Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Programmer Jokes

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Croatia
    Posts
    454

    Default Programmer Jokes

    "Programming is like sex:
    One mistake and you have to support for a lifetime."

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Top 17 Programmer's Terminologies

    1. A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT APPROACHES ARE BEING TRIED
    - We are still pissing in the wind.

    2. EXTENSIVE REPORT IS BEING PREPARED ON A FRESH APPROACH TO
    THE PROBLEM
    - We just hired three kids fresh out of college.

    3. CLOSE PROJECT COORDINATION
    - We know who to blame.

    4. MAJOR TECHNOLOGICAL BREAKTHROUGH
    - It works OK, but looks very hi-tech.

    5. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION IS DELIVERED ASSURED
    - We are so far behind schedule the customer is happy to
    get it delivered.

    6. PRELIMINARY OPERATIONAL TESTS WERE INCONCLUSIVE
    - The darn thing blew up when we threw the switch.

    7. TEST RESULTS WERE EXTREMELY GRATIFYING
    - We are so surprised that the stupid thing works.

    8. THE ENTIRE CONCEPT WILL HAVE TO BE ABANDONED
    - The only person who understood the thing quit.

    9. IT IS IN THE PROCESS
    - It is so wrapped up in red tape that the situation
    is about hopeless.

    10. WE WILL LOOK INTO IT
    - Forget it! We have enough problems for now.

    11. PLEASE NOTE AND INITIAL
    - Let's spread the responsibility for the screw up.

    12. GIVE US THE BENEFIT OF YOUR THINKING
    - We'll listen to what you have to say as long as it
    doesn't interfere with what we've already done.

    13. GIVE US YOUR INTERPRETATION
    - I can't wait to hear this bull!

    14. SEE ME or LET'S DISCUSS
    - Come into my office, I'm lonely.

    15. ALL NEW
    - Code not interchangeable with the previous design.

    16. YEARS OF DEVELOPMENT
    - It finally worked!

    17. LOW MAINTENANCE
    - Impossible to fix if broken.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Croatia
    Posts
    454

    Default

    Jesus and Satan have an argument as to who is the better
    programmer. This goes on for a few hours until they come
    to an agreement to hold a contest, with God as the Judge.
    They set themselves before their computers and begin. They
    type furiously, lines of code streaming up the screen, for
    several hours straight. Seconds before the end of the
    competition, a bolt of lightning strikes, taking out the
    electricity. Moments later, the power is restored, and God
    announces that the contest is over. He asks Satan to show
    what he has come up with.
    Satin is visibly upset and cries, "I have nothing, I lost
    it all when the power went out."
    "Very well, then, " says God, "let us see if Jesus fared
    any better."
    Jesus enters a command, and the screen comes to life in
    vivid display, the voices of an angelic choir pours forth
    from the speakers.
    Satan is astonished. He stutters, "B-b-but how?! I lost
    everything yet Jesus' program is Intact! How did he do it?"
    God Chuckles, "Everybody knows...Jesus Saves."

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IF GOD WERE A COMPUTER PROGRAMMER...

    Some important theological questions can best be answered by
    thinking of God as a computer programmer:

    Q: Did God really create the world in seven days?
    A: He did it in six days and nights while living on cola and
    candy bars. On the seventh day he went home and found out his
    girlfriend had left him.

    Q: What causes God to intervene in earthly affairs?
    A: If a critical error occurs, the system pages him automatically
    and he logs on from home to try to bring it up. Otherwise, things
    can wait until tomorrow.

    Q: How come the Age of Miracles ended?
    A: That was the development phase of the project. Now we're in the
    maintenance phase.

    Q: Who is Satan?
    A: Satan is an MIS director who takes credit for more powers than he
    actually possesses, so nonprogrammers become scared of him. God
    thinks he's irritating but irrelevant.

    Q: Why does God allow evil to happen?
    A: God thought he eliminated evil in one of the earlier revs.

    Q: How can I protect myself from evil?
    A: Change your password every month and don't make it a name, a
    common word, or a date like your birthday.

    Q: If I pray to God, will he listen?
    A: You can waste his time telling him what to do, or you can just
    get off his back and let him program.

    Q: Some people claim they hear the voice of God. Is this true?
    A: They are much more likely to receive email.

    Q: Does God control everything that happens in my life?
    A: He could, if he used the debugger, but it's tedious to step through
    all those variables.

    Q: Does God know everything?
    A: He likes to think so, but he is often amazed to find out what goes
    on in the overnite job.

    Q: Will there be another Universe after the Big Bang?
    A: A lot of people are drawing things on the white board, but
    personally, God doubts that it will ever be implemented.

    Q: What is the role of sinners?
    A: Sinners are the people who find new an imaginative ways to mess up
    the system when God has made it idiot-proof.

    Q: Where will I go after I die?
    A: Onto a DAT tape.

    Q: Will I be reincarnated?
    A: Not unless there is a special need to recreate you. And searching
    those .tar files is a major hassle, so if there is a request for you,
    God will just say that the tape has been lost.

    Q: Am I unique and special in the universe?
    A: There are over 10,000 major university and corporate sites running
    exact duplicates of you in the present release version.

    Q: What is the purpose of the universe?
    A: God created it because he values elegance and simplicity, but then
    the users and managers demanded he tack all this senseless stuff onto
    it and now everything is more complicated and expensive than ever.

    Q: What is the one true religion?
    A: All systems have their advantages and disadvantages, so just pick
    the one that best suits your needs and don't let anyone put you down.

    Q: Is God angry that we crucified him?
    A: Let's just say he's not going to any more meetings if he can help
    it, because that last one with the twelve managers and the food
    turned out to be murder.

    Q: Some people say God is Love.
    A: That is not a question. Please restate your query in the form of a
    question.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    - The Programmers' Cheer -
    Shift to the left, shift to the right!
    Pop up, push down, byte, byte, byte!

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Q. Somebody asked me "What happens to programmers when they die?"

    A: They get deallocated?
    Their values become undefined?
    The get re-intialized?
    Their structues break down?
    they become WORM food...
    They start dropping bits........
    They branch to a new address!
    Their social system resources are released?
    They dump core? (a coredump is the result of an abort(ion))

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Croatia
    Posts
    454

    Default

    PROGRAMMERS' DRINKING SONG

    100 little bugs in the code,
    100 bugs in the code,
    fix one bug, compile it again,
    101 little bugs in the code.

    101 little bugs in the code.....
    (Repeat until BUGS = 0)

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Real Programmers Don't Eat Quiche (They Can't Even Spell Quiche)

    Real Programmers....

    Don't eat quiche. They don't even know how to spell quiche.
    They like Twinkies, Coke, and palate-scorching Szechwan food.

    Don't write applications programs. They program right down to
    the bare metal. Applications programs are for dullards who can't
    do systems programming.

    Don't comment their code. If it was hard to write, it should be
    hard to understand and even harder to modify.

    Don't draw flowcharts. Flowcharts are, after all, the illiterate's
    form of documentation. Cavemen drew flowcharts; look how much it did
    for them.

    Don't use COBOL. COBOL is for wimpy applications programmers.

    Don't use FORTRAN. FORTRAN is for wimpy engineers who wear white
    socks, pipe stress freaks, and crystallography weenies. They get
    excited over finite state analysis and nuclear reactor simulation.

    Don't use LOGO. In fact, no programmer uses LOGO after reaching
    puberty.

    Don't use APL, unless the whole program can be written on one line.

    Don't use LISP. Only effeminate programmers use more parentheses
    than actual code.

    Don't use Pascal, BLISS, Ada, or any of those sissy-pinko computer
    science languages. Strong typing is a crutch for people with weak
    memories.

    Never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers are around at 9 a.m.,
    it's because they were up all night.

    Don't play tennis or any other sport that requires a change of
    clothes. Mountain climbing is OK though, and real programmers often
    wear climbing boots to work in case a mountain should suddenly spring
    up in the middle of the machine room.

    Don't like the team programming concept. Unless, of course, they
    are the Chief Programmer.

    Have no use for managers. Managers are a necessary evil. Managers
    are for dealing with personal bozos, bean counters, senior planners,
    and other mental defectives.

    Don't drive clapped out Mavericks. They prefer BMWs, Lincolns, or
    pick-up trucks with floor shifts. Fast motorcycles are highly regarded.

    Like vending machine popcorn. Coders pop it in the microwave oven.
    Real programmers use the heat given off by the CPU. They can tell what
    job is running just by listening to the rate the corn is popping.

    Know every nuance of every instruction and use them all in every
    real program. Puppy architects won't allow execute instructions to
    address another execute as the target instruction. Real programmers
    despise such petty restrictions.

    Don't bring brown bag lunches to work. If the vending machine sells
    it, they eat it. If the vending machine doesn't sell it they don't eat
    it. Vending machines don't sell quiche.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Croatia
    Posts
    454

    Default

    An engineer, a mathematician, and a computer programmer are driving
    down the road when the car they are in gets a flat tire. The engineer
    says that they should buy a new car. The mathematician says they should
    sell the old tire and buy a new one. The computer programmer says they
    should drive the car around the block and see if the tire fixes itself.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Assembler programs are written with short abbreviations called
    MNEMONICS, in other words instead of writing GOTO, the programmer
    writes JMP or even BRA (branch).
    These instructions are frequently abbreviated into total
    incomprehensibility. Of course, we all know that abbreviations are
    arbitrary. Anyone who has spent any time programming in assembler
    knows that all computers can be programmed using an undocumented set
    of instructions. Frequently when an error is made writing a program
    in assembler a user can actually see the program executing the
    undocumented instructions. These instructions vary from machine from
    machine, but all computers have a certain set of them in common. As
    a service to humanity, I am here revealing these common instructions
    for the first time.

    ARG: Agree to Run Garbage
    BDM: Branch and Destroy Memory
    CMN: Convert to Mayan Numerals
    DDS: Damage Disk and Stop
    EMR: Emit Microwave Radiation
    ETO: Emulate Toaster Oven
    FSE: Fake Serious Error
    GSI: Garble Subsequent Instructions
    GQS: Go Quarter Speed
    HEM: Hide Evidence of Malfunction
    IDD: Inhale Dust and Die
    IKI: Ignore Keyboard Input
    IMU: Irradiate and Mutate User
    JPF: Jam Paper Feed
    JUM: Jeer at Users Mistake
    KFP: Kindle Fire in Printer
    LNM: Launch Nuclear Missiles
    MAW: Make Aggravating Whine
    NNI: Neglect Next Instruction
    OBU: Overheat and Burn if Unattended
    PNG: Pass Noxious Gas
    QWF: Quit Working Forever
    QVC: Question Valid Command
    RWD: Read Wrong Device
    SCE: Simulate Correct Execution
    SDJ: Send Data to Japan
    TTC: Tangle Tape and Crash
    UBC: Use Bad Chip
    VDP: Violate Design Parameters
    VMB: Verify and Make Bad
    WAF: Warn After Fact
    XID: eXchange Instruction with Data
    YII: Yield to Irresistible Impulse
    ZAM: Zero All Memory
    PI : Punch Invalid
    POPI: Punch Operator Immediately
    RASC: Read And Shred Card
    RPM: Read Programmers Mind
    RSSC: Reduce Speed, Step Carefully (for improved accuracy)
    RTAB: Rewind Tape and Break
    RWDSK: ReWind DiSK
    SPSW: Scramble Program Status Word
    SRSD: Seek Record and Scar Disk
    WBT: Water Binary Tree

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Croatia
    Posts
    454

    Default

    Three men, a physican, a engineer and a computer scientist, are
    travelling in a car. Suddenly, the car starts to smoke and stops.
    The three atonished men try to solve the problem:

    Physican says:
    This is obviously a classic problem of torque. It has been overloaded
    the elasticity limit of the main axis.

    Engineer says:
    Let's be serious! The matter is that it has been burned the spark of
    the connecting rod to the dynamo of the radiator. I can easily repair
    it by hammering.

    Computer scientist says:
    What if we get off the car, wait a minute, and then get in and try again?

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Why is a good programmer like a Knight?
    They both live by their code.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Q: Why do programmers always get Christmas and Halloween mixed up?
    A: Because DEC 25 = OCT 31

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Top 25 Explanations by Programmers when their programs don't work.

    1. Strange...
    2. I've never heard about that.
    3. It did work yesterday.
    4. Well, the program needs some fixing.
    5. How is this possible?
    6. The machine seems to be broken.
    7. Has the operating system been updated?
    8. The user has made an error again.
    9. There is something wrong in your test data.
    10. I have not touched that module!
    11. Yes yes, it will be ready in time.
    12. You must have the wrong executable.
    13. Oh, it's just a feature.
    14. I'm almost ready.
    15. Of course, I just have to do these small fixes.
    16. It will be done in no time at all.
    17. It's just some unlucky coincidense.
    18. I can't test everything!
    19. THIS can't do THAT.
    20. Didn't I fix it already?
    21. It's already there, but it has not been tested.
    22. It works, but it's not been tested.
    23. Somebody must have changed my code.
    24. There must be a virus in the application software.
    25. Even though it does not work, how does it feel?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Croatia
    Posts
    454

    Default

    The Lesser-known Programming Languages

    SIMPLE
    SIMPLE is an acronym for Sheer Idiot's Monopurpose Programming
    Language Environment. This language, developed at the Hanover College
    for Technological Misfits, was designed to make it impossible to write
    code with errors in it. The statements are, therefore, confined to
    BEGIN, END and STOP. No matter how you arrange the statements, you
    can't make a syntax error. Programs written in SIMPLE do nothing
    useful. Thus they achieve the results of programs written in other
    languages without the tedious, frustrating process of testing and
    debugging.

    LITHP
    This otherwise unremarkable language is distinguished by the absence
    of an "S" in its character set; users must substitute "TH". LITHP is
    said to be useful in protheththing lithtth.

    SLOBOL
    SLOBOL is best known for the speed, or lack of it, of its compiler.
    Although many compilers allow you to take a coffee break while they
    compile, SLOBOL compilers allow you to travel to Bolivia to pick the
    coffee. Forty-three programmers are known to have died of boredom
    sitting at their terminals while waiting for a SLOBOL program to
    compile. Weary SLOBOL programmers often turn to a related (but
    infinitely faster) language, COCAINE.

    SARTRE
    Named after the late existential philosopher, SARTRE is an extremely
    unstructured language. Statements in SARTRE have no purpose; they just
    are. Thus SARTRE programs are left to define their own functions.
    SARTRE programmers tend to be boring and depressed, and are no fun at
    parties.

    C-
    This language was named for the grade received by its creator when
    he submitted it as a class project in a graduate programming class.
    C- is best described as a "low-level" programming language. In fact,
    the language generally requires more C- statements than machine-code
    statements to execute a given task. In this respect, it is very
    similar to COBOL.

    FIFTH
    FIFTH is a precision mathematical language in which the data types
    refer to quantity. The data types range from CC, OUNCE, SHOT, and
    JIGGER to FIFTH (hence the name of the language), LITER, MAGNUM and
    BLOTTO. Commands refer to ingredients such as CHABLIS, CHARDONNAY,
    CABERNET, GIN, VERMOUTH, VODKA, SCOTCH, and WHATEVERSAROUND. The many
    versions of the FIFTH language reflect the sophistication and
    financial status of its users. Commands in the ELITE dialect include
    VSOP and LAFITE, while commands in the GUTTER dialect include HOOTCH
    and RIPPLE. The latter is a favorite of frustrated FORTH programmers
    who end up using this language.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Top 16 April Fool's Day Pranks to Pull on Programmers
    16> Using their e-mail address, post a request for penpals to the
    alt.prison.bodypiercing newsgroup.

    15> Three words: electric mouse buzzer.

    14> Assign them to the new "Heaven's Gate" project.

    13> "Look, Bill Gates!! Ha! Made ya look!"

    12> Put them in the same room with a member of the opposite sex.

    11> "Have you got Prince Albert in a LAN?"

    10> Tell them that "everyone knows Star Trek transporter technology
    is bogus."

    9> 10 GOTO 10

    7> Swap their monitor for a large cardboard box with handpuppets.
    Watch the fur fly!

    6> Announce that annual raises will be based on a subjective test
    of one's ability to "schmooze the way the butt-kissers in
    Marketing do."

    8> Intercept their daily Top 5 List, then remove #8 and re-insert
    it between #5 and #6.

    5> Pretend to "discover" a Fox TV website with a now-out-of-date
    win a weekend with Gillian Anderson of X-Files contest.

    4> Every hour, on the hour, forward them a warning about the
    "Good Times" virus.

    3> Call her up and ask if her program is running, and when she
    says "yes," tell her "Well you better go catch it!"

    2> Replace all the Jolt in the soda machine with Perrier and V8.

    1> Special announcement: "Forget Java -- Starting immediately,
    all coding will be done in COBOL."

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Croatia
    Posts
    454

    Default

    The truth about C++ revealed

    Don't know if this is true or not... but it's funny either way.

    On the 1st of January, 1998, Bjarne Stroustrup gave an interview
    to the IEEE's 'Computer' magazine.

    Naturally, the editors thought he would be giving a retrospective
    view of seven years of object-oriented design, using the language
    he created.
    By the end of the interview, the interviewer got more than he had
    bargained for and, subsequently, the editor decided to suppress its
    contents, 'for the good of the industry' but, as with many of these
    things, there was a leak.

    Here is a complete transcript of what was was said, unedited, and
    unrehearsed, so it isn't as neat as planned interviews.

    You will find it interesting...

    Interviewer: Well, it's been a few years since you changed the world
    of software design, how does it feel, looking back?

    Stroustrup: Actually, I was thinking about those days, just before
    you arrived. Do you remember? Everyone was writing 'C' and, the
    trouble was, they were pretty damn good at it. Universities got
    pretty good at teaching it, too. They were turning out competent
    - I stress the word 'competent' - graduates at a phenomenal rate.
    That's what caused the problem.

    Interviewer: Problem?

    Stroustrup: Yes, problem. Remember when everyone wrote Cobol?

    Interviewer: Of course, I did too

    Stroustrup: Well, in the beginning, these guys were like demi-gods.
    Their salaries were high, and they were treated like royalty.

    Interviewer: Those were the days, eh?

    Stroustrup: Right. So what happened? IBM got sick of it, and invested
    millions in training programmers, till they were a dime a dozen.

    Interviewer: That's why I got out. Salaries dropped within a year, to
    the point where being a journalist actually paid better.

    Stroustrup: Exactly. Well, the same happened with 'C' programmers.

    Interviewer: I see, but what's the point?

    Stroustrup: Well, one day, when I was sitting in my office, I thought
    of this little scheme, which would redress the balance a little. I
    thought 'I wonder what would happen, if there were a language so
    complicated, so difficult to learn, that nobody would ever be able
    to swamp the market with programmers? Actually, I got some of the
    ideas from X10, you know, X windows. That was such a bitch of a
    graphics system, that it only just ran on those Sun 3/60 things.
    They had all the ingredients for what I wanted. A really ridiculously
    complex syntax, obscure functions, and pseudo-OO structure. Even now,
    nobody writes raw X-windows code. Motif is the only way to go if you
    want to retain your sanity.

    Interviewer: You're kidding...?

    Stroustrup: Not a bit of it. In fact, there was another problem. Unix
    was written in 'C', which meant that any 'C' programmer could very
    easily become a systems programmer. Remember what a mainframe systems
    programmer used to earn?

    Interviewer: You bet I do, that's what I used to do.

    Stroustrup: OK, so this new language had to divorce itself from Unix,
    by hiding all the system calls that bound the two together so nicely.
    This would enable guys who only knew about DOS to earn a decent living
    too.

    Interviewer: I don't believe you said that...

    Stroustrup: Well, it's been long enough, now, and I believe most people
    have figured out for themselves that C++ is a waste of time but, I must
    say, it's taken them a lot longer than I thought it would.

    Interviewer: So how exactly did you do it?

    Stroustrup: It was only supposed to be a joke, I never thought people
    would take the book seriously. Anyone with half a brain can see that
    object-oriented programming is counter-intuitive, illogical and
    inefficient.

    Interviewer: What?

    Stroustrup: And as for 're-useable code' - when did you ever hear of
    a company re-using its code?

    Interviewer: Well, never, actually, but...

    Stroustrup: There you are then. Mind you, a few tried, in the early
    days. There was this Oregon company - Mentor Graphics, I think they
    were called - really caught a cold trying to rewrite everything in
    C++ in about '90 or '91. I felt sorry for them really, but I thought
    people would learn from their mistakes.

    Interviewer: Obviously, they didn't?

    Stroustrup: Not in the slightest. Trouble is, most companies hush-up
    all their major blunders, and explaining a $30 million loss to the
    shareholders would have been difficult. Give them their due, though,
    they made it work in the end.

    Interviewer: They did? Well, there you are then, it proves O-O works.

    Stroustrup: Well, almost. The executable was so huge, it took five
    minutes to load, on an HP workstation, with 128MB of RAM. Then it ran
    like treacle. Actually, I thought this would be a major stumbling-block,
    and I'd get found out within a week, but nobody cared. Sun and HP were
    only too glad to sell enormously powerful boxes, with huge resources
    just to run trivial programs. You know, when we had our first C++
    compiler, at AT&T, I compiled 'Hello World', and couldn't believe
    the size of the executable. 2.1MB

    Interviewer: What? Well, compilers have come a long way, since then.

    Stroustrup: They have? Try it on the latest version of g++ - you won't
    get much change out of half a megabyte. Also, there are several quite
    recent examples for you, from all over the world. British Telecom had
    a major disaster on their hands but, luckily, managed to scrap the
    whole thing and start again. They were luckier than Australian Telecom.
    Now I hear that Siemens is building a dinosaur, and getting more and
    more worried as the size of the hardware gets bigger, to accommodate
    the executables. Isn't multiple inheritance a joy?

    Interviewer: Yes, but C++ is basically a sound language.

    Stroustrup: You really believe that, don't you? Have you ever
    sat down and worked on a C++ project? Here's what happens: First,
    I've put in enough pitfalls to make sure that only the most trivial
    projects will work first time. Take operator overloading. At the end
    of the project, almost every module has it, usually, because guys
    feel they really should do it, as it was in their training course.
    The same operator then means something totally different in every
    module. Try pulling that lot together, when you have a hundred or
    so modules. And as for data hiding. God, I sometimes can't help
    laughing when I hear about the problems companies have making their
    modules talk to each other. I think the word 'synergistic' was
    specially invented to twist the knife in a project manager's ribs.

    Interviewer: I have to say, I'm beginning to be quite appalled at
    all this. You say you did it to raise programmers' salaries? That's
    obscene.

    Stroustrup: Not really. Everyone has a choice. I didn't expect the
    thing to get so much out of hand. Anyway, I basically succeeded.
    C++ is dying off now, but programmers still get high salaries -
    especially those poor devils who have to maintain all this crap.
    You do realise, it's impossible to maintain a large C++ software
    module if you didn't actually write it?

    Interviewer: How come?

    Stroustrup: You are out of touch, aren't you? Remember the typedef?

    Interviewer: Yes, of course.

    Stroustrup: Remember how long it took to grope through the header files
    only to find that 'RoofRaised' was a double precision number? Well,
    imagine how long it takes to find all the implicit typedefs in all
    the Classes in a major project.

    Interviewer: So how do you reckon you've succeeded?

    Stroustrup: Remember the length of the average-sized 'C' project?
    About 6 months. Not nearly long enough for a guy with a wife and
    kids to earn enough to have a decent standard of living. Take the
    same project, design it in C++ and what do you get? I'll tell you.
    One to two years. Isn't that great? All that job security, just
    through one mistake of judgement. And another thing. The universities
    haven't been teaching 'C' for such a long time, there's now a shortage
    of decent 'C' programmers. Especially those who know anything about
    Unix systems programming. How many guys would know what to do with
    'malloc', when they've used 'new' all these years - and never bothered
    to check the return code. In fact, most C++ programmers throw away their
    return codes. Whatever happened to good ol' '-1'? At least you knew you
    had an error, without bogging the thing down in all that 'throw' 'catch'
    'try' stuff.

    Interviewer: But, surely, inheritance does save a lot of time?

    Stroustrup: Does it? Have you ever noticed the difference between a
    'C' project plan, and a C++ project plan? The planning stage for a
    C++ project is three times as long. Precisely to make sure that
    everything which should be inherited is, and what shouldn't isn't.
    Then, they still get it wrong. Whoever heard of memory leaks in a
    'C' program? Now finding them is a major industry. Most companies
    give up, and send the product out, knowing it leaks like a sieve,
    simply to avoid the expense of tracking them all down.

    Interviewer: There are tools...

    Stroustrup: Most of which were written in C++.

    Interviewer: If we publish this, you'll probably get lynched, you
    do realise that?

    Stroustrup: I doubt it. As I said, C++ is way past its peak now, and
    no company in its right mind would start a C++ project without a pilot
    trial. That should convince them that it's the road to disaster. If not,
    they deserve all they get. You know, I tried to convince Dennis Ritchie
    to rewrite Unix in C++.

    Interviewer: Oh my God. What did he say?

    Stroustrup: Well, luckily, he has a good sense of humor. I think both
    he and Brian figured out what I was doing, in the early days, but never
    let on. He said he'd help me write a C++ version of DOS, if I was
    interested.

    Interviewer: Were you?

    Stroustrup: Actually, I did write DOS in C++, I'll give you a demo
    when we're through. I have it running on a Sparc 20 in the computer
    room. Goes like a rocket on 4 CPU's, and only takes up 70 megs of
    disk.

    Interviewer: What's it like on a PC?

    Stroustrup: Now you're kidding. Haven't you ever seen Windows '95?
    I think of that as my biggest success. Nearly blew the game before
    I was ready, though.

    Interviewer: You know, that idea of a Unix++ has really got me
    thinking. Somewhere out there, there's a guy going to try it.

    Stroustrup: Not after they read this interview.

    Interviewer: I'm sorry, but I don't see us being able to publish
    any of this.

    Stroustrup: But it's the story of the century. I only want to be
    remembered by my fellow programmers, for what I've done for them.
    You know how much a C++ guy can get these days?

    Interviewer: Last I heard, a really top guy is worth $70-$80 an hour.

    Stroustrup: See? And I bet he earns it. Keeping track of all the
    gotchas I put into C++ is no easy job. And, as I said before, every
    C++ programmer feels bound by some mystic promise to use every damn
    element of the language on every project. Actually, that really annoys
    me sometimes, even though it serves my original purpose. I almost like
    the language after all this time.

    Interviewer: You mean you didn't before?

    Stroustrup: Hated it. It even looks clumsy, don't you agree? But when
    the book royalties started to come in... well, you get the picture.

    Interviewer: Just a minute. What about references? You must admit,
    you improved on 'C' pointers.

    Stroustrup: Hmm. I've always wondered about that. Originally, I
    thought I had. Then, one day I was discussing this with a guy who'd
    written C++ from the beginning. He said he could never remember
    whether his variables were referenced or dereferenced, so he always
    used pointers. He said the little asterisk always reminded him.

    Interviewer: Well, at this point, I usually say 'thank you very much'
    but it hardly seems adequate.

    Stroustrup: Promise me you'll publish this. My conscience is getting
    the better of me these days.

    Interviewer: I'll let you know, but I think I know what my editor
    will say.

    Stroustrup: Who'd believe it anyway? Although, can you send me a
    copy of that tape?

    Interviewer: I can do that.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    3

    Default

    1. A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT APPROACHES ARE BEING TRIED
    - We are still pissing in the wind.

    2. EXTENSIVE REPORT IS BEING PREPARED ON A FRESH APPROACH TO
    THE PROBLEM
    - We just hired three kids fresh out of college.

    3. CLOSE PROJECT COORDINATION
    - We know who to blame.

    4. MAJOR TECHNOLOGICAL BREAKTHROUGH
    - It works OK, but looks very hi-tech.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    3

    Default

    15> Three words: electric mouse buzzer.

    14> Assign them to the new "Heaven's Gate" project.

    13> "Look, Bill Gates!! Ha! Made ya look!"

    12> Put them in the same room with a member of the opposite sex.

    11> "Have you got Prince Albert in a LAN?"

    10> Tell them that "everyone knows Star Trek transporter technology
    is bogus."

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •