• medo (unregistered)

    Thats what you call "dynamic engineering"

  • Me (unregistered)

    I have seen this. I almost landed the maintenance contract for an "dynamic" asp-site with more than 3000 almost similar static pages, minor differences only. I particularly liked the 3000 copies of the connection string, very testable.

  • (nodebb)

    The worst part is that a place this clueless isn't going to understand the reason why this is wrong and should be fixed to be properly written. In fact, judging from the many similar (not quite as bad though) places I've worked at, even mentioning why this is bad will put you on the chopping block.

  • giammin (unregistered)



  • A (unregistered)

    TRWTF: dreamweaver

  • Paula (unregistered)

    That's BRILLIANT!

  • U wot (unregistered) in reply to Paula

    I think you meant BRILLANT!

  • TheCPUWizard (unregistered)

    "static dynamic" pages are not always a fail. Auto generated static pages provide some capabilities that can not be readily achieved with true dynamic pages.

  • Unhelpful (unregistered) in reply to TheCPUWizard

    Go on...?

  • siciac (unregistered)

    Why do you assume these are auto-generated?

  • Mike (unregistered) in reply to Unhelpful

    They render faster when they're straight html and rendered/cached by a pure http server (insert your fav here), but these are aspx and have some vb includes - so I suspect this isn't one of those cases.

  • Dan (unregistered)

    Even if you want the speed of static pages in a dynamic application, you can do that by pre-rendering your HTML from the templates once changes are made. Then you don't have to run a batch sed (or more likely, hand-edit) every file to make a style change.

  • MiserableOldGit (unregistered)

    Yeah, will if it is autogenerated it might not be such a crime, on the other hand the true WTFery might be in that code ... there's a couple of clues!

  • boristhespider (unregistered)

    That genuinely made me laugh. I've seen some 'interesting' url rewriting done before in the name of SEO but I wasn't expecting that outcome

  • Patrick (unregistered)

    I've done something similar to this when needing a quick-and-dirty static version of an unneccessarily dynamic site (i.e. the "dynamic" content doesn't change a lot, typically simply templates and such). Basically just serving up a wget --mirror. But somehow I doubt that's the case here - and it's not a good idea for something serious regardless.

Leave a comment on “Classic WTF: When the Query String is Just Not Enough”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

« Return to Article