I hate Eclipse, Adobe, JBoss, and everything related to Java.



  • We "inherited" an Adobe Flex application from another vendor. Nevermind that none of us have worked with Flex before, the point is we're cheap(er than the other vendor) and we can learn, can't we? (client) OF COURSE THEY CAN (our management)

    So the other vendor's dev comes to do handover, which basically amounts to giving one of our team's senior devs, P a development VM with the source, IDE etc. on it. Our dev makes sure the VM works, and the other vendor fucks off into the sunset.

    Come the following week and we need to do changes on the just-handed-over app. The other senior dev on my team, A, gets tasked with doing the changes. After he's completed his work, he tries testing the application. It compiles just fine... but it won't deploy to JBoss. It breaks every time. After he's wasted a few hours on this, he pulls me in. I can't get any further either.

    So A and myself grill P, the dev who got the handover, and it turns out he didn't try running the app... he just made sure it compiles. We restrain ourselves from murdering him, and instead contact the vendor who did the handover. They can't help us, because, um, they've actually never needed to deploy this app either, haha.

    WHAT.

    Yep, it turns out the "changes" they did to the app were merely running SQL scripts on the DB. (Before you ask, no, that won't work for what we need to do.) The app itself hasn't been redeployed since before the vendor inherited this application (2+ years) from a PREVIOUS vendor... who was also fired for being too expensive, and incidentally are no longer talking to our client or anyone who works with them.

    Hence A and myself spent the better part of last week trying to get this app to work. We tried different Java versions, we tried different Flex versions, we tried different JBoss versions, we tried different Eclipse versions. Hell, we tried updating the JAR that is deployed to the production environment with only our changes! The only thing that changes is the way the app crashes.

    So I'd like to give a big FUCK YOU to JBoss (for giving completely useless exception stack traces when things break), Adobe (for integrating their shitty Flex dev tools into Eclipse: the shittiest IDE ever created), Eclipse (for being as much fun to work in as putting your dick against a belt sander), Maven (for being an unnecessarily complex and convoluted way to write build scripts that may or may not work), and of course, to Java for being the foundation of fecal matter that this whole towering edifice of shit is built upon. At this point I hate everything Java-related and hope that anyone who willingly uses Java and its associated technologies dies of ebola.



  • So in other words, you should start preparing the dev handoff package because your agency is going to be fired for being too expensive.

    (speaking as someone who's played agency hot-potato before)



  • Look at the bright side. At least the app is stable since it have been in production for 2 years without needing any code updates og bugfixes. Or nobody gives a shit about the app :}

    btw: "They had to give us a completely installed development environment in a VM because they were unable to explain how to install the needed software"  is on my list of "Signs you are taking over a doomed project". 

     



  • While I feel your pain and empathize, I think maybe you're targeting the hammer and nails, and not the "carpenter" who built that steaming pile of WTF.



  • @snoofle said:

    I think maybe you're targeting the hammer and nails, and not the "carpenter"

    .. and you seem to be overlooking all the others in this supply chain, as well as Joseph that claimed he could work miracles (but was unaware that Mary was pregnant).

    I'm not certain you'd actually be in much different a position if Eclipse/Adobe/JBoss/Java behaved better.



  • It could be worse. You could be using Xcode.

    Eclipse and Java seem pretty sane to me after spending the past 9 months having my soul sucked dry.



  • All I read is:

    I don't know how to use the tools.

    Let's blame the tools.

     I've worked with all those technologies quite well in the past and the present. Of course there are down sides, and Flex isn't the best thing every (in fact, it is pretty crappy), but they're not as bad as you make them out to be. 



  • @The_Assimilator said:

    At this point I hate everything Java-related and hope that anyone who willingly uses Java and its associated technologies dies of ebola.
    But... I like my new Android phone... :(



  • @Zecc said:

    @The_Assimilator said:

    At this point I hate everything Java-related and hope that anyone who willingly uses Java and its associated technologies dies of ebola.
    But... I like my new Android phone... :(

    No! Ebola!



  • Meh. If you're going the be a shill for Microsoft, at least be subtle about it.



  • @Zecc said:

    @The_Assimilator said:
    At this point I hate everything Java-related and hope that anyone who willingly uses Java and its associated technologies dies of ebola.
    But... I like my new Android phone... :(
    Apple says you can't. Apple aren't using Java either, are they? Well then.

     



  • Sorry, Ebola's pretty rare in North-Western Europe.



  • @bridget99 said:

    Meh. If you're going the be a shill for Microsoft, at least be subtle about it.
    You are the only one to mention Microsoft as the alternative for this mess. How much are they paying you for this add?




  • My biggest problem with java is all of the xml magic that has to be just right to get $framework to work right. And which subtly but fatally changes when you upgrade to the next release.

    I think the Eclipse hate is just someone too used to a single tool (assuming you don't have a legitimate-but-WTF configuration like blakey) and unable to adjust. I haven't spent enough time to figure out maven. It seems overly complex, and plain old ant has worked well enough for me so far.

    I guess I should call my friends at the CIA now to get that ebola vaccination...



  • @bjolling said:

    @bridget99 said:
    Meh. If you're going the be a shill for Microsoft, at least be subtle about it.

    You are the only one to mention Microsoft as the alternative for this mess. How much are they paying you for this add?

    I suspect he's going by past history. I can't recall The_Assimilator having anything remotely positive to say about anything but MS technology. bridgett99, OTOH, has nothing nice to say about anything but himself.



  • @boomzilla said:

    I haven't spent enough time to figure out maven. It seems overly complex, and plain old ant has worked well enough for me so far.

    I guess I should call my friends at the CIA now to get that ebola vaccination...

     

    I actually like maven but I must admit I never used it in a complex project or environment. The thing is it is more than a tool just for build scripts and that's why it seems overly complicated.I use it with netbeans and mercurial and that works pretty well together.

     

     



  • @boomzilla said:

    My biggest problem with java is all of the xml magic that has to be just right to get $framework to work right. And which subtly but fatally changes when you upgrade to the next release.


    That's not a problem with Java: it's a problem with $framework. XML magic is no more inherent to Java than it is to, say, PHP.



  • @pjt33 said:

    @boomzilla said:
    My biggest problem with java is all of the xml magic that has to be just right to get $framework to work right. And which subtly but fatally changes when you upgrade to the next release.

    That's not a problem with Java: it's a problem with $framework. XML magic is no more inherent to Java than it is to, say, PHP.

    True, but if you're going to do anything useful with Java, you're going to use $framework. And all of the big players seem to be equivalent as far as XML abuse goes. I could be wrong, of course. Maybe GWT or something has broken this cycle.



  • XML magic is becoming less prevalent as $frameworks move to annotation-based magic. For what it's worth.



  • The Java Language System consists of two parts: the Language, and the System.

    As a Language, it's pretty good. Not perfect, but very good.

    As a System, it's the worst piece of crap I've ever dealt with.

    It's as if the creators of the Java System have carefully decided what's the best way to do anything, and then made every other technique illegal.

    For example, most languages have restrictions on the file name suffix. No other language I know of  has a restriction on the base file name. No other language I know of has a restriction on the directory path name. Java has a "standard" API. In fact, it has several "standard" API's, depending on what it's running on. I could not get Tomcat Servlets to work because there are 185 different config files you have to create and/or edit to get "Hello World" to appear. It didn't help that Tomcat requires "standard" environment variables which changed while I was working on it.

    Standards are wonderful - everybody ought to have one. Java has too many.



  • @Xyro said:

    XML magic is becoming less prevalent as $frameworks move to annotation-based magic. For what it's worth.

    This is true, and a huge improvement, where it's happened. I still see lots of stuff around about configuring Hibernate Entities using XML and I feel sorry for those guys.



  • @pjt33 said:

    @boomzilla said:

    My biggest problem with java is all of the xml magic that has to be just right to get $framework to work right. And which subtly but fatally changes when you upgrade to the next release.


    That's not a problem with Java: it's a problem with $framework. XML magic is no more inherent to Java than it is to, say, PHP.
     

    J2EE is one of the Java standards, and it requires at least one XML file: web.xml.  So yes, you can in fact blame Java for starting this mess.  The people who made the various frameworks just copied Sun (now Oracle)'s example.

     



  • @boomzilla said:

    Eclipse hate
    Just launched Eclipse. It had interesting errors like "String cannot by resolved to a type" and "The import java.util.ArrayList cannot be resolved".

    In the very first line, the package declaration, there was a "java.lang.Class cannot be resolved to a type" error.

    I should have taken a screenshot, but.. heh.. I didn't.

    I closed and relaunched without changing anything, and everything was fine.

    I don't hate Eclipse - I don't used it much - I just dislike it a bit.



  • @Zecc said:

    @boomzilla said:

    Eclipse hate
    Just launched Eclipse. It had interesting errors like "String cannot by resolved to a type" and "The import java.util.ArrayList cannot be resolved".

    In the very first line, the package declaration, there was a "java.lang.Class cannot be resolved to a type" error.

    LIES! I LAUNCH ECLIPSE ALL THE TIME AND I GET NO ERRORS!



  • @boomzilla said:

    LIES! I LAUNCH ECLIPSE ALL THE TIME AND I GET NO ERRORS!

    Mine crashes whenever I close it. I get some kind of popup stating an exception message, but the process always terminates before I can read it.



  • I'd gladly use java/eclipse right now if I could. But no, I'm stuck with Delphi 2007. You want to talk about a shitty language and an even shittier IDE, start with Delphi.



  • I knew that the "poor workman blames his tools" bullshit was going to come up when I posted this, and that's fine; I'd rather be a poor workman who knows what tools do and don't work, than a terrible workman who believes his tools are infallible, regardless of the fact that everything created by anyone using those tools is shite.

    Look, I used to think that Java was awesome, back in high school before C# even existed. Java was the language that introduced me to programming; Java was the language that allowed me to understand OOP. When I realised what Java could do, I went from just another brighter-than-average kid to someone who knew what he wanted to do for his career. But when I got my first job, I used Visual Studio 2003, and haven't looked back since. There's a reason why I use Microsoft tools: because they Just. Fucking. Work. If that makes me a "Microsoft shill", so be it.

    Andy pretty well summed up what I was trying to express: Java the language isn't half bad, but Java the software ecosystem is an irrevocably fragmented mess. I blame Sun for this, because instead of trying to foster interoperability, they just said "Here's this cool new language called Java, go and make cool new stuff with it!" And people did, but at the end of the day, none of the cool things worked with each other, so the majority of them ended up being useless.

    p.s. By a democratic vote of 2 senior devs to 1, P is now in charge of fixing this shit; so my rage has abated somewhat. No ebola for y'all today, keep on using your Android devices.

    @lethalronin27 said:

    I'd gladly use java/eclipse right now if I could. But no, I'm stuck with Delphi 2007. You want to talk about a shitty language and an even shittier IDE, start with Delphi.

    My employers, a longtime Delphi shop, were trying to migrate to Delphi.NET or whatever it's called 5 years ago when I joined. The process was just too painful (crashy IDE, clumsy Delphi-bolted-onto-.NET syntax), so thankfully we're now a Microsoft shop... with lots of legacy Delphi applications (our bestselling product is Delphi 3 and one of the more lucrative ones is Delphi 5). I've long ago washed my hands of those, though.



  • @The_Assimilator said:

    I knew that the "poor workman blames his tools" bullshit was going to come up when I posted this, and that's fine; I'd rather be a poor workman who knows what tools do and don't work, than a terrible workman who believes his tools are infallible, regardless of the fact that everything created by anyone using those tools is shite.
     

    Two different things: the "poor workman that blames his tools" is someone who doesn't know what tools do and don't work - but apportions blame upon them, rather than spot failure in his own knowledge/skill shortcomings. A workman that knows the limitations of his tools isn't a poor one.

    It seems the issue here is twofold: you are dropped in at the deep end and are floundering yet blame the tools, but this is a consequence of your management that agreed to the work without fully understanding organisational capability. The latter you can blame easily, but Eclipse/Adobe/JBoss/Java etc is NOT to blame for your situation.

    Just because it hasn't offered you an easy escape route doesn't make it a blocker.

    Having said that... I don't disagree that Eclipse and Adobe are WTFs at times. But that's a tangental discussion.



  • @AndyCanfield said:

    No other language I know of  has a restriction on the base file name.

    OCaml will complain if you try to compile a file with a hyphen in its filename.

    It won't crash, and the resulting file will run just fine. You just get a warning.



  • @The_Assimilator said:

    ... But when I got my first job, I used Visual Studio 2003, and haven't looked back since. There's a reason why I use Microsoft tools: because they Just. Fucking. Work. If that makes me a "Microsoft shill", so be it.

    I don't know whether it makes you a MS shill, but it either makes you lucky or me unlucky. I've found a number of bugs in VS. Actually, I should dig out the screenshot I submitted for Error'd but which hasn't been selected yet.



  • @pjt33 said:

    I don't know whether it makes you a MS shill, but it either makes you lucky or me unlucky. I've found a number of bugs in VS. Actually, I should dig out the screenshot I submitted for Error'd but which hasn't been selected yet.

    VS has always been buggy in my experience, it's just extremely rare that the bugs prevent me from using it normally. The worst is the bug that makes the Toolbox take 10 minutes to load. One annoying one has to do with multi-monitor support, sometimes it just will not let you take an editor view and dock it into an existing VS window, it just shoots it to a random other screen instead. Other than that, I can't think of anything specific, just occasional minor "Oh that was weird" moments that never happened again.

    Unlike Xcode. Refactor=crash. Type comment=crash. Build=crash. Search=fiery crash requiring system reboot. SVN update=crash. Profile=crash + kernel panic on all VMs on the Mac. Hit spacebar=crash. Launch Xcode=crash. Etc.



  • @boomzilla said:

    That's not a problem with Java: it's a problem with $framework.
     

    Java noobs googlin' to this thread are now furiously wondering whether "$framework" might some sort of jQuery- or Prototype-based framework for Java.



  • @AndyCanfield said:

    The Java Language System consists of two parts: the Language, and the System.

    As a Language, it's pretty good. Not perfect, but very good.

    I have one big problem with Java The Language. Why on Earth is it so unbelievably memory inefficient. I mean choosing referential semantics for all types except built-in numerics will add some overhead as will the garbage collection, but how on earth Java manages to need more memory in most cases than python and perl that have referential semantics for everything including numerics is beyond my comprehension. This is big part of the reason why Eclipse sucks. It needs too much memory, the working set no longer fits in the cache and result is poor performance.



  • Actually Delphi used be really, really good. I worked with versions 5, 6 and 7 and they were awesome. Just at some point they went with the whole .NET thing and it went to shit. Version 8 and the 200x versions were really crap and basically killed it all.

    Anyone bashing Eclipse and saying Visual Studio is the best thing ever should try IntelliJ IDEA. For years I through Visual Studio was the best thing ever (after Delphi became crap) until I was introduced to IDEA. Now I think they're almost on par (out of the box), but IDEA is just much better with regards to extensibility and feature set.

    @Bulb said:

    I have one big problem with Java The Language. Why on Earth is it so unbelievably memory inefficient. I mean choosing referential semantics for all types except built-in numerics will add some overhead as will the garbage collection, but how on earth Java manages to need more memory in most cases than python and perl that have referential semantics for everything including numerics is beyond my comprehension. This is big part of the reason why Eclipse sucks. It needs too much memory, the working set no longer fits in the cache and result is poor performance.

     

     The garbage collector and memory management is part of the language? Tell me more about your vast knowledge of Java. Ever heard of this thing called the JVM? And how it's entirely unrelated to the language?

    Also those complaining about XML and Java, there are alternatives, you are just too lazy (or too busy bitching) to find them.

    I work with Java every day, and sure it has its drawbacks, but it's not really that bad if you actually know how to work with it properly and use the right tools. If I compare it to my time as a .NET developer I would say they're both about the same, just differ slightly here and there, and where one is better in one place, it's worse in another.



  • @pbean said:

    The garbage collector and memory management is part of the language? Tell me more about your vast knowledge of Java. Ever heard of this thing called the JVM? And how it's entirely unrelated to the language?

    Tell me more about deliberately misunderstanding and bringing up totally useless points. Ever heard of being a pedantic dickweed?

    @pbean said:

    Also those complaining about XML and Java, there are alternatives, you are just too lazy (or too busy bitching) to find them.

    But not too lazy to ask you what they are! There may well be alternatives, but that doesn't change existing applications using a framework that relies heavily on XML. Unless you think that switching frameworks is easy.



  • @pbean said:

    Actually Delphi used be really, really good. I worked with versions 5, 6 and 7 and they were awesome. Just at some point they went with the whole .NET thing and it went to shit. Version 8 and the 200x versions were really crap and basically killed it all.

    Good point. I worked with Delphi 7 a few years ago, and while it wasn't my favorite IDE, it also wasn't truly BAD. 2007 on the other hand, is complete crap. If you're running it on 64 bit windows 7 (or vista i think), every single time you exit a debug session (before applying the fix), you get the same "assertion failure" error 10 times just because delphi is trying to use the 32 bit system directory. Or something like that, I forget the exact cause. Add in all the random crashes and hangs, the fact that "step over", "step into", and "run until return" rarely do what you would expect (half the time when i run until return I end up looking at assembly), and that the debugger can't handle "with" blocks (which I maintain really shouldn't be used anyway), and the IDE for 2007 becomes only barely usable.



  • @lethalronin27 said:

    and that the debugger can't handle "with" blocks (which I maintain really shouldn't be used anyway)

    Well? Don't leave us hanging! Why?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @lethalronin27 said:
    and that the debugger can't handle "with" blocks (which I maintain really shouldn't be used anyway)

    Well? Don't leave us hanging! Why?

    They're fine if you limit it to a few lines and never nest them, but if you have one with block nested in another, and both objects have some methods with the same names, which one are you calling? It's a simple answer (the deepest nested one), but for someone that has to maintain a delphi app written by someone else it can get very difficult to know what's going on, and even more difficult to know which method the original coder intended to call. And like I mentioned in my last post, the debugger can't handle with blocks, so you cant just call the method to see what gets returned.


    "With" is just shorthand anyway, and I'd rather read a really long line of code and know exactly which object is calling which method than have to backtrack to find the start of every single "with" block in the function. It just complicates things unnecessarily.



  • @lethalronin27 said:

    They're fine if you limit it to a few lines and never nest them, but if you have one with block nested in another, and both objects have some methods with the same names, which one are you calling? It's a simple answer (the deepest nested one), but for someone that has to maintain a delphi app written by someone else it can get very difficult to know what's going on, and even more difficult to know which method the original coder intended to call.

    I would never in a krajillion years thought of NESTING them. WTF is wrong with your developers?

    @lethalronin27 said:

    And like I mentioned in my last post, the debugger can't handle with blocks, so you cant just call the method to see what gets returned.

    Yeah, that's because the product is a piece of shit.

    @lethalronin27 said:

    "With" is just shorthand anyway, and I'd rather read a really long line of code and know exactly which object is calling which method than have to backtrack to find the start of every single "with" block in the function. It just complicates things unnecessarily.

    It does if there's more than one. Which is the WTF.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    I would never in a krajillion years thought of NESTING them. WTF is wrong with your developers?



    Yeah, that's because the product is a piece of shit.



    It does if there's more than one. Which is the WTF.

    Wow, you hit the nail on the head with those 3 comments. I have no idea whats wrong with our developers, but none of them thinks theres anything wrong with any of this, even the supposed "delphi experts". Wanna hear another fantastic WTF about the same app? The guy who wrote it used libraries that no one else in the company has. He never paid for them either, in his words he got them from his "sources".


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @blakeyrat said:

    @lethalronin27 said:
    and that the debugger can't handle "with" blocks (which I maintain really shouldn't be used anyway)

    Well? Don't leave us hanging! Why?

    This falls in the category of "questions you don't bother asking because you know in advance that you won't like the answer."



  • @PedanticCurmudgeon said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    @lethalronin27 said:
    and that the debugger can't handle "with" blocks (which I maintain really shouldn't be used anyway)

    Well? Don't leave us hanging! Why?

    This falls in the category of "questions you don't bother asking because you know in advance that you won't like the answer."

    No I mean it's kind of like our conversation a few months ago about the ternary conditional in C-like languages. I actually fully agree that some features in some languages are badly-designed and shouldn't be used, but I use "with" in JavaScript all the time and love the hell out of it. Which is why I asked.

    And now that he brought it up, he's 100% right: nesting a "with" in another "with" is a huge WTF, and if the language allows it you can be sure some dumbfuck has done it and produced unreadable awful code with it. Just like the ternary operator.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    And now that he brought it up, he's 100% right


    I got the blakeyrat seal of approval? I'm speechless!


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @blakeyrat said:

    @PedanticCurmudgeon said:
    This falls in the category of "questions you don't bother asking because you know in advance that you won't like the answer."

    No I mean it's kind of like our conversation a few months ago about the ternary conditional in C-like languages. I actually fully agree that some features in some languages are badly-designed and shouldn't be used, but I use "with" in JavaScript all the time and love the hell out of it. Which is why I asked.

    And now that he brought it up, he's 100% right: nesting a "with" in another "with" is a huge WTF, and if the language allows it you can be sure some dumbfuck has done it and produced unreadable awful code with it. Just like the ternary operator.

    Yes, but his original statement was that with blocks shouldn't be used, and his justification for that was that some idiot decided it was a good idea to nest them. We all agree that nested withs are a WTF, but does that justify not using withs at all?

  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @lethalronin27 said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    And now that he brought it up, he's 100% right


    I got the blakeyrat seal of approval? I'm speechless!
    You've also earned a spot on the PedanticCurmudgeon Wall of Fail for waffling.
    "with" blocks (which I maintain really shouldn't be used anyway)

    They're fine if you limit it to a few lines and never nest them


  • @PedanticCurmudgeon said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    @PedanticCurmudgeon said:
    This falls in the category of "questions you don't bother asking because you know in advance that you won't like the answer."

    No I mean it's kind of like our conversation a few months ago about the ternary conditional in C-like languages. I actually fully agree that some features in some languages are badly-designed and shouldn't be used, but I use "with" in JavaScript all the time and love the hell out of it. Which is why I asked.

    And now that he brought it up, he's 100% right: nesting a "with" in another "with" is a huge WTF, and if the language allows it you can be sure some dumbfuck has done it and produced unreadable awful code with it. Just like the ternary operator.

    Yes, but his original statement was that with blocks shouldn't be used, and his justification for that was that some idiot decided it was a good idea to nest them. We all agree that nested withs are a WTF, but does that justify not using withs at all?

    I feel like I should clarify things a bit here. I only said "with" should never be used because in my opinion, it's better than the opposite which is using it in far too many situations. Of course there are valid uses for it, but from my (admittedly limited) experience, the ratio of places where it's used in a valid way to places where it just complicates things seems to be around 1:20. So if I had to choose between never being able to use it and letting all developers use it where they see fit, I would choose to never use it.



  • @PedanticCurmudgeon said:

    @lethalronin27 said:
    @blakeyrat said:

    And now that he brought it up, he's 100% right


    I got the blakeyrat seal of approval? I'm speechless!
    You've also earned a spot on the PedanticCurmudgeon Wall of Fail for waffling.
    "with" blocks (which I maintain really shouldn't be used anyway)

    They're fine if you limit it to a few lines and never nest them

    Not waffling, read my previous post.



  • @PedanticCurmudgeon said:

    Yes, but his original statement was that with blocks shouldn't be used, and his justification for that was that some idiot decided it was a good idea to nest them. We all agree that nested withs are a WTF, but does that justify not using withs at all?

    I think if a language feature can be abused to write bad unreadable code, it eventually will be abused to write bad unreadable code, and therefore it should either be redesigned or removed.

    I think the classic example here is operator overloading in C++. And... well, all of C++ is pretty much a minefield of "oh well you can technically do X but please don't because it makes messy code".

    Anyway I'm not convinced "with" is a bad keyword, but it probably shouldn't be allowed to nest. Incidentally, the ternary conditional is pretty much the same way: one of them is ok, but if you use them recursively please re-write the code until it's clear what's going on.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @lethalronin27 said:

    Of course there are valid uses for it, but from my (admittedly limited) experience, the ratio of places where it's used in a valid way to places where it just complicates things seems to be around 1:20. So if I had to choose between never being able to use it and letting all developers use it where they see fit, I would choose to never use it.

    So the problem is really that your colleagues don't know how to properly use this language feature. Responding to this by not letting them use it at all is reasonable, but leaves two important questions unasked:

    1. Why don't they know how to properly use withs?
    2. What other language features don't they know how to use?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    I think if a language feature can be abused to write bad unreadable code, it eventually will be abused to write bad unreadable code,
     

    So that's every single feature of every language ever, right down to the var keyword in javascript.

    @blakeyrat said:

    it should either be redesigned or removed.

    No! Bad Blakey! Bad!

     


Log in to reply
 

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