|
|
I saw this[^] article at thedailywtf.com and it reminded me of something.
I was reproducing a web page's functionality in a web service and in doing so had to see some error messages. One of them was along the lines of "Your request not is having some information that is required, please see a representative".
This is for an official site for an important agency so many people would have seen this throughout the years and all because someone didnt check over a non-native English speaker's work.
I've worked with a few non-native English with some projects and this seems to be an issue on many projects whether it be button names = "cancel Btton" to crazy English errors. This is not necessarily a stab at someone without a perfect grasp of the language but there needs to be better QA processes in place to catch these things.
-- modified at 15:46 Thursday 15th March, 2007
CleaKO
"I think you'll be okay here, they have a thin candy shell. 'Surprised you didn't know that." - Tommy Boy "Fill it up again! Fill it up again! Once it hits your lips, it's so good!" - Frank the Tank (Old School)
|
|
|
|
|
I agree entirely. There's not enough proofreading/editing on interfaces of any description (web site, application, etc). Mind you, I am biased since my wife is a proofreader and we offer this service to all of our clients.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
|
|
|
|
|
The sad part about this instance is that none of the users ever said anything.
CleaKO
"I think you'll be okay here, they have a thin candy shell. 'Surprised you didn't know that.'" - Tommy (Tommy Boy) "Fill it up again! Fill it up again! Once it hits your lips, it's so good!" - Frank the Tank (Old School)
|
|
|
|
|
CleaKO wrote: The sad part about this instance is that none of the users ever said anything
Doesn't that just tell you everything you need to know about users?
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O`Hanlon wrote: CleaKO wrote:
The sad part about this instance is that none of the users ever said anything
Doesn't that just tell you everything you need to know about users?
Pete, CleaKO may i use the above as a sig?
--
Rules of thumb should not be taken for the whole hand.
|
|
|
|
|
Help yourself mate.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
|
|
|
|
|
That's fine with me.
CleaKO
"I think you'll be okay here, they have a thin candy shell. 'Surprised you didn't know that.'" - Tommy (Tommy Boy) "Fill it up again! Fill it up again! Once it hits your lips, it's so good!" - Frank the Tank (Old School)
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you. my CP sigs been overdue for a change and my current email one's probably too incendiary to use outside of the soapbox.
--
CleaKO The sad part about this instance is that none of the users ever said anything [about the problem].
Pete O`Hanlon Doesn't that just tell you everything you need to know about users?
|
|
|
|
|
Like the sig.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
|
|
|
|
|
stumbled over this code while maintaining some script for an installer :
if ( SomeCondition ) then
...
else
if ( SomeCondition ) then
...
else
if ( SomeCondition ) then
...
else
if ( SomeCondition ) then
...
else
if ( SomeCondition ) then
...
else
if ( SomeCondition ) then
...
else
if ( SomeCondition ) then
...
else
if ( SomeCondition ) then
...
else
if ( SomeCondition ) then
...
else
if ( SomeCondition ) then
...
endif;
endif;
endif;
endif;
endif;
endif;
endif;
endif;
endif;
endif;
i guess it didn't occur to the fellow who wrote it to use elseif or switch/case
|
|
|
|
|
does the script language support switch/case ?
|
|
|
|
|
yep...in fact I've already replaced it with switch/case ...
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Losinger wrote: does the script language support switch/case ?
Good one!!
Smile: A curve that can set a lot of things straight!
(\ /)
(O.o)
(><)
|
|
|
|
|
IIRC there was an early version of InstallShield's scripting language which didn't have else if, so you were lumbered with this kind of thing. No switches either.
But in your case you say the language does support else if, so no excuse. But could this be an old InstallShield script that hasn't been updated as the language features have moved on?
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
well it was written from scratch on a script version that did support elseif/switch-case, but i guess if the guy/gal was used to working on an old version that didn't support it, could be they thought the new one didn't either...
prolonged InstallShield usage does also have the capability to pretty much kill the any enthusiasm for development inside you...maybe he/she was just fed up!;P
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know about you but one of the first things I do when a new version of a language comes out is look up what's new. But I suspect many don't bother with that.
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
Last week i was put into a maintenance project. It's big accounting project. When reviewing the code i came through one funny for loop..check this
for(int i=0;i<=7*2;i++)
{
//dosomething
}
will there be any specific reason for this type of coding ?
|
|
|
|
|
It'd probably be optimised away by the compiler anyway, perhaps it made sense to the programmer because for example it may have been to loop through two weeks so by writing the code like that it'd help him remember. Just a thought, although I personally wouldn't do it.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, 7*2 may be a little clearer than 14, but I'd make a constant of some kind.
I used to see things like:
# define SecondsPerMinute 60
# define MinutesPerHour 60
# define HoursPerDay 24
# define MinutesPerDay (MinutesPerHour*HoursPerDay)
# define SecondsPerDay (SecondsPerMinute*MinutesPerDay)
On a side note; the guru insisted we use define s rather than const s to conserve memory.
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed but does C# (my main language) support that type of define? I didn't think so.
|
|
|
|
|
Eh, you can use const s though. Pretty much all they're really useful for in C#...
(I do hate seeing raw numbers like that in code. Even if you put the const variable definition right above the loop, you've still created an opportunity to give the value a descriptive name. You see numDays = 7*2 , you think, "ah, two weeks!" rather than wondering what the numbers signify.)
----
...the wind blows over it and it is gone, and its place remembers it no more...
|
|
|
|
|
Shog9 wrote: "ah, two weeks!" rather than wondering what the numbers signify.)
Very true
|
|
|
|
|
Ed.Poore wrote: Very true
How about a few steps further? See my reply to Shog here[^].
|
|
|
|
|
Shog9 wrote: Even if you put the const variable definition right above the loop, you've still created an opportunity to give the value a descriptive name. You see numDays = 7*2, you think, "ah, two weeks!" rather than wondering what the numbers signify.
Or, in a less primitive tongue:
A week is 7 days.
A fortnight is 2 weeks.
A day is 24 hours.
A second is 1000 milliseconds.
An hour is 60 minutes.
A minute is 60 seconds.
Conversions are handled automatically, as you would expect, and the plural terms are derived from the singulars. The definitions, of course, may appear in any order.
It always surprises me how people say they want their code to be transparent but nevertheless insist on using languages that require the most obtuse and unnatural syntax (as in "numDays = 7*2").
|
|
|
|