You would be surprised how many people love their acronyms and codes forced on them in the era of mainframe programming. Now that the memory and space limitations are negligible we have to explain to them that it actually can be better to use real words and phrases since they don't have to be looked up every time.
jpolonsk
@jpolonsk
Best posts made by jpolonsk
Latest posts made by jpolonsk
-
RE: Well, it *is* the Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything...
-
RE: How to save money
but think of starbucks and other local coffee shops. By providing snacks you are putting other local business at risk of losing all their customers.
-
RE: SQL Server WTF
This is entirely how it is supposed to work. If this didn't work then you also couldn't do correlated subqueries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlated_subquery
Your version
select a from tblA where a in (select a from tblB)
Intended version - not correlated
select a from tblA where a in (select b from tblB)
possibly intended version correlated
select a from tblA where a in (select b from tblB where b = a)
-
RE: Either I'm missing something or Google can't count.
I've had a similar problem which I believe was cause by the web proxy. I could click mark all as read and everything would disappear After reloading the page everything was back. It always seemed to count correctly though.
-
RE: Because it might work differently
What you are describing is embedded programming in practive vs ideal version. I'm sure the original programmers wrote the code with the intention that it would only work on one set of hardware. When the hardware tolerances were out of whack an identical part would replace the faulty part and everything would be back in line. In reality the tolerances weren't quite tolerant enough, the parts were custom or too costly so the vendor didn't stockpile them or maybe the vendor no longer exists.
In most of consumer society embedded systems work the same but it is cheap enough for the hardware that we can just replace them outright if things are faulty i.e. printers, phones. If you had enough time and interest I'm sure you could find a replacement part for that old printer, reflash the firmware and get it working again but it's not cost effective.
You should spend some energy learning and advocating for process control / change management / quality assurance. It's the problem we all face, in the short term its easier to hack things. In the long term you realize the costs to not implementing QA in the beginning add up to way more then to implement it. You also have to make sure to not over implement as seen in many of the other Daily WTFs. Unfortunately there is 2 formulas for deciding to implement. Is Output * QA over time > OutPut * no QA over time? and do you have resources to implment QA right now? In most cases youknow that you should and don't have the resources.