Made My Day
Sometimes you need a break from the madness (and kittens make you barf). Thank you for this post.
The august and serious folk at the IETF have always had a soft spot for their April Fool's jokes, and so do others – so much that a proposal to deprecate a joke has met with successful resistance. From what feels like the Internet Dark Ages of the 1990s, was the Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol, a joking anticipation of …
"And socialists. Because socialists believe that "proper tea" is theft."
Non, mon brave, vous avez tort. M. Proudhon était français, donc il ne savait rien du thé, et il était un mutualiste / anarchiste, pas un socialiste. Mais c'est une erreur facile à comprendre, car il y a beaucoup de gens qui pensent que M. Corbyn est marxiste. Aujourd'hui, même les insultes sont lancées par ceux qui ne comprennent pas leur dérivation.
Meaning (via Google Translate)
No, my good man, you are wrong. Mr. Proudhon was French, so he knew nothing about tea, and he was a mutualist / anarchist, not a socialist. But this is a mistake that is easy to understand, because there are many people who think that Mr. Corbyn is a Marxist. Today, even insults are thrown by those who do not understand their derivation.
Quite. I was offered something claiming to be "Turkish Apple Flavoured Instant Tea".
In a moment of weakness, I tasted it. It struck me as being a wee bit too sweet. I managed not to spit it out, but it was a close thing. I then read the label and all was explained. Ingredients: 96% sugar, some flavour, and probably a tea leaf or two waved over it.
So a more accurate description would be "instant sugar drink with a hint of flavouring"....
 Note: this may be an understatement
How timely, just speaking about this 'coffee' in the tea and how horrible it is. It happened to me a few years back, and it was only a couple of drops of coffee. I once had to get hot water out of a coffee machine that dripped the previous coffee into my hot water...
Make that a code for an extended error, where old implementations that only look for three digit codes will not get the full information, where those that do will see something like "499 extended error 49912345 actual error text" and drop the first part.
Trying to deprecate existing errors, even ones included in jest, is just going to cause confusion. Especially when haven't run out yet.
The code will be 499, not 49912345. That's the extended code that will not be in the canoniclal <xxx><space><text> error code section. It would be in a following line (marked as a comment) or at the end of the text if being in the following line is not possible for some reason.
So error < 500 would still work just fine.
I nearly creased myself when reading the 6809 op instructions:
"|BRN m|21|------| x|3|Branch Never |NOP "
With the comment that this was included for symmetry with branch always...
"BRA m|20|------| x|3|Branch Always |PC=m"
Can't beat the NOP (No operation) for ensuring safe code flow.
The very early ARM chips actually included a "never" condition code, which was available on every instruction. Meaning 1/16 of its entire instruction set was effectively NOP!
Much of the space formerly occupied by these "useless" (but preserving the symmetry) instructions has since been allotted to new instructions, though.
I used to work as a dev and insert humour in comments and function_names.
Back then, we had a bloke working in the adjacent office who would routinely yawn very loudly. Once, it occurred at a time I was writing a function to make the process sleep until an event happened.
So I called my function go_to_bed_el_greg (Greg was the guy's name).
10 years later, an ex-colleague told me he laughed out loud several years later, having to update the said Perl script.
If all the fun bits are taken out of all of IT, it will really belong to the penpushing beancounters.
We are almost there, and when we arrive, coding will be 6Sigma'd and all these wasteful indentations that only cost storage space, obviously, duh, and all these extra protocols like tcp (to be replaced with a 'get it right first time, every time' strategy and a penalty for dropped packets) will have to go because they're in the way of improving efficiency.
Again? This has been going on for 15 years:
It's a pity the anti-ddate people seem genuinely befuddled about it. It's as though they seem unable to get in touch with their sense of humor at all.
A friend once included in his project a "truth" function that returned true if the argument was 42, and false otherwise. It was even documented that way, with no further explanation as to why.
He did get asked (which he never answered as far as I know) what he had against the asterisk character. He thought it was sad that these people had never read The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
I plan to revive the program, and I will not be removing anything from the function list.
This sounds like a tech lead I had at a previous job. When writing documentation I always try and be slightly humorous, usually in the opening introduction. My reasoning is if you're having to read boring work docuemtnation then starting with a smile will put you in a better frame of mind.
I never do anything 'offensive' and would never compromise the documentation for the sake of being funny; it's a technique I've used for years when and has generally gone down well, for example we had a process that would occasionally fail on certain records, so I opened the 'How to fix this occasional issue' page with 'If, after looking behind the sofa and checking very hard behind the fridge you still can't find the data.......'
The tech lead at the time didn't like it apparently, although he'd never mention it, or have the decency to raise it with me I would often find all trace of humour and individuality removed without any comment whatsoever. This made me a little sad. (Never quite understood people who think work should be fun free, it's where I spend most of my time ffs.)
I did usually put the humour back though, often with slightly increased surrealism.
Same with training material, when required to use the dreaded presentation application (shall not be named).
Try and drop in some humour at least every 3-4 slides, especially if you're training engineers, it attempts to stem the DBPP.
Plus while snoring interrupting something complex that needs to be explained can be hilarious, starting all over again with complex material is not so controlled humour benefits all.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019