Crazy RRRussian posted:

Acronyms in variable/function/class names piss me off too. I would rather have verbose names that are very descriptive than have to remember particular shortening of it. Although there is something to be said about long names that are still loving confusing and too long.

king_kilr posted:

If you think that's a coding horror, your codebase is probably ok. I can think of a totally valid reason for that. The Color class isn't under your control and features general color management things, for your app you want to have a consistant UI, and you're starting with their definitions of what constitutes DARK GREEN, but that might be changed in the future.

Janin posted:

it's a lot easier for some picky boss to say "can you make the buttons a bit darker" than to redefine the english language

Jonnty posted:

It's not particularly hard to imagine being instructed to "make it dark green", and using that so it can be easily changed in case that isn't the "right" dark green. It might have made more sense to put it under BUTTON_COLOUR or whatever, but for all we know it then actually is - as well as LABEL_COLOR and LINE_COLOR and BORDER_COLOR and ten other ones like it.

Lumpy posted:

Huh?

Having a duplicated selector in a CSS rule isn't something one should aspire to, and if I saw one, I'd remove it. But since it cannot cause any unwanted behavior, isn't propagated anywhere else, can't break any other CSS files or rules, and I can't fathom it's existence causing anyone to cry at any point, I didn't think it was a HORROR. A minor annoyance that should be cleaned up, sure, but not a horror. How you infer that my code causes people to cry because of that....

Jonnty posted:

Well, since they didn't post any other horrors, I guess that wasn't the case here?

Jonnty posted:

..so he got the weakest example he could find and blew it out of all proportion.

Zombywuf posted:

Tell me, how does this distinguish file does not exist, file is a directory, file is not readable and (my personal favorite) EAGAIN.

Zombywuf posted:

I'm going to take it from that that you don't know what EAGAIN means.

OddObserver posted:

I am pretty sure it's normally a good design practice for the sensible behavior to be default.

Internet Janitor posted:

Scaevolus: Maybe I'm the coding horror here, but that could be a lot worse. Assuming all the settings are already stored in a single object, that seems like a halfway reasonable way to serialize and deserialize them without worring about breaking everything when you add a field. The main problem would appear to be a failure to organize the data with any kind of heirarchy.

Incoherence posted:

Because it's usually something like

code:

if (!(a && b) || c || d) {
  // do nothing
} else {
  // do something
}

(imagine a, b, c, and d are relatively long as well) and just leaving it that way is easier to parse than wrapping the whole thing in a !() and trying to figure out what it means in six months.

tef posted:

The weird bit

I don't hear other people who write websites or code wishing for php's == vs === in other languages. And yet somehow 'it's useful'.

It is a false utility - you exchange a legion of bugs for a handful of keypresses.

ShoulderDaemon posted:

For most hash constructions, you can amortize the costs of a changing suffix more readily than a changing prefix, meaning that you can take a dictionary of unsalted hashes for common passwords and cheaply transform it to a dictionary of suffix-salted hashes for common passwords, allowing more effective attacks against databases of accounts.

yaoi prophet posted:

Incoherence posted:

As usual, this is sort of a good idea in theory (it keeps you from forgetting to clean up after yourself before returning in languages/situations where that matters, at the possible cost of making your logic harder to follow), but eventually everyone just sort of forgets the tradeoff part of it and it gets upgraded into a Law of Programming.

Zombywuf posted:

HTML has lists, sets and dictionaries. It also has a bunch of other stuff like semantically marked up hyperlinks, what more could you need?

Wheany posted:

already-hashed user.getPassword().

Wheany posted:

Well what does encryptAndSave(user, newPassword); do?

Encrypt the username?

Milotic posted:

but the first call to GetAction is with a value of 1, and not 0 as you would initially intuit.

nielsm posted:

Evil, but I see how it kinda makes sense.

Scaevolus posted:

Consistent coding style for "readability and maintenance purposes" is comical considering the developers have to work with zend-guard obfuscated code.

MEAT TREAT posted:

Seriously what the gently caress is an aliasing violation? I tried looking it up, but the examples I saw didn't make any sense. Is that something that you C guys have to deal with constantly?

qntm posted:

php:

<?
class Object { }
$a = new Object();
$b = new Object();

print($a === $b ? "true" : "false"); // "false"
$b =& $a;
print($a === $b ? "true" : "false"); // "true"
?>

1337JiveTurkey posted:

Implicit casts are functions from one type to another. If I write foo = 2 + "2" or foo = "2" + 2 then depending on the language, foo might equal 4 or "22" (or both depending on the order of the operands). Either I'm terrible at math or that is the worst violation of the Liskov Substitution Principle I have ever seen.

Janin posted:

Not many languages pass that test; for example, concatenation and addition are just as different, yet "a" + "b" isn't a type error.

nielsm posted:

If two objects with the same interface have different actual operations performed by otherwise identical calls, then they are of different types.

BonzoESC posted:

Except for the forums mangling your indentation, that looks pretty much par for the course for jQuery.

Haystack posted:

Javascript's ternary syntax is var return_value = test ? expression1 : expression2. So JediGandalf's code would return "pct" if downType=$('#rdoPercentage').val() returned "pct", or "fixed" if otherwise.

Aleksei Vasiliev posted:

URL a = new URL("http://stackoverflow.com");
URL b = new URL("http://stackexchange.com");
System.out.println(a.equals(b));
true

whose brilliant idea was this

Wheany posted:

Yes, the init function has one eval in the middle of the for some reason.