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:
If you want to discuss with people perhaps give what others say more thought and don't ignore context?
Of all people it should be developers that are the most cognizant that people can't read minds.
-
@levicki said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
Gąska: [Clicks New Project in Visual Studio]
Visual Studio: Gąska, here, suck this cock!
Gąska: But I don't like sucking cocks!
Visual Studio: Oh come on, it's not like you have to suck ten each day!
Gąska: But...
Visual Studio: No buts, the deal was that for every project you create you must suck one cock. Now open wide!
Gąska: Mmmpff!
Don't know about you, but to me there is no difference whether I have to do something once or ten times when it is something I don't like doing.I repeat my assertion that you should interact with Blakey. Especially argue the merits of Git vs TFS with him.
-
@pie_flavor said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
Of all people it should be developers that are the most cognizant that people can't read minds.
Oh, we can read minds. It doesn't take very long (once you get past the crayon and bad handwriting) and the results are usually depressing, so we prefer not to do so.
-
@pie_flavor said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
I repeat my assertion that you should interact with Blakey. Especially argue the merits of Git vs TFS with him.
-
@levicki said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
How can a function with literally one local variable of type HMODULE consume 36968 bytes of stack?
If there's been aggressive inlining, it's possible. But the analyser shouldn't complain about this; the amount of stack space used in that case is virtually entirely within the compiler's control and not in the hands of the programmer.
-
@levicki said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
Inlining of code shouldn't increase stack size.
It doesn't have to increase overall stack size (and may reduce it due to needing less space for return addresses and stuff) but the post-inlining function will often have a larger stack frame than the individual pre-inlining functions did.
There can't be any inlining, because all the function does is call Windows APIs from ntdll.dll and kernel32.dll and initializes a few static variables, not to mention that I set /Ob1 to prevent overly aggressive inlining but still allow inlining of functions marked as __inline.
I couldn't see that from the fragment you posted.
-
@pie_flavor said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
Especially argue the merits of Git vs TFS with him.
Wow, that would be truly epic
-
@Gąska Definitely
since I'm not rooting for either. (If only both would also guarantee to only argue on real facts and not assume that their site-specific customisations apply to everyone else, we'd learn something. But there'd be less so…)
-
@levicki said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
Saying "Because I can" doesn't necessarily mean I am actually doing it in any project, it was a fucking example.
In the same way that Intellisense saying "You can remove this" doesn't necessarily mean you must, right?
-
@levicki said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
leaking method and variable names from their confidential source code
Believe you me, if the names of variables and functions themselves are "confidential" you're doing some deep shit.
Filed under:
-
@levicki said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
I said Roslyn analyzer can't know for sure whether method is used or not and it shouldn't be claiming that. As I demonstrated above, it can't even know if I call it from the same assembly, let alone from a different one.
If this is common in your coffeecode then y'all deserve to be annoyed by the fruits of your awful practices.
-
@levicki said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
God damn it, it's not common it was a fucking example to show how stupid it is!
And yet your code was the only stupid part. What if you show a non-stupid example?
-
@levicki said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
@pie_flavor said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
And yet your code was the only stupid part. What if you show a non-stupid example?
Code was demonstrating totally legit use of reflection and totally stupid IntelliSense not seeing the call.
Allowed by the compiler, yes. Best practices, hell no. Which is of course the entire point of the checks.
I did show another example of IntelliSense telling me a function is using 36 KB of stack when it only has one local variable and the warning was on the static variable which is not even on the stack. Do you really need more examples?
I don't use C++.
-
@levicki said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
What the fuck is wrong with you all?
Short version? Cognitive dissonance.
It's trivial...but I'll fire you over it. It's a requirement...but I won't tell you about it. It's a lie...but not immoral. Then the tortuous logic of how "the team" "decided/agreed" (
). How the hell this industry got a libertarian bias assigned to it with so many control freaks is beyond me.As it refers to reflection...I've used private reflection twice. Once, it was to call a private function that I didn't want anybody else to call in any other situation but this. I knew it was the wrong way and I just didn't have time to come up with a right way. The other, it was because an idiot with a broken framework* wouldn't fix his framework and pitched a fit every time I went outside of the framework. I had no other choice. I was being screamed at about a deadline and I was being screamed at for "outdated" thinking and "reinventing the wheel" and I was screamed at for the comment next to the reflection call that said "remove this when the framework stops crashing on X()."
That doesn't mean reflection is bad. Reflection is like anything else in programming. An idiot will fuck it up.
But as long as you are cognizant that something depends on that structure, because the compiler won't catch it, it's not the end of the world.
*The framework didn't allow saving an object twice in the same context. I don't remember the specifics, but it was something like...I had to create the person to get a person ID, which I needed to get a document ID, which I needed to save back to the person object. It crashed every time the second Save() was called. So I had to reflect up through the object manager hierarchy to reset the context to null before every save. And, yes, I did jam all of that into a single line with no spaces, precisely because I didn't want somebody to pull it apart and fuck it up. I worked with people that didn't understand inheritance, neither the OOP type nor the CSS type, and never let their ignorance stand in the way of screwing with something that worked. Working in shops like that is like war, you make hard choices and they're not always pleasant.
-
@levicki said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
totally legit
"Technically" is the word you're looking for.
@levicki said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
I did show another example of IntelliSense telling me a function is using 36 KB of stack when it only has one local variable and the warning was on the static variable which is not even on the stack.
You forgot the function call that was returning humongous object. It's quite possible it does indeed end up on stack (maybe only in debug, who knows) before being written to static variable.
-
@levicki said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
supposedly based on some knowledge I am not in possession of and IntelliSense is.
Assuming facts not in evidence.
@levicki said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
I will leave you to figure out which is which and where is the difference
No, that's your job.
-
@levicki said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
@pie_flavor said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
Allowed by the compiler, yes. Best practices, hell no. Which is of course the entire point of the checks.
Would it be allowed by the compiler if it were not allowed first by the authors of the language?
Would such a question be relevant?
I don't use C++.Then shut the fuck up and go back to your Javascript playpen.
[][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]][([][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+([][[]]+[])[+!+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]+([][[]]+[])[+[]]+([][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]]((![]+[])[+!+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(![]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]])[!+[]+!+[]+[+[]]]+([]+[])[(![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+([][[]]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+([][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]]()[+!+[]+[!+[]+!+[]]]+(![]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]][([][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+([][[]]+[])[+!+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]+([][[]]+[])[+[]]+([][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]]((!![]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+([][[]]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]+([][[]]+[])[+!+[]]+(+[![]]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]])[+!+[]+[+!+[]]]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]][([][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+([][[]]+[])[+!+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]+([][[]]+[])[+[]]+([][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]]((!![]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+([][[]]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]+([][[]]+[])[+!+[]]+(+[![]]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]])[+!+[]+[+!+[]]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+([][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+(+(!+[]+!+[]+[+!+[]]+[+!+[]]))[(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(+![]+([]+[])[([][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+([][[]]+[])[+!+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]+([][[]]+[])[+[]]+([][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+([][[]]+[])[+!+[]]+(+![]+[![]]+([]+[])[([][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+([][[]]+[])[+!+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]+([][[]]+[])[+[]]+([][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]])[!+[]+!+[]+[+[]]]](!+[]+!+[]+!+[]+[+!+[]])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]])()(([]+[])[(![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+([][[]]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+([][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]]()[+!+[]+[+!+[]]])[!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]])()())[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]+[+[]]]+(!![]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(+[![]]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]])[+!+[]+[+!+[]]]+(![]+[])[+[]]+([][[]]+[])[+[]]+([][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(+(!+[]+!+[]+[+[]]))[(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(+![]+([]+[])[([][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+([][[]]+[])[+!+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]+([][[]]+[])[+[]]+([][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+([][[]]+[])[+!+[]]+(+![]+[![]]+([]+[])[([][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+([][[]]+[])[+!+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]+([][[]]+[])[+[]]+([][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]])[!+[]+!+[]+[+[]]]](!+[]+!+[]+[+!+[]])+(+[![]]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]])[+!+[]+[+!+[]]]+(+[![]]+[+(+!+[]+(!+[]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+[+!+[]]+[+[]]+[+[]]+[+[]])])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(!![]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+([][[]]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+[]]+([]+[])[(![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+([][[]]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+([][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]]()[+!+[]+[!+[]+!+[]]]+(!![]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]])[!+[]+!+[]+[+[]]])()
-
Fresh console app project. I think VS2017 didn't do this.
<levicki>
I didn't even put it there to begin with!
</levicki>
-
@levicki said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
Sometimes I wonder if you people know anything about programming or you are just pretending all this time.
I know a lot. I just don't read your posts very carefully. You're wrong 99% of the time - this simple heuristic saves a lot of time. The warning kinda sorta made sense if the function did in fact return something very large, so I assumed it did, as I didn't have any OCR handy and didn't feel like manually typing that function name into MSDN search box.
-
@levicki said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
@Tsaukpaetra said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
No, that's your job.
Not my job to teach stupid cunts.
Who said anything about teaching?
@levicki said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
I will leave you to figure out
-
@levicki said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
I think that even you can spare 4 minutes to read this and admit that Reflection is valid part of the language.
Reflection is a valid part of the language, yes. I'm not sure you answered the question.
-
@levicki said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
Would it be allowed by the compiler if it were not allowed first by the authors of the language?
Authors of C++ certainly didn't intend constexpr to allow state propagation between template invocations.
-
@Gąska
All of template metaprogramming is an unintentional consequence of early design decisions.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
Believe you me, if the names of variables and functions themselves are "confidential" you're doing some deep shit.
bool iran_license_validation_workaround();
-
@levicki said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
@boomzilla said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
If this is common in your coffeecode then y'all deserve to be annoyed by the fruits of your awful practices.God damn it, it's not common it was a fucking example to show how stupid it is!
What the fuck is wrong with you all?
So you're saying that we should throw out useful things because someone might abuse something and get themselves in trouble? Notepad++ is
What the fuck is wrong with you?
-
@Zenith said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
But as long as you are cognizant that something depends on that structure, because the compiler won't catch it, it's not the end of the world.
Yeah, that's where automated testing comes in handy. Make sure you're testing the weirdo code so that you'll catch it if someone breaks it. But that's no reason for any sane person to want to get rid of the squigglies that tell you about the common problems.
-
@pie_flavor said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
Would such a question be relevant?
Is this the questions thread?
-
@HardwareGeek said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
@pie_flavor said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
Would such a question be relevant?
Is this the questions thread?
Have we misappropriated it enough to become one?
-
@Tsaukpaetra 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:
@pie_flavor said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
Would such a question be relevant?
Is this the questions thread?
Have we misappropriated it enough to become one?
-
@boomzilla said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
@Tsaukpaetra 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:
@pie_flavor said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
Would such a question be relevant?
Is this the questions thread?
Have we misappropriated it enough to become one?
Who is a party pooper?
-
@Luhmann yes you are!
-
@Gąska
Where is your question?
-
@Luhmann said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
@Gąska
Where is your question?Was he distracted from the high praise?
-
@levicki said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
@Tsaukpaetra said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
Have we misappropriated it enough to become one?
Yes.
Are you utterly failing at this game?
-
@levicki said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
@Tsaukpaetra said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
Are you utterly failing at this game?
Are you asking stupid questions again?
Is there any other kind of question?
-
@levicki The "Ask a stupid question, get a dumb answer" thread is
-
@levicki
That just a misconception based on your view point since every thread you are in just automatically confirms this bias
-
@Luhmann does he ask the stupid questions or give the dumb answers?
-
@Jaloopa
What's up with all these dumb questions?
-
@Luhmann are the dumb questions dumb because they're not literally vocalized audibly?
-
Before everything, yes, I know this is downright ugly (and this is a very simple example - actual code does lots of stuff depending on - and to -
AandB). The solution is arguably simple - at the very least move the lambda to a named method outside the initializer.It's just funny how Intelliturd totally freaks out here.
E: I hope nobody noticed
the projwhatever it was that could have been noticed and is not there to be noticed anymore.
-
@levicki said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
When I said "Because I can" I meant "because language allows me to". If they didn't want me to be able to do that they wouldn't add reflection to it.
Don't jinx it. There is a fragile consensus that programming languages can have powerful features to be used in exceptional circumstances. The consensus acknowledges that these features will be abused by some people and that such abuse is best prevented by culture and not by removing features. If you make such statements, we have no choice but to tell you to shut up. And if you don't shut up you're considered lost to the family. Because the alternative would be to remove reflection.
Saying "Because I can" doesn't necessarily mean I am actually doing it in any project, it was a fucking example.
That fucking example was showing the linter doing its job. Anybody reading your code will wonder, like the linter, what that private field is supposed to do. So just thank the linter for pointing this out before you confused your peers. And move on. If for some reason you really need a private field accessed only through reflection, you tell the linter to ignore this section. Along with adding a comment that explains why using reflection is justified at that point.
-
@Applied-Mediocrity Is the problem that ‘nope’ is not defined?
-
Yes, but VS cannot tell us that, because the collection initializer errors come first and after that it stops making any sense. Furthermore:
- it starts chomping the CPU
- the bulb icon runs away from the cursor and if clicked doesn't do anything anyway
- if there's something like
var something = (long)a, it adds "var is not defined" to the mix
The solution itself does rank somewhere in the middle of the
scale, but I think it's not particularly unreadable. Most of the items are 2..3 lines of building a string from A and B, clearly indented. There are, however, a bazillion of them and many contain logic errors. And fixing them is doubly tiresome - as soon as you touch anything, those red squigglies appear all over the place.
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
the bulb icon runs away from the cursor
Sounds like a simple game; try to herd the icon along a defined path by repelling it with the cursor.
-
@HardwareGeek you're assuming a bounded space in which the icon can run around in.
-
It's starting to sound like the cat thing @Tsaukpaetra is running on his smartphone.
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
Yes, but VS cannot tell us that, because the collection initializer errors come first and after that it stops making any sense.
Producing minimal error reports that are actually helpful, given how people think about programs and how that's vastly different to how parsers work, that's astoundingly difficult. Especially with any layers of code rewriting applied.
-
Yeah, it should be on the list of 'Unsolved problems in computing'. Well, it's probably is something NP-complete something graphs, I'm not quite clueful in that. Although more often it's on the 'Unsolved problems of
' list...Now, both messages are entirely correct. The method does not return a value for obvious reasons, therefore it does not match the expected signature, therefore the argument is invalid.
I had expected it could extract the anonymous method and analyze it separately. It actually can in many other cases - there are folks going crazy with awfully complex LINQ. I'm not exactly sure what's different here. Perhaps the abuse of Tuples? Those things are oftimes a bit janky...
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in When the reviewer doesn't understand my Javascript it's his fault:
I had expected it could extract the anonymous method and analyze it separately. It actually can in many other cases - there are folks going crazy with awfully complex LINQ. I'm not exactly sure what's different here. Perhaps the abuse of Tuples? Those things are oftimes a bit janky...
Argh, I keep having to debug those pesky long chains of LINQ and Rx. I have seen chains that has depth of more than 7 layers deep and fails somewhere in the middle. One whole awful day wasted on finding where the fail is, after which, I have to painfully refactor to reduce the layers to something debuggable/readable.
