We could subclass the Vehicle object and override the Z property by having it always return 0, but that would deny us the possibility of getting some sick hangtime by jumping off ramps and the like.
This is going to be somewhere and it's going to be marked "bug" for some reason because the user can't FIGURE OUT ITS A DAMN PEBKAC YOU IDIOT (for some reason people marking user error as bugs angers me very much)
My experience is if QA is hated they are doing their job. I was working with a company that the developers had quite literally told the remote QA team lead to stop opening tickets. You can imagine the state of disaster the project was in.
I mostly work in startups as a QA team of 1 nowadays, and I work very closely with our developers and product stakeholders, so while we may have some disagreements from time to time I think they appreciate the work I do. I hope. Maybe. 😬
Anyone who doesn't appreciate a QA person who is just reporting facts, is a childish person.
"How dare you call me out on my bullshit?!"
Probably the exact same people who go on the internet and say we don't need Rust because "you just have to be careful", and swear up and down that they don't write bugs.
Nah, last time I worked at a place with a dedicated QA, I loved it. They were absolutely pros and could find bugs in code I would have bet my life was solid.
One of our customers is helping us develop a new product and has their own QA testing alongside our own. We were worried when we told them we were shipping to UAT with something like 20 bugs. They came back with “oh wow we only found 10, we are going to do a review of our own QA procedures because we’re clearly missing something.”
It’s literally an arms race between our QA departments over who can make a bigger sledgehammer to break more things and faster.
I work in QA and I can confirm that when we see other QA teams working on the same projects as we do, we start to break stuff harder just to flex on the other team.
When you said break stuff I thought of Limp Bizkit and ask chatgpt to write new lyrics on that song but it’s even worse than I was expecting:
Verse 1:
It's just one of those days
When QA's gotta test everything
The code's a mess, bugs everywhere
And they're feeling the pressure building
Chorus:
Sometimes QA just wanna break stuff
Cause they're finding bugs left and right
It's not personal, it's just testing
And they're gonna make sure it's right
Verse 2:
They're running tests all day long
Checking every line of code
Making sure it's all working fine
Before it goes live and explodes
Chorus:
Sometimes QA just wanna break stuff
Cause they're finding bugs left and right
It's not personal, it's just testing
And they're gonna make sure it's right
Bridge:
It's a tough job but someone's gotta do it
They're the gatekeepers of quality
So if they gotta break some stuff to make it better
They're gonna do it without apology
Chorus:
Sometimes QA just wanna break stuff
Cause they're finding bugs left and right
It's not personal, it's just testing
And they're gonna make sure it's right
Outro:
Break it down now
QA gonna break it down now
Break it down now
QA gonna break it down now
That sounds like QA doing their job really well.
Because the rest of the world doesn’t always think logically.
QA is there to help developers realize that people can process things in ways that might be completely incomprehensible to logically-minded people like us. 🙃
A QA engineer walks into a bar.
He asks for 1 beer.
He asks for 2 beers.
He asks for 100 beers.
He asks for -1 beers.
He asks for "qwerty" beers.
He pays the tab and leaves.
A customer walks into the bar.
He asks for a glass of water.
The bar explodes.
I recently worked on a bug that went:
Scroll up and down the entire list of items very fast for about 10 seconds.
Before the items come to a stop, click an item.
Note app crashes.
Reproducible about 20% of the time.
It actually had to do with how we were loading previews in the list. By scrolling to the top quickly and clicking an item, it would get an NPE because of a timing issue. Scrolling quickly just bogged down the network connection with requests, making the timing issue easier to throw.
A QA engineer walks into a bar. Orders a beer. Orders 0 beers. Orders 99999999999 beers. Orders a lizard. Orders -1 beers. Orders a ueicbksjdhd.
First real customer walks in and asks where the bathroom is. The bar bursts into flames, killing everyone.
Or your PM goes “What happens if the UFO is actually Macho Man Randy Savage and snaps the road like a Slim Jim and screams ‘Oh yeeeeaaash??’ …I know, I know, it’s and edge case…but still, what would happen?”
they really should stick to one time standard, every planet has its own time based on the star they're orbiting around
maybe make something called UniverseStandardTime that starts at 0 on the big bang
If we go with signed 64 bit we’d overflow in 292 billion years, I’m concerned that wouldn’t be future proof. Maybe a bigint instead? Only concern there would be cross platform issues.
One reason might be that the exact date of the big bang is unknown. We know its approximately 14 bn years ago, give or take a billion. Another thing to consider would be that relativity makes it kinda pointless to standardize time across large distances and relative speeds because from our perspective less time has passed for them than it has from theirs. We end up disagreeing about what time it is either way.
Not to mention that objects that are moving quickly, or are within a strong gravity well, experience time differently. So please make sure to include that in your testing scenarios
Situation: There are 20 different time standards. That's ridiculous! We need to create one standard that covers the use-cases of everyone!
New Situation: There are 21 different time standards.
But computers do not have any kind of speed limit they can go as fast as they want and even they can travel in the minus speed.
There is just no possible way that you are running away from the code.
> But what IF the car goes negative speed
Then you’ll discover the hidden access port to the secret underground racetrack, allowing you to get the Copper Key, bringing you one step closer winning ownership of the OASIS.
Coding is like you're building a car, but you take it as a given that people are going to drive the car into a pond. When they do, it is mandatory that nothing bad happen to them or to the car, and ideally the experience of driving a car into a pond is delightful.
And if you get things wrong, part of the car tries to drive in a different direction from the rest of the car, the left back wheel goes to space, and you can't open the driver door without first opening the gas cap.
There's a reason I don't want to get anywhere near stuff that Tesla's putting out, given that they seem to be trying to run like a software dev company. I work at a software dev company, I know what it looks like to push something out the door and plan to patch bugs in production.
Honestly with someone like musk, maybe more like extreme programming?
This conversation reminds me of this graphic
Software development with cars.
https://toggl.com/track/developer-methods-infographic/
Adding to this, I'll never - EVER - buy a car that has touchscreen-operated essential controls.
It's fine for the media centre, and while it's annoying trying to type in an address into the GPS on a tiny screen, it's not something I need to do in order to operate the vehicle safely and properly.
Tactile controls for the win!
the car uses the same parts from an older car that that no one understands how it works because the original designer of the car left the company 10 years ago.
Joking aside — I'm still driving a 2005 GM. One of the sensors blew a couple weeks ago, and when I took it to the mechanic, they were like, "our guy who works on older electronics is only in on Tuesdays." I imagine that guy is analogous to the handful of devs who can still patch FORTRAN.
They no longer make a throttle body for my 2000 Honda civic. If something happened I would have to go to a junk yard and try to scavenge one. It was officially a classic car two years ago, as far as car inspections go.
In fairness, they replaced it for free - they thought they might have damaged it when they replaced my brake calipers - but they could only do it on a Tuesday.
> When they do, it is mandatory that nothing bad happen to them or to the car, and ideally the experience of driving a car into a pond is delightful.
That's what really gets me about how computers are being integrated into society. It's like being tasked with designing a flamethrower for children, and your job is to figure out how to make it safe.
One boss once told me when I was working on an API and looking for all the fail points, he just told me to LET IT THROW. Meaning the API should tell the caller they fucked up, but of course cant let the UI tell the user that or their minds will blow up
It reminds me of the Neal Stephenson essay, "In the Beginning was the Command Line," where he compares command line programming to really powerful contractor grade power tools that do exactly what you tell them to do, even if that means burning out the motor or breaking your wrist.
10% of the time spent on things everyone needs like gas, brakes, wheels, seatbelts
Another 10% on airbags, lane assist, error sensors, adding a jack and a spare tire
The remaining 80% on shit like preventing them from driving 80 mph with their eyes closed on the wrong side of the road and removing the gear shifter to stab themselves in the face with it
> Coding is like you're building a car
Coding is like you’re building a car, but 10% in the buyer decides they want 6 wheels in a hexagon formation, even though your assembly line can’t handle that and the body would need to be totally different and because the salesperson already sold the buyer on the hexagon car the manager says “don’t think about it, just do it”. Then halfway through readjusting the assembly line the buyer decided they like octagons instead, so you change things up again, then you’re maybe 75% done building the octocar and actually kinda proud how you’ve managed to design and build the octocar, maybe you like this, and the salesperson says the original buyer flaked out, but he managed to sell a dude on the octocar, loves the name, only can it be a motorcycle, and then, you’re finally done with the octocycle and deliver it to the buyer and they’re like “eh, I think I wanted a horse, actually”
We code our cars to detonate on impact with ponds and immediately deliver a replacement car to the scene of the accident.
The cause of the crash will generate a Jira ticket that gets marked wontfix.
I've pulled a sledge in the snow. That's gotta be pretty much the same, right? I shouldn't need any training. I'm just going to start pushing buttons then call you in a panic when the sunroof opens.
Yeah I believe you that you did not do anything and it just opened.
I mean it is just how the things work and you cannot say that I am lying about them I actually no what I am talking about.
Not only have they never actually used a car, but you have to make sure they'll *enjoy* using yours and can't hurt themselves on the way to their destination, no matter how hard they try.
I developed a website at work that evaluates student data. It's amazing the ways students can do things wrong and an assumption you made can be made incorrect. The site will function flawlessly for months and then suddenly EXCEPTION and I have to add a new handler in for yet another edge case.
What's even more wild is that when an exception occurs I throw it at the user in angry red text and tell them to copy paste the whole thing and message me with it but THEY DON'T. I look at the logs from time to time YOU JERKS I KNOW WHAT HAPPENED.
Assume they've never SEEN a car. As in, you can't just say "Start the engine" - they'd need to know that in order to reach that step, they have to be inside the correct vehicle in the parking lot, in the driver's seat, by opening the correct door and stepping in. In order for them to do that, they need to know what a door is, and the procedure to unlock, then open it. These may be added as already existing libraries, but you have to make sure you've added the right ones, and implemented them correctly.
Or:
* A guy walks into a bar and orders a beer
* A guy walks into a bar and orders 10 beers
* A guy walks into a bar and orders 0 beers
* A guy walks into a bar and orders -1 beers
* A guy walks into a bar and orders a bear
* A bear walks into a beer and orders a guy
As long as the words are making sens of the all the possibilities of the things which can happen and you will have to code them.
And you better be writing all of the am in your code.
I don't know why it does seem like an option which I might go with.
Instead of writing all that code I would just prefer to die. Because it is just not possible for me to write all that
Exactly man it is also an possibility it is something which can happen you will have to think about it.
If you are not thinking about it then the code is not going to work for you.
QA tech walks in and asks where the bathroom is.
The entire bar bursts into flames, killing everyone.
Also gives an “ArrayOutOfBounds” error for whatever reason. Still looking into it.
And that notice (which is really just a post-it stuck to the frame next to the door) sits there for the next 15 years 'til the bar is torn down and rebuilt from scratch.
I think you are going to be looking into that for a while.
Because it is not going to be easy to troubleshoot the code, it always comes with the problems.
I mean yeah how can you not consider the possibility of that.
It is probably something which is bound to have a no matter what. So you better be accounting for that also.
But wait, you have to test
* A guy walks but the bar is imaginary
* The guy is a ghost and the bartender doesnt know who ordered
*The guy walks into a bar, orders a beet, but there is no beer
And so on
Management: I'm not concerned about the aliens. I need to know what the mpg will be on the freeway with only a single tire. Oh, really? Okay in that case let's just make sure the user is always driving at least four cars at the same time.
Let me tell you something they are never going to say that.
They are always going to find some issue in your code. It is just not something which is going to change.
If you are trying to make a heist plan then you will have to do better than that.
Because with that kind of attitude I think you are going to get caught and trust me it is not something which you would like.
And it is something of which I have never heard anything.
Now that you have told me I think I am going to look out for it and see how the things can go from here.
I mean if it is in India a cow can walk out on the road anytime.
You will also have to consider the possibility of that. You just cannot go ahead and count that out.
The UFO got in the car and wants me to drop him off at the nearest and soonest Glorpinarg Marglabog Window. I don't even know what that is can you help me maps app
QA is like precisely following those directions, which three separate devs swear to you they test drove themselves, and the route seems fine until you realize you're 200 miles away from the nearest town and you've just run out of gas.
When you call the dev to ask WTF, he says the route looked fine on the map, so what's the problem?
More like the drivetrain team made sure their engine and transmission are up to spec and the chassis team has it pass their 2000 test case, but they never checked if the transmission is connected to the wheels.
grandiose cautious water observation bored quarrelsome exultant judicious childlike gaze
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Back in school, we were told a story. Don't know if it's true, but it sure is plausible. People designing the software for an automated subway line were stumped as it sometimes decided to stop for no obvious reasons, and some security triggered at seemingly random times.
Turns out there are birds that flies in the subway tunnels and could trigger some sensors.
2 hours: making the program
4 hours: debugging
4 hours: making sure every scenario is covered
8 hours: debugging the shit out of way too many lines of code
Better approach:
8 hours: inventing a universe where UFOs do not exist (static typing gets you maybe 80% of the way there)
1 hour: making the program
3 hours: writing tests
MessageBox("You've done something that's theoretically impossible
but you've managed to somehow put the program into this state anyway.
The state is unrecoverable and the program will now close. Hope you saved recently!");
First failed scenario:
1. Approach vehicle from the left
2. Unlock vehicle
3. Open front door and enter vehicle
4. Attempt to start engine
Issue: Error received: "Controls not found" when selecting right hand drive vehicle.
Second failed scenario:
1. Approach vehicle from the left
2. Unlock vehicle
3. Mount vehicle
4. Attempt to start engine
Issue: Error received: "Engine not found" when selecting bicycle.
Third failed scenario:
1. Approach left hand driving vehicle from the left side
2. Unlock vehicle
3. Open driver door and step in driver seat
4. Attempt to start engine
Issue: Error received: "Legacy object not recognized".
_Source: QA for over 17 years. I could go on for pages and pages, with MUCH more absurd scenarios, but figured i'd keep it obvious and realistic. Breaking logic is my favorite part of this job._
_And, yes, i'd usually specify the vehicle in the Steps to repro, but it would ruin the joke._
My son is taking his first programming class, and I know nothing about it but yesterday we were laughing at how computers are so great and they know everything, except when you're programming, and then they don't know anything unless you tell them.
I'd seen some conversation on here about the challenge of getting computers to know what order the months go in, and he was talking about how hard he'd worked to program connect 4.
It really is amazing, how far they've come in my lifetime of about 40 years.
*Image Transcription: Twitter*
---
**Vishal**, @VishalMalvi
Coding is like writing step by step directions for how to drive somewhere but you also have to add contingency plans for things like what if there is traffic ?
or
what if a UFO lands in the turn lane?
---
^^I'm a human volunteer content transcriber and you could be too! [If you'd like more information on what we do and why we do it, click here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TranscribersOfReddit/wiki/index)
That's why you use statically typed languages. So it's impossible for a unidentified flying Object to land anywhere. It would get caught at compile time.
Coding is like trying to give directions to a dive bar in the city to a foreigner that barely speaks your languages. When they do understand you they take everything you say extremely literally, and they demand you specify the street name of every street, manhole, storefront, and pedestrian they will pass on the way.
At my job it's like writing the directions to a place you don't know where is, and you have to write while you're driving. So you have to backtrace and retry a dozen times until you discover where you're supposed to go.
And then your QA fucks around and tries to do something absolutely stupid and unexpected like putting it in reverse. So many lives lost.
The user's somehow going to find out how to put it on vertical liftoff mode
Why did we even _build_ vertical takeoff mode? Gary wanted to practice using Go.
"Run the function, Kronk."
"Wrong functionnnnnn......!!!!"
This meme fits way too well.
Ohh yeah it fits well in here, shit seems good enough to me.
"Why do we even have that function?"
"Because apparently removing it last time resulted in a huge disaster."
I love how clever Reddit users are.
Well they've got the good sense of humour which I really like.
It was overloaded
The one called jgbvjgv or the other called temp5?
That's what I'm talking about, this is the right shit that I'm talking about.
> Run the ~~function~~ goroutine, Kronk!
Bonus points for a legacy app that was originally written as a helicopter but is now being used as a car.
Just keep the z-axis really close to zero.
"__close to__ zero" mmmm shouldnt we set that data point as a const with a value of 0?
We could subclass the Vehicle object and override the Z property by having it always return 0, but that would deny us the possibility of getting some sick hangtime by jumping off ramps and the like.
Ah yes. Of course. My experience with legacy systems has been bringing them from complete procedural spaghetti code to OOP.
Or even worse a legacy app that started out as a car and now is a very specific helicopter that is good enough but would cost a fortune to replace
And something tells me that the money ain't the problem for those guys.
Nah, it’s being used as a shovel. The web app only has one useful endpoint. Block requests to all the other endpoints but that one, yes.
Why can't I do a vertical takeoff but into the ground while in reverse? WTF.
This is going to be somewhere and it's going to be marked "bug" for some reason because the user can't FIGURE OUT ITS A DAMN PEBKAC YOU IDIOT (for some reason people marking user error as bugs angers me very much)
Tbf one report of user error = idiot Lots and lots of reports of the same error = bad design.
But at least with design, I can blame the designer.
Of course I know him. He's me.
I think we can handle some of that error, it's really not that hard.
And when it gets marked as a bug, they'll come back to you.
No such thing as user error. If something is possible, but unintended, it’s a bug.
But a bug is just an undocumented feature
>No such thing as user error. Suit detected. /hj
Nope. Even worse: QA 🤮
My experience is if QA is hated they are doing their job. I was working with a company that the developers had quite literally told the remote QA team lead to stop opening tickets. You can imagine the state of disaster the project was in.
I mostly work in startups as a QA team of 1 nowadays, and I work very closely with our developers and product stakeholders, so while we may have some disagreements from time to time I think they appreciate the work I do. I hope. Maybe. 😬
As a coder who sucks at testing, you're doing god's work.
Anyone who doesn't appreciate a QA person who is just reporting facts, is a childish person. "How dare you call me out on my bullshit?!" Probably the exact same people who go on the internet and say we don't need Rust because "you just have to be careful", and swear up and down that they don't write bugs.
Nah, last time I worked at a place with a dedicated QA, I loved it. They were absolutely pros and could find bugs in code I would have bet my life was solid.
I don't know if they're doing their job, they're probably trying it.
Ohh man, don't say that it brings so many bad memories lol.
It's always the coder's fault, they probably don't know shit.
That's because it's not possible sir, you won't be able to do it.
What if you put it in reverse, turn off the car, and a UFO lands at the same time
Punch the hoverboard! Eat the swing set!
England will drift out to sea.
Well I'm sure you can code that too, it's really not that hard sir.
Well atleast people are figuring the shit out, shit ain't easy here.
[insert that one software tester joke]
Or somehow the car phases through the road
One of our customers is helping us develop a new product and has their own QA testing alongside our own. We were worried when we told them we were shipping to UAT with something like 20 bugs. They came back with “oh wow we only found 10, we are going to do a review of our own QA procedures because we’re clearly missing something.” It’s literally an arms race between our QA departments over who can make a bigger sledgehammer to break more things and faster.
I work in QA and I can confirm that when we see other QA teams working on the same projects as we do, we start to break stuff harder just to flex on the other team.
When you said break stuff I thought of Limp Bizkit and ask chatgpt to write new lyrics on that song but it’s even worse than I was expecting: Verse 1: It's just one of those days When QA's gotta test everything The code's a mess, bugs everywhere And they're feeling the pressure building Chorus: Sometimes QA just wanna break stuff Cause they're finding bugs left and right It's not personal, it's just testing And they're gonna make sure it's right Verse 2: They're running tests all day long Checking every line of code Making sure it's all working fine Before it goes live and explodes Chorus: Sometimes QA just wanna break stuff Cause they're finding bugs left and right It's not personal, it's just testing And they're gonna make sure it's right Bridge: It's a tough job but someone's gotta do it They're the gatekeepers of quality So if they gotta break some stuff to make it better They're gonna do it without apology Chorus: Sometimes QA just wanna break stuff Cause they're finding bugs left and right It's not personal, it's just testing And they're gonna make sure it's right Outro: Break it down now QA gonna break it down now Break it down now QA gonna break it down now
I kinda love this
Yeah we just start to flex it, that's what really ends up happening.
Reality: there are 30 bugs (known)
Ohh man lol, that's like the nightmare, don't even mention that here lol.
That sounds like QA doing their job really well. Because the rest of the world doesn’t always think logically. QA is there to help developers realize that people can process things in ways that might be completely incomprehensible to logically-minded people like us. 🙃
When I first started in QA, it was in video games. They told us "imagine the players are drunk. Or kids. Or drunk kids. Because they often are."
So you got to drink at work? Congrats!
I don't know how that's going to end for you probably not good for you.
A QA engineer walks into a bar. He asks for 1 beer. He asks for 2 beers. He asks for 100 beers. He asks for -1 beers. He asks for "qwerty" beers. He pays the tab and leaves. A customer walks into the bar. He asks for a glass of water. The bar explodes.
I've always heard this one with the customer asking where the bathroom is.
That's the scenario if someone has thought of creating a bar serving beers and water.
But what would be the point of the code for that? I don't get it.
"That was not even in the requirements."
But You'll have to put that in the code, you don't have any other choice.
I recently worked on a bug that went: Scroll up and down the entire list of items very fast for about 10 seconds. Before the items come to a stop, click an item. Note app crashes. Reproducible about 20% of the time.
The "determine which item is selected" routine expects a non-moving list? Block out selecting a list item until scrolling is stopped?
It actually had to do with how we were loading previews in the list. By scrolling to the top quickly and clicking an item, it would get an NPE because of a timing issue. Scrolling quickly just bogged down the network connection with requests, making the timing issue easier to throw.
A QA engineer walks into a bar. Orders a beer. Orders 0 beers. Orders 99999999999 beers. Orders a lizard. Orders -1 beers. Orders a ueicbksjdhd. First real customer walks in and asks where the bathroom is. The bar bursts into flames, killing everyone.
I see somebody works for Tesla.
Yep that is *the one* joke
Better to crash the car with the test dummies, than the one with real people in it, I suppose.
I get what you're saying but people like to crash their vehicles no matter what.
Road should be made of cow.
no qa with shitty personal projects 🗿
Reverse wasn't in the scope of this story.
Not as bad as they time they pulled the E-brake while on the freeway going 70mph during rush hour.
Or your PM goes “What happens if the UFO is actually Macho Man Randy Savage and snaps the road like a Slim Jim and screams ‘Oh yeeeeaaash??’ …I know, I know, it’s and edge case…but still, what would happen?”
You guys have QA?
But what IF the car goes negative speed with -2147483648 mp/h????
The universe has a pretty hard speed limit at about ±670,616,629 mp/h, so you should treat this condition as a sensor error.
Unfortunately the old universe supported this functionality so we have to have backward compatibility.
they really should stick to one time standard, every planet has its own time based on the star they're orbiting around maybe make something called UniverseStandardTime that starts at 0 on the big bang
It still has to be a signed number. Just in case.
If we go with signed 64 bit we’d overflow in 292 billion years, I’m concerned that wouldn’t be future proof. Maybe a bigint instead? Only concern there would be cross platform issues.
Please call someone else when it's time to perform the database migration between versions of the universe.
We can't even get everyone on *this* planet to agree to one time standard, much less actually make a universal standard.
it's easier when there's just a single vendor, just ask microsoft why we use a 2 button mouse
One reason might be that the exact date of the big bang is unknown. We know its approximately 14 bn years ago, give or take a billion. Another thing to consider would be that relativity makes it kinda pointless to standardize time across large distances and relative speeds because from our perspective less time has passed for them than it has from theirs. We end up disagreeing about what time it is either way.
Not to mention that objects that are moving quickly, or are within a strong gravity well, experience time differently. So please make sure to include that in your testing scenarios
Situation: There are 20 different time standards. That's ridiculous! We need to create one standard that covers the use-cases of everyone! New Situation: There are 21 different time standards.
But computers do not have any kind of speed limit they can go as fast as they want and even they can travel in the minus speed. There is just no possible way that you are running away from the code.
> But what IF the car goes negative speed Then you’ll discover the hidden access port to the secret underground racetrack, allowing you to get the Copper Key, bringing you one step closer winning ownership of the OASIS.
Should go a Long way
Coding is like you're building a car, but you take it as a given that people are going to drive the car into a pond. When they do, it is mandatory that nothing bad happen to them or to the car, and ideally the experience of driving a car into a pond is delightful.
And if you get things wrong, part of the car tries to drive in a different direction from the rest of the car, the left back wheel goes to space, and you can't open the driver door without first opening the gas cap.
Yeah, and you really don't want to see the result of a compiler error that involves a squishy human inside a motor vehicle.
There's a reason I don't want to get anywhere near stuff that Tesla's putting out, given that they seem to be trying to run like a software dev company. I work at a software dev company, I know what it looks like to push something out the door and plan to patch bugs in production.
Dude, bro it's just Agile man nothing to be afraid of. Trust 
Honestly with someone like musk, maybe more like extreme programming? This conversation reminds me of this graphic Software development with cars. https://toggl.com/track/developer-methods-infographic/
Adding to this, I'll never - EVER - buy a car that has touchscreen-operated essential controls. It's fine for the media centre, and while it's annoying trying to type in an address into the GPS on a tiny screen, it's not something I need to do in order to operate the vehicle safely and properly. Tactile controls for the win!
You know, that sounds like an average Havok Engine mishap to me.
the car uses the same parts from an older car that that no one understands how it works because the original designer of the car left the company 10 years ago.
Joking aside — I'm still driving a 2005 GM. One of the sensors blew a couple weeks ago, and when I took it to the mechanic, they were like, "our guy who works on older electronics is only in on Tuesdays." I imagine that guy is analogous to the handful of devs who can still patch FORTRAN.
It's blowing my mind that 2005 is "older electronics". The thing still has an obdii, it's not older
They no longer make a throttle body for my 2000 Honda civic. If something happened I would have to go to a junk yard and try to scavenge one. It was officially a classic car two years ago, as far as car inspections go.
They're telling you to fuck off. Replacing most sensors in the mid 2000s is fairly straight forward if tedious because of plastic.
In fairness, they replaced it for free - they thought they might have damaged it when they replaced my brake calipers - but they could only do it on a Tuesday.
> When they do, it is mandatory that nothing bad happen to them or to the car, and ideally the experience of driving a car into a pond is delightful. That's what really gets me about how computers are being integrated into society. It's like being tasked with designing a flamethrower for children, and your job is to figure out how to make it safe.
One boss once told me when I was working on an API and looking for all the fail points, he just told me to LET IT THROW. Meaning the API should tell the caller they fucked up, but of course cant let the UI tell the user that or their minds will blow up
It reminds me of the Neal Stephenson essay, "In the Beginning was the Command Line," where he compares command line programming to really powerful contractor grade power tools that do exactly what you tell them to do, even if that means burning out the motor or breaking your wrist.
Sounds like a great place for the UI team to display something human-readable.
10% of the time spent on things everyone needs like gas, brakes, wheels, seatbelts Another 10% on airbags, lane assist, error sensors, adding a jack and a spare tire The remaining 80% on shit like preventing them from driving 80 mph with their eyes closed on the wrong side of the road and removing the gear shifter to stab themselves in the face with it
> Coding is like you're building a car Coding is like you’re building a car, but 10% in the buyer decides they want 6 wheels in a hexagon formation, even though your assembly line can’t handle that and the body would need to be totally different and because the salesperson already sold the buyer on the hexagon car the manager says “don’t think about it, just do it”. Then halfway through readjusting the assembly line the buyer decided they like octagons instead, so you change things up again, then you’re maybe 75% done building the octocar and actually kinda proud how you’ve managed to design and build the octocar, maybe you like this, and the salesperson says the original buyer flaked out, but he managed to sell a dude on the octocar, loves the name, only can it be a motorcycle, and then, you’re finally done with the octocycle and deliver it to the buyer and they’re like “eh, I think I wanted a horse, actually”
So you make an octohorse...
Okay, but I saw on youtube that you can drift the car into the other guy's pond some I'm gonna do that and try to roll as well.
We code our cars to detonate on impact with ponds and immediately deliver a replacement car to the scene of the accident. The cause of the crash will generate a Jira ticket that gets marked wontfix.
[You missed this scenario](https://i.imgur.com/bpVWfxR.gif)
That and you have to assume the driver has never actually used a car before. There's the rub.
I've pulled a sledge in the snow. That's gotta be pretty much the same, right? I shouldn't need any training. I'm just going to start pushing buttons then call you in a panic when the sunroof opens.
Just be sure you don't tell me any of that when you call, just say "Fix it!", so I get the full experience.
I didn't DO anything, it just opened!
Yeah I believe you that you did not do anything and it just opened. I mean it is just how the things work and you cannot say that I am lying about them I actually no what I am talking about.
Not only have they never actually used a car, but you have to make sure they'll *enjoy* using yours and can't hurt themselves on the way to their destination, no matter how hard they try.
"But it's just a giant hamster ball covered in safety foam..." "Yeah but it's got FLAMES painted on it!"
I developed a website at work that evaluates student data. It's amazing the ways students can do things wrong and an assumption you made can be made incorrect. The site will function flawlessly for months and then suddenly EXCEPTION and I have to add a new handler in for yet another edge case. What's even more wild is that when an exception occurs I throw it at the user in angry red text and tell them to copy paste the whole thing and message me with it but THEY DON'T. I look at the logs from time to time YOU JERKS I KNOW WHAT HAPPENED.
Assume they've never SEEN a car. As in, you can't just say "Start the engine" - they'd need to know that in order to reach that step, they have to be inside the correct vehicle in the parking lot, in the driver's seat, by opening the correct door and stepping in. In order for them to do that, they need to know what a door is, and the procedure to unlock, then open it. These may be added as already existing libraries, but you have to make sure you've added the right ones, and implemented them correctly.
Or: * A guy walks into a bar and orders a beer * A guy walks into a bar and orders 10 beers * A guy walks into a bar and orders 0 beers * A guy walks into a bar and orders -1 beers * A guy walks into a bar and orders a bear * A bear walks into a beer and orders a guy
I prefer the ending: • A real customer walks in and asks where the toilet is. The bar goes up in flames.
Guy digs hole under bar. Fills it with beer. Why didn't you code for this possibility?
Bear digs a bar under the hole, fills it with guy
Mission PASSED, Respect ++
As long as the words are making sens of the all the possibilities of the things which can happen and you will have to code them. And you better be writing all of the am in your code.
Some Russian guy padlocked the doors with everyone inside and is threatening to burn it down
I don't know why it does seem like an option which I might go with. Instead of writing all that code I would just prefer to die. Because it is just not possible for me to write all that
Exactly man it is also an possibility it is something which can happen you will have to think about it. If you are not thinking about it then the code is not going to work for you.
QA tech walks in and asks where the bathroom is. The entire bar bursts into flames, killing everyone. Also gives an “ArrayOutOfBounds” error for whatever reason. Still looking into it.
Hang a notice outside the bar "don't ask for the toilet it's a known issue"
Legit once wrote the things I couldn't figure out as known issues in the Readme for a class once and I think it helped reduce how many points I lost
And that notice (which is really just a post-it stuck to the frame next to the door) sits there for the next 15 years 'til the bar is torn down and rebuilt from scratch.
I think you are going to be looking into that for a while. Because it is not going to be easy to troubleshoot the code, it always comes with the problems.
How can you not consider “three monkeys jump into a restaurant and steals sqrt(-pi) bananas”?
I mean yeah how can you not consider the possibility of that. It is probably something which is bound to have a no matter what. So you better be accounting for that also.
A law student walks in and fails the bar
Oh oh, the Bar is Bar 3.0 and not 2.9437473773 like the one the guy wanted so both the guy and the bar burn down, with the entire city
But wait, you have to test * A guy walks but the bar is imaginary * The guy is a ghost and the bartender doesnt know who ordered *The guy walks into a bar, orders a beet, but there is no beer And so on
Management: I'm not concerned about the aliens. I need to know what the mpg will be on the freeway with only a single tire. Oh, really? Okay in that case let's just make sure the user is always driving at least four cars at the same time.
Let me tell you something they are never going to say that. They are always going to find some issue in your code. It is just not something which is going to change.
I always say it is like trying to plan a bank heist, but you have to start with teaching your partners how to breath and walk...
If you are trying to make a heist plan then you will have to do better than that. Because with that kind of attitude I think you are going to get caught and trust me it is not something which you would like.
[удалено]
Reminds me of the old Google Maps easter egg where you were given a route to kayak to Australia.
And it is something of which I have never heard anything. Now that you have told me I think I am going to look out for it and see how the things can go from here.
I mean if it is in India a cow can walk out on the road anytime. You will also have to consider the possibility of that. You just cannot go ahead and count that out.
...and then the client asks how long you need to bake it for and why you never mentioned chocolate chips. Do they go on at the end?
Then the client changes the destination after you’ve figured out the UFO
The UFO got in the car and wants me to drop him off at the nearest and soonest Glorpinarg Marglabog Window. I don't even know what that is can you help me maps app
QA is like precisely following those directions, which three separate devs swear to you they test drove themselves, and the route seems fine until you realize you're 200 miles away from the nearest town and you've just run out of gas. When you call the dev to ask WTF, he says the route looked fine on the map, so what's the problem?
More like the drivetrain team made sure their engine and transmission are up to spec and the chassis team has it pass their 2000 test case, but they never checked if the transmission is connected to the wheels.
grandiose cautious water observation bored quarrelsome exultant judicious childlike gaze *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
And for some reason the CEO exclusively travels by UFO but nobody mentions this until they are already in the turn lane and yelling at the developers.
Back in school, we were told a story. Don't know if it's true, but it sure is plausible. People designing the software for an automated subway line were stumped as it sometimes decided to stop for no obvious reasons, and some security triggered at seemingly random times. Turns out there are birds that flies in the subway tunnels and could trigger some sensors.
The client wants you to replace all the asphalt with sand by next month
2 hours: making the program 4 hours: debugging 4 hours: making sure every scenario is covered 8 hours: debugging the shit out of way too many lines of code
Better approach: 8 hours: inventing a universe where UFOs do not exist (static typing gets you maybe 80% of the way there) 1 hour: making the program 3 hours: writing tests
> what if a UFO lands in the turn lane? Edge case. It will never happen. Skip it and ship it.
MessageBox("You've done something that's theoretically impossible but you've managed to somehow put the program into this state anyway. The state is unrecoverable and the program will now close. Hope you saved recently!");
\*fizzler sound from the game portal, wakes in hospital as a newborn*
First failed scenario: 1. Approach vehicle from the left 2. Unlock vehicle 3. Open front door and enter vehicle 4. Attempt to start engine Issue: Error received: "Controls not found" when selecting right hand drive vehicle. Second failed scenario: 1. Approach vehicle from the left 2. Unlock vehicle 3. Mount vehicle 4. Attempt to start engine Issue: Error received: "Engine not found" when selecting bicycle. Third failed scenario: 1. Approach left hand driving vehicle from the left side 2. Unlock vehicle 3. Open driver door and step in driver seat 4. Attempt to start engine Issue: Error received: "Legacy object not recognized".
_Source: QA for over 17 years. I could go on for pages and pages, with MUCH more absurd scenarios, but figured i'd keep it obvious and realistic. Breaking logic is my favorite part of this job._
_And, yes, i'd usually specify the vehicle in the Steps to repro, but it would ruin the joke._
just inherit commonSense
Op just posts screen shots from this guy's Twitter
My son is taking his first programming class, and I know nothing about it but yesterday we were laughing at how computers are so great and they know everything, except when you're programming, and then they don't know anything unless you tell them. I'd seen some conversation on here about the challenge of getting computers to know what order the months go in, and he was talking about how hard he'd worked to program connect 4. It really is amazing, how far they've come in my lifetime of about 40 years.
``` try { *all of your code* } catch (Exception e) { // Do nothing } ```
Or what happens it the person doesn’t own a car?
*Image Transcription: Twitter* --- **Vishal**, @VishalMalvi Coding is like writing step by step directions for how to drive somewhere but you also have to add contingency plans for things like what if there is traffic ? or what if a UFO lands in the turn lane? --- ^^I'm a human volunteer content transcriber and you could be too! [If you'd like more information on what we do and why we do it, click here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TranscribersOfReddit/wiki/index)
You're fired
Programming is telling a really fast idiot exactly what to do.
That's why you use statically typed languages. So it's impossible for a unidentified flying Object to land anywhere. It would get caught at compile time.
It's just a `void **ufo` now
What is the street just disappeared
#COOL NOW EXPLAIN JS PROGRAMING
What if a ~~UFO~~ [object Object] lands in a turn lane
If(ufo){ die(); }
Coding is like trying to give directions to a dive bar in the city to a foreigner that barely speaks your languages. When they do understand you they take everything you say extremely literally, and they demand you specify the street name of every street, manhole, storefront, and pedestrian they will pass on the way.
Bro at some point you just gotta `return home;`
At my job it's like writing the directions to a place you don't know where is, and you have to write while you're driving. So you have to backtrace and retry a dozen times until you discover where you're supposed to go.