr Skeet (A.S.S) team will get this point.

2012-05-31 Reply Admin

TImage(Sender).Tag;

For this single line You will be fired in my company... We already have too much problems with "smart" developers and very "creative" ways to use TComponent.Tag

Mapping Button => Image should be hold in other collection, and whole code should be moved to procedure in utils.

2012-05-31 Reply Admin

meh:
meh:
I wish the last statement would be true...

err, was! was true! phew, saved it.

It was alright as it was. You unwittingly used the subjunctive which, while rare these days, is perfectly valid and in fact rather elegant.

2012-05-31 Reply Admin

TheSHEEEP:
"Image4.Visible := t = 1;"
Yuck.

Every "x = y" where x ends up not being y is scary, to say the least.

Do all programming languages that you don't know scare you?

2012-05-31 Reply Admin

Martin:
Remind again how this:
begin Image4.Visible := true; Image9.Visible := false; Image11.Visible := false; Image7.Visible := false; Image5.Visible := false;
  Image2.Visible := true;
  Image8.Visible := true;
  Image10.Visible := true;
  Image6.Visible := true;
  Image3.Visible := true;

  Image12.Visible := true;
  Image13.Visible := false;
  Image14.Visible := false;

  semafor_pic1 := true;
  semafor_pic2 := false;
  semafor_pic3 := false;
  semafor_pic4 := false;
  semafor_pic5 := false;
end;
James C. L.:
only sets values if things have changed.

?

Most property setters (property Visible => setter SetVisible()) in Delphi VCL is intelligent enough to do not trigger updates if new value is same like old one.

So setting Visible to "true" in component which is already visible, will do nothing more than simple condition check.

2012-05-31 Reply Admin

Martin:
Remind again how this:
begin Image4.Visible := true; Image9.Visible := false; Image11.Visible := false; Image7.Visible := false; Image5.Visible := false;
  Image2.Visible := true;
  Image8.Visible := true;
  Image10.Visible := true;
  Image6.Visible := true;
  Image3.Visible := true;

  Image12.Visible := true;
  Image13.Visible := false;
  Image14.Visible := false;

  semafor_pic1 := true;
  semafor_pic2 := false;
  semafor_pic3 := false;
  semafor_pic4 := false;
  semafor_pic5 := false;
end;
James C. L.:
only sets values if things have changed.

?

Look at the functions called. The original code is only called when the mouse moves over an image.

The new code is called every time the mouse moves

2012-05-31 Reply Admin

Vroomfundel:
Actually the delphi syntax makes more sense - the '=' sign has been used to express equality, not assignment, long before C was invented (or computers altogether, for that matter). Using '==' for that TRWTF and if your early programming days were not that long ago you might remember mistakenly using = instead of ==, just because it's more natural - I'm pretty sure everyone does that (except people who use Pascal/Delphi, that is)

I prefer my ===, TYVM!

2012-05-31 Reply Admin

Image4.Visible := t = 1;

OK I don't know Pascal or Delphi, so I'm just going to take a guess at the array syntax, but why wouldn't you simply

Image[t].Visible := 1;

after clearing the entire array, of course?

2012-05-31 Reply Admin

Vroomfundel:
Actually the delphi syntax makes more sense - the '=' sign has been used to express equality, not assignment, long before C was invented (or computers altogether, for that matter). Using '==' for that TRWTF and if your early programming days were not that long ago you might remember mistakenly using = instead of ==, just because it's more natural - I'm pretty sure everyone does that (except people who use Pascal/Delphi, that is)

I'm pretty sure before programming, there was no concept of "assignment" in mathematics.

2012-05-31 Reply Admin

So, in this notation, "=" means ? Σ(n=0 to ∞) x^n

D-Coder · 2012-05-31 Reply Admin

wolfi:
Tasty:
Sizik:
TheSHEEEP:
"Image4.Visible := t = 1;"
Yuck.

Every "x = y" where x ends up not being y is scary, to say the least.

In other languages, that'd be "Image4.Visible = t == 1;".

Wirth deliberately gave Pascal those operators as a teaching tool. Assignment is not commutative and the colon in a := b; makes that clear. Equality is a single = in ordinary algebra, where (a = b) is the same as (a = b).

Just because something is not common doesn't mean it's not better!
ever heard Wirth ranting about C++? he seems to be very convinced about the superiority of his languages

With regards to C++, he's right.

Mason Wheeler · 2012-05-31 Reply Admin

Blargles:
first.visible := false; second.visible := false; third.visible := false; fourth.visible := false; fifth.visible := false; sixth.visible := true;
Also, is this Pascal? Or is there some new Pascal-looking language out there?

If by "new" you mean "17 years old and used by millions of developers worldwide" then yes, I suppose there is. :P

Mason Wheeler · 2012-05-31 Reply Admin

...and just because no one's posted it yet:

   Image1.Visible := true;
   Image2.Visible := false;
   Image3.Visible := file_not_found;

The Long Glow

Leave a comment on “The Long Glow”