AARRGGHHHH!!!!!
-
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.
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. -
I absolutely despise when people say "oh, I'm using this because it reduces the amount of code I have to type". F**** me. If you don't like typing, why are you a programmer? I need a punching bag in my home-office. Marc
Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Contributors Wanted for Higher Order Programming Project!
-
Same thing I see with Linq/Lambdas ; it's still just the
Cult of Fewer Keystrokes. X|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
-
I absolutely despise when people say "oh, I'm using this because it reduces the amount of code I have to type". F**** me. If you don't like typing, why are you a programmer? I need a punching bag in my home-office. Marc
Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Contributors Wanted for Higher Order Programming Project!
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 :-\ )
-
I absolutely despise when people say "oh, I'm using this because it reduces the amount of code I have to type". F**** me. If you don't like typing, why are you a programmer? I need a punching bag in my home-office. Marc
Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Contributors Wanted for Higher Order Programming Project!
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
-
I absolutely despise when people say "oh, I'm using this because it reduces the amount of code I have to type". F**** me. If you don't like typing, why are you a programmer? I need a punching bag in my home-office. Marc
Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Contributors Wanted for Higher Order Programming Project!
-
Try doing a code review in Crucible where someone's abused var and then see how you feel about that. ;)
Interesting discussion. I found
vara 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 wrapperclass/structwith 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: ). -
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
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. -
I am. Why the hell not? It's more aesthetically pleasing and in most cases it does not reduce readability (for me, for you - don't care). I haven't use it much in C# before C++11 assigned new meaning to
auto. Then I started replacing crap like thisstd::unordered_map<std::string, boring_class>::const_iteratorwithautoand then moved the habit to C#. -
harold aptroot wrote:
There's a school of thought that it is applicable any time it is allowed.
I use ReSharper a lot, and it will ask you everytime it can to use implicit type declaration. So, I can see why some devs out there may think that it is good for everything. However, I have debugged code files that have had "var" all over the place, and it has not been an issue. If for some reason, I cannot tell the type, then hovering over "var" will tell you.
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...
-
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.It would obviously depend on what you're doing, but let's just say that I wouldn't enjoy writing a website from scratch in assembly.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
-
It would obviously depend on what you're doing, but let's just say that I wouldn't enjoy writing a website from scratch in assembly.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
Who enjoys writing websites in the first place?
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. -
Who enjoys writing websites in the first place?
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.It's a job. :sigh:
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
-
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.
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
And it's unreadable.
When done correctly, it is very readable and strongly encouraged in all of our software teams. However, I have seen it done poorly, which validates your comment, IMO.
-
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.Interesting view points. ;)
-
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.CDP1802 wrote:
or the parser got lost a little further up in the code and simply is not able to provide any useful information anymore.
after saying that you really think you are in position to say that var is a problem? you just said you write code that the machine that will compile and run it can't understand.
-
CDP1802 wrote:
or the parser got lost a little further up in the code and simply is not able to provide any useful information anymore.
after saying that you really think you are in position to say that var is a problem? you just said you write code that the machine that will compile and run it can't understand.
No. When the parser is a little upset and confused, the code will not compile. Nor will it be able to provide me with some of the information I may need to correct this. In this situation I prefer not having to rely on intellisense.
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. -
Interesting view points. ;)
Actually I have nothing against hovering with a helicopter. It's just because I gave a friend the nickname 'Hoverfly' because he keeps practicing hovering and did not want to carefully start flying around. Last weekend he did and crashed his helicopter and has been repairing since then. Now I can't just say that hovering is ok, or he will never try again.
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. -
There's a synonym for "punching bag". It's called "colleagues". Knock yourself one out! ;P
V.
(MQOTD rules and previous solutions)V. wrote:
Knock yourself one out!
Not sure if you intended to, or did so by mistake, but that phrase has a very particular meaning. Maybe type the phrase into google images and click on the I'm feeling lucky button :~
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
-
Interesting discussion. I found
vara 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 wrapperclass/structwith 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: ).Couldn't agree more with you. I would also like to add that even if you have Visual Studio it interrupts reading and interpreting the code. Making it harder to understand for someone that is reading the code for the first time. I blame ReSharper for the fever of using var everywhere. That's the argument of many: "Oh, but Resharper says to use var everywhere". I wish I knew who at ReSharper dev team decided it was a good thing.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson ---- Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
