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!

«‹›1502 »

wrok: Mar 24, 2006; by angerbotSD

Janin posted:

They wrap every "cryptic" function with a "properly named" one, usually without bothering to figure out the exact behavior of the function being wrapped:

unlink -> TryToRemoveFile
rand -> GenerateRandomNumber, GenerateRandomNumberEx
stat -> ReadFileInfo, ReadFileInfoW

etc

Okay, so 'TryToRemoveFile' is pretty bad. As is Ex and W.

Verbose names though? Sorry my IDE autocompletes and I can name things descriptively :ohdear:

# ? Apr 10, 2010 01:26

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 29, 2024 07:52

Avenging Dentist: Oct 1, 2005; oh my god is that a circular saw that does not go in my mouth aaaaagh

wrok posted:

Verbose names though? Sorry my IDE autocompletes and I can name things descriptively

Goondolences about your small vocabulary.

# ? Apr 10, 2010 02:27

Captain Capacitor: Jan 21, 2008; The code you say?

Avenging Dentist posted:

Goondolences about your small vocabulary.

Suppose it could be worse, PHP devs seems to like the complete opposite of the spectrum, i.e. T_PAAMAYIM_NEKUDOTAYIM.

(Yes, I'm well aware of the etymological reasons behind this name)

# ? Apr 10, 2010 06:15

Ogive: Dec 22, 2002; by Lowtax

Avenging Dentist posted:

Goondolences about your small vocabulary.

I was going to complain, but then I typed "Goondo" about your small vocabulary.

# ? Apr 10, 2010 18:39

Scaevolus: Apr 16, 2007

Captain Capacitor posted:

(Yes, I'm well aware of the etymological reasons behind this name)

It doesn't make it any less of a horror.

# ? Apr 10, 2010 19:29

Blotto Skorzany: Nov 7, 2008; He's a PSoC, loose and runnin'
came the whisper from each lip
And he's here to do some business with
the bad ADC on his chip
bad ADC on his chiiiiip

615 Line switch statement to parse "I can't believe it's not HTML" badly

(from the source code of pidgin, in gtkimhtml.c)

# ? Apr 11, 2010 06:58

BigRedDot: Mar 6, 2008

Otto Skorzeny posted:

(from the source code of pidgin, in gtkimhtml.c)

from here, there are naught but coding horrors.

Also, the pidgin devs are arrogant dicks.

# ? Apr 11, 2010 07:25

Avenging Dentist: Oct 1, 2005; oh my god is that a circular saw that does not go in my mouth aaaaagh

Also Pidgin is terrible and I was really psyched when I found out that Gnome got rid of it as the default IM client until I found out they replaced it with Empathy.

# ? Apr 11, 2010 07:32

Janitor Prime: Jan 22, 2004; PC LOAD LETTER

What da fuck does that mean; Fun Shoe

Avenging Dentist posted:

Also Pidgin is terrible and I was really psyched when I found out that Gnome got rid of it as the default IM client until I found out they replaced it with Empathy.

You are the coding horror. You should never be psyched for any IM that runs on Linux.

# ? Apr 11, 2010 07:48

BigRedDot: Mar 6, 2008

hurp durp durp

# ? Apr 11, 2010 07:52

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

code:

                case 23:    /* TITLE */
                    /* FIXME: what was this supposed to do anyway? */
                    title++;
                    break;
                case 24:    /* /TITLE */
                    /* FIXME: make this undo whatever 23 was supposed to do */

# ? Apr 11, 2010 12:25

Captain Capacitor: Jan 21, 2008; The code you say?

code:

if (font->face && (atoi(font->face) > 100))
 {
                            /* WTF is this? */
                            /* Maybe it sets a max size on the font face?  I seem to
                             * remember bad things happening if the font size was
                             * 2 billion */
                            g_free(font->face);
                            font->face = g_strdup("100");
}

# ? Apr 11, 2010 18:02

Shumagorath: Jun 6, 2001

Otto Skorzeny posted:

615 Line switch statement to parse "I can't believe it's not HTML" badly

(from the source code of pidgin, in gtkimhtml.c)

Ahahaha, pidgin. I can't believe I put up with that program just to have three people I didn't actually know on AIM. I'm so glad I switched to MSN + A-Patch right around when they started having a code fork feud over allowing Shift+Enter to send.

# ? Apr 11, 2010 18:46

floWenoL: Oct 23, 2002

BigRedDot posted:

from here, there are naught but coding horrors.

A gtk horror, from the Chromium valgrind suppressions file:

code:

{
   gtk developers don't like cleaning up one-time leaks.  See [url]http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-devel-list/2004-April/msg00230.html[/url]
   Memcheck:Leak
   ...
   fun:gtk_init_check
}

# ? Apr 11, 2010 19:02

NotShadowStar: Sep 20, 2000

Otto Skorzeny posted:

615 Line switch statement to parse "I can't believe it's not HTML" badly

(from the source code of pidgin, in gtkimhtml.c)

It's really true, a state machine lexical parser is too :psyduck:

for the average coder. The person who wrote this needs to be chained in a basement with nothing but Ragel and water for a week.

# ? Apr 11, 2010 23:59

HFX: Nov 29, 2004

I thought my coworkers were the only ones who coded like that.

Also, the next person who tells me Object Orientation sucks because V-Pointers make everything slow, I think I'm going to shove that case statement in their face.

# ? Apr 12, 2010 01:15

pokeyman: Nov 26, 2006; That elephant ate my entire platoon.

What do objects and that switch statement have in common? Or why would that shut them up in that debate?

# ? Apr 12, 2010 01:21

HFX: Nov 29, 2004

pokeyman posted:

What do objects and that switch statement have in common? Or why would that shut them up in that debate?

The people who have complained that they hate object orientation because it is slow tend to write their code like the linked switch statement. Or more appropriately, they will try to write something using a switch to avoid using object v-pointers. Overtime however, the switch statement dissolves into similar statements as above.

# ? Apr 12, 2010 01:28

pokeyman: Nov 26, 2006; That elephant ate my entire platoon.

Oh, ok. Carry on with the unmasking of the incompetent coworkers!

# ? Apr 12, 2010 03:06

Crazy RRRussian: Mar 5, 2010; by Fistgrrl

HFX posted:

The people who have complained that they hate object orientation because it is slow tend to write their code like the linked switch statement. Or more appropriately, they will try to write something using a switch to avoid using object v-pointers. Overtime however, the switch statement dissolves into similar statements as above.

By this, do you mean using polymorphism and passing a pointer of super class type and calling virtual functions on it?

# ? Apr 12, 2010 14:39

HFX: Nov 29, 2004

LockeNess Monster posted:

By this, do you mean using polymorphism and passing a pointer of super class type and calling virtual functions on it?

This is what I usually see:

code:


int somefunction (struct/object whatever) {
switch (whatever->specialcode) {
case 1: 
     someline;
     someline2;
     someline3;
     break;
case 2:
     someline;
     someline2;
     someline3;
     someotherline;
     break;
case 3:
     someline;
     someline2;
     someline3;
     someotherline2;
     break;
...
case 50something: 
     someline;
     someline2;
     someline3;
     someotherline51;
     break;
}

That pretty much sums up most of the switch statements I see. Occasionally one will get creative and wrap a few cases together with a fall through to some common code. I've yet to see one bind to a struct a function pointer to avoid the switch statement. I tried showing one how when creating the struct, since he always knew what code he wanted to call he could use a function pointer in the struct to call it. He then tried to use it in a switch statement. :psyduck:

So yes, it seems many of them while "knowing" Java, C++, whatever else, don't understand polymorphism, inheritance, etc. Every datastructure usually ends up being an array or if I'm lucky a containerized array. I might get a hashmap if the language has good support for it. Linked lists, trees, etc can be a total crap shoot.

I shouldn't say all my coworkers are that way. Some are very good and have good practices. Unfortunately, most of them leave after a year or two.

HFX fucked around with this message at 16:01 on Apr 12, 2010

# ? Apr 12, 2010 15:55

Zombywuf: Mar 29, 2008

HFX posted:

This is what I usually see:

code:

int somefunction (struct/object whatever) {
switch (whatever->specialcode) {
case 1: 
     someline;
     someline2;
     someline3;
     break;
case 2:
     someline;
     someline2;
     someline3;
     someotherline;
     break;
case 3:
     someline;
     someline2;
     someline3;
     someotherline2;
     break;
...
case 50something: 
     someline;
     someline2;
     someline3;
     someotherline51;
     break;
}

This has nothing to do with the switch statement from pidgin's HTML parser.

# ? Apr 12, 2010 21:12

Gashroom: Jul 13, 2005

floWenoL posted:

A gtk horror, from the Chromium valgrind suppressions file:

code:

{
   gtk developers don't like cleaning up one-time leaks.  See [url]http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-devel-list/2004-April/msg00230.html[/url]
   Memcheck:Leak
   ...
   fun:gtk_init_check
}

Even the simplest Qt application has a bazillion leak reports as GTK, Fontconfig etc. don't bother fixing their trivial leaks.

# ? Apr 13, 2010 12:11

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

Encountered today:

code:

public:
//private:

It's not as elaborately and stupid as most of these other coding horrors but it still makes me wonder what the intent was, why this was done, and if I can change it back without breaking people who may be depending on these private members now being public.

ehnus fucked around with this message at 04:32 on Apr 14, 2010

# ? Apr 14, 2010 01:49

Mustach: Mar 2, 2003; In this long line, there's been some real strange genes. You've got 'em all, with some extras thrown in.

Do it.

# ? Apr 14, 2010 02:03

A A 2 3 5 8 K: Nov 24, 2003; Illiteracy... what does that word even mean?

ehnus posted:

code:
public:
//private:
It's not as elaborately and stupid as most of these other coding horrors but it still makes me wonder what the intent was, why this was done, and can I change it back without breaking people who may be depending on these private members now being public.

Always make backward-incompatible changes after consulting a group of strangers on the internet but before consulting your team.

# ? Apr 14, 2010 02:14

Shavnir: Apr 5, 2005; A MAN'S DREAM CAN NEVER DIE

ehnus posted:

Encountered today:
code:
public:
//private:
It's not as elaborately and stupid as most of these other coding horrors but it still makes me wonder what the intent was, why this was done, and can I change it back without breaking people who may be depending on these private members now being public.

Ask them loudly in front of the non-technical staff to stop exposing their privates. :v:

# ? Apr 14, 2010 02:18

ToxicFrog: Apr 26, 2008

ehnus posted:

Encountered today:
code:
public:
//private:
It's not as elaborately and stupid as most of these other coding horrors but it still makes me wonder what the intent was, why this was done, and can I change it back without breaking people who may be depending on these private members now being public.

If this were any other thread, I would say "check the version control logs".

# ? Apr 14, 2010 02:50

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

A A 2 3 5 8 K posted:

Always make backward-incompatible changes after consulting a group of strangers on the internet but before consulting your team.

That wasn't a question for this thread, I guess my original wording wasn't clear enough.

I know who made this change but they are no longer with my company.

# ? Apr 14, 2010 04:36

Mr.Radar: Nov 5, 2005; You guys aren't going to believe this, but that guy is our games teacher.

ehnus posted:

Encountered today:
code:
public:
//private:
It's not as elaborately and stupid as most of these other coding horrors but it still makes me wonder what the intent was, why this was done, and if I can change it back without breaking people who may be depending on these private members now being public.

code:

#define private public

Yes, this is actually out there...

# ? Apr 14, 2010 07:17

Crazy RRRussian: Mar 5, 2010; by Fistgrrl

Probably its because someone is too lazy to make accessor/modifier methods?

# ? Apr 14, 2010 14:44

The1ManMoshPit: Apr 17, 2005

Mr.Radar posted:

code:
#define private public
Yes, this is actually out there...

code:

#define private public
#define protected public
#define class struct

Accept no substitutes.

# ? Apr 14, 2010 15:44

Shumagorath: Jun 6, 2001

That reminds me of an article a friend showed me where some guy was claiming he could duplicate all the functionality of C++ with < 500 lines of C.

# ? Apr 14, 2010 15:57

HFX: Nov 29, 2004

Shumagorath posted:

That reminds me of an article a friend showed me where some guy was claiming he could duplicate all the functionality of C++ with < 500 lines of C.

You probably could. It just wouldn't be pretty and would take the approach of don't know don't care

# ? Apr 14, 2010 16:35

zero knowledge: Apr 27, 2008

HFX posted:

You probably could. It just wouldn't be pretty and would take the approach of don't know don't care

You absolutely could. They call it Objective-C, although I think it took a little more than 500 lines.

# ? Apr 14, 2010 18:49

ErIog: Jul 11, 2001

Shumagorath posted:

That reminds me of an article a friend showed me where some guy was claiming he could duplicate all the functionality of C++ with < 500 lines of C.

I love the mentality required to write something like this. "Guys..this C++ thing is just a tool of the man that we don't need."

# ? Apr 14, 2010 18:51

Toady: Jan 12, 2009

ErIog posted:

I love the mentality required to write something like this. "Guys..this C++ thing is just a tool of the man that we don't need."

On a somewhat related note, why are many new coders full of distrust and want to roll things on their own? No matter how much you tell them it's a bad idea, they will not listen to you. They'll even be polite about it, but you'll never convince them otherwise.

It's surprising how many people show up to #macdev:

Insisting on setting up controls programmatically because using IBOutlets is too magical.
Doing their own SQLite3 layer instead of using Core Data.
Subclassing everything. If a cell needs to display a sheet when double-clicked, they want to create a whole new table view.

Doing these things doesn't help them learn how things work. It just frustrates them and fills the channel with questions that are usually answered with, "Why are you doing that? Just use so-and-so API."

# ? Apr 14, 2010 19:14

TOO SCSI FOR MY CAT: Oct 12, 2008; this is what happens when you take UI design away from engineers and give it to a bunch of hipster art student "designers"

ErIog posted:

I love the mentality required to write something like this. "Guys..this C++ thing is just a tool of the man that we don't need."

The problem with C++ is that something like 90% of it is actively harmful to writing working code. Sure, it works fine if you take away exceptions, overloading, templates, multiple inheritance, <iostream>, and write your own string type. But at that point, it's easier to just use C so you don't have to deal with the generally low quality of C++ compilers.

# ? Apr 14, 2010 19:32

Mustach: Mar 2, 2003; In this long line, there's been some real strange genes. You've got 'em all, with some extras thrown in.

Finally, a troll post.

# ? Apr 14, 2010 19:46

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 29, 2024 07:52

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

Toady posted:

It's surprising how many people show up to #macdev:

Insisting on setting up controls programmatically because using IBOutlets is too magical.

Doing their own SQLite3 layer instead of using Core Data.

Subclassing everything. If a cell needs to display a sheet when double-clicked, they want to create a whole new table view.

The second one is just foolish, but I can understand the first and the third points. When I made the switch to OS X a few years ago, coming from a Windows development background it took me a little bit of time to really understand how Interface Builder worked differently from, say, the Windows dialog resource editor ( :gonk:

) or the Windows Forms editor.

The third point might come from that same mindset, where on Windows, almost everything is customized by subclassing and overriding methods. The delegation pattern that OS X makes so much use of is almost nonexistent there, so it's a big mental shift when you first get started.

Now if these are programmers with years of OS X experience wanting to do these things, gently caress 'em.

# ? Apr 14, 2010 20:11

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!

«‹›1502 »