• LovableSidekick@lemmy.worldEnglish
      8·
      6 days ago

      My boss’s boss, a former Ops manager who liked to keep track of system stats, once asked her why the CPU usage on the dev box had decreased that month. Weren’t the devs doing any work?

    • not_woody_shaw@lemmy.worldEnglish
      10·
      7 days ago

      That’s not even the worst part. What the fuck does a function named Compare_anything do? Does it return anything? It sounds like nothing but a side effect.

      • idunnololz@lemmy.worldEnglish
        11·
        7 days ago

        Usually comparison functions are supposed to return an integer and are usually useful for sorting. However this one returns a bool so it’s both useless and terribly named.

      • BatmanAoD@lemmy.worldEnglish
        7·
        7 days ago

        The unnecessary and confusing functions are horrible, yes, but I’d still say that the fact that they’re wrong is the “worst” part.

  • becausechemistry@lemm.eeEnglish
    56·
    7 days ago

    Management: Gee whiz, we really have no idea how to gauge productivity to decide who gets promoted. We could manage. Or, better, we could just have someone write a script that pulls info from git on how many lines of code each person has written.

    Programmers:

    • Maalus@lemmy.worldEnglish
      121·
      8 days ago

      I’d give my right hand this is a code review problem. Someone extracted a method returning true false. Then an intern came along and was told to refactor. They saw a lot of comparisons and “extracted” them.

  • Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    30·
    7 days ago

    Two wrongs don’t make a right, but sometimes in programming, two bugs can cancel each other out.

    Whoever wrote this is more than capable of using it incorrectly.

  • Acters@lemmy.worldEnglish
    21·
    7 days ago

    Those are rookie lines of code numbers right there.
    I would have done it without the ==

    internal static bool AreBooleansEqual(bool orig, bool val)
{
    if(orig) 
    {
        if(val)
            return false
        return true
    }
    if(val)
        return true 
    return false
}

    Don’t know why their code returns false when they are equal but I’m not going to dig through old code to refactor to use true instead of false.

      • Acters@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        7 days ago

        I was debating on bitwise operations, but decided on super basic if statements which I think the compiler would optimize, happy to see the logical operation form too

    • InFerNo@lemmy.mlEnglish
      5·
      7 days ago

      Put more curly brackets around your if (val) true statement for 4 more lines, put elses in there for more lines even.

      • Acters@lemmy.worldEnglish
        7·
        7 days ago

        I should have created a local variable to store the result variable and return after the if statements. I just couldn’t help to make it look partially nice. My brain just doesn’t think at this high caliber of LOC optimizations.

        New optimized LOC version:

        internal static bool AreBooleansEqual(bool orig, bool val)
{
    bool result;
    if(orig) 
    {
        if(val)
        {
            result = false;
        }
        else
        {
            result = true;
        }
    }
    else
    {
        if(val)
        {
            result = true;
        }
        else
        {
            result = false;
        }
    }
    return result;
}

        My previous LOC: 12
        New LOC version: 27

        • servobobo@feddit.nlEnglish
          4·
          7 days ago

          Surely we could optimize the return value with a switch statement and store the result as an integer to hide the compiler warning about our clearly correct code:

          internal static bool AreBooleansEqual(bool orig, bool val)
{
    int result;
    if(orig) 
    {
        if(val)
        {
            result = 0;
        }
        else
        {
            result = 1;
        }
    }
    else
    {
        if(val)
        {
            result = 1;
        }
        else
        {
            result = 0;
        }
    }
    switch (result)
    {
         case(1):
             return true;
         case(0):
             return false;
         default:
             return AreBooleansEqual(orig, val);
    }
}

          New LOC: 35

          • InFerNo@lemmy.mlEnglish
            2·
            7 days ago

            Make the input variables nullable, then add checks if the values are null, then assign default values if they are, otherwise continue with the passed values.

            • Acters@lemmy.worldEnglish
              2·
              6 days ago

              Good idea but not feasible as that could introduce unknowns. Unfortunately making defaults when null is counterproductive as we are looking to increase LOC without introducing odd behavior and having no changes to how the overall function works. The only objective is to increase LOC.

  • magic_lobster_party@fedia.io
    18·
    8 days ago

    My guess to why there’s two functions is because it was originally only internal, and the programmer realized they needed public as well, but changing internal to public is too scary so they created a new method instead.

  • Cyborganism@lemmy.caEnglish
    18·
    8 days ago

    You can tell they’re amateurs. It’s not obfuscated enough. They won’t be able to keep their job.

      • marcos@lemmy.worldEnglish
        21·
        8 days ago
        var CompareBooleans = new ComparatorFactory().BooleanComparator(new BooleanComparisonByEqualityPolicy());
if (CompareBooleans(a, b) == true) {
     System.Out.PrintLn("Sames!!!");
}

        …

        But now that I’ve written this, it’s C#, so it’s missing dependency injection.