111–120 of 267 posts
The only thing I have ever gone back and admired is when I wrote the following snippet of code: long time; // no see
struct timecube {
uint16_t millisecond_of_minute;
uint16_t minute_of_month;
uint16_t month_and_year;
};The only thing I have ever gone back and admired is when I wrote the following snippet of code: long time; // no see
This gem in a Flash frame (Actionscript) stop(); // hammer time
All the time. The old joke is about us looking at code we wrote six months ago, and being horrified at what we see. And I've had more than my share of that. But what's ALSO happened, many times, is I look at old code I wrote... and I'm IMPRESSED. Just blown away by the beautiful elegance and power of the abstractions I came up with, the sheer intelligence of the approach, the insight and lucidity oozing from the code…
Me writing docstrings: God this is so much work for nothing... my code should speak for itself. Me 6 months later: Thank god I wrote docstrings, what is this garbled mess.
I know some people don't feel that way, because I've been dinged for it in code reviews as something that should be covered in unit tests. But I think digging through unit tests to glean the structure of an object adds a lot of overhead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Me writing docstrings: God this is so much work for nothing... my code should speak for itself. Me 6 months later: Thank god I wrote docstrings, what is this garbled mess.
100%. It's amazing how many GitHub repos have little to no comments, not even file or function overview comments. The amount of time save by potential contributors reading and having to interpret the code is way longer than it would take for the author to write the comments in the first place. To each their own, but comments are generally a positive addition to code.
This does sometimes entail a few 'what'-style comments, so I'm disappointed to regularly read of programmers that have apparently taken up arms against them.
Right now the whole file is changed but that code is still intact.
Yes. Early on in my career, I needed a function that produced a range of dates, given a start and end date. After it was all said and done, it boiled out like so: def daterange(start,end): while start Though simplistic and straightforward, I admire the solution. I am sure there may be “better” ways to achieve the same result, and posting this here may result in cowboys trashing it or pointing out a fallacy - oh well.…
I'm struggling to understand how this is special... isn't it basically just the normal 2-argument range function, but with date instead of int? def range(start, end): while start Or is it more about the beauty of the algorithm than this specific code?
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4345045/javascript-loop-...
I hate dealing with date math, but I have to admit that Python makes date math much more elegant. I've written the functional equivalent of the OP function several times, and it's just so nice to be able to loop over dates just like they were any other generic sequence.
Edit: plus you can enhance it pretty to make arbitrary increments with ease:
def daterange(start, stop, increment='days', step=1):
start = datetime.fromisoformat(start)
stop = datetime.fromisoformat(stop)
inc = {increment: step}
while start list(daterange('2020-01-01', '2020-01-14'))
[datetime.datetime(2020, 1, 1, 0, 0), datetime.datetime(2020, 1, 2, 0, 0), datetime.datetime(2020, 1, 3, 0, 0), [...], datetime.datetime(2020, 1, 14, 0, 0)]
> list(daterange('2020-01-01', '2020-01-14', 'weeks', 1))
[datetime.datetime(2020, 1, 1, 0, 0), datetime.datetime(2020, 1, 8, 0, 0)]Everyone's talking about code, but I do this with carpentry. Right now, I'm working as a trim carpenter in residential construction, and I pride myself on doing as good a job as I can. As a result, when I come back to a job to install door hardware after everything is painted, I sometimes just wander around the house and admire my work. Especially tricky details that took a bit of thinking to get right, even if no-on…