Jonny 290 posted:

motorola was actually a relatively agile shop but the paperwork was 110% waterfall so what we would do is sneak out deploys every other week and then every quarter we had to collude with walmart and lie on our reports to make it look like big waterfall projects

tef posted:

comments are the things you would say in a code review, they are there as apologies to your future self.

fart simpson posted:

i dont actually like it, we're just institutionally incapable of doing anything else so it's easier to go with the flow

fritz posted:

seriously? I'm using it in a project I'm working on now, that'll be something to keep in mind

Symbolic Butt posted:

I have to force myself to comment more because I never got me into the habit (heh self-documenting code amirite? )

but recently I noticed that I really got into sprinkling TODO comments everywhere. I'm not sure if this is good or irritating for someone else reading the code

MeruFM posted:

do you ever get to the DO part?

I see it in some code and I just wonder why the person didn't just do them.

MeruFM posted:

do you ever get to the DO part?

I see it in some code and I just wonder why the person didn't just do them.

Bloody posted:

// there was a bunch of poo poo here but it was commented out and looked old so i deleted it???

Stringent posted:

why do people still leave that kind of poo poo lying around even though the project is in version control?

we've got one at work, I call him the code hoarder.

Stringent posted:

why do people still leave that kind of poo poo lying around even though the project is in version control?

we've got one at work, I call him the code hoarder.

Bloody posted:

sometimes my version control is copyin and pastin poo poo around.

Luigi Thirty posted:

src
src_new
src_newer
src_nodont-20141130_THIS
src_nodont-20150104
src_nodont-20150226

Luigi Thirty posted:

src
src_new
src_newer
src_useme

bucketmouse posted:

old/old/oldold/src

version control circa 1997

quote:

36. According to Mr. Spearritt, on two occasions (one in late 1996 or early 1997 and the other in August 1997) he requested Mr. Hinkley to backup all source code on Redrock's A2BNT1 UAM server. This occurred after Mr. Hinkley was unable to make a change to SPFS because he was unable to locate all the source code. In his witness statement dated 16 July 2000 (Exhibit H 16) Mr. Spearritt said:

"When a program is released to market, it is important to maintain a copy of all source code utilised in developing that program. That way, if a problem does develop in the running of the program, or if the client wants to alter the program's functionality at some future point in time, the programmer has a complete copy of source code and utilities used to create the version of the program. After the occurrence of this second incident, I told Adam that it was imperative that he kept a backed up version of each piece of production software on the A2BNT1 UAM."

37. Mr. Spearritt confirmed verbally with Mr. Hinkley about once a month that a complete copy of all source code was available on the server. Mr. Spearritt's own checks appear to have confirmed that source code was being saved on Redrock's server in a compressed file. This evidence demonstrates the confusion caused by Mr. Hinkley's failure properly to clarify his understanding of the status of the library notwithstanding that he was specifically directed to back up all source code in circumstances where the inability to access it had meant that changes could not be made to SPFS. Here was the perfect opportunity for Mr. Hinkley to explain to Redrock, if his position was then as he now contends, that in requiring him to back up the library or (which, as Mr. Hinkley must have realised, Redrock necessarily assumed was the same thing) to back up "each piece of production software", Redrock was requiring him to back up something copyright in which resided with Mr. Hinkley.

Snapchat A Titty posted:

Snapchat A Titty posted:

i leave in log statements commented out cause im lazy as poo poo and its easy to uncomment them when something is being weird

Snapchat A Titty posted:

This evidence demonstrates the confusion caused by Mr. Hinkley's failure properly to clarify his understanding of the status of the library notwithstanding that he was specifically directed to back up all source code in circumstances where the inability to access it had meant that changes could not be made to SPFS. Here was the perfect opportunity for Mr. Hinkley to explain to Redrock, if his position was then as he now contends, that in requiring him to back up the library or (which, as Mr. Hinkley must have realised, Redrock necessarily assumed was the same thing) to back up "each piece of production software", Redrock was requiring him to back up something copyright in which resided with Mr. Hinkley.

Jonny 290 posted:

motorola was actually a relatively agile shop but the paperwork was 110% waterfall so what we would do is sneak out deploys every other week and then every quarter we had to collude with walmart and lie on our reports to make it look like big waterfall projects

prefect posted:

is spring mvc something that could be considered "ruby on rails", but for java?

jony ive aces posted:

but i like how

though; i was always taught write "self-commenting" code. it's different i guess for people who are just learning and can't read code well but if someone competent can't read through it it's really badly written

Dessert Rose posted:

that language is impenetrable, what the hell actually happened, i'm not going to spend precious minutes deciphering it without context

quote:

Mr. Hinkley was unable to make a change to SPFS because he was unable to locate all the source code

Mr. Spearritt confirmed verbally with Mr. Hinkley about once a month that a complete copy of all source code was available on the server. Mr. Spearritt's own checks appear to have confirmed that source code was being saved on Redrock's server in a compressed file.

Snapchat A Titty posted:

i leave in log statements commented out cause im lazy as poo poo and its easy to uncomment them when something is being weird

Shaggar posted:

the only thing wrt logging is that you have to be careful about avoiding things that cost resources even when a logging statement is for a lower level than configured.

ex:

C# code:

var boner=...
var butt=...
logger.debug("The boner value is "+boner+" the butt value is "+butt);

incurs a cost of concatenating the 4 strings even when logging level is above debug because the level filtering doesn't happen until inside the debug method. The strings are concatenated, passed to the debug method, and then filtering throws it away.

C# code:

var boner=...
var butt=...
logger.debug("The boner value is {0} the butt value is {1}",boner, butt);

This is how to do it correctly in NLog in c# (and SLF4J has a similar thing in java). The 2 strings are passed to the debug method and then they are only combined if the logging level filter includes debug, thus avoiding the additional cost when the level is above debug.

Even if your project is small getting into the habit of using string format style logging (or just string formatting in general) is a good idea cause it becomes second nature and you just avoid the problem entirely.


Similarly if you have some expensive operation involved in debugging you can surround it with a filter to prevent its use when it should be filtered
ex:

C# code:

var boner = ...
var bonerHash = calculateHash(boner);
logger.debug(The boner hash is {0}",bonerHash);
...do other stuff

should instead be written as

C# code:

var boner = ...
if(logger.IsDebug)
{
	var bonerHash = calculateHash(boner);
	logger.debug(The boner hash is {0}",bonerHash);
}
...do other stuff

Shaggar posted:

Similarly if you have some expensive operation involved in debugging you can surround it with a filter to prevent its use when it should be filtered
ex:

C# code:

var boner = ...
var bonerHash = calculateHash(boner);
logger.debug(The boner hash is {0}",bonerHash);
...do other stuff

should instead be written as

C# code:

var boner = ...
if(logger.IsDebug)
{
	var bonerHash = calculateHash(boner);
	logger.debug(The boner hash is {0}",bonerHash);
}
...do other stuff

tef posted:

this is great until some gently caress puts a side effect in a log statement

comedyblissoption posted:

Note that the above would require something like:

code:

interface ILogger {
  Debug(string formatString, params Func<string>[] lazyStrings);
}

A much simpler interface would probably be:

code:

interface ILogger {
  Debug(Func<string> lazyString);
}

And you would invoke it like:

code:

logger.Debug(() => String.Format("The boner hash is {0}", bonerHash));

But if youre almost always using String.Format it's a bunch of ugly boilerplate much like an if conditional that people can easily forget.