@dhromed said:
How did he get hired? Did the hirer not ask him for recent code samples?
It would appear not. I am not party to the hiring process. Which is not to say I would do any better.
@dhromed said:
How did he get hired? Did the hirer not ask him for recent code samples?
It would appear not. I am not party to the hiring process. Which is not to say I would do any better.
@TheCPUWizard said:
Based solely on the post, it could be as simple as a typo (which could occur in any language (i.e. using the wrong variable as the backing field)...
There is quite a body of evidence against this being a mere typo, perhaps my example could have better chosen, but I'll spare you a further attempt.
@TheCPUWizard said:
My bigger question is not about the code per se, but rather about the process (e.g. testing, code review, etc) that allowed this code (again, possibly only a two character typo that can not be caught by the compilere - and is largely independent of language) into the system.
Indeed, indeed. There is a Process in place here, though lately it seems that some devs can be deemed so expert that they don't need to observe The Process.
@keigezellig said:
Is there no checkin policy against this sort of junk?
Vince is our expert, and I would never question him. It must be me who is wrong, and not this code.
@heffkat said:
@Gandudas said:
Public ReadOnly Property IsValid() As Boolean
Maybe he is WAY beyond me but is it really neccessary to have the ReadOnly flag??? It's not like you can set a property that only has a get.
I have asked Vince, and he tells me that without the ReadOnly flag, the 'compiler' will insist that we provide a Set.
We recently welcomed a new hire to our team called, let's say, Vince. He was sold to us as a .Net expert. Just the guy to get us up to speed with this baffling new technology.
Our initial misgivings over his actual .Net skills were recently assuaged by some work he checked into source control. Finally we have conclusive proof that Vince has truly got his head around this complicated ‘Properties’ concept that previously had us all so stumped.
It turns out that, firstly, you declare a private member variable...
Private _isValid
As Boolean
And then you define an accessor (ReadOnly in this instance) that returns you, oh, a global constant...?
Public ReadOnly
Property IsValid() As Boolean
Get
Return gcIsValid
End Get
End Property
I’m glad he’s got that cleared up for us.
The real WTF is VB, obviously...