The Inner Platform Effect, third only after booleans and dates, is one of the most complicated blunders that so-called developers (who think that they know what they're doing) do to Make Things Better.™ Combine that with multiple inheritance run-amok and a smartass junior developer who thinks documentation and method naming are good places to be cute, and you get todays' submission.

A cat attacking an impossible object illusion to get some tuna from their human

Chops,an experienced C++ developer somewhere in Europe, was working on their flagship product. It had been built slowly over 15 years by a core of 2-3 main developers, and an accompanying rotating cast of enthusiastic but inexperienced C++ developers. The principal developer had been one of those juniors himself at the start of development. When he finally left, an awful lot of knowledge walked out the door with him.

Enormous amounts of what should have been standard tools were homegrown. Homegrown reference counting was a particular bugbear, being thread dangerous as it was - memory leaks abounded. The whole thing ran across a network, and there were a half-dozen ways any one part could communicate with another. One such way was a "system event". A new message object was created and then just launched into the underlying messaging framework, in the hopes that it would magically get to whoever was interested, so long as that other party had registered an interest (not always the case).

A new system event was needed, and a trawl was made for anyone who knew anything about them. <Crickets> Nobody had any idea how they worked, or how to make a new one. The documentation was raked over, but it was found to mostly be people complaining that there was no documentation. The code suffered from inheritance fever. In a sensible system, there would be only one message type, and one would simply tag it appropriately with an identifier before inserting the data of interest.

In this system, there was an abstract base message type, and every specific message type had to inherit from it, implement some of the functions and override some others. Unfortunately, each time it seemed to be a different set of functions being implemented and a different set being overridden. Some were clearly cut and paste jobs, copying others, carrying their mistakes forward. Some were made out of several pieces of others; cut, paste and compiled until the warning messages were disabled compiler stopped complaining.

Sometimes, when developing abstract base types that were intended to be inherited from to create a concrete class for a new purpose, those early developers had created a simple, barebones concrete example implementation. A reference implementation, with "Example" in the name, that could be used as a starting point, with comments, making it clear what was necessary and what was optional. No such example class could be found for this.

Weeks of effort went into reverse-engineering the required messaging functionality, based on a few semi-related examples. Slowly, the shape of the mutant inside became apparent. Simple, do-nothing message objects were created and tested. Each time they failed, the logs were pored over, breakpoints were added, networks were watched, tracing the point of failure and learning something new.

Finally, the new message object was finished. It worked. There was still some voodoo coding in it; magic incantations that were not understood (the inheritance chain was more than five levels deep, with multiple diamonds, and one class being inherited from six times), but it worked, although nobody was certain why.

During the post development documentation phase, Mister Chops was hunting down every existing message object. Each would need reviewing and examination at some point, with the benefit of the very expensive reverse engineering. He came across one with an odd name; it wasn't used anywhere, so hadn't been touched since it was first committed. Nobody had ever had a reason to look at it. The prefix of the name was as expected, but the suffix - the part that told you at a glance what kind of message it was - was "Flobble". Chops opened it up.

It was a barebones example of a concrete implementation of the abstract base class, with useful explanatory comments on how to use/extend it, and how it worked. Back at the start, some developer, instead of naming the example class "Example" as was customary, or naming it anything at all that would have made it clear what it was, had named it "Flobble". It sat there for a decade, while people struggled to understand these objects over and over, and finally reverse engineered it at *significant* expense. Because some whimsical developer a decade previously had decided to be funny.

[Advertisement] Continuously monitor your servers for configuration changes, and report when there's configuration drift. Get started with Otter today!