496
CompareBooleans
(sh.itjust.works)
Wait areBooleanEqual returns false when they are equal?
That's not even the worst part. What the fuck does a function named Compare_anything do? Does it return anything? It sounds like nothing but a side effect.
The unnecessary and confusing functions are horrible, yes, but I'd still say that the fact that they're wrong is the "worst" part.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Don’t forget the invocation
if (CompareBooleans(a, b) == true)
if (CompareBooleans(CompareBooleans(a, b), true))
that... actually works...
elseif(CompareBooleans(b,a) != false)
Management: Gee whiz, we really have no idea how to gauge productivity to decide who gets promoted. We could manage. Or, better, we could just have someone write a script that pulls info from git on how many lines of code each person has written.
Programmers:
There’s no way, that’s so insane it has layers.
At first, I thought the shitty methods were the joke 😱😱😱
This is code after working 16 hours
"You aren't writing enough lines of code!" - Management
My boss's boss, a former Ops manager who liked to keep track of system stats, once asked her why the CPU usage on the dev box had decreased that month. Weren't the devs doing any work?
Two wrongs don’t make a right, but sometimes in programming, two bugs can cancel each other out.
Whoever wrote this is more than capable of using it incorrectly.
Those are rookie lines of code numbers right there.
I would have done it without the ==
internal static bool AreBooleansEqual(bool orig, bool val)
{
if(orig)
{
if(val)
return false
return true
}
if(val)
return true
return false
}
Don't know why their code returns false when they are equal but I'm not going to dig through old code to refactor to use true instead of false.
Put more curly brackets around your if (val) true statement for 4 more lines, put elses in there for more lines even.
I should have created a local variable to store the result variable and return after the if statements. I just couldn't help to make it look partially nice. My brain just doesn't think at this high caliber of LOC optimizations.
New optimized LOC version:
internal static bool AreBooleansEqual(bool orig, bool val)
{
bool result;
if(orig)
{
if(val)
{
result = false;
}
else
{
result = true;
}
}
else
{
if(val)
{
result = true;
}
else
{
result = false;
}
}
return result;
}
My previous LOC: 12
New LOC version: 27
Surely we could optimize the return value with a switch statement and store the result as an integer to hide the compiler warning about our clearly correct code:
internal static bool AreBooleansEqual(bool orig, bool val)
{
int result;
if(orig)
{
if(val)
{
result = 0;
}
else
{
result = 1;
}
}
else
{
if(val)
{
result = 1;
}
else
{
result = 0;
}
}
switch (result)
{
case(1):
return true;
case(0):
return false;
default:
return AreBooleansEqual(orig, val);
}
}
New LOC: 35
load more comments
(2 replies)
Is this part of Elons "How many lines of choice have you written?" interview?
Reminds me of is-even
I can definitely understand why they did that but it's still very funny
load more comments
(8 replies)
My guess to why there’s two functions is because it was originally only internal, and the programmer realized they needed public as well, but changing internal to public is too scary so they created a new method instead.
load more comments
(1 replies)
"We need to obfuscate our code to prevent reverse engineering"
The obfuscation in question:
If this were a Node module, I wouldn't even be surprised.
Clearly it should be return orig == val
Duh
To match the current behavior it should be orig != val
You're hired. Can your start on Monday?
I'm a bit disappointed there isn't a call to GetBooleanValue in there
This is your brain when you OD on OOP.
There's literally nothing related to OOP in this snippet.
You're right, this is just not oop AT ALL.
For the correct OOP solution, you would need consider whether this can be thought of as a kind of stateless leaf method, and therefore implement it as an abstract (singleton) factory, but on the other hand, if you're using a context object with the registry pattern, you should probably do this properly with IoC containers. Of course, if your object graph isn't too complex or entangled, you could always just do constructor injection but you risk manging your unit tests, so I would go cautiously if I were looking in that direction.
Shouldn't there be a call to the boolean comparison microservices server in there somewhere? Also, we should consider the possibility that booleans and their operators could be overloaded to do something else entirely. We might need a server farm to handle all of the boolean comparison service requests.
You're so right, I didn't think of that. Maybe I'm not cut out to be a manager in IT.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I love how OOP devolves into shoving code up it's own ass.
load more comments
(1 replies)
!NOT
Who's there?
!!Naughty Knots
Where are the unit tests?
But how do you test for FILE_NOT_FOUND?
Straight from the famous book "Making LOCs for Dummies"
I misread it as CompareBolians. No more Star Trek memes for me today.
Many Bolians died bringing us this information.
Thanks I hate it
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2024
496 points (100.0% liked)
Programming Humor
2863 readers
1 users here now
Related Communities !programmerhumor@lemmy.ml !programmer_humor@programming.dev !programmerhumor@kbin.social !programming_horror@programming.dev
Other Programming Communities !programming@beehaw.org !programming@programming.dev !programming@lemmy.ml !programming@kbin.social !learn_programming@programming.dev !functional_programming@programming.dev !embedded_prog@lemmy.ml
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS