When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault
-
@levicki said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
They made those explicitly to annoy people because annoyed people are somehow better at concentrating, producing quality code and fixing hard problems.
Annoyed people are more likely to fix a problem instead of shrugging it off indefinitely.
-
@levicki said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
annoyed people are somehow better at concentrating, producing quality code and fixing hard problems.
Unless they're annoyed by a yellow lightbulb, natch.
-
@levicki said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
It has been proven time and time again that pointless warnings and messages desensitize people and make them more likely to ignore actual meaningful warnings and messages.
They're not pointless. And you're still free to ignore all warnings on lines not marked as "changed". (I haven't used VS in a while, but I'm guessing it marks those lines somehow as well.)
-
@levicki If you just make sure that your code doesn't have any warnings, then you don't get desensitivized. I'm sometimes shocked about how some production code vomits compiler warnings all over the place about unused things, implicit type conversions, using deprecated methods and whatsnot. It makes it looks like the code is working by accident rather than by design.
-
@levicki said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
Also, annoyed people are much more likely to jump through hoops to disable any and all warnings out of spite.
I've been annoyed for decades. This has not yet come to pass.
@levicki said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
At least that's what I end up doing every time because I don't want a machine telling me what to do and when.
Ah, projecting your personal behaviour as being the expected norm. How quaint.
-
@Grunnen said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
I'm sometimes shocked about how some production code vomits compiler warnings all over the place about unused things, implicit type conversions, using deprecated methods and whatsnot. It makes it looks like the code is working by accident rather than by design.
Unfortunately, not my code; not something I can fix. We compile C/C++ with -Wall -Werror, but the chip itself, we explicitly ignore some error messages, not just warnings (which are just ignored, not explicitly).
-
@levicki said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
I prefer not to refactor and add new code at the same time unless it is strictly necessary.
Problem: refactor is never strictly necessary.
-
@HardwareGeek said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
but the chip itself, we explicitly ignore some error messages
Okay, that's interesting. Please tell us more.
-
@Gąska said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
Okay, that's interesting. Please tell us more.
-
@Gąska In the Lounge: https://what.thedailywtf.com/post/1541182
-
@HardwareGeek Access Denied :(
-
@dfdub I believe that is still conditional on being a member of https://what.thedailywtf.com/groups/trust_level_3. Join it; I'm not sure whether any approval is needed currently, or whether it's automatic. You should get access either immediately (if it's automatic) or whenever the gets off it's knees (if approval is required). The restricted access is
justto keep random passersby, including Google, etc., from reading/indexing what is supposed to be semi-private.
-
@HardwareGeek You sound like you're describing the Garage. The Lounge is for regulars who you think you can trust and the restricted access is to keep passersby from viewing what is supposed to be completely private.
-
@pie_flavor I said semi-private because I wouldn't call anything posted on the internet, even in a private group, truly private, unless it's strongly encrypted. The Lounge is not, obviously.
Access is based on TL3, but I'm not sure how much actual trust that implies these days. Back in days, no real trust was required; access was automatic from a minimal level of participation for a certain length of time, as long as you didn't do anything stupid enough to get yourself banned or suspended. Or lock yourself out by refusing to participate in one of required ways and refusing to ask for manual addition to the group as a matter of principle.
It's no longer automatic; you have to at least ask for access. I'm not sure what the approval process, if any, is for the request, but I doubt it requires any real demonstration of trustworthiness. I do know that such trust is, rarely, unwarranted; a few months ago, someone was leaking Lounge content to a non-TDWTF person.
-
@HardwareGeek said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
Access is based on TL3, but I'm not sure how much actual trust that implies these days.
Approaching 200 people, and @anotherusername is still there. So, not much.
-
@HardwareGeek 'trustworthiness' is basically 'around here for long enough and not visibly a lunatic', AFAICT.
-
@pie_flavor said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
not visibly a lunatic
[citation needed]
-
@HardwareGeek
lunacy <= blakeyrat
, AFAICT.
-
@HardwareGeek said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
I do know that such trust is, rarely, unwarranted; a few months ago, someone was leaking Lounge content to a non-TDWTF person.
With RL implications? That sucks.
-
@pie_flavor said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
not visibly a lunatic
so excluding swampie
-
@pie_flavor said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
@HardwareGeek 'trustworthiness' is basically 'around here for long enough and not visibly a lunatic', AFAICT.
No, not really. It was "Whoever was in TL3 at the time of migration from Discourse to NodeBB". Only a few people since then have been added, and not so many have been removed.
-
@dfdub said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
@HardwareGeek said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
I do know that such trust is, rarely, unwarranted; a few months ago, someone was leaking Lounge content to a non-TDWTF person.
With RL implications? That sucks.
Yeah, it did impact a RL friendship. I don't want to leak Lounge content, but since the tale started in public, I'll go so far as to say it really wasn't much of a friendship to start with.
-
@Gąska said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
@HardwareGeek said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
Access is based on TL3, but I'm not sure how much actual trust that implies these days.
Approaching 200 people, and @anotherusername is still there. So, not much.
LOL downvote.
-
I should look up what sort of warnings this thread veered off into before commenting but
So, anyway, in my library code, there are about half a dozen warnings that I always explicitly turn off. I don't care that the break in a case statement is unreachable or that a declared exception object is unused. This is partly because a significant portion of the library's purpose is to suppress stupid behavior or structuring of the BCL and other assorted dependencies. In application code built on that library, I don't have to suppress nearly as many warnings.
Now, if I was at work and had a micromanager looking over my shoulder counting warnings without understanding their meanings, then, yes, I can see wanting to hide as many as possible just to shut them up. I don't have the time or inclination to babysit a "senior" that doesn't know how to write a loop but insists on crying about every minor warning like it's a fatal overflow.
-
@Zenith said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
I should look up what sort of warnings this thread veered off into before commenting
JS warnings? We gave up on talking about JS a long time ago. Now we're having a metadiscussion about trustworthiness of forum members.
-
@HardwareGeek Sorry, I'm really bored at work today and just catching up.
-
@Zenith said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
@HardwareGeek Sorry, I'm really bored at work today and just catching up.
Recently, I've only started catching up on boring threads when I'm really bored, like tonight when we're having an Exec meeting that should take maybe an hour tops but has reached 1.3 hours and we're only a third of the way through the department ring...
-
@Tsaukpaetra Aren't you the only employee?
-
@HardwareGeek said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
@Tsaukpaetra Aren't you the only employee?
Yes. Your point?
Edit: To clarify: This is not an exec meeting for my primary work. The meeting is for convention.
-
@Tsaukpaetra Ah. I was picturing you sitting in a conference room talking to yourself for multiple hours. Which would, indeed, be boring.
-
@HardwareGeek said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
@Tsaukpaetra Ah. I was picturing you sitting in a conference room talking to yourself for multiple hours. Which would, indeed, be boring.
I do that too! Well, not the talking. But the conversation happens. It's not entirely boring.
For instance, I'm now making an Elevator system because the current one sucks cougar balls.
-
@Tsaukpaetra By "cougar balls" you're referring to elderly trans women, yes?
-
@pie_flavor said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
@Tsaukpaetra By "cougar balls" you're referring to elderly trans women, yes?
It's not outside the realm of possibility.
-
@HardwareGeek I think if I had my own office, I'd probably buy one of those handheld recorders and talk to myself all day. The last few years, I've spent alot of time rehearsing for a retrospective interview that will never take place. Sometimes it's about my store that's stalled and sometimes it's about my career that's stalled. The annoying part is, when I sit down to write a blog on the same subjects, my mind just goes blank and I can't write anything. I had the same problem when I was doing comics; I could work almost anywhere except the time or place that I was supposed to.
My office right now is what I'd describe as an old-style secretary's office. You go through a door, pass my desk, and go through another door to my boss's desk. I can't close "my" door without cutting off access to my boss and it would be weird if I closed his door. I already have to walk down the hall to take calls from recruiters. We're supposed to be moving in a year and the offices will be half the size and I think I will have to have the walls padded.
-
@Zenith said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
alot of time
-
@Gąska
(this is tongue in cheek...if there's a line of people that should fear the day this becomes possible, you're not at the front of it yet)
-
This post is deleted!
-
@levicki Shkreli's not that bad.
-
@levicki oh, I thought you meant in terms of being a jackass. Yeah, he's got a punchable face.
-
@levicki fun fact: when I google Ajit Pai, the first result is Wikipedia, and the second is Know Your Meme.
-
@dkf said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
@levicki said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
They made those explicitly to annoy people because annoyed people are somehow better at concentrating, producing quality code and fixing hard problems.
Annoyed people are more likely to fix a problem instead of shrugging it off indefinitely.
Well, the only problem with causing annoyance to force fixing a problem is that sometimes people take the term "troubleshooter" literally.
-