Make a decision already

snoofle

Just found this, with each of the different declarations of theItem made about 2 weeks apart:

  class TheClass<T> {
    private T theItem;
    public TheClass(T t)     { setItem(t);     }
    public T getItem()       { return theItem; }
    public void setItem(T t) { theItem = t;    }
    // ...
  }
  // ...
  //private TheClass<Integer> theItem = new TheClass<Integer>();
  //private TheClass<Long> theItem = new TheClass<Long>();
  //private TheClass<Double> theItem = new TheClass<Double>();
  private TheClass<String> theItem = new TheClass<String>();

zelmak

@snoofle said:

Just found this, with each of the different declarations of theItem made about 2 weeks apart:

  class TheClass<T> {
    private T theItem;
    public TheClass(T t)     { setItem(t);     }
    public T getItem()       { return theItem; }
    public void setItem(T t) { theItem = t;    }
    // ...
  }
  // ...
  //private TheClass<Integer> theItem = new TheClass<Integer>();
  //private TheClass<Long> theItem = new TheClass<Long>();
  //private TheClass<Double> theItem = new TheClass<Double>();
  private TheClass<String> theItem = new TheClass<String>();

The last person got it right. Strings are much easier to work with as arbitrary width numeric values.

OhNoDevelopment

This would not have been an issue at my company. We default everything to strings.

error

Have to love comments for code history. Who needs fancy schmancy source control anyway?

Actually, I see it a lot around here. Developers don't seem to trust the revision history and think the code will be "lost" somehow.

blakeyrat

@joe.edwards said:

Developers don't seem to trust the revision history and think the code will be "lost" somehow.

Maybe they use git. Ziing!

ubersoldat

// Fuck it, I'm off with stupid String because generics are too hard.

Ben L.

@blakeyrat said:

@joe.edwards said:
Developers don't seem to trust the revision history and think the code will be "lost" somehow.

Maybe they use git. Ziing!

git out

that_really_other_gu

Just wow...

How many 8's of uptime do they guarantee?

drurowin

@that really other guy said:

Just wow...
How many 8's of uptime do they guarantee?

I heard they offer nine fives.

morbiuswilters

@drurowin said:

@that really other guy said:
Just wow...

How many 8's of uptime do they guarantee?

I heard they offer nine fives.

Oh, it's five nines, just with a lot of ambiguity over where the decimal goes.

Ben L.

@morbiuswilters said:

@drurowin said:
@that really other guy said:
Just wow...

How many 8's of uptime do they guarantee?

I heard they offer nine fives.

Oh, it's five nines, just with a lot of ambiguity over where the decimal goes.

No there isn't

It's a 5.55555555% uptime guarantee.

dkf

@OhNoDevelopment said:

This would not have been an issue at my company. We default everything to strings.

Of course. You can put XML inside YAML inside JSON inside a string. Easy!

brian_banana

Is "TheClass" really named "TheClass" or did you change it for not giving out sensitive information?

Also, why is this "container" generic? It looks like it was only used to wrap a standard datatype in a class. If that is the case you could just ensure "type safety" via the constructor... Drawback:; you would have to change getters and setters (every two weeks), but you'd gain some clarity. Well... maybe I do not understand this code's full purpose but it looks like it was a feasibility study from some young padawan.

daveime

@zelmak said:

The last person got it right. Strings are much easier to work with as arbitrary width numeric values.

I much prefer an array of bits. Then it can be used for arbitrary length anythings, and efficiently packed as a bonus.