Val Grind (the wrong kind)
-
At my current job we've got a lot of legacy code like that. Just put + "" to the end of every object you can imagine. It will effectively convert the object which you already had to a string and from there you can convert it back to whatever you want (but Val() is indeed very popular!). My company even had its own Val() function which returned 0 if an Exception was thrown :laugh:
It's an OO world.
public class Naerling : Lazy<Person>{
public void DoWork(){ throw new NotImplementedException(); }
}Is that irony? "It's an OO world. public class Naerling : Lazy<Person>{" Now, a Person with type specifier "Lazy" is something I can understand, but a "Lazy" with type specifier "Person" does not seem to be good OO design to me. (just jokes)
-
Yes, I'm particularly surprised that in spite of writing explicitly why it is inappropriate in this case (to convert long->string->long), that people still post to indicate "this is a common idiom in VB6". I'd rephrase that as "this is a common idiocy in VB6". Cargo-cult programming sums it well too. I see why VB6 has such as bad reputation - and its not the language for the most part, and why programming languages aimed at mainstream use should take steps to protect programmers from themselves (strong typing, correct scoping, eliminate global variables, and make bad-idioms a struggle to use). I wonder if there's a cargo-cult approach on message boards too, where if you keep repeating the same wrong reply it will magically begin to work. "Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". Albert Einstein.
-
...and in my replies above I've already indicated why it is unnecessary to convert long->string->long.
-
Is that irony? "It's an OO world. public class Naerling : Lazy<Person>{" Now, a Person with type specifier "Lazy" is something I can understand, but a "Lazy" with type specifier "Person" does not seem to be good OO design to me. (just jokes)
Those aren't type specifiers, at least in any language I'm familiar with (C++, C#, Java).
-
Is that irony? "It's an OO world. public class Naerling : Lazy<Person>{" Now, a Person with type specifier "Lazy" is something I can understand, but a "Lazy" with type specifier "Person" does not seem to be good OO design to me. (just jokes)
Lazy<Something> and what's lazy? The Person. Read it out loud and it makes perfect sense :) Besides, I was more worried with signature design than OO design ;)
It's an OO world.
public class Naerling : Lazy<Person>{
public void DoWork(){ throw new NotImplementedException(); }
} -
Yes, I'm particularly surprised that in spite of writing explicitly why it is inappropriate in this case (to convert long->string->long), that people still post to indicate "this is a common idiom in VB6". I'd rephrase that as "this is a common idiocy in VB6". Cargo-cult programming sums it well too. I see why VB6 has such as bad reputation - and its not the language for the most part, and why programming languages aimed at mainstream use should take steps to protect programmers from themselves (strong typing, correct scoping, eliminate global variables, and make bad-idioms a struggle to use). I wonder if there's a cargo-cult approach on message boards too, where if you keep repeating the same wrong reply it will magically begin to work. "Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". Albert Einstein.
Slightly in defence of the VB.NET Option Strict Off equivalent, I did see it provides a more user friendly error message. (Programmatically it loses information, because the exception type is always the same, but the error message actually displays the invalid "value".) This is NOT a defence of the current Long->String->Long scenario though.
Regards, Mark Hurd, B.Sc.(Ma.) (Hons.)
-
At my current job we've got a lot of legacy code like that. Just put + "" to the end of every object you can imagine. It will effectively convert the object which you already had to a string and from there you can convert it back to whatever you want (but Val() is indeed very popular!). My company even had its own Val() function which returned 0 if an Exception was thrown :laugh:
It's an OO world.
public class Naerling : Lazy<Person>{
public void DoWork(){ throw new NotImplementedException(); }
}I've seen code like x = 0 - y; which, apparently was a workaround for a compiler bug which sometimes generated the wrong code for x = -y; I've also seen lots of legacy code of the type you've described but not in VB. The thing is that the concatenation operator is & so think about why they've used + before you change it. Sometimes there is a reason for using the +. Just make sure the item on the right is a string: it may not always be a string. When it isn't, what is happening and what are they doing?
-
I've seen code like x = 0 - y; which, apparently was a workaround for a compiler bug which sometimes generated the wrong code for x = -y; I've also seen lots of legacy code of the type you've described but not in VB. The thing is that the concatenation operator is & so think about why they've used + before you change it. Sometimes there is a reason for using the +. Just make sure the item on the right is a string: it may not always be a string. When it isn't, what is happening and what are they doing?
Member 4608898 wrote:
what is happening and what are they doing?
No one really knows... There's lots of obscure bugs in code like that :) Luckily, one of the other 'magical solutions for all your problems' is the wonderful On Error Resume Next command. Really, if it was allowed people would've used On Error Resume Next + "" :laugh:
It's an OO world.
public class Naerling : Lazy<Person>{
public void DoWork(){ throw new NotImplementedException(); }
} -
...and in my replies above I've already indicated why it is unnecessary to convert long->string->long.
I'm still boggled a bit by the number of people who responded "this is a common idiom" without actually analyzing what was written. It's not that I'm not familiar with why it happens, it's just that so many who reply this way are being paid good money to manage code bases.
"Seize the day" - Horace "It's not what he doesn't know that scares me; it's what he knows for sure that just ain't so!" - Will Rogers, said by him about Herbert Hoover
-
I'm still boggled a bit by the number of people who responded "this is a common idiom" without actually analyzing what was written. It's not that I'm not familiar with why it happens, it's just that so many who reply this way are being paid good money to manage code bases.
"Seize the day" - Horace "It's not what he doesn't know that scares me; it's what he knows for sure that just ain't so!" - Will Rogers, said by him about Herbert Hoover
cpkilekofp wrote:
I'm still boggled a bit by the number of people who responded "this is a common idiom" without actually analyzing what was written.
Good, it's not just me then.
