Illusive gently caress Man posted:

is there some gcc flag I can add so when he writes unreadable garbage like this, it won't compile? or am i the idiot for not being able to understand this at a glance?

Jewel posted:

You just have to enable -Wunreadable-code. Maybe -Why for good measure.

Jewel posted:

-Why

Centripetal Horse posted:

This is the funniest thing I've read in this thread. I'm not entirely sure why, but the idea of this type of petty sabotage is hilarious to me. I actually laughed out loud at the thought of the poor bastard's confusion when gcc starts choking on his perfectly-fine-until-then code.

GrumpyDoctor posted:

Suspicious Dish posted:

Window menus are kernel objects and are rendered in kernel mode.

PrBacterio posted:

Wait, is that actually true? The WndProc's for the WinAPI's builtin window classes run in kernel mode? Why on earth would they do that, I would have expected that to just live somewhere in Win32.dll or thereabouts Or is it ONLY the menus that do that, while, say, a listbox or button still runs in userland, as you would expect. But that would make even less sense, because why then isn't that also the case for menus.

Harik posted:

That's some ugly-rear end workarounds for type punning, I think. I've played games like that when dealing with structured data on the wire, but I try to isolate it to a single function that's very clearly unpacking a char* buf into a C-struct.

I think it's doing this:

C code:

unsigned char offset;
memcpy(&offset, (unsigned char *)padded_src +i + current_block*4, 1);
memcpy((unsigned char *)&temp+3-i, byte_conversion+offset, 1);        

None of that explains why the mess is doing what it's doing, but at least the different steps are somewhat easier to follow. It's still awful and there's no excuse for it in 1990, much less 2014. It'd probably be easier to just explain what the code is actually doing:

C code:

/* <coworker> has volunteered to maintain this mess forever. */

Jewel posted:

-Why

LOOK I AM A TURTLE posted:

Would -Why explain the reasoning and justification behind obscure pieces of code? If it does I'd like to apply it to this if-statement (named changed slightly):

C# code:

if ((module == null && configGroup == null) ||
	(module == null && configGroup.ConfigurationGroupId ==
	config.ConfigurationGroup.ConfigurationGroupId) ||
	(configGroup == null && config.Module != null && module.ModuleId == config.Module.ModuleId) || 
	(configGroup == null && config.Module == null) ||
	(configGroup!= null && module!= null && config.Module != null && 
	configGroup.ConfigurationGroupId == config.ConfigurationGroup.ConfigurationGroupId &&
	module.ModuleId == config.Module.ModuleId) ||
	(configGroup!= null && module!= null && config.Module == null && 
	configGroup.ConfigurationGroupId == config.ConfigurationGroup.ConfigurationGroupId))
{
    // Do something.
}

qntm posted:

I don't know of any way to automagically explain or simplify that condition, but provided C# doesn't have any weirdness, it's equivalent to:

C# code:

if (
	(
		module == null ||
		config.Module == null ||
		module.ModuleId == config.Module.ModuleId
	) &&
	(
		configGroup == null ||
		configGroup.ConfigurationGroupId == config.ConfigurationGroup.ConfigurationGroupId
	)
) {
    // Do something.
}

qntm posted:

I don't know of any way to automagically explain or simplify that condition, but provided C# doesn't have any weirdness, it's equivalent to:

C# code:

if (
	(
		module == null ||
		config.Module == null ||
		module.ModuleId == config.Module.ModuleId
	) &&
	(
		configGroup == null ||
		configGroup.ConfigurationGroupId == config.ConfigurationGroup.ConfigurationGroupId
	)
) {
    // Do something.
}

Subjunctive posted:

A tool that did such simplification automatically would print money.

Ithaqua posted:

ReSharper does that in the .NET world, and yes, it prints money.

[edit]
Okay, it doesn't handle that particular monstrosity. But in general it can simplify expressions.

Subjunctive posted:

Allocating in hashCode sounds like a horror to me.

Sedro posted:

I just found out the hard way that java.net.URL's equals and hashCode make DNS lookups. What the hell were they thinking?

Illusive gently caress Man posted:

code:

    // For each 32 bit block in the input, reverse it and place it at the end of the output buffer
    while(current_block < padded_len/4) {
        i = 0;
        while(i < 4) {
            *(((unsigned char *)(&temp))+3-i) = *(byte_conversion+(*((unsigned char *)padded_src+i+(current_block*4))));
            i++;
        }
        *((uint32_t *)dest+(current_block)) = temp;
        current_block++;
    }
}

Sebbe posted:

In case you haven't seen it, here's a relevant video about that.

Ithaqua posted:

In a client's codebase:

code:

public enum LastProcessStatuses
{
    success,
    fail,
    budget
}

It's almost as good as the classic DailyWTF entry of "True, False, FileNotFound"

1337JiveTurkey posted:

Perfect for a microtransaction-filled future where your procedure will return once you pay 50 IntelPoints.

Sebbe posted:

In case you haven't seen it, here's a relevant video about that.

ATM Machine posted:

The more I learn about Java, the more I scream

ATM Machine posted:

The more I learn about Java, the more I scream

Soricidus posted:

Here's the fun part: the same kinds of gotchas certainly also exist in every language you like. You probably just don't know yet, because only a handful of languages, including Java, are sufficiently widely used and well understood for many people to be aware of such flaws.

Subjunctive posted:

A tool that did such simplification automatically would print money.

thathonkey posted:

Why is it that mediocre programmers think that writing mediocre code will grant them job security? Im so sick of hearing people say this "jokingly" when faced with criticisms (then they keep doing the same mediocre poo poo).

thathonkey posted:

Why is it that mediocre programmers think that writing mediocre code will grant them job security? Im so sick of hearing people say this "jokingly" when faced with criticisms (then they keep doing the same mediocre poo poo).

Internet Janitor posted:

Also in Java those gotchas exist predictably across platforms, rather than being related to the particular compiler, runtime library, computer architecture and phase of the moon under which your code was compiled and run.

Hughlander posted:

Count yourself lucky if you never came across a platform specific jvm issue. Not even talking about oracle vs open. We have a test suite of 2000+ tests that pass on OSX and hang on a deadlock in the test runner on Linux. Guess what our prod environment is.

Hughlander posted:

Count yourself lucky if you never came across a platform specific jvm issue. Not even talking about oracle vs open. We have a test suite of 2000+ tests that pass on OSX and hang on a deadlock in the test runner on Linux. Guess what our prod environment is.

Ithaqua posted:

I did two days of unit testing training with one of my clients last week. It was pretty great, they went from not understanding the difference between a unit test and an integration test to actively discussing the pros and cons of methods of IOC and how they're going to tackle isolating their dependencies going forward.

However, they had a consultant go in and write them a shitload of "unit" tests 4 or 5 years ago. The consultant didn't understand unit testing, they didn't understand unit testing, and no one really cared about the results enough to run them, anyway. They have about 800 tests, 300 fail because of database dependencies. They do have some unit tests in there, though, and some of them are theoretically valuable. They asked me to take a look at their tests and ferret out the real unit tests and see if any of the integration tests are salvageable. It's a worthless task, but hey, it's billable work.

Not surprisingly, most are not. However, I came across one little corner of the application where someone chose to use Spring .NET for IOC. I was shocked! They wrapped Spring .NET up in a factory, so you can request an object, and Spring gives you back the appropriate implementation as defined in an XML file. I'm pretty much totally unfamiliar with Spring .NET, but the approach seemed solid.

Their factory class is a singleton. In the constructor, they use the following logic to determine where to read the configuration XML from:

code:

            string[] paths = new string[1];

            string handlerLocation = SiteSettings.HandlerLocation;

            if (handlerLocation.StartsWith("/"))
            {
                if (HttpContext.Current != null)
                {
                    paths[0] = HttpContext.Current.Server.MapPath(handlerLocation);
                }
                else
                {
                    paths[0] = SiteSettings.GetString("WebRootPath") + handlerLocation;
                }
            }
            else
            {
                paths[0] = handlerLocation;
            }

            _ctx = new XmlApplicationContext(paths);

SiteSettings is their custom wrapper around Commerce Server, which is some sort of eCommerce solution that I know nothing about, but requires a full application installation and database in order to function.

So their IOC container is tightly coupled to a database and an installation of some software on the machine where the tests are going to run. Minimum.