Coding Horrors: You can gather all your technical debt into one easy framework!

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > The Cavern of COBOL > Coding Horrors: You can gather all your technical debt into one easy framework!

«‹›1503 »

Hiowf: Jun 28, 2013; We don't do .DOC in my cave.

Vanadium posted:

This "*_ptr is haaaard, man" stuff is why most C++ people need to use Rust instead

I'm sure a place that bans *_ptr will think highly of it. (Nobody here said they were hard)

# ? Aug 4, 2014 19:02

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 17, 2024 02:01

ErIog: Jul 11, 2001

Scaramouche posted:

Not quite the horror of C pointers (which is kind of a horror in itself) but I've been doing some client work that involves importing Purchase Orders from a large online marketplace. Tucked away in the documentation is:

Sure, no big. Why would you even want unique PO numbers anyway?

Is there any assurance that PO numbers are unique even within the same day if they can be duplicated between days?

# ? Aug 5, 2014 06:10

Polio Vax Scene: Apr 5, 2009

I'm hoping it cycles through a number sequence then goes back to 0 when it hits an upper limit, one that would not normally be reached within a day, or week or year.

But since this is the coding horrors thread, I'll assume that each PO is just given a random number.

# ? Aug 5, 2014 17:40

Scaramouche: Mar 26, 2001; SPACE FACE! SPACE FACE!

Well the POs are 7 digits, the leading number can be 0, and they go up incrementally, so that's a number space of 9 or 10 million I guess. It's wrapped around once in a 9 month period. Just seems weird; how hard is it to guarantee uniqueness? Amazon somehow does it across several countries with a much larger number of orders, albeit with way harder to remember numbers (3-7-7 or XXX-YYYYYYY-ZZZZZZZ). Just introduce 1-3 character fields to the 7 digits and you're probably gold.

# ? Aug 5, 2014 18:07

Mr. Crow: May 22, 2008; Snap City mayor for life

This is an IValueConverter called NaNToStringEmptyConverter.

code:

        public object Convert(object value, Type targetType, object parameter, System.Globalization.CultureInfo culture)
        {
            bool convertHeading = (!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(parameter as string) && (parameter as string) == "ConvertZeroHeading")
                ? true
                : false;
            string formattedStr = string.Empty;

            return double.IsNaN((double)value) ?
                ""
                : !convertHeading ?
                    value
                    : (formattedStr = string.Format("{0:000}", Math.Round((double)value) % 360)) == "000" ?
                        "360"
                        : formattedStr;
        }

Whoever can guess what it's doing in under 10 minutes get's an upgrade :shepface:

_not

# ? Aug 5, 2014 21:11

shrughes: Oct 11, 2008; (call/cc call/cc)

Returns the heading to render but if parameter is "ConvertZeroHeading" then it returns a string and returns "360" instead of "000" if value is less than 0.5 because that's how headings are rendered.

# ? Aug 5, 2014 21:34

Corla Plankun: May 8, 2007; improve the lives of everyone

If I worked with someone who wrote nested, ternary ifs I wold be fired almost immediately for doing a completely inappropriate amount of yelling.

# ? Aug 6, 2014 00:36

shrughes: Oct 11, 2008; (call/cc call/cc)

That sort of yelling is going to be the reason I get fired.

# ? Aug 6, 2014 00:51

Sedro: Dec 31, 2008

Mr. Crow posted:

code:

bool convertHeading = (!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(parameter as string) && (parameter as string) == "ConvertZeroHeading")
                ? true
                : false;

Oh, so that's how booleans work

# ? Aug 6, 2014 01:50

New Yorp New Yorp: Jul 18, 2003; Only in Kenya.; Pillbug

Sedro posted:

Oh, so that's how booleans work

I always slowly shake my head when I see that.

# ? Aug 6, 2014 02:01

raminasi: Jan 25, 2005; a last drink with no ice

That looks like whoever wrote it was high on some bad Scheme at the time.

# ? Aug 6, 2014 02:36

Bognar: Aug 4, 2011; I am the queen of France; Hot Rope Guy

Corla Plankun posted:

If I worked with someone who wrote nested, ternary ifs I wold be fired almost immediately for doing a completely inappropriate amount of yelling.

I really like chaining ternaries if they're formatted properly.

code:

var someVariable = thing1IsTrue     ? "Thing 1"
                 : thing2IsTrue     ? "Thing 2"
                 : thing3IsNotFalse ? "Thing 3"
                                    : "None of these things";

# ? Aug 6, 2014 04:25

Dr. Stab: Sep 12, 2010; 👨🏻‍⚕️🩺🔪🙀😱🙀

Sedro posted:

Oh, so that's how booleans work

Don't get caught writing code like this. Just use my handy function:

code:

public bool IsTrue (bool expression){
    bool ret = true;
    if (expression ? true : false){
        ret = true;
    }
    else{
        ret = false;
    }
    return ret == true;
}

Dr. Stab fucked around with this message at 04:46 on Aug 6, 2014

# ? Aug 6, 2014 04:43

Sedro: Dec 31, 2008

Dr. Stab posted:

Don't get caught writing code like this. Just use my handy function:

code:

public bool IsTrue (bool expression){
    bool ret = true;
    if (expression ? true : false){
        ret = true;
    }
    else{
        ret = false;
    }
    return ret == true;
}

You'd better write true == ret or there's no way that passes code review

# ? Aug 6, 2014 05:16

Hiowf: Jun 28, 2013; We don't do .DOC in my cave.

JavaScript is easymode for this thread. But every now and then, you find something "extra" special.

date = new Date(2013,08,12);

This is:

a) Illegal, because the 0 prefix specifies octal, and 8 isn't an octal digit.
b) Really means 2013-09-12, because unlike days, JS months are 0-indexed.
c) Used in so many sites that browsers have to keep supporting it.

Of course, you can argue that JS itself is the horror for the weird indexing, but why oh why would you write dates as "2013-01-01" when *it actually means something different anyway*.

# ? Aug 6, 2014 09:08

Subjunctive: Sep 12, 2006; ✨sparkle and shine✨

Skuto posted:

JavaScript is easymode for this thread. But every now and then, you find something "extra" special.

date = new Date(2013,08,12);

This is:

a) Illegal, because the 0 prefix specifies octal, and 8 isn't an octal digit.
b) Really means 2013-09-12, because unlike days, JS months are 0-indexed.
c) Used in so many sites that browsers have to keep supporting it.

Of course, you can argue that JS itself is the horror for the weird indexing, but why oh why would you write dates as "2013-01-01" when *it actually means something different anyway*.

The early edict to ape Java's DateTime APIs are going to be painful unto the end of days. Even at 20 I knew better than to accept the project from my kindly manager to fix the Netscape implementation. (The handy rule is "if you would use it as an index into an array of strings to display, it's zero-based"]: month, day-of-week, etc.)

Octal went away in ES5 though, no?

# ? Aug 6, 2014 09:25

Hiowf: Jun 28, 2013; We don't do .DOC in my cave.

Subjunctive posted:

Octal went away in ES5 though, no?

Only in strict mode. In ES6 it's back with different prefixes, one of which I'm going to mention because it's appropriate here: 0O. (Admittedly I can't think of a case in which that would cause bugs, no matter how silly it looks)

Maybe you're thinking of parseInt enforcing base10 in ES5?

The problem is the ES6 spec claims the code in the previous post is illegal. On the internet, this means the spec is wrong, because for sure nobody is going to fix their website. What makes it so grating is that the uses are mostly the date example given, so they're are not just wrong, they're downright stupid, misguided, and in some cases likely subtle bugs of their own.

As I said, JavaScript is an easy punching bag, but this one is another level of "extra-special".

# ? Aug 6, 2014 10:27

Maluco Marinero: Jan 18, 2001; Damn that's a
fine elephant.

Usually its a good idea to use a date time library in any language, but that's especially the case in JavaScript. new Date() is just an unintuitive, verbose mess.

# ? Aug 6, 2014 10:30

Subjunctive: Sep 12, 2006; ✨sparkle and shine✨

Yeah, I was thinking of parseInt. The 08 extension is still legal under the extensibility section, but I wonder if we'll see octal actually drop. Breaking changes aren't impossible, and ES6 is a descendent of ES5-strict so there will be some already.

# ? Aug 6, 2014 10:36

PIGEOTO: Sep 11, 2007

Ithaqua posted:

I always slowly shake my head when I see that.

We have 27 pages of search results on our code indexer for the search term "? true : false;".

# ? Aug 6, 2014 11:25

New Yorp New Yorp: Jul 18, 2003; Only in Kenya.; Pillbug

PIGEOTO posted:

We have 27 pages of search results on our code indexer for the search term "? true : false;".

At least you can fix it easily.

# ? Aug 6, 2014 11:29

Mr. Crow: May 22, 2008; Snap City mayor for life

GrumpyDoctor posted:

That looks like whoever wrote it was high on some bad Scheme at the time.

The best / worst part is that it was originally a reasonable class (oddly specific but whatever), doing a simple Double.IsNaN(value) ? String.Empty : value; and then the rest of the abomination was added within the last 3 months.

We have mandatory code reviews and no QC. That thing passed two code reviews :negative:

# ? Aug 6, 2014 14:19

pokeyman: Nov 26, 2006; That elephant ate my entire platoon.

PIGEOTO posted:

We have 27 pages of search results on our code indexer for the search term "? true : false;".

It is possible, depending on language, that some boolean-ish value needs to be coerced to an actual boolean. For example, in Objective-C (and this anecdote belongs in this thread for one reason or another), the boolean type used to be a typedef'd char, with the values YES and NO defined as 1 and 0. So you could return something like 17 as a boolean, and since it's just C it works when you do if (myBoolValuedSeventeen), but as soon as some joker tried if (myBoolValuedSeventeen == YES) they hosed themselves. The competent library writer would thus make sure they returned YES or NO.

Obviously there are superior ways to coerce a boolean than abusing the ternary operator, but a blind find/replace might not do wonders for your bug count.

# ? Aug 6, 2014 18:24

ultramiraculous: Nov 12, 2003; "No..."; Grimey Drawer

pokeyman posted:

For example, in Objective-C (and this anecdote belongs in this thread for one reason or another), the boolean type used to be a typedef'd char, with the values YES and NO defined as 1 and 0. So you could return something like 17 as a boolean, and since it's just C it works when you do if (myBoolValuedSeventeen), but as soon as some joker tried if (myBoolValuedSeventeen == YES) they hosed themselves.

UGGHHHHHHHHH

# ? Aug 6, 2014 18:26

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

C booleans led to such crazy things.

# ? Aug 6, 2014 18:37

b0lt: Apr 29, 2005

pokeyman posted:

It is possible, depending on language, that some boolean-ish value needs to be coerced to an actual boolean. For example, in Objective-C (and this anecdote belongs in this thread for one reason or another), the boolean type used to be a typedef'd char, with the values YES and NO defined as 1 and 0. So you could return something like 17 as a boolean, and since it's just C it works when you do if (myBoolValuedSeventeen), but as soon as some joker tried if (myBoolValuedSeventeen == YES) they hosed themselves. The competent library writer would thus make sure they returned YES or NO.

Obviously there are superior ways to coerce a boolean than abusing the ternary operator, but a blind find/replace might not do wonders for your bug count.

"used to be"

(also, it's a signed char)

hobbesmaster posted:

C booleans led to such crazy things.

!!x is the best idiom ever :colbert:

# ? Aug 6, 2014 18:44

Soricidus: Oct 21, 2010; freedom-hating statist shill

Who writes "x == true" anyway, when in every widely used language that means exactly the same as just "x"?

# ? Aug 6, 2014 18:48

Plorkyeran: Mar 22, 2007; To Escape The Shackles Of The Old Forums, We Must Reject The Tribal Negativity He Endorsed

b0lt posted:

"used to be"

It's finally a typedef for bool instead for arm64.

I don't really get why people even use BOOL in any new objective-c code written in the last decade or so.

# ? Aug 6, 2014 18:51

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

Soricidus posted:

Who writes "x == true" anyway, when in every widely used language that means exactly the same as just "x"?

It parallels "false == x"

# ? Aug 6, 2014 19:00

raminasi: Jan 25, 2005; a last drink with no ice

Soricidus posted:

Who writes "x == true" anyway, when in every widely used language that means exactly the same as just "x"?

Someone hasn't spent enough time around stupid C++ operator overloading.

# ? Aug 6, 2014 19:27

Bonfire Lit: Jul 9, 2008; If you're one of the sinners who caused this please unfriend me now.

Soricidus posted:

Who writes "x == true" anyway, when in every widely used language that means exactly the same as just "x"?

Except it doesn't in Python, C, Ruby, Javascript, etc.

# ? Aug 6, 2014 19:29

Subjunctive: Sep 12, 2006; ✨sparkle and shine✨

Bonfire Lit posted:

Except it doesn't in Python, C, Ruby, Javascript, etc.

Hmm? == is type-converting in JS, and IIRC is defined as the same ToBoolean operation used in if.

What's a case where C would let it compile but give a different answer?

# ? Aug 6, 2014 19:36

Bonfire Lit: Jul 9, 2008; If you're one of the sinners who caused this please unfriend me now.

Subjunctive posted:

Hmm? == is type-converting in JS, and IIRC is defined as the same ToBoolean operation used in if.

What's a case where C would let it compile but give a different answer?

code:

#include <stdbool.h>
int main()
{
    int x = 17;
    if (x == true) printf("x == true\n");
    if (x) printf("x\n");
}

/* prints "x" */

# ? Aug 6, 2014 19:39

Hiowf: Jun 28, 2013; We don't do .DOC in my cave.

That's an argument *against* writing == true, though.

# ? Aug 6, 2014 19:52

pokeyman: Nov 26, 2006; That elephant ate my entire platoon.

b0lt posted:

(also, it's a signed char)

It was once just char, and unless you set a compiler flag it ends up the same thing, so... good point I guess?

# ? Aug 6, 2014 19:54

Bonfire Lit: Jul 9, 2008; If you're one of the sinners who caused this please unfriend me now.

Skuto posted:

That's an argument *against* writing == true, though.

I can't think of a good reason to write == true, but it's not the same thing v :shobon:

# ? Aug 6, 2014 19:57

Plorkyeran: Mar 22, 2007; To Escape The Shackles Of The Old Forums, We Must Reject The Tribal Negativity He Endorsed

I wrote if var == true { ... } in Swift recently for checking an optional bool, but then concluded that looked dumb and replaced it with if var ?? false { ... }.

# ? Aug 6, 2014 20:20

Soricidus: Oct 21, 2010; freedom-hating statist shill

Bonfire Lit posted:

Except it doesn't in Python, C, Ruby, Javascript, etc.

Sorry, I shouldn't have made the mistake of being even slightly ambiguous on the internet. I nearly edited my post as soon as I posted it, but I dared hope that for once people would manage to find the obvious sensible interpretation of my words.

Allow me to rephrase it, then, for the benefit of literal-minded pedants:

Who, ignoring newcomers unfamiliar with standard idioms, discounting the possibility that bad coding standards might mandate the use of unidiomatic code, and ignoring a handful of unusual edge cases when one might actually care about the distinction between "true" and other values which evaluate to true in a boolean context, writes "x == true" when in the context of a conditional expression, i.e. the only situation in which the vast majority of programmers will ever check whether a value is "true" or "false", it ~~means exactly the same thing~~ expresses exactly the same intent as just "x"?

Soricidus fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Aug 6, 2014

# ? Aug 6, 2014 20:29

Hammerite: Mar 9, 2007; And you don't remember what I said here, either, but it was pompous and stupid.; Jade Ear Joe

Plorkyeran posted:

I wrote if var == true { ... } in Swift recently for checking an optional bool, but then concluded that looked dumb and replaced it with if var ?? false { ... }.

Ooh, this is a good idea. I'm going to use it if I find myself in this situation in the C# code I have to write.

# ? Aug 6, 2014 22:23

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 17, 2024 02:01

canis minor: May 4, 2011

Subjunctive posted:

Hmm? == is type-converting in JS, and IIRC is defined as the same ToBoolean operation used in if.

What's a case where C would let it compile but give a different answer?

If anybody's interested, in JS, for example:

code:

if ({}) { console.log('hi'); }

outputs hi.

code:

if ({} == true) { console.log('hi'); }

doesn't

# ? Aug 6, 2014 22:25

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > The Cavern of COBOL > Coding Horrors: You can gather all your technical debt into one easy framework!

«‹›1503 »