terrible programmers: my god, it's full of chars

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > YOSPOS > terrible programmers: my god, it's full of chars

Hellsworn Barn: Apr 11, 2008; hi

horse mans posted:

op here's som code i wrote for you hth

code:

var action = Act.Upon(programmer)
                .If(p => p.needs.Contains("safe space"))
                .Gas()
                .Permaban()
                .Kill();

i refactored your horrible code

# ¿ May 7, 2013 23:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 19:52

Hellsworn Barn: Apr 11, 2008; hi

Mr SuperAwesome posted:

.net reflector is cool because you can disassemble real code that people sell and you realise the people writing it were fuckin nuts

try diving into the framework code...

# ¿ May 8, 2013 00:04

Hellsworn Barn: Apr 11, 2008; hi

Bloody posted:

whats wrong with singletons please don't blackball me

static data

# ¿ May 8, 2013 00:50

Hellsworn Barn: Apr 11, 2008; hi

JG_Plissken posted:

whats wrong with static data please don't blackball me

static things can't be changed and software that can't change is generally pretty lovely!!

# ¿ May 8, 2013 06:14

Hellsworn Barn: Apr 11, 2008; hi

nosql nosql NOSQL

# ¿ May 8, 2013 22:33

Hellsworn Barn: Apr 11, 2008; hi

Pro tip: always catch exceptions and log them straight away you can't trust that calling methods will catch it in fact you should have exception handling and logging in literally every method everywhere!

# ¿ May 8, 2013 22:54

Hellsworn Barn: Apr 11, 2008; hi

chumpchous posted:

Jquery is p easy it's the functions nested within functions nested within functions from js that I don't really get

stop whatever you're doing and go read up on closures.

# ¿ May 12, 2013 16:17

Hellsworn Barn: Apr 11, 2008; hi

Doc Block posted:

LOL if having everything be an anonymous type is considered good code in C#. B-b-but I saved myself a split second of typing, who cares about readability!

Of course, this is a Microsoft language, so of course C# devs think it's a good idea to put the class type in all methods and variable names.

i like var and make a point of using it everywhere and updating existing code to use it in favor of explicitly typed local variables.

# ¿ May 12, 2013 16:23

Hellsworn Barn: Apr 11, 2008; hi

this is a dumb argument

# ¿ May 12, 2013 16:48

Hellsworn Barn: Apr 11, 2008; hi

are you fuckers serious about checked exceptions

# ¿ May 13, 2013 21:38

Hellsworn Barn: Apr 11, 2008; hi

no i do not shaggar and no i do not like checked exceptions

# ¿ May 13, 2013 21:42

Hellsworn Barn: Apr 11, 2008; hi

OBAMA BIN LinkedIn posted:

when a trivial error can kill your program then you should drat well have to make sure that is what you intended

checked exceptions don't solve this problem they make it worse.

# ¿ May 15, 2013 00:36

Hellsworn Barn: Apr 11, 2008; hi

Checked exceptions, won't compile without the throws clause:

code:

public void SomeMethod() throws SomeException
{
	SomeMethodThatThrowsAnException();
}

Unchecked exceptions, compiles just fine:

code:

public void SomeMethod()
{
	SomeMethodThatThrowsAnException();
}

What you ultimately end up with if you have checked exceptions:

code:

public void SomeMethod() throws SomeException, SomeOtherException, ListEveryExceptionThatCouldPossiblyBeThrownByCalledMethod
{
	SomeMethodThatThrowsAnException();
}

# ¿ May 15, 2013 01:44

Hellsworn Barn: Apr 11, 2008; hi

JewKiller 3000 posted:

ftfy

or even better

code:

public void SomeMethod()
{
	try {
		EveryMethodYourProgramCallsThatThrowsACheckedException();
	} catch (Exception e) {
		throw new RuntimeException(e);
	}
}

# ¿ May 15, 2013 06:49

Hellsworn Barn: Apr 11, 2008; hi

Shaggar posted:

well yes if you're a terrible developer that happens, sure. but if you cant properly deal w/ checked exceptions ur a huge idiot.

there is literally no way to "properly deal with checked exceptions." the key to safe exception handling is centralization. every process/app domain/whatever should have a centralized handler responsible for managing control flow based on exception type/data/context. the good part about checked exceptions is that they provide information regarding what exceptions may be thrown, which helps get the logic in your centralized handler right the first time. the bad part about checked exceptions is that it encourages bad exception handling practices by forcing you to deal with exceptions throughout your code. the good is greatly outweighed by the bad since proper design all but eliminates the need for conditional logic based on exception type.

# ¿ May 16, 2013 19:56

Hellsworn Barn: Apr 11, 2008; hi

Shaggar posted:

handles it lazily

you know what's really lazy? bad fuckin design

# ¿ May 16, 2013 21:28

Hellsworn Barn: Apr 11, 2008; hi

webservices are bad

# ¿ Oct 3, 2013 18:25

Hellsworn Barn: Apr 11, 2008; hi

notorious bsd i don't think you've thought this through

# ¿ Jun 14, 2014 19:57

Hellsworn Barn: Apr 11, 2008; hi

what if demand on your services is not constant (e.g. high demand one day a month)?

what about network saturation?

what about latency?

what about durability?

# ¿ Jun 14, 2014 20:23

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 19:52

Hellsworn Barn: Apr 11, 2008; hi

Notorious b.s.d. posted:

lol if you think you can answer these questions more effectively with a poorly-understood distributed setup running on someone else's hardware

who said anything about someone else's hardware?

# ¿ Jun 14, 2014 21:31

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > YOSPOS > terrible programmers: my god, it's full of chars