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.
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.
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.
Add heavily verbose/redundant math equations that take up multiple lines with each operation saving to a new variable, then either decrease the number of variable declarations or condense/simplify the math occasionally. Repeat with each new function. Killing two metrics at once LOC and the removal of LOC for older functions. Guaranteed promotions. lol
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.
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?
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
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
If you’re trying to suggest that it’s a nothing package that should be ignored, let me remind you that it has 641k/month in downloads, with 17m downloads total.
We affectionately called it "subscurity" on the FE team.
When our BE apis would not give us any information why something failed, nor would they give us access to their logs. Complete black box of undocumented doodoo, and they would proudly say "security through obscurity" every time we asked why they couldn't make improvements to usability.
I’ve asked ChatGPT to create boiler plate code and it will offer these nested functions so you can change the logic in the future. It’s not smart enough to ask why you’re doing something a particular way or suggest a better alternative.
For the correct OOP solution, you would need consider whether this can be thought of as a kind of stateless leaf method, and therefore implement it as an abstract (singleton) factory, but on the other hand, if you're using a context object with the registry pattern, you should probably do this properly with IoC containers. Of course, if your object graph isn't too complex or entangled, you could always just do constructor injection but you risk manging your unit tests, so I would go cautiously if I were looking in that direction.
Shouldn't there be a call to the boolean comparison microservices server in there somewhere? Also, we should consider the possibility that booleans and their operators could be overloaded to do something else entirely. We might need a server farm to handle all of the boolean comparison service requests.
SOLVED.
On reflection, @[email protected] has come up with the perfect solution - let me explain,
Parallelism
YES. We should utilise a microservices architecture so that we can leverage a fundamental distributed interconnected parallelism to these boolean comparisons which is bound to beat naive single-thread, single-core calculation hands down. Already. But it gets better.
Load balancing
Of course a load balancing microservice would be useful because you don't want one of the boolean comparison microservices accidentally taking too great a share of the computation, making the whole topology more brittle than it needs to be.
Heuristics
A boolean comparison request-comparing analytics microservice could evaluate different request distribution heuristics to the individual microservice nodes (for example targetting similar requests resolving to true/true or false/true etc versus fair-balancing-oriented server targetting versus pseudo-random distribution etc etc), and do so for randomly selected proportions of the uptime.
Analysis
The incoming boolean comparison requests would be tagged and logged for cross-reference and analysis, together with the computation times, the then-current request-distribution heuristic and the selected server, so that each heuristic can be analysed for effectiveness in different circumstances.
Non-generative AI
In fact, the simplest way of evaluating the different heuristic pragmas would be to input the aforementioned boolean comparison request logs, together with some general data on time of day/week/year and general performance metrics, into a neural network with a straightforward faster-is-better training programme, and pretty soon you'll ORGANICALLY find the MOST EFFICIENT way of managing the boolean comparison requests.
Executive summary:
Organically evaluated stochastically-selected heuristics leverage AI for a monotonically-improving service metric, reducing costs and upscaling customer productivity on an ongoing basis without unnecessary unbillable human-led code improvement costs. Neural networks can be marketed under separate brands both as AI solutions and as LLM-free solutions, leveraging well-understood market segmentation techniques to drive revenues from disparate customer bases. Upgrade routes between the different marketing pathways can of course be monetised, but applying a 3%-above inflation mid-term customer inertia fee allows for prima-facia discounts when customers seek cost reduction-inspired pathway transfers, whilst ensuring underlying income increases that can be modelled as pervasive and overriding lower bounds for the two SAAS branches, independent of any customer churn, whilst well-placed marketing strategies can reasonably be expected to drive billable customer "upgrades" between pathways, mitigating any prima-facia discounts even before the underlying monotonicity price-structuring schemas.
I know. I didn't say this was OOP, I said this was your brain when you OD on OOP. While we are not dealing with objects, I'd argue that the kind of approach that would lead one to needlessly overcompartmentalise code like this is the product of having a little too much OOP.
Wait areBooleanEqual returns false when they are equal?
yesn’t
This actually made me laugh, thank you.
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.
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.
The unnecessary and confusing functions are horrible, yes, but I'd still say that the fact that they're wrong is the "worst" part.
That's enough chit-chat, nerds. Back to work.
Don’t forget the invocation
if (CompareBooleans(CompareBooleans(a, b), true))I don't like this thread anymore :(
No, no, this is actually the only correct code in the thread.
that... actually works...
elseif(CompareBooleans(b,a) != false)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:
I promote based on lines of code removed.
I quit based on idiotic metrics
Ah, the idiotic idiotic metric metric.
Are you 14?
I'm sure it was meant as a joke, not a serious criticism.
I think we can all agree that managers who have no idea what's important absolutely suck
I don't know what the age metric has to do with anything.
Which is all the easier to do when you start off with a higher number...
Add heavily verbose/redundant math equations that take up multiple lines with each operation saving to a new variable, then either decrease the number of variable declarations or condense/simplify the math occasionally. Repeat with each new function. Killing two metrics at once LOC and the removal of LOC for older functions. Guaranteed promotions. lol
I love deleting code, including my own, more than writing code. That's a killer metric imo.
There’s no way, that’s so insane it has layers.
At first, I thought the shitty methods were the joke 😱😱😱
This is code after working 16 hours
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.
My coworker made an array of book to express a status. This is no doing of an intern but a much eviler force at play.
I've heard of shared libraries, but this is ridiculous
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?
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.
Those are rookie lines of code numbers right there.
I would have done it without the
==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.
you can also use XOR operation
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
Put more curly brackets around your if (val) true statement for 4 more lines, put elses in there for more lines even.
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:
My previous LOC: 12
New LOC version: 27
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:
New LOC: 35
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.
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.
Is this part of Elons "How many lines of choice have you written?" interview?
You can tell they're amateurs. It's not obfuscated enough. They won't be able to keep their job.
They clearly need an abstract boolean comparison factory.
...
But now that I've written this, it's C#, so it's missing dependency injection.
I can imagine Uncle Bob be proud of this Clean Code (TM)
My guess to why there’s two functions is because it was originally only
internal, and the programmer realized they neededpublicas well, but changinginternaltopublicis too scary so they created a new method instead.That does sound scary on general principles
Reminds me of is-even
It's dependent on is-odd which is dependent on is-number which has 88 million weekly downloads...
I can definitely understand why they did that but it's still very funny
Shoot me now. Just get it over with. I can’t anymore.
GitHub page of this program:
I always figured it was a joke. I mean, it has another package called is-odd as a dependency. That's comedy
I noticed is-odd also has 1 dependency but I didn't dare to check what it was 😂
Depends on is-number because JavaScript is silly
If you’re trying to suggest that it’s a nothing package that should be ignored, let me remind you that it has 641k/month in downloads, with 17m downloads total.
I'm just saying that's the tagline of the GitHub page
Have you seen the repository's name (or rather the name of the owner of that repository) on github?
"We need to obfuscate our code to prevent reverse engineering"
The obfuscation in question:
We affectionately called it "subscurity" on the FE team.
When our BE apis would not give us any information why something failed, nor would they give us access to their logs. Complete black box of undocumented doodoo, and they would proudly say "security through obscurity" every time we asked why they couldn't make improvements to usability.
You must have been working with the Redditors who told me that avoiding the use of JavaScript's
eval()to parse JSON was a false sense of security.If this were a Node module, I wouldn't even be surprised.
Clearly it should be
return orig == valDuh
To match the current behavior it should be orig != val
You're hired. Can your start on Monday?
I'm a bit disappointed there isn't a call to GetBooleanValue in there
But how do you test for
FILE_NOT_FOUND?!NOT
Who's there?
!!Naughty Knots
Where are the unit tests?
Straight from the famous book "Making LOCs for Dummies"
I misread it as CompareBolians. No more Star Trek memes for me today.
Many Bolians died bringing us this information.
Thanks I hate it
WTAF? Is this written by a hallucinating AI?
I think it's a joke (maybe)
I don't think this is the sort of error an AI would make.
I’ve asked ChatGPT to create boiler plate code and it will offer these nested functions so you can change the logic in the future. It’s not smart enough to ask why you’re doing something a particular way or suggest a better alternative.
Sounds about right for a Java user.
can't believe they forgot to implement
bool IsTrue(bool)andbool IsFalse(bool)🙄This is your brain when you OD on OOP.
There's literally nothing related to OOP in this snippet.
You're right, this is just not oop AT ALL.
For the correct OOP solution, you would need consider whether this can be thought of as a kind of stateless leaf method, and therefore implement it as an abstract (singleton) factory, but on the other hand, if you're using a context object with the registry pattern, you should probably do this properly with IoC containers. Of course, if your object graph isn't too complex or entangled, you could always just do constructor injection but you risk manging your unit tests, so I would go cautiously if I were looking in that direction.
Shouldn't there be a call to the boolean comparison microservices server in there somewhere? Also, we should consider the possibility that booleans and their operators could be overloaded to do something else entirely. We might need a server farm to handle all of the boolean comparison service requests.
You're so right, I didn't think of that. Maybe I'm not cut out to be a manager in IT.
SOLVED. On reflection, @[email protected] has come up with the perfect solution - let me explain,
Parallelism
YES. We should utilise a microservices architecture so that we can leverage a fundamental distributed interconnected parallelism to these boolean comparisons which is bound to beat naive single-thread, single-core calculation hands down. Already. But it gets better.
Load balancing
Of course a load balancing microservice would be useful because you don't want one of the boolean comparison microservices accidentally taking too great a share of the computation, making the whole topology more brittle than it needs to be.
Heuristics
A boolean comparison request-comparing analytics microservice could evaluate different request distribution heuristics to the individual microservice nodes (for example targetting similar requests resolving to true/true or false/true etc versus fair-balancing-oriented server targetting versus pseudo-random distribution etc etc), and do so for randomly selected proportions of the uptime.
Analysis
The incoming boolean comparison requests would be tagged and logged for cross-reference and analysis, together with the computation times, the then-current request-distribution heuristic and the selected server, so that each heuristic can be analysed for effectiveness in different circumstances.
Non-generative AI
In fact, the simplest way of evaluating the different heuristic pragmas would be to input the aforementioned boolean comparison request logs, together with some general data on time of day/week/year and general performance metrics, into a neural network with a straightforward faster-is-better training programme, and pretty soon you'll ORGANICALLY find the MOST EFFICIENT way of managing the boolean comparison requests.
Executive summary:
Organically evaluated stochastically-selected heuristics leverage AI for a monotonically-improving service metric, reducing costs and upscaling customer productivity on an ongoing basis without unnecessary unbillable human-led code improvement costs. Neural networks can be marketed under separate brands both as AI solutions and as LLM-free solutions, leveraging well-understood market segmentation techniques to drive revenues from disparate customer bases. Upgrade routes between the different marketing pathways can of course be monetised, but applying a 3%-above inflation mid-term customer inertia fee allows for prima-facia discounts when customers seek cost reduction-inspired pathway transfers, whilst ensuring underlying income increases that can be modelled as pervasive and overriding lower bounds for the two SAAS branches, independent of any customer churn, whilst well-placed marketing strategies can reasonably be expected to drive billable customer "upgrades" between pathways, mitigating any prima-facia discounts even before the underlying monotonicity price-structuring schemas.
I love how OOP devolves into shoving code up it's own ass.
I was just thinking it needed more factories
What about a factory for the factories! There's nothing more efficient than a tool making tool making tool.
I know. I didn't say this was OOP, I said this was your brain when you OD on OOP. While we are not dealing with objects, I'd argue that the kind of approach that would lead one to needlessly overcompartmentalise code like this is the product of having a little too much OOP.
Don't do OOP kids
That's not OO code
Still good advice, though.
Not really. Good advice would be to use the right tool for the job
Not even once
bool ButAreTheyReallyEqualThough(bool orig, bool val)