|
Marc Clifton wrote: the .NET 2.0 days before generics
Did you mean the .NET 1.0 days? Generics were introduced with 2.0.
Marc Clifton wrote: Why a static method?
Why not a static method? If it's not referencing any instance members, there are very few reasons to make it an instance method.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: Generics were introduced with 2.0.
Ah, my C# history is in error. Must self-destruct!
Richard Deeming wrote: If it's not referencing any instance members, there are very few reasons to make it an instance method.
It's just weird. Why then require instantiating the class to call the public method, particularly if all it does is internally call private static methods?
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly. Your complaint should have been that Foo *wasn't* static, not that getSomeList was.
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: Javascript and other script languages
and Java too.
... such stuff as dreams are made on
|
|
|
|
|
I never saw such JS code... If I had I would send the author home... for good...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Considering the use of var it must be at least .Net 3.5, unless of course that was part of protecting the innocent.
|
|
|
|
|
Jörgen Andersson wrote: Considering the use of var it must be at least .Net 3.5, unless of course that was part of protecting the innocent.
Ah, good point. The vars were there in the original. It's really weird, it's as if the code was being compiled with C# (some version) but against an ancient version of .NET, because there's even reference elsewhere to StringDictionary which is pretty obsolete since generics.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Or it is a person who seldom worked with .NET and had to bring up a solution for yesterday. I have the same issue with old code written in VB6 by "programmers" who at the time used QBasic (yes, first instance of our software worked under DOS).
Besides, today there is .NET 4.6something, I only worked with 3.5 so I would probably write code which does not use any new functionality due to lack of experience / knowledge of them.
DURA LEX, SED LEX
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP. -- TNCaver
When I was six, there were no ones and zeroes - only zeroes. And not all of them worked. -- Ravi Bhavnani
|
|
|
|
|
Like den2k88 wrote, it's probably someone not being used to the language, or even more likely, the framework.
That parsing is just scary, but probably made by someone in a hurry.
|
|
|
|
|
Did you notice this?
List.Add(N1 + "," + N2 + "," + N3 + "," + N3);
N3 is added twice.
N4 is never added.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm guessing that was a typo by Marc. At least I'm hoping it was... 
|
|
|
|
|
I thought he copied the code and changed what he wanted to preserve identity...
So, it must be part of the real one. I think.
|
|
|
|
|
Paulo Zemek wrote: N3 is added twice.
That was my typo. 
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Hehe... OK.
I thought I was another coding horror... you know, complete lack of testing.
|
|
|
|
|
Possibly a cut and paste job from the internet by someone not familiar with C#, .NET or programming in general.
Could well be a port out of C, C++ or VB6. Things like a private static method and module/global variables could be an artifact of another language.
|
|
|
|
|
If you are hyper-optimizing code, you can avoid allocation of an enumerator object by checking the count first if you expect that it will often contain 0 items. That said, it is obvious that this guy probably wouldn't know that, but worth noting. We've done it in very performance sensitive code that might be called many times in a tight loop.
|
|
|
|
|
Better to avoid foreach whenever possible. If there's a Count, it's probably indexable, so use for instead.
|
|
|
|
|
For performance sensitive code that could be used in long tight loops I agree, but "whenever" I don't agree with. In 95% of code it will make zero difference, so the readability and simplicity of foreach wins.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, now I am reminded of some ODBC code (in ANSI C) I had thrust upon me in the late-90s -- query results were returned as CSV strings. 
I had to write my own version that at least returned sort of an array of strings.
|
|
|
|
|
Yesterday, I put in around 5 hours making changes on a form. This was done on a laptop having a synched drive to my home-office server where the development files are kept. I've learned with the laptop that it's actually safer to copy the project from the synched folder(s) and work on them locally, then manually replace the files when I get back to the office. Anyway, I opened the project from the local directory where I had copied it and spent the day putting in the new changes, and getting it all working. Hooray!
This morning, I got out the laptop and let it synch up to the network, then opened the local folder where I had done all my work, got the files I wanted, and replaced them on the network drive. It was then that I realized that the file dates/times were wrong...I had actually been working on the offline/synched files and had just overwritten 5 hours of work!  There seems to be no way to get it back either...bummer! It'll take me at least 2.5 hours to rewrite it, but I've already got ideas for improvements! (trying to be optimistic!)
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
Use source control, either a local repository on both machines or (ideally) one with a repository both machines can access (if both have the internet you could use GitHub for example). I use SC even for my noddy projects on a local machine just in case stuff like this happens and anyone can mess up and once the code is overwritten it's gone.
|
|
|
|
|
This is one of the many, many reasons to use some form of source control. With modern editors and IDEs, the overhead is negligible and it saves you so many headachese - this scenario being just one of them.
|
|
|
|
|
No, Seriously. A Web Browser written using Bash[^]
What.
The.
F***.
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
Do questions with multiple question marks annoy you???
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: The butthurtery is strong in these.
I'm laughing so hard.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Last commit by lawl butthurt.
The only file starts out promising 
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
