Coding Horrors: You can gather all your technical debt into one easy framework!

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > The Cavern of COBOL > Coding Horrors: You can gather all your technical debt into one easy framework!

«‹›1501 »

HIERARCHY OF WEEDZ: Aug 1, 2005

You know, it's so difficult to use an integer as an index on an array, we should just throw an eval around it instead.

code:

if(eval("document.frmFoo.optBar[" + idx + "].checked") == true) baz += 3;

# ? Jul 1, 2008 20:18

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 27, 2024 12:49

1337JiveTurkey: Feb 17, 2005

shopvac4christ posted:

You know, it's so difficult to use an integer as an index on an array, we should just throw an eval around it instead.
code:
if(eval("document.frmFoo.optBar[" + idx + "].checked") == true) baz += 3;

If that wasn't autogenerated, there is no God.

# ? Jul 1, 2008 21:36

HIERARCHY OF WEEDZ: Aug 1, 2005

1337JiveTurkey posted:

If that wasn't autogenerated, there is no God.

Well, prepare to have nowhere to go when you die.

# ? Jul 1, 2008 22:29

Dessert Rose: May 17, 2004; awoken in control of a lucid deep dream...

shopvac4christ posted:

Well, prepare to have nowhere to go when you die.

I remember playing in mIRC scripting. There are no arrays in this language (or weren't, yet).

So if I wanted to have, say, an array of players, my best method was

$[player. [ $+ [ $num ] ] ]

Things got worse before they had hashes. If I wanted to load a player's stats into a location...

$[player. [ $+ [ $num ] $+ ] .attack]

I wrote an entire game in this "language".

:suicide:

(I'll try to pull out some examples when I get home.)

# ? Jul 1, 2008 22:49

Plorkyeran: Mar 22, 2007; To Escape The Shackles Of The Old Forums, We Must Reject The Tribal Negativity He Endorsed

shopvac4christ posted:

You know, it's so difficult to use an integer as an index on an array, we should just throw an eval around it instead.
code:
if(eval("document.frmFoo.optBar[" + idx + "].checked") == true) baz += 3;

At least there's a variable involved. I recently had the joy of working with code full of this:

code:

eval("if (document.form1.textField.value == '') document.form1.textField.value = 5;");

I never did figure out what the point of the eval was. I assume it was someone who knew no javascript copying and pasting code written by someone who knew very little javascript and used eval instead of document.form1[fieldName] or document.getElementsByName.

# ? Jul 2, 2008 00:36

jarito: Aug 26, 2003; Biscuit Hider

Here is one from my work:

code:

int transactionSetControl = int.Parse(SystemSettingService.SystemTransactionSetControlNumber);
transactionSetControl++;
string transactionSetControlString = transactionSetControl.ToString();

while (transactionSetControlString.Length < 4)
    transactionSetControlString = "0" + transactionSetControlString;

Issues:
1. TransactionControlNumber stored as a string.
2. Uses a while loop to pad the number.

:sigh:

# ? Jul 2, 2008 14:44

Lexical Unit: Sep 16, 2003

I started working on a new project yesterday so I was reading some of the code trying to get a feel for how things are organized. I noticed two files called DirectoryFileObjects.h and two files called DirectoryFileObjects.cc. I diffed each pair to see what was up, they were the same. So I went into the revision tool and what I see is that one of them is an original and the other is just a copy that is kept in sync with changes made to the original.

Like, the revision comments on one of the pair of files is something like:
- added blah support

And then the revision comments on the other file (for the same change) is:
- synced with master

Why? Because the developer needed some of the functions defined in DirectoryFileObjects.h, but he needed them somewhere else than where the original DirectoryFileObjects.h exists. :psyduck:

And that's not mentioning the 2345 line function in DirectoryFileObjects.cc whose last 14 lines are nothing but closing braces stepping down 14 levels of indentation. :bravo:

# ? Jul 2, 2008 15:10

Teabiscuit: Jul 21, 2005; by T. Finninho

My housemate does horrible things with variable names. His code often looks like this

code:

if (rapefucker1 == cockstick)
{
  for (int SHITCOCK = 0,sodomy > 20,SHITCOCK++)
  {
    ANALRAPE = CUNTBAGS;
    sodomy += ANALRAPE;
    if (sodomy != CUNTFINGERS)
    {
       sodomy = Dicklegs->dropthecunt(sodomy);
    }
  }
}

Sometimes i ask him what certain variables are doing and he says he has no idea but if he takes it out the program breaks.

# ? Jul 3, 2008 19:30

Dessert Rose: May 17, 2004; awoken in control of a lucid deep dream...

Teabiscuit posted:

My housemate does horrible things with variable names. His code often looks like this
code:
if (rapefucker1 == cockstick)
{
  for (int SHITCOCK = 0,sodomy > 20,SHITCOCK++)
  {
    ANALRAPE = CUNTBAGS;
    sodomy += ANALRAPE;
    if (sodomy != CUNTFINGERS)
    {
       sodomy = Dicklegs->dropthecunt(sodomy);
    }
  }
}
Sometimes i ask him what certain variables are doing and he says he has no idea but if he takes it out the program breaks.

This is hilarious.

# ? Jul 3, 2008 19:57

BillWh0re: Aug 6, 2001

Teabiscuit posted:

My housemate does horrible things with variable names. His code often looks like this
code:
if (rapefucker1 == cockstick)
{
  for (int SHITCOCK = 0,sodomy > 20,SHITCOCK++)
  {
    ANALRAPE = CUNTBAGS;
    sodomy += ANALRAPE;
    if (sodomy != CUNTFINGERS)
    {
       sodomy = Dicklegs->dropthecunt(sodomy);
    }
  }
}
Sometimes i ask him what certain variables are doing and he says he has no idea but if he takes it out the program breaks.

Dotfuscator should work like this.

# ? Jul 3, 2008 21:11

rotor: Jun 11, 2001; classic case of pineapple derangement syndrome

ryanmfw posted:

Minus the social part, yeah. I didn't go to them to meet people. It was a lot more fun crushing their hopes and dreams....

Demented and sad, but social.

# ? Jul 3, 2008 21:37

Jo: Jan 24, 2005; Soiled Meat

Teabiscuit posted:

My housemate does horrible things with variable names. His code often looks like this
code:
  for (int SHITCOCK = 0,sodomy > 20,SHITCOCK++)
Sometimes i ask him what certain variables are doing and he says he has no idea but if he takes it out the program breaks.

Buy him an account here. Username: SHITCOCK++

# ? Jul 4, 2008 00:17

ohgodwhat: Aug 6, 2005

rotor posted:

Demented and sad, but social.

Oh please, they all played WoW, so they thought they were good at computers with the associated egos. The one team gave up 30 minutes into it to play some flash version of DDR. :v:

# ? Jul 4, 2008 04:50

Sergeant Rock: Apr 28, 2002; "... call the expert at kissing and stuff..."

It's from The Breakfast Club. Don't you forget about that film.

# ? Jul 4, 2008 10:09

PrBacterio: Jul 19, 2000

Smackbilly posted:

Agreed. We don't need a full whacko APL keyboard, but it would be pretty nice to at least have characters for basic set operations (intersect, union, subset, superset), and a single glyph for -> on normal keyboards. I'd even be happy with settling for a bigraph for subset-or-equal and superset-or-equal.

Well I don't necessarily know about those, but I would very much welcome being able to use the proper glyphs, i.e. ≠, ≤ and ≥, for comparisons, instead of !=, <= and >=. (I'm also one of those people who'd prefer the Pascal-style syntax of = as the comparison operator with := being used for assignments, instead of the C-style == for a comparison operator...)

# ? Jul 4, 2008 14:46

tef: May 30, 2004; -> some l-system crap ->

PrBacterio posted:

I'm also one of those people who'd prefer the Pascal-style syntax of = as the comparison operator with := being used for assignments, instead of the C-style == for a comparison operator...)

= is for unification :v:

(Which is a mixture of non-destructive asignment and equality, X=3 succeeds if X is unbound (so, x is set to 3) or X is already set to 3. )

# ? Jul 4, 2008 15:41

Flobbster: Feb 17, 2005; "Cadet Kirk, after the way you cheated on the Kobayashi Maru test I oughta punch you in tha face!"

PrBacterio posted:

Well I don't necessarily know about those, but I would very much welcome being able to use the proper glyphs, i.e. ≠, ≤ and ≥, for comparisons, instead of !=, <= and >=.

Sounds like you'd like Applescript! :v:

quote:

(I'm also one of those people who'd prefer the Pascal-style syntax of = as the comparison operator with := being used for assignments, instead of the C-style == for a comparison operator...)

The one true assignment operator is ← :colbert:

code:

int x &#8592; 5;
if (x = 5) printf("this will always run k");

In my ideal world, ← would be for assignment, = for equality (overloadable), and ≡ for identity (point to the same object/address in memory).

# ? Jul 4, 2008 23:54

Jo: Jan 24, 2005; Soiled Meat

Flobbster posted:

In my ideal world, ← would be for assignment, = for equality (overloadable), and ≡ for identity (point to the same object/address in memory).

If those were easily typable, I'd support your endeavor whole heartedly.

\/\/ Not working.

Jo fucked around with this message at 02:26 on Jul 7, 2008

# ? Jul 5, 2008 05:38

TheSleeper: Feb 20, 2003

Jo posted:

If those were easily typable, I'd support your endeavor whole heartedly.

What, you have a problem typing alt+27 every time you want to assign to a variable?

# ? Jul 5, 2008 09:10

PrBacterio: Jul 19, 2000

Jo posted:

If those were easily typable, I'd support your endeavor whole heartedly.

That'd work too, yes. Really I'm only bothered about that there already exists a perfectly good equality operator in '=', but because of some stupid historical accident most programming languages forego using it for some ugly hacks like '==' (and by now there's even worse horrors like '==='). Really, either an arrow or the good old-fashioned Pascal-style colon-equals would make for perfectly good assignment operators, I don't care.

# ? Jul 5, 2008 12:23

Vanadium: Jan 8, 2005

But assignment is way more common than testing equality, so it deserves the shorter operator!

# ? Jul 5, 2008 12:47

OneEightHundred: Feb 28, 2008; Soon, we will be unstoppable!

Flobbster posted:

Sounds like you'd like Applescript!

I'd like it too if Windows let you type extended characters as easily as MacOS does.

# ? Jul 5, 2008 22:33

JoeNotCharles: Mar 3, 2005; Yet beyond each tree there are only more trees.

Vanadium posted:

But assignment is way more common than testing equality, so it deserves the shorter operator!

Also it has the same length as <=, >= and != which appeals to the symmetry-loving.

# ? Jul 8, 2008 14:35

zootm: Aug 8, 2006; We used to be better friends.

I remember catching this one time in production C# code at an old job:

code:

try
{
    // Code here...
}
catch( Exception )
{
    int i = 0;
}

The explanation for this craziness was "I needed to put a breakpoint there". Gah.

# ? Jul 8, 2008 19:34

HicRic: Dec 4, 2006; To disagree with three-fourths of the British public is one of the first requisites of sanity.

zootm posted:

I remember catching this one time in production C# code at an old job:
code:
try
{
    // Code here...
}
catch( Exception )
{
    int i = 0;
}
The explanation for this craziness was "I needed to put a breakpoint there". Gah.

Actually, I'm guilty of doing this sometimes, but I always remove it afterwards. (hell, I even use the exact same "int i = 0"!) Is there a more correct way?

# ? Jul 8, 2008 21:49

ehnus: Apr 16, 2003; Now you're thinking with portals!

In C# you can use System.Diagnostics.Debugger.Break(). C/C++ often have platform-specific ways of triggering a debug break point, and on PCs there's always interrupt 3. I'm not sure about other languages but they often have their own ways of breaking into the debugger

# ? Jul 8, 2008 21:52

zootm: Aug 8, 2006; We used to be better friends.

In most Java debuggers, and I suspect in VS by now, you can set the system to break on exception. In any case I imagine putting at least a throw; in there would be preferable for when you forget to remove the code, so the semantics don't change.

# ? Jul 8, 2008 22:01

Volte: Oct 4, 2004; woosh woosh

Can't you just put the breakpoint on the closing brace?

# ? Jul 8, 2008 22:13

RoadCrewWorker: Nov 19, 2007; camels aren't so great

zootm posted:

In most Java debuggers, and I suspect in VS by now, you can set the system to break on exception. In any case I imagine putting at least a throw; in there would be preferable for when you forget to remove the code, so the semantics don't change.

Thanks for pointing that out since im guilty of using senseless brakelines as well, ill have a look at that. Still, how would declaring a block variable that gets lost after the catch{} is done change the semantics of the program?

# ? Jul 8, 2008 22:20

Victor: Jun 18, 2004

Unless a throw was omitted from the catch{} statement above, then adding the catch{} changes the semantics to the exception being handled. Not good!

# ? Jul 8, 2008 22:29

zootm: Aug 8, 2006; We used to be better friends.

RoadCrewWorker posted:

Still, how would declaring a block variable that gets lost after the catch{} is done change the semantics of the program?

The exception isn't re-thrown; an exception that would otherwise propagate is silently ignored.

It really is best to avoid munging your program at all to make it "easier to debug"; this sort of thing can be too easy to leave in to a stage where it's more expensive to find and fix.

Volte posted:

Can't you just put the breakpoint on the closing brace?

In most languages you can't breakpoint on a line that isn't executed; braces are just syntax.

# ? Jul 8, 2008 22:55

OneEightHundred: Feb 28, 2008; Soon, we will be unstoppable!

ehnus posted:

In C# you can use System.Diagnostics.Debugger.Break(). C/C++ often have platform-specific ways of triggering a debug break point, and on PCs there's always interrupt 3. I'm not sure about other languages but they often have their own ways of breaking into the debugger

Having a do-nothing line is nice from a portability standpoint. Still, hasn't the stack already been unwound after the exception's been thrown, making it somewhat useless?

quote:

I suspect in VS by now, you can set the system to break on exception.

I'm still trying to find this.

OneEightHundred fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Jul 8, 2008

# ? Jul 8, 2008 23:04

Volte: Oct 4, 2004; woosh woosh

zootm posted:

In most languages you can't breakpoint on a line that isn't executed; braces are just syntax.

Well it works in Eclipse with MinGW/GDB. :colbert:

# ? Jul 8, 2008 23:14

zootm: Aug 8, 2006; We used to be better friends.

OneEightHundred posted:

I'm still trying to find this.

I've no idea, I'm afraid I don't use Windows so finding it is kinda impossible for me.

Edit: I lie, Google apparently knows about these things. See under Breaking on Exceptions on this page.

Volte posted:

Well it works in Eclipse with MinGW/GDB.

That is some crazy-rear end poo poo. Good stuff though, would be nice if that worked more often.

zootm fucked around with this message at 23:21 on Jul 8, 2008

# ? Jul 8, 2008 23:19

more falafel please: Feb 26, 2005; forums poster

zootm posted:

I've no idea, I'm afraid I don't use Windows so finding it is kinda impossible for me.

Edit: I lie, Google apparently knows about these things. See under Breaking on Exceptions on this page.

That is some crazy-rear end poo poo. Good stuff though, would be nice if that worked more often.

$10 completely fake dollars says it doesn't work with GCC and -O3.

As ehnus said, there's always int 3 (which can also be triggered with *(int*)13 = 3;

Coincidentally, *(int*)13 = 3 is a pretty good way of causing a breakpoint (not always a recoverable one) on any platform

# ? Jul 9, 2008 02:41

JoeNotCharles: Mar 3, 2005; Yet beyond each tree there are only more trees.

zootm posted:

In most languages you can't breakpoint on a line that isn't executed; braces are just syntax.

You certainly can in Visual C and Visual C#, I do it every day.

# ? Jul 9, 2008 10:01

CeciPipePasPipe: Aug 18, 2004; This pipe not pipe!!

CeciPipePasPipe posted:

Uh, wouldn't *(int*)13 = 3 cause a general protection fault (and possibly a bus error on archs that require aligned memory access), because you're trying to write the value 0x00000003 into memory at location 0x000000D ? I don't see how this has anything to do with interrupt 3.

Interrupt 3 is a break to debugger. Causing a general protection fault will also stop execution and drop you to the debugger in most cases.

The only disadvantage is that you normally can't hit F5 and continue execution after hitting the latter, as you can with the former.

Personally, I use a 'DEBUG_BREAK()' macro which is defined on a per-platform basis.

# ? Jul 9, 2008 12:30

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 27, 2024 12:49

CeciPipePasPipe: Aug 18, 2004; This pipe not pipe!!

TSDK posted:

Interrupt 3 is a break to debugger. Causing a general protection fault will also stop execution and drop you to the debugger in most cases.

The only disadvantage is that you normally can't hit F5 and continue execution after hitting the latter, as you can with the former.

Personally, I use a 'DEBUG_BREAK()' macro which is defined on a per-platform basis.

Oh ok, wouldn't it be easier to just do "int breakme=1/0;" or something then?

# ? Jul 9, 2008 12:33

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > The Cavern of COBOL > Coding Horrors: You can gather all your technical debt into one easy framework!

«‹›1501 »

code:

shopvac4christ posted:

code:

1337JiveTurkey posted:

shopvac4christ posted:

shopvac4christ posted:

code:

code:

code:

code:

Teabiscuit posted:

code:

Teabiscuit posted:

code:

ryanmfw posted:

Teabiscuit posted:

code:

rotor posted:

Smackbilly posted:

PrBacterio posted:

PrBacterio posted:

quote:

code:

Flobbster posted:

Jo posted:

Jo posted:

Flobbster posted:

Vanadium posted:

code:

zootm posted:

code:

zootm posted:

RoadCrewWorker posted:

Volte posted:

ehnus posted:

quote:

zootm posted:

OneEightHundred posted:

Volte posted:

zootm posted:

more falafel please posted:

zootm posted:

more falafel please posted:

CeciPipePasPipe posted:

TSDK posted: