|
Munkeymon posted:That was amateur horror. It takes professionals to create Live Horrors I am pretty sure this is just somebody doing a horror on purpose.
|
# ? Jan 6, 2010 00:47 |
|
|
# ? Apr 26, 2024 12:37 |
|
rt4 posted:I usually get a good chuckle by looking at the code that some affiliates think my employer should place on their websites. For some reason, in addition to the horror that is tracking pixels, they like to include JavaScript that generates tracking pixels. I found this in one today and was sincerely confused Not sure why they escape <img> and <iframe> tags, but it may be related to this: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/236073/why-split-the-script-tag-when-writing-it-with-document-write
|
# ? Jan 6, 2010 00:51 |
|
Munkeymon posted:That was amateur horror. It takes professionals to create Live Horrors I want to see the thought process on the variable name.... "I'll call it 's'! No, wait, that could be confusing. 'ss'! Oh man, that's like all nazi and poo poo. 'sss' it is!"
|
# ? Jan 6, 2010 01:36 |
|
Lumpy posted:I want to see the thought process on the variable name.... I'd bet it was originally written within a function that had both s and ss already in use. Then the developer realized that it was long and functions shouldn't be long so they should split things up with cut+paste into a new function.
|
# ? Jan 6, 2010 05:57 |
|
CeciPipePasPipe posted:Not sure why they escape <img> and <iframe> tags, but it may be related to this: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/236073/why-split-the-script-tag-when-writing-it-with-document-write No it's almost certainly to get past ad-blockers as others mentioned earlier. Splitting up an img or iframe tag may confuse an ad-blocker scanning HTML source for any img and iframe tags pointing at such-and-such ad domains. e.g. an ad-blocker looking for htmlsource.Contains("<img>") won't match "'<i' + 'mg>'". There's no technical reason to split up html tags in document.write except </script>.
|
# ? Jan 6, 2010 06:24 |
|
Lonely Wolf posted:I want to quote my favorite line, but I just can't decide: they're all so bad. The person who wrote this is in an office in Europe, so that wouldn't even help. I would like to find a new job, though. Anyone in Minneapolis hiring? RussianManiac posted:I am pretty sure this is just somebody doing a horror on purpose. Hahahahahahaaaaaa no. Pretty sure this is the same guy: code:
code:
|
# ? Jan 6, 2010 15:18 |
|
Munkeymon posted:At least he's sure to catch capital backslashes. And replace them with the same amount of capital backslashes.
|
# ? Jan 6, 2010 17:55 |
|
Supervillin posted:At least he's sure to catch capital backslashes. And replace them with the same amount of capital backslashes. Maybe they have those in Turkish?
|
# ? Jan 6, 2010 18:25 |
|
code:
|
# ? Jan 6, 2010 22:04 |
|
how does that even happen?
|
# ? Jan 6, 2010 22:14 |
|
Is it possible to pass code that is not either of those 3 values? could you pass an arbitrary integer instead of something of type Code?
|
# ? Jan 6, 2010 22:15 |
|
RussianManiac posted:Is it possible to pass code that is not either of those 3 values? could you pass an arbitrary integer instead of something of type Code?
|
# ? Jan 6, 2010 22:23 |
|
AzraelNewtype posted:how does that even happen? Typically in cases like these: The case statements probably did something else at some point, and the whole thing hasn't been properly refactored as it's been changed. Pretty common; any codebase that's been around for a few years will have plenty of dead code and things like this. Only thing you can really do to minimize them is to encourage people to fix 'em up when they see them. Or the original author was just on crack, who knows. Vinterstum fucked around with this message at 22:28 on Jan 6, 2010 |
# ? Jan 6, 2010 22:26 |
|
AzraelNewtype posted:how does that even happen? I get a kind of goofy future-proofing vibe from it, as though the author was worried about people adding other possible Code values but wanted to make sure this component ignored them.
|
# ? Jan 7, 2010 00:24 |
|
GrumpyDoctor posted:I get a kind of goofy future-proofing vibe from it, as though the author was worried about people adding other possible Code values but wanted to make sure this component ignored them. I see it in code where I work, but we often cast integral values that are gotten over sockets or read from hardware registers into enums. It's a "just in case the sender can't be trusted" sort of thing. Of course that code is still a horror, since the switch is worthless.
|
# ? Jan 7, 2010 01:07 |
|
Overheard at my office today: quote:What the Hell? There is a comment here that says this linear search has a complexity of n times log n? How is that even possible? Unfortunately I didn't see the code in question.
|
# ? Jan 7, 2010 01:12 |
|
Dooey posted:Overheard at my office today: Well, you can't do a linear search unless it's sorted.
|
# ? Jan 7, 2010 01:16 |
|
:edit: Never mind.
litghost fucked around with this message at 02:52 on Jan 7, 2010 |
# ? Jan 7, 2010 02:48 |
|
From the code base on which I am working on along with another guy who came up with this gem:code:
RussianManiac fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Jan 7, 2010 |
# ? Jan 7, 2010 16:27 |
|
code:
I didnt even want to ask if he had similar functions for the other comparision operators.
|
# ? Jan 7, 2010 19:23 |
|
TheJanitor posted:Some real gems come out of my classmates... Well it looks like LessEqual is a total ordering over the domain of all the types he's concerned with, so certainly he would have just implemented the other comparisons in terms of that one operation! I love the unnecessary object casts though, and the fact that the string case would never work since it should be a capital S in String. Actually, no it shouldn't, it should be the "is" operator, but...
|
# ? Jan 7, 2010 19:42 |
|
You know you've been using MUMPS too long when... you need to sort a list alphabetically and you aren't sure what to do or how to do that. (It's also a sign you need to stop using other archaic languages when the correct answer does not involve calling a standard library function or property of the list object)
|
# ? Jan 7, 2010 22:16 |
|
Zhentar posted:You know you've been using MUMPS too long when... You begin using MUMPS.
|
# ? Jan 8, 2010 00:00 |
|
TheSleeper posted:You begin using MUMPS. You see any MUMPS source.
|
# ? Jan 8, 2010 00:27 |
|
pseudorandom name posted:You see any MUMPS source. It's named after a goddamn disease. Or is the disease named after it...
|
# ? Jan 8, 2010 00:41 |
|
code:
|
# ? Jan 8, 2010 01:03 |
|
pseudorandom name posted:
|
# ? Jan 8, 2010 01:23 |
|
Oh my gods, it's practically INTERCAL.
|
# ? Jan 8, 2010 01:30 |
|
McGlockenshire posted:Oh my gods, it's practically INTERCAL. Intercal is more comprehensible.
|
# ? Jan 8, 2010 02:04 |
|
pseudorandom name posted:
I'm glad I don't have to learn that language, ever. It's more like encryption rather than a programming language.
|
# ? Jan 8, 2010 02:19 |
|
Whenever I see MUMPS I wonder why people actually write it by hand instead of writing it in another language that gets translated/compiled to MUMPS. I swear that would be one of the first things I tried if I got stuck with lovely language work.
|
# ? Jan 8, 2010 05:31 |
|
Ugg boots posted:Whenever I see MUMPS I wonder why people actually write it by hand instead of writing it in another language that gets translated/compiled to MUMPS. I swear that would be one of the first things I tried if I got stuck with lovely language work. How are you going to deal with the corpus of already-existing code?
|
# ? Jan 8, 2010 06:54 |
|
Ryouga Inverse posted:How are you going to deal with the corpus of already-existing code? Write a decompiler for the new language.
|
# ? Jan 8, 2010 07:28 |
|
Ryouga Inverse posted:How are you going to deal with the corpus of already-existing code? This is the problem with languages like this, it's not like people (often) start writing new projects in them. It's always maintaining old stuff, which is often hard enough with normal languages.
|
# ? Jan 8, 2010 08:34 |
|
Yakattak posted:It's more like encryption rather than a programming language. The wikipedia article intentionally uses especially dense, confusing examples. No one (at least around these parts) still writes code that lovely and unreadable these days. Jonnty posted:This is the problem with languages like this, it's not like people (often) start writing new projects in them. It's always maintaining old stuff, which is often hard enough with normal languages. We are still actively developing software using MUMPS and have no plans to ever stop doing so.
|
# ? Jan 8, 2010 17:55 |
|
Are you worried about hurting your career by staying at a place where the core technology you use has little relevance outside your current workplace?
|
# ? Jan 8, 2010 17:57 |
|
rt4 posted:Are you worried about hurting your career by staying at a place where the core technology you use has little relevance outside your current workplace? Not too much, no. Partly because we're moving away from VB6 on the client side (thank loving god) to C#. And partly because I actually enjoy doing legacy code maintenance, and I'm picking up plenty of applicable experience in that area.
|
# ? Jan 8, 2010 18:17 |
|
Zhentar posted:Not too much, no. Partly because we're moving away from VB6 on the client side (thank loving god) to C#. And partly because I actually enjoy doing legacy code maintenance, and I'm picking up plenty of applicable experience in that area. How many Critical applications do you have still done in VB6 ( i have 10~)
|
# ? Jan 8, 2010 18:31 |
|
found this today:php:<? $photoList = getAnnonces($iCount,$iNum,$cfg['lg']); $cnt = count($photoList); if ($cnt<=1) { $photoList = getAnnonces($iCount,$iNum,$cfg['lg']); } ?>
|
# ? Jan 11, 2010 16:25 |
|
|
# ? Apr 26, 2024 12:37 |
|
MononcQc posted:found this today: Sometiems you just have to try even harder to get your Annonces I guess vv
|
# ? Jan 11, 2010 16:46 |