Marcus's team was restructuring the API, and the architect thus wanted a number of methods marked obsolete, to encourage developers to move to the new version of the API. So the architect created a Jira task, assigned it to a dev, and moved on.

Somehow, this C# code got committed and merged, despite being code reviewed:

As oft discussed, null-terminated C-style strings are an endless source of problems. But there's no problem so bad that it can't be made worse by a sufficiently motivated developer.

Today's rather old code comes from Mike, who inherited an old, MFC application. This code is responsible for opening a file dialog, and the key goal of the code is to configure the file filter in that dialog. In MFC, this is done by passing a delimited string containing a caption and a glob for filtering. E.g., "Text Files (.txt) | *.txt" would open a dialog for finding text files.

Yesterday we talked about bad CSS. Today, we're going to talk about bad HTML.

Corey inherited a web page that, among other things, wanted to display a bulleted list of links. Now, you or I might reach for the ul element, which is for displaying bulleted lists. But we do not have the galaxy sized brains of this individual:

There is a surprising amount of debate about how to use CSS classes. The correct side of this debate argues that we should use classes to describe what the content is, what role it serves in our UI; i.e., a section of a page displaying employee information might be classed employee. If we want the "name" field of an employee to have a red underline, we might write a rule like:

.employee .name { text-decoration: underline red; }

Once upon a time, I was tuning a database performance issue. The backing database was an Oracle database, and the key problem was simply that the data needed to be partitioned. Great, easy, I wrote up a change script, applied it to a test environment, gathered some metrics to prove that it had the effects we expected, and submitted a request to apply it to production.

And the DBAs came down on me like a sledgehammer. Why? Well, according to our DBAs, the license we had with Oracle didn't let us use partitioning. The feature wasn't disabled in any way, but when an Oracle compliance check was performed, we'd get dinged and they'd charge us big bucks for having used the feature- and if we wanted to enable it, it'd cost us $10,000 a year, and no one was willing to pay that.

As oft stated, the specification governing email addresses is complicated, and isn't really well suited for regular expressions. You can get there, but honestly, most applications can get away with checking for something that looks vaguely email like and call it a day.

Now, as complicated as the "accurate" regex can get, we can certainly find worse regexes for validating emails. Morgan did, while on a contract.