| « Prev | Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Next » |
Re: Classic WTF - Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless
2006-06-13 11:49
•
by
Yo
|
|
> Can you guess what values are in record 494?
42 has to be the answer! |
Re: Classic WTF - Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless
2006-06-13 11:52
•
by
JernejL
|
|
pattern:
all columns are same and the row data is same as the row index values in record 494 = 494, same in each column. |
Re: Classic WTF - Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless
2006-06-13 11:52
•
by
Maarten K
|
|
If all table data looks like this, I don't see any problem...
|
Re: Classic WTF - Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless
2006-06-13 11:52
•
by
Mikademus
|
|
Redundancy is good; makes for stable programs. Multiple redundancy is thus better.
Multiplexed redundancy makes for ultra-stable programs that can even outlive the universe. I expect v2 added a third dimension of redundancy? |
Re: Classic WTF - Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless
2006-06-13 11:53
•
by
Jeff S
|
|
Very nice .. I missed this one the first time around so I'm glad you re-posted.
I've gotta say, though -- WTF with the data in that table? Is a a huge series of 1:1 relations? |
Re: Classic WTF - Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless
2006-06-13 11:57
•
by
Gaz
|
|
Well... at least if you lost the whole table you could easily recreate it.
|
Re: Classic WTF - Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless
2006-06-13 11:58
•
by
ammoQ
|
Wow, really? How could you spot that? You must be a real genius! |
Redundancy is good Redundancy is good Redundancy is good All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy (etc. ad astra...) |
Re: Classic WTF - Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless
2006-06-13 12:05
•
by
kluminotty
|
|
This just blows my mind. I do not see how some of these people even get into the industry. There needs to be some kind of test to spot whack-a-loons like this. I am pretty sure your brain has to shutdown before you have the capabilities to produce this kind of WTF.
|
Re: Classic WTF - Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless
2006-06-13 12:08
•
by
GoatCheez
|
|
.......
so this was for.....? |
Re: Classic WTF - Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless
2006-06-13 12:12
•
by
Colin
|
|
Oh, I get it now. This is just in case we add a new integer between 13 & 14. Brilliant!
|
Re: Classic WTF - Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless
2006-06-13 12:14
•
by
HitScan
|
Connections of course! What will really make us all sad is to learn A. how much cash this pile of crap makes for it's dark masters, and B. How much vital, mission critical personal data is stored within it's sprawling confines. Fear children, fear for your souls! |
Re: Classic WTF - Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless
2006-06-13 12:17
•
by
pjsson
|
|
Cn must be short for ColumN. I'm pretty sure that the Cn table is used to link together other tables. Even though these tables don't have proper primary keys they probably have an id column like the Cn table (Cn_IDKEY). So when you join two tables you always need to join them through the Cn table. Nice, who trusts foreign keys anyway! Difficult however to implement many to many-relationships this way.
|
Re: Classic WTF - Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless
2006-06-13 12:21
•
by
wiggzie
|
well spotted, poindexter... |
Re: Classic WTF - Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless
2006-06-13 12:22
•
by
WHO WANTS TO KNOW?
|
All of you are BRILLIANT(sarc)..... Could this be to allow for VERSIONING, or to SAVE SPACE????? If so, all of you would be in HOT WATER etc... After an Update(creating a higher number) or a deletion(higher or undefined), or a recordset that wasn't fully defined(lower). The numbers would then(horror of horrors) CHANGE! Steve |
Ad Astrada ...that's that guy from C.H.I.P.s' brother! ~~ |
Re: Classic WTF - Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless
2006-06-13 12:58
•
by
elwood_j_blues
|
Wow, pretty good job interpreting that :) However, that's just horrible! I hope nobody got paid for that! |
Re: Classic WTF - Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless
2006-06-13 12:59
•
by
anonymous
|
|
And what happen if you update this "central nervous" table??? |
Re: Classic WTF - Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless
2006-06-13 13:05
•
by
Codemonkey
|
|
I know one potential explaination for this. Dynamic remapping and merging of data via remapping relationships. This table is just the central relationship table. There is no question there are much better ways of doing this, but
there might be some essential feature buried way down in this horrendous logic. Example - It turns out that Suzy Smith in CNName table has id (256) and is the same person as Sue Smith who exists as id (21). Now I can update all data entered on Suzy to now associate with Sue without losing any orders/history/etc. Before making any changes, write a query to see if any entries in any columns do not match the row idkey. I have seen this done before, but not in such an... umm... centralized fashion. *cough* Oh I admit that printing out the table relationship diagram would be a bear. *heh* That part really is WTF worthy. |
Re: Classic WTF - Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless
2006-06-13 13:21
•
by
home homine lupus est
|
|
This was designed by a non-idiot guy withouth formal database education
that figure out how to implement a very basic database feature (external keys?) with basic tools. Its like some guy that dont know printf exist, and implement it with putch: void printf( char * cad){ while( cad[] ){ putch( cad++); } } You can have guys that down know about open gl fog, and that try to mimick the feature playing the alfa as the world is rendered. Or you can have guys coding complicate calculus to get a normalized vector... because dont know much about math. The border betwen using a subset of something (perl, etc... ) or doing this risky workaround mess is tiny. --Tei captcha: bedtime <-- how appropiate, I really need cafe! |
Re: Classic WTF - Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless
2006-06-13 13:25
•
by
marvin_rabbit
|
Ok, Show of hands everybody! Who wants to hire Steve? |
No, No. He was the guy from Lou Grant! |
Re: Classic WTF - Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless
2006-06-13 13:31
•
by
Tommy
|
|
Only if someone disables his caps-lock key first.
|
Re: Classic WTF - Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless
2006-06-13 13:35
•
by
SpasticWeasel
|
|
Jeremy, is that you?
|
Re: Classic WTF - Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless
2006-06-13 13:46
•
by
Gaylord Focker
|
Ummm..."FileNotFound"? |
Re: Classic WTF - Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless
2006-06-13 13:51
•
by
Volmarias
|
|
I make the following proposal: Every poster votes on the WTF quality of TDWTF with one of two smilies.
1) A smiley wailing and crying and gnashing its teeth 2) A smiley displaying bored ennui It seems that all TDWTFs can be placed into one of these two groups. Either "Internet Jesus wept," or "It's not that bad, really. I can kind of understand it." This would just simplify matters considerably. - Edit - Ok, maybe smiley 3) Cliche would be: TDWTF joke about "Brillant" or "FileNotFound" |
Re: Classic WTF - Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless
2006-06-13 13:51
•
by
jo42
|
|
Let me guess... This is a new Web 2.0 AJAX pattern. |
Re: Classic WTF - Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless
2006-06-13 13:57
•
by
Don
|
|
It would seem so.
|
Re: Classic WTF - Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless
2006-06-13 13:58
•
by
Erin
|
|
CHALLENGE POINT: Can you guess what values are in record 494?
Possible results: Yes, No, Maybe, Null. |
Re: Classic WTF - Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless
2006-06-13 13:58
•
by
Gene Wirchenko
|
It would be difficult. In order to guess, I think you have to not already know the answer. I would like some more details about this WTF. Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko |
Re: Classic WTF - Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless
2006-06-13 14:19
•
by
Anon
|
|
I think the real wtf is that Alex hasn't just set up some kind of system for automatically adding these wtf's. On Sunday night he could type in the paragraph for each day, set the datetime he wanted it to be visible on the web page and be done with it. It would even work when he's out of town!
|
Re: Classic WTF - Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless
2006-06-13 14:23
•
by
EV
|
In high-school (at least here in the Netherlands), they teach you to think like that. If I'd answer "duh" on every stupid question they asked me, I never would have made it... (Ok, so the results will only come in two days, so I techincally still didn't officially "make it" :P) |
Re: Classic WTF - Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless
2006-06-13 14:32
•
by
graywh
|
no digg ... i mean, ... i wouldn't hire him he can't even spell "brillant" |
Re: Classic WTF - Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless
2006-06-13 14:38
•
by
TomCo
|
That would probably violate Space Core Directive #196156! Actually, SCD #196156 is "Any officer caught sniffing the saddle of the exercise bicycle in the women's gym will be discharged without trial." Sorry, I must've gotten my XML config files mixed up. :) With this WTF "exercise", I give up. Just add this to my endless number of random posts!
|
Re: Classic WTF - Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless
2006-06-13 14:39
•
by
haresh kumarski
|
|
This reminds me of a time when I encountered a WTF years and years ago. I had just hired on to a small startup company when I was given the task of fixing a small defect in the inventory control application. Imagine my shock and dismay when I came across this little gem:
<snip> mov eax, 3</snip> I can't image what the programmer was thinking!!! Seeing the CnPrAI_LINK column was liking having a LSD flashback where swirling lines of code mingle with burning palm fronds and the smell of scorched flesh... |
Re: Classic WTF - Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless
2006-06-13 14:39
•
by
X-Phile
|
|
> Possible results: Yes, No, Maybe, Null.
You forgot SortaMaybe, FileNotFound and ReallyNull. |
Re: Classic WTF - Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless
2006-06-13 14:50
•
by
Bus Raker
|
The real danger in this is when you get to Cn_IDKEY 214, and the value for CnAdr_LINK is 213 because 213 was null. Now half of the stored procedures will work (that actually relate to this table) and the other half that ASSUME the values are the same break. Usually you will see different identity seeds for each of the IDs in this sort of design. Though that is its own WTF, but is a often used means of differentiate between say and invoice number and a customer number is many systems. (hmm, you could just add 'INV' and 'CUST' to the field!) |
Re: Classic WTF - Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless
2006-06-13 14:50
•
by
ammoQ
|
Is there a difference between a simple question during a test in school and a rethoric question in a TDWTF post? |
Re: Classic WTF - Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless
2006-06-13 15:00
•
by
Stevies Boss
|
EVERYONE GET BACK HE IS MINE!! lol captcha quality.. |
Re: Classic WTF - Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless
2006-06-13 15:01
•
by
GoatCheez
|
ROFLMAO!!! We watch red dwarf eps during lunch here at work. We watched that episode last week... LOL! |
Re: Classic WTF - Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless
2006-06-13 15:12
•
by
ParkinT
|
|
Idiocy++
|
Re: Classic WTF - Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless
2006-06-13 15:26
•
by
marvin_rabbit
|
No, I think you're on to something. Let's vote by using 1 of two SIMILES. I propose: This WTF burns like a hot poker in an empty orifice. It sears and fills my goggles with tears. This WTF is like Wonder Bread wadded up and rolled into a ball. It can be chewed, but ultimately lacks substance. |
Re: Classic WTF - Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless
2006-06-13 15:32
•
by
TomCo
|
Nice - like the warm sensation of steaming doggie-doo slithering between your toes on a humid summer day. |
Re: Classic WTF - Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless
2006-06-13 15:35
•
by
Gene Wirchenko
|
Hmmph! As if we need more. Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko |
Re: Classic WTF - Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless
2006-06-13 15:47
•
by
Dazed
|
|
I'll hazard a guess as to how this happened. I've more than once seen database beginners chuck everything into one huge denormalised table, because a spreadsheet is all they know. I suspect this happened here and then someone made a drive-by comment along the lines of "why the **** did you put everything in one table?" So they split it into eight tables with 1-to-1 relationships ...
|
Re: Classic WTF - Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless
2006-06-13 15:48
•
by
Epimetheus
|
I agree! |
Re: Classic WTF - Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless
2006-06-13 15:50
•
by
E.thermal
|
yes identify the anti-pattern, and where that anti-pattern commonly shows up. So when business requirements call for x newbie will typically use anti-pattern y, instead of pattern z. Write test that asks simple question, produce x, if applicant returns anti-pattern y not pattern z, move on. |
Re: Classic WTF - Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless
2006-06-13 15:55
•
by
Jeff S
|
Is that a rethoric question question? :) |
Re: Classic WTF - Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless
2006-06-13 15:57
•
by
Gene Wirchenko
|
We have to make sure that the people making the test are themselves competent. Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko |
Re: Classic WTF - Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless Pointless
2006-06-13 16:00
•
by
jvancil
|
Dude! Now you got me singing! ________________________________________________________________ Please note that you need to be in the neighborhood of 40 - 50 years old to understand...
|
| « Prev | Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Next » |