You must log in or register to comment.
It’s not a glass, it’s the hydrationContainerManagerObjectFactory Not to be confused with the hydrationContainerManagerTypeFactoryTemplate
You forgot the AbstractHydrationManager
you mean
glass Glass;which is almost worse than stringing together random fancy words.
(Edit: added backticks for that nice mono font)
Do developers still code in such a manner?
Some of those patterns were actually good design, until everyone went overboard with them. Now the pendulum has swung the complete opposite way and there’s a ton of duplicate code often generated from actual templates.
Senior engineer: the glass is self documenting.
Unless it is in a vacuum, the glass is full.
50% water, 50% gas mixture.
Topologist: The glass is full of glass. Everything else is on the outside.
I can’t believe no-one else has posted this yet.
Relevant xkcd: https://what-if.xkcd.com/6/
Also, relevant xkcd video: https://youtu.be/0EytSWiKrFg
no, I actually wanted it empty
If it were a vacuum the water would quickly boil away with any remaining turning to ice.
It wouldn’t freeze unless you drop the temperature as well.
The phase transition from liquid to gas absorbs all the thermal energy in the remaining liquid and causes its temperature to drop to freezing point. You are familiar with this effect if you have used a tank of compressed gas; the tank gets cold as you release the gas and you might see condensation on the tank up to the liquid level.
But then the remaining ice in the glass sublimates anyway.
Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science?
Just some jerkface.
Username checks out
That’s not a good comment. What it is should be clear from the naming and context. A good comment explains the why when that is not obvious:
// This glass is at 50% capacity because we don’t want it to overflow if it rains
And in 5 years you will wonder why the glass is under the rain because someone didn’t put that in the specifications.
Inevitably whatever is under the glass gets wet anyway… because it’s raining.
//don’t remove this comment or else
Load bearing comment
//what if I remove this comment and else?
//Then line 368 that checks if the comment exists will fail and will be sad
No :(
Feel like we’re missing an overflow joke here!
Or something like: // initialise a glass using max water value as indicator that glass is unused
/** * @brief This is the coffee cup class * * This class describes a cup or mug that neatly integrates a * container for vectors of cCoffee instances with a fully * functional handle to carry the cup or mug around. Used for * pretty much everything. */ class cTallGlass : public cGlass {Opportunist… “It’s an empty glass. I drank it while you were arguing.”
Scientist… “it’s half empty because the water is slowly evaporating.”
While filling the glass: glass is half full
While emptying the glass: glass is half empty
Context matters
Comment would be whether glass is being emptied or filled
Comment would be whether glass is being emptied or filled
What if it’s neither (and unknown which it was previously), and the glass is just sitting there?
IllegalStateException
Engineer: this glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
Ha, sorry just saw your post! 😆 Wise minds and such… 😉
- comedian Gallagher
deleted by creator
Capacity = 0.5
Engineer: The glass is too big!
// This might be a glass Glass* glass = dynamic_cast<Glass*>(container);IT support chatbot when the client asks how to get an empty/full glass to display: You’re absolutely right! I couldn’t have said it better myself: This is a glass. 😊🥛
AI loves inserting comments like this.
Either that or 20-line comments documenting the bugs in the old code, what this code does differently, and the exact implementation.
Comments describing the exact implementation become stale very quickly. Comments shouldn’t explain what the code does (eg “add two to rowCount”); they should explain why it does it (eg “count for header and footer row too”). Extra details are what the commit message is for, and history is what source control is for.
I call it out in a lot of my code reviews (“code looks good but clean up the AI slop comments before landing”) but a lot of other developers don’t care as much about code and documentation quality.
It really pisses me off when the fucking thing starts referring to the patched code as “updated” in the README, comments, function names… Stupid bot needs to be told not to implicitly refer to prior versions of the code, always regarding current state as initial release. Why the shit do I even need to say that?
