Apparently there is no limit to naming conventions for method
-
public void SettingDeviceList_ReAddingAPreviouslyDeletedDevice_MustAddDevicesToRuleDevicesWithIsDeletedFalseAndIsIncludedTrue()
{
return;
}I feel like crying. X|
-
public void SettingDeviceList_ReAddingAPreviouslyDeletedDevice_MustAddDevicesToRuleDevicesWithIsDeletedFalseAndIsIncludedTrue()
{
return;
}I feel like crying. X|
I thought I am the naming jerk :laugh:
-
Look on the bright side - it's broken up into easily manageable chunks by _'s Imagine it was not...
-
Nice ans well, but I expect some rcommendation any time now that will tell us to wear feathers on our heads and chant while dancing around the computer.
At least artificial intelligence already is superior to natural stupidity
-
What is actually so bad about this? The length only? If yes, then WTF? You are kvetching about length? Why? If not, then fill it in here: __________________________
SettingDeviceList_ReAddingAPreviouslyDeletedDevice_MustAddDevicesToRuleDevicesWithIsDeletedFalseAndIsIncludedTrueYou genuiely think this is readable? I got bored half way through, though it is 1 am where I am.Michael K Gray wrote:
If not, then fill it in here:
Well in probability this is several methods and attributes:
public void ReAddRequiredDeletedDevice()
{
//OK this if is a punt, but if gives the idea
if(!Device.IsDeleted && Device.IsIncluded)
{
//Add or whatever
}
}public void SetDeviceList()
{
ReAddRequiredDeletedDevice();
return; //Hey the one useful line of code from the OP!
}Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^] -
public void SettingDeviceList_ReAddingAPreviouslyDeletedDevice_MustAddDevicesToRuleDevicesWithIsDeletedFalseAndIsIncludedTrue()
{
return;
}I feel like crying. X|
That is not real! I can't believe
-
:(( :wtf: :(( :wtf: :(( :wtf: :(( Is that even called somewhere?!??! On thinking, it might be a stub that never got filled in for some reason, but the name is absolutely unreasonably ridiculously insanely crazy!
public class SysAdmin : Employee
{public override void DoWork(IWorkItem workItem) { if (workItem.User.Type == UserType.NoLearn){ throw new NoIWillNotFixYourComputerException(new Luser(workItem.User)); }else{ base.DoWork(workItem); } }}
Zac Greve wrote:
absolutely unreasonably ridiculously insanely crazy
private void absolutely_unreasonably_ridiculously_insanely_crazy()
{
return;
}FTFY
Alberto Bar-Noy --------------- “The city’s central computer told you? R2D2, you know better than to trust a strange computer!” (C3PO)
-
public void SettingDeviceList_ReAddingAPreviouslyDeletedDevice_MustAddDevicesToRuleDevicesWithIsDeletedFalseAndIsIncludedTrue()
{
return;
}I feel like crying. X|
I remember some years ago seeing this from one developer
void CommunicationsBlockScheduler::PerformScheduleAndExecuteOfCommunicationBlocksOnAProportialAndPriorityBasis(..)
And another developer on the same team took the oposite approach With gems like this:
void rssr()
This was replicate spread sheet rows
-
public void SettingDeviceList_ReAddingAPreviouslyDeletedDevice_MustAddDevicesToRuleDevicesWithIsDeletedFalseAndIsIncludedTrue()
{
return;
}I feel like crying. X|
I feel like laughing my arse off :D That's what you do when you: a) don't know how to use an IDE b) don't know what OOP stands for In particular, things like this, among others, were at the origin of OOP creation. Back in the seventies, structured programming hit a wall. Among other things, when your C program grew to 70 KLOCs or so, it seems, you ran out of reasonable identifiers. OOP, providing encapsulation and nice mechanisms to avoid global/public data, got past this issue.
-
In several languages.
Bill Gates is a very rich man today... and do you want to know why? The answer is one word: versions. Dave Barry Read more at [BrainyQuote](http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/topics topic_technology.html#yAfSEbrfumitrteO.99)[^]