This is just priceless
dcrookston at gmail.com
Fri Mar 24 17:39:28 MST 2006
I think you guys are missing the editorial above the block of code. I
almost did myself. It says that the guy who developed this code did
this sort of thing *all the time* - he'd write a terrible kludge and
put an apology in comments above it, say he intended to go back and
fix it later, and then never actually do so.
Also, come on - it scans the entire file regardless of whether it
finds what it wants on the first line or the last. It's scanning a
*log file* for information that should have accessible in memory
somewhere - he was just too lazy to find out where the information is
hiding. This code works entirely on accident. If you turned off
logging, everything will crash for no apparent reason. That's how
this code was actually discovered. If you change the logging code to
not include the information he's looking for, same thing. I can't
believe you guys are defending this kind of crap. How far gone do you
have to be to look at something this bad and go "Oh, well, that
doesn't bug me too much."
I'm NOT directing this specifically at you, Halcrow, I just happened
to choose your post to respond to.
On 3/24/06, Michael Halcrow <mike at halcrow.us> wrote:
> The comment makes it obvious that the guy was in a crunch, and the
> code just *had* to work *right then* (probably for a build/test round
> that night), so he did the only thing he could do at the moment to get
> it to work for the moment. From a software engineering perspective, he
> should not have enabled the feature in the product until the code was
> clean -- that was his first mistake. Maybe he had some sort of a
> ``feature deadline,'' and all his management cared about, from an
> employee performance review perspective, was that the feature was
> there and it worked by EOD. Then the programmer acted in his own best
> interest. He would likely be working at another company by the time
> that Easter Egg was found.
> In any case, the comment makes it clear that he intended to go back
> and fix it. For one reason or another, that never happened. *That* is
> the real sin. If I ever committed that code to a production branch (I
> wouldn't), I certainly wouldn't have just forgotten about it...
More information about the PLUG