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 »

Kallikrates: Jul 7, 2002; Pro Lurker

Copy pasting and random changing of code to make the log statements look right

# ? May 27, 2016 13:52

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 6, 2024 19:42

Dr. Stab: Sep 12, 2010; 👨🏻‍⚕️🩺🔪🙀😱🙀

What does that do? Seems like it would throw a runtime exception.

# ? May 27, 2016 14:35

Kallikrates: Jul 7, 2002; Pro Lurker

If its javascript (betting it is) and foo is a String, It's the same as doing:

code:

[foo]
//""[0] -> undefined
//foo.split(undefined) just returns the left side in the array since split always returns an array?

# ? May 27, 2016 15:02

SupSuper: Apr 8, 2009; At the Heart of the city is an Alien horror, so vile and so powerful that not even death can claim it.

Dr. Stab posted:

What does that do? Seems like it would throw a runtime exception.

Assuming null-terminated strings, it's a less-readable version of foo.split('\0')

But you can't have multiple nulls in a null-terminated string so :confused:

# ? May 27, 2016 15:06

Absurd Alhazred: Mar 27, 2010; by Athanatos

(source)

# ? May 27, 2016 18:35

Internet Janitor: May 17, 2008; "That isn't the appropriate trash receptacle."

That's even less coherent than the usual xkcd. Is Randall developing a brain tumor or something? Maybe Charles Boyce is ghostwriting for him?

# ? May 27, 2016 18:50

TooMuchAbstraction: Oct 14, 2012; I spent four years making
Waves of Steel
Hell yes I'm going to turn my avatar into an ad for it.; Fun Shoe

Internet Janitor posted:

That's even less coherent than the usual xkcd. Is Randall developing a brain tumor or something? Maybe Charles Boyce is ghostwriting for him?

I dunno, the creeping horror when I tried to read the code was pretty good. Not his best work, certainly, but I got my $0.00 out of it.

# ? May 27, 2016 18:55

Suspicious Dish: Sep 24, 2011; 2020 is the year of linux on the desktop, bro; Fun Shoe

Internet Janitor posted:

That's even less coherent than the usual xkcd. Is Randall developing a brain tumor or something? Maybe Charles Boyce is ghostwriting for him?

He's been parroting in-jokes from his IRC channel for years.

# ? May 27, 2016 20:02

carry on then: Jul 10, 2010; by VideoGames
(and can't post for 10 years!)

My guess after reading the tooltip on his website is he used content-aware fill on a code screenshot and phoned in that day's comic

# ? May 27, 2016 20:15

Linear Zoetrope: Nov 28, 2011; A hero must cook

quote:

Prefer the least indented scope possible.

BAD:
code:
if(x == 0) {
    for(int i = 0; i < 20; i++) {

     }
}
GOOD:
code:
for(int  i = 0; i < 20 && x == 0; i++) {

}

# ? May 27, 2016 20:40

xzzy: Mar 5, 2009

Yeah, who needs legibility when you can save two presses of the enter key!

# ? May 27, 2016 20:43

Dr. Stab: Sep 12, 2010; 👨🏻‍⚕️🩺🔪🙀😱🙀

Yes it's always better to jam as much logic as possible into one line. This makes it more legible since indentation is bad.

# ? May 27, 2016 20:47

Suspicious Dish: Sep 24, 2011; 2020 is the year of linux on the desktop, bro; Fun Shoe

I would replace that code with:

code:

It has the same effect.

# ? May 27, 2016 20:59

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

xzzy posted:

Yeah, who needs legibility when you can save two presses of the enter key!

The lines are only equivalent in function if x is never changed within the for loop, so the code snippets are not equivalent.

# ? May 27, 2016 21:08

qntm: Jun 17, 2009

Dr. Stab posted:

Yes it's always better to jam as much logic as possible into one line. This makes it more legible since indentation is bad.

I blame K&R.

# ? May 27, 2016 22:38

NihilCredo: Jun 6, 2011; iram omni possibili modo preme:
plus una illa te diffamabit, quam multæ virtutes commendabunt

PT6A posted:

The lines are only equivalent in function if x is never changed within the for loop, so the code snippets are not equivalent.

You're right. I fixed it.

code:

for(int i = 20 * !!x; i < 20; i++) {

}

# ? May 27, 2016 23:24

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

NihilCredo posted:

You're right. I fixed it.
code:
for(int i = 20 * !!x; i < 20; i++) {

}

Ahem:

code:

for (int i = (x==0)?x:20; i < 20; i++) {

}

More ternary is more better!

# ? May 27, 2016 23:47

IT BEGINS: Jan 15, 2009; I don't know how to make analogies

code:

for (int i = (x==0)?x:20; (i < 20) ? true : false; i++) {

}

Well I guess it's back to this now.

# ? May 28, 2016 00:06

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

IT BEGINS posted:

code:
for (int i = (x==0)?x:20; (i < 20) ? true : false; i++) {

}
Well I guess it's back to this now.

code:

#define ZERO 0
#define LIMIT 20
#define CONTINUE_LOOP true
#define DO_NOT_CONTINUE_LOOP false

for (int i = (x==ZERO)?x:LIMIT; (i < LIMIT) ? CONTINUE_LOOP : DO_NOT_CONTINUE_LOOP; i++) {

}

# ? May 28, 2016 01:08

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

No, sorry, the 20 * !!x is sublime in its compact insanity.

I have intentionally and thoughtfully written the sequence * !! in code you have probably run.

# ? May 28, 2016 01:28

Dr. Stab: Sep 12, 2010; 👨🏻‍⚕️🩺🔪🙀😱🙀

I think you mean

code:

int iLoopIterator

# ? May 28, 2016 01:29

Deep Dish Fuckfest: Sep 6, 2006; Advanced
Computer Touching; Toilet Rascal

Whoa, let's not take this too far now. Even the most heretical programmer isn't going to gently caress around with conventions that have been handed down from our forefathers who toiled in the FORTRAN mines all those decades ago. It's i, j and k.

# ? May 28, 2016 03:12

Cuntpunch: Oct 3, 2003; A monkey in a long line of kings

PT6A posted:

code:

#define ITERATOR i
#define ZERO 0
#define LIMIT 20
#define CONTINUE_LOOP true
#define DO_NOT_CONTINUE_LOOP false

for (int ITERATOR = (x==ZERO)?x:LIMIT; (ITERATOR < LIMIT) ? CONTINUE_LOOP : DO_NOT_CONTINUE_LOOP; ITERATOR++) {

}

'i' is a magic name.

# ? May 28, 2016 03:56

FamDav: Mar 29, 2008

Subjunctive posted:

No, sorry, the 20 * !!x is sublime in its compact insanity.

I have intentionally and thoughtfully written the sequence * !! in code you have probably run.

JavaScript or C

# ? May 28, 2016 06:06

Simulated: Sep 28, 2001; Lowtax giveth, and Lowtax taketh away.; College Slice

FamDav posted:

JavaScript or C

# ? May 28, 2016 06:52

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

FamDav posted:

JavaScript or C

Yep.

# ? May 28, 2016 14:24

hackbunny: Jul 22, 2007; I haven't been on SA for years but the person who gave me my previous av as a joke felt guilty for doing so and decided to get me a non-shitty av

PT6A posted:

Welp, apparently I'm the coding horror.

Don't worry, plenty of reasons to use layout-only views. It's not "inelegant" if you think of it as defining variables in a program written in autolayout constraints. It would be better if autolayout had actual variables but, eh. You do what you gotta do

Subjunctive posted:

No, sorry, the 20 * !!x is sublime in its compact insanity.

I have intentionally and thoughtfully written the sequence * !! in code you have probably run.

Once you learn about !!, it's hard to justify not using it

# ? May 30, 2016 09:52

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

!! and --> are the two compound operators I use regularly. They're both good imo.

# ? May 30, 2016 13:07

KernelSlanders: May 27, 2013; Rogue operating systems on occasion spread lies and rumors about me.

Soricidus posted:

!! and --> are the two compound operators I use regularly. They're both good imo.

What does that second one do?

# ? May 30, 2016 16:17

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

KernelSlanders posted:

What does that second one do?

code:


while (x-- > 0) { }

code:


while (x --> 0) { }

# ? May 30, 2016 16:19

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

KernelSlanders posted:

What does that second one do?

code:

int touch_butts(butt_t* butts, size_t butt_count)
{
    while (butt_count --> 0) {
        touch(*butts++);
    }
}

# ? May 30, 2016 16:20

KernelSlanders: May 27, 2013; Rogue operating systems on occasion spread lies and rumors about me.

Subjunctive posted:

code:

while (x --> 0) { }

Yup, that's pretty horrible.

# ? May 30, 2016 20:12

Absurd Alhazred: Mar 27, 2010; by Athanatos

KernelSlanders posted:

Yup, that's pretty horrible.

If there were a God, that would simply not compile. :dawkins101:

# ? May 30, 2016 20:20

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

Actually, it's good and cool and I use it without irony in production code.

# ? May 30, 2016 20:35

NihilCredo: Jun 6, 2011; iram omni possibili modo preme:
plus una illa te diffamabit, quam multæ virtutes commendabunt

Honestly, since installing Visual Studio 2015 I can't live without the tadpole operator.

# ? May 30, 2016 20:52

quiggy: Aug 7, 2010; [in Russian] Oof.

Absurd Alhazred posted:

If there were a God, that would simply not compile.

I'm sorry would you prefer that C/C++ had :siren:

SYNTACTIC WHITESPACE :siren:

# ? May 30, 2016 21:04

john donne: Apr 10, 2016; All suitors of all sorts themselves enthral;

So on his back lies this whale wantoning,

And in his gulf-like throat, sucks everything

That passeth near.

KernelSlanders posted:

Yup, that's pretty horrible.

It's actually extremely cool, and good.

# ? May 30, 2016 21:06

Absurd Alhazred: Mar 27, 2010; by Athanatos

quiggy posted:

I'm sorry would you prefer that C/C++ had SYNTACTIC WHITESPACE

Honestly, I think postfix ++/-- should be depreciated. It was a terrible idea when first introduced in C and has never become a better idea since.

# ? May 30, 2016 21:08

nielsm: Jun 1, 2009

quiggy posted:

I'm sorry would you prefer that C/C++ had SYNTACTIC WHITESPACE

Remember when vector<pair<int,int>> was bad and vector<pair<int,int> > was fine?

# ? May 30, 2016 21:09

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 6, 2024 19:42

Xarn: Jun 26, 2015

nielsm posted:

Remember when vector<pair<int,int>> was bad and vector<pair<int,int> > was fine?

Yes. Happily at the time I worked on code that only had to compile under MSVC and it had the first form as an extension. :v:

# ? May 30, 2016 21:27

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 »