The Daily WTF: Curious Perversions in Information Technology

2010-12-01 Reply Admin

Kjella:
“Look Paul, you’re a life saver. This is great! I thought nobody would be able to deal with it. How much do we owe you?” Stuart responded.
Now this is the real WTF, if it's not just the story being spiced up. Any company that doesn't agree on the rates up front is insane - even if the work is no cure, no pay you still agree on what the pay is. Same with the coder, though if you don't actually have to give anything before they pay even that is saner.

How do you know they didn't agree on a rate and the boss just didn't know the final total, as in: how many hours do we owe you for?

2010-12-01 Reply Admin

not so humble:
This works in MS SQL:
SELECT * FROM [*]

Provided you created a table named *. Ugly though. Very ugly.

I just did that it MSSQL and then threw up in my mouth a little.

boog · 2010-12-01 Reply Admin

EvenMoreAnonymous:
Here we have a freelance coder, fresh out of college with no work experience, complaining that a working system is too complicated. Any good reason to believe him?

Sure, why not? We've all seen our fair share of working systems that were far more complicated than they needed to be.

EvenMoreAnonymous:
Because usually when this happens, TRWTF is the kid who has never seen a real system in his life.

A "real" system? What about a system makes it real, exactly?

Sorry, no. Paul's assessment of Richard's software may be unsurprising, but not because Paul is a "newbie". It's because some developers design excessively complex systems and try to justify their work by saying that "it's necessary in a real system". TRWTF is that this kind of practice is so widespread.

2010-12-01 Reply Admin

boog:
A "real" system? What about a system makes it real, exactly?

enum Bool { True, False, FileNotFound };

galgorah · 2010-12-01 Reply Admin

SCSimmons:
mott555:
JamesQMurphy:
Tim:
Just tried it in MySQL. They must have been doing it in the MS SQL portion, MySQL just spits out its standard error message.
I just tried in SQL Server 2005. Can't do it there either.

SQL Server 2008 R2 doesn't like it either.
Well, that sucks. What if you need that functionality for some reason? Say, for instance, that you ... um ...

(pondering)

... wanted to damn your immortal soul to Hell for all eternity? Why won't Microsoft let you just do it? Huh?

For that you need:

SELECT * FROM * CROSS JOIN * ON * = *

2010-12-01 Reply Admin

The shocking reality here is the number of Seriously Morally Bankrupt people, saying he should have padded his effort to a couple of Thousands instead of 250 he charged.

You wonder why most SME think IT consultants are snakes.

As someone in the industry, yes I totally despise people or firms like "Richard". But for me the real problem are the people who are saying he should have padded his effort. Its the reason why no one wants to bring in IT consultants or simply say they overcharge. Its the reason people like Richard exist, because the alternative are the other snakes in the pit.

Whatever happened to, if you spent a few hours doing something, then charge a few hours, instead of just padding it out?

This is the prejudice I had to constantly overcome when I took on my first client (who btw is still a client 2yrs later). To the SMEs there is no difference between Richard and the bill padders. How exactly do you keep a client if you bill them a few thousands for a few hours work, and then come back to say let me do work that might be 400hrs??

boog · 2010-12-01 Reply Admin

Dan:
I actually had to take a course that the university called "Software Engineering" as part of the cirriculum. It was about requirements gathering, work planning, and UML modeling.

My software engineering professor just stood in front of the class and bitched about modern programming languages, OO, and my generation for the whole class. The only thing I took from it was the knowledge that old people are really grouchy.

2010-12-01 Reply Admin

boog:
The only thing I took from it was the knowledge that old people are really grouchy.

Well then you should've gotten off his lawn, shouldn't you.

2010-12-01 Reply Admin

boog:
WhiskeyJack:
Like a few months ago we were looking at quotes for some simple concrete foundation work. For the exact same work, Company A quoted $8,000, company B quoted $10,000, Company C quoted $27,000. Company C clearly wasn't actually interested in doing it.
In my experience, consultants rarely want to turn down work. My guess is that they quote such a high number as a way of over-budgeting their time for the project. That way they don't have to re-negotiate later.
Still, even if the actual work is minimal, they'll stretch it out (and call it "being thorough") to use up all of the time they budgeted and get the most they can out of you. Some particularly unethical consultants will even bill you for the over-budgeted time that they are on-site while they are secretly doing remote work for other clients (and billing them simultaneously).

I once worked for a consulting company where the client required me to "be available" for 8 hours a day but didn't give us work for up to a month at a time. We had another 1 week project come along. I had no ethical qualms about working "16-hour days", knowing that if anything did come up, I could just put aside the extra work.

danixdefcon5 · 2010-12-01 Reply Admin

Tried

EXEC sp_msforeachtable 'SELECT * FROM ?'

and my eyes are bleeding now. I fear the reasoning that would lead anyone to use such a thing ....

boog · 2010-12-01 Reply Admin

PRMan:
boog:
Some particularly unethical consultants will even bill you for the over-budgeted time that they are on-site while they are secretly doing remote work for other clients (and billing them simultaneously).

I once worked for a consulting company where the client required me to "be available" for 8 hours a day but didn't give us work for up to a month at a time. We had another 1 week project come along. I had no ethical qualms about working "16-hour days", knowing that if anything did come up, I could just put aside the extra work.

I suppose there are some clients who will knowingly pay you to do nothing. I wish I could say they are rare, but I'm sure I'd be proven wrong.

I still wouldn't say that your behavior is ethical, though admittedly if I were you I probably wouldn't feel bad about it.

hatterson · 2010-12-01 Reply Admin

Anonymous:
Not a Lawyer:
You forgot the part of the story where Richard sues the pants (and other assorted items of clothing) off of Stuart and perhaps Paul for violating Richard's copyright on his bletcherous losing festering pile of copyrighted sludge.
This is a moot point, if they had the source code to modify in the first place then obviously it was sold under terms that allowed them to modify it.
Not a Lawyer:
Just because you can see the software doesn't necessarily mean you're allowed to modify it.
Actually it does because if it had been sold under terms that disallow modification then why would they give them the source code in the first place??? Clearly they would have provided binaries only if this was the terms, no? Sure, I'm reading between the lines here since we don't know the contract but seriously, what sort of idiot software company would supply source code if the contract stipulated that it could not be modified? They're just going to trust that the customer doesn't modify it? No way, there's not a chance this would happen in my opinion. And the article makes it perfectly clear that there were .NET binaries and code beyond the ASPX pages, so it's clear that a lot of the system could have been supplied in binary form without source code if that was the terms of the contract.

I've been involved in contracts where the client demanded (and negotiated into the contract) that, should our company go out of business or otherwise renege on the contract, they would inherit the source of the projects we had worked on for them.

Now in most sane places the code is balled up and put in escrow somewhere so that you don't have the client screwing with it when they shouldn't be, but it's possible (albeit a WTF) that certain companies would just hand it over with a "don't touch this" note

2010-12-01 Reply Admin

Defendor:
The shocking reality here is the number of Seriously Morally Bankrupt people, saying he should have padded his effort to a couple of Thousands instead of 250 he charged.

So, I'm *not* a consultant. I work a defined number of hours a week, for a defined salary, and I'm perfectly happy with that arrangement. But, if I were, and had I accepted a job like that, I would argue that it's not so much billing for more hours than I'd actually worked, as much as varying how much my time is worth based on what I was doing: if someone wanted to pay me to taste-test their new line of expensive chocolates, screw the money, I'd do it for free; if someone wanted to pay me to allow them to kick me in the balls, they'd better be offering millions.

Consider it a "next time, hire someone more competent and/or less sleazy to write your software" fee.

But, as I said, it's all purely hypothetical to me.

2010-12-01 Reply Admin

"SELECT * FROM *"

I can't see the name of the field or the table in this post-- I think it's because it matches your password.

DaveE

Mason Wheeler · 2010-12-01 Reply Admin

Jay:
trwtf:
I really hope you don't use that cursed abbreviation in actual speech. There's little in this world more pathetic than a grown man who would like to use the word "fuck" but dares not. (hey, at least it's a different sort of language nit-picking)

Of course one of the things in this world that is even more pathetic is a grown man who is unable to express himself without resorting to vulgarity. It's never been exactly clear to me how the ability to use words related to sexuality and/or excrement in totally inappropriate contexts marks someone as a "real man". I've met plenty of people who could save a lot of time if they just said at the beginning of a conversation, "Please assume that every noun that I use for the remainder of this discussion is modified by the adjective <insert your choice vulgarity here>". Then they could leave it out and cut the total number of words they have to say by at least 25%.

QFT. It's been my experience that vulgarity is the hallmark of a tragically limited vocabulary. I find it difficult to take people who talk like that seriously.

2010-12-01 Reply Admin

boog:
So I said "Oh my gosh" from that point on, which she was totally fine with. I didn't understand then, and still don't now. The syntax is different, but the meaning of the two phrases is exactly the same.

No, the syntax is exactly the same, but the meaning is different. Unless you believe that "God" and "gosh" mean the same thing.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/syntax http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gosh

2010-12-01 Reply Admin

boog, what exactly is "excessively complex" in this system?

8 tables in a database with bad names? That's probably bad design, but it's not complex in the slightest. The fact that most data is coming from a database with only 8 tables points towards over-simplifying, not complexity.

The sql statement? The only solid example, but it's invalid sql and therefore the author must have gotten that wrong (and the inability to report on a confusing sql statement doesn't give me a lot of confidence in the reporter).

"Navigating passed the piles of database instances and the ASP / Tomcat cross-configuration,": that's the only description of this particular system that might point to complexity, but it's incredibly vague. All the rest is non-specific attacks on what Richard might have done on other applications, not this one (descriptions that make no sense given the supposed POV of this story), not descriptions of this particular system.

boog · 2010-12-01 Reply Admin

nasch:
No, the syntax is exactly the same, but the meaning is different. Unless you believe that "God" and "gosh" mean the same thing.

My mistake; I meant to say the spelling is different (not syntax). Sorry everyone.

However, the meaning of the two phrases is the same. That is, if I substitute a word in place of the word I actually want to use, the meaning (as in spirit/intent/nature/message; not definition) of the phrase is the same.

2010-12-01 Reply Admin

To some people the meaning is the same, but to people offended when you take the Lord's name in vain, it has a very different meaning.

SCSimmons · 2010-12-01 Reply Admin

not so humble:
This works in MS SQL:
SELECT * FROM [*]

Provided you created a table named *. Ugly though. Very ugly.

Hee. Hee-hee.

I just created a table called * in our development SQL Server database. The table has one column: *

Eventually, one of the developers will ask me what it's for. And I'll put on my most incredulous look and say, "You mean you don't know?"

Something is really wrong with me.

boog · 2010-12-01 Reply Admin

EvenMoreAnonymous:
boog, what *exactly* is "excessively complex" in this system?

I think you're missing my point. I wasn't saying that this specific system in this specific story is excessively complex; as you correctly pointed out, the article is too vague to really get an idea of this system's actual complexity.

What I was doing was disagreeing with your apparent belief that the inexperienced submitter was likely overwhelmed by a perfectly normal system (if this is not what you meant, then please clarify). I believe that it is just as likely, if not more so, that the system was far more complex than it needed to be. I say this due to my own experience maintaining poorly-designed large-scale software and working with consulting firms.

2010-12-01 Reply Admin

boog:
That is, if I substitute a word in place of the word I actually want to use, the meaning (as in spirit/intent/nature/message; not definition) of the phrase is the same.

No, you need to add into your definition of 'meaning' the concept of linguistic register. If you intentionally use 'God' in a social context where 'gosh' would be more acceptable, you're sending a message. "Meaning" isn't determined by dictionaries alone.

2010-12-01 Reply Admin

Mason Wheeler:
Jay:
trwtf:
I really hope you don't use that cursed abbreviation in actual speech. There's little in this world more pathetic than a grown man who would like to use the word "fuck" but dares not. (hey, at least it's a different sort of language nit-picking)

Of course one of the things in this world that is even more pathetic is a grown man who is unable to express himself without resorting to vulgarity. It's never been exactly clear to me how the ability to use words related to sexuality and/or excrement in totally inappropriate contexts marks someone as a "real man". I've met plenty of people who could save a lot of time if they just said at the beginning of a conversation, "Please assume that every noun that I use for the remainder of this discussion is modified by the adjective <insert your choice vulgarity here>". Then they could leave it out and cut the total number of words they have to say by at least 25%.

QFT. It's been my experience that vulgarity is the hallmark of a tragically limited vocabulary. I find it difficult to take people who talk like that seriously.

Anyone with access to a suitable thesaurus (read: the internet) can make themselves sound cerebrally capable in the right context (read: the internet). Overly flowery speech and a vocabulary that attempts to express the notion of intelligence instead of making an actual interesting statement is simply another way to be vulgar by filling the vacuum with useless syllables.

Basically, fuck you. :D

ContraCorners · 2010-12-01 Reply Admin

hikari:
mott555:
JamesQMurphy:
Tim:
Just tried it in MySQL. They must have been doing it in the MS SQL portion, MySQL just spits out its standard error message.
I just tried in SQL Server 2005. Can't do it there either.

SQL Server 2008 R2 doesn't like it either.

Neither does Oracle 10g Release 2.

Hell, you can't even do it in MS Access 2007. Just where can you do this?

2010-12-01 Reply Admin

That is the wrong term..the appropriate one is "blood sucking, bottom feeding, corporate whores"...Oh, wait...what does that make me...never mind...

2010-12-01 Reply Admin

As I learned from some of my previous employers good software and profitable software are very distinct things most of the time :(

This is major proprietary software fail.

2010-12-01 Reply Admin

"Navigating passed the piles of database instances"

OK now I know why there are so many typos in TDWTF articles. Ypu're using Dragon Naturally Speaking, aren't you?

2010-12-01 Reply Admin

ekolis:
Select * from *? You can DO that? Oh... My... God...

You mean there's another way?

Weng · 2010-12-02 Reply Admin

Shenanigans.

SELECT * FROM * Msg 102, Level 15, State 1, Line 1 Incorrect syntax near '*'.

2010-12-02 Reply Admin

SELECT * FROM *;
???
Profit!

CAPTCHA: gravis - ancient latin sound card.

2010-12-02 Reply Admin

me:
ekolis:
Select * from *? You can DO that? Oh... My... God...

Not in Microsoft SQL Server. AFAIK. YMMV.

Nor in MySQL. Nor in Oracle.

In fact I'm afraid I'm going to have to call BS on this one.

2010-12-02 Reply Admin

luis.espinal:
Jeff:
(Job) Security through obscurity?
Sadly, I've seen it in real life as well (and way too often.) The software industry is plagued by both incompetence and lack of ethics.

Never ascribe to incompetence what can be adequately explained by malice. At least in this industry.

2010-12-02 Reply Admin

nasch:
boog:
So I said "Oh my gosh" from that point on, which she was totally fine with. I didn't understand then, and still don't now. The syntax is different, but the meaning of the two phrases is exactly the same.

No, the syntax is exactly the same, but the meaning is different. Unless you believe that "God" and "gosh" mean the same thing.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/syntax http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gosh

And when used as the same syntactic element, a standalone interjection, they are interchangeable.

But please try to cite a counterexample. Before you say it, "God damn" is not a valid counterexample, since God is being used as part of an idiomatic phrase, and is thus as a different syntactic element.

From your source:

–interjection 10. (used to express disappointment, disbelief, weariness, frustration, annoyance, or the like): God, do we have to listen to this nonsense?

–interjection (used as an exclamation or mild oath): Gosh, this bag is heavy!

2010-12-02 Reply Admin

evertras:
Mason Wheeler:
Jay:
trwtf:
I really hope you don't use that cursed abbreviation in actual speech. There's little in this world more pathetic than a grown man who would like to use the word "fuck" but dares not. (hey, at least it's a different sort of language nit-picking)

Of course one of the things in this world that is even more pathetic is a grown man who is unable to express himself without resorting to vulgarity. It's never been exactly clear to me how the ability to use words related to sexuality and/or excrement in totally inappropriate contexts marks someone as a "real man". I've met plenty of people who could save a lot of time if they just said at the beginning of a conversation, "Please assume that every noun that I use for the remainder of this discussion is modified by the adjective <insert your choice vulgarity here>". Then they could leave it out and cut the total number of words they have to say by at least 25%.

QFT. It's been my experience that vulgarity is the hallmark of a tragically limited vocabulary. I find it difficult to take people who talk like that seriously.

Anyone with access to a suitable thesaurus (read: the internet) can make themselves sound cerebrally capable in the right context (read: the internet). Overly flowery speech and a vocabulary that attempts to express the notion of intelligence instead of making an actual interesting statement is simply another way to be vulgar by filling the vacuum with useless syllables.

Basically, fuck you. :D

Nah, you can tell people are functional illiterates when they come up with awkward phrases like "cerebrally capable." If I were making your argument, I'd choose "sophisticated" because it's derived from the very similar debate Plato had with the Sophists of old. To anyone who is aware, it is painfully obvious that a few minutes of Googling can't replace a decent grounding in history and Western civilization.

2010-12-02 Reply Admin

boog:
trwtf:
WhiskeyJack:
Sometimes when people charge high prices it's because they really don't want the job, but if the client is really willing to pay, then at least they get something for it. Personally I call that the "F-U" price.

I really hope you don't use that cursed abbreviation in actual speech. There's little in this world more pathetic than a grown man who would like to use the word "fuck" but dares not. (hey, at least it's a different sort of language nit-picking)
From a guy who's name is "trwtf" on a site called "thedailywtf"?

Cut the guy some slack; at least he didn't write the word out with those cursed asterisks like some people do, those rotten bastards.

yeah, right bunch of effing c-words, aren't they?

2010-12-02 Reply Admin

Jay:
trwtf:
WhiskeyJack:
Sometimes when people charge high prices it's because they really don't want the job, but if the client is really willing to pay, then at least they get something for it. Personally I call that the "F-U" price.

I really hope you don't use that cursed abbreviation in actual speech. There's little in this world more pathetic than a grown man who would like to use the word "fuck" but dares not. (hey, at least it's a different sort of language nit-picking)

Of course one of the things in this world that is even more pathetic is a grown man who is unable to express himself without resorting to vulgarity. It's never been exactly clear to me how the ability to use words related to sexuality and/or excrement in totally inappropriate contexts marks someone as a "real man". I've met plenty of people who could save a lot of time if they just said at the beginning of a conversation, "Please assume that every noun that I use for the remainder of this discussion is modified by the adjective <insert your choice vulgarity here>". Then they could leave it out and cut the total number of words they have to say by at least 25%.

Some people's brains don't work as fast as their mouths, so while waiting for the grey matter to catch up, they fill the gap with a random noise in order to prevent the hearer from using the pause as an opportunity to take control of the conversation. The random noise they make can be analyzed by Freudian techniques, of course.

2010-12-02 Reply Admin

Defendor:
The shocking reality here is the number of Seriously Morally Bankrupt people, saying he should have padded his effort to a couple of Thousands instead of 250 he charged.
You wonder why most SME think IT consultants are snakes.

And how long until we have a TDWTF story about a developer at an organization that hired a consultant for $10,000 and when our hero develop gets to see what the consultant did, he see that it amounts to about 10 minutes of work. Then everybody will be on your side.

2010-12-02 Reply Admin

Ben:
evertras:
Mason Wheeler:
Jay:
trwtf:
I really hope you don't use that cursed abbreviation in actual speech. There's little in this world more pathetic than a grown man who would like to use the word "fuck" but dares not. (hey, at least it's a different sort of language nit-picking)

Of course one of the things in this world that is even more pathetic is a grown man who is unable to express himself without resorting to vulgarity. It's never been exactly clear to me how the ability to use words related to sexuality and/or excrement in totally inappropriate contexts marks someone as a "real man". I've met plenty of people who could save a lot of time if they just said at the beginning of a conversation, "Please assume that every noun that I use for the remainder of this discussion is modified by the adjective <insert your choice vulgarity here>". Then they could leave it out and cut the total number of words they have to say by at least 25%.

QFT. It's been my experience that vulgarity is the hallmark of a tragically limited vocabulary. I find it difficult to take people who talk like that seriously.

Anyone with access to a suitable thesaurus (read: the internet) can make themselves sound cerebrally capable in the right context (read: the internet). Overly flowery speech and a vocabulary that attempts to express the notion of intelligence instead of making an actual interesting statement is simply another way to be vulgar by filling the vacuum with useless syllables.

Basically, fuck you. :D

Nah, you can tell people are functional illiterates when they come up with awkward phrases like "cerebrally capable." If I were making your argument, I'd choose "sophisticated" because it's derived from the very similar debate Plato had with the Sophists of old. To anyone who is aware, it is painfully obvious that a few minutes of Googling can't replace a decent grounding in history and Western civilization.

I do believe your fucking imagination exceeds your capacity for rational thought. There is plenty of information online (and in books) about Plato and the Sophists. However, I'm having trouble finding any direct correlation to this thread of nonsense. Please cite the debate you find similar to the one here. Or are you just name-dropping philosophers to sound learned?

2010-12-02 Reply Admin

Knuckle Dragging Neanderthal:
I do believe your fucking imagination exceeds your capacity for rational thought. There is plenty of information online (and in books) about Plato and the Sophists. However, I'm having trouble finding any direct correlation to this thread of nonsense. Please cite the debate you find similar to the one here. Or are you just name-dropping philosophers to sound learned?

Information online is as useful as information in the books on my shelf. It's only useful to me if I've read it, understood it, and connected it to other information also in my head. To believe that you know as much as another because you can use a search engine to track down their references is the common idiocy of the current day, and it is no less idiocy for being commonly held. Intelligence is not composed of facts, but it requires a body of facts in order to be of any use. You may be an intelligent person, but if you can't see the connection between the preference for the use of the word "sophisticated" and its etymological roots in the dispute betwen Plato and the Sophists, it suggests that you see no connection between yourself and the past. This alone does not make you stupid, and I won't suggest that it does, but the fact that you find a respect for learning contemptible does not give me great hopes of discovering hidden reservoirs of intelligence in the shallow pools of your conversation.

Thanks for strengthening the correlation between vulgarity of expression and emptiness of thought, but it's already pretty well established. You don't need to make the point any further.

2010-12-02 Reply Admin

with names ranging from as “A” to “StoreFromIDRefererHolder,” and everything in between

All I could think when I read this was (in Ruby):

("A".."StoreFromIDRefererHolder").to_a.length

... which is a biiig number. I'm guessing it wasn't everything in between :)

frits · 2010-12-02 Reply Admin

trwtf:
Knuckle Dragging Neanderthal:
I do believe your fucking imagination exceeds your capacity for rational thought. There is plenty of information online (and in books) about Plato and the Sophists. However, I'm having trouble finding any direct correlation to this thread of nonsense. Please cite the debate you find similar to the one here. Or are you just name-dropping philosophers to sound learned?

Information online is as useful as information in the books on my shelf. It's only useful to me if I've read it, understood it, and connected it to other information also in my head. To believe that you know as much as another because you can use a search engine to track down their references is the common idiocy of the current day, and it is no less idiocy for being commonly held. Intelligence is not composed of facts, but it requires a body of facts in order to be of any use. You may be an intelligent person, but if you can't see the connection between the preference for the use of the word "sophisticated" and its etymological roots in the dispute betwen Plato and the Sophists, it suggests that you see no connection between yourself and the past. This alone does not make you stupid, and I won't suggest that it does, but the fact that you find a respect for learning contemptible does not give me great hopes of discovering hidden reservoirs of intelligence in the shallow pools of your conversation.

Thanks for strengthening the correlation between vulgarity of expression and emptiness of thought, but it's already pretty well established. You don't need to make the point any further.

You're reading comprehension sucks. I think Mr. KDN was asking how the entire thread relates to Plato and the Sophists, not how "sophisticated" may or may not be etymologically related to the Sophists. But I'm sure you'll figure out how to keep your ego intact through misdirection when you compulsively reply to this. Don't worry, I'm sure someone out there thinks you're smart.

2010-12-02 Reply Admin

Inquiring minds want to know:

SELECT * FROM *

-- what RDBMS is that? It seems to break everything Relational about a RDBMS.

2010-12-02 Reply Admin

No, you can't do that, that's not valid SQL and it's semantically entirely meaningless - would not work in any RDBMS.

boog · 2010-12-02 Reply Admin

FuBar:
No, you need to add into your definition of 'meaning' the concept of linguistic register. If you intentionally use 'God' in a social context where 'gosh' would be more acceptable, you're sending a message.

But isn't that begging the question? I'm not disagreeing, but your example already assumes that the social acceptance of "gosh" over "god" is valid. Certainly this "social acceptance" exists; my initial example proves that. I'm questioning the validity of a substitution (in this case "gosh") being more acceptable because I believe the intent of the message is the same. I don't think that substitution for the sake of substitution alone changes the real message or the reason for the message.

I should clarify that I specifically mean substituting "safe" words (including abbreviations) in place of "swear" words. I do think that if someone chooses to clean up their language, there are many better ways than word-substitutions.

FuBar:
"Meaning" isn't determined by dictionaries alone.

Thank you, that is one of several points I was already making.

2010-12-02 Reply Admin

EvenMoreAnonymous:
boog, what *exactly* is "excessively complex" in this system?
8 tables in a database with bad names? That's probably bad design, but it's not complex in the slightest. The fact that most data is coming from a database with only 8 tables points towards over-simplifying, not complexity.

The sql statement? The only solid example, but it's invalid sql and therefore the author must have gotten that wrong (and the inability to report on a confusing sql statement doesn't give me a lot of confidence in the reporter).

"Navigating passed the piles of database instances and the ASP / Tomcat cross-configuration,": that's the only description of this particular system that might point to complexity, but it's incredibly vague. All the rest is non-specific attacks on what Richard might have done on other applications, not this one (descriptions that make no sense given the supposed POV of this story), not descriptions of this particular system.

I believe the actual story said eight hundred or even eight thousand tables. It makes a lot more sense.

2010-12-02 Reply Admin

I did, but they already had a migration plan to a new stock management system in place. Granted, that migration was 18 months out at the time, but it was made clear they just needed the current system to limp along for the time being.

Yes, the "application" really was that bad.

2010-12-02 Reply Admin

Actually I quoted them an hourly rate and kept a log of the time I spent. They agreed to pay me for time spent just to get an honest assessment even if I couldn't fix it.

2010-12-02 Reply Admin

Bill's Kid:
Kjella:
“Look Paul, you’re a life saver. This is great! I thought nobody would be able to deal with it. How much do we owe you?” Stuart responded.
Now this is the real WTF, if it's not just the story being spiced up. Any company that doesn't agree on the rates up front is insane - even if the work is no cure, no pay you still agree on what the pay is. Same with the coder, though if you don't actually have to give anything before they pay even that is saner.

How do you know they didn't agree on a rate and the boss just didn't know the final total, as in: how many hours do we owe you for?

Yes, we agreed on an hourly rate. They were prepared to pay me just to look at it even if I couldn't fix it, just so they could get an honest assessment.

2010-12-02 Reply Admin

frits:

You're reading comprehension sucks. I think Mr. KDN was asking how the entire thread relates to Plato and the Sophists, not how "sophisticated" may or may not be etymologically related to the Sophists.

In that case, it's KDN's comprehension that's not quite up to speed. It's not hard to follow the discussion. Do try to keep up - or should I not give away that "Knuckle-Dragging Neanderthal" is one of your pseudonyms?

But I'm sure you'll figure out how to keep your ego intact through misdirection when you compulsively reply to this. Don't worry, I'm sure someone out there thinks you're smart.

Interesting that you consider a conversation to be a means of ego maintenance. I thought it was more of an exchange of ideas. I'll try to be a bit easier on your ego next time, I see it's very important to you. (I like the double bind, by the way - if I reply, I'm "compulsive", if I don't, you "win" the point by default. Sweet gamesmanship, dude. Now you might want to ask yourself why you're trying to win a conversation, but that might be more a question for your therapist. Maybe after you talk about why you're compulsively replying to threads on thedailywtf.com)

WhiskeyJack · 2010-12-02 Reply Admin

Defendor:
The shocking reality here is the number of Seriously Morally Bankrupt people, saying he should have padded his effort to a couple of Thousands instead of 250 he charged.

I'm not saying pad the effort. I'm not saying that he should tell them it'll cost 400 hours of work when really he knows it's only going to take 40. I'm saying, knowing that the code is as nasty as it is, and knowing that if they're happy with you they will likely continue to call on you to make even more changes in the nasty code, that you should agree on a rate accordingly -- whether that be hourly, daily, or a flat rate.

The other guy said it well with the example of charging nothing to accept a job tasting chocolate but wanting millions to accept a job involving physical pain. "I'll do it, if you really want me to, but this is how much it's going to cost."

The Unmanaged Stock Management System

Leave a comment on “The Unmanaged Stock Management System”