Denial: The First Stage Of Debugging

Content No text found in image

Scientists: "Let's methodically figure out why this works." Programmers: "NOBODY MOVE! DON'T TOUCH ANYTHING! It's working through some arcane digital sorcery that will instantly vanish if we dare question it!" The difference is clear. Scientists seek understanding. Programmers worship at the altar of "it works on my machine" and treat working code like a house of cards built by a ghost. The number of production systems running on unexplainable fixes and accidental solutions would terrify the general public.

Ah, the apocalyptic quartet of syntax that makes developers question their career choices! Double equals comparing to true is like wearing socks with sandals - technically works but why would you do that? Just use the boolean directly! The null check with ?? that shows up uninvited in every codebase like that one relative at family gatherings who keeps asking why you're still single. Double exclamation marks on booleans - because apparently one wasn't dramatic enough to convert values to boolean. It's the coding equivalent of saying "REALLY REALLY" to emphasize your point. And that empty for loop with just a semicolon? Pure chaos. The kind of code that makes senior devs develop eye twitches during code reviews. These four horsemen don't just signal the end of readable code - they're the reason why Stack Overflow exists.

The eternal developer's dilemma in flowchart form! If AI-generated code doesn't work, it's a hard "DON'T DO IT." If it works but you have no clue why? Also "DON'T DO IT" (future you will curse present you during debugging). But if it works AND you understand why? "SURE" go ahead! This is basically the modern version of "I found this snippet on StackOverflow" except now we're copying from robots instead of humans. The flowchart perfectly encapsulates that brief moment of temptation when ChatGPT spits out something that runs without errors but feels like forbidden magic. Remember folks: understanding > working code.

Content WHENTHE 3RD PARTY LIBRARY "FRAMEWORK IS FULLOFBUGS WHEMYOU REALISE IT WAS YOUR CODE AND THE LIBRARY IS FINE imgflip.

Content Jeroen Friters JeroenFriters 1d The Dutch government was forced to release the source code of their DigiD digital authentication iOS app. It is written in C. github.comMinBZKwoo-bes... private static string GetPercentageRounds (double percentage) if (percentage 0) return "0000000000"; if (percentage 0.0 percentage 0.1) "0000000000"; if (percentage 0.1 percentage 0.2) return 100000000"; iF percentage 0.2 8 percentage 0.3) hOrunn 00000000"; if (percentage 0.3 percentage 0.4) norunr 0000000"; if (percentage 0.4 percentage 0.5) 00000": if (percentage 0.5 8 percentage 0.6) returr 00000000"; if (percentage 0.6 percentage 0.7) returr if (percentage 97 percentage 0.8) if (percentage 0.8 8 percentage 0.9) noturn "I return "0000000000"; da 1.3M O308 171,196 9 6,678 tyrannoSaurav TyrannoSaurav Replying to JeroenFriters Ahh I see the problem is that there are too many if statements. Here's a solution implementing binary search in O(log n) private static string GetPercentageRounds (double percentage) if (percentage 0 6 percentage 0.5) if (percentage 0.2) if (percentage 0.1) S if (percentage 0) return "0000000000"; return "0000000000"; return 000000000"; if (percentage 0.41 if (percentage 0.3) return 00000000"; return 00000000"; return "0000000000": if (percentage 0.5 66 percentage 0.9) if (percentage 0.7) if (percentage 0.6 return return 000": 300". if (percentage 0.8) return return return