• (cs) in reply to Anon

    javascript always entirely clientside... Guess again...

  • (cs) in reply to Your Name

    Anonymous:
    olddog:
    - The consultants had already forumulated this "pet" solution and were just itching' to impliment it as soon as they could find a client.


    As in 'found on a forum on the Internet'?  Wouldn't be TDWTF would it?

    Imagine that!  A killer app, somehow stitched together fom TDWTF topics, with built-in WTFedness.

  • (cs)

    the thing that gets me is the term "consultants". Plural. Surely if any more than one person is working on this beast, they look at it and go "i've heard of a good website that this would be perfect for, i think the address was www.thedailywtf.com"

    The other thing that bothers me about the plural is that they are paying more than one consultant to come up with this rubbish... you could have probably bought a small country for the cost of these diagrams...

  • (cs) in reply to Disgruntled DBA
    Disgruntled DBA:
    I created this exact workflow diagram by simply hooking the logic circuits of a Bambleweeny 57 sub-meson Brain to an atomic vector plotter suspended in a strong Brownian Motion producer (say a nice hot cup of tea).

    That's pretty improbable, if you ask me....

    +5 Funny as H*** :-D

  • (cs) in reply to Ken
    Anonymous:

    re: Iowa-specific Text ....

     

    That's probably because you are a programmer and you know that...

    The bane of many (most?) programmers is that they can design a marvellous system and then one customer turns round and says "Can we have this configurable?". The answer is probably yes, although the design may have to "flex" a little to isolate and expose the configurable bit.

    Then *every* other customer turns round and makes a similar request and by the time all those things have been isolated and exposed, the application has been turned into a framework for writing itself. It no longer does *anything* useful itself, all functionality now residing in whatever "quick and dirty" scripting language or configuration files were used for the original mod.

    ...




    Enter SAP...

  • OMG LAZOR BEANS!! (unregistered)

    Any idiot can write spagetti code. That thing's Escher code.

  • (cs) in reply to drdamour
    drdamour:

    For a giant thin client app such as this, putting a lot of the logic in the Javascript layer can be a real advantage. Especially when you're an outside company.

    Most internal IT guys won't let you think about modifying compiled code, and now ASP/PHP pages are mostly untouchable, but when you just tell them you need to change some JScript around they let you have a free reign.

    It's a real world solution for a real world.



    That's not an advantage, and you definitely don't want to put ANY logic at all in javascript.

    In the web app I'm writing now, the only Javascript used is for mouseover images. The rest is auto-generated by ASP.NET, mostly (or solely) for client-side validation, which is backed up by server-side validation (at least MS did something vaguely right).

    Why? Because embedding loads of logic into JavaScript page is asking for trouble. It's not easy to manage (a bit like PHP).
  • (cs)

    Any fool can develop complex or overtly complex system but it takes lots of skill and intelligence to come up with a simple solution.


  • (cs) in reply to Shaved Regressor
    Anonymous:
    We were developing a game framework and editor aimed at low-level programmers, or even technically savvy non-programmers. Our lead architect was convinced that all game logic must be driven by state machines, because he thought it was more elegant. He also thought that non-programmers would find state machines easy to work with.


    Is it just me or are unexperienced programmers coding games a WTF in itself?

    And representing games as state machines strikes me as one of the stupider ideas. Digital logic, sure. Games? Like WoW?
  • (cs) in reply to Gootfried
    Anonymous:
    I <font color="#000080">really </font>love the diagram-equals-workflow-equals-code idea!

    Okay, so the diagram looks complex, but maybe that's because the workflow is.
    Just imagine what it would have looked like in "real" code.


    Agreed. Ideally visual tools can break down complexity into manageable modules. We use visual tools (Ab Initio) every day to develop highly parallel applications. Doing the same thing in straight code would be a nightmare, and as a benefit the workflow is already visualized in a form that can be presented to the business analysts for verification of functional requirements.

    135 diagrams wouldn't be surprising for a large financial company. How many lines of code do you think their other legacy systems have? 100k? 500k?

    However, cheers to Alex for posting what seems to be a less-doctored-than-usual WTF...allowing use of JavaScript to implement business logic is simply terrible, even if it is an intranet application. I would imagine this is a system which could very easily be abused -- sit down at somebody else's work-station and execute some custom JS code and you're completely untraceable.
  • Foo (unregistered) in reply to Frequency
    Anonymous:
    How can any one person, let alone a group of person sit in a room and go hey that was an excellent idea...


    The answer is... they didn't... this is likely an evolved system. Balls of crud slapped on top of balls of other crud. Eventually you get a gigantic ball of crud that nobody can or will take credit for and everyone must suffer through.

    --Shawn
  • (cs) in reply to Kemp
    Anonymous:

    Anonymous:
    And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Genesis 5:6

    Dunno what bible you have, but all the ones I can find Genesis 5:6 is some variation of

    "Seth lived one hundred five years, and became the father of Enosh."

    Which has very little to do with this that I can see

    He's quoting from the beta version of the bible.

  • (cs)

    ...Oh, man. I don't think I'm going to be able to sleep tonight.

    shudder


    (And yeah, I thought it was a wiring diagram, too, until I saw the colored boxes and realized I could make out text in those boxes.)

  • JL (unregistered) in reply to Dave
    Anonymous:
    You should never put logic in the javascript layer that isn't double-checked by server because the user can rewrite your program however they want. Sure, it's probably not a big deal if all you are doing is capitalizing their first name, but what if it's something like validating the maximum quantity? Better hope the business catches it before it ships!


    A lot of people assume JavaScript is only used on the client side of a web browser.  While this is its most common use, it is a general purpose language; it is also used as a server-side component, a stand-alone interpreter, or a scripting language for non-browser applications.  For example, Microsoft's JScript.NET is an ECMAScript (JavaScript) implementation for writing .NET applications.  Given John's assignment in the article -- modifying a JavaScript HTML parser to produce different output to the user -- JavaScript is most likely being used either as a stand-alone interpreter or as a scripting language embedded in the Visio-interpreting monstrosity, running entirely on the server so that the end-user can't see or modify the JavaScript code.  Of course, there's no telling with WTF submissions...
  • (cs) in reply to VeXocide
    VeXocide:
    Someone once said: <font size="-1">"...the nipple is the only 'intuitive' user interface". </font>And in my opinion all user interfaces must take the nipple as an example ;)


    Actually, nipples aren't intuitive. Babies have to be taught how to latch on and suckle. Otherwise, you end up with hungry babies and sore moms.
  • scc4fun (unregistered) in reply to Kemp
    Anonymous:
    On further research, you're looking for 6:5 =P


    Darn, european verse chapter notation.
  • scc4fun (unregistered) in reply to Kemp
    Anonymous:
    On further research, you're looking for 6:5 =P


    Darn, european verse:chapter notation.
  • DaBill (unregistered) in reply to themagni
    themagni:
    VeXocide:
    Someone once said: <font size="-1">"...the nipple is the only 'intuitive' user interface". </font>And in my opinion all user interfaces must take the nipple as an example ;)


    Actually, nipples aren't intuitive. Babies have to be taught how to latch on and suckle. Otherwise, you end up with hungry babies and sore moms.


    Actually, it is the mother who needs the training. The newborn has no problem with it in nearly all cases - barring physical ailment of course. I've seen plenty of newborns (all three of mine included) instictively hunt, latch, and suckle w/o causing pain or soreness for mom or self. My wife and I have helped many other parents withg breastfeeding and it is always the mother who needs the help. Primarily it has to do with how to hold the baby and what to not do.

    Now when they get older they may develop a tendency to want to do things differently, but that is a different scenario. That is using the tool in a way not intended. ;)

    captcha: daflag

  • (cs) in reply to themagni
    themagni:
    VeXocide:
    Someone once said: <font size="-1">"...the nipple is the only 'intuitive' user interface". </font>And in my opinion all user interfaces must take the nipple as an example ;)


    Actually, nipples aren't intuitive. Babies have to be taught how to latch on and suckle. Otherwise, you end up with hungry babies and sore moms.
    <font size="5">Y</font>es, but it's fun to do training and functional testing before the client signs off on it.
  • (cs) in reply to DaBill

    My god... it's like a fractal

  • (cs)
    Alex Papadimoulis:
    And it was "Customer-Friendly" because the consultants wanted to design it so that "even the most technically unskilled end-user could easily add and modify" its complex workflow modules.

    <FONT face=Tahoma>And I thought being "Customer-Friendly" was just to protect yourself from keyboard-bashing monkeys...

    Aside of course being simple and presents a logical flow...

    This is Customer-Friendliness 2.0!



    </FONT>
  • MrBester (unregistered) in reply to JL
    Anonymous:

    ...For example, Microsoft's JScript.NET is an ECMAScript (JavaScript) implementation for writing .NET applications.

    AHAHAHAHAHA, Microsoft JScript is an ECMAScript implementation? Oh, you're being serious. Let me laugh harder.
    There is only one implementation of ECMAScript, and that would be ECMAScript. The crud that Microsoft passes off as (ECMA|J(ava)?)Script cannot possibly be described as ECMAScript. And JScript.NET is just the next level of abuse for those who decided to write ASP in JScript rather than VBScript and can't be bothered to migrate to C#.

    captcha == stfu (Honest)
  • (cs) in reply to MrBester

    Anonymous:

    AHAHAHAHAHA, Microsoft JScript is an ECMAScript implementation? Oh, you're being serious. Let me laugh harder.
    There is only one implementation of ECMAScript, and that would be ECMAScript. The crud that Microsoft passes off as (ECMA|J(ava)?)Script cannot possibly be described as ECMAScript. And JScript.NET is just the next level of abuse for those who decided to write ASP in JScript rather than VBScript and can't be bothered to migrate to C#.

    captcha == stfu (Honest)

    WTF?  I don't know much about JScript (.NET or otherwise), but ECMAScript is a standard, not an implementation.

  • (cs) in reply to TeeSee

    TeeSee:
    Anonymous:
    We were developing a game framework and editor aimed at low-level programmers, or even technically savvy non-programmers. Our lead architect was convinced that all game logic must be driven by state machines, because he thought it was more elegant. He also thought that non-programmers would find state machines easy to work with.


    Is it just me or are unexperienced programmers coding games a WTF in itself?

    And representing games as state machines strikes me as one of the stupider ideas. Digital logic, sure. Games? Like WoW?

    What server do you play on?

     

  • Anon Coward (unregistered) in reply to Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? Over. (at work)
    Anonymous:

    You know, I met/attended a lecture by Bran Selic at UML / Design World 2005 in Texas, and he went on and on about executable UML and the metamodel for UML 2.0.

    I imagine that diagrams/systems like this are the sort of thing that he dreams about.

     

    *shudder*

    Yeah, but in any practical business app, it'll probably end up that way.

    Captcha: stfu

  • JL (unregistered) in reply to MrBester
    Anonymous:
    Anonymous:

    ...For example, Microsoft's JScript.NET is an ECMAScript (JavaScript) implementation for writing .NET applications.

    AHAHAHAHAHA, Microsoft JScript is an ECMAScript implementation? Oh, you're being serious. Let me laugh harder.
    There is only one implementation of ECMAScript, and that would be ECMAScript. The crud that Microsoft passes off as (ECMA|J(ava)?)Script cannot possibly be described as ECMAScript. And JScript.NET is just the next level of abuse for those who decided to write ASP in JScript rather than VBScript and can't be bothered to migrate to C#.

    captcha == stfu (Honest)

    Oh dear, it appears you are right.  JScript.NET is not exactly ECMAScript, even though it will run many valid programs.  You'd better run along and update the ECMAScript Wikipedia page, then, since it erroneously lists JScript.NET as an implementation.  And while you are at it, you'd better take off JavaScript, too, since that doesn't conform to the ECMAScript spec either, although it also runs many valid programs.  And as long as you're doing that, you might as well clear off the C++ page, too, since MSVC++, g++, and Borland C++ don't conform to the C++ spec.  After all, there is only one implementation of C++, and that would be C++.
  • Chris Travers (unregistered) in reply to Kiasyn

    Anonymous:
    ...where does it even start??

     

    It is a race from the yellow box to the green box....   

     

    Captcha:  error (so I must be wrong) 

  • Bill (unregistered)

    It's not a flowchart, it is actually the side of a Borg ship. You will be assimilated.

  • reductio ad ridiculum (unregistered) in reply to themagni
    themagni:
    VeXocide:
    Someone once said: "...the nipple is the only 'intuitive' user interface". And in my opinion all user interfaces must take the nipple as an example ;)
    Actually, nipples aren't intuitive. Babies have to be taught how to latch on and suckle. Otherwise, you end up with hungry babies and sore moms.
    Perhaps you're right. It's *sucking* that's intuitive.

    As witness the various wtf's on this site.

    rar

Leave a comment on “The Customer-Friendly System”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article