Brain the size of a planet, and working with MC Hammer



  • @pauly said:

    I'm wondering how freetards consider vim and emacs and developing with 20 other programs and a command line debugger to be better than using something like Visual Studio?

    I'm not a freetard, but I have to work in other environments where VS simply isn't an option. Still, some things I do with an IDE and others I don't. I use an integrated debugger for some things, and command line stuff for another.

    I prefer browsing log files with a pager like less from the command line over any sort of GUI tool that I've seen. I imagine that even blakey could figure out the key bindings for navigating and searching. Having the debugger in one console tab and the log file in another is a very easy and quick way to switch between the two. When I find myself doing repetitive things, I either write a shell script or use the built in shell command history.

    There are many things I work with that would be a major pain to debug directly using a debugger (of any variety), since it's something that happens in the midst of thousands of similar iterations. And if I knew the condition for the problem, I likely wouldn't need to run the debugger, but could simply fix it to begin with.



  • @PedanticCurmudgeon said:

    @pauly said:
    shillin and trollin
    Yeah, but you really haven't said anything that blakeyrat and C-Octothorpe didn't also say. Oh...that's the joke... Never mind.

    If you'd like to call me a shill, please be my guest.  VS and other MS dev tools has provided well for myself and my family, and a few freetards laughing because I refuse to put my nuts in a vise (read using vim) on a daily basis won't sway me.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    Actually, I was implying that pauly was calling you a shill.



  • @PJH said:

    @Severity One said:
    @CodeNinja said:
    Probably the same thing that's keeping me at my job, an intense desire to not be homeless.
    Why would you become homeless if you lose your job?
    Not that I think I should be stating the obvious, but inability to pay the rent/mortgage due to lack of savings?
     

    I read that more as "if I lose this current job, inability to find another one to pay the rent/mortgage".

    Not what you'd expect of a CodeNinja.



  • Just got this in the email. How convenient:  http://osteele.com/posts/2004/11/ides

    The developer world is divided into two camps. Language mavens wax rhapsodic about the power of higher-level programming — first-class functions, staged programming, AOP, MOPs, and reflection. Tool mavens are skilled at the use of integrated build and debug tools, integrated documentation, code completion, refactoring, and code comprehension. Language mavens tend to use a text editor such as emacs or vim — these editors are more likely to work for new languages. Tool mavens tend to use IDEs such as Visual Studio, Eclipse, or IntelliJ, that integrate a variety of development tools.
    [...]
    Why can’t one be a language maven and a tool maven? It’s hard. One reason is that developers have limited time, especially for learning new skills. You can use any given block of time to master language features, or to master development tools. Each of these choices contributes to a positive feedback cycle, but they’re competing cycles, so they create divided camps.

    Microsoft and C# get a special mention, for having been a cutting edge language accompanied simultaneously with a good toolset.

    Do I agree 100% with the author of that article? Am I trying to make a point? Not necessarily. I'm just adding a little more fuel to the discussion.

     

    FWIW, I think the most important features of a good IDE are syntax highlighting, autocomplete and the ability to send the code for compilation/interpretation at the click of a button/keyboard shortcut. This is something a good text editor will also have.

    Good refactoring tools are also the wind below my feet*. These are more of a trait of an IDE than a text editor**.

    As for debuggers: they are nice to have, but IMO there is no shame in using good ol' printf-debugging. I can certainly live without a debugger.
    Which is not to say that having a debugger is wasteful: debuggers certainly help the process of debugging (funny that): you can definitely be a lot faster zooming in on misbehaving code, because setting breakpoints is faster than writing log messages. And you don't have to clean up afterwards.

    * Have you read my signature?

    ** Of course, any sufficiently complex text editor can be considered an IDE.



  • @Zecc said:

    Just got this in the email. How convenient: http://osteele.com/posts/2004/11/ides

    It's rare that you see diagrams that actually make the concept MORE confusing rather than less. Kudos to him.

    But I don't think his argument applies, because Ruby, PHP, and Python have all been around a long time and they still don't have good tools. I would wager that if I look in another decade, I still won't find a decent debugger for Ruby. And yet in the continuum of languages, those three are very successful. (Well, Ruby less so, but definitely PHP.) Where C++, Java have had debugger for their entire existence. (And him saying Microsoft is somehow a "special case" is cheating-- even weird experimental .net languages like F# had debuggers on day 1.)

    @Zecc said:

    As for debuggers: they are nice to have, but IMO there is no shame in using good ol' printf-debugging.

    Depending on what type of app you're building, printf()-debugging is useless. Try running printf() from inside a GPU shader, for example. And until JavaScript consoles existed (very very recently), debugging JS with alert() would change the state of the DOM (by changing control focus/firing off blur events) and so was virtually useless.

    And of course you have to make allowances for debuggers other than language debuggers, for example, the HTTP debugger I can't run with Ruby.

    This is the weirdest point for me because debuggers have been around FOREVER. Debuggers are far older than syntax highlighting, refactoring tools, etc. So why aren't they built first? (Which is yet another reason I don't buy the "language vs. tools" dichotomy from that article.)

    My guess is:
    1) Because they didn't think about debugger hooks when first designing the language/interpreter/compiler and now it's too much work to refactor and add them in
    2) Because debuggers are hard to get right, so they don't even bother starting work on one
    3) Because writing debuggers isn't "fun" like writing new languages features are, and since it's open source only the "fun" jobs get done and not the boring ones



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Depending on what type of app you're building, printf()-debugging is useless. Try running printf() from inside a GPU shader, for example. And until JavaScript consoles existed (very very recently), debugging JS with alert() would change the state of the DOM (by changing control focus/firing off blur events) and so was virtually useless.

    True. YMMV.

    @blakeyrat said:

    This is the weirdest point for me because debuggers have been around FOREVER. Debuggers are far older than syntax highlighting, refactoring tools, etc. So why aren't they built first? (Which is yet another reason I don't buy the "language vs. tools" dichotomy from that article.)

    I agree it is weird. I don't think "writing a debugger isn't fun". It should be fun for at least some of the people.

    I know I would like to write one If I were to make my own language (incidently, an idea I haven't totally put aside [ along with writing my own game engine {because I am a masochist}]).
    Then again, it wouldn't be top priority, I would concentrate on other tools first, so there is some truth to your third point.


    I doubt your two first propositions hold. Debug instructions/opcodes should be as easy as to implement as any other. And while getting a debugger right may be hard, it shouldn't be difficult to make a debugger that just wings it. But I must admit I don't have any real experience in the field, so I may just be talking out of my ass.

    I'm not entirely convinced that there aren't any good debuggers outside of Microsoft, btw.



  • @Zecc said:

    I doubt your two first propositions hold. Debug instructions/opcodes should be as easy as to implement as any other. And while getting a debugger right may be hard, it shouldn't be difficult to make a debugger that just wings it. But I must admit I don't have any real experience in the field, so I may just be talking out of my ass.

    Do you have a theory on why Ruby doesn't have one yet? It's been around since 1995, and was popularized by Ruby on Rails in 2005-2006ish.

    @Zecc said:

    I'm not entirely convinced that there aren't any good debuggers outside of Microsoft, btw.

    Well herpderp, who said that? Certainly not me. Stop listening to the invisible shoulder aliens.

    I learned programming on THINK C and CodeWarrior back in the day, and they had a damned good debugger for C and C++. (Long before it had syntax highlighting or any kind of intellisense features-- although I think it got syntax highlighting in the "Pro 1" version I only used for a few weeks before going to college. But anyway. And all browsers now have good JavaScript debuggers, some are better than others, but they're all a shit-ton better than anything Ruby's got.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Do you have a theory on why Ruby doesn't have one yet? It's been around since 1995, and was popularized by Ruby on Rails in 2005-2006ish.

    I have no knowledge of Ruby debuggers because I have a general disinterest in Ruby.

    Some very cursory googling tells me there are Ruby debuggers, but they are mostly text-based. A notable exception is Eclipse, which... err... well... is Eclipse.
    So I understand why you would say there are no worthwhile debuggers for Ruby.

    But really, what are your criteria for determining if a debugger sucks or not? Eclipse may not be as polished as VisualStudio, but it should be close enough.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Say I had a physical disability, like I was missing a hand. Would you endorse a programming language that required the use of both hands?

    I'm trying hard to make sense of this metaphor. While I'm sure that some of us would appreciate a programming environment that allows us to have one hand free, it's likely that we would get more useful work done by applying both to the task at hand.

    @blakeyrat said:

    If I don't have the rote memory skills to effectively use a CLI or to effectively use an editor without things things like Intellisense, should I be excluded from coding in Ruby?

    Frankly, that's silly. Nothing about Ruby per se excludes you from using it effectively, except of course that it is open source, therefore you choose to exclude yourself from it.

    @blakeyrat said:

    Usability isn't just about about making the software usable by the average person; it's also about accessibility, making the software accessible to everybody regardless of their capabilities (physical or mental).

    Accessibility has its limits. Not everything can be made fully accessible, and where it is possible, it requires additional design consideration and implementation effort. Programming environments for Ruby probably lack accessibility considerations purely because nobody has devoted any effort to that end; not because it isn't fun, not because the Ruby community hates blakeyrat, but merely because it hasn't proved to be necessary or useful to anyone who cares. Which leads nicely to a point that I've been wanting to make for some time now:

    @blakeyrat said:

    Not that anybody involved in the Ruby ecosystem ever gave two shits about usability. This shit is important to me. I think it should be important to you.

    It's open source. There's nothing preventing you from making the supremely useful tool that you want and popularizing it, except that you would apparently rather continually complain about not being able to mooch off others' work instead of just doing that work yourself. Why don't you go involve yourself in the Ruby ecosystem? Then there will be someone in it that gives two shits about its usability. That's how open source works, derp.



  • @Kittemon said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    Not that anybody involved in the Ruby ecosystem ever gave two shits about usability. This shit is important to me. I think it should be important to you.

    It's open source. There's nothing preventing you from making the supremely useful tool that you want and popularizing it, except that you would apparently rather continually complain about not being able to mooch off others' work instead of just doing that work yourself. Why don't you go involve yourself in the Ruby ecosystem? Then there will be someone in it that gives two shits about its usability. That's how open source works, derp.

    What?  How long do you think it would take to add a debugger to Ruby?  I would guess a very large chunk of time.  I'm sure that blakey's company doesn't want to spend their money for him to develop a debugger.  I would also guess that blakey doesn't want to do it in his spare time, because that's work.  It's not fun, all it does is make him more productive at work.  Why would he spend his free time doing that?  That's why people pay for things that work properly.  They pay for things like debuggers.

    I don't understand how anyone in this thread could argue with blakey when he says that ruby is a worse language than it would be if it had a good debugger.  It boggles the mind.



  • Thank you. Another point people seem to keep missing is that I never chose to use Ruby in the first place. It was chosen by somebody else, and I was put on the project because they fucked it up and needed someone to pull it out of the toilet. And despite my hatred of the language, I've done that... although honestly most of the help they needed was in the "project management" arena, and had little to do with the language choice. (Although Ruby's lack of true threading or any thread-safe libraries have made some things really tricky.)

    But I'm sure as fuck not going to spend one millisecond of my free time improving Ruby when I could spent it actually creating cool stuff in better languages.

    And all that aside, regardless of your opinion of debuggers, Ruby's interpreter ignoring the proxy setting on Windows is a bug. Pure and simple. There's no excuse for that.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    And all that aside,

    Yeah?
    @blakeyrat said:

    And all that aside, regardless of your opinion

    Do go on...
    @blakeyrat said:

    And all that aside, regardless of your opinion of debuggers,

    Uh huh?
    @blakeyrat said:

    And all that aside, regardless of your opinion of debuggers, Ruby's interpreter


    Which one is it? Interpreters or debuggers? How is my opinion of debuggers at all related to the way Ruby handles proxy settings on BackslashOS?



  • @Kittemon said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    Say I had a physical disability, like I was missing a hand. Would you endorse a programming language that required the use of both hands?

    I'm trying hard to make sense of this metaphor.

     

    I'm struggling to understand that, too. Programming languages are virtual - they don't require the use of hands, they require words and symbols arranged in a specific sequence. Having a disability simply means finding alternative means to provide and manage the arrangement of words and symbols, and today's marketplace is rich in accessibility products. Many platforms and applications have featured accessibility controls by default for a number of years.

    I suspect Blakey's judging the merits of a language purely upon the quality of the development tools that exist to support that language. Whilst that isn't an accurate metric for the language's capabilities, I can't disagree that development environments do have a large influence upon language choices these days - particularly if throwing money at a good quality IDE mesurably reduces development times and results in deliverables of higher-quality.

    I think many programming languages of yesteryear are still focussed upon "what can this product do?" - Microsoft have at least addressed the prior stage of "how can we help people build their products more easily?" and if there were some more fuller-featured IDEs out there then perhaps there'd be greater takeup in other languages due to the development entry point being lowered.



  • @Cassidy said:

    I suspect Blakey's judging the merits of a language purely upon the quality of the development tools that exist to support that language. Whilst that isn't an accurate metric for the language's capabilities, I can't disagree that development environments do have a large influence upon language choices these days - particularly if throwing money at a good quality IDE mesurably reduces development times and results in deliverables of higher-quality.

    I think many programming languages of yesteryear are still focussed upon "what can this product do?" - Microsoft have at least addressed the prior stage of "how can we help people build their products more easily?" and if there were some more fuller-featured IDEs out there then perhaps there'd be greater takeup in other languages due to the development entry point being lowered.

    This.

     



  • @Cassidy said:

    I'm struggling to understand that, too. Programming languages are virtual - they don't require the use of hands, they require words and symbols arranged in a specific sequence.

    Yeah, tbe "words and symbols arranged in a specific sequence" is my disability. It's called dyslexia. Maybe you've heard of it. Good GUIs and good IDEs help me deal with it.

    @Cassidy said:

    Whilst

    Seriously? Christ.

    @Cassidy said:

    I think many programming languages of yesteryear are still focussed upon "what can this product do?" - Microsoft have at least addressed the prior stage of "how can we help people build their products more easily?" and if there were some more fuller-featured IDEs out there then perhaps there'd be greater takeup in other languages due to the development entry point being lowered.

    That is pretty much exactly what I was saying, yes.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    It's called dyslexia. Maybe you've heard of it.
     

    I certainly have.

    I once taught in a school for dyslexic kids for a couple of years. In that brief time, I've encountered:

    • all the jokes about dyslexics - many of those coming from the kids themselves
    • all the frustrations about seeing letters and symbols and not really recognising words
    • discovering and unlocking hidden talents (due to a deficiency in one brain area actually resulting in a tartling advancement in another)
    • different strategies for combatting the disability (coloured overlays, examination readers, sideways reading, etc).
    • idiots that try and excuse their impatience and stupidity under the "dyslexia" banner then attempt to claim extra tolerance and allowance
    • dickheads that believe themselves to be the only misunderstood dyslexic in existence and expect everyone else to tolerate their frustrated tantrums

    The real learning point for me was those that accepted they were different and moved on - they strove the hardest to be perceived as "normal", not letting anything hold them back. Oddly, they were exceptional in many other ways - talented musicians, poets, artists, mathematicians - and were anything but "normal". It was quite a humbling and enlightening experience, profoundly changing my outlook upon life.



  • @Cassidy said:

    tartling


    WHY IS THIS SO FUNNY TO ME



  • @Ben L. said:

    @Cassidy said:
    tartling

    WHY IS THIS SO FUNNY TO ME

    Am I tartling!



  • @Sutherlands said:

    What?  How long do you think it would take to add a debugger to Ruby?  I would guess a very large chunk of time.  I'm sure that blakey's company doesn't want to spend their money for him to develop a debugger.  I would also guess that blakey doesn't want to do it in his spare time, because that's work.  It's not fun, all it does is make him more productive at work.  Why would he spend his free time doing that?  That's why people pay for things that work properly.  They pay for things like debuggers.

    I can't tell whether or not this is meant to be ironic, and assuming so, at which one of us it's directed.

    @Sutherlands said:

    I don't understand how anyone in this thread could argue with blakey when he says that ruby is a worse language than it would be if it had a good debugger.  It boggles the mind.

    I'm pretty certain nobody has made that argument.



  • @Cassidy said:

    I once taught in a school for dyslexic kids for a couple of years

    What's your take on this crowd, whose basic approach seems to be to identify and remedy the specific processing deficiencies underlying the dyslexia, as opposed to searching endlessly for workarounds?



  • @Kittemon said:

    I can't tell whether or not this is meant to be ironic, and assuming so, at which one of us it's directed.

    What do you think ironic means?...



  • @PedanticCurmudgeon said:

    That's only when you have to deal with something noticeably different from what you're used to, and only because you'd rather complain about it being different than learn something that would help you operate efficiently.

    So, what you're saying is, we should think different? Just asking.

     



  • @Sutherlands said:

    @Kittemon said:
    I can't tell whether or not this is meant to be ironic, and assuming so, at which one of us it's directed.
    What do you think ironic means?...

    The same as sarcastic, I wager.

    <font size="1">The invisible shoulder aliens told me to answer the rhetorical question.</font>



  •  @flabdablet said:

    What's your take on this crowd, whose basic approach seems to be to identify and remedy the specific processing deficiencies underlying the dyslexia, as opposed to searching endlessly for workarounds?



    A more structured (and potentially quicker and more efficient) route to arrive at the same destination, at a guess.

    I didn't do any of the psychology stuff, I was on the receiving end of techniques used to shape and tweak my teaching delivery according to the audience. It sounds like that crowd have stopped their workaround searches and started to map specific techniques as solutions to recognisable deficiencies, which is a natural evolution in process maturity.

    We tried something similar introducing a new "thinking skills" technique in which students were invited to examine an image (usually a line-art picture) and think laterally about what they saw - what facts could they deduce and what clued them into that. I wasn't there long enough to see a measurable difference, but I did notice a slight change in attitude towards problems: some would back away and think more about the issue at hand rather than plough in and complain about how difficult it was when they experienced failure. Providing new techniques seemed to have armed students with fresh ammunition and gave them more confidence in their approach and they were less disheartened when the techniques didn't work.

    I'm theorising that the ArrowSmith program follows a similar approach: categorise the problem to select a more suitable technique. The site mentions proof of effectiveness - I'd be interested in seeing their metrics, both success and failure rates.



  • @Sutherlands said:

    @Kittemon said:
    I can't tell whether or not this is meant to be ironic, and assuming so, at which one of us it's directed.
    What do you think ironic means?...

    1. Employing or exemplifying irony.
    2. I asked you first, albeit in a roundabout manner.
    3. Nevermind, I'll rephrase: are you being a dumbass or a smartass? I've not read enough of your previous posts to judge appropriately.

    @Zecc said:

    The same as sarcastic, I wager.


    You lose the wager.



  • @Kittemon said:

    @Sutherlands said:
    @Kittemon said:
    I can't tell whether or not this is meant to be ironic, and assuming so, at which one of us it's directed.
    What do you think ironic means?...

    1. Employing or exemplifying irony.
    2. I asked you first, albeit in a roundabout manner.
    3. Nevermind, I'll rephrase: are you being a dumbass or a smartass? I've not read enough of your previous posts to judge appropriately.

    @Zecc said:

    The same as sarcastic, I wager.

    You lose the wager.

    Not before you declare what you understand by "sarcastic" .

     



  • This whole Kittemon ordeal reminds me of a tweet sent by "Weird" Al Yankovic, who said that a friend once told him he didn't understand irony, which was ironic because they were eating ice cream at the time.



  • @toon said:

    a friend once told him he didn't understand irony, which was ironic because they were eating ice cream at the time.
     

    That's funny because it's ironic. If the ice cream eating didn't actually happen, it's also sarcastic. Multi-layerd joke! Bonus!


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Kittemon said:

    are you being a dumbass or a smartass?

    Why not both?



  • @Zecc said:

    @Kittemon said:
    @Zecc said:
    The same as sarcastic, I wager.

    You lose the wager.
    Not before you declare what you understand by "sarcastic" .

    Something different than ironic, obviously.

    <font size="1">Loosely speaking, for the purposes of this increasingly silly conversation, sarcasm ⊂ irony. Discuss this concept with your shoulder alien.</font>



  •  @Kittemon said:

    @Zecc said:
    @Kittemon said:
    @Zecc said:
    The same as sarcastic, I wager.

    You lose the wager.
    Not before you declare what you understand by "sarcastic" .

    Something different than ironic, obviously.

    <font size="1">Loosely speaking, for the purposes of this increasingly silly conversation, sarcasm ⊂ irony. Discuss this concept with your shoulder alien.</font>

     

    a loose translation being "Shit, I have no idea what the words I used meant and have been called out on it, quickly! let's backpedal, beat around the bush and hope somebody else jumps in talking about something else!"

     



  • @Kittemon said:

    @Sutherlands said:
    @Kittemon said:
    I can't tell whether or not this is meant to be ironic, and assuming so, at which one of us it's directed.
    What do you think ironic means?...

    1. Employing or exemplifying irony.
    2. I asked you first, albeit in a roundabout manner.
    3. Nevermind, I'll rephrase: are you being a dumbass or a smartass? I've not read enough of your previous posts to judge appropriately.

    @Zecc said:

    The same as sarcastic, I wager.

    You lose the wager.

    Well, even though you don't understand irony, I was being serious in what I said.  Which makes me neither of your follow-up questions.

    @dhromed said:

    @toon said:

    a friend once told him he didn't understand irony, which was ironic because they were eating ice cream at the time.

    That's funny because it's ironic. If the ice cream eating didn't actually happen, it's also sarcastic. Multi-layerd joke! Bonus!

    That's not irony >.>



  • @BC_Programmer said:

    a loose translation being "Shit, I have no idea what the words I used meant and have been called out on it, quickly! let's backpedal, beat around the bush and hope somebody else jumps in talking about something else!"

    A precise translation being: "If I provide a definition, someone will say it's wrong, even if it isn't wrong. If I copy a definition from a dictionary, someone will say that I don't understand the definition, while someone else will deride my choice of dictionary brand as being considered non-authoritative and generally looked down upon on account of its sloppy definitions, etc."

    I wasn't in the mood to delve into that bit of nonsense; naturally, it occurred anyway.



  • @Sutherlands said:

    @Kittemon said:
    I can't tell whether or not this is meant to be ironic

    Well, even though you don't understand irony,


    What? I was trying to figure out what meaning you intended to convey, because it sounded a lot like a blakeyrant, but then again you might have meant it seriously. I didn't claim that I thought it was ironic.

    @Sutherlands said:

    I was being serious in what I said.


    "No, this is not meant to be ironic."

    @Sutherlands said:

    Which makes me neither of your follow-up questions.


    That's still open for debate, given that what you wrote wasn't actually a counterpoint to what I wrote.





  • [url=http://zs1.smbc-comics.com/comics/20100317after.gif][img]http://zs1.smbc-comics.com/comics/20100317.gif[/img][/url]



  • {@joe.edwards said:

    @Zecc said:

    @Severity One said:

    @joe.edwards said:

    I knew I hated Ruby as soon as I saw you could put the conditional test AFTER the statement.
    You're not a big fan of Perl either, I suppose.

    Perl has the 'unless' statement. You can write an entire block of statements and at the very end write 'unless ( expr )'.

     

    Saying you dislike Perl because of it allowing you to put conditionals at the end of statements is like saying you disliked Osama bin Laden because he had his hair unkempt.

     

    Or drawing a simile between a programming language and a terrorist.

     

    Yes, I would probably hate Perl as well. Write-only language and all that.

    Blakey's workflow is to watch the debugger and see what happens. I read code like a narrative, running statement by statement in my head and updating state accordingly. If I read ten (or worse, 50+) lines of code and at the very end I see " } unless( foo )" I feel like the code just shouted "HA! TRICKED YOU!" It's like finding out the last 10 chapters of a novel were really just a bad dream sequence. It just totally fucks my mental interpreter. Even with a single line, I'll have to read it and then see the condition and undo the changes to the registers in my mental VM. I'm capable of doing this, but it basically feels like stubbing my toe.

    If the language allows it, I know someone will use it, and then I'll end up having to support it. When I write code, my number one priority is making sure it won't be painful for me to go back and maintain, fix, update, or debug. This "feature" goes against the spirit of that goal.

    } if false

    HA! PSYCHE!



  • @spamcourt said:

    You forgot:<style>
    /* Too bad this isn't working :( */
    .visibleonhover_1234 { visibility: hidden; }
    .makeitvisible_1234 .visibleonhover_1234 { visibility: visible; }
    </style>

     



  •  SMBC is good.


  • Impossible Mission - B

    @Ben L. said:

    {@It was all a nightmare said:
    } if false

    HA! PSYCHE!

    Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!


Log in to reply

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