The Weird and The Wonderful

   

The Weird and The Wonderful forum is a place to post Coding Horrors, Worst Practices, and the occasional flash of brilliance.

We all come across code that simply boggles the mind. Lazy kludges, embarrassing mistakes, horrid workarounds and developers just not quite getting it. And then somedays we come across - or write - the truly sublime.

Post your Best, your worst, and your most interesting. But please - no programming questions . This forum is purely for amusement and discussions on code snippets. All actual programming questions will be removed.

FirstPrevNext

Re: 16 layers of ifs, Who dare challenge this? ClementsDan4-Feb-09 17:21 ClementsDan 4-Feb-09 17:21  How about try { hr = Operation1(); if (!SUCCESS(hr)) throw hr; hr = Operation2(); if (!SUCCESS(hr)) throw hr; hr = Operator3(); if (!SUCCESS(hr)) throw hr; // ... } catch (HRESULT hErr) { // ... } ? Re: 16 layers of ifs, Who dare challenge this? Mohammad Dayyan21-Jan-09 8:58 Mohammad Dayyan 21-Jan-09 8:58  kingsimba0511 wrote: I hope you have a 22 inch above screen. I don't have it Re: 16 layers of ifs, Who dare challenge this? PIEBALDconsult21-Jan-09 9:27 PIEBALDconsult 21-Jan-09 9:27  And it fits my 20" monitor just fine. Even with the 8-SPACE indenting and large font. Re: 16 layers of ifs, Who dare challenge this? Mohammad Dayyan21-Jan-09 9:40 Mohammad Dayyan 21-Jan-09 9:40  I have 17" monitor Re: 16 layers of ifs, Who dare challenge this? Dan Neely21-Jan-09 9:35 Dan Neely 21-Jan-09 9:35  kingsimba0511 wrote: I hope you have a 22 inch above screen. It's not the diagonal, it's the resolution. That fits comfortably on my 18" 1600x1200 CRT. I suspect it would fit on my 1400px wide laptop LCD as well. Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall Re: 16 layers of ifs, Who dare challenge this? PIEBALDconsult21-Jan-09 12:21 PIEBALDconsult 21-Jan-09 12:21  And the font, I use 8-point. Re: 16 layers of ifs, Who dare challenge this? Dan Neely22-Jan-09 2:12 Dan Neely 22-Jan-09 2:12  I use browser default. I've never seen a font only scaling that didn't fubar page layouts at least somewhat. Opera's zoom probably comes closest but there're some video plugins it doesn't scale. Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall Re: 16 layers of ifs, Who dare challenge this? sucram28-Jan-09 1:38 sucram 28-Jan-09 1:38  This developer might not be as stupid as we think. Just think how impressed a business user ( with no concept of programming) must be when this code is shown to him/her. A business person will think that a developer that can write code that looks like this (extremely complex in the business users eyes) must be a genius and a great asset to the company. What better job security can you get? If at first you don't succeed, failure may be your style. (Quentin Crisp) Recession is when a neighbor loses his job. Depression is when you lose yours. (Ronald Reagan) Re: 16 layers of ifs, Who dare challenge this? Geoff Field2-Feb-09 15:22 Geoff Field 2-Feb-09 15:22  And the comments on the terminating braces are useless, too. Professional Geek, Amateur Stage-Levelling Gauge Re: 16 layers of ifs, Who dare challenge this? KarstenK3-Feb-09 21:02 KarstenK 3-Feb-09 21:02  I like writing such code. It is typical COM-Spaghetti. Congratulations. (ROFL) Greetings from Germany Re: 16 layers of ifs, Who dare challenge this? [modified] Megidolaon23-Feb-09 23:03 Megidolaon 23-Feb-09 23:03  16 layers...that guy must be insane modified on Friday, February 27, 2009 6:54 AM FTW? Rotted Frog15-Jan-09 8:02 Rotted Frog 15-Jan-09 8:02  This particular gem was found in the code of a recently departed team member who described himself as a C# 'Expert'. Everytime someone in the team looks at his code for more than 5 minutes, they find another howler. Truly shocking. public bool SelectedByDefault { get { return _defaultSelected; } set { // no, check isn't pointless, because serialisation can assign a null to a bool if (value != null) { _defaultSelected = value; } else { _defaultSelected = false; } } } Re: FTW? PIEBALDconsult15-Jan-09 8:26 PIEBALDconsult 15-Jan-09 8:26  Just a different take on a common situation. Re: FTW? geegeegeegee15-Jan-09 17:50 geegeegeegee 15-Jan-09 17:50  lol, arguments in code comments. Re: FTW? Chris Maunder15-Jan-09 19:11 Chris Maunder 15-Jan-09 19:11  Here, here might need this: ? cheers, Chris Maunder CodeProject.com : C++ MVP Re: FTW? Rotted Frog16-Jan-09 3:21 Rotted Frog 16-Jan-09 3:21  Even more surprising is that it appeared convinced this was true even though the compiler gives an unreachable code warning and tell you that the check will always return true. But he probably didn't notice it hidden amongst the other 200 warnings. Sigh. Re: FTW? [modified] cybertone16-Jan-09 19:00 cybertone 16-Jan-09 19:00  By the way, C# compiler (with optimization option 'on') generates these IL instructions for set accessor: ldarg.0 ldarg.1 stfld bool <reference_to_local_field> ret ; so, at the C# level it whould be: this._<reference_to_local_field> = value; ; So, this construction is obviously needless modified on Monday, January 19, 2009 1:56 AM Re: FTW? Brian C Hart18-Jan-09 13:05 Brian C Hart 18-Jan-09 13:05  A colleague says perhaps this guy just plain didn't trust that said field would be checked actually *in* the serialization code...not that anyone would want to risk an exception getting thrown for serializing a bool anyway. Since when were bool variables ever null? Besides isn't that equivalent to false, or am I not a "C# Expert?" -Brian Sincerely Yours, Brian Hart Re: FTW? kampr3t18-Jan-09 16:09 kampr3t 18-Jan-09 16:09  public bool SelectedByDefault{ get; set; } why not like above ? Re: FTW? [modified] BillW3311-Mar-09 9:45 BillW33 11-Mar-09 9:45  Clearly, that would be _way_ too easy! Just because the code works, it doesn't mean that it is good code. modified on Friday, March 20, 2009 4:41 PM Re: FTW? vaghelabhavesh20-Jan-09 17:21 vaghelabhavesh 20-Jan-09 17:21  Rotted Frog wrote: because serialisation can assign a null to a bool Isn't the bool variable default initialized to false? I see dumb people Wenff14-Jan-09 1:01 Wenff 14-Jan-09 1:01  I think the worst projects to take over are those similar to the one I'm currently stuck with : It's a relatively small & simple... in theory. What complicates it is the fact that it's been through serveral developers already , is in a mix of C# and VB, uses various versions of the framework, is reliant on heaps of 3rd party DLL's, uses a 3rd party data access and business logic layer classes that are enormous & difficult to understand, there are no business requirements documents for it, it has no technical spec, the database uses a mix of naming conventions... I could go on. Oh, and if that wasn't enough, the developer that was working on it is AWOL so no support from there... Re: I see dumb people GibbleCH14-Jan-09 4:08 GibbleCH 14-Jan-09 4:08  So it's about par for the course? Re: I see dumb people PIEBALDconsult14-Jan-09 4:33 PIEBALDconsult 14-Jan-09 4:33  Yeah, you have to get into those projects early, before all that happens. Re: I see dumb people sonnycheah14-Jan-09 14:37 sonnycheah 14-Jan-09 14:37  before all that happens so that you can make it happen

Last Visit: 31-Dec-99 18:00     Last Update: 13-May-24 15:41 Refresh ᐊ Prev1...627628629630631632633634635636 Next ᐅ

General    News    Suggestion    Question    Bug    Answer    Joke    Praise    Rant    Admin   

Use Ctrl+Left/Right to switch messages, Ctrl+Up/Down to switch threads, Ctrl+Shift+Left/Right to switch pages.