• LovableSidekick@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      2 months 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?

  • Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    18·
    2 months 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.

  • magic_lobster_party@fedia.io
    14·
    2 months 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.

  • Acters@lemmy.worldEnglish
    14·
    2 months 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·
        2 months 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
      4·
      2 months 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
        5·
        2 months 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
          3·
          2 months 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
            1·
            2 months 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·
              2 months 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.

  • Cyborganism@lemmy.caEnglish
    10·
    2 months ago

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

    • macniel@feddit.orgEnglish
      1·
      2 months ago

      Have you seen the repository’s name (or rather the name of the owner of that repository) on github?

      • gwilikers@lemmy.mlEnglish
        1·
        2 months ago

        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.