"Spreadsheet Gear" - NAME! KROON!
-
@Xyro said:
One of the developers with whom I often interact is big into "templating" her objects. What this means to her is that he copy-pastes a generic object, tweaks it, and calls it good.
I can see why there is some confusion.
-
@El_Heffe said:
@Xyro said:
One of the developers with whom I often interact is big into "templating" her objects. What this means to her is that he copy-pastes a generic object, tweaks it, and calls it good.
I can see why there is some confusion.
Whoops. I wrote that up with the correct pronouns, then wondered if she'd ever read this post, so I tried to anatomize it a little by switching genders. Guess I overlooked a few.
-
@bridget99 said:
@DaveK said:
But it does have one about allowing scripting of active-x objects, which is what that bit of code is doing. TRWTF is that there is an active-x object for the shell. It may have been marked unsafe for scripting in more recent versions, but that code ran fine in IE5.1 from my local HD.@MiffTheFox said:
@blakeyrat said:
If you double-click (or otherwise launch) an HTML file from your own HD, doesn't it tend to come up in IE's "local zone", with full privs to everything?@derula said:
@blakeyrat said:
@Xyro said:
file:///C:/search/ssrr-rocks.html
The ActiveX warning is because you're running it from a local drive. Put it on a webserver, and there won't be a warning.
TRWTF! Sure I trust my own hard drive less than teh Interwebs.
Not the point; the point is running scripts from your own HD (by definition) breaks IE's sandbox.
And it should be noted that this isn't a "run-it-in-protected-memory" type sandbox, but rather a "don't-give-it-access-to-the-shell" type sandbox. Don't believe me? Try the following code:
<script language="JScript">
var shell = new ActiveXObject("WScript.Shell");
if (shell){
shell.Run("notepad.exe");
}
</script>I don't know about full privileges to everything. "Local zone" affects a bunch of boolean and three-state settings in "Tools->Internet Options" (or wherever they've squirelled this away these days) but I don't ever recall seeing "Give JavaScript Access to 'Shell'" in there. Not even Scott Guthrie / Ray Ozzie could be that stupid. Although JavaScript programming would be much easier.
@bridget99 said:
3b. The entire Eclipse code-base, where the approved way to use design patterns appears to be "randomly cut and paste them everywhere over and over and over again".
3. Developers who try to shoehorn everything into a "design pattern"
-
@Xyro said:
...substrings the return and compares it with the error string he expects in order to determine if a function failed or not.
A real C programmer would just use #define or "const" to make numeric return value constants, and then have his functions return an "int." That's not a bad approach overall. It basically reflects ultimate reality on most systems.
I had a coworker, who was even a manager for a while, who gave up on any kind of code reuse, and even basically gave up on source control altogether, with the excuse that we were using a "snippet-based reuse" approach inspired by CodeProject.com. He told me something like this:
"BridgetSwamp, you're not a big fan of having a bunch of heavy-handed reusable libraries anyway. You should like my wide-open, CodeProject-style alternative"
He behaved as if this adage somehow substituted for having a real source control system, even one of the crudest kind. I wasn't concerned about having a bunch of stupid little "company objects," I just wanted to be able to do things like sharing constants between multiple assemblies. I will tolerate a great many things from my co-workers, but I objected loudly to that man's propensity for 1) making me use his pathetic code while 2) forcing me to find out about critical problems in it by hearsay. It's that sort of experience that has led me to the belief that programming is basically a craft and it ought to be protected by a union with firm work policies.