Finally nada
-
@lettucemode said:
Secondly, there is often a difference between what a person is saying, and the words they use to say that thing.
@blakeyrat said:
BTW this is a fascinating look into the pedantic dickweed mind. A normal non-dickweed would probably go, "let's see a couple of lines added so the programmer doesn't have to deal with errors even though it could lead to data corruption further on... yeah, that's pretty goddamned similar to 'on error resume next' isn't it?"
At this point, a non-pedantic-dickweed can use an amazing deductive ability called "inference" to understand what is really being said.
When something stupid has been said, it's unsafe to assume that something non-stupid was meant. A non-pedantic-dickweed will happily use an amazing deductive ability called "inference" to pretend to understand what a person is saying, despite the words they use to say that thing; whereas a pedantic dickweed will point out that something stupid and ambiguous has been said, preferring to put the onus of clarification on the originator of the stupidity instead of muddling through all the possible permutations of stupid to (possibly incorrectly) guess at a useful meaning.
-
What the fuck are you talking about.
-
@lettucemode said:
At this point, a non-pedantic-dickweed
Is that a (non-pedantic)-dickweed, or a non-(pedantic-dickweed)?
-
@blakeyrat said:
@TwelveBaud said:
@dhromed said:
@blakeyrat said:
So what you're saying is that it is the JS equivalent to "on error resume next", more or less.So what you're saying is that it is the JS equivalent to "on error resume next", more or less.
The code doesn't resume next on error.Wow. Someone finally gets my point.
Wow. 10/10.
-
-
Why the fuck aren't you clicking the "in reply to" link.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Why the fuck aren't you clicking the "in reply to" link.
Holy shit, I always thought that was a piece broken-ass CS text. I'm used to seeing "In Reply To #{forum-posting-id}", or something similar. I always just assumed it was CS going "In reply to...{mumble mumble, voice trailing off...}" as it forgot what it was saying, and then wetting itself.
Still, though-- why the fuck didn't you click the "Quote" button?
-
Good point!
-
@Cassidy said:
@ASheridan said:
@Speakerphone Dude said:
You have javascript files with more than 900 lines. It must be wonderful to work in your company.
That in itself is not necessarily a problem, particularly if you code in the Allman style and put braces on their own line so they line up. I'd much rather have a code file that's double the number of lines if it is more readable.They're not mutually exclusive, though - the size of the file doesn't bear a resemblance to the readability, more to the maintainability.
I agree that the size is unimportant - I'd prefer the content to be legible - but with it being so large I'd be concerned about action at a distance when making changes. For that reason I'd look at breaking it up into separate files to limit damage during modifications, but YMMV.
Suppose I throw this out to others: given the choice, do you prefer monolithic or modular approach? I know some languages (Java) enforce modular, but I'm curious as to pros/cons of each approach.
True. This was actually on a discussion on a mailing list I'm on. The general concensus is that a function should do one job and one job only. There is a trend towards larger and larger functions which typically correlate with the number of lines that a person can display on their screen, which is obviously growing over time. The exception to the rule was switch statements, which can sometimes run on beyond the screen/line limit, and trying to break them up of "simplify" them actually ends up obfuscating the code and making it harder to maintain.
I can't fathom a reason for 300 lines inside a single try/finally block though. That needs breaking up!
-
@blakeyrat said:
@TwelveBaud said:
Stupid and mandatory FTFY.@dhromed said:
@blakeyrat said:
So what you're saying is that it is the JS equivalent to "on error resume next", more or less.So what you're saying is that it is the JS equivalent to "on error resume next", more or less.
The code doesn't resume next on error.Wow. Someone finally gets nada.
-
@joe.edwards said:
Is that a (non-pedantic)-dickweed, or a non-(pedantic-dickweed)?
Is that a logical or, or a bitwise or?
-
@blakeyrat said:
Why the fuck aren't you clicking the "in reply to" link.
I did, despite thinking it obvious that you were replying to me. You have deduced... poorly.
@Lorne Kates said:
Still, though-- why the fuck didn't you click the "Quote" button?
If he quotes something, he may find himself obliged to actually read the quoted text, so as to avoid an accidental non sequitur. And reading may lead to accidental comprehension... the very antithesis of the blakeyrant.
-
When I'm 99% certain my post will appear directly below the post its replying to, I don't use the quote button because it adds redundant text to the forum. If the thread is fast-moving and my post isn't likely to connect directly to the one I'm replying to, I do use the quote button.
Now go to hell.
-
@ASheridan said:
This was actually on a discussion on a mailing list I'm on.
A mailing list? Like the ones where you send and email to Majordomo to unsubscribe? That raises an interesting question.
-
I'm just sad that I was AFK for such an awesome pedantic dickweed flame war (on all sides!) that really hinged on the reader using sufficiently large values of "less." But I'm happy that blakey hasn't just admitted that he was wrong, even though both the original thing and "resume next" are RWTFs.
-
@boomzilla said:
[...]pedantic dickweed[...]
People use this expression so often, it has lost its impact. It's like saying "Yes we can", nowadays nobody that hears that feels the urge to send 5$ to the kenyan-born iranian mole.
-
@Speakerphone Dude said:
@boomzilla said:
[...]pedantic dickweed[...]
People use this expression so often, it has lost its impact. It's like saying "Yes we can", nowadays nobody that hears that feels the urge to send 5$ to the kenyan-born iranian mole.
Really, it's just snappier than typing "TDWTF forum participant."
-
@boomzilla said:
But I'm happy that blakey hasn't just admitted that he was wrong, even though both the original thing and "resume next" are RWTFs.
Why would I have admitted I was wrong?
-
@blakeyrat said:
@boomzilla said:
But I'm happy that blakey hasn't just admitted that he was wrong, even though both the original thing and "resume next" are RWTFs.
Why would I have admitted I was wrong?I wouldn't want to speculate, but stranger things have happened.
-
@Speakerphone Dude said:
Nothing wrong with them, I'd be surprised if the majority here weren't on at least one.A mailing list? Like the ones where you send and email to Majordomo to unsubscribe? That raises an interesting question.
-
@blakeyrat said:
don't use the quote button
Clearly a consistent and well thought out convention, we should all consider adopting this.@blakeyrat said:
Now go to hell.
I'm on TDWTF and I'm replying to you; what more do you expect from me?
-
@ASheridan said:
@Speakerphone Dude said:
Nothing wrong with them, I'd be surprised if the majority here weren't on at least one.Majordomo
Have been in the past; have set up and administered several. Didn't find it much difference to a newsgroup.
