Writing Tests Be Like

Content

Content Chris Cox CyberCox In an effort to create the ultimate viral tweet, I personally wrote a computer program that analyzed several years worth of Twitter history and the most popular tweets in order to create the ultimate Twitter phenomenon. Here are the results: Runtime Error

Content Raw Story Follow View Profile Catastrophic FAA outage traced back to tiny mistake by one engineer: report Story by Matthew Chapman Wednesday 3 23 P 79 O 32 Comments ' Wednesday ABC News Josk Marglin reported that the cause of todays catastrophic night system failure, which paralyzed the Federal Aviation Administration and led to the first nationwide ground stop of all aircraft in the United States since the September 11 terrorist attacks, has been identified. Proarammeri

Content 134 134 ihelli hell beingacomputerprogrammingmajor: Testing out html scripts on Pokemon Go and finding out it actually works. morphimus Isn't this a potential problem though? Can you run a malicious script in the namebox there? If so, they will most certainly have to fix that before they implement trading. nickelbackmidisonline is it even possible to write a malicious script in html? Are timujina hacki'm in hack Source: nuevo 190,743 notes Proara 17

The elegant architecture in your head vs. the spaghetti monster that actually compiles. That beautiful algorithm you mentally crafted during your shower? Pure poetry. The code you frantically typed while chugging energy drinks? A syntactic war crime. And then there's the final boss: staring in horror at your program's output like you've just discovered a new species of bug that defies the laws of computer science. The real tragedy is that the gap between imagination and implementation grows wider with each passing deadline.

The eternal dance between developers and specifications! First they ask if you followed the spec, and you confidently say "YUP." Then they ask if you read it again, and you double down with another "YUP." But when they actually compare your implementation to the spec... surprise! Your code is doing its own interpretive dance routine that barely resembles what was requested. Yet somehow when asked a final time if you followed the spec, you're still answering "YUP" with the unwavering confidence of someone who's never been wrong in their life. This is basically every code review I've ever been part of. Specs are more like vague suggestions anyway, right?