TheDailyWTF.com

[d000hg]

How many people here are readers of that site? Although it's more diluted these days it's basically set up to point out times when incompetent contractors have come in, taken huge fees, and disappeared.

I wondered if the contractors here enjoy it, or view it as an attack on them? Because while many here like to harp on about how they "only need to work 2 hours a day to be more productive than the incompetent permies" I'd bet that's not the case... there must be some real WTF contractors here?

If you don't know the site, this is one of the classic examples: http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/The_...aula_Bean.aspx

[thunderlizard]

I've known of it, and looked at it on and off, for about 3 years. It's always good for a quick chuckle.

Never thought of it as particularly anti-contractor, or indeed realised it had an agenda at all. It has a go at disgracefully funny cack-handedness whoever's been responsible for it.

[NickFitz]

I've been reading the site semi-regularly for ages, and it doesn't seem correct to say that it's aimed at contractors. It's aimed at incompetence and stupidity, but plenty of the stories on there are about stupid code written by permies, or incompetent permy managers.

In fact yesterday's post was about a contractor discovering horrendous code written by a permy: The Test of Truth. I can't see anything from the last week that could be thought of as being critical of contractors

[d000hg]

The older stuff is more aimed at contractors but it's a lot more general these days.

[Diver]

I've been reading the site semi-regularly for ages, and it doesn't seem correct to say that it's aimed at contractors. It's aimed at incompetence and stupidity, but plenty of the stories on there are about stupid code written by permies, or incompetent permy managers.

In fact yesterday's post was about a contractor discovering horrendous code written by a permy: The Test of Truth. I can't see anything from the last week that could be thought of as being critical of contractors

Oh boy...that's just messed...

So basically we first test if the variable is true.

If the variable is true we then test if the variable is false. If the variable is both true and false we return false, otherwise, if the variable is both true and true, we return true.

If the variable is false we then test if the variable is false. If the variable is both false and false we return false. If the variable is false and not false we return true.

There are two parts of that line which are unreachable in standard boolean logic. For the first false to be reached test has to show as true for the first == and false for the second. For the second true test has to show as false for the first == and true for the second.

I am in awe of the messed-up-ness of this code. Not only is it unnecessarily complex, but half of it is unreachable and the other half performs the same test twice (making sure?). It's a trifecta of bad code design!