Get rid of this programmer
-
I didn't consider the possibility, maybe he just had a brain fart? I can remember writing what i was thinking one or two times. Granted he SHOULD have read over his code before presenting it... I can say I've presented code to my boss without fully testing it out of stupid young confidence.
-
I didn't consider the possibility, maybe he just had a brain fart? I can remember writing what i was thinking one or two times. Granted he SHOULD have read over his code before presenting it... I can say I've presented code to my boss without fully testing it out of stupid young confidence.
That was more than a brain fart, but it would have done what it was designed to do. It was just a foolish thing to do. I have never had a boss that could really understand the code without me explaining it to him. Matter of fact I cust one for saying I did not understand the question, when the fact was he did not understand the answer. Of course they had just hired him and he eventialy learned that I knew what I was doing.
INTP "Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to show their absence."Edsger Dijkstra
-
C# doesn't have an
integerkeyword - it's Java. I'm fairly sure thatjava.lang.Integeris a class, not a straightforward value type - that's still calledint. That would make anIntegerthe equivalent of a boxedintin C#/.NET.Stability. What an interesting concept. -- Chris Maunder
May have used
# define integer intortypedef -
I hired a programmer right out of school. Started him on a very simple project. I performed a tech review of the code and saw the following method call private integer inc(integer int_i) { integer int_j=int_i+1; return int_j; } He no longer works for the company.......:wtf: Moose Man
Did you offer him/her constructive criticism? :) Otherwise they'll continue writing bad code. IMHO it's not really bad code as from what I can tell it looks valid. More bad practice, which is something only experience can teach you - at least osmething that trivial as I don't think Fowler, etc address those kind of design choices. :P
I'm finding the only constant in software development is change it self.
-
May have used
# define integer intortypedefPIEBALDconsult wrote:
May have used # define integer int or typedef
C# does not have them although
usingcan be used for that purpose in a file scope, but I honestly think that the OP made a typo. Maybe he should be fired, rather than the poor beginner programmer :)
-
I hired a programmer right out of school. Started him on a very simple project. I performed a tech review of the code and saw the following method call private integer inc(integer int_i) { integer int_j=int_i+1; return int_j; } He no longer works for the company.......:wtf: Moose Man
-
I hired a programmer right out of school. Started him on a very simple project. I performed a tech review of the code and saw the following method call private integer inc(integer int_i) { integer int_j=int_i+1; return int_j; } He no longer works for the company.......:wtf: Moose Man
-
I hired a programmer right out of school. Started him on a very simple project. I performed a tech review of the code and saw the following method call private integer inc(integer int_i) { integer int_j=int_i+1; return int_j; } He no longer works for the company.......:wtf: Moose Man
So what is wrong with it? Use of private before a return declaration? I'm unfamiliar with this syntax. In C++, private and public are used in the class declaration, not the function definitions.
-
I hired a programmer right out of school. Started him on a very simple project. I performed a tech review of the code and saw the following method call private integer inc(integer int_i) { integer int_j=int_i+1; return int_j; } He no longer works for the company.......:wtf: Moose Man
eunderwo00 wrote:
private integer inc(integer int_i) { integer int_j=int_i+1; return int_j; }
Ok this is an unnecessary function but what is the reason you let him go?
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) -
eunderwo00 wrote:
private integer inc(integer int_i) { integer int_j=int_i+1; return int_j; }
Ok this is an unnecessary function but what is the reason you let him go?
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)I'm wondering if he wrote additional functions for the remaining operators.
Dave Kreskowiak Microsoft MVP Visual Developer - Visual Basic
2006, 2007 -
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
May have used # define integer int or typedef
C# does not have them although
usingcan be used for that purpose in a file scope, but I honestly think that the OP made a typo. Maybe he should be fired, rather than the poor beginner programmer :)
Nah, it's valid pseudo-pseudocode.
-
eunderwo00 wrote:
I hired a programmer right out of school.
Right out of Jr. High? :laugh: How did the "programmer" pass his classes with skills like that?
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
Captain See Sharp wrote:
How did the "programmer" pass his classes with skills like that?
To me this code shows that the programmer does not know c++ java or has not used it in a very long time.
Last modified: 2hrs 11mins after originally posted --
John
-
eunderwo00 wrote:
private integer inc(integer int_i) { integer int_j=int_i+1; return int_j; }
Ok this is an unnecessary function but what is the reason you let him go?
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)I can only think that int_j should be explicitly assigned a value at declaration, before actual use in case int_i is passed unassigned, hence : private integer inc(integer int_i) { integer int_j=0; int_j=int_i+1; return int_j; }
-
I can only think that int_j should be explicitly assigned a value at declaration, before actual use in case int_i is passed unassigned, hence : private integer inc(integer int_i) { integer int_j=0; int_j=int_i+1; return int_j; }
sprint_sport wrote:
I can only think that int_j should be explicitly assigned a value at declaration, before actual use in case int_i is passed unassigned, hence : private integer inc(integer int_i) { integer int_j=0; int_j=int_i+1; return int_j; }
Integers by default are 0 when declared just as booleans are false, strings are nothing, etc...
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) -
I hired a programmer right out of school. Started him on a very simple project. I performed a tech review of the code and saw the following method call private integer inc(integer int_i) { integer int_j=int_i+1; return int_j; } He no longer works for the company.......:wtf: Moose Man
Regarding the language used by the programmer. I don't see anything bad with the code, at least he had the concept of private. Also this in reality doesn't speak so good from you and not from the "programmer right out from school". Are many thing to take in consideration. He probably thought it will impress you doing this, or he didn't realize what he did. Also one of the obligation of seasoned Developers, is help the new generations to going the right direction. Are thousands more other aspects that I take in consideration to say if someone it's or not a good programmer, than simple review his code.
-
Regarding the language used by the programmer. I don't see anything bad with the code, at least he had the concept of private. Also this in reality doesn't speak so good from you and not from the "programmer right out from school". Are many thing to take in consideration. He probably thought it will impress you doing this, or he didn't realize what he did. Also one of the obligation of seasoned Developers, is help the new generations to going the right direction. Are thousands more other aspects that I take in consideration to say if someone it's or not a good programmer, than simple review his code.
GTuritto wrote:
I don't see anything bad with the code,
Can you name just a single use for this function that isn't covered by the "+" operator?
Dave Kreskowiak Microsoft MVP Visual Developer - Visual Basic
2006, 2007 -
GTuritto wrote:
I don't see anything bad with the code,
Can you name just a single use for this function that isn't covered by the "+" operator?
Dave Kreskowiak Microsoft MVP Visual Developer - Visual Basic
2006, 2007None. It could be solved with ++ operator. But you will surprise to know how many Developers, (and some of them are really good) that I personally know that they never in their's life are used ++ and they had no idea about the ++ operator. Now has I say before, if instead to get fuming and kick the guy out we drop our Ego has the greatest Developer's, we will realize that the idea even if it's stupid it's not bad. And before any one goes crazy here, let me explain my self. I have no idea in what context this method was, then I can't talk about this method it self. If it was me first I will be say "What a F...", then I will have a chat with the guy asking why he did that, third I will lecture him why the method is bad, and showing to him the ++ operator, fourth I will see if we can improve the idea, or tell to the programmer to fix the little issue, fifth I will check again to see if he fixed in the right way. And last but not least, I will never, never laugh at someone in this way. All of us we did some stupid mistake like that. Laugh at your self, not to a kid that just came out from school.
-
Captain See Sharp wrote:
How did the "programmer" pass his classes with skills like that?
To me this code shows that the programmer does not know c++ java or has not used it in a very long time.
Last modified: 2hrs 11mins after originally posted --
John
John M. Drescher wrote:
To me this code shows that the programmer does not know c++ java or has not used it in a very long time.
Well, I starting learning C when I was 13. The increment and decrement operators are almost impossible to forget. There are many things about the C family of languages that really stick.
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
-
None. It could be solved with ++ operator. But you will surprise to know how many Developers, (and some of them are really good) that I personally know that they never in their's life are used ++ and they had no idea about the ++ operator. Now has I say before, if instead to get fuming and kick the guy out we drop our Ego has the greatest Developer's, we will realize that the idea even if it's stupid it's not bad. And before any one goes crazy here, let me explain my self. I have no idea in what context this method was, then I can't talk about this method it self. If it was me first I will be say "What a F...", then I will have a chat with the guy asking why he did that, third I will lecture him why the method is bad, and showing to him the ++ operator, fourth I will see if we can improve the idea, or tell to the programmer to fix the little issue, fifth I will check again to see if he fixed in the right way. And last but not least, I will never, never laugh at someone in this way. All of us we did some stupid mistake like that. Laugh at your self, not to a kid that just came out from school.
Not
++it's just a+. I now wonder why it wasn't written to take a second parameter to specify the size of the increment. -
None. It could be solved with ++ operator. But you will surprise to know how many Developers, (and some of them are really good) that I personally know that they never in their's life are used ++ and they had no idea about the ++ operator. Now has I say before, if instead to get fuming and kick the guy out we drop our Ego has the greatest Developer's, we will realize that the idea even if it's stupid it's not bad. And before any one goes crazy here, let me explain my self. I have no idea in what context this method was, then I can't talk about this method it self. If it was me first I will be say "What a F...", then I will have a chat with the guy asking why he did that, third I will lecture him why the method is bad, and showing to him the ++ operator, fourth I will see if we can improve the idea, or tell to the programmer to fix the little issue, fifth I will check again to see if he fixed in the right way. And last but not least, I will never, never laugh at someone in this way. All of us we did some stupid mistake like that. Laugh at your self, not to a kid that just came out from school.
GTuritto wrote:
It could be solved with ++ operator. But you will surprise to know how many Developers, (and some of them are really good) that I personally know that they never in their's life are used ++ and they had no idea about the ++ operator.
I, thankfully, am not one of them. I for one, as are most people, am completely satisfied with
i=i+1in the event that a++operator doesn't exist, in any language I use. I the consequences and performance benefits/costs of making a call to a function along with the optimizations available in todays compilers.GTuritto wrote:
If it was me first I will be say "What a F...", then I will have a chat with the guy asking why he did that, third I will lecture him why the method is bad, and showing to him the ++ operator, fourth I will see if we can improve the idea, or tell to the programmer to fix the little issue, fifth I will check again to see if he fixed in the right way.
Reading the original post, it's entirely possible that this DID occur, and he still doesn't work for the company. Maybe this person did all kinds of stupid things in his code, maybe not. We simply don't know. I know, it's no reason to be critical of it. But, we also don't know what kind of skill level assumption he was hired under either. If they were expecting higher quality work and he just couldn't deliver past high-school code, out the door he goes.
GTuritto wrote:
All of us we did some stupid mistake like that.
There's a huge difference between making a stupid mistake like that and turning it in as production code. I for one, have never turned in a stupid mistake, no, let me change that, a stupid rationalisation like that! What on earth was this guy thinking when he wrote this? What's the rationale behind writing a function like this? Having said that, what's going through this guys head with the rest of the code he turned in, or will turn in in the future? How much work are we going to now have to invest in him AND cleaning up his code. This guy wasn't ready for a full-time coding job, plain and simple. School, or his own study habits, it seems, has failed to prepare him for a real world coding job. In this cut-throat business, I don't know of too many internships that could spare the time or the resources to teach him what he should have learnt in class. I know