Working where I do, I've found quite a few WTF's myself.

In one of my recent favorites, the programmer had done a query like:
SELECT * FROM CUSTOMERS

Then he went through every single record (in a loop), until he found the 
record that matched the value he was looking for, or hit the end of the 
file.  Moreover, all he needed to return was the name.  Honestly, there is 
absolutely no excuse for code like that.  While he worked here, he generally 
maintained his own code, so we didn't run across that stuff until he was 
gone.  I have to wonder what other surprises lay in store...

In many ways I'm glad he doesn't work here anymore (obviously).   But in 
other ways, I wish he did, so I could punch him in the face...  ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Jeremy M. Praay wrote:
> Working where I do, I've found quite a few WTF's myself.
> 
> In one of my recent favorites, the programmer had done a query like:
> SELECT * FROM CUSTOMERS
> 
> Then he went through every single record (in a loop), until he found the 
> record that matched the value he was looking for, or hit the end of the 
> file.  Moreover, all he needed to return was the name.  Honestly, there is 
> absolutely no excuse for code like that.

There was one *precisely* like that the other day... let me find it...

http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Rutherford,-Price,-Atkinson,-Strickland,-and-Associates-Dentistry,-Inc.aspx

Read it and weep.

Seriously, the fundamental purpose for a database to *exist* is exactly 
TO DO THIS STUFF FOR YOU! It's like using a knife and not realising you 
can use it to cut things with... WTF?! >_<

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:47b07dd9@news.povray.org...
> http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/SUCSESS.aspx
>
> So, so wrong...
>
> Of course, the *real* WTF is that final sentence: Even though this is
> complete garbage, I couldn't convince my boss because the application
> "works". (!!)

"Works" Definition: Does (mostly) what the users expect. Doesn't contain
(too many) bugs. Doesn't (often) crash.

Way too common an attitude. In commercial programming, any time not spent
working toward the next version/next application/next feature is time
wasted, as customers don't pay for pretty code. They pay for features (often
features that they'll never use, but take comfort in having)

I'm still fighting for a redesign and rewrite of the ball of garbage that
went into my system last year. Everyone says its a good idea, but can't seem
to find the tome to do it. Instead they're busy with new features, like
partially overnormalising a table (it's heading for 5th normal form) and
planning a server upgrade (from a 12 proc server with 48GB memory to a 8
proc server with 8 GB memory)

The only time fixes are prioritised is when a large number of users are
complaining very loudly.

Post a reply to this message

"Orchid XP v7" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:47b0920b@news.povray.org...

> Seriously, the fundamental purpose for a database to *exist* is exactly
> TO DO THIS STUFF FOR YOU! It's like using a knife and not realising you
> can use it to cut things with... WTF?! >_<

It's called. "Of course I know how to write SQL. SQL's easy, unlike C#"
(Yup. That explains why every piece of SQL you write almost brings the
server down when it runs)
Yes, I had one of my devs say that to me.

Want some fun reading? (though there's not that much there)
http://sqldumbass.com/

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw wrote:

> "Works" Definition: Does (mostly) what the users expect. Doesn't contain
> (too many) bugs. Doesn't (often) crash.
> 
> Way too common an attitude. In commercial programming, any time not spent
> working toward the next version/next application/next feature is time
> wasted, as customers don't pay for pretty code. They pay for features (often
> features that they'll never use, but take comfort in having)

...and *this* is why Micro$oft is allowed to exist. >_<

> I'm still fighting for a redesign and rewrite of the ball of garbage that
> went into my system last year.

Oh dear God!

> The only time fixes are prioritised is when a large number of users are
> complaining very loudly.

How pathetic. It's like short-sightedness is taught in schools or 
something. Sure, users don't care about pretty code. I'm sure if you 
asked them though, they care rather a lot about *reliable* code...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw wrote:

> "Of course I know how to write SQL. SQL's easy, unlike C#"
> Yes, I had one of my devs say that to me.

OMG! o_O

Unfortunately I presume the laws of your country prevent you from 
smacking this person in the face and saying "WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU 
TALKING ABOUT?! WAKE UP!!"

> Want some fun reading? (though there's not that much there)
> http://sqldumbass.com/

GAH! I want to rip out my own eyes!! >_<

Seriously, how did the world become so *stupid*? I worry about the 
future of mankind...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

"Orchid XP v7" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:47b0aa9f$1@news.povray.org...

> ...and *this* is why Micro$oft is allowed to exist. >_<

Any just about every other software company in existance. It's not unique to
MS. In fact, through dealings with MS's tech support anda  lot of vender's
tech support, I've found that the people at MS care more. Far too many
software venders have the attitude "You bought it, now its your problem"

There are a couple of exceptions (fog creek probably), but they are very
definitly a minority.

> Sure, users don't care about pretty code. I'm sure if you
> asked them though, they care rather a lot about *reliable* code...

They'll probably say they will, but offer, for the same price, a piece of
software with 10 features that's fairly reliable and a piece of software
with 4 features that's very reliable and see which they'll choose to buy.

I'll be you anything, 80%+ will go for the one with more features,
rationalising that it can do more.

Post a reply to this message

"Orchid XP v7" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:47b0abef@news.povray.org...

>
> Unfortunately I presume the laws of your country prevent you from
> smacking this person in the face.

I'm not sure if a slap here is classified assault. I don't think so.

He most defintly got the sharp edge of my tongue. I'd had a really foul day
up until that point and it was all his fault (really)

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:54:48 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

>Of course, the *real* WTF is ...

>_<

Now I want to choke you for typing that.  It's worse than nails on a chalkboard to me
and is the reason I stopped reading The Daily WTF comments, and then stopped reading
The Daily WTF altogether.

I'm now going to have my pet basilisk IM you.  :-P

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw wrote:

>> ...and *this* is why Micro$oft is allowed to exist. >_<
> 
> Any just about every other software company in existance. It's not unique to
> MS.

I beg to differ.

Before M$ came along, buying software was like buying any other product; 
people *expected* it to work properly. And if it didn't, it was taken 
back to the shop. Companies that regularly produced poor quality junk 
didn't stay around for very long.

After M$, it became somehow "OK" for software to not actually work 
properly. If M$ can be credited with one original invention, this is it. 
They've somehow made it "acceptable" for software to not really work 
properly. Year after year, they churn out semi-functional bloatware, and 
yet everybody keeps buying it. And it doesn't quite work properly, but 
people think this is somehow "normal".

This is probably why people have such a hard time convincing their 
bosses that bad code should be replaced; bosses [and everybody else] 
*expect* software to not quite work properly any more. It's somehow 
acceptable now...

> In fact, through dealings with MS's tech support and a lot of vender's
> tech support, I've found that the people at MS care more. Far too many
> software venders have the attitude "You bought it, now its your problem"

The company I work for isn't nearly big enough for *any* tech support 
people to speak to us, so I couldn't comment...

>> Sure, users don't care about pretty code. I'm sure if you
>> asked them though, they care rather a lot about *reliable* code...
> 
> They'll probably say they will, but offer, for the same price, a piece of
> software with 10 features that's fairly reliable and a piece of software
> with 4 features that's very reliable and see which they'll choose to buy.
> 
> I'll be you anything, 80%+ will go for the one with more features,
> rationalising that it can do more.

The people who write the cheques? Or the people who have to *use* the 
software? They aren't the same people. ;-)

[But no, I won't bet any actual money, because then I'd loose. No matter 
what I bet on, I loose. I even bet on the chemical symbol for tin - a 
value that cannot ever change - and *still* lost!]

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message