What are the worst programming habits?

[PIEBALDconsult]

Dave Kreskowiak wrote:

like to be explicit in my code. There is no doubt in my intent

Hear! Hear!

Dave Kreskowiak wrote:

"private as default" or whatever modifier is default is a Band-Aid

Testify, brother!

You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.

[PIEBALDconsult]

MarkTJohnson wrote:

I work on source files not directory structures.

:thumbsup: That's an issue I have with "modern" version control systems I've had to use (TFS and Subversion). But I think it stems from Visual Studio and other tools that also insist on working with directory structures rather than individual files. :sigh: The tools we use shouldn't force everyone to use one particular technique.

You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.

[Daniel R Przybylski]

Any single method that requires me to scroll (either way) on a 1920x1280 monitor.

[Member 4608898]

Normally happens if you write the comments before you write the code. It is just forgetting to remove the obvious comments after the code has been written.

[PIEBALDconsult]

Spoon Of Doom wrote:

nothing but call an almost identically named function

I've seen that too. It was in just plain C, in some code that represented a layered architecture -- so it was similar to: BL_GetDate() { return DAL_GetDate() ; } An OOP version might be: F() { base.F() ; } :sigh:

You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.

[PIEBALDconsult]

Or specifying a value for TOP. But only as necessary.

You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.

[PIEBALDconsult]

I picture things like if ( name.Length < 0 ) ...

You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.

[PIEBALDconsult]

Eddy Vluggen wrote:

Both are private

No; the class is internal. Trying to make it private yields: Error 1 Elements defined in a namespace cannot be explicitly declared as private, protected, or protected internal F:\Projects\ConsoleApplication1\Program.cs 9 17 ConsoleApplication1

You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.

[Lost User]

PIEBALDconsult wrote:

No; the class is internal.

Yes, have just been reminded (a few posts below) that classes are internal by default, only members are private. ..which does obvious make a bit more sense.

Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]

[richard_k]

I like this list.. more to add: 1. Making all member variables public (usually in the context of unit testing.. but also to increase coupling because the original OO design wasn't decomposed correctly) 2. Making all member methods public 3. lack of use of auto_ptr and other more modern mechanisms for properly handling pointer lifetime management. 4. lack of understanding of exceptions, especially their side effects on locking and memory management. (years of my life has been spent on fixing these types of issues..) 5. misunderstanding by value semantics when passing instances of classes across method interfaces. 6. passing container instances by value (eek!). Note these are ALL things I've directly observed/fixed.

[Lost User]

PIEBALDconsult wrote:

X| Yuck, filth, "littering code without adding ANY value whatsoever". X|

:) There's also a link somewhere in these posts to an article from Joel Spolsky. There have been various ways of indicating that something is a member, as opposed to a local variable. How do YOU differentiate between the two?

class X
{
private int i;
public int I { get { return i; }
public X(int someI)
{
this.i = someI;

// further down the road
int i = I;

}
}

Looks better than prefixing the stuff, but there's hardly any hint that it is a private member or a local variable. It is obvious that I must be something public, either a field or a property. It'd also cause trouble with translating to VB. A simple workaround is using this to indicate the member;

class X
{
private int i;
public int I { get { return this.i; }
public X(int someI)
{
this.i = someI;

// further down the road
int i = I;

}
}

The prefix is merely there to indicate that it is a member that is being referenced. I'd be writing the same as below;;

class X
{
int _i;
public int I { get { return _i; }
public X(int someI)
{
_i = someI;

// further down the road
int i = I;

}
}

No confusion, and the minimal amount of symbols to convey all the information I want; everything private is recognizable by the underscore, everything public starts with a capital (similar as the recommendations) and everything local start with a non-capital. The value that it adds is that it makes the naming predictable and consistent, makes it easier to spot errors and read the code. It is something that I found that does not cost time, but saves me time.

Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]

[Lost User]

Dave Kreskowiak wrote:

I think the entire "private as default" or whatever modifier is default is a Band-Aid on a bigger problem.

With the argumentation that one needs to save the developer from himself. I'm sorry, but that only flies if you don't have any using-clause in your files. Be explicit in the class that you use, or accept the default behaviour.

Dave Kreskowiak wrote:

I don't believe that the problem is with VB. I

Not? You just explained why it is :)

Dave Kreskowiak wrote:

I've has more than few degreed grads that couldn't tell me the difference between public and private. I've also heard most of those same grads say they've never written an API, to which I call bullsh*t since every application contains it's own API, usually for the sole consumer being the application itself.

Knowing the difference between the access-modifiers would be kinda basic knowledge. And no, unless it is intended to be consumed by the public, it is not a public API. If there's no SDK to download, then you're not building a framework.

Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]

[jschell]

Chris Maunder wrote:

What's your list?

1. Building something because the developer wants it rather than because a customer wants it. 2. Assuming that because something is new that it better. 3. Assuming that because something is new is it without fault and requires no time learn to use well.

[RafagaX]

I think i'm guilty of the first one, although I usually only comment when it's not clear what the code does or it may have some unintended side effects.

CEO at: - Rafaga Systems - Para Facturas - Modern Components for the moment...

[R Erasmus]

Using too many if-statements where better suitable mechanism could be used instead.

"Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to show their absence." << please vote!! >>

[CHill60]

Quote:

9. Swallowing Exceptions

My number 1 pet hate. Should be in capitals. //BUT THAT IS SOMETHING ELSE THAT'S ANNOYING IN COMMENTS Plz 4giv me shtng :-D

[moonwalker72067]

ctx - it is assumed that it should point to some context structure, it is(should; may) not variable in usual sense but rather - the function parameter so it may be "pure functional".

[Naoya Yamaguchi]

I have nothing to say against use of comments. They may not be necessary for some, but usually do no harm to anyone. I believe programmers are free to choose any name for a variable so long as they communicate well to people you work with. Using "o" is fine. If it's a problem, change your font. Bad formatting used to a bad practice, but nowadays, we have apps and services to make them neat.

[Lost User]

I'm not sure what you mean - the timings were all on the same machine.

PooperPig - Coming Soon

[Jorgen Andersson]

I was just curious on the performance of SingleOrDefault vs FirstOrDefault as per Petes suggestion.

Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello[^]