|
Slacker007 wrote: I use Resharper. It is almost virtually impossible to do most of the items listed in this poll if you use Resharper. Thankfully, VS has been including most of Resharper's awesomeness in the IDE, so some day, I will not need RS.
Isn't it more that Re#er and VS make it easy to catch these errors almost as soon as you type them by increasing the number of you screwed up indicators on screen. They can't prevent your brain from glitching and typing duoble instead of double in the first place.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
but after you correct it, and prior to build, is it really a programming error anymore?
I have not made a possible null reference error since 2012.
|
|
|
|
|
...The IDE misinterprets my keystrokes.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010 ----- You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010 ----- When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
Especially when you have crazy methods and flags in third-party-libraries, like "useNoVad" ... which mirror the meaning of the bool, because "true" means "no, don't use it".
If you find yourself then in constructs that combine those with && and || and, to spice it up with a !, you see a line like
if (!useNoVad || (useNoVad && !otherThingsEnabled)) ... and THEN you have a dev that doesn't like that negative version of useNoVad, and he creates a bool noVadActive, but MEANS vadActive because he assigns noVadActive = !useNoVad...
if people start to invert bool over and over again it gets crazy sometimes
|
|
|
|
|
oh nooo
that's !true
|
|
|
|
|
... is assuming it works and not testing, which usually results in a single line change to get it working.
Strangely most of my fixes are one liners, da-dum.
|
|
|
|
|
Missing option "Object reference is not set to an instance of object"
Three cheers for this error
Find More .Net development tips at : .NET Tips
The only reason people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory.
|
|
|
|
|
Covered by "null reference error"?
|
|
|
|
|
Yes...
Find More .Net development tips at : .NET Tips
The only reason people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory.
|
|
|
|
|
I like the fact that you can choose more than one.
|
|
|
|