IOS devices (iPods, iPads, iPhones) have no JavaScript debugger



  • @boomzilla said:

    You put in statements that firstly tell you whether a certain bit of code is even being reached. Then, you can find out if its some weird data or what that's going on. Essentially, you're logging stuff to the console (or putting in alerts, or whatever) and making inferences based on that.
     

    Ring ring It's the Sixties calling, they'd like their debugger back.

    Seriously, that approach was "debugging 101" forty years ago. Today we are 12 freaking years into the 21st century. We should have 21-st century tools.

    There was a post above talking about what to do with shitty tools. What we should do with shitty tools is vote with our wallets and buy elsewhere.

    Yes, I know there is a critical mass of Apple's shit in the market but it still needs software companies saying "developing X for iPad will cost you 10x the price" to their customers and those customers then going to Apple and saying "we are not buying iPads because our software won't run on them" and maybe Apple, faced with loss of sales, will fix the fucking issue. Or maybe not. They are a huge Cthulhuesqe organisation that probably gets enough money from Apple fanbois.

     The Real WTF is Apple.



  • And yet I Must Do That, so.



  •  @blakeyrat said:

    1) Alerts don't even show on mobile browsers, so that's fucking useless 

    Someone should probably tell Google then, because Android shows alerts just fine.

     



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @e4tmyl33t said:
    Aardwolf

    Interesting. Of course, it's an open source geek project so I'm sure it's absolute torture to use-- notably they don't show the UI at all.

    They "pause execution" by sending an asynch XmlHttpRequest, I don't see how that could possibly work in a BeforeUnload handler... and would only work for a few seconds max in the link/form submission handlers, so you better be quick with your debugging!

    <font size="150%">Possible tool to do debugging, but may not be true step debugger</font>

    In addittion to that project, there's Socketbug. There are several videos that show the basics, show it in action, show how to get the server and console set up:

    Socketbug

    And, to make sure Blakey knows I've read the thread, I see that the problem you're actually fact involves a BeforeUnload handler, so this may have the same problem as Aardwolf and won't help. It's at least something more than a simple console. This project also lets you take HTML source and ship it back and forth between the mobile device and desktop device and actually show edits and return them (see the video).


    <font size="125%">alert() is NOT a DEBUGGER. console.log() is NOT a DEBUGGER.</font>



  • @C-Octothorpe said:

    This is especially funny since he came here asking for peoples help or opinions.

    I got the impression he wasn't actually after assistance but was venting the WTF, maybe in frustration that it was partly as a result of his own decisions. This could explain why many suggestions received the response they did in comparison to the response to db2's point.

    It's still entertaining, nonetheless.



  • @Cassidy said:

    @C-Octothorpe said:

    This is especially funny since he came here asking for peoples help or opinions.

    I got the impression he wasn't actually after assistance but was venting the WTF


    The really funny thing is that the one time I've seen him be appreciative of a solution to one of his myriad problems, the person who gave him the solution gave a completely incorrect explanation of why it worked, and Blakey didn't express any appreciation to the people who gave a correct explanation.



  • @pjt33 said:

    the person who gave him the solution gave a completely incorrect explanation of why it worked, and Blakey didn't express any appreciation to the people who gave a correct explanation.

    Why would I give a shit why it worked, so long as it did work?

    You people have some weird ideas about me.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @pjt33 said:
    the person who gave him the solution gave a completely incorrect explanation of why it worked, and Blakey didn't express any appreciation to the people who gave a correct explanation.

    Why would I give a shit why it worked, so long as it did work?

    You people have some weird ideas about me.

    Anyone who can say that with a straight face needs to get out of the industry ASAP.  Programmers writing code and not knowing why it work the way it does are a menace to us all.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Why would I give a shit why it worked, so long as it did work?


    I didn't say I expected you to give a shit. I just find it hilarious the way you expect the utmost in professionality from everyone else but can't be arsed yourself.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @boomzilla said:

    That's one way to misinterpret the situation. To amend your analogy, a customer has required that blakeyrat use that particular car to go somewhere (not just "review the car"), and people were suggesting different ways to effect a left turn and mocking blakeyrat for apparently throwing his hands up in the air instead of coming up with a work around for the WTFery of the car manufacturer.

    Here's a better analogy:

    Blakeyrat awakes to find himself sitting in a pool of his own blood. The shaft of his penis is handcuffed to a water pipe which runs through the cement wall. Nearby is a rusty hacksaw which is too dull to cut through steel, but can probably manage to cut through flesh with a few hours of effort.

     

    Knowing he will die here, Blakeyrat opens his parched lips to croak out "Who are you!? Why are you doing this to me!?!"

     

    From the darkness comes a voice "Blakeyrat, it's the rest of the TDWTF forum members, we're here."

     

    "HELP ME!!" Blakeyrat screams. "You've got to get the key for the handcuffs so I can get out of here!"

     

    "There's no time, Blakeyrat." As the other TDWTFers step into the light, we see the crotches of their pants stained in blood. "We may never pleasure a woman again, but at least we will LIVE, Blakeyrat, at least we will live!"

     

    "This is terrible!!" laments Blakeyrat.

     

    "Are you just going to whine all day?" asks one of the survivors. "We provided you with a workaround, why are you such a Mr. Complainy-Pants?"

     

    "Heck," says another forum member "I honestly prefer using a hacksaw to handcuff keys. It forces me to think, ya know?"

     

    Blakeyrat lets out a blood-curdling screech as the madness consumes his mind.

    That's great, but you left out the bit where the key was lying right next to Blakey on the floor all along, but he just couldn't be bothered to look around him (aka "google") for five seconds before complaining that the problem was insoluble.




  • @Mason Wheeler said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    @pjt33 said:
    the person who gave him the solution gave a completely incorrect explanation of why it worked, and Blakey didn't express any appreciation to the people who gave a correct explanation.

    Why would I give a shit why it worked, so long as it did work?

    You people have some weird ideas about me.

    Anyone who can say that with a straight face needs to get out of the industry ASAP.  Programmers writing code and not knowing why it work the way it does are a menace to us all.

    That seems an odd position to take. Are you saying you understand every single thing that happens at every single level in your software and hardware? You understand CPU design, compiler theory, the mathematics behind encryption? Abstraction (not having to understand how something works to be able to use it) is a fundamental aspect of computer science. I'm not saying ignorance is good, but your position is so broadly defined it would disqualify 99.99% (or more) of all developers.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Mason Wheeler said:
    @blakeyrat said:
    Why would I give a shit why it worked, so long as it did work?

    You people have some weird ideas about me.

    Anyone who can say that with a straight face needs to get out of the industry ASAP.  Programmers writing code and not knowing why it work the way it does are a menace to us all.

    That seems an odd position to take. Are you saying you understand every single thing that happens at every single level in your software and hardware? You understand CPU design, compiler theory, the mathematics behind encryption? Abstraction (not having to understand how something works to be able to use it) is a fundamental aspect of computer science. I'm not saying ignorance is good, but your position is so broadly defined it would disqualify 99.99% (or more) of all developers.

    Yes, it's a little more complicated than requiring knowledge of everything. But you also have to avoid getting into cargo cult territory, which is definitely a possibility in the sort of instance mentioned (where incorrect theories were applied to a correct solution). A more concrete example:

    @Fail said:

    Use encryption library A for what you're doing. It's closed source, so no one will haxx0rz you!

    Library A may indeed be the right choice for whatever was being done there, but it being closed source is definitely not the reason why no one will break its encryption.



  • @DaveK said:

    That's great, but you left out the bit where the key was lying right next to Blakey on the floor all along, but he just couldn't be bothered to look around him (aka "google") for five seconds before complaining that the problem was insoluble.

    Probably more along the lines of him refusing to use the lock pick set sitting next to him because proper keys are the civilized way to open locks.




  • @blakeyrat said:

    Why would I give a shit why it worked, so long as it did work?


    @boomzilla said:

    Programmers writing code and not knowing why it work the way it does are a menace to us all.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Are you saying you understand every single thing that happens at every single level in your software and hardware?

    @boomzilla said:

    Yes, it's a little more complicated than requiring knowledge of everything.

    I suspect we're heading in the same direction with this one, just looking at different maps that detail different viewpoints but with the same destination in mind.

    I found Blakey's response strange until I understood it more as a black-box viewpoint: "I'm not interested in how it works - I know how it can be used and I'll trust it produces the documented results." I don't think that's an ignorant mindset, more one that's focussed on priorities.

    Morbs has raised the question of understanding every white-box facet of an API before being permitted to use it - which I don't think is necessary. Most programmers are content with picking an API that facilitates their desired results, reading up on documentation to understand how to use its interface but aren't really bothered with the specifics of the internals. A few will post here about observed undocumented behaviour as a WTF, few more have already posted about devs that discover undocumented behaviour and then rely upon it. But I digress...

    I take Boomzilla's point about taking a healthy interest in the way things work being advantageous, but I don't feel it's compulsory. I'm not a car mechanic so I don't know the ins and outs of a combustion engine - would I be a better driver if I did have that knowledge? I'd probably be able to perform my troubleshooting, accurately diagnose the problem when taking it in to be repaired and potentially not be ripped off by garage jargon, but Motor Vehicle Mechanics isn't a pre-requisite to driving.

    (a side note: my ex-boss talked of the time she drove her first car until it ran out of petrol one month down the line. Refueling wasn't something covered in her driving lessons, nor examined during her test; her father was a taxi-driver and she never saw him refuel his car, and her boyfriend spoke of the battery needing recharging. She just assumed the thing had numerous dry cells under the bonnet and was blissfully ignorant of petroleum consumption).



  • @boomzilla said:

    But you also have to avoid getting into cargo cult territory,

    Yes, obviously the (apparently) sole voice crying out that one of the most popular mobile platforms doesn't have have a debugger for one of the most popular languages around-- obvious cargo cult behavior there.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @boomzilla said:
    But you also have to avoid getting into cargo cult territory,

    Yes, obviously the (apparently) sole voice crying out that one of the most popular mobile platforms doesn't have have a debugger for one of the most popular languages around-- obvious cargo cult behavior there.

    What in the world are you talking about? Straw man much?



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    You understand CPU design, compiler theory, the mathematics behind encryption? Abstraction (not having to understand how something works to be able to use it) is a fundamental aspect of computer science. I'm not saying ignorance is good, but your position is so broadly defined it would disqualify 99.99% (or more) of all developers.

    And doesn't this site exist to make precisely that point? It took me months to realise that many of the comments on here are entirely serious, rather than ironic, and even most of top 1% of developers (which is pretty much what this forum is selected from) are complete idiots with no understanding of how computers work, or, more seriously, how people work - that's the most important part of programming, and you didn't even mention it.

    The sad fact is that measured by the standards of other professions, well over 99.9% of programmers lack the minimal competency required for the job. It's why all software, with no exceptions whatsoever, is still utter shite after decades of general software development.

    If I might present an analogy to debate instead of the point, it would be that if cars had developed at the same rate as software, people would have been riding horses into the seventies. (Actually, I'm going to quibble with my analogy - if cars had developed like computers, by the seventies we'd have all had 500 BHP engines and great fuel economy, but with spikes instead of seats, and a steering wheel made of red-hot lava.) The state of software today is truly pitiful.



  • I thought this site existed to point and laugh at the really bad code/practices, and where appropriate, offer suggestions as to how to correct them.

    So what if developers do not know how computers work? All we really [i]need[/i] to understand is the API we are currently using, including an approximate idea of how long each procedure should take to return.

    Would knowing more about the underlying structure of computers make us [i]better[/i] programmers? [i]Sometimes[/i].

    For example, I seriously doubt knowing how files fragment on a hard drive will make any difference when you're parsing an XML document. Writing a database engine, though?

    @fterfi secure said:

    how people work - that's the most important part of programming, and you didn't even mention it.

    Funny, I'd say that the most important part is the ability to recognise when you're writing bad code (and make no mistake, at some point you [i]will[/i]) and then (This is the important part) seeing if there is a better way of doing it.



  • @Salamander said:

     All we really need to understand is the API we are currently using, including an approximate idea of how long each procedure should take to return.

     

    I agree this would be nice in general, but there are enough exceptions to make this a problem. Consider Jquery for example. I've seen plenty of code that references objects by class, even if the elements in question only exist in one area of a web page, for example. Sure, modern browsers have a built-in Javascript method getElementByClassName() but not all do, and in those cases Jquery falls back to a dom traversal in order to find the right elements. Knowing things like this about how the API works under the hood can make a different.

    Frameworks are another area where knowing a little about how things are working is a boon. Sure, frameworks are there to save us the hassle of reinventing the wheel and re-writing code, but knowing a little about how it accomplishes certain tasks really helps when we have a choice about how to code something. This site is testament to there being more than one way to program something, so sometimes knowing more about the environment surrounding the code is beneficial.

     



  • @Salamander said:

    Funny, I'd say that the most important part is the ability to recognise when you're writing bad code (and make no mistake, at some point you will) and then (This is the important part) seeing if there is a better way of doing it.


    So you support the idea that people should know how and why the code they're writing works?



  • @pjt33 said:

    So you support the idea that people should know how and why the code they're writing works?
     

    I would yeah. It's a bit like a mechanic working on a car without really knowing how the bits work, just that the engine is a black box (api) that receives inputs (oil, fuel, etc) and produces an output (in the form of a drive shaft)  Sure, I wouldn't expect your basic low-level mechanic to know how to change a piston ring, but I would expect them to at least have an understanding of how the engine works. It's not really comparable to equate a developer with a driver, the driver is more like the end user in this scenario.

     



  • @Salamander said:

    @fterfi secure said:
    how people work - that's the most important part of programming, and you didn't even mention it.

    Funny, I'd say that the most important part is the ability to recognise when you're writing bad code (and make no mistake, at some point you will) and then (This is the important part) seeing if there is a better way of doing it.

    Well, aren't you 'people' too?



  • @fterfi secure said:

    And doesn't this site exist to make precisely that point?

    No. The point of this site is to illustrate examples of bad code. Even the best developers write bad on occasion (although the majority of the WTFs do come from shitty programmers).

     

    @fterfi secure said:

    It took me months to realise that many of the comments on here are entirely serious, rather than ironic...

    Some of the comments are stupid. Some are just people doing things differently.

     

    @fterfi secure said:

    ...and even most of top 1% of developers (which is pretty much what this forum is selected from)...

    This forum is definitely not composed of the top 1%. (Sorry guys.)

     

    @fterfi secure said:

    how people work - that's the most important part of programming, and you didn't even mention it.


    How people work is an important aspect to some programming. I actually did mention it, indirectly: the entire reason for abstraction is to make software development easier. You don't need to understand all the bits and pieces to make things work.

     

    @fterfi secure said:

    ...general bitching...

    The thing is, I actually kind of agree with you that the state of software development is sub-optimal. However, proclaiming that all software is shit and all developers are idiots makes you seem severely out-of-touch with reality.



  • @ASheridan said:

    It's a bit like a mechanic working on a car without really knowing how the bits work, just that the engine is a black box (api) that receives inputs (oil, fuel, etc) and produces an output (in the form of a drive shaft) 

    Flawed analogy. For one, modern software is far more complicated than any automobile. Even then, mechanics rely on abstractions to make their jobs easier. I would venture a guess that most mechanics don't understand advanced metallurgy, although they do understand some of the properties of the handful of metals they encounter in an automobile. I doubt they understand the physics and chemistry behind an internal combustion engine (not to mention oil extraction and refining), they just know that given the right mix of fuel and air combustion is possible.

     

    Abstractions exist to make software development easier. Ideally, a developer could use an abstraction without understanding a single thing below it. In the real world, all abstractions are leaky, so some underlying knowledge is necessary. The amount varies depending on how leaky the abstraction is (how often do you think about hardware interrupts when writing Javascript for a web app?)



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Even the best developers write bad code on occasion

    OK, now replace 'developers' and 'write bad code' with, say, 'surgeons' and 'cut off the wrong leg', or even just 'accountants' and 'get tax returns wrong'. If we're supposed to be professionals, that means acting like it.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    This forum is definitely not composed of the top 1%. (Sorry guys.)

    Drawn from, not entirely composing or composed of the top 1%. But sadly, yes, just being aware that there is such a thing as 'bad code' puts you in the top 1% of programmers. People with enough interest in the subject to read TDWTF are also generally self-selecting as decent programmers.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    The thing is, I actually kind of agree with you that the state of software development is sub-optimal. However, proclaiming that all software is shit and all developers are idiots makes you seem severely out-of-touch with reality.

    All software is shit, utter shit: lots is useful, but none is usable to any meaningful degree. I'd say ignoring that makes you seem out of touch with reality. I don't think all developers are stupid, far from it. I do think that they're overwhelmingly drawn from people who were attracted to computers because they're relatively bad at dealing with, and particularly, understanding, people. The end result is that most programmers forget that every instruction a computer executes originates with a person.



  • @fterfi secure said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    Even the best developers write bad code on occasion

    OK, now replace 'developers' and 'write bad code' with, say, 'surgeons' and 'cut off the wrong leg', or even just 'accountants' and 'get tax returns wrong'. If we're supposed to be professionals, that means acting like it.

    Yeah, doctors and accountants sometimes make mistakes, too. Of course, they're not usually doing original work, either, so there's a lot less creative thought that could go wrong.

     

    @fterfi secure said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    This forum is definitely not composed of the top 1%. (Sorry guys.)
    Drawn from, not entirely composing or composed of the top 1%. But sadly, yes, just being aware that there is such a thing as 'bad code' puts you in the top 1% of programmers. People with enough interest in the subject to read TDWTF are also generally self-selecting as decent programmers.

    Being aware that there is such a thing as "bad code" puts you in the top 1% of programmers? What kind of retarded statistic is that? Seriously, you sound less sensible with each statement.

     

    @fterfi secure said:

    All software is shit, utter shit: lots is useful, but none is usable to any meaningful degree.

    Now I know you're just full of shit. Seriously, what are you doing here? What do you do for a living?



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @fterfi secure said:

    All software is shit, utter shit: lots is useful, but none is usable to any meaningful degree.

    Now I know you're just full of shit. Seriously, what are you doing here? What do you do for a living?

    I'd agree with that sentiment also.

    That's not to say software is worse than hundreds of people shuffling paper around in a room full of 500 fax machines. But it is still shit. The steam engine was a hell of a lot better than roping 20 horses together and beating them to death. But it was still shit. And I don't believe you look at a modern computer and seriously think to yourself: "now that is exactly how a computer should be!"

    The disagreement is probably one of terminology.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    And I don't believe you look at a modern computer and seriously think to yourself: "now that is exactly how a computer should be!"

    Of course not. But there's a world of difference between "has room for improvement" and "utter shit". Unless you are redefining "shit" to mean "needs improvement", in which case you are devaluing the word. And "none is usable to any meaningful degree"? Usability problems aren't uncommon, but saying it flat-out isn't usable? It's all pointless bitching that shows little understanding of actual usability and engineering concerns.



  • @pjt33 said:

    So you support the idea that people should know how and why the code they're writing works?

    Yes. Where did I say I didn't?

    Or is this is the part where you are pedantic and try to pick at what you think I was implying?



  • @fterfi secure said:

    OK, now replace 'developers' and 'write bad code' with, say, 'surgeons' and 'cut off the wrong leg', or even just 'accountants' and 'get tax returns wrong'. If we're supposed to be professionals, that means acting like it.

    Or replace both vocations with the generic "even professionals make mistakes". Being professional doesn't mean acting like it, it means doing it, and mistakes occasionally happen - it's your attitude to failure that determines if your approach is professional or amateurish.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    This forum is definitely not composed of the top 1%. (Sorry guys.)

    Agreed, but it's a good viewpoint of those "in the industry". Hell, I don't think I'd consider myself in the top 10% of programmers (but that may be evident already...)

    @fterfi secure said:

    All software is shit, utter shit: lots is useful, but none is usable to any meaningful degree. I'd say ignoring that makes you seem out of touch with reality.

    I recall a phrase that "all software sucks to some extent, some more than others" but I still don't agree with this sentiment.

    You're arguing that lots of software that is useful is still shit, and no software - including that which is useful - is usable. Some software is shit, I won't deny it - but that judgement is often based upon one or two broken features and misses the remaining 90% that works fine and is useful. Most people learn those pitfalls and are content to use said package, carefully skirting the danger areas to obtain maximum benefit from it.

    Are you honestly claiming that the browser you're using - and the operating system it sits on - to make your post is utter shit and unusable?



  • @fterfi secure said:

    OK, now replace 'developers' and 'write bad code' with, say, 'surgeons' and 'cut off the wrong leg'


    I've had to intervene before to prevent a plastic surgeon (who are supposed to be the best) from operating on the wrong hand. The requirements got garbled, probably because the average doctor's handwriting is worse than the average developer's knowledge of usability.

    @Salamander said:

    @pjt33 said:
    So you support the idea that people should know how and why the code they're writing works?

    Yes. Where did I say I didn't?


    Just checking, because your first paragraph seemed to be tilting towards supporting Blakey's cargo culting.



  • @pjt33 said:

    Just checking, because your first paragraph seemed to be tilting towards supporting Blakey's cargo culting.

    What the fuck, people. The entire thread is me complaining about a web browser I have to write code for that doesn't have proper development tools. Cargo cult people don't use fucking debuggers. Why do you keep saying shit like this?

    I just said that if you gave me code that solved the problem, I'd use it to solve the problem without spending weeks researching how exactly it worked. I don't see where this stupid debate came from. I definitely don't see how I ended up in the "cargo cult" bucket, unless the answer is "people don't know what the term 'cargo cult' means and they just mindlessly repeat it."



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @pjt33 said:
    Just checking, because your first paragraph seemed to be tilting towards supporting Blakey's cargo culting.

    What the fuck, people. The entire thread is me complaining about a web browser I have to write code for that doesn't have proper development tools. Cargo cult people don't use fucking debuggers. Why do you keep saying shit like this?

    No thread here is ever about one single thing. The cargo cultiness came from when you said, "Why would I give a shit why it worked, so long as it did work?"

    @blakeyrat said:

    I just said that if you gave me code that solved the problem, I'd use it to solve the problem without spending weeks researching how exactly it worked. I don't see where this stupid debate came from. I definitely don't see how I ended up in the "cargo cult" bucket, unless the answer is "people don't know what the term 'cargo cult' means and they just mindlessly repeat it."

    I think you're not understanding the term. Now, the code may actually be correct, etc, and perhaps the authority of the person who gave you the code is good enough for you. Perhaps you also did extensive testing to make sure that it really did solve the problem, and didn't just look like it solved the problem due to some weird set of circumstances (e.g., hard coded paths that happen to match your personal setup).

    So your hypothetical situation isn't necessarily cargo cult behavior, but without elaborating, it could be. And then the discussion about how much you understand about something went more meta, and wasn't really about you.

    Or maybe you're just an overly sensitive troll?



  • @boomzilla said:

    I think you're not understanding the term. Now, the code may actually be correct, etc, and perhaps the authority of the person who gave you the code is good enough for you. Perhaps you also did extensive testing to make sure that it really did solve the problem, and didn't just look like it solved the problem due to some weird set of circumstances (e.g., hard coded paths that happen to match your personal setup).

    So your hypothetical situation isn't necessarily cargo cult behavior, but without elaborating, it could be. And then the discussion about how much you understand about something went more meta, and wasn't really about you.

    Kind of hard to say, since pjt33 didn't fucking link to the actual incident he was referring to, I don't personally remember it, and nobody has called him out on it. For all I know, you guys are debating over some bullshit he made up. Or something that someone else did.

    If he provided maybe one relevant detail then we could start actually speaking intelligently about it.

    Until then, I don't like being labeled due to something that, for all we know, didn't even fucking happen.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    If he provided maybe one relevant detail then we could start actually speaking intelligently about it.

    Until then, I'll continue speaking unintelligently about it.

    FTFY



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Kind of hard to say, since pjt33 didn't fucking link to the actual incident he was referring to, I don't personally remember it, and nobody has called him out on it. For all I know, you guys are debating over some bullshit he made up. Or something that someone else did.

    True, but even so, all I read into his original comment was that you didn't take the time to go back and thank the people who corrected the first joker, which is completely different from cargo cultism.

    @blakeyrat said:

    Until then, I don't like being labeled due to something that, for all we know, didn't even fucking happen.

    Yeah, who knows what he was referring to, but your response to the troll definitely happened, and that was what really sparked the discussion. So, +1 Trolling for pjt33.



  • @boomzilla said:

    True, but even so, all I read into his original comment was that you didn't take the time to go back and thank the people who corrected the first joker, which is completely different from cargo cultism.

    All you should have read into it was: "this is an anecdote with zero details and zero citations which reinforces my pre-established beliefs about a topic." In other words, "this is almost certainly UTTER BULLSHIT."

    So because the dumbasses who populate this board (lead by the greatest of the dumbasses: Boomzilla) have zero bullshit detection capability, suddenly I get labeled as a "cargo cult programmer."

    I'm so sick of the shit I get from this community. If you want to criticize me, fine! I embrace that! I even enjoy it! But criticize me based on things I've actually said. Of course I've posted that exact thought a billion times and it's still not happening, so why do I keep bothering? I don't even know myself.

    Hey, let's pull a pjt33! Remember that time someone told Boomzilla not to strangle all those puppies, but instead he totally strangled all the puppies and then ran over 20 nuns in his car? That was a hoot!



  • @blakeyrat said:


    So because the dumbasses who populate this board (lead by the greatest of the dumbasses: Boomzilla) have zero bullshit detection capability, suddenly I get labeled as a "cargo cult programmer."

    I'm so sick of the shit I get from this community. If you want to criticize me, fine! I embrace that! I even enjoy it! But criticize me based on things I've actually said.

    So are you now denying authorship of this post? Because that's what the discussion was about, not the apocryphal event described by pjt33 (except inasmuch as your response was connected to pjt33's post). pjt33's post was alleging ingratitude on your part, not any sort of cargo cultishness.

    I apologize for calling you on your bullshit.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Hey, let's pull a pjt33! Remember that time someone told Boomzilla not to strangle all those puppies, but instead he totally strangled all the puppies and then ran over 20 nuns in his car? That was a hoot!

    That's not a hoot.  And besides, I'm sure he apologized.  Right, boomzilla?  Tell me you apologized.



  • @Sutherlands said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    Hey, let's pull a pjt33! Remember that time someone told Boomzilla not to strangle all those puppies, but instead he totally strangled all the puppies and then ran over 20 nuns in his car? That was a hoot!

    That's not a hoot.  And besides, I'm sure he apologized.  Right, boomzilla?  Tell me you apologized.

    I never apologize for things I didn't do.



  • @boomzilla said:

    I never apologize for things I didn't do.

    That include work?



  • @boomzilla said:

    pjt33's post was alleging ingratitude on your part, not any sort of cargo cultishness.

    You sure about that?

    @pjt33 said:

    Just checking, because your first paragraph seemed to be tilting towards supporting Blakey's cargo culting.


  • @Salamander said:

    @boomzilla said:

    pjt33's post was alleging ingratitude on your part, not any sort of cargo cultishness.

    You sure about that?

    @pjt33 said:
    Just checking, because your first paragraph seemed to be tilting towards supporting Blakey's cargo culting.

    Yes, I'm sure. But feel free to persist in believing that a post 3 days after the post in question, and part of the subsequent discussion had anything to do with what I was talking about. It's not my job to enforce causality in the universe or TDWTF.

    It's a long thread, so I can understand how it might be easy to forget what was said throughout, as blakeyrat obviously did when he ignored all of the discussion that wasn't focused on the WTF of Apple and their missing debugger, and as have many of us at various times when we suggested something that someone had mentioned earlier. But...I actually put a link in to the post, so there really should be no question, unless you are simply too stupid to operate your browser.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Kind of hard to say, since pjt33 didn't fucking link to the actual incident he was referring to, I don't personally remember it


    It was the CSS discussion way back in the dim and distant past of last month. Is there any other thread on this forum in which you thank someone for helping you with one of your problems? And if you didn't know what I was referring to, why were you so sure that you wouldn't have given a shit about the reason it worked - unless that's your general attitude?



  • Since you appear to be braindead, let me spell it out for you.

    You said that pjt33's post did [i]not[/i] allege any sort of cargo cult behaviour. I pointed out where, in no uncertain terms, it [i]did[/i].

    As that post was what sparked blakey's outburst, it [i]is[/i] a part of this discussion. Shocking, I know.



  • @Salamander said:

    Since you appear to be braindead, let me spell it out for you.

    You said that pjt33's post did not allege any sort of cargo cult behaviour. I pointed out where, in no uncertain terms, it did.


    As that post was what sparked blakey's outburst, it is a part of this discussion. Shocking, I know.

    OK, so first you cannot follow the link to understand what I was talking about, and now you mention an unspecified "blakey outburst." Practically every post he makes is an outburst. No one is really that clueless. Well trolled, sir.



  • @pjt33 said:

    @fterfi secure said:
    OK, now replace 'developers' and 'write bad code' with, say, 'surgeons' and 'cut off the wrong leg'

    I've had to intervene before to prevent a plastic surgeon (who are supposed to be the best) from operating on the wrong hand.

    When I had surgery on my leg three years ago the surgeon came in ahead
    of time and wrote his name on the appropriate leg.  I had never heard of
    such a thing, but it does seem like a good idea.



  • @El_Heffe said:

    @pjt33 said:
    @fterfi secure said:
    OK, now replace 'developers' and 'write bad code' with, say, 'surgeons' and 'cut off the wrong leg'

    I've had to intervene before to prevent a plastic surgeon (who are supposed to be the best) from operating on the wrong hand.
    When I had surgery on my leg three years ago the surgeon came in ahead
    of time and wrote his name on the appropriate leg.  I had never heard of
    such a thing, but it does seem like a good idea.

    What if he wrote on the wrong leg to begin with?



  • I did read it. I just did not find it relevant. Let me point out the part you are missing here (simplified):



    pjt33: Blakey = Cargo Cult.

    boomzilla: [u]pjt33[/u] never said Blakey = Cargo Cult.

    Me: Yes he did.



    Whether or not you can say blakey's behaviour [i]is[/i] cargo culting or not is [i]not[/i] relevant to the point I was making. Trying to argue otherwise is pointless.

    @boomzilla said:

    and now you mention an unspecified "blakey outburst."

    Really? I would have thought that given how we were talking about blakey, cargo culting, and outburts that it should have been obvious.
    I apologise for assuming you were capable of working it out on your own. I shall not make that mistake again.

    By the way, you never did give a link to pjt33's post which was "alleging ingratitude".



  • @Salamander said:

    You said that pjt33's post did not allege any sort of cargo cult behaviour. I pointed out where, in no uncertain terms, it did.


    I would suggest that maybe you're a mathematician who's wandered in here by mistake, but even mathematicians can count to two. I've made more than one post in this thread.


Log in to reply

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