Pardot posted:

But there is, and you know there is

MrSaxamaphone posted:

Hope I get to do some of the WPF stuff we're looking at.

Otto Skorzeny posted:

You sure about this? Last I heard C and C++ compilers were generally "loving terrible" at tco and trampolining

http://www.linux-kongress.org/2009/slides/compiler_survey_felix_von_leitner.pdf posted:

gcc has removed tail recursion for years. icc, suncc and msvc don’t.

clockwork automaton posted:

code:

string Counter::getStringOf(){
	if(total == 1){
		return ofToString(total) + " thing";
		
	}
	return ofToString(total) + " things";
	
} 

1337JiveTurkey posted:

I once had a professor who told me that I had to do one project individually since group projects amounted to having three people watch me do all the work.

TagUrIt posted:

code:

double correctDegrees(double degrees) {
  while (degrees < 0) degrees += 360;
  while (degrees > 360) degrees -= 360;

  return toDegrees(toRadians(degrees));
}

Jonnty posted:

Is there any conceivable reason why you might think that was in any way sensible? Some standard return format or something?

ColdPie posted:

Excuse my stupid question, but is the horror just not using fmod? Not knowing about a poorly-named function doesn't seem like a horror to me, just a lack of familiarity with the standard library which ought to be corrected. I don't think I would blame someone for reimplementing atan2 either, given its name.

Avenging Dentist posted:

I would. The C standard library is really small. If you don't know C well enough to be able to use documentation when you want a really common function, you don't know it well enough to be getting paid to write code in it.

mr_jim posted:

Have we done names_with_underscores vs. namesWithCamelCase yet?

Modern Pragmatist posted:

code:

if (1 != phase) {

Flobbster posted:

The only time I ever do something like this is when I'm in Java and I want to compare strings. Saying "foo".equals(str) instead of str.equals("foo") makes things a little more concise in the even that str could be null.

manero posted:

How long does this take to run?

shrughes posted:

Did you just say lg? They never said "lg" when I was in school.

Kids these days!

Edit: Er, I mean, this is the real coding horror.

Hammerite posted:

code:

$reverse_string = implode("xxx", $reversed_array);
$reverse_string = str_replace("xxx", "", $reverse_string);

This bit in particular is a bit odd. Why not just use implode('', $reversed_array)?

Ryouga Inverse posted:

C# 3.5, so we can't have nice things like named and optional parameters.

That still doesn't excuse this:

code:

        public bool stuff(
            string command,
            string requestID,
            string couldBeAnObject,
            string request,
            string response,
            string ifThatThingWasAnObjectThisWouldntBeNecessary,
            params object[] additionalParams)
        {
            int responseCode = 202;
            string expectedRespCode = Success;
            string id = null;
            uint numberOfPendingResp = 0;
            int pendingRespInterval = 0;
            Header contentTypeHdr = ...;
            if (additionalParams != null && additionalParams.Length > 0)
            {
                int count = additionalParams.Length;
                if (count > 6)
                    count = 6;
                switch (count)
                {
                    case 6: contentTypeHdr = (Header)additionalParams[5]; goto case 5;
                    case 5: pendingRespInterval = (int)additionalParams[4]; goto case 4;
                    case 4: numberOfPendingResp = (uint)(int)additionalParams[3]; goto case 3;
                    case 3: id = (string)additionalParams[2]; goto case 2;
                    case 2: expectedRespCode = (string)additionalParams[1]; goto case 1;
                    case 1: responseCode = (int)additionalParams[0]; break;
                }
            }

edit: oh, and there are a ton of these.

Zhentar posted:

I've been starting to do some iPhone development for work. Today, I looked at the contents of a plist file for the first time. A snippet of it:

code:

<plist version="1.0">
<dict>
	<key>CFBundleDevelopmentRegion</key>
	<string>English</string>
	<key>CFBundleVersion</key>
	<string>1.0</string>
	<key>LSRequiresIPhoneOS</key>
	<true/>
</dict>
</plist>

Plorkyeran posted:

Is the pattern <key>Key Name</key><datatype>Value</datatype> really that hard to figure out from that sample? It's an incredibly terrible design but it's not that confusing.

Mustach posted:

Hmm, there seems to be a case missing…

shrughes posted:

And MD5, or SHA-X, would be the wrong things to use.

shrughes posted:

What? Where did they find the "MD5 of your password" field?

Hibame posted:

When asked if they are going to fix it.
"I don't know, it works for me."

Combat Pretzel posted:

I just wrote a short three number wide median algorithm using ?: notation. After I removed the helping parentheses, I got this construct out of it:

code:

m = y < z ? x < y ? y : x < z ? x : z : y < x ? y : x < z ? z : x;

Gotta hate certain C based syntax elements.

Janin posted:

This isn't true at all, FYI -- good Haskell is roughly comparable to Ruby, better than Python, and much better than Perl.

A very bad man posted:

Is that the same as being a programming nihilist?

I don't know if this has been posted yet, presenting the regex from hell
http://ex-parrot.com/~pdw/Mail-RFC822-Address.html

HFX posted:

This may be that Java accessors modifiers do not behave as they do in most languages. You should also consider Java's age, their resistance to breaking legacy code (and then doing it anyway), and JVM fault designs because of early versions.

Zhentar posted:

Having to type an extra character to say what I mean is such a burden. Why can't the compiler just detect what I mean and ignore what I say?

king_kilr posted:

Pack it up, go home folks, this is the ultimate horror.

bobthecheese posted:

code:

<form name="GroupEditForm" action="<?=$currentscript?>" method="post" onsubmit="return checkGroupForm(this)">

_aaron posted:

No god drat way.

Mustach posted:

What the gently caress kind of expensive are you talking about?

npe posted:

It was every bit as wonderful as I expected it to be!

npe posted:

Smugdog Millionaire posted:

Coding horror or no?

It might be be the best solution (better imo) but at least it does something you don't get from just writing the code out sequentially.

Smugdog Millionaire posted:

...

Plorkyeran posted:

i.e. when it's not actually for-case?

Munkeymon posted:

Naming your release after the last movie you saw isn't totally unreasonable. I could see it giving a movie buff some context to help pull up associated memories.

Otto Skorzeny posted:

Cut some slack Sam, off-by-one errors are one of the two really hard problems in computer science (the other two, of course, being cache invalidation and naming things).

Kamikaze! posted:

I like this one in Python:

code:

>>> def a(b,c={}):
...     c[b]=True
...     print c
...
>>> a(1)
{1: True}
>>> a(2)
{1: True, 2: True}
>>>