|
You need to meteor doctor. 
You have just been Sharapova'd.
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe he is the doctor 
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: It's best not to planet on moondays and sundays.
Saturn's day would probably be best. 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Most happiest moment for programmers
|
|
|
|
|
Nope.
"Payment received"
is the happiest moment.
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
|
Maximilien,
Superb dude.Mine also
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed. Payment comes after post-installation testing by the client.
The difficult may take time, the impossible a little longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Debugging is the creative part. Successful Compiling is great, but I enjoy debugging a lot more. Debugging leads to better code as well as working code when you iterate through each debugging session. Creating the initial code is often a free flow of ideas when the algorithms and specifications are created. I treat programming like writing an article. I get the ideas down and assume I will be improving them iteratively. I don't like to over-think and block the code flow. This works well in a small group that can be creative. This would not work well for larger projects and larger groups, of course. I work in a small group with limited constraints on creativity. I try to stay object-oriented, concise, and well-documented. Coding should be fun and enjoyable. Maybe that is why I like small independent projects. Less structure, more fun!?
I suspect I am like many Code project members. That is why I keep coming back to Code project and sites like stack overflow. Or maybe I just had too much coffee this morning.
"Courtesy is the product of a mature, disciplined mind ... ridicule is lack of the same - DPM"
|
|
|
|
|
Compilation means nothing to me; that can be the easy part.
I am more worried about what compiled, that is still broken. Even with proper testing, bugs/errors gets through the cracks...never fails.
|
|
|
|
|
Successful compilation only means that the syntax is correct.
This would also compile successfully:
double sin30 = Math.Sin(30.0);
but with a completely wrong answer if the programmer got confused between degrees and radians.
Getting rid of logical errors is the tricky part, and is more time-consuming, and much more enriching.
|
|
|
|
|
"0 Errors" is nothing - that's easy.
"0 Errors, 0 Warnings" is better - but also pretty easy.
Passing all tests and actually doing what you wanted it to? Now that's a good moment!
(As is getting paid, as has been mentioned)
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Let's not forget zero code analysis errors, and zero style cop errors, and zero QA errors.
|
|
|
|
|
Get real - we'll never get zero QA errors here! 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Wishful thinking, I know. 
|
|
|
|
|
Don't forget the runtime errors 
|
|
|
|
|
No, that's when I wonder what's still in there hiding. 
|
|
|
|
|
Member 11547329 wrote: Most happiest moment for programmers
Microsoft took that moment away from me. Now, there is this demon called "Intellisense" that will tell me what I did wrong almost before I do it. I have become a slave to this demon, obsessed with extinguishing it's Cylon-like red eye that peers at me from underneath even the most trivial of mistakes. And now, when I compile my code, I now longer have that joy of "compiled successfully" because even the mere idea of a failing is no longer possible under that watchful eye. And where there can be no pain of failure, there can also be no joy of success. Microsoft, I rue the day you brought these demon out of the depths of the digital hell otherwise known as Redmond. You have taken away my reason to live!
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Yet another reason to roll your own IDE. 
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: Yet another reason to roll your own IDE.
Nah, if people want don't want Intellisense, they should use a command line. 
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Missed your meds again huh?
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
|
|
|
|
|
Coder For Hire wrote: Missed your meds again huh?
Actually, it's the meds that put me in these moods.
(just kidding!)
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Nope. That just leads you into a false sense of security. You still have to run it to make sure it isn't gonna puke all over your system, which definitely bumps up against the "It compiles - SHIP IT!" paradigm.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
Compiles mean nothing. This compiles:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
int x = 10;
int y = 0;
int z = x / y;
}
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
|
|
|
|
|
#include<stdio.h>
main()
{
}
Yes! It does compile with zero errors
Ranjan.D
|
|
|
|
|
All that means is that it is broken in ways that the compiler can't detect, so it's time to bash your head against the harder-to-find errors.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
