Wait areBooleanEqual returns false when they are equal?
yesn’t
This actually made me laugh, thank you.
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.
Usually comparison functions are supposed to return an integer and are usually useful for sorting. However this one returns a bool so it’s both useless and terribly named.
The unnecessary and confusing functions are horrible, yes, but I’d still say that the fact that they’re wrong is the “worst” part.
That’s enough chit-chat, nerds. Back to work.
- Management
Don’t forget the invocation
if (CompareBooleans(a, b) == true)if (CompareBooleans(CompareBooleans(a, b), true))I don’t like this thread anymore :(
No, no, this is actually the only correct code in the thread.
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:
I promote based on lines of code removed.
I quit based on idiotic metrics
Ah, the idiotic idiotic metric metric.
Are you 14?
I’m sure it was meant as a joke, not a serious criticism.
I think we can all agree that managers who have no idea what’s important absolutely suck
I don’t know what the age metric has to do with anything.
Which is all the easier to do when you start off with a higher number…
Add heavily verbose/redundant math equations that take up multiple lines with each operation saving to a new variable, then either decrease the number of variable declarations or condense/simplify the math occasionally. Repeat with each new function. Killing two metrics at once LOC and the removal of LOC for older functions. Guaranteed promotions. lol
I love deleting code, including my own, more than writing code. That’s a killer metric imo.
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
I’d give my right hand this is a code review problem. Someone extracted a method returning true false. Then an intern came along and was told to refactor. They saw a lot of comparisons and “extracted” them.
My coworker made an array of book to express a status. This is no doing of an intern but a much eviler force at play.
I’ve heard of shared libraries, but this is ridiculous
“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.
you can also use XOR operation
return (X || Y) && !(X && Y)I was debating on bitwise operations, but decided on super basic if statements which I think the compiler would optimize, happy to see the logical operation form too
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: 27Surely 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
Make the input variables nullable, then add checks if the values are null, then assign default values if they are, otherwise continue with the passed values.
Good idea but not feasible as that could introduce unknowns. Unfortunately making defaults when null is counterproductive as we are looking to increase LOC without introducing odd behavior and having no changes to how the overall function works. The only objective is to increase LOC.
Is this part of Elons “How many lines of choice have you written?” interview?
My guess to why there’s two functions is because it was originally only
internal, and the programmer realized they neededpublicas well, but changinginternaltopublicis too scary so they created a new method instead.That does sound scary on general principles
You can tell they’re amateurs. It’s not obfuscated enough. They won’t be able to keep their job.
They clearly need an abstract boolean comparison factory.
var CompareBooleans = new ComparatorFactory().BooleanComparator(new BooleanComparisonByEqualityPolicy()); if (CompareBooleans(a, b) == true) { System.Out.PrintLn("Sames!!!"); }…
But now that I’ve written this, it’s C#, so it’s missing dependency injection.
I can imagine Uncle Bob be proud of this Clean Code ™
Reminds me of is-even
Weekly downloads: 152,124
It’s dependent on is-odd which is dependent on is-number which has 88 million weekly downloads…
I can definitely understand why they did that but it’s still very funny
Shoot me now. Just get it over with. I can’t anymore.
GitHub page of this program:
I created this in 2014, when I was learning how to program.
I always figured it was a joke. I mean, it has another package called is-odd as a dependency. That’s comedy
I noticed is-odd also has 1 dependency but I didn’t dare to check what it was 😂
Depends on is-number because JavaScript is silly
If you’re trying to suggest that it’s a nothing package that should be ignored, let me remind you that it has 641k/month in downloads, with 17m downloads total.
I’m just saying that’s the tagline of the GitHub page
Have you seen the repository’s name (or rather the name of the owner of that repository) on github?
“We need to obfuscate our code to prevent reverse engineering”
The obfuscation in question:
We affectionately called it “subscurity” on the FE team.
When our BE apis would not give us any information why something failed, nor would they give us access to their logs. Complete black box of undocumented doodoo, and they would proudly say “security through obscurity” every time we asked why they couldn’t make improvements to usability.
You must have been working with the Redditors who told me that avoiding the use of JavaScript’s
eval()to parse JSON was a false sense of security.
If this were a Node module, I wouldn’t even be surprised.
Clearly it should be
return orig == valDuh
To match the current behavior it should be orig != val
You’re hired. Can your start on Monday?
