|
That's what you get when after the first review you provide the feedback "it's mostly good but needs more polish" 
|
|
|
|
|
Hahaha, kind of hilarious, but easily avoidable. Should have asked for a code review early in the dev cycle to make sure this new contractor was up to snuff.
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Marynowski wrote: Should have asked for a code review early in the dev cycle to make sure this new contractor was up to snuff.
We shouldn't have asked him "to polish the app a bit".
|
|
|
|
|
Did he use Polish diacritic in the variable names (like "ą ę ó" etc.)? That would be awful. BTW I have no idea what the hell is "Boffo"... it sounds like a joke to me.
Once I was working on a project in which there was a requirement to name database columns in Polish.  Maybe it's because the rest of it was in Deutsch. The code was in English, though, while comments still in Polish...
Greetings - Jacek
|
|
|
|
|
While I was in a telephonic conference at work, I heard someone speak "Can we get someone to enhance the bugs in the application?". I'm still wondering how on Earth someone can enhance a bug. 
|
|
|
|
|
What's so odd about this?? It's done every minute of every day when someone sits in front of a computer and writes code. We call them "features". 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mangement likes what you've done to address the issue, however, they would like to know if you could enhance the feature by using more colors?
It was broke, so I fixed it.
|
|
|
|
|
I knew a guy, and whenever he was asked for a status update:
"I've finished writing all the bugs, and now I'm fixing them."
It always sounds much more confident than admitting it's all broken and nowhere near ready.
|
|
|
|
|
It's easy. I can make better bugs in my code than you can. Sort of like the universe enhances fools every time I manage to program something foolproof.
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr., P. E.
Comport Computing
Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
|
|
|
|
|
Of course, variables changed, methods renamed, and parameters omitted to protect the (not so) innocent.
if (condition_a)
{
if (condition_b)
{
if (AlertBox("Something wrong here. You wanna continue?"))
{
CheckAvailability();
}
}
else if (condition_c)
{
if (AlertBox("Some other thing wrong here. You wanna continue?"))
{
CheckAvailability();
}
}
else
{
CheckAvailability();
}
CheckAvailability();
}
else
{
CheckAvailability();
}
modified 3-Mar-13 11:32am.
|
|
|
|
|
i like the path in which the availability gets checked twice
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like CheckAvailabilty() is void, and has to throw an Exception in case of non-availability.
Consequently, that call has to be wrapped:
try
{
CheckAvailability();
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
if (AlertBox("Some other thing wrong here. You wanna continue?"))
{
CheckAvailability();
}
}
You are right, that guy does not know how to do things correctly!
|
|
|
|
|
That just makes me angry.. 
|
|
|
|
|
REMOVED
Bob Dole The internet is a great way to get on the net.
 2.0.82.7292 SP6a
modified 13-Mar-13 9:30am.
|
|
|
|
|
Of course it works. 
|
|
|
|
|
I think it works be cause the constructor and initialization sections both return a reference to the newly constructed object. But trying to call another function at the end will not work since the show function does not return a reference to the object.
|
|
|
|
|
Do you get paycheck deductions every time you use a semicolon?
Epic misuse, IMHO.
"Bastards encourage idiots to use Oracle Forms, Web Forms, Access and a number of other dinky web publishing tolls.", Mycroft Holmes[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
In that case, it works does not mean you should use it. This is totally unreadable at first. In the professional World, when any day you can be out of project(read job, as worst case) and some other poor sod has to maintain it, this is one of the things that leads to rants and posts in this very forum. 
"Bastards encourage idiots to use Oracle Forms, Web Forms, Access and a number of other dinky web publishing tolls.", Mycroft Holmes[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
I've just seen this wonderful comment in the "Other suggestions" section of one of our beautiful CPP-headers:
|
|
|
|
|
Oy vey. My monitor is only 1680x1050, whatever will I do?
Perhaps whoever wrote that doesn't know that we can choose the size of our text? 
And I suspect he hasn't learned from the past.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: Oy vey. My monitor is only 1680x1050, whatever will I do?
Nothing. May I should have mentioned that the program runs on a closed environment with a fixed screen size? Which makes the comment just more useless
|
|
|
|
|
Marco Bertschi wrote: runs on a closed environment
What does that matter when we're talking about the code?
|
|
|
|
|
With closed environment like I mean: Even the screen size is predefined because the customer receives the medical diagnostic instrument with a built-in computer and a built-in screen which already has been defined in the requirements before a single line of code was written...
So it is not just logically a closed environemtn: It is physically close too.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
