|
Did they look at only COBOL? 
|
|
|
|
|
Almost as bad - I think they looked at Java (and included all the XML configuration files)
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
I can believe it. For every one line of code that has actual business value, I find myself writing an awful lot of lines for things like exception handling, null checking, error logging, thread locking, bounds checking, etc... None of which has any business value beyond just getting the damn thing to run without problems.
|
|
|
|
|
I'd say all of that is required to provide the required functionality.
|
|
|
|
|
Not entirely. Thread locking is only needed if you have contention problems. Logging is only necessary if you need to go look at log files. Bounds checking is only necessary when someone tries to bypass UI validation, etc...
All of these are good things to have. I put all of them into my code. But the only thing they do is relieve IT headaches. They don't sell more widgets.
|
|
|
|
|
Vark111 wrote: They don't sell more widgets
Sure they do. Uptime is directly related to sales.
|
|
|
|
|
You only need an airbag in an accident, that is true.
Logging is not just required if someone wants to look at the logs; it is required to be able to track what the application is doing. Bounds checking is not just for people trying to bypass, but also to reduce accidental errors.
The fact that it is not explicitly mentioned as something that you get paid for doesn't mean that it has no value.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
I don't disagree with anything you said. The point I guess I'm trying to make is that 15 years ago, when I was writing VB6 apps before I really should have been, I did none of those things. No null checking, no bounds checking, no logging, etc...
Those apps were an abomination from my (current) perspective, but did they provide business value back then? Unquestionably.
If I were to grab one of those apps today and add all those things back in - exception handling, null checking, logging, etc... Would the business value of those apps increase? In my opinion, that's questionable. If the app used to crash twice a day because of those problems, then adding those checks and balances in probably does increase business value. But if that app was only crashing once a year?
|
|
|
|
|
Vark111 wrote: But if that app was only crashing once a year?
A few years ago, cars came without said airbag. You don't even need to be able to lock the car to provide the basic functionality.
Does it matter if it crashes once a year? Well, no, I hear that cars are called back all the time. As long as it isn't my car, all is great 
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Do you think car designers have magazines with articles with "how airbags add weight and reduce petrol efficiency"?
|
|
|
|
|
Am I right in saying that they try and analyse the code without even knowing what it does?
|
|
|
|
|
I think it is too early to jump to the conclusion that most code are 'useless' as chaff.
If we are to throw away the 'chaff' and just submit the 'wheat' to client, it would be a disaster.
OOP introduce "redundency" because we want to system to be scalable and extensible.
We are living in an imperfect world , our main objective is to provide convenience to users
and other developers, rather than giving values to every lines of code.
|
|
|
|
|
So, property developer knocks 3 million US $ off price to land-rights in exchange for FaceBook-Boy promising to promote his business. Property developer now claims El Zuck did not deliver promised goodies: did he fail to "get it in writing;" did he hallucinate he was shaking hands with something that was not a snake ? [^].
«I'm asked why doesn't C# implement feature X all the time. The answer's always the same: because no one ever designed, specified, implemented, tested, documented, shipped that feature. All six of those things are necessary to make a feature happen. They all cost huge amounts of time, effort and money.» Eric Lippert, Microsoft, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
Seems like we really like this genious of innovation. : )
In my language we have a saying like: "Loved child has many nicknames". What's that in English?
Life is too shor
|
|
|
|
|
megaadam wrote: "Loved child has many nicknames". What's that in English?
A beloved child has many names. From here[^]
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
We say... go to bed with children, wake up orinated
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm always surprised/confused why rich people need to always build big huge houses with rooms after rooms after bathrooms that will stay untouched.
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
|
I guess they'd better avoid each other at the neighbourhood BBQ...
My blog[ ^]
public class SanderRossel : Lazy<Person>
{
public void DoWork()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}
|
|
|
|
|
The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once. "Where's the kaboom? There was supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom!"
|
|
|
|
|
Without direct observation, I see no reason to think there was a Big Bang.
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Hawking talked about this very subject in his book "A Brief History Of Time". He presented the "no boundary" (no beginning or ending of the Universe) proposal back in 1981. There are other models, besides this one, that do not require a "Big Bang". Which I am sure upsets the Catholic Church, since they like the Big Bang theory and did not want anyone to investigate the idea further.
INTP
"Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to show their absence." - Edsger Dijkstra
"I have never been lost, but I will admit to being confused for several weeks. " - Daniel Boone
|
|
|
|
|
Using quantum in a macro-scale physical model is a bit like using the
unsafe keyword in C#. You can put an old stuff in there but be careful what you do with it 
|
|
|
|
|
No beginning ... no ending ... ?
I knew this was a bad movie !
«I'm asked why doesn't C# implement feature X all the time. The answer's always the same: because no one ever designed, specified, implemented, tested, documented, shipped that feature. All six of those things are necessary to make a feature happen. They all cost huge amounts of time, effort and money.» Eric Lippert, Microsoft, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
Everything has a beginning and an end. Otherwise, I'm reminded of Spaceballs.
Colonel Sandurz: Try here. Stop.
[Corporal stops the tape, then Dark Helmet and Sandurz come across an image of themselves viewing the screen. As they react, the screen mimics what they are doing]
Dark Helmet: What the hell am I looking at?! When does this happen in the movie?!
Colonel Sandurz: "Now". You're looking at "now", sir. Everything that happens now [indicates himself and Helmet] is happening "now". [Indicates the screen]
Dark Helmet: What happened to "then"?
Colonel Sandurz: We passed "then".
Dark Helmet: When?
Colonel Sandurz: Just now. Were at "now," now.
Dark Helmet: Go back to "then"!
Colonel Sandurz: When?
Dark Helmet: Now!
Colonel Sandurz: Now?
Dark Helmet: Now!
Colonel Sandurz: I can't.
Dark Helmet: Why?!
Colonel Sandurz: We missed it.
Dark Helmet: When?!
Colonel Sandurz: Just now.
Dark Helmet: ... When will "then" be "now"?
Colonel Sandurz: Soon.
Dark Helmet: [backpedals in shock] How soon?
|
|
|
|
|
What about a circle? 
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
