Format is for sissies



  • 789 lines, 97 control structures (for's, if's, etc), a ridiculous amount of nesting, 49 identical error messages ("somethings fish here") for 49 different errors, and not a single damn tab or function.  But where's the bug?

    I hate opensource.



  • I'm with you, chief.  I don't know how some of these people have the nerve to release this tripe.  (Even some of the well-formatted code I find is junk--do college professors even teach about loop invariants anymore?)

    And--I hate to be the one to say it--some of these people are writing Linux--"the world's most perfectest [sic] operating system."

    No wonder Jesus wept.



  • At least you can change the error messages ("something's fishy here #14") and recompile.




  • @cactuspants said:

    789 lines, 97 control structures (for's, if's, etc), a ridiculous amount of nesting, 49 identical error messages ("somethings fish here") for 49 different errors, and not a single damn tab or function.  But where's the bug?

    I hate opensource.

    I've looked at the original source to more than a few proprietary applications over the years. I have yet to see one that was not like this. When people are writing code with the belief that it will never be published, they make an incredible mess.

    It's the small handful of well-written free software applications that are the exception. Pretty much everything else, free and proprietary, sucks utterly.



  • @cactuspants said:

    not a single damn tab

    At least you can help that - there are autoformaters for almost every language...

    + If that's opensource - tell us the name!
     



  • @cactuspants said:

    I hate opensource.

    You hate bad programming. 

    Not open source. 



  • Perhaps he hates open source because at least with closed source, you can't see the terrible code behind the programs you're running :P It's like a snug little cotton wool insulator from reality.

    Mind you, you get the same effect with open source if you don't actually look at the source code - if you just take for granted that since it's open source, the people behind it must all be coders who code for the sake of it, producing awesome code where any hacks must be of the 'terribly clever optimisation' type.



  • Open Source is often bad programming because the first one out with something gets the kudos.  And, let's be honest, good programming takes time.  So, by the time you get something out that is good code, people have already jumped on the next new thing. 

    I especially find it ironic that open source is anti-MS, but as an industry it nearly follow the same model of getting attention - release first no matter what.  The only difference is that everyone gets to see your absolutely shitty code.  At least MS hides all their crap from us.


     

     



  • @JNeumann said:

    Open Source is often bad programming because the first one out with something gets the kudos.

     

    I can't think of any instances where this has been appreciably true.



  • Open Source is often bad programming because the first one out with something gets the kudos.
    This is false.

    And, let's be honest, good programming takes time.
    There are limits. I get programs finished a LOT quicker when I indent my source code and include error messages that - while maybe not brilliantly helpful to anyone other than myself - do at least distinguish between different errors.
    So, by the time you get something out that is good code, people have already jumped on the next new thing.
    This is false.
    I especially find it ironic that open source is anti-MS,
    This is false.
    but as an industry it nearly follow the same model of getting attention - release first no matter what.
    When was the last time Microsoft released anything first?
    The only difference is that everyone gets to see your absolutely shitty code.
    The only difference apart from the other billion differences, you mean.
    At least MS hides all their crap from us.
    Apart from the large quantities of code they make public through various shared source schemes.

    So, uh, you've managed to make an authoritative-sounding and opinionated post in which not one single claim was accurate. Impressive. Had you considered becoming a journalist or a politician?



  • @Iago said:

    When was the last time Microsoft released anything first?

    Are you counting all the times when they bought the inventing company before the first release was issued?



  • @asuffield said:

    @JNeumann said:

    Open Source is often bad programming because the first one out with something gets the kudos.

     

    I can't think of any instances where this has been appreciably true.

    Eh, I do. PHPNuke. I have to admit this one perfectly fits in the "be the first to release, whatever the price". Rampant over-featurism made the success of this product and source code is unmanageable. Being a web application, it's indeed full of security holes which must be circumvented by a third-party product ( "nuke sentinel" ) which barely filters requests in an absolute dumb manner ( checks for injection attempts in GET parameters, without having any clue of their use ).

    For sure, it worked like an polluting factory. You manufacture cheap products with tons of features, but pretty soon, as a customer your product breaks for no reason, and as a developer, you lie in a pond of toxic mud.

    But one example is not a proof. That kind of phenomena doesn't need opensource to happen ( remember tucows ? tons of closed-source freeware/shareware, and I'm damn sure a great part of them have to be messy in an unbelievable way, although the features may be really helpful ). It does not even need to be about software, hence the factory metaphor. The common thing might be about getting market shares whatever the price : be the first, be the cheapest, have the more features. It's all about short-term vision and being quantifiable ( you can make a list of features and tell the price, but comparing UI usability and source code quality is harder )

    Accusing opensource software is just another iteration of the "kill the messenger" analogy.



  • @aikii said:

    @asuffield said:
    @JNeumann said:

    Open Source is often bad programming because the first one out with something gets the kudos.

     

    I can't think of any instances where this has been appreciably true.

    Eh, I do. PHPNuke. I have to admit this one perfectly fits in the "be the first to release, whatever the price". Rampant over-featurism made the success of this product and source code is unmanageable. Being a web application, it's indeed full of security holes which must be circumvented by a third-party product ( "nuke sentinel" ) which barely filters requests in an absolute dumb manner ( checks for injection attempts in GET parameters, without having any clue of their use ).

    Sure, some people rush things out there, but it hardly brought them any "kudos" - quite the opposite in fact, phpnuke is infamous for being a steaming pile of crap. Nobody uses it without regretting it.



  • @asuffield said:

    @aikii said:
    @asuffield said:
    @JNeumann said:

    Open Source is often bad programming because the first one out with something gets the kudos.

     

    I can't think of any instances where this has been appreciably true.

    Eh, I do. PHPNuke. I have to admit this one perfectly fits in the "be the first to release, whatever the price". Rampant over-featurism made the success of this product and source code is unmanageable. Being a web application, it's indeed full of security holes which must be circumvented by a third-party product ( "nuke sentinel" ) which barely filters requests in an absolute dumb manner ( checks for injection attempts in GET parameters, without having any clue of their use ).

    Sure, some people rush things out there, but it hardly brought them any "kudos" - quite the opposite in fact, phpnuke is infamous for being a steaming pile of crap. Nobody uses it without regretting it.

    For sure, anyone choosing phpnuke right now or even at least last two years should be beaten with a dead skunk.

    But in early 2000's it got quite a success for a few years. Precisely because it looked easy and full of features. From a non-developer user perspective it's not so bad. Until you see how much pain it takes to secure it or add features by yourself. That's where the "worse than failure" paradigm perfectly fits.

    I'd say that in 2003 it had an overall good reputation - for sure, some developers had already runaway screaming, but in terms of marketshare in 'free CMS' it was still a player and many people where confident about it. And that's all about 'apparent goodness' from a user's perspective.

    But that's my personal experience. To be a little more scientific we'd need some 4-to-8-years-old stats and surveys ;-)
     



  • @mrprogguy said:

    I'm with you, chief.  I don't know how some of these people have the nerve to release this tripe.  (Even some of the well-formatted code I find is junk--do college professors even teach about loop invariants anymore?)

    And--I hate to be the one to say it--some of these people are writing Linux--"the world's most perfectest [sic] operating system."

    No wonder Jesus wept.

    Well, exactly how much better do you think Windows (the world's most popularest operating system) is coded up?


  • @JNeumann said:

    Open Source is often bad programming because the first one out with something gets the kudos.  And, let's be honest, good programming takes time.  So, by the time you get something out that is good code, people have already jumped on the next new thing. 

    Many open source projects are started by a single person or a small group, but require the help of many other programmers to reach an acceptable level of completeness and quality. For that reason, unreadable ugly code, which no-one else but the original author wants to work on, is something that makes it likely that the project starves just like 500000 other small projects before. For obvious reasons, this rule does not apply to open source projects that stem from closed source software, like OpenOffice.

     

    I especially find it ironic that open source is anti-MS, but as an industry it nearly follow the same model of getting attention - release first no matter what.  The only difference is that everyone gets to see your absolutely shitty code.  At least MS hides all their crap from us.

    Not at all. Looking a bit closer, you might notice that in the open source world, in many cases the projects which release first are not the ones which eventually succeed in the market.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.