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 »

Jarl: Nov 8, 2007; So what if I'm not for the ever offended?

Absurd Alhazred posted:

https://twitter.com/jennschiffer/status/877705092043907072

So true.

# ? Jun 22, 2017 11:54

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 17, 2024 20:39

hyphz: Aug 5, 2003; Number 1 Nerd Tear Farmer 2022.

Keep it up, champ.

Also you're a skeleton warrior now. Kree.; Unlockable Ben

Can anyone tell me that Xtext isn't a horror? With something called EMF which seems to be a massive inner platform and enough weird conventions that they had to write their own Java variant to deal with the number of getClass based switches you need to write?

# ? Jun 22, 2017 14:46

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

Eela6 posted:

Don't doxx me

(I am getting acclimated to go, but I will never forgive them not having a loving set type with intersection, union, and difference methods. What the gently caress.)

I have seen mutable data structures passed by reference to asynchronous go routines in every non-trivial go program I've interacted with.

# ? Jun 23, 2017 03:50

Eela6: May 25, 2007; Shredded Hen

Don't you see? By limiting the syntax, you eliminate all the problems that come from higher-order concepts! Bing bong so simple

# ? Jun 23, 2017 04:54

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

MIPS has a limited syntax

# ? Jun 23, 2017 06:41

putin is a cunt: Apr 5, 2007; BOY DO I SURE ENJOY TRASH. THERE'S NOTHING MORE I LOVE THAN TO SIT DOWN IN FRONT OF THE BIG SCREEN AND EAT A BIIIIG STEAMY BOWL OF SHIT. WARNER BROS CAN COME OVER TO MY HOUSE AND ASSFUCK MY MOM WHILE I WATCH AND I WOULD CERTIFY IT FRESH, NO QUESTION

Eela6 posted:

Don't you see? By limiting the syntax, you eliminate all the problems that come from higher-order concepts! Bing bong so simple

This is why I write all my code like this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitespace_(programming_language)

# ? Jun 23, 2017 09:19

eschaton: Mar 7, 2007; Don't you just hate when you wind up in a store with people who are in a socioeconomic class that is pretty obviously about two levels lower than your own?

KernelSlanders posted:

MIPS has a limited syntax

And indeed MIPS is good.

# ? Jun 23, 2017 10:36

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

KernelSlanders posted:

I have seen mutable data structures passed by reference to asynchronous go routines in every non-trivial go program I've interacted with.

but golang makes concurrency easy

# ? Jun 24, 2017 00:08

vOv: Feb 8, 2014

comedyblissoption posted:

but golang makes concurrency easy

Hey, they never said it makes correct concurrency easy!

# ? Jun 24, 2017 01:59

Dr. Stab: Sep 12, 2010; 👨🏻‍⚕️🩺🔪🙀😱🙀

The thing about coding in MIPS is that there's no way any bugs will be introduced because the computer does exactly what you tell it to do with no messy compiler to screw things up for you. My MIPS code has never once thrown an exception.

# ? Jun 24, 2017 02:08

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

Dr. Stab posted:

The thing about coding in MIPS is that there's no way any bugs will be introduced because the computer does exactly what you tell it to do with no messy compiler to screw things up for you. My MIPS code has never once thrown an exception.

I wonder if Mel Kaye would unironically agree with this post.

# ? Jun 24, 2017 02:20

JawnV6: Jul 4, 2004; So hot ...

Psh, upgrade to a R4000.

# ? Jun 24, 2017 03:10

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

Can't decide whether I'm being a bit too pedantic, or far too pedantic.

code:

void CMyDialog::EnableButtons(bool enabled)
{
	BOOL enabled_asWindowsBOOL = enabled ? TRUE : FALSE;

	m_button1.EnableWindow(enabled_asWindowsBOOL);
	m_button2.EnableWindow(enabled_asWindowsBOOL);
	m_button3.EnableWindow(enabled_asWindowsBOOL);
}

# ? Jun 24, 2017 22:54

Absurd Alhazred: Mar 27, 2010; by Athanatos

Hammerite posted:

Can't decide whether I'm being a bit too pedantic, or far too pedantic.

code:

void CMyDialog::EnableButtons(bool enabled)
{
	BOOL enabled_asWindowsBOOL = enabled ? TRUE : FALSE;

	m_button1.EnableWindow(enabled_asWindowsBOOL);
	m_button2.EnableWindow(enabled_asWindowsBOOL);
	m_button3.EnableWindow(enabled_asWindowsBOOL);
}

Might as well get a class to do this for you:

C++ code:

class WinBOOL
{
public:
	WinBOOL(bool boolean) : m_internal(boolean ? TRUE : FALSE);
	WinBOOL& operator=(bool boolean)
	{
		m_internal = boolean ? TRUE : FALSE;
		return *this;
	}
	operator BOOL() const
	{
		return m_internal;
	}
private:
	BOOL m_internal;
};

# ? Jun 24, 2017 23:47

Gazpacho: Jun 18, 2004; by Fluffdaddy; Slippery Tilde

Hammerite posted:

Can't decide whether I'm being a bit too pedantic, or far too pedantic.

code:

void CMyDialog::EnableButtons(bool enabled)
{
	BOOL enabled_asWindowsBOOL = enabled ? TRUE : FALSE;

	m_button1.EnableWindow(enabled_asWindowsBOOL);
	m_button2.EnableWindow(enabled_asWindowsBOOL);
	m_button3.EnableWindow(enabled_asWindowsBOOL);
}

Good idea, some doofus could pass in a VARIANT_TRUE and then who knows what would happen?

# ? Jun 25, 2017 01:09

Nude: Nov 16, 2014; I have no idea what I'm doing.

Absurd Alhazred posted:

Might as well get a class to do this for you:

C++ code:

class WinBOOL
{
public:
	WinBOOL(bool boolean) : m_internal(boolean ? TRUE : FALSE);
	WinBOOL& operator=(bool boolean)
	{
		m_internal = boolean ? TRUE : FALSE;
		return *this;
	}
	operator BOOL() const
	{
		return m_internal;
	}
private:
	BOOL m_internal;
};

You son of a gun- don't give programmers any ideas :argh:

. Cause this is what happens if you do.

# ? Jun 25, 2017 02:38

VikingofRock: Aug 24, 2008

Hammerite posted:

Can't decide whether I'm being a bit too pedantic, or far too pedantic.

code:

void CMyDialog::EnableButtons(bool enabled)
{
	BOOL enabled_asWindowsBOOL = enabled ? TRUE : FALSE;

	m_button1.EnableWindow(enabled_asWindowsBOOL);
	m_button2.EnableWindow(enabled_asWindowsBOOL);
	m_button3.EnableWindow(enabled_asWindowsBOOL);
}

There ought to be a :windows: for this sort of thing.

# ? Jun 25, 2017 07:21

MrMoo: Sep 14, 2000

I've seen that a lot in APIs that like to define their own bool value because they are old. They continue to do it even when they have stopped support a long time ago for those clunky compilers.

# ? Jun 25, 2017 16:51

Absurd Alhazred: Mar 27, 2010; by Athanatos

MrMoo posted:

I've seen that a lot in APIs that like to define their own bool value because they are old. They continue to do it even when they have stopped support a long time ago for those clunky compilers.

That doesn't explain Vulkan. :v:

# ? Jun 25, 2017 17:00

idiotmeat: Apr 3, 2010

Absurd Alhazred posted:

Might as well get a class to do this for you:

C++ code:

class WinBOOL
{
public:
	WinBOOL(bool boolean) : m_internal(boolean ? TRUE : FALSE);
	WinBOOL& operator=(bool boolean)
	{
		m_internal = boolean ? TRUE : FALSE;
		return *this;
	}
	operator BOOL() const
	{
		return m_internal;
	}
private:
	BOOL m_internal;
};

Might want to have

code:


boolean ? !FALSE : FALSE

Just to be safe.

# ? Jun 25, 2017 17:11

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.

MrMoo posted:

I've seen that a lot in APIs that like to define their own bool value because they are old. They continue to do it even when they have stopped support a long time ago for those clunky compilers.

Most compilers still default to C89 rather than C99 which officially supports bool. :shrug:

# ? Jun 25, 2017 19:23

VikingofRock: Aug 24, 2008

SupSuper posted:

Most compilers still default to C89 rather than C99 which officially supports bool.

Wait, what? I mostly use gcc, clang, and icc, and I think all of those default to C11 nowadays, with slightly older versions defaulting to C99. What widely used C compilers still default to C89?

# ? Jun 25, 2017 20:16

Gul Banana: Nov 28, 2003

msvc

# ? Jun 25, 2017 20:20

Spatial: Nov 15, 2007

No it doesn't. It's C99.

# ? Jun 25, 2017 20:22

Meat Beat Agent: Aug 5, 2007; felonious assault with a sproinging boner

GCC 4.9 isn't that old, is it?

# ? Jun 25, 2017 20:27

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

Spatial posted:

No it doesn't. It's C99.

I thought MSVC was only kind-of modern (if you can call C99 modern) because their focus was on the bits relevant to C++, so some parts of the C standard aren't up-to-date?

That's just hearsay though.

# ? Jun 25, 2017 21:27

Coffee Mugshot: Jun 26, 2010; by Lowtax

MrMoo posted:

I've seen that a lot in APIs that like to define their own bool value because they are old. They continue to do it even when they have stopped support a long time ago for those clunky compilers.

I'm a little confused because defining your own Boolean type isn't particularly a weird thing. That code snippet appears to be doing the weirdest type conversion I have ever seen. Without knowing what BOOL actually is (probably an integral value ), why can't the above code just do a simple type conversion from bool to BOOL? Knowing this is some C dialect, why wouldn't that function just take BOOLs as parameters in the first place so that implicit conversion could take over. Hell, even taking in a Boolean as a void* is a better approach than that snippet.

# ? Jun 25, 2017 23:00

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

Gul Banana posted:

msvc

Recent versions of msvc don't even support compiling in c89 mode.

TooMuchAbstraction posted:

I thought MSVC was only kind-of modern (if you can call C99 modern) because their focus was on the bits relevant to C++, so some parts of the C standard aren't up-to-date?

That's just hearsay though.

For years they said they weren't going to ever support any C features past C89 except where required by newer C++ standards, but then ffmpeg wrote a c99 to c89 converter and this was sufficiently embarrassing that the people inside MS who wanted c99 support were able to get everything that ffmpeg needs implemented (which is basically everything not made optional in c11).

Meat Beat Agent posted:

GCC 4.9 isn't that old, is it?

It's two major versions behind and GCC 7 isn't that far out.

# ? Jun 26, 2017 01:18

JewKiller 3000: Nov 28, 2006; by Lowtax

go is the donald trump of programming languages: someday everyone is going to simultaneously realize that it's garbage, and the retards who went along with it will lose all respect

# ? Jun 26, 2017 04:23

Odette: Mar 19, 2011

JewKiller 3000 posted:

go is the donald trump of programming languages: someday everyone is going to simultaneously realize that it's garbage, and the retards who went along with it will lose all respect

How do you feel about Rust, then?

# ? Jun 26, 2017 05:27

Foxfire_: Nov 8, 2010

Coffee Mugshot posted:

I'm a little confused because defining your own Boolean type isn't particularly a weird thing. That code snippet appears to be doing the weirdest type conversion I have ever seen. Without knowing what BOOL actually is (probably an integral value ), why can't the above code just do a simple type conversion from bool to BOOL? Knowing this is some C dialect, why wouldn't that function just take BOOLs as parameters in the first place so that implicit conversion could take over. Hell, even taking in a Boolean as a void* is a better approach than that snippet.

windows.h posted:

typedef int BOOL;
#define TRUE 1
#define FALSE 0

windows.h is older than stdbool.h, so it defined its own boolean type. It's still around because using the standard one is not worth breaking the API and ABI of just about everything in windows (sizeof(BOOL) != sizeof(bool), in theory or in practice)

That's a perfectly fine snippet since it's obvious what its doing.

# ? Jun 26, 2017 06:46

rjmccall: Sep 7, 2007; no worries friend; Fun Shoe

Absurd Alhazred posted:

Might as well get a class to do this for you:

The assignment operator here is unnecessary: a bool can be converted to a WinBOOL to invoke the standard assignment operator.

If you're worried about the multiple-conversion case, the better solution is a constructor template.

# ? Jun 26, 2017 07:23

gonadic io: Feb 16, 2011; >>=

Odette posted:

How do you feel about Rust, then?

Rust would have won!

# ? Jun 26, 2017 12:48

Coffee Mugshot: Jun 26, 2010; by Lowtax

JewKiller 3000 posted:

go is the donald trump of programming languages: someday everyone is going to simultaneously realize that it's garbage, and the retards who went along with it will lose all respect

But it collects the garbage faster than the humans can perceive...

# ? Jun 26, 2017 13:58

Coffee Mugshot: Jun 26, 2010; by Lowtax

JewKiller 3000 posted:

go is the donald trump of programming languages: someday everyone is going to simultaneously realize that it's garbage, and the retards who went along with it will lose all respect

Is this guy calling Ken Thompson a retard? Asking for Rob Pike and Robert Griesemer.

# ? Jun 26, 2017 14:18

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

code:

In [1]: '\|' == '\\|'
Out[1]: True

In [2]: '\n' == '\\n'
Out[2]: False

If I ever invent a language naked backslash is definitely going to be a compile error.

# ? Jun 26, 2017 14:36

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

KernelSlanders posted:

code:
In [1]: '\|' == '\\|'
Out[1]: True

In [2]: '\n' == '\\n'
Out[2]: False
If I ever invent a language naked backslash is definitely going to be a compile error.

and that goes double for regex libraries

# ? Jun 26, 2017 16:18

idiotmeat: Apr 3, 2010

I don't know what is with the folks that I work with but they are really afraid of removing dead code. For example (not real code):

code:


if A:
  if A or B:
    foo(
      Bar1,
      /* leaving a comment to let you know i deleted an argument go look at the diffs to figure out which one */
      Bar2)

  If not B and not A:
    doSomethingLongAndComplexWithBadCodeSmell()

# ? Jun 26, 2017 22:51

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

idiotmeat posted:

I don't know what is with the folks that I work with but they are really afraid of removing dead code. For example (not real code):

I had a job once to rehabilitate a university lab's codebase. It was riddled with that kind of thing. Best I can tell, that's what happens when you don't know about / trust source control, but still want to know what the history of a given chunk of code is.

I deleted easily 20k lines worth of dead code from that codebase. After checking it all in to source control, of course.

# ? Jun 26, 2017 23:11

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 17, 2024 20:39

Doom Mathematic: Sep 2, 2008

Honestly, that's the easy stuff. It's relaxing, like pruning topiary.

# ? Jun 26, 2017 23:49

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 »