|
string strSql = "select a.Abr,a.Description As"+
" MaterialType,a.Description,a.code,'" + cm.ChipPath +
"'+LEFT(min(m.GraphicID),3)+'/'+min(m.GraphicID)+'.jpg' As ImgPath, " +
" Case a.PackageFlag When 'Y' Then '<a href=# "
+"onclick=javascript:window.open(&#39;/Page/ShowPackageDetails.aspx"
"?PK='+a.Abr+'&#39;,&#39;Package&#39;,&#39;resizable=no,scrollbars=no,width=1000,height=730,left=50,top=50&#39;);>'" +
"+a.Description+'</a>' Else a.Description End As MaterialTypeLink " +
" from Material_Type a "
. . .
OK how do you like this: JavaScript in SQL?
|
|
|
|
|
Where is the horror?
Is it opening a new window in SQL? 
*jaans
|
|
|
|
|
Yea.. but its javascript!
|
|
|
|
|
Tadas Budvytis wrote: OK how do you like this: JavaScript in SQL?
where is the BEEF 
I don't see any horror adding JS in sql, but again I don't know the output. I have added js to a code generation. That way I don't have to mack off with the output at the UI level.
Yusuf
|
|
|
|
|
I agree completely. String substitution in SQL is pretty stupid (it's not very good at string manipulation), non-parameterized SQL queries are very stupid as they're easily subjected to SQL Injection attacks, and both together (and there's a third language here as well, HTML) is just confusing as all hell.
I'd split this up into only retrieving actual values from SQL Server using parameterized queries, writing a real JavaScript function that calls window.open, then writing formatted string code to generate the HTML to call the JavaScript function passing the parameters, and passing that through an HTML/XML entity encoding routine where that turns out to be necessary.
As it is, that's an unmaintainable mess.
DoEvents: Generating unexpected recursion since 1991
|
|
|
|
|
public bool CheckValue(int first, int second)
{
if(first > second)
return true;
else
return false;
}
Folks like this way because it is better than the following way?
return first > second;
modified on Friday, May 30, 2008 1:36 PM
|
|
|
|
|
CheckValue. 
I'd also recommend
public bool IsFirstGreaterThanSecond(int nFirst, int nSecond)
{
..
Chris Meech
I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar]
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra]
Donate to help Conquer Cancer[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
That is legit. The VB to VB.Net migration tool and the VB.Net to C# translation tool did it, so it must be so. 
|
|
|
|
|
che3358 wrote: is better than
Certainly not better, but even MS presenters will do that because it matches what they're saying*.
Unfortunately the newbies in the crowd get the idea that it is the proper way to write it.
It's part of why I voted "Microsoft" to this week's poll.
* That's an assumption, but I saw it several times during the VS 2008 {launch} event, I cringed every time.
|
|
|
|
|
che3358 wrote: Folks like this way because it is better than the following way?
It's a bit easier to set a breakpoint on, is it not? Further, such code may appear in cases where (1) it had at some point been necessary to do more on the 'true' or 'false' case than is now necessary, or (2) it will likely in future be necessary to do more on the 'true' or 'false' cases than is now necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
As someone said before me, it's easier to debug, but I think this is just lack of experience in its best  .
I had my share of awkward code (true horror when compared to this) when I was junior programmer  .
|
|
|
|
|
It may be a bit more verbose, but it's also easily understandable. The generated code may perhaps be less then optimal, but it would be a good candidate for examining the disassemblies to see if any optimisation occurs there.
Even without optimisation this should have little impact unless this method is called very often. So for me it comes down to a readability versus efficiency choice and obviously the tastes are quite different there.
A while ago he asked me what he should have printed on my business cards. I said 'Wizard'.
I read books which nobody else understand. Then I do something which nobody understands. After that the computer does something which nobody understands. When asked, I say things about the results which nobody understand. But everybody expects miracles from me on a regular basis. Looks to me like the classical definition of a wizard.
|
|
|
|
|
love the sig!
WarePhreak
Programmers are tools to convert caffiene to code.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks. I just wonder where all this will end. Today there are many more users, but they have even less knowledge than many users in 'the good old days'. But that does not keep them from thinking that everything can be done with the wave of a hand. Perhaps some already think that you need some kind of mystic powers to get those machines going
A while ago he asked me what he should have printed on my business cards. I said 'Wizard'.
I read books which nobody else understand. Then I do something which nobody understands. After that the computer does something which nobody understands. When asked, I say things about the results which nobody understand. But everybody expects miracles from me on a regular basis. Looks to me like the classical definition of a wizard.
|
|
|
|
|
What I find even worse are some of those same users who have some "tool" (i.e. Access) that they believe makes them a programmer. And then you look at what they've done and it is magic it even works.
WarePhreak
Programmers are tools to convert caffiene to code.
|
|
|
|
|
This ensures the real type to be returned (bool)
if (first > second)
return true;
else
return false;
while this returns the result type of >, which may not be bool (in C for instance, there is no such thing as bool, and if you create your own bool type, you cannot force > to return "your" bool, hence a necessary cast to avoid a level 4 warning for casting an int on an unknown type):
return first > second;
Plus returning the result of an operation is forbidden by some standards in embedded code, for instance (MISRA).
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus
Do not feed the troll ! - Common proverb
|
|
|
|
|
Writing such a function is non-sense. 
Instead: CheckValue(first, second)
write: (first > second)
Greetings from Germany
|
|
|
|
|
che3358 wrote: Folks like this way because it is better
why is it better? 
Yusuf
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, you should scope it with parens:
return (first > second);
On the other hand, why write a function that does that when you could eliminate the overhead and stack usage by doing the comparison in the calling function?
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
int j=0;
for (int i=0; i < a.length; ++i) {
j++;
}
System.out.println("array size=" + j);
|
|
|
|
|
That's a masterpiece! Did your boss coded it?
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
|
|
|
|
|
CPallini wrote: Did your boss coded it?
That is why he is a boss!
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar
Personal Homepage
Tech Gossips
A pessimist sees only the dark side of the clouds, and mopes; a philosopher sees both sides, and shrugs; an optimist doesn't see the clouds at all - he's walking on them. --Leonard Louis Levinson
|
|
|
|
|
Definitely.
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
|
|
|
|
|
Nope, that's from a '20 year experienced' java developer. Found it in a still running webservice which receives orders from our website. This guy is no longer employed, but we have a lot of fun with his work.
|
|
|
|
|
darth_bug wrote: java developer
That explains everything. 
Mostly, when you see programmers, they aren't doing anything. One of the attractive things about programmers is that you cannot tell whether or not they are working simply by looking at them. Very often they're sitting there seemingly drinking coffee and gossiping, or just staring into space. What the programmer is trying to do is get a handle on all the individual and unrelated ideas that are scampering around in his head. (Charles M Strauss)
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
