Victor posted:

code:

string clientStr = this
    .publishToClients
    .OfType<PublishToSetting>()
    .Select(c => string.Format("{0}:{1}:{2}:{3}", c.Alias, c.Ip, c.Port, c.TheProtocol))
    .Join(",");

(string Join(string delimiter) is a method I made, because MS didn't include it by default, for some odd reason.)

Lexical Unit posted:

Sometimes I'll do this like if I'm returning a the boolean value of an expression or using ?: or something, just to bring attention to it. So like return (foo ? "foo" : "not foo"); or return (a && (b || c));. I don't know, it also looks somehow cleaner to my mind. VV

yaoi prophet posted:

poo poo, if I can get a few people to sleepily stare at my code for a few seconds during a code review, that's a good day.

Jethro posted:

Maybe they don't trust the collection.getDetails().size() method?

JoeNotCharles posted:

Can't speak for Java, but in C++ length() would almost certainly be simple enough to inline. That's not the whole story, though, since I don't believe inlining works when length() is in a shared library, which it probably is. (I think you can get inlining to work across library boundaries, but you have to do extra work? I dunno, I should read up on this.)

Zombywuf posted:

Words fail me.

Karanth posted:

pseudorandom name posted:

It's doing that for every language right now, although that's probably just it being broken in Firefox.

PhonyMcRingRing posted:

BlogEngine.NET's javascript library is littered with this kind of crap. I'm sure glad they managed to parse that date three times.

code:

function formatJSONDate(jsonDate) {
   var date = new Date(parseInt(jsonDate.substr(6), 10));
   var parsedDate = Date.parse(date);
   var d = new Date(parsedDate);
   var m = d.getMonth() + 1;
   var s = m + "/" + d.getDate() + "/" + d.getFullYear();
  
   if(s == "1/1/1001") {
      return "";
   } else {
      return s;
   }
}

ColdPie posted:

What's the commit message?

Internet Janitor posted:

Oh man I just had a great idea! Instead of using confusing syntax like /**/ and // to add my comments, I could just create a class for commenting:

evensevenone posted:

it's the end of the quarter, and I already wrote transpose, so why waste time?

code:

GraphRef copyGraph(GraphRef G)
{
	return transpose(transpose(G));
}

npe posted:

I've also seen "Bug: Square Peg does not fit into Round Hole", which exists solely so that tickets can be closed as a duplicate of it....

Hammerite posted:

I'd like to be able to disagree, but I looked over Alexei's example and couldn't deduce the rules it uses to evaluate that expression to "horse". Still, if I were at all unsure about the precedence, I'd just slap a few pairs of brackets in so as to make it clear what should happen, so I don't really see the problem.

VerySolidSnake posted:

Ever since I stopped accommodating IE6 I haven't used a single hack. CSS is great and simple if you know what your doing. If you still think tables are a good idea you really need to pick up a new book on website development.

The main problem with CSS is that 90% of the tutorial websites out there give out either outdated our completely wrong techniques.

Mr. Crow posted:

The true coding horror: I'm being bitched at for not 'creating a design' for a task that took <30 minutes to implement and fully test.

So now I get to go back and spend probably 2+ hours "designing" the task out (manually mirror the code from source into EnterpriseArchitect, add explanations for stuff in a design doc and potentially add sequence diagrams to EA), getting it reviewed and addressing any 'defects' found.


An effective use of everyone's time.

Illusive gently caress Man posted:

i just loving hate all the code this guy writes. loving full of

C code:

#include <log.h>                                // for logging functions

C code:

    int i = 0;												// simple counter

Soricidus posted:

This is true, but only because the option exists to build an app with an Excel user interface driven by VBA.

WHERE MY HAT IS AT posted:

code:

def sum(a, b):
    if (a == 1 and b == 1):
        return 2

    return 1

Correct code! No worries, I'll just add more ifs for different inputs as I write tests for them.

Steve French posted:

Or maybe you choose not to implement your code only considering the narrow circumstances of one test at a time, and you realize from the get go that an if statement for every combination of inputs is loving stupid, and avoid wasting your time.

Steve French posted:

To be more specific, I'm referring to the idea of intentionally writing and repeatedly revising an incomplete/incorrect implementation of a method to pass successive tests, rather than starting with a best effort of code and tests (regardless of which is written first), and then tweaking the code/tests and adding more tests as necessary to handle unforeseen edge cases.