Coded insults
-
And the problem with that is what, exactly? :)
I think it isn't too polite when you show a message box to your user which is telling him that he is too stupid :doh: . Just a gues ;P
-
I think it isn't too polite when you show a message box to your user which is telling him that he is too stupid :doh: . Just a gues ;P
Ah, I see - empathy etc. I've heard of that! ;P
-
From the main form of a simple XSD validator app..
void executeButton\_click(object sender, EventArgs e) { if (userTooStupid(schema == null, "You gotta load an XSD first, genius.") || userTooStupid(fileBrowser1.SelectedFiles.Length == 0, "You've selected zero files. And they're all valid!!")) return; bool userTooStupid(bool condition, string insult) { if (condition) MessageBox.Show(insult, "User Too Stupid"); return condition; }I put in stupid programmer exceptions to catch conditions where a programmer's ignored instructions around the architecture / has made changes to code without looking for side effects. Since I tend to be the only coder on a lot of my projects, this also forces me to be more careful / to avoid embarrassing myself in front of the users. e.g. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10704863/c-sharp-ensure-valid-enum-values-futureproof-method[^]
-
And the problem with that is what, exactly? :)
-
I put in stupid programmer exceptions to catch conditions where a programmer's ignored instructions around the architecture / has made changes to code without looking for side effects. Since I tend to be the only coder on a lot of my projects, this also forces me to be more careful / to avoid embarrassing myself in front of the users. e.g. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10704863/c-sharp-ensure-valid-enum-values-futureproof-method[^]
I once wrote some code that checked for a condition that was impossible (just to be funny) and added an error message that went something like this: "It seems that an impossible condition has been perceived to have occurred while processing your data. If you are receiving this error, then please do nothing, as you you obviously do not exist. Authorities have been notified of your non-conformity." So far, I'm not aware that anyone else has seen it...
-
From the main form of a simple XSD validator app..
void executeButton\_click(object sender, EventArgs e) { if (userTooStupid(schema == null, "You gotta load an XSD first, genius.") || userTooStupid(fileBrowser1.SelectedFiles.Length == 0, "You've selected zero files. And they're all valid!!")) return; bool userTooStupid(bool condition, string insult) { if (condition) MessageBox.Show(insult, "User Too Stupid"); return condition; }Programmer sure seems to heve a high opinion of themselves. After all, it's not like they disabled that execute button until the user had loaded an XSD and selected at least one file. And to top it off, they tried to cover up their shortcomings by insulting the user. Stupid programmer. Programmer: -1 User: 0
We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.
-
I put in stupid programmer exceptions to catch conditions where a programmer's ignored instructions around the architecture / has made changes to code without looking for side effects. Since I tend to be the only coder on a lot of my projects, this also forces me to be more careful / to avoid embarrassing myself in front of the users. e.g. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10704863/c-sharp-ensure-valid-enum-values-futureproof-method[^]
few functional language compiler (i know) have this ability to track the side effects and wont compile unless there is a fall back handler.
Regards Vallarasu S | BreakingDotNet.blogspot.com
-
From the main form of a simple XSD validator app..
void executeButton\_click(object sender, EventArgs e) { if (userTooStupid(schema == null, "You gotta load an XSD first, genius.") || userTooStupid(fileBrowser1.SelectedFiles.Length == 0, "You've selected zero files. And they're all valid!!")) return; bool userTooStupid(bool condition, string insult) { if (condition) MessageBox.Show(insult, "User Too Stupid"); return condition; }What's the name of the validator app?
-
Programmer sure seems to heve a high opinion of themselves. After all, it's not like they disabled that execute button until the user had loaded an XSD and selected at least one file. And to top it off, they tried to cover up their shortcomings by insulting the user. Stupid programmer. Programmer: -1 User: 0
We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.
-
Programmer sure seems to heve a high opinion of themselves. After all, it's not like they disabled that execute button until the user had loaded an XSD and selected at least one file. And to top it off, they tried to cover up their shortcomings by insulting the user. Stupid programmer. Programmer: -1 User: 0
We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.
-
A good point. Such easily pre-checkable conditions can be coded around, in a UI at least, so that the user can't make that stupid mistake.
Be careful with assumptions about what the user can and cannot do through the UI, especially if you work on the web. The QA team at my company has specific instructions to enable all disabled buttons and controls using various means (on the web, it's pretty easy: Inspect Element. For Windows applications, a special app is needed). The main reason is to secure the app against users being malicious rather than stupid, though.
-
I just use a message box that says "Too late for sorry, earthling!" It should NEVER be seen by anyone but me, and so far I have yet to hear about it
emajyn wrote:
I have yet to hear about it
Perhaps because such a message screams to the user that you don't want to hear about it if it ever does happen. At least add a unique guru meditation number or something to the message. That'll turn it into a whimisical way to deliver an obscure error. Might someday keep your management from loosing face to some customer with clout who happens to get that message.
We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.
-
From the main form of a simple XSD validator app..
void executeButton\_click(object sender, EventArgs e) { if (userTooStupid(schema == null, "You gotta load an XSD first, genius.") || userTooStupid(fileBrowser1.SelectedFiles.Length == 0, "You've selected zero files. And they're all valid!!")) return; bool userTooStupid(bool condition, string insult) { if (condition) MessageBox.Show(insult, "User Too Stupid"); return condition; }:sigh:
public void WriteCode(ICodeContext ctx, ICodeFile file)
{
Programmer.BeMeanToUsersAsTheyAreStoopid(ctx, file, MeanLevel.Medium); //<-- I have seen many worse things :-(
}I think computer viruses should count as life. I think it says something about human nature that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. We've created life in our own image. Stephen Hawking
-
From the main form of a simple XSD validator app..
void executeButton\_click(object sender, EventArgs e) { if (userTooStupid(schema == null, "You gotta load an XSD first, genius.") || userTooStupid(fileBrowser1.SelectedFiles.Length == 0, "You've selected zero files. And they're all valid!!")) return; bool userTooStupid(bool condition, string insult) { if (condition) MessageBox.Show(insult, "User Too Stupid"); return condition; } -
Be careful with assumptions about what the user can and cannot do through the UI, especially if you work on the web. The QA team at my company has specific instructions to enable all disabled buttons and controls using various means (on the web, it's pretty easy: Inspect Element. For Windows applications, a special app is needed). The main reason is to secure the app against users being malicious rather than stupid, though.
If the user bypasses having things disabled or manually submits invalid data, then a terse error message is fair enough. That's not normal usage, that's abuse, and the code should protect itself against such things. The example in the OP appears to be for something that can happen in normal usage when it shouldn't be able to, though.
-
What's the name of the validator app?
I called it "Rude XSD validator". It was something I threw together in a hurry. The software we develop is serviced/administered by another company. We had a situation in which we needed to know if XML files provided by a third party were in accordance to a given XSD. The administrators were unable to figure it out and asked me to provide them with a tool... So I quickly threw together a WinForms GUI in which one can load one XSD, easily choose one or more files, and validate them all. In other words, a few people I knew a little and collaborated with would be my users. We have an informal tone, and nobody complained of anything.
-
A good point. Such easily pre-checkable conditions can be coded around, in a UI at least, so that the user can't make that stupid mistake.
Yes you can do that, but it will result in the 'stupid user' complaining about the execute button not being active. At least the way it's handled here offers the opportunity to explain why this won't work, and what is expected. Granted, it could be expressed ... differently :rose:
-
I just use a message box that says "Too late for sorry, earthling!" It should NEVER be seen by anyone but me, and so far I have yet to hear about it
Yes, I too once coded an error message under a condition that at that point I assumed was a foregone conclusion. It said sth along the lines of. "you should never see this error message. If you do, please contact <my name>" Of course, that impossible condition did hit eventually, and I got a call from our customer.. Thankfully the software was still under testing at that point so it wasn't some clueless user, but a rather exhilarated tester... :-O
-
Yes, I too once coded an error message under a condition that at that point I assumed was a foregone conclusion. It said sth along the lines of. "you should never see this error message. If you do, please contact <my name>" Of course, that impossible condition did hit eventually, and I got a call from our customer.. Thankfully the software was still under testing at that point so it wasn't some clueless user, but a rather exhilarated tester... :-O
-
Programmer sure seems to heve a high opinion of themselves. After all, it's not like they disabled that execute button until the user had loaded an XSD and selected at least one file. And to top it off, they tried to cover up their shortcomings by insulting the user. Stupid programmer. Programmer: -1 User: 0
We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.
Agreed. Keep thinking your user is "stupid" and pretty soon you won't have any. /ravi
My new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com