[mailed and posted]
Back in October of 2000, I posted an article here in which I said:
Peter Scott asked:
>I consulted my File of Good Advice on this one, and it said:
>#11907 Looking for a compiler bug is the strategy of LAST resort. LAST resort.
>(No, I didn't just make this up; I really do have such a file and it
>really does say that.)
>Can we see the other entries? And I replied:
>I've been including them in my article headers for a while now. Sometime afterwards, I stopped including random good advice in my
article headers, because some of it is rather abrasive, and I didn't
want people to take it the wrong way.
So here at last is my file of Good Advice. Caution: This file
contains an unusually high incidence of naughty words. Stop reading
now if you are offended by any of the words 'fuck', 'fucking', 'crap',
'shit', or 'asshole'. Oops, sorry.
#11900 You cannot just paste code with no understanding of what is going on and expect it to work.
#11901 You can't just make shit up and expect the computer to know what you mean, Retardo!
#11902 You said it didn't work, but you didn't say what it would have done if it *had* worked.
#11903 What are you really trying to accomplish here?
#11904 Who the fuck cares which one is faster?
#11905 Now is the time in our program where you look at the manual.
#11906 Look at the error message! Look at the error message!
#11907 Looking for a compiler bug is the strategy of LAST resort. LAST resort.
#11908 Premature optimization is the root of all evil.
#11909 Bad programmer! No cookie!
#11910 I see you omitted $! from the error message. It won't tell you what went wrong if you don't ask it to.
#11911 You wrote the same thing twice here. The cardinal rule of programming is that you never ever write the same thing twice.
#11912 Evidently it's important to you to get the wrong answer as quickly as possible.
#11913 Gee, I don't know. I wonder what the manual says about that?
#11914 Well, no duh. That's because you ignored the error message, dimwit.
#11915 Only Sherlock Holmes can debug the program by pure deduction from the output. You are not Sherlock Holmes. Run the fucking debugger already.
#11916 Always ignore the second error message unless the meaning is obvious.
#11917 Read. Learn. Evolve.
#11918 Well, then get one that *does* do auto-indent. You can't do good work with bad tools.
#11919 No. You must believe the ERROR MESSAGE. You MUST believe the error message.
#11920 The error message is the Truth. The error message is God.
#11921 It could be anything. Too bad you didn't bother to diagnose the error, huh?
#11922 You don't suppress error messages, you dumbass, you PAY ATTENTION and try to understand them.
#11923 Never catch a signal except as a last resort.
#11924 Well, if you don't know what it does, why did you put it in your program?
#11925 Gosh, that wasn't very bright, was it?
#11926 That's like taking a crap on someone's doorstep and then ringing the doorbell to ask for toilet paper.
#11927 A good approach to that problem would be to hire a computer programmer.
#11928 First get a book on programming. Then read it. Then write the program.
#11929 First ask yourself `How would I do this without a computer?' Then have the computer do it the same way.
#11930 Would you like to see my rate card?
#11931 I think you are asking the wrong question here.
#11932 Holy cow.
#11933 Because it's a syntax error.
#11934 Because this is Perl, not C.
#11935 Because this is Perl, not Lisp.
#11936 Because that's the way it is.
#11938 If you have `some weird error', the problem is probably with your frobnitzer.
#11939 Because the computer cannot read your mind. Guess what? I cannot read your mind *either*.
#11940 You said `It doesn't work'. The next violation will be punished by death.
#11941 Of course it doesn't work! That's because you don't know what you are doing!
#11942 Sure, but you have to have some understanding also.
#11943 Ah yes, and you are the first person to have noticed this bug since 1987. Sure.
#11944 Yes, that's what it's supposed to do when you say that.
#11945 Well, what did you expect?
#11946 Perhaps you have forgotten that this is an engineering discipline, not some sort of black magic.
#11947 You know, this sort of thing is amenable to experimental observation.
#11948 Perhaps your veeblefitzer is clogged.
#11949 What happens when you try?
#11950 Now you are just being superstitious.
#11951 Your question has exceeded the system limit for pronouns in a single sentence. Please dereference and try again.
#11952 In my experience that is a bad strategy, because the people who ask such questions are the ones who paste the answer into their program without understanding it and then complain that it `does not work'.
#11953 Of course, this is a heuristic, which is a fancy way of saying that it doesn't work.
#11954 If your function is written correctly, it will handle an empty array the same way as a nonempty array.
#11955 When in doubt, use brute force.
#11956 Well, it might be more intuitive that way, but it would also be useless.
#11957 Show the code.
#11958 The bug is in you, not in Perl.
#11960 So you threw in some random punctuation for no particular reason, and then you didn't get the result you expected. Hmmmm.
#11961 How should I know what is wrong when I haven't even seen the code? I am not clairvoyant.
#11962 How should I know how to do what you want when you didn't say what you wanted to do?
#11963 It's easy to get the *wrong* answer in O(1) time.
#11964 I guess this just goes to show that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink it.
#11999 You are a stupid asshole. Shut the fuck up.
Maybe sometime later I will post annotations for the more cryptic ones
explaining their intended application. For example, it may not be
obvious that you use #11943 when a person appears in the newsgroup
with the complaint that the Perl 'if' statement does not work.
Mark Jason Dominus m...@plover.com
Philadelphia Excursions Mailing List: http://www.plover.com/~mjd/excursions/