|
|
One day, when you have nothing to do, you might remember and read it.
Or you might never read.
It depends on your interest, not mine. It is out there already.
modified 6-Apr-16 0:47am.
|
|
|
|
|
I read it, but didn't understand it.
Are drugs a prerequisite?
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Ditto, I think the title should be changed to 'BatSh*t Craziness.....'
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
I think they aren't...
But I never wanted to be drugged in the first place. That was not voluntary.
|
|
|
|
|
Paulo Zemek wrote: But I never wanted to be drugged in the first place. That was not voluntary. There's only one correct answer here; consult a medic.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not today, but i am going to the doctor every week... And also embracing those memories. They are real to me, and very good ones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess I told you how much I like SEO. As much as a stinking heap of spam.
But sometimes the useless crap produced by Search Engine Optimizers can be informatively (for the hacker) funny:
Stand: Samstag, 30. Januar 2016 - URL dieser Seite:file:///C:/Dokumente und Einstellungen/Webmaster1/Eigene Dateien/Eigene Webs/rhein-info-de-m5281-rheiinfo/faehren/bingen-ruedesheim.html
Note: "C:\Dokumente und Einstellungen" is the German localization of Win XP's "Documents and Settings" folder.
|
|
|
|
|
Here's your spear. Happy hunting!
|
|
|
|
|
A former employee of ours left some really wonderful smells in our code, for example a class with no less than 8 constructor parameters.
And right now I stumbled across a method named TryGetUsergroupByNameOrTostringDss() .
Thanks BH, you know who you are...
I guess it's my fault as well - now I can see how important code reviews for every code would have been.
But it's too late to mourn now and I have to clean out the manure on my own
Regards,
mav
--
Black holes are the places where God divided by 0...
|
|
|
|
|
There's nothing necessarily wrong with eight parameters for a constructor.
".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
|
|
|
|
|
..though I would be recommending to encapsulate them in a specific parameter-class and pass a single object
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Like a Tuple<,,,,,,,> ?
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
I'm no longer allowed to pass a Tuple-parameter after my last review
So I now create a specific object:
class MyList: List<Tuple<int, string, string>> { }
--
Joking aside, the <a href="https://msdn.microsoft.com/nl-nl/library/system.diagnostics.processstartinfo%28v=vs.110%29.aspx">ProcessStartInfo</a>[<a href="https://msdn.microsoft.com/nl-nl/library/system.diagnostics.processstartinfo%28v=vs.110%29.aspx" target="_blank" title="New Window">^</a>] class would be a nice example of limiting the amount of parameters required, while still keeping it readable.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
I really think it depends on the requirements of the object and how it fits into the existing code's style.
".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
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: I really think it depends on the requirements of the object and how it fits into the existing code's style. I think it depends on the amount of switches.
Easy example in the ProcessStartInfo[^] class. It does not depend on how it fits into the "style".
Show me a more readable version of the same using a constructor and a param for each switch, then I'll accept it may depend on requirements.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Matching the current coding style goes a long way towards "readability". Besides, I'm not here to argue semantics. I merely stated that there's nothing necessarily wrong with a constructor with eight parameters. There are often many more considerations than "I think this code sucks". I'm not really interested enough to list all the ones I can think of right off the top of my head.
".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
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: Matching the current coding style goes a long way towards "readability". So you'd prefer to implement that same class as a constructor with 16 switches? Show me a "current coding style" where that is more readable than a single class as described on MSDN
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: I'm not really interested enough to list all the ones I can think of right off the top of my head. I did not ask you to.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Yes! And you can try to provide alternative constructors with fewer parameters. Do you really always need 8 parameters?
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
|
|
|
|
|
Taking the same ProcessStartInfo class as an example. Yes, I need those 16 switches, and no, it would not become more readable if you provided an overloaded version of each possible combination.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
It's the only constructor and none of the parameters are optional...
Oh, and did I mention that the whole class has exactly 0 comments?
Regards,
mav
--
Black holes are the places where God divided by 0...
|
|
|
|