|
public int Lenght
{
get { return this.Lenght; }
}
Code from here
      
Maybe that's how I should sign posts. 
|
|
|
|
|
You'd be more popular if you multiply by two.
|
|
|
|
|
Is it a Spanish compiler?
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
kmoorevs wrote: Is it a Spanish compiler?
And why should that be funny?
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.
|
|
|
|
|
There was a video by Veritasium, on how Spanish needs more or less double the words in order to convey the same amount of information, compared to English.
Relate the video to the fact that the 'get length' appeared to have been written twice, you get a joke.
Well it's funny now that I had to explain everything but nonetheless, nice effort kmoorevs.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I worked in Miami for nine years, and not once did I see one of my Cuban or Mexican colleagues code anything like this:
entero publico Longidut
{
obtener { devolve ese.Longidut; }
}
This sort of thing is just a classic example of a programmer who is just too lazy to correct the property name where it is used. Much easier to take the easy way out and keep the property name misspelled.
We had a programmer like this on a COBOL project. 15 years after he was fired, we are still living with the sh*tty code he wrote. There is no bandwidth in my team to rip it all out and replace it, so I have imposed a policy of "replace, don't fix" whenever we run into an issue with one of this guy's modules.
Any developer on my team who tries to get away with this kind of stuff now gets dealt with abruptly. There is no excuse for it.
|
|
|
|
|
And what is "Seriously?" the Problem? I would skip such minor things.
Bruno 
The longer I'm here the more I have a Feeling that programmers discuss about how to Programm, and because of endless discussions about pattern and this and that they are not able to do their Job
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
It's not about patterns, it's about stupid code: that won't return, it will overflow the stack.
Shows the level of testing they did on the rest of the code as well.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
That was my first thought: It should generate a stack overflow (regardless of the language).
I'm not so skillfull with C# but recent C++ compilers will throw a warning for such code. And I guess the C# compiler will do that too (both with higher warning level).
Then they did not even test their code but compile it also with a low warning level.
|
|
|
|
|
This usually happens by accident when they implement the property before defining the accompanying field. It's happened to me a couple of times.
I compile at the highest warning level and VS2013 doesn't catch this error at compile time.A "self-referencing property" compile-time warning would be nice to have.
".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
|
|
|
|
|
What else would expect from a coder who can't spell 'length' ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
That was the first stupidity I saw the misspelling.
|
|
|
|
|
The useless FileNotFoundException catch is more offensive.
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
|
I like the optimistic (and useless) initialization of port in this snippet. 
int port = 4401;
Int32.TryParse(strPort, out port);
peer.EndPoint = new IPEndPoint(address, port); /ravi
|
|
|
|
|
I'm fine with that. When debugging, you might want to skip over the call to TryParse yet have a valid value in Port.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: When debugging, you might want to skip over the call to TryParse yet have a valid value in Port.
In that case I would #if DEBUG it.
The way it's written implies the developer assumes port will have the value 4401 if the Int32.TryParse() fails.
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
Ravi Bhavnani wrote: implies the developer assumes
I disagree.
|
|
|
|
|
You can manually set values for variables while debugging C#, so initialization isn't necessary (but convenient nonetheless, although I'd remove it when done debugging)
|
|
|
|
|
Sure, but why not simply code the value you want?
|
|
|
|
|
Well, since that's the wrong spelling for 'length' it's safe to assume it will only be called by an error - so if it recalls itself until it crashes, nothing's really been lost, anyway.
Thus, the balance is restored in this, the best of all possible worlds.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
I suspect that the code comes from a keyboard dyslexic like myself. Since he/she regularly mis-types lenght (see?) they though it would be a good idea to cater for it... unofrtuantely they misspselt it in the function too.
|
|
|
|
|
I recently started working with Python. The IDE I use highlights every potential typo and stylistic error as I type. A variable name like Lenght would be flagged immediately, even though it is syntactically legal.
My goal when coding with the IDE is zero flaggings of code. In the long run it is worth it.
|
|
|
|
|
BucketList:
1. Learn how to write code.
2. Improve this code.
3. Climb the Mount Everest.
|
|
|
|
|
4. Stay there, not bothering anybody.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
