• anon (unregistered)

    dude, access rules!

  • Steve (unregistered)

    I do mind, the Dude minds. This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man.

  • hhhhsdnjwnjwnnjkwjk (unregistered)

    Poorly named? Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

  • (cs)

    void ashlhqwknhsdrhqawer() { wtf::comment << "Hmmm..."; }

  • Joe (unregistered)

    What's up with all the hard-coded values? Is this just someone's personal test code they were using and never removed or what? I find it hard to believe it's an integral piece of the project.

  • Drew (unregistered)

    Hmm...

  • Dude (unregistered)

    Every application should have a function called dude().

  • (cs)

    Reminds me of someone I knew naming their variables and methods after movie titles and actors/actresses... You know who you are.

  • highphilosopher (unregistered) in reply to Joe
    Joe:
    What's up with all the hard-coded values? Is this just someone's personal test code they were using and never removed or what? I find it hard to believe it's an integral piece of the project.

    The you probably missed that it's an ACCESS project.

    captcha: ingenium -- secret society of geniuses (charter member).

  • Big Guy Surprise (unregistered)

    #DEFINE dude() main()

  • BurntNose (unregistered) in reply to hhhhsdnjwnjwnnjkwjk

    You've successfully made me snort coffee onto my desk. Gonna be a good day.

  • highphilosopher (unregistered) in reply to md5sum
    md5sum:
    Reminds me of someone I knew naming their variables and methods after movie titles and actors/actresses... You know who you are.

    Hey it wasn't just actors and actresses, it was names of Iraqi terrorists too.

    captcha: suscipere - latin for "I always take up, acknowledge, or undertake. So there, I took the blame. I suscipere.

  • (cs) in reply to Joe
    Joe:
    What's up with all the hard-coded values? Is this just someone's personal test code they were using and never removed or what? I find it hard to believe it's an integral piece of the project.

    Yes, it seems this module is for ad-hoc data updates. Obviously this developer hasn't heard of SQL.

    The UpdateThing() method could simply be rewritten in SQL as

    UPDATE view91 
SET Transaction_GLAccount_Code = '12056' 
WHERE Transaction_GLAccount_Code = '12055'
  • NetBiter (unregistered)

    Either those methods are there to throw you off and are not being used or he's using Intellisense. I am happy to see all the frists are out of the feedback, lately. Thanks.

  • Will D Beast (unregistered)

    Back in my COBOL days, I remember seeing a program with a section called GENERAL-UPDATING.

    It also had a section called MAJOR-PONSONBY-SMYTHE.

  • Alargule (unregistered)

    Must've been interesting conversations:

    "Hey Dude, could you Update that Thing?"

    • "Hmm..."
  • (cs) in reply to Mike H
    Mike H:
    Joe:
    What's up with all the hard-coded values? Is this just someone's personal test code they were using and never removed or what? I find it hard to believe it's an integral piece of the project.

    Yes, it seems this module is for ad-hoc data updates. Obviously this developer hasn't heard of SQL.

    The UpdateThing() method could simply be rewritten in SQL as

    UPDATE view91 
SET Transaction_GLAccount_Code = '12056' 
WHERE Transaction_GLAccount_Code = '12055'

    considering that the programmer (?) wrote a function to perform this operation, the said SQL statement would have probably ended up running in a job with a cursor in it. Like the 1200 line stored procedure we replaced with a single select statement one time where I used to work.

  • TheStandardWay (unregistered)

    You could have stopped this WTF at "I was put on a new Microsoft Access project recently"...

  • djskalfdkldjakd;da;afdk;ajsdl (unregistered)

    You haven't heard? It's one of Windows 7's best features: http://2.media.collegehumor.com/collegehumor/ch6/9/4/collegehumor.38e5aee96286c4afaacc4114d58b9f8b.gif

  • Mike (unregistered)

    Surely the rational explanation is that this is a dumping ground / scrapbook for "one off hacks" to fix specific data problems or answer specific queries?

    Sadly, I've seen plenty of these in my time.....

  • (cs) in reply to Joe
    Joe:
    What's up with all the hard-coded values? Is this just someone's personal test code they were using and never removed or what? I find it hard to believe it's an integral piece of the project.

    It's made in Access, the whole project is a personal test.

  • asdfhlk (unregistered)

    while lkjh(fgfh, tweyt) 'as;ldhfeia Let vbncxbj = ncxzvbl.hkhj wend

  • Dude (hhasssdjhh23) (unregistered)

    Let me be the frist to say - it's been a long time since I have gone WTF??????? like that!!

  • SomeWhiteguy (unregistered)

    Had a few functions and variables at my last job similar to that. My favorite was: bool KenIsaJackass = true;

    Never used... never set to anything else but true :-D

    Captcha: luctus- small insects who slowly eat at your horshoes, 4-leaf clovers, rabbits foot, etc.

  • a different phil (unregistered)

    So, was this module's author using the company to pay off his Diner's Club card? And making stock disappear from the warehouse? Hmmmm indeed.

  • J (unregistered)

    The Public Dude abides.

  • fffdskgt (unregistered)

    Console.WriteLine("ddskgdf 1"); I would hope its just bad random debug code. Console.WriteLine("ddskgdf 2"); That they only indended to use in a one off for a second. Console.WriteLine("ddskgdf 3"); To catch a random bug that they just couldnt figure out. Console.WriteLine("ddskgdf 4"); But they forgot to delete it strait after. Console.WriteLine("ddskgdf 5"); Prolly cos their bad debug code didnt help at all. Console.WriteLine("ddskgdf 6"); So they had to go debug it in a proper fashion. Console.WriteLine("ddskgdf 7");

    Capcha:

    An Error Occured

    Not sure what it was, but it was logged. A human will eventually look at it. If the problem persists, please Contact Us. If the problem is on the contact form, then ... well ... that pretty much sucks. You can email instead: alexp-at-WorseThanFailure.com.

  • silent d (unregistered) in reply to J

    The Public Subdude abides.

    FTFY.

  • SR (unregistered) in reply to J
    J:
    The Public Dude abides.

    +1, Funny

  • Loren Pechtel (unregistered)

    Embezzlement, perhaps?

  • (cs)

    Well, he wasn't going to call it

    Public Sub EmbezzleMoney()

    or

    Public Sub HideStolenStock()

    was he?

  • Robb (unregistered)

    Maybe

    Public Sub NothingToSeeHereMoveAlong()

    ??

  • Capndan (unregistered)

    I think this is one of the first WTFs that really made me lol. I want to see the part of the program where all these functions start getting called...

    If (hhdjashjdajsdhasd() == ggggggg()) then llllllllllllll();

  • RG3 (unregistered)

    That looks like the perfect place to hide your elaborate embezzlement scheme...

  • Jakob (unregistered)

    I believe those functions were all named after friends of Fhqwhgads.

  • RG3 (unregistered) in reply to djskalfdkldjakd;da;afdk;ajsdl

    I know that image is supposed to be silly, but my email client (KMail) has had the attachment feature for years now...

  • Steve the Cynic (unregistered)

    It makes me think of some code I worked on many moons ago (in fact it was 1990-1993).

    It was an embedded system with a proprietary multithreading system. The guy who originally wrote it wanted to celebrate buying a new car, so the central control variable of the scheduler was "golf_gti". Sad to say, neither I nor the guy I worked with cared enough to change it.

    Nor the joke buried in the gas compressibility calculations. The equations themselves feature Greek letters pi and tau, but because of the common pronunciation of the latter as "tor" and some time adapting the code from a dialect of BASIC, the C variable holding the pi value acquired an e to become pie, and tau, misspelled tor, was rejected by the BASIC and became, in C, apple.

    double apple, pie;

    Fist Of Death online, armed and ready.

  • Chris (unregistered) in reply to J

    not even a public dude. It's a public sub-dude. ;))

  • pruneau (unregistered)

    test code. Furiously like test code, left on the side of the path for better methods of testing.

    captcha: genitus

  • Puddin' (unregistered)

    This is what happens when you code while pissed off.

  • Mike (unregistered)

    That's going to take a lot of BOC's to correct.

  • Populus (unregistered)

    This is obviously some temporary code written for one-time use and never deleted. I do the same thing, but my function names are things like go(), doit(), and doitNOW().

    Wow, the captcha is my name. Weird.

  • Medezark (unregistered)

    Looks to me like a bunch of one-off modifications that were written in VB because the developer didn't know how to write a query?

  • KeithJM (unregistered) in reply to Chris
    not even a public dude. It's a public sub-dude. ;))

    I try to keep my sub-dude private when possible.

  • Ramses So let it be written so let it be done (unregistered)

    That's just funny. First time one of these WTFs made me laugh.

    My guess is it was just a test module but then again maybe the guy knew he was on his way out and wanted to mess with those to follow. I usually put the humorous stuff in the comments, if I did that with my procedures and had to go back and look at something 6 mos later I would laugh and then say WTF!!!

  • Foobar (unregistered) in reply to KeithJM
    KeithJM:
    not even a public dude. It's a public sub-dude. ;))

    I try to keep my sub-dude private when possible.

    It's also good to try to keep your private subdued.

  • (cs) in reply to Foobar
    Foobar:
    KeithJM:
    not even a public dude. It's a public sub-dude. ;))

    I try to keep my sub-dude private when possible.

    It's also good to try to keep your private subdued.

    Unless, of course, 
    Option Explicit
    is set.
  • kj (unregistered)

    This dude() looks like a manual transaction entered by a coder. modHmm - maybe mod'divert cash to my account'Hmm

  • aydh (unregistered)

    Did you check for fraud - looks distinctly dodgy...

  • Anonymous (unregistered)

    Looks like test / debug / adhoc requirement ("could you quickly put together a demo account with some transactions in??") code to me. Run once, never use again. Why call them things like checkThatTransactionsAreMakingItThroughToTheDBOk() or setUpACoupleOfDemoAccountTransactionsForMikeInMarketing() when a) they'll never be called from anywhere in the live code, and b) calling them things like 'dude' is way more fun, dude?

Leave a comment on “modHmm”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article