Guess His Experience Level

[EyeYamFedUp]

Unfortunately not. This is a Winform project, that started it's life as VB.NET 2003. All new code this guy writes has the same stuff.

[Daniel Tak M]

He definitely is not typing lazy...

[Yusuf]

EyeYamFedUp wrote:

Guess how many years he's been coding?

10+ years in VB, 0 years in OO :^)

Yusuf Oh didn't you notice, analogous to square roots, they recently introduced rectangular, circular, and diamond roots to determine the size of the corresponding shapes when given the area. Luc Pattyn[^]

[Viral Upadhyay]

Is your company pay for line of code you write? :-D

Viral My Site Tips & Tracks

[Thomas Weller 0]

This is clearly copied from somewhere. You can see that from the nonsense prefixes. Either from the net or from this VB6 Win32 API code snippet tool from MS (forgot the exact name). Obviously this guy is a VB5/6 'programmer' who was under the earth for the last 10 years. Maybe he is coding for 30 years or so, but he is/was 'coding' exclusively in VB. He has no idea of OO programming, maybe he thinks VB5/6 IS OO... :doh: And regarding modules named modCommon or Globals or the like: they are just crying out loud that there's a significant problem with the systems overall architecture (which is also obvious from the module description). Regards Thomas

www.thomas-weller.de Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.
Programmer - an organism that turns coffee into software.

[akyriako78]

:omg:

[akyriako78]

Are we sure it's not April's fool joke ? If not the guy must quit drugs and never (OK I really mean it. NEVER) left alone with a keyboard and a code editor. :thumbsdown:

[akyriako78]

EyeYamFedUp wrote:

Public gblnSuperUser As Boolean Public gblnLogonOK As Boolean = False

Wow. Excellent security paradigm.

[Pete OHanlon]

What's your problem with it? He used comments didn't he? ;)

"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith

As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.

My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Onyx

[EyeYamFedUp]

Scary isn't it? And you wouldn't believe how many programs he's written like this. Your jaws would probably hit the ground at some of the stuff he does. And the really sad part. He's been controlling what and how things are done in the server world for years. And even sadder yet, the applications are terribly slow. One example is an application that takes 5 minutes to save a record. 5 minutes. I saw that and was beside myself.

[Thomas Weller 0]

Pete O'Hanlon wrote:

He used comments didn't he?

Indeed! Even the polished version ('*). :-D Regards Thomas

www.thomas-weller.de Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.
Programmer - an organism that turns coffee into software.

[akyriako78]

5 minutes !!!! No Comments. :omg:

[BadKarma]

Thomas Weller wrote:

He has no idea of OO programming, maybe he thinks VB5/6 IS OO

Blasphemy ... OK maybe you're right about VB5. But surely VB6 is a OO programming language.

Learn from the mistakes of others, you may not live long enough to make them all yourself.

[Tristan Rhodes]

Looks like the kind of code my last boss would write.... bizzarely enough he seemed to recite "Keep it Simple Stupid" and "Structured Coding Practices" and swore by Code Complete.... like using them as some kind of protective mantra would do any good for the abomination created. After opening his core business app to find most web pages with 750 line page load functions, dozens of nested conditions (Loop / If / Case anyone?) and all the variables declared at the page leve, which served up a range of pages based on seemingly arbitrary values... i asked for help. "It's in the code, read it." I did take away some fantastic coding advice: * Only one return per function (no short circuit conditions), leading to horrendous nesting. * Don't use Data Access layers, they're a waste of time, just use inline SQL and bind to a DataReader. * Don't create lots of objects, it's slow. * Don't break things into sub functions, it's harder to read and slower. * Don't use constants, it's hard to read the literal representation. * Don't use Serialization (Xml or otherwise - My understanding of serialization is object state persistence so I'm not sure how to persist without it). * Don't use wrappers, ever, as you will just end up with wrappers in wrappers. * Don't use Inheritance, it's complicated. * Don't use Interfaces, they're unescessary. * Don't make custom controls * Don't use design patterns, they just complicate things. * Don't use code generators, they generate slow / too much code. * Don't bother with resources until we need to globalize the app. * Don't make unit tests, waste of time, we can just user test it. Now, without any of the above application structures, and the functional requirement to add Multi Language support, change the database schema (slighltly), and add cross site functionality to each page.... Needless to say, the code debt was massive, and maintenance was a time sync of code + fix with no coherent strategy. Did i mention he was the CTO? :-D Regards

------------------------------- Carrier Bags - 21st Century Tumbleweed.

modified on Friday, April 3, 2009 6:58 AM

[Pete OHanlon]

Tristan Rhodes wrote:

* Only one return per function (no short circuit conditions), leading to horrendous nesting.

Not bad advice - just keep your functions short or you're in trouble.

Tristan Rhodes wrote:

* Don't use Data Access layers, they're a waste of time, just use inline SQL and bind to a DataReader.

COBOL

Tristan Rhodes wrote:

* Don't create lots of objects, it's slow.

COBOL

Tristan Rhodes wrote:

* Don't break things into sub functions, it's harder to read and slower.

COBOL

Tristan Rhodes wrote:

* Don't use constants, it's hard to read the literal representation.

COBOL

Tristan Rhodes wrote:

* Don't use wrappers, ever, as you will just end up with wrappers in wrappers.

COBOL

Tristan Rhodes wrote:

* Don't use Inheritance, it's complicated.

COBOL

Tristan Rhodes wrote:

* Don't use Interfaces, they're unescessary.

COBOL

Tristan Rhodes wrote:

* Don't use Serialization (Xml or otherwise - My understanding of serialization is object state persistence so I'm not sure how to persist without it).

COBOL

Tristan Rhodes wrote:

* Don't make custom controls

COBOL

Tristan Rhodes wrote:

* Don't use design patterns, they just complicate things.

COBOL

Tristan Rhodes wrote:

* Don't use code generators, they generate slow / too much code.

COBOL

Tristan Rhodes wrote:

* Don't bother with resources until we need to globalize the app.

COBOL

Tristan Rhodes wrote:

* Don't make unit tests, waste of time, we can just user test it.

COBOL

"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith

As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.

[Thomas Weller 0]

BadKarma wrote:

But surely VB6 is a OO programming language.

Right. I forgot that VB6 has 'classes', so it must be OO... :-D Regards Thomas

www.thomas-weller.de Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.
Programmer - an organism that turns coffee into software.

[Nagy Vilmos]

Pete O'Hanlon wrote:

BOLOC

Fixed it!

---

Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done.

[Pete OHanlon]

Actually, I wrote COBOL so many times so somebody would pluralise the anagram.

"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith

As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.

My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Onyx

[Tristan Rhodes]

Pete O'Hanlon wrote:

Tristan Rhodes wrote: * Only one return per function (no short circuit conditions), leading to horrendous nesting. Not bad advice - just keep your functions short or you're in trouble.

I'd rather see this

MenuItemNode child = tvMenu.SelectedNode as MenuItemNode;

if (child == null)
return;

MenuItemNode parent = child.Parent as MenuItemNode;

if (parent == null)
return;

MenuItemNode swap = child.PrevNode as MenuItemNode;

if (swap == null)
return;

//Code Here

Than This

MenuItemNode child = tvMenu.SelectedNode as MenuItemNode;

if (child != null)
{
MenuItemNode parent = child.Parent as MenuItemNode;

  if (parent != null)
  {
        MenuItemNode swap = child.PrevNode as MenuItemNode;

        if (swap != null)
        {
              //Code Here
        }
  }

}

I just find the second option ugly, and it really isn't any easier to read.

------------------------------- Carrier Bags - 21st Century Tumbleweed.

modified on Sunday, April 5, 2009 7:33 AM

[jayart]

I think the same. But no one in my team thinks this way and they have managed to make this as a coding rule.