|
My personal favorite, encountered only once while trying to open a project file in Borland C++Builder 6, it went something like;
"We were unable to process your request. Reason:
The window does not have scroll bars."
Yup, apparently scroll bars are an essential part of loading the file.
|
|
|
|
|
I remember a Win 95 message when connecting to a NT4 Server as you try to attach to a share.
Something along the lines: "I can't log you in, as you may have already logged off"
|
|
|
|
|
Worst I've come across was
"Don't understand why this code normally works, REALLY don't understand why it failed..."
|
|
|
|
|
I'm having bad day today as I stumbled across some VB code that's worse than usual coding horror. So I decided to relieve my mind by sharing those gems here.
If _Inspeksi = Inspeksi.JTM Then
Else
SQL = "SELECT ID_GI FROM AGARDU_INDUK WHERE NO_GARDU='" & DDGI2.ID & "'"
DT = New DataTable
DT = GlobalClassV2.Globals.Instance.ExecuteQuery(SQL)
SQL = ""
If DT.Rows.Count = 0 Then
Exit Function
End If
GINDUKR = DT.Rows(0)!ID_GI
SQL = "SELECT ID_GD FROM AGARDU_DISTRIBUSI WHERE NO_GARDU='" & GINDUK & "'"
DT = New DataTable
DT = GlobalClassV2.Globals.Instance.ExecuteQuery(SQL)
SQL = ""
If DT.Rows.Count = 0 Then
Exit Function
End If
GINDUK = DT.Rows(0)!ID_GD
End If
If GlobalClassV2.Globals.Instance.ExecuteQuery2(XSQL) = False Then
Throw New Exception("GAGAL")
Exit Function
End If
For iData As Integer = 1 To FG2.Rows.Count - 1
If IsDBNull(FG2.Item(iData, 0)) = True Then
Else
DLInsert.InsertInspeksiJTMTR2_DETIL_NEWEST(False, pIDInspeksi, "R", dtTglPeriksa.Text, _
CG.CheckNull(FG2.Item(iData, 0)), FG2.Item(iData, 8), "", CG.CheckNullNum(FG2.Item(iData, 13)), "", Split(CG.CheckNull(FG2.Item(iData, 2)), " - ")(0), _
Split(CG.CheckNull(FG2.Item(iData, 3)), " - ")(0), "", "", _
Split(CG.CheckNull(FG2.Item(iData, 4)), " - ")(0), CG.CheckNull(FG2.Item(iData, 5)), Split(CG.CheckNull(FG2.Item(iData, 7)), " - ")(0), _
CG.CheckNull(FG2.Item(iData, 11)), "", Globals.Instance.EncodeDate(DateTime.Parse(FG2.Item(iData, 12))), _
Split(CG.CheckNull(FG2.Item(iData, 13)), " - ")(0), CG.CheckNull(FG2.Item(iData, 5)), CG.CheckNull(FG2.Item(iData, 6)), _
CG.CheckNull(FG2.Item(iData, 1)), Split(CG.CheckNull(FG2.Item(iData, 14)), " - ")(0), Split(CG.CheckNull(FG2.Item(iData, 15)), " - ")(0), _
CG.CheckNull(FG2.Item(iData, 17)), Split(CG.CheckNull(FG2.Item(iData, 18)), " - ")(0), FG2.Item(iData, 9), FG2.Item(iData, 10))
End If
Next
Excuse me for my improper grammar and typos.
It's because English is my primary language, not my first language.
My first languages are C# and Java.
VB, ASP, JS, PHP and SQL are my second language.
Indonesian came as my third language.
My fourth language? I'm still creating it, I'll let you know when it's done!
|
|
|
|
|
Very inconsistent! He'd better write:
If GlobalClassV2.Globals.Instance.ExecuteQuery2(XSQL) = True Then
Else
Throw New Exception("GAGAL")
Exit Function
End If
And I like that gaga exception ("gagal" means "failed", doesn't it?) before the call to Exit Function ...
|
|
|
|
|
'GAGAL' sonds more like something you could encounter in Star Wars, something with long teeth and claws
And from the clouds a mighty voice spoke: "Smile and be happy, for it could come worse!"
And I smiled and was happy And it came worse.
|
|
|
|
|
Let Me Gagal That Fer Ya.
Somebody in an online forum wrote: INTJs never really joke. They make a point. The joke is just a gift wrapper.
|
|
|
|
|
You have to do inspeksi ahead...
I like inspeksi...
(yes|no|maybe)*
|
|
|
|
|
|
In fairness ... the problem is not that it's VB, it's that he's a crap programmer!
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just asked a coworker where in TFS the source code is for a utility that is heavily used in our department. He said it wasn't, but he'd email me the source code.
It is a Windows Forms application and there are several forms, but there is one primary form. I looked at the VB (.Net, thankfully) code for that form. I wish I hadn't...
21,662 lines of code, just for that one form.
Now, I just have to figure out what Form2, Form3, Form4, Form5, Form6, and Form7 do.
Somebody in an online forum wrote: INTJs never really joke. They make a point. The joke is just a gift wrapper.
|
|
|
|
|
10 methods?
(yes|no|maybe)*
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, someone who can write that much code in a single Form must be really good!
Or perhaps 21,662 is his favourite number? Kind of like his personal 42
It's an OO world.
public class Naerling : Lazy<Person>{}
|
|
|
|
|
Public Class MainForm
Inherits Form
Public Sub MainForm_Load(sender As System.Object, e As System.EventArgs) Handles MyBase.Load
End Sub
End Class
Somebody in an online forum wrote: INTJs never really joke. They make a point. The joke is just a gift wrapper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ouch. I use lots of white space, but not that much. I actually have very strict guidelines for how I use whitespace in my code (in VB.Net, I used 0-2 blank lines between things, depending on the situation).
And I actually make very obvious comments in my code. To me, comments are not only to describe the code, but they help me read the code faster, which means comments and whitespace should be both very consistent and should describe each section of code. So I might have:
Public Class Animal
#Region "Constants"
Private Const HIGHLANDER As Integer = 1
Private Const BUNCH_MIN As Integer = 10
Private Const COUPLE_NAME As String = "couple"
Private Const BUNCH_NAME As String = "bunch"
Private Const TEMPLATE_DESCRIPTION_SINGLE As String = "There is one baby {1}."
Private Const TEMPLATE_DESCRIPTION_MANY As String = "There are a {0} of baby {1}s."
#End Region
#Region "Properties"
Public Property AnimalName As String
#End Region
#Region "Methods"
Public Function GetChildrenDescription(ByVal count As Integer) As String
Dim description As String
Dim countWord As String
If count = HIGHLANDER Then
description = String.Format(TEMPLATE_DESCRIPTION_SINGLE, Me.AnimalName)
Else
If count >= BUNCH_MIN Then
countWord = BUNCH_NAME
Else
countWord = COUPLE_NAME
End If
description = String.Format(TEMPLATE_DESCRIPTION_MANY, countWord, Me.AnimalName)
End If
Return description
End Function
#End Region
End Class
So even though "variables" is obvious, I still keep it there because it allows me to read through code faster (e.g., by skipping over the section with variables). And I don't comment the contants section because I make constants so descriptive that I don't comment them individually and having the region "Constants" acts as a comment for the entire group of constants. I also like XML comments for large chunks of code (methods, classes) because that gives me Intellisense and Visual Studio collapses them for me.
Somebody in an online forum wrote: INTJs never really joke. They make a point. The joke is just a gift wrapper.
|
|
|
|
|
That's looking pretty decent. I must admit I never use Constants myself. But looking at this they are actually pretty handy.
My code would say If count = 1 Then... And I often find myself commenting what 1 is or why we would have it.
I am also a big fan of XML comments. Especially when I am developing some Class Library for my company to use (and I do that from time to time). I wouldn't put any of the comments in the GetChildrenDescription Method though. It looks all pretty self explanatory to me
It's an OO world.
public class Naerling : Lazy<Person>{}
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, constants are nice for refactoring. It is easy enough to search the code for "10" and change it, but you may not want to change every "10" and there may be a bunch of them. Assigning it to a constant allows you to change it in one place.
For some things that are unlikely to ever change (such as "HIGHLANDER"), I might just use a magic variable (i.e., no consant), and I have no problem with code that does that in those cases. Heck, I even use magic variables when I'm just lazy, but will sometimes go back later to convert them to constants or properties or whatever is appropriate. Really they're just one of those "nice to have" things that make others smile when they see your code (or indeed when you see your own code months after you write it), because it's so effortless to maintain. By doing these good practice things as often as possible (even when they are not strictly necessary), I find that they have become instinct and it's not hard at all to do things the right way most of the time. Good practice practice practically makes perfect good practice.
Somebody in an online forum wrote: INTJs never really joke. They make a point. The joke is just a gift wrapper.
|
|
|
|
|
The HIGHLANDER one is a bit of a joke, I think, and generally for switching between one and many it's fine to use a literal 1 – it's never going to be anything different and logically it could not be. But yes, generally, constants are good, particularly if you otherwise write a comment.
const WOTSITS_PER_THING = 13;
...
function Things(){
var wotsits = getWotsitNumberFromSomewhere();
return {things: wotsits / WOTSITS_PER_THING; leftover: wotsits % WOTSITS_PER_THING };
}
... is much better than
function Things(){
var wotsits = getWotsitNumberFromSomewhere();
return {things: wotsits / 13; leftover: wotsits % 13};
}
Personally, I like no comments – in an ideal world the code is clear enough. (No comments and unreadable code is really, really bad, though! Zero comments doesn't mean I like your code.) Because we're working in a fairly low level procedural language, though, you often need to comment higher level algorithms (particularly array or matrix related ones that get lost in a pile of loop code). XML header documentation is nice for the autocompletion but it is very easy for it to get out of date if you modify the code, and (like all comments) it isn't checked by the compiler. I would probably add it to the public interface at the end, given the choice (though for the projects I've released on here I was too lazy to do that).
|
|
|
|
|
BobJanova wrote: Personally, I like no comments
Today I came across a piece of code again that was something like:
Dim i As Integer = 10
Written by a self-proclaimed senior...
That makes me really sad
Btw, what's the story with CONST_HAVING_UNDERSCORES_AND_CAPITOLS?
I am sure it had a good reason way back when, but I fail to see it now
It's an OO world.
public class Naerling : Lazy<Person>{}
|
|
|
|
|
Naerling wrote: Btw, what's the story with CONST_HAVING_UNDERSCORES_AND_CAPITOLS?
Like dictators who rule with an iron fist and force policies to be their way always and forever, constants dictate that their value never changes and they YELL AT YOU to remind you of this fact!!!!
Somebody in an online forum wrote: INTJs never really joke. They make a point. The joke is just a gift wrapper.
|
|
|
|
|
Public Const OH_OK As Boolean = True
It's an OO world.
public class Naerling : Lazy<Person>{}
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, those comments just take up a line of screen space where code could be.
Consts, well that's just a convention from the old C days, to clearly differentiate #defined values from normal variables (C doesn't have const declarations if I remember right). In Java or C# where underscored names are generally not used anyway, constants could arguably be lower_case_with_underscores, which is less aggressive on the eye. In my own code (when I'm not subject to convention) I usually case them normally for publicly visible members (const int ThingumyWotsit = 42;).
|
|
|
|
|
Naerling wrote: Btw, what's the story with CONST_HAVING_UNDERSCORES_AND_CAPITOLS?
I am sure it had a good reason way back when, but I fail to see it now
Quite simply: Every time you see a VARIABLE_IN_CAPITOLS_AND_UNDERSCORES in the code, you simply KNOW that this is a constant and you can spare yourself the effort of trying to change it. Sure, the compiler might warn you about it, depending on your IDE - but for very long codes, you might have to look up the declaration of the variable to see it is a constant. So - Capitols, for CONSTANTS. The underscore is just there because you can't use CamelCase while using capitols only.
That seems to be a PEBKAC problem, Sir. Why don't you go and fetch a coffee while I handle the operation?
|
|
|
|
|