The Daily WTF

2020 was a rough year for everyone. Eventually, it will end, but as we drag through to the end of 2020.2, it's sometimes hard to remember the beforetimes.Sometime in that long era before 2020, Marc's team patched a bug in their software. Like good developers, the patch included a unit test. They could prove that the test failed before the fix, passed after the fix, and happily closed the ticket and went on to different things.In early 2020, Chris, one of the members of the team went on to a position elsewhere. A few months after that- the bug reappeared.But how? All the tests were showing green. Marc pulled up the code and found that the test had been disabled by Chris shortly before quitting. The commit message was simply: "Fixed?".It was easy to re-enable the test, but a bit harder to track down the regression. The even harder conversation was amending their processes to make sure a commit like that never got merged ever again. [Advertisement] BuildMaster allows you to create a self-service release management platform that allows different teams to manage their applications. Explore how!

My Steam profile doesn't represent the most active gamer on Earth, but in my time I put some pretty serious hours into the recent XCOM games. Each mission your squad goes on gets a procedurally generated name, and that can lead to some funny results just by itself (like "Avenging Avenger"). But, if you've put too many hours into the game, you might notice that every once in awhile, you see a mission with "Chicken" in its name.Now, it's obvious that this is just a joke. Clearly an Easter Egg hidden in the code by a programmer. But Rich D picked through the UnrealScript which powers the game, finding the code responsible.

In the US, we "fell back"- that is to say we abandoned Daylight Saving Time and moved back to Standard Time, and I think the general consensus is that time changes are the real WTF.So let's use this as a moment to look at some bad date handling code, an evergreen topic.First, we turn to Adam, who's doing some minor work on an old PHP application.

Amateur mathematician Chris F. thoughtfully sums up this screencap."Although Numberblocks is a brilliant show forkids learning to count, I can't help but feel the BBCperhaps need to watch it themselves when it comes tothe order of the series (or 'seasons' as many of yourreaders may know them) in the show..."

Cassi continues the fight against ancient, creaky PHP code.Today, it's particularly ancient- according to source control, it predates PHP 5.0 (and thus structured exceptions, and in this case may predate the current century). So the fact that this sets a pass-by-reference $errMsg variable and returns false on an error isn't the WTF in the code.

Mark was trawling through the WordPress code, tracking down a bug in an extension, when he noticed this particular method for deciding whether or not WordPress is served via HTTPS or not.

Sometimes, I have to wonder if I'm the dummy. Today I want to take a look at two examples from readers that are pretty close to code I've written, and I'm left wondering: am I the real WTF?meowcow moocat writes:

Ashton works for a large bank, on an application that handles millions of dollars of transactions. The previous developer left this behind, which has everyone on the team scratching their heads.

Prescriptivist Phil pronounces"Alas, I've been saying these wrong my whole life.But at least my way I can say it in one breath."At least your way I can say it within my remaining lifespan, Phil!

I used to work in a VB.Net shop. It wasn't my favorite place, but it gave me an appreciation for modern VisualBasic, instead of old VB6 (which I also had to work on).Part of what made VB.Net better was that it had more sane defaults. By default it enabled Option Explicit (require variables to be declared before use), and Option Strict (error on any narrowing conversions between data-types). One of its biggest weaknesses, however, was that you could turn those features off, something which was frequently done to make old-style VB6 code more compatible with VB.Net. Arguably, the biggest WTF was that Microsoft promised an "easy" path to upgrade VB6 code to VB.Net, through a mix of compatibility libraries and conversion tools that didn't work.Which brings us to this VB.Net code that Stephen inherited. It's a small WTF, but so representative of the ways in which things could go very wrong.

The transition from Python 2 to Python 3 has been a long running challenge. Arguably, too long running, but those are the challenges when you introduce breaking changes into a widely used language.Now, one of those breaking changes was around string handling and encoding- Unicode versus ASCII. This meant that, if you wanted code to run on both versions of Python, you'd need to check which version you were on to handle encodings properly.Ryan J's predecessor wanted to implement logic where, on Python 2, they just handled the strings without transformation, while in Python 3, they'd force the string to be encoded in "latin1". The traditional way of writing this would be something like:

We've all seen documentation blocks like this:

Andrew had to touch some Pascal code. Yes, really. He writes: "I came across this section of code today and really wanted to find out who wrote it. Then I really wanted to find out who added the comment."

Doug's co-workers were creating a database to manage a set of custom application services and their associated metadata. So one of them threw together this table:

Nyegomi supports a system with a load of actor objects tied to a bus, and supporting huge numbers of concurrent users. Once per second, the server looks at all the active objects and calls their update method, which gives them a chance to do vital housekeeping. Many of the objects may spin up background threads during that time.Like a lot of threading code, this leads to loads of problems in the wrong hands. Extra problematic in Python.

Let's say you wanted to express the difference between two numbers as a percentage of the first number. And then let's say that you have no idea how to properly handle a situation where that first number is zero.In that situation, you might end up with C code much like what Gaetan found.

Juan M inherited some broken code. Upon investigation, the result turned out to be caused by a mix of assumptions.The first assumption was in the way their users would interact with their scheduling system. Part of the assumption there was that they wouldn't try and schedule any events outside of the scope of a few human lifetimes. The other part of the assumption was that their serialization framework would have a consistent representation of datetimes that was reliably the number of seconds past the Unix epoch.Their serialization framework had another assumption: that any sufficiently large timestamps must be in milliseconds.

Some say the world will end in fire, a great American poet once penned. Not wanting to run afoul of his heirs and assigns, I'll leave you to find the rest of it for yourselves.For my own two bits, let me say that while ice may suffice, nothing but nothing is quite like twice.Gordon S. writes to alert us to an unusualweather event next week. Good news, though. The boss saysyou can take the day off.

Ten years ago, James was working for a small company that made electronic components. That company got eaten by Initech, who wanted to connect all those smart electronic devices to their own products. This meant that the two companies had to agree on what that communication protocol would look like. More than that, this was on the critical path to completing the merger- Initech wouldn't go through with the purchase if they couldn't integrate with the systems they were purchasing.Negotiations were difficult. A lot of the challenge came from Initech's side, because they wanted to make the protocol a "do everything" system for managing data, which just wasn't something the embedded components were designed for. Over the course of many months, a design document gradually took shape.Since the messages passing through the protocol might be arbitrary lengths, one of the key decision points was "how do we determine the length of the message?" James's team advocated for a byte length in the header, but Initech protested: "We might not know the length of the message until after we've sent it."They couldn't explain how that could be- the protocol didn't support streaming- but Initech wasn't having any of it. The obvious other solution was to just simply ensure that the message ended with a null byte- a \0.Everyone went off to work on their implementations, and for a few months, everything seemed like it was going smooth. James and his team whipped up some testing tools, implemented the protocol, sent test messages, and everything worked great. Then it came time to integrate with Initech's implementation.And everything broke.Specifically, it looked like Initech had failed to actually terminate their messages."See, there's no termination character," James said, highlighting the hex dump which ended with 0x30. Every message ended with 0x30."I don't know what you're showing me," the Initech developer said, "because here's how I send the message." The dev highlighted the relevant section of code.

Rich was digging through some legacy PHP code, trying to track down where some apparently magical values were coming from. This involved tracing through function after function after function.Here's a sampling of some of those functions:

Pedro inherited a PHP application, and the previous developer had some opinions about how to handle arguments to functions. This is the pattern they used everywhere:

ComCorp went through a rather lengthy process to rebuild its website. One of the many changes implemented was to stop using titles as part of customer names. The lead developer on the project decided that removing the titles from all the places where they appeared was simply too much work."We'll just default to 'Mister' and then hide it wherever customer names are shown," he explained.A few months later, our brave submitter delved into the code and examined this particular function:

Let's get right into it, because Mark T's day is off to a great start.Back when the COVID-19 pandemic started, a lot of folks were comparing it to the 1918 influenza epidemic. The application Abby used to document her vaccinations took that comparison somewhat literally.Dealing with credit card companies is a maze of legalistic nonsense where they redefine common words to mean something completely different and you'll get punished if you don't read the agreement very carefully. Look at what happened to Rob H, where they changed the meaning of the word "optional".Of course, Mike T ended up having an even harder time reading the agreements. This is what he saw when signing up for a new card:Joking aside: nobody actually reads those agreements. And as developers, we also never read documentation, so it's a surprise that Terry found this bit of JSON garbage in an Android documentation site. [Advertisement] ProGet’s got you covered with security and access controls on your NuGet feeds. Learn more.

Many years ago, a Paula Bean type was hired to make a Perl-based website. It became the company's flagship product, at least briefly, until a better version of the product was ready. But early adopters adopted it, and thus it had to keep operating, because you can't throw a way a 800kLOC web application just because it's fragile and unmaintainable.And then the site got hacked. So now, fixing everything becomes incredibly important, and the task fell to Erik. He needed to do a security audit and identify vulnerabilities. Alone. In a 800kLOC application of extremely questionable code quality. For bonus challenges, there is no testing environment available and no budget to stand one up- even if anyone knew exactly what actually needs to be in that environment, because there's a bunch of databases and packages and extra software and no one is entirely sure what the production environment is.Erik started by opening the first file he saw and giving it a skim. It was a small one, with only about two hundred lines in it. The first line was:

If there's one thing worse in code than magic numbers, it's magic strings. Sean inherited an antique Visual C++ application, and the previous developers were very careful to make sure every string was a named constant.

As a general rule of thumb, when you see a class called StringConverter you know something is going to be wrong in there. That's at least what Erik thought when examining a bug in a totally different section of string handling code that just happened to depend on StringConverter.StringConverter might sound like some sort of utility belt class with a huge pile of methods in it, but no- it's only got two. So we should take a look at both.Let's start with the method called Escape.

Ah, routers. The one piece of networking hardware that seems inescapable; even the most tech-illiterate among us needs to interface with their router at least once, to set up their home network so they can access the internet. Router technology has changed a lot over the years, including how you interface with the admin portal: instead of having to navigate to a specific IP address, some of them have you navigate to a URL that is intercepted by the router and redirected to the admin interface, making it easier for laymen to recall. But routers have their share of odd problems. I recently had to buy a new one because the one I was using was incompatible with my company's VPN for cryptic reasons even helpdesk had no real understanding of.Today's submission concerns a Vodafone router. Our submitter was setting up a network for a friend, and to make things easier, they set up a low-security password initially so they could type it repeatedly without worrying about messing it up. Once the network was set up, however, they wanted to change it to something long and cryptic to prevent against brute-force attacks. They generated a password like 6Y9^}Ky.SK50ZR84.p,5u$380(G;m;bI%NZG%zHd?lOStqRzS}Z?t;8qSg;[gy@ and plugged it in, only to be told it was a "weak" password.What? Length and variance both seem quite sufficient for the task—after all, it's not like there's roving bands of street gangs hacking into everyone's wifi routers and mucking about with the settings. There's no need for 300-character passwords.Curious, our submitter opened the Javascript source for the change password page to see what checks they failed, since the UI wasn't helping much:

... or maybe oneth things snecod,as it turns out.This week, two unique anonymeesehave brought something to share, and our alienfriend Skippy piles on to the Lenovo laugh-in. Guten Morgen!Decisive Michael R. is flummoxed by the law of the excluded middle."YES," he assures us, "yes, those were checkboxes. And, no, not radios."

Tina needs to write some software that integrates with a hardware device. Thatdevice controls access via behind a PIN, and thus Tina's team needs to track the valid PIN, so that they can, via software, update or alter the PIN.There's just one problem. That device has some opinions about how a Personal Identification Number should be represented:

Picking random items without repetition is its own special challenge. It's one of those things that's not actually hard, but some programmers have a difficult time coming up with solutions to the problem. Abraham has found these two examples in some code he maintains:

A large company with facilities all over the Asia-Pacific region opted to modernize. They'd just finished a pile of internal development that extended the functionality of a 3rd party package, and they wanted to containerize the whole shebang.That's where Fred came in, about 9 months into a 12 month effort. Things hadn't gone well, but a lot of the struggles were growing pains. Many of the containers were built as gigantic monoliths. A lot of the settings you might need to do a Kubernetes deployment weren't properly configured. It was a mess, but it wasn't a WTF, just a lot of work.The efforts of building the containerized, K8s deployments changed the company culture. The new rule was "container all the things", and all the things got containerized. Management was happy to be checking off new buzzwords, and the IT team was happy to have any sort of organization or process around deployments and their environment, since prior to this effort it was a lot of "copy this folder to this server, reboot, and cross your fingers".Everyone was happy, except for one team, led by Harry. "Your containers broke our software," Harry complained. Now, it wasn't "their" software- it was a purchased product. And like many enterprise software packages, it was licensed. That license was enforced via a smart card and a USB dongle.Which created a problem. Kubernetes is entirely about running your code absolutely abstracted from the physical hardware it's actually on. The USB dongle requires the code to be running on a specific physical device. The solution to the problem was obvious and simple: don't manage this one product via Kubernetes.But that wasn't an option. "We use Kubernetes to manage all of our deployments," management said. One of the managers helpfully linked to an interview in a trade magazine where the CTO cheerily shared the benefits of Kubernetes."Right, but this particular product is ill-suited to that kind of deployment," Fred and his team countered."Okay, yes, but we use Kubernetes for all of our deployments."And, as of this writing, that's where things sit. Everything must be containerized and hosted in Kubernetes. One software product doesn't play nice in that environment, but it must be wedged into that environment. Currently, the product lives on the same private server it used to live on, but this is a "stopgap" until "a solution is found". Officially it's out of compliance with company standards, and shows up as an evil red light on all the IT dashboards. [Advertisement] Otter - Provision your servers automatically without ever needing to log-in to a command prompt. Get started today!

"Never trust your inputs" is a generally good piece of advice for software development. We can, however, get carried away.Janice inherited a system which, among many other things, stores phone numbers. Like most such systems, the database validates phone numbers, and guarantees that numbers are stored in a canonical format, as text.For some reason, their Rails presentation layer isn't satisfied with this, and needs to validate the data coming from the database. In their specific environment, they know the database only contains canonical phone numbers, but honestly, I'm willing to forgive the belts-and-braces approach, as I've certainly used enough databases that couldn't provide those kinds of guarantees.No, the problem is the way they went about it.

I know that I recently implied a fondness for cookedcorvid, but if this keeps up I'm going to turn vegan. Itwill be a sad day if I have to turn in the barnyard puns.ReaderRuthless R. goes in HAM, crowing"Daily WTF goes WTF with its RSS Feed." It's getting to be less funny.

Caleb (previously) continues to work for a vehicle finance company. Most recnetly, he was working on a data ingestion application. Its job was to pull in a big ol' pile of CSVs from a mix of vendors and customers and feed it into a central database to keep things up to date."Application", however, is misleading. In reality, it was a suite of Access databases scattered around various network shares. Each represented a custom data loading pathway for a kind of data. It wasn't true that each was isolated from every other- frequently, the data flow would be "Open database \\fileserver\processing\vendor01.mdb, use the form to load the CSV file, then open \\fileserver\processing\process01.mdb, but only AFTER you've deleted the CSV file."Caleb's job was "easy": trawl through this thicket and figure out which parts handled just vehicle model information, sourced from vehicle manufacturers. Figure out what it did, and then reimplement in something that wasn't a fragile pile of Access databases.While working on that, a new problem appeared: manufacturers were announcing their 2023 model numbers, but the system simply couldn't ingest those. No vehicles with 2023 model numbers could be created. After searching for awhile, Caleb figured out that it went through this table, created in 2008, which hadn't had any data added/removed since:ModelYearAbbrModelYear420045200562006720078200892009102010112011122012132013142014152015162016172017182018192019202020212021Now, this isn't particularly shocking, and honestly, probably wasn't even a terrible idea. It's just that, since new years were never added, it made it impossible to add vehicles in the 2023 model year.But that still left Caleb with another question: their system had vehicles with a 2022 model year just fine. Did a bug let the data load last time? Is there another code pathway Caleb hasn't found? Is there a mystery Access database on a file share no one remembers that can handle model years more recent than 2021? No one knows, and truly, does anyone want to know? Down that path lies an eldritch madness, a cosmic horror that would cause our very souls to bleed.(Or, probably, someone just manually inputted all that data, but the eldritch thing is more fun.) [Advertisement] BuildMaster allows you to create a self-service release management platform that allows different teams to manage their applications. Explore how!

Penny uses a Python ORM. Like most ORMs, it involves a lot of "inherit from a BaseModel class, and get all your database access stuff for "free". Or at least, it used to. They've released an update.

Yesterday, I briefly mentioned the "TODO" comment as part of the WTF. Anyone who develops software for long enough is going to develop some pet peeves. Lord knows, my feelings on Hungarian Notation are well established. Or ternaries, though honestly, for ternaries, I mostly am in it for the puns.But, I've got another pet peeve that's crawling up my butt far enough that I felt the need to do a soapbox about it.

Robert has inherited a .NET application. It's a big-ball-of-mud, full of monstrous classes of thousands of lines and no coherent purpose, complete with twenty constructors.It's ugly and messy, but it's mostly just generically bad. This method, however, is a lot of bad choices in very few lines.

In case anyone is wondering "is there anything so lame that it's not evengood enough to get published by Error'd", the answer is yes. There is acategory of submissions that is very common, but in the completely capricious opinion of this editor, just not very funny. That category is clearly broken listings on amazon.com. We usually get two or three of theseevery week. We save them up, and maybe someday the news will be so slow that we have no choice but to run an entire column of nothing but Amazon bloopers. This week was no different from the usual, except that this timethe September stress has struck a nerve and so you get to see what the brink of madness looks like from the inside.Tippler Matthias poured one out for us. "Seems someone already tried some of the good stuff while uploading the images to Amazons catalog."

Initech was the big customer for Chops's company. And like a lot of big customers, they had requests and they had the weight to throw around to get their requests fulfilled. When they wanted a new feature, they got a new feature. When they found a bug, they got the patch ASAP.No matter how special Initech thought they were, they were mostly requesting things that other customers wanted anyway, so it worked pretty well.So, one day, they submitted a pile of feature requests, the dev team got to work, and cranked out the features. They tested it, they shipped betas out to the customer, the customer liked the changes, confirmed that it passed user-acceptance, and was ready to deploy. Well, almost ready. There was one tiny little problem."So, we can't do this upgrade," said Jerry, the lead from Initech. "It violates our IT policy.""Um, how?" Chops asked."Well, the current approved version in our environment is 3.4.24. The version you're shipping us is 3.5.1. That's too big a version number change.""Oh, uh… we shipped 3.5 a few months ago…""Right, but we haven't gotten that approved. Can you add these features to the 3.4 version?"That request got escalated up to management, and since Initech was a big customer, management said, "Yes, absolutely, do it."The result was a disaster. While 3.5 and 3.4 were basically the same from the end user's perspective, a lot of internals had changed. The new features used the new internals, and when trying to backport them it was a lot of work. They started from the codebase of 3.4.30 (the last release of 3.4.x), and ended up breaking everything. Tests which passed under 3.5 started failing, tests which had been passing under 3.4 also started failing. No one was exactly sure how to backport these features to the old internals and it was eating a lot of developer cycles.Chops watched this slow motion disaster, and watched management getting increasingly upset. Initech wanted their new features, and they wanted them last week. So Chops decided to take matters into their own hands. They took the 3.5.1 build, and re-set the version numbers to be 3.4.31."Hey, Jerry," Chops said. "I've taken the latest version, 3.5.1, and I've renamed it 3.4.31. So the official version number is 3.4.31. Is that okay?""Uh, the version you're giving me is 3.4?""That's the version number on the file, yes. But the code is actually 3.5.""But the file says 3.4?""It does," Chops said. "And the 'about' information will also say 3.4.31.""Perfect, that'll do."Chops sent the file over. Jerry ran it through all their tests and confirmed it was still satisfactory. Initech's management confirmed that the version number only incremented a small amount, and it was still "officially" a 3.4 version.Everyone was happy with this outcome. [Advertisement] Otter - Provision your servers automatically without ever needing to log-in to a command prompt. Get started today!

Embedded chip documentation is sometimes very bad, and very confusing. Frequently it's difficult to really understand the ins and outs of a given chip without simply getting experience.Which is why Mr. Scrith was a bit surprised with this code, which came from someone who definitely should have known better.This code is for a "walking 1s" memory test- it simply visits every address in memory and writes a "1" and confirms that it can read back that "1". Such a test poses an interesting challenge: you can't use any variables, because they will live in RAM somewhere, so you need to limit yourself only to the registers exposed by your CPU.And that's where this developer made their odd choice. This particular CPU had plenty of general purpose registers, and a bunch of special purpose registers, like a set of registers for controlling PWM generators. The developer either couldn't find the correct way to access the general purpose registers or didn't care to try, but either way, the end result was that they used the PWM registers for everything:

Sam worked on an application which needed to parse files out of a directory. There was a ticket to change the search path for those files to search an additional directory. That didn't turn out to be terribly hard, but the existing code raised some serious eyebrows.

Robert H was trawling through the JavaScript front-end for his team's ASP.NET MVC application. The goal was to prepare for a complete rewrite of the front-end, because, well, it had problems and wasn't reliable or maintainable.As an example, Robert sends this:

Never let it be said that we at TDWTFdon't enjoy the taste of our own medicine. Andrew I. shares with us a little taste ofhis own crow, and then we share with you a little taste of Remy's. It's not quite a full meal, but you can call it anamuse bouche.But first, Sam B. serves up some sure fled pie."This Brexit business is getting out of hand. Lenovosays even the United Kingdom has left the UK."

Pearl was paying down some technical debt. She was trawling through their NodeJS application with a search for TODO and console.log. She was triaging the TODOs, and replacing the logs with a real logging framework.The application was old, had many complicated routes for requests to be handled, and buried deep in a file was this code, which was clearly testing code that was never meant to end up in production:

Usually, we don't pick on game code, as it's frequently bad because of the time constraints under which it's developed and because the concerns are more around "making a fun, performant game," and not "writing good reusable code".But there are some egregious exceptions, like what happened to Patrick. He was handed some C# game code, and told, "Good luck!"This particular block lived in a file called banana.cs. Does this game have anything to do with bananas? It does not! It has to do with zombies. No, it is not Plants vs. Zombies, though given the botanical flair in this code, perhaps the author was a fan?One module of the game uses integers as the ID values of enemies. One module uses strings. No one uses enums. So when you want to convert the IDs to the appropriate type, you need to call enemyIdNumToName, which I want to stress- is not the display name of the enemy.

"Phillip, are you familiar with SNMP? Do you know Python?" asked Phillip's new boss."No.""Would you like to be?"That's how Phillip got thrown into the deep end of a conversion project that was tasked with updating their infrastructure monitoring system. It was developed by a team a few years ago, and they all quit at the same time, which made it hard to maintain.It was a homegrown set of Python scripts which polled a Prometheus service, which itself was gathering metrics from a pile of Docker containers. These scripts gathered those events and turned them into SNMP alerts for a third party receiver.The upgrade promised to be simple: take the SNMPv2c code and update it to use SNMPv3, which supports encryption. Phillip started by pulling the existing code from their repository, only to find that while there was a repository and it had a pile of branches, nothing had ever been merged into main/master/trunk. So Phillip pinged one of the other developers: "Which is the correct version of the code?"He started playing with the PySNMP library while he waited. From reading the docs, Phillip thought that it should be a very simple change- essentially a find/replace to update one class name. After a few days of poking at the library, the previous developer gave him about three candidate branches which were probably what was actually deployed. Phillip found a Docker image that seemed to have the same code as one of those branches, and was probably the one deployed- no one knew for certain- and set to work.His first attempt didn't work at all, which wasn't surprising. There was no logging, the configuration was hard-coded in half a dozen places in the code and didn't always agree with the other places, and someplace along the way it needed an SNMP command, which nothing was sending. It was mess, but eventually, Phillip got it running.For a few minutes, anyway. Then it would crash. It took Phillip two months of research and experimentation to discover that the SnmpEngine object wasn't threadsafe. It wasn't his choice to use it across multiple threads- that was the architecture that the previous developers had used.That's when it dawned on Phillip: this program had never worked. Sure enough, the deployed version crashed all the time, too. So Phillip set about refactoring and debugging it, and after two more months, he had a thing that could read the metrics and report them to SNMP.Except the third-party receiver that expected to receive those messages didn't get them. Phillip could confirm he was sending it, but it wasn't arriving. Cue another month of scrambling and head-scratching, only for Phillip to discover that the network team had blocked the routes from the server he was running on and the third-party receiver."Oh, it was sending so much traffic, we assumed it was broken," was the best explanation he could get.So the service never worked in the first place. Even if it had worked, the network team had blocked it from working. No one talked to anyone else about what was going on. And, as the cherry on top of the sundae, the main customer for this data didn't believe in "on-call rotations"- they got ahold of the developers' cellphone numbers and called them directly whenever they had an issue.All that added up to Phillip leaving the company after a very long six months. It also neatly explained why the previous dev team had all quit en masse."Still," Phillip writes, "at least I got some Python experience out of it." [Advertisement] Utilize BuildMaster to release your software with confidence, at the pace your business demands. Download today!

Last week's article nearly exposed to the public the lowest-keytechreligious war that has been waging for decades. PEBKAC versus PEBCAK completely underwhelmsthe emacs vs vi war, the GUI vs CUI massacre, the tabs vsspaces schism, and even the -- + // alliance against the/* and (* comment markers. Scratch a PEBCAK partisan andall you'll find is a bit of blood and a response of "OW! Why did you do that?! There isn't any war!!" Even thepartisans deny it exists but it simmers. It's PEBKAC, Itell you. PEBKAC! Wait, I forgot. Which did I use inlast week's article?Plotzed publican Peter G. has tired of his local and decidedhe'd rather pop round todas Lokal for a schnitzel. Researchingreviews, he was surprised by an unexpected mountain PICNIC(Problem In Chair Not In Computer)."Dumont Travel seem to think the Anschluss is still in effect,or at least this is what you get when you ask for travelinfo for Austria (Österreich)."

My favorite bar in Pittsburgh is a bit of a dive. Like any good dive, the bathroom is covered in the incoherent scrawl of thousands of drunks. It's a mix of jokes, political flamewars, and just absolute nonsense. My favorite part about it, though, is that it just makes me think about the long history of latrinalia. For as long as there have been humans, we've been scribbling on whatever surface was at hand, and a lot of those scribbles have been made while we answer nature's call.Programmers have their own form of latrinalia: code comments. They're frequently vulgar, they're sometimes comprehensible only to the person who wrote them, and we all like to pretend that they're more meaningful than they are.So let's take a look at a few mysterious scribbles on the bathroom walls of code.We start with this one, from Johann: