AARRGGHHHH!!!!!

[Mark_Wallace]

Marc Clifton wrote:

If you don't like typing, why are you a programmer?

Voice control is always an option. I know devs who'd happily use it very loudly when inputting code that they (erroneously) believe to be genius, and only use the keyboard to input their dirty hacks. I'd say that there's a possible connection between those guys and your guys.

I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!

[Slacker007]

Thank you. Exactly.

[Mycroft Holmes]

Thank you, I needed a good chuckle this morning. I do enjoy your rants, they align with my thinking rather nicely.

Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH

[Abhinav S]

Marc Clifton wrote:

oh, I'm using this because it reduces the amount of code I have to type

Have you used LINQ? Do you know it reduces the amount of.....Oops.

Mobile Apps - Sound Meter | Color Analyzer | SMBC | Football Doodles

[JimmyRopes]

PIEBALDconsult wrote:

Same thing I see with Linq/Lambdas ; it's still just the Cult of Fewer Keystrokes. X|

I really like linq/lambdas. They unify the way many various things are accessed, and in my opinion make the code more readable. Just my opinion. Your mileage may vary.

Once you lose your pride the rest is easy. In the end, only three things matter: how much you loved, how gently you lived, and how gracefully you let go of things not meant for you. – Buddha Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs

[PIEBALDconsult]

JimmyRopes wrote:

They unify the way many various things are accessed

To the lowest common, and therefore the least efficient, method possible. And it's unreadable.

[Brady Kelly]

I always try and reduce the amount of code I type. I live by Intellisense and code snippets, or ReSharper's Live Templates, but, I am not scared of typing out long and meaningful member names to start with. That is, I loath contractions and acronyms in code.

No object is so beautiful that, under certain conditions, it will not look ugly. - Oscar Wilde

[Roger Wright]

You sound like me, sometimes; you must be getting old, too. I once set out to master C++, and I spent many years trying to do so. But MS decided that everything had to run on an event-driven model, and get filtered through MFC, and have most of the code written by a robot and hidden from the programmer who was trying to learn the language. After 10 years, I gave up trying; coincidentally, MS gave up MFC about the same time. I come from a background in which, if there's no OS to work with, write one. If there's no off-the-shelf compiler, write one. If there's no language appropriate to the task, create one, and the tools to compile and link the modules. We're dinosaurs, Marc. The kids want all the hard parts done for them, while they spend their time making pretty, politically correct GUIs to make the Great Unwashed feel like they know how to operate a computer. We all know better, but if we tell them what we really think about their silly ideas and idiotic notions about what computers can and should do for us, we'll probably get fired. Roll with it, and keep praying for that big Lottery win; that's my retirement plan, and I'm sticking to it! :-D

Will Rogers never met me.

[Lost User]

No. I will not rely on some IDE to tell me what my code means. Often enough the IDE is too busy showing me hysterical error messages or the parser got lost a little further up in the code and simply is not able to provide any useful information anymore. Second, especially when I have to work with complex baseclasses, I tend to use some good oldschool printouts of those baseclasses as reference. I tried using intellisense on a printout, but the result always was a classic 'Funny, no response!'. Third. I don't hover, not even when flying a helicopter.

The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a fucking golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?" "You mean like from space?" "No, from Canada." If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.

[Lost User]

Let's make the list a little longer: - Use 'this' wherever you can. It makes things much more readable when every second word is 'this'. - Use magic numbers, but not as a numeric type. Write only stringly typed code and use all kinds of error prone conversions where you can.

// I'm not good at this :-)
foreach(var MiscVal in LMAA)
{
var xdbrnf = this.DoReMiFaSo(MiscVal, 1);
if((xdbrnf == "0" || xdbrnf == "-1" || xdbrnf == "4") && int.parse(xdbrnf) < 42)
{
this.SlfDestrct();
}
}

The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a fucking golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?" "You mean like from space?" "No, from Canada." If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.

[Lost User]

Roger Wright wrote:

We're dinosaurs, Marc.

No. We have forgotten more about this stuff than some of them have ever known and by the time they catch up with us, they will be having the same discussions with the next generation of clowns who insist on commiting every old mistake in new ways.

The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a fucking golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?" "You mean like from space?" "No, from Canada." If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.

[Stefto]

well, my boss pays me by the hour and he wishes to see results asap, that why.. oh! and i'm lazy

Life's like a nose, you've got to get out of it whats in it!

[Simon ORiordan from UK]

linq in the xml context is faster, less lumpen, and more direct. An awful lot of advantages over xsd-generated classes. But I am forced by the seniors to use xsd because it requires less coding as it is automatic. Tomorrow I'm running a marathon wearing lead boots. :-D

[Paul Benson]

Marc Clifton wrote:

If you don't like typing, why are you a programmer?

I'm a programmer because I like puzzles. Software development is usually the process of: 1. identifying the 'puzzle' 2. developing a solution 3. implement the solution with whatever tools you are given/have available Whilst 3 is still fun I don't want to write reams of code I don't need to so reducing the amount of code I type is fine by me. (Sorry for the boring answer to a hilarious rant :-\ )

[Jorgen Andersson]

So you like assembly? Everything else is just reducing the amount of code you need to type.

Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello

[V 0]

There's a synonym for "punching bag". It's called "colleagues". Knock yourself one out! ;P

V.
(MQOTD rules and previous solutions)

[Paul Benson]

Interesting discussion. I found var a bit difficult to cope with at first as it does hide the actual type. Fortunately many IDEs will, as has been pointed out elsewhere, give you the type if you hover over the 'var'. This, however, doesn't help when dealing with printed/quoted code snippets or when working in an environment that doesn't reveal the type. So, my definition of 'appropriate' is where the type is obvious (usually because the assignment includes the type as part of a 'new' or a typecast of some kind) or because the type is so complicated that it obfuscates itself (e.g. nested generics with multiple parameters). In the latter case I either rely on VS for an explanation or, where possible, simplify the type by creating a new wrapper class/struct with XML help to explain what the class is about. The basic rule is "Think about other people when writing your code." Always ask yourself 'Can this be understood without having to look through reams of code or relying on an IDE to find variable/type definitions?' If not can it be simplified or explained?" If all else fails use a comment to explain (and thereby starts another argument :sigh: ).

[Lost User]

Really? Writing (perhaps) a lable, an opcode and typically 0 - 2 operands actually looks quite spartan to me. Also, you have the single most important abstraction at your disposal: Structuring your code in subroutines or functions. The biggest bonus: There is little room for religious wars over styles or language features.

The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a fucking golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?" "You mean like from space?" "No, from Canada." If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.

[Lost User]

Well ok, if it's some shitty long name it makes sense. If it's int or similar, it does not.

[OriginalGriff]

Slacker007 wrote:

f for some reason, I cannot tell the type, then hovering over "var" will tell you.

Yes, it will - but that wastes time and breaks the "flow" when reading the code. An explicit declaration is always clearer - particularly when it's to hold a method return value:

var myVar = GetSomething();

Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...