New suggestions

[Hanneli Tavante]

Hello guys!
Based on recent works with EJB and JSF, I'd like to suggest these annotations:

@IFeelBad( reason="Error log is too big")
For bad moments of life, when we are programming thinking about something sad (like when Glassfish log shows lots of problems)

@Workaround
Indicates that the programmer found alternative solutions for the problem.

@Quest(Level.High, dungeon="room 43")
Programming sometimes is a challenge, and there are moments that we must see it as a Quest, like WOW quests.
Levels: VeryLow, Low, Medium, Intermediate, High, Advanced

@CantBelieveItWorks
Sometimes you see some weird (REALLY weird) code that you can't even understand what is it for. You just know it works.

Hope some of these suggestions above become useful!! =)

--
Hanneli Carolina Andreazzi Tavante
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unifei - Universidade Federal de Itajubá
7º Período - Engenharia da Computação
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[bloomofyouth]

@WhatWasIThinking(dateWritten='dateWritten',
dateReviewed='dateYouSawCode')
an annotation for code that made sense when writen but on retrospect u
wonder what u were doing.

[Jörn Zaefferer]

Oh, then we also need:

@WhatWereTheyThinking

Jörn

--
To unsubscribe, reply using "remove me" as the subject.

[Leo Deegan]

Hey all - great discussion. I'll have more time next week when I'm back from travel; I don't mean to be unresponsive.

--Leo

[zaniyah]

On 15/04/10 15:34,, Leo Deegan wrote:
> Hey all - great discussion. I'll have more time next week when I'm back from
> travel; I don't mean to be unresponsive.
>

I thought being unresponsive was the whole point of going on holiday? I
know I intend to be unresponsive if I'm on leave!

Z.

[Leo Deegan]

:P

--

[Jörn Zaefferer]

In addition to @WhatWereTheyThinking -> @WhatIsWrongWithThesePeople

Though in this case it may make sense to stray from the stupid camel case conection: @What_is_wrong_with_these_people

Too bad we can't put question marks in there.

Jörn

[zaniyah]

Do we not already have @OMG ? I know we have @WTF.

[Leo Deegan]

Yeah, @OMG was voted off at launch--the principal we were trying to adhere to was to not have too much overlap in utility. We felt that part of what made it funny as a joke was not telling the same joke twice (e.g., having an @OMG when we already had a @WTF). But if we vote for an @OMG, we can certainly add it. Oh, incidentally, I was thinking it would be a good idea to have a way to vote for new inclusions to the gallery. Perhaps we can keep a high quality gallery by a democratic process--the more popular annotations get included. We can discuss that at length if you like this idea.

[zaniyah]

On 15/04/10 16:00,, Leo Deegan wrote:
> Yeah, @OMG was voted off at launch--the principal we were trying to adhere
> to was to not have too much overlap in utility. We felt that part of what
> made it funny as a joke was not telling the same joke twice (e.g., having an
> @OMG when we already had a @WTF). But if we vote for an @OMG, we can
> certainly add it. Oh, incidentally, I was thinking it would be a good idea
> to have a way to vote for new inclusions to the gallery. Perhaps we can keep
> a high quality gallery by a democratic process--the more popular annotations
> get included. We can discuss that at length if you like this idea.
>

Is there some way to allow people to vote for or rate things in the
gallery that we could implement? This might be a good idea with all
these suggestions!

Z.

[Jörn Zaefferer]

I was thinking of the way the Angry Video Game Nerd reviews video games. There's a lot of overlap in his curses, but thats part of what makes it funny.

I don't think we need more then one annotation to mark something as a sonnect, but I'd like to have a range of annotations available for expressing feelings between surprise and hate, when reviewing code. I see a use for @OMG @WTF @BBQ

Jörn

[zaniyah]

On 15/04/10 16:00,, Leo Deegan wrote:

> Yeah, @OMG was voted off at launch--the principal we were trying to adhere
> to was to not have too much overlap in utility. We felt that part of what
> made it funny as a joke was not telling the same joke twice (e.g., having an
> @OMG when we already had a @WTF). But if we vote for an @OMG, we can
> certainly add it.

<snip>

I always thought that OMG conveyed intense shock, whereas WTF conveyed
extreme confusion, although both convey also a sense of horror, but
perhaps that is just me? I don't think that there would be a
duplication to have both.

Z.

[zaniyah]

I do feel ignorant now - what's BBQ in this context?

[Jörn Zaefferer]

I have no idea except that its chainable onto omgwtf, resulting in omgwtfbbq.

[Leo Deegan]

Hey all -

I got back and have been swamped near-term, but I'm around. So here's an app that we can use for polling if we care to do some voting on proposals (maybe one entry per annotation proposal): http://moderator.appspot.com/. It allows us to up/down vote on each entry (although I haven't played with it enough to know whether people can provide . What do you think? I set up a new series; see if you can see it at http://www.google.com/moderator/#16/e=6760

Re @OMG. I agree that it has a different meaning to @WTF, and I'd personally upvote @OMG. I might not have explained its exclusion quite so well; I meant to say that, as a category of joke, @WTF and @LOL seemed sufficient for first release. And, as a separate topic not necessarily related to @OMG in particular, we were generally trying to avoid annotations that were too similar in nature. For example, if considering Hanneli's good suggestion of @CantBelieveItWorks, we'd argue that @Magic sort of covers that intent. Of course, voting is a great way to decide.

Anyway, if the above moderator topic is accessible and seems like a good idea, then maybe we can discuss ideas here in this Google Group and then do a vote in the moderator series.

[vindoq]

Good work first, I like this project and I really believe some of this annotation might be helpful in a project.

I currently work on 3 long term project that were handed down to me, and I'm often debugging code that was not mine.

And sometimes, there those weird part of the code that you don't know what it is here for. I don't even know if it is bad (it looks like), or even used, or incomplete, it's ...?-yish

Sometimes, it's just a : a.b=e.g()... maybe it's right, but...

So, here are some though I have while reading them, that can be turned into annotation :

 => need more documentation :

@WhatTheFuckAmIReading

@WhyWouldYouDoThat

differ from @WhatWereTheyThinking or @WhatIsWrongWithThesePeople cause you don't know exactly if this code should be modified.

 => need review :

@IsItEvenUsed

@WhatAreYouTryingToDoHere 

@WeNeedToTalk (or an  WeNeedToTalk / TTYL option on others annotations)