The Official Funny Stuff Thread™
-
@tsaukpaetra what's not working? The link?
-
@doctorjones said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@tsaukpaetra what's not working? The link?
Please pinch-spread the screen and try input again.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@tsaukpaetra reading comprehension fail. I thought you said "it's not working".
E_TOO_MUCH_BLOOD_IN_MY_ALCOHOL_STREAM
-
@tsaukpaetra said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@doctorjones said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
I saw this and thought of you guys
Sauce: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms681382(v=vs.85).aspx
It's not wrong...
That is so Discourse
-
@doctorjones said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@tsaukpaetra said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@doctorjones said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
I saw this and thought of you guys
Sauce: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms681382(v=vs.85).aspx
It's not wrong...
That is so Discourse
The name ERROR_SUCCESS is a bit silly, but it makes sense to have a code that indicates there is no error, it makes sense to give that code its own name and consequently to make that name be not unlike others by prepending it with the same ERROR_ prefix.
-
@obeselymorbid said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
The name ERROR_SUCCESS is a bit silly, but it makes sense to have a code that indicates there is no error, it makes sense to give that code its own name and consequently to make that name be not unlike others by prepending it with the same ERROR_ prefix.
Someone could point out that this is how the Unix-world has been doing it for decades, but then someone else could point out that making the same errors since the 70's doesn't make it less wrong and why don't you suggest using the CLI and git while you're at it you moron.
-
@remi said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@obeselymorbid said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
The name ERROR_SUCCESS is a bit silly, but it makes sense to have a code that indicates there is no error, it makes sense to give that code its own name and consequently to make that name be not unlike others by prepending it with the same ERROR_ prefix.
Someone could point out that this is how the Unix-world has been doing it for decades, but then someone else could point out that making the same errors since the 70's doesn't make it less wrong and why don't you suggest using the CLI and git while you're at it you moron.
0 is success, !0 is failure is one of the very few things not wrong in Unix (with git setting the whole industry half a century back).
-
@obeselymorbid said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
-
@remi Are you sad because it should be totally serious or full ?
-
@obeselymorbid I was hoping for at least . Not much more, but still.
But then again, that's just fake internetzzzz points, and we all know what they mean.
-
For posterity in case it gets removed
-
-
@anotherusername said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
I actually have a "Ah! The element of surprise periodic table entry" t-shirt.
-
@obeselymorbid said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
0 is success, !0 is failure is one of the very few things not wrong in Unix
You're defending a standard that is literally an up-is-down, black-is-white reversal of reality?
: "Was this method successful?"
: "False"
: "OK, that means yes, everything's fine."
-
@masonwheeler it's not "was this method successful", it's "what error code did this method return".
-
-
@obeselymorbid said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@doctorjones said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@tsaukpaetra said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@doctorjones said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
I saw this and thought of you guys
Sauce: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms681382(v=vs.85).aspx
It's not wrong...
That is so Discourse
The name ERROR_SUCCESS is a bit silly, but it makes sense to have a code that indicates there is no error, it makes sense to give that code its own name and consequently to make that name be not unlike others by prepending it with the same ERROR_ prefix.
You could call it:
ERROR_NONE
?
-
@anotherusername said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@masonwheeler it's not "was this method successful", it's "what error code did this method return".
Then you
if (blah() == ERROR_NONE)
and neverif(!blah())
-
-
-
-
@el_heffe said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
These could totally be pony names!
Sleeve McDicken Willey Justice Sweany Door Dried Cherry Arching Dare Pot Work Gnat Soarin Shorn Fur-coat Ray Drift Gene Wrestley Mixin' Gellatin Might Ruck Sorrow Earl Wayne Slight morsel Brawl Train Slim Sandal Leaven No Gilly Snarl Dandelion Bony Smirk Pike Stand-in Knobs Lugnut Cod Wanderist Then again, these are some names I came up with Aug 13th::
@tsaukpaetra [10:10 PM]
Generating, please wait....@tsaukpaetra [10:14]
Suggestions:
Vaiwcetsoormiea TVriucettohria Bhrealdpsfhualw Tircuteory
rVeiscpteocrtia VriecstpoercitaHmm, making names is much more difficult than I thought....
@tsaukpaetra [10:25 PM]
Trying again, using a little stronger natural language weighting...
Trenjo Crenol Kirst Hebron Dalen Nevas Whinsk M'lung Ralts Vim Gerdan Krello Chira Quolulf Mendach Flo Trudin Verdace Xenkla B'tlan Wrasm Vrenditude Ki Fen Whittlejury Cahirniasm Dfonis
-
@masonwheeler said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@obeselymorbid said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
0 is success, !0 is failure is one of the very few things not wrong in Unix
You're defending a standard that is literally an up-is-down, black-is-white reversal of reality?
: "Was this method successful?"
: "False"
: "OK, that means yes, everything's fine.": "Hey, which problem happened?"
: 0
: "Oh good, no problem then."Here's another example of ZERO BEING NO ERROR:
- a function returning
null
as its error value
- a function returning
-
@obeselymorbid are you ok? It's only been 2 minutes since I posted that.
-
@ben_lubar said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@obeselymorbid are you ok? It's only been 2 minutes since I posted that.
Tough times. Ran out of old posts to like. Now I have to resort to liking 2 minutes old ones.
-
@obeselymorbid said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@ben_lubar said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@obeselymorbid are you ok? It's only been 2 minutes since I posted that.
Tough times. Ran out of old posts to like. Now I have to resort to liking 2 minutes old ones.
The apocalypse is upon us! There's no more
foodposts! It's every WTFer for themselves!
-
@anotherusername said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@masonwheeler it's not "was this method successful", it's "what error code did this method return".
Unless it's returning a pointer...
-
@pjh said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@anotherusername said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@masonwheeler it's not "was this method successful", it's "what error code did this method return".
Unless it's returning a pointer...
Well, then you return
nullptr
, which is Zero, which is failure!...
Wait...
-
@masonwheeler said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@obeselymorbid said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
0 is success, !0 is failure is one of the very few things not wrong in Unix
You're defending a standard that is literally an up-is-down, black-is-white reversal of reality?
: "Was this method successful?"
: "False"
: "OK, that means yes, everything's fine."None of which would matter if the moronic "0 is false, anything else is true" brainworm wasn't so deeply embedded in programmers' heads. Sure, C didn't have the luxury for a separate boolean type but there's no excuse in any vaguely modern language
-
@ben_lubar said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Here's another example of ZERO BEING NO ERROR:
- a function returning
null
as its error value
null
is not zero either.null
isnull
- a function returning
-
@jaloopa said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@ben_lubar said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Here's another example of ZERO BEING NO ERROR:
- a function returning
null
as its error value
null
is not zero either.null
isnull
But
NULL
is notnull
is almost kindanullptr
?
- a function returning
-
@tsaukpaetra It's pretty simple. The only time you should be writing
if (foo())
is if
foo
has the following declarationbool foo()
-
@jaloopa said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
should
Ah, the devilish details. If that word would have been "can" then things.
-
@xaade said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Then you
if (blah() == ERROR_NONE)
and neverif(!blah())
Oh no! The horror! The horror!
-
@el_heffe said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
It's funny because Anatoli Smorin is obviously not American!
-
@jaloopa said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
None of which would matter if the moronic "0 is false, anything else is true" brainworm wasn't so deeply embedded in programmers' heads. Sure, C didn't have the luxury for a separate boolean type but there's no excuse in any vaguely modern language
I agree with you on that point. However, we're specifically taking about C here, where this moronic convention does hold sway.
-
-
@el_heffe said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Reminds me of the time I tried to make up an "inconspicuous" Earth name for an alien visitor to use. I assumed they'd figure out the first couple of levels of rules: that Earth names have a personal part and a family part, that certain names in both parts were more common than others, and lists of the most common personal and family names in use. Then they'd fail on the "context" level and put together names that didn't work together: "Hi, fellow Earthman, I'm Mohammed Chang!"
-
Okay, seriously...this hurts just to look at.
-
@da-doctah Yeah. They misspelled centre.