ratbert90 posted:I’m not trying! The mix of arrogance, incompetence, and all in all dissolution of reality are just making for some good stories. eh im not insinuating anything, just saying it’s fancy to have offshore developers as an individual
|
|
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jan 12, 2026 17:12 |
|
ratbert90 posted:I’m not trying! The mix of arrogance, incompetence, and all in all dissolution of reality are just making for some good stories. I'm curious about this what's your setup? Do you work with them like you're in a team together, or just check their work like they're independent contractors, or organise everything like you're a pm, or what?
|
|
|
|
Krankenstyle posted:lmao i got the code form the academic paper after literally 3 months of emailing them reminders at work we hired a PhD to implement some new compression that was tailored to geospatial databases that were intended to run on fairly low powered devices where saving $0.10/unit on SD card storage was huge. So he came on to implement it during his sabbatical from university. he implemented it, and well, and it was time for integration. Also this was C. I start working on it, notice the method signatures are a bit strange, and dive into the code. everything was variables x1, x2, x3, y1, y2, y3, dx, dy, zzz, l1, l2, l3, i1, i2, i3. they were all declared at the top of the function. sometimes reused, sometimes they were one time use. it was line after line after line of this. No structs of course. after a few years we realized this is how all PhD code is.
|
|
|
|
hahahha barf --- check this poo poo out:code:
|
|
|
Krankenstyle posted:hahahha barf --- check this poo poo out: hahaha you’d need to deliberately write it this way. wonder what is the first language with this syntactical thing
|
|
|
|
|
does that make a 35 element array?
|
|
|
|
CRIP EATIN BREAD posted:does that make a 35 element array? yes it does, literally the rest of the code is like vs[24] += 1 actually sorry i mean vs[24] = vs[24] + 1 cinci zoo sniper posted:hahaha you’d need to deliberately write it this way. wonder what is the first language with this syntactical thing i first saw that syntax this week lol so its not in basic
|
|
|
|
CRIP EATIN BREAD posted:does that make a 35 element array? I bet that author is frustrated that the language doesn't have support for other variable names, but they do what they can to work around the limitation
|
|
|
|
why do people not use interactive debuggers? literally my first instinct when i'm asking myself "hey hold on what's going on here" is to launch a debugger on it. meanwhile when i'm pairing with my coworkers they, like, start running tests and adding print() statements to poo poo, and when i ask them "hey can you run it in a debugger" they go "uuuuh, haven't really gotten around to setting that up...". even really experienced people who are definitely better programmers than me do it. weirds me the gently caress out.
|
|
|
|
gonadic io posted:I bet that author is frustrated that the language doesn't have support for other variable names, but they do what they can to work around the limitation guess how "vs" ends up being used: 160 lines of print-statements that are identical except for which vs value is inserted
|
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:why do people not use interactive debuggers? literally my first instinct when i'm asking myself "hey hold on what's going on here" is to launch a debugger on it. meanwhile when i'm pairing with my coworkers they, like, start running tests and adding print() statements to poo poo, and when i ask them "hey can you run it in a debugger" they go "uuuuh, haven't really gotten around to setting that up...". even really experienced people who are definitely better programmers than me do it. weirds me the gently caress out. I'm deffo a bit guilty of this, although I have used debuggers and am fine in intellij. I suspect the reason is similar to how people won't spend 5 mins fixing an issue that will eventually cost them hours. Ie setup cost, initial increase in complexity whereas each new print statement is a tiny really quick thing to do they'd rather just do that then spend 5 mins setting up a debugger or learn new stuff
|
|
|
|
Krankenstyle posted:yes it does, literally the rest of the code is like vs[24] += 1
|
|
|
|
mystes posted:Was this code written by a decompiler? no lol afaik theyre just nerds who arent programmers and they have no requirements re maintenance or support or readability. like their reqs are just "did it work when we tried" and it did work for them, i think, probably
|
|
|
|
gonadic io posted:logstash has an issue where if you start it in a fresh docker container it can't start until it gathers enough entropy or some bullshit in practice this means a 15 min startup time Have it gather entropy by reading ur poasts
|
|
|
|
often the things i need to debug involve them happening a whole bunch of times, but is only going wrong one of those times. so if you wanted to use a debugger, you'd either have to come up with a conditional breakpoint expression that only triggered in the failure case (and if you knew enough about the problem to be able to write that, you probably don't need to step through it in a debugger - often the problem only becomes apparent well after the point you want to start investigating values), or work through all the non-failing cases first before you get to the interesting one. so it's easier to add a bunch of logging, reproduce the issue, then read the entrails to divine what went wrong
|
|
|
|
debug logging is fine logging in itself is fine, the more the better imo
|
|
|
|
Jabor posted:often the things i need to debug involve them happening a whole bunch of times, but is only going wrong one of those times. so if you wanted to use a debugger, you'd either have to come up with a conditional breakpoint expression that only triggered in the failure case (and if you knew enough about the problem to be able to write that, you probably don't need to step through it in a debugger - often the problem only becomes apparent well after the point you want to start investigating values), or work through all the non-failing cases first before you get to the interesting one. Time Travel debugging. Just capture a trace of failed case and then replay it until you figure it out.
|
|
|
|
hi everyone I've solved all our problemscode:
|
|
|
|
somewhere in the previous thread i wrote up a shaggarscript parser "java good python bad" is i thnk +1
|
|
|
|
gonadic io posted:I'm curious about this what's your setup? Do you work with them like you're in a team together, or just check their work like they're independent contractors, or organise everything like you're a pm, or what? I’m the PM/QA guy. I treat them like a black box and it works extremely well. I ask them to make widget A, and they make widget A, hand me the code after it passes CI, I will then review it and make sure it looks clean, then I will commit it to my branch on the clients git server of choice and do a merge request.
|
|
|
|
here we go:Python code:
|
|
|
|
turing test passed the future of ai is now
|
|
|
|
double future java lol bad
|
|
|
|
Krankenstyle posted:ood java lol java lol java lol java lol java lol java lol java is good. few languages are good good good good good good good good good good. java is a good language. unlike python, its a really good good good good language. not a bad bad bad language. python is so bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad. really bad bad bad bad bad bad... few things are as bad. so, so bad bad bad bad bad bad bad. bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad. a bad language. python? python is poo poo. python is not good. not a good language.
|
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:why do people not use interactive debuggers? literally my first instinct when i'm asking myself "hey hold on what's going on here" is to launch a debugger on it. meanwhile when i'm pairing with my coworkers they, like, start running tests and adding print() statements to poo poo, and when i ask them "hey can you run it in a debugger" they go "uuuuh, haven't really gotten around to setting that up...". even really experienced people who are definitely better programmers than me do it. weirds me the gently caress out. in my experience, a lot of people just haven't ever learned to use one. and once people start actually coding, they think they're too busy (trying to fix their broken code) to set aside some time to learn how to use helpful tools programming classes and programming courses and programming books will all teach someone how to sling lovely code, but I've never seen one even mention debuggers. debugging with log statements or whatever is simple enough that most people can come up with the idea on their own the first time they ever have to debug something, but in order to realize the power of the debugger you need to either look it up or exercise some basic intellectual curiosity
|
|
|
|
A friend of mine took a cool course at Carnegie Mellon when he was an undergrad that was described to me as a prof would give you some binary each week and your job was to hunt down problems or fix things in gdb. For new students I work with on programming projects, I tell them I don't give a poo poo if they don't have any presentable work done for any amount of time as long as they spent that time learning a debugger. This has paid off many, many times over
|
|
|
|
i debug with print statements until they don’t help because of setup cost and complicated internals of library objects i usually have to debug. also most of my code moves physically big datasets so debugging inches considerably perf penalties, leading to print debugging being actually faster
|
|
|
|
|
when I get roped into helping people debug something, I teach them to use the debugger first thing, because gently caress you if you think I'm going to puzzle out what your loving pile of lovely javascript does without it. if they want my help, they're gonna have to press f12, because I'm not going to figure anything out by looking over their shoulder at the single function that's misbehaving
|
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:why do people not use interactive debuggers? literally my first instinct when i'm asking myself "hey hold on what's going on here" is to launch a debugger on it. meanwhile when i'm pairing with my coworkers they, like, start running tests and adding print() statements to poo poo, and when i ask them "hey can you run it in a debugger" they go "uuuuh, haven't really gotten around to setting that up...". even really experienced people who are definitely better programmers than me do it. weirds me the gently caress out. people used to bad tools don't know whats available in good tools
|
|
|
|
mystes posted:I think a decade ago there was some sort of software created as part of academic research somewhere that looked really cool that I kept hoping they would release, but after saying they would release it eventually for several *years* the people who made it just gave up and said they had decided that it was impossible (despite the software apparently functioning fine on their systems). if you're lucky you can get a patch from the author that for some reason they don't just distribute, but it's annoying having to juggle 10 VMs on my laptop for various research software.
|
|
|
|
imo effective logging and metrics are almost more important than being able to use a debugger if you’re working with distributed systems.
|
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:programming classes and programming courses and programming books will all teach someone how to sling lovely code, but I've never seen one even mention debuggers. DrPossum posted:A friend of mine took a cool course at Carnegie Mellon when he was an undergrad that was described to me as a prof would give you some binary each week and your job was to hunt down problems or fix things in gdb. the course and its textbook have been adopted at quite a few universities (USC, UVA, etc.) now
|
|
|
|
also interactive debuggers are great. I first learned their usefulness with JTAG debuggers (good luck doing debug printing/logging on an embedded device with like no memory and no communication ability) and now find CLion's built-in support for GDB and LLDB very useful when debugging stuff
|
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:imo effective logging and metrics are almost more important than being able to use a debugger if you’re working with distributed systems. this is very true putting in effective logging ahead of time will save you many, many hours of pounding at the problem with your debugger if your system has more than one process that said, the debugger is still a great way to gently caress with the state/force pauses in one node to trigger a failure in another sometimes and ofc if you can boil your problem down to something you can reproduce in a single node then debuggers are great
|
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:imo effective logging and metrics are almost more important than being able to use a debugger if you’re working with distributed systems.
|
|
|
|
that said 'effective logging and metrics' is also a skill that isn't taught very well
|
|
|
|
I loved intellijs ability to run arbitrary snippets when I was paused on a breakpoint but I've not gotten much fancier than that and now I'm working with visual studio and I have no idea what's going
|
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:that said 'effective logging and metrics' is also a skill that isn't taught very well software engineering is a skill that isn't taught very well
|
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:this is like... all academic research projects. most of the academic projects I tinker with this semester (BESS, zsim) require very specific OS versions, package dependencies, etc. and will never be updated i wasnt able to find it last time i went looking but there was an academic meta-project a few years ago where they collected a big pile of academic software packages and rated them by 'can our grad student figure out how to compile, install, and use in 30 minutes, and if so does the software actually function'
|
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jan 12, 2026 17:12 |
|
fritz posted:i wasnt able to find it last time i went looking but there was an academic meta-project a few years ago where they collected a big pile of academic software packages and rated them by 'can our grad student figure out how to compile, install, and use in 30 minutes, and if so does the software actually function'
|
|
|


















double future java lol bad





