38

Lemme be frank for a moment

Just because the compiler tells you that you need to do a certain thing, DOESN'T MEAN YOU SHOULD SEE THAT AS THE ONLY FUCKING SOLUTION

DON'T START FUCKING UP THE SINGLE-RESPONSIBILITY PATTERN JUST BECAUSE THE COMPILER SAYS YOU SHOULD, HOW DENSE MUST YOU BE TO THINK THAT'S THE FUCKING SOLUTION?! PERHAPS YOU SHOULD DIG A LITTLE BIT DEEPER? I CAN'T EVEN LAUGH ABOUT IT IT'S SO SAD. DEADLINE IS GETTING CLOSER DAMNIT

Oh btw, another instance:

"I'm doing X to achieve Y because I'm more familiar with step 1 of X"

Fine, but that takes more time and can be done in way Z, in that way, you don't loose precious time and can just work on the other steps in the proces that contineously get harder.

* Person proceeds to do X anyway and get stuck, in the end having nothing done *

🙄

I like helping people, I really do

But I'm not going to loosen the knot around your neck if you keep tightening it

Comments
  • 2
    Nice rant frank.
    Its true, there are many dense developers inour community.
  • 1
    I particularly enjoy when they head to SO for a solution, and learn that e.g. Java doesn't have multiple returns or pointers. But you can do This One Weird Trick, and pass in an array of object, and mutate it to "return" more stuff. And then proceed to use it everywhere.

    Or really just any time people shove stuff into base-object types to "work around a compiler limitation/bug".
  • 2
    @bioDan i was gonna do that joke! I am disappointed!!!
  • 2
    > UP THE SINGLE-RESPONSIBILITY PATTERN JUST BECAUSE THE COMPILER SAYS YOU SHOULD

    Now that just seems like something ~the compiler~ wouldn't do
  • 1
    @inaba he was making three entire classes and interfaces async because one method required it
  • 1
    Means : Your implementation was bad.
  • 1
    @groxx Wait.. WHAT ? SOMEONE actually did THAT ? Ohhhh
  • 1
    @NoToJavaScript yeah! It was a nightmare!

    I toyed with it in college while learning the lang and had a good laugh, never thought I'd actually see it used. Instead of, you know, returning a Pair or something. I've seen the same thing in JavaScript codebases too, same "replace index N to return additional data" strategy.

    "Working around compiler bugs" with un-typed wrappers though... Yeah, that's pretty widespread. Thankfully not in my team tho.
  • 1
    @groxx Sometimes it’s just people thinking “Yeas, I’m sure I need to do that”.

    I have a recent example, of myself. I needed to make a fire and forget code (Basically send an HTPS request and not caring about return value).

    C#. I did “async Tasks MyMethod bla(params)”
    Well, when I called it without await keyword : Compilator warning “Not awaited”. First reaction : Well, I know, I don’t want to await that !

    Fix was easy. “async void MyMethod bla(params)”

    Made compilator happy and represented better the function. So some times it’s just a “syntax” issue
  • 2
    @alexbrooklyn how do you make a class and an interface async tho? 🤔
  • 1
    Hi frank!
Your Job Suck?
Get a Better Job
Add Comment