1513: Code Quality - Revision history

FaviFake at 13:17, 29 July 2025

2025-07-29T13:17:31Z

FaviFake: This series can only be defined by the 3 main comics. 1700: New Bug is the same as the other two comics, yet it's not in the series. There are other examples in the Category:Cueball Computer Problems, which instead is a good compromise.

2025-07-29T13:11:52Z

This series can only be defined by the 3 main comics. 1700: New Bug is the same as the other two comics, yet it's not in the series. There are other examples in the Category:Cueball Computer Problems, which instead is a good compromise.

FaviFake: /* Trivia */

2025-07-29T12:55:13Z

‎Trivia

FaviFake: /* Explanation */

2025-07-29T12:50:08Z

‎Explanation

FaviFake: /* Explanation */

2025-07-29T12:49:59Z

‎Explanation

FaviFake at 12:47, 29 July 2025

2025-07-29T12:47:06Z

CalibansCreations: /* Explanation */

2025-04-03T11:36:01Z

‎Explanation

172.70.115.71: Deleted poorly written first line.

2023-05-03T21:31:26Z

Deleted poorly written first line.

172.71.186.109: /* Trivia */

2023-02-18T21:05:06Z

‎Trivia

172.68.174.143: citation needed

2022-06-29T07:47:00Z

citation needed

@@ Line 51: / Line 51: @@
 [[Category:Language]]
 [[Category:Emoji]]
-[[Category:Cueball Computer Problems]]
+[[Category:Cueball's computer problems]]

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 ==Explanation==
-This comic is the first in the [[:Category:Code Quality|Code Quality]] series:
+This comic is the first in the [[:Category:Code Quality|Code Quality series]]:
 * [[1513: Code Quality]]
 * [[1695: Code Quality 2]]
 * [[1833: Code Quality 3]]
 [[Ponytail]] is about to look at some {{w|source code}} [[Cueball]] has written, and he is warning her that he is self-taught so his code probably won't be written the way she is used to. In spite of Ponytail's initial (polite) optimism, she comments in three increasingly harsh similes (and a fourth in the title text). First, she suggests that reading his code is like being in a house built by a child, using a hatchet (a small axe) to put together what he thought was a house based on a picture. She is saying that the code shows a lack of command of the language being programmed. This is like the common expression "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."  New programmers make use of the same techniques repeatedly, using them for situations where other techniques would be far more efficient or faster.

@@ Line 41: / Line 41: @@
 ==Trivia==
-*Emoji can be simulated using {{w|ASCII}} characters, but their roots are mostly separate from ASCII {{w|emoticon}}s. Most languages will allow variable names to include underscores, so some sad face ASCII emoticon will be legal variable names, such as <code>T_T</code>, <code>p_q</code>, <code>ioi</code> etc., but such things rarely show up in software variables. Many more can be made possible using UTF-8 characters, including actual emojis.
+Emoji can be simulated using {{w|ASCII}} characters, but their roots are mostly separate from ASCII {{w|emoticon}}s. Most languages will allow variable names to include underscores, so some sad face ASCII emoticon will be legal variable names, such as <code>T_T</code>, <code>p_q</code>, <code>ioi</code> etc., but such things rarely show up in software variables. Many more can be made possible using UTF-8 characters, including actual emojis.
 {{comic discussion}}

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 * [[2138: Wanna See the Code?]]
-[[Ponytail]] is about to look at some {{w|source code}} [[Cueball]] has written, and he is warning her that he is self-taught so his code probably won't be written the way she is used to. In spite of Ponytail's initial (polite) optimism, she comments in three increasingly harsh similes (and a fourth in the title text).
+[[Ponytail]] is about to look at some {{w|source code}} [[Cueball]] has written, and he is warning her that he is self-taught so his code probably won't be written the way she is used to. In spite of Ponytail's initial (polite) optimism, she comments in three increasingly harsh similes (and a fourth in the title text). First, she suggests that reading his code is like being in a house built by a child, using a hatchet (a small axe) to put together what he thought was a house based on a picture. She is saying that the code shows a lack of command of the language being programmed. This is like the common expression "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."  New programmers make use of the same techniques repeatedly, using them for situations where other techniques would be far more efficient or faster.
 Second, she suggests that it looks like a salad recipe, written by a corporate lawyer on a phone with auto-correct that only corrects things to formulas from Microsoft Excel. She is saying that the code is verbose and the corrections that were done are illogical. This presumably relates to the developer not being an expert in their craft, and fixing the problems as they come up instead of re-examining the problem and solving it in a better way.
@@ Line 24: / Line 22: @@
 Finally, Cueball makes the rather weak assurance that he will read "a style guide", which articulates the intended use of the language. It seems clear from Ponytail's commentary that his {{w|Software quality|code quality}} would benefit from far more training in computer programming. Although few programming languages require a perfectly rigid style, so long as the code is syntactically accurate, most programmers follow some sort of {{w|Programming style|style}} to make the code easier to read. This includes indenting lines to show levels and using descriptive variable identifiers with special capitalization, (e.g., {{w|camelCase}}, capitalizing each word except for the first in a sentence, or {{w|snake_case}}, separating lowercase words with underscores).
 The title text refers to {{w|emoji}}. Ponytail's comment implies that some of Cueball's variables contained emoji, perhaps in an effort to capture the emotional content of the arguments which show through the requirements document. Emoji have become a [[:Category:Emoji|recurrent theme]] on xkcd, but this may have been the first comic to use them for a pun. Many crying-face emoji are possible if variables can include full Unicode (e.g., 😢,😭,😿,😹), as well as faces with sweat drops that are often mistaken for tears (😪,😥,😰,🥵). In some programming languages it would be impossible to use them in variable names, as the symbols would break the language's syntax rules. Exceptions to this include {{w|Swift (programming language)|Swift}} and {{w|Perl|Perl}} ([http://perldoc.perl.org/5.24.0/perlunicode.html]), but most languages with compilers that support Unicode characters can include this kind of emoji, even for languages that predate Unicode like {{w|C++}} and {{w|Lisp_(programming_language)|Lisp}}. In any event, Cueball's code may best be represented by a bunch of people crying, as that seems to be the only proper response to it.{{citation needed}}

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 Third, she describes it as a transcript of a couple arguing at a branch of the Swedish retail chain {{w|IKEA}}, that was then randomly edited until the computer compiled it with no errors. She is saying that the intent of the code is unclear due to the seemingly random use of the language. This is very similar to {{w|Infinite_monkey_theorem|an infinite amount of monkeys}} bashing away on typewriters for an infinite amount of time that will eventually produce the complete works of Shakespeare. (A couple's argument may be even less coherent at IKEA than at the average store, since IKEA products always have idiosyncratic names and many of them are difficult to pronounce or transcribe for anyone who doesn't speak Swedish.) This might happen if the code was written so badly that it does not compile, and people edited the code until it compiles so they can see what the code accomplishes. The fact that Cueball's code is in this bad of a shape indicates he really hasn't learned the programming language; he just happens to have a program that works in some shape or fashion.
-Finally, Cueball makes the rather weak assurance that he will read "a style guide", which articulates the intended use of the language. It seems clear from Ponytail's commentary that his {{w|Software quality|code quality}} would benefit from far more training in computer programming.
+Finally, Cueball makes the rather weak assurance that he will read "a style guide", which articulates the intended use of the language. It seems clear from Ponytail's commentary that his {{w|Software quality|code quality}} would benefit from far more training in computer programming. Although few programming languages require a perfectly rigid style, so long as the code is syntactically accurate, most programmers follow some sort of {{w|Programming style|style}} to make the code easier to read. This includes indenting lines to show levels and using descriptive variable identifiers with special capitalization, (e.g., {{w|camelCase}}, capitalizing each word except for the first in a sentence, or {{w|snake_case}}, separating lowercase words with underscores).
-===Emoji===
+The title text refers to {{w|emoji}}. Ponytail's comment implies that some of Cueball's variables contained emoji, perhaps in an effort to capture the emotional content of the arguments which show through the requirements document. Emoji have become a [[:Category:Emoji|recurrent theme]] on xkcd, but this may have been the first comic to use them for a pun. Many crying-face emoji are possible if variables can include full Unicode (e.g., 😢,😭,😿,😹), as well as faces with sweat drops that are often mistaken for tears (😪,😥,😰,🥵). In some programming languages it would be impossible to use them in variable names, as the symbols would break the language's syntax rules. Exceptions to this include {{w|Swift (programming language)|Swift}} and {{w|Perl|Perl}} ([http://perldoc.perl.org/5.24.0/perlunicode.html]), but most languages with compilers that support Unicode characters can include this kind of emoji, even for languages that predate Unicode like {{w|C++}} and {{w|Lisp_(programming_language)|Lisp}}. In any event, Cueball's code may best be represented by a bunch of people crying, as that seems to be the only proper response to it.{{citation needed}}
 ==Transcript==

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 * [[1833: Code Quality 3]]
 * [[1926: Bad Code]]
-* [[2138|2138: Wanna See the Code?]]
+* [[2138: Wanna See the Code?]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:31, 3 May 2023
Line 15:		Line 15:
	* [[2138\|2138: Wanna See the Code?]]		* [[2138\|2138: Wanna See the Code?]]

−	~~It is about the apprehension of asking for help from an expert who is a friend. Often we fear that we will be judged and they will think less of us, which is what occurs in this comic.~~

	[[Ponytail]] is about to look at some {{w\|source code}} [[Cueball]] has written, and he is warning her that he is self-taught so his code probably won't be written the way she is used to. In spite of Ponytail's initial (polite) optimism, she comments in three increasingly harsh similes (and a fourth in the title text).		[[Ponytail]] is about to look at some {{w\|source code}} [[Cueball]] has written, and he is warning her that he is self-taught so his code probably won't be written the way she is used to. In spite of Ponytail's initial (polite) optimism, she comments in three increasingly harsh similes (and a fourth in the title text).

@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 Many crying-face emoji are possible if variables can include full Unicode (e.g., 😢,😭,😂,😿,😹), as well as faces with sweat drops that are often mistaken for tears (😪,😥,😰,🥵). In some programming languages it would be impossible to use them in variable names, as the symbols would break the language's syntax rules. Exceptions to this include {{w|Swift (programming language)|Swift}} and {{w|Perl|Perl}} ([http://perldoc.perl.org/5.24.0/perlunicode.html]), but most languages with compilers that support Unicode characters can include this kind of emoji, even for languages that predate Unicode like {{w|C++}} and {{w|Lisp_(programming_language)|Lisp}}.
-In any event, Cueball's code may best be represented by a bunch of people crying, as that seems to be the only proper response to it.
+In any event, Cueball's code may best be represented by a bunch of people crying, as that seems to be the only proper response to it.{{citation needed}}
 ===Programming Style===