|
Yep, that's what I have to do.
First things I recognized:
-> Leap years are a PITA
-> Whoever decided that it is a good idea to have months with 31 and 30 days was a moron.
-> Why not this way:
JAN 31
FEB 31
MAR 31
APR 31
MAY 31
JUN 31
JUL 31
AUG 31
SEP 31
OCT 31
NOV 31
DEC 24 | 25
(Still 365 days, if I counted that correctly).
Okay, maybe we need to move January & February to the old year in order to separate christmas and new years eve'.
Edit: Did I mention that this has to be written in Assembly code?
Veni, vidi, caecus | Everything summarizes to Assembly code
|
|
|
|
|
January should be the short month, it is always a struggle to get through it after Crimbo and New Year!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you, even though I already figured most of it out by myself 
Veni, vidi, caecus | Everything summarizes to Assembly code
|
|
|
|
|
Never doubted you!
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Because Christmas would only come once every 4 years 
|
|
|
|
|
Gonna get your hands dirty eh? 
Good luck Marco!
|
|
|
|
|
If not cut off, yes 
I like Assembler, but it's sometimes a hard shift coming from the OOP side.
Veni, vidi, caecus | Everything summarizes to Assembly code
|
|
|
|
|
Marco Bertschi wrote: I like Assembler, but it's sometimes a hard shift coming from the OOP side.
Assembler and OOP are not generally uttered in the same sentence are they?
|
|
|
|
|
They're not. I still got some patterns from OOP and C (C not as in C++, which would be C++), confusing me every once in a while I have to write Assembler.
Veni, vidi, caecus | Everything summarizes to Assembly code
|
|
|
|
|
I've done that on a Motorola HC08 GP32, don't be wussy not that hard. 
It was broke, so I fixed it.
|
|
|
|
|
So, I had a problem with a stored procedure I wrote a long time ago.
I went to fix it and found this comment that I apparently wrote:
--This is an ugly hack. To whomever has to deal with this in the future. i am sorry.
Yes, I am sorry… 
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, karma is a bitch...
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
One more reason not to comment...
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
|
|
|
|
|
Wow... All I want to say is "serve you right".
But then again, that hack is probably the result of someone else's fault in a previous iteration of the company. So... good luck!
|
|
|
|
|
(sorry).
Veni, vidi, vici.
|
|
|
|
|
The Operative: You know, in certain...older...civilizations, men who had failed as entirely as you have would throw themselves on their swords.
Doctor: Well, I forgot to bring a sword.
The Operative: (draws his sword)
The Operative: Would you be killed in your sleep, like an ailing pet?
The Operative: This is a good death. There is no shame in this, a man's death. A man who has done fine works. ...
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent riposte, as it were.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
And do you forgive yourself?
|
|
|
|
|
Reminds me of when I ran across some crappy image processing code. There was a long comment block with dates above it saying "this code sucks, it needs to be rewritten." I called the last person on that list, who still worked for the company, and she just laughed and agreed that the comment was an understatement. I added my own comment and moved on (it would have taken several weeks to rewrite the code since the effects of changing that relatively small section of code would have rippled far.)
(Then there's the time I started rewriting a confusing class of mine only to hit a blocking problem three days in and only then remembering I'd been there before. I rolled back my changes and put in a comment warning me to stop trying to rewrite the class.)
|
|
|
|
|
Yup. I've got hate lists for all my long running projects with bits of ugly/confusing/unmodifiable/badly designed code that needs rewritten at some point. Occasionally I even have a week to scratch an item off the list.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Woodbury wrote: (Then there's the time I started rewriting a confusing class of mine only to hit a blocking problem three days in and only then remembering I'd been there before. I rolled back my changes and put in a comment warning me to stop trying to rewrite the class.)
Reminds me of the time I wrote this routine to search some structure. As I got into it, I realized the intuitive manner I was writing it was going to lead to a dead end and I rewrote it in a counter-intuitive manner that worked.
I was in a time crunch and another programmer offered to help and so I said I needed a copy of the routine, but addressing another structure, so could he just make the reference changes (Yes, I should have written it in a more flexible form, but that would have taken longer and I believe at the time I thought I only needed it once).
At end of day he gave me the code and then split, I looked at the source and saw that he had not done what I had asked, but had tried to write it in the intuitive manner that I knew looked good, but was not going to work. (sigh) So I pulled an all-nighter to re-do it correctly since I was on a plane flight the next day to install it.
Psychosis at 10
Film at 11
Those who do not remember the past, are doomed to repeat it.
Those who do not remember the past, cannot build upon it.
|
|
|
|
|
BrainiacV wrote: he had not done what I had asked, but had tried to write it in the intuitive manner that I knew looked good, but was not going to work.
I blame this on SDETS, if they didn't exist, the programmer would have to test his own code. Hopefully without the blind spot that bypasses the path that will fail. (I at times am an SDET and just have to shake my head at some of the garbage that gets sent for testing. So this is my fault for agreeing to this work.)
Reminds me of a bug where I wrote something like "It makes absolutely no sense to allow this field to be nullable, but since it is, fix your code to fail gracefully when it is null." Ah, the joys of writing new code to integrate with legacy code.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
