Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (749348)	10/25/2013 9:43:34 AM
From: SilentZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573889

>The implication is that the original code was honest about privacy and then someone in the Administration didn't like the warning so it was commented out. That's not exactly the story you want to be pressing here. No, the implication is that the code was borrowed from somewhere else by a programmer who didn't see a reason to reinvent the wheel. >P.S. You should also ask yourself the question "why didn't the programmer delete the statement instead of commenting it out", LOL. Programmers I know comment out code when they expect that they will have to use it again later. If they know that it's unneeded, they delete it. Oh come on. I haven't programmed in years, but I know if I'm copying prefunctioning code, I don't permanently delete ANYTHING until I'm damned sure that deleting it doesn't break anything. I don't go back and delete the things I've made inactive until I clean up later. And sometimes you just miss a line. Seems to me like CGI's programmers were shoddy enough that they missed a lot of things. This is one hell of a reach. -Z

To: Bilow who wrote (749348)	10/25/2013 11:48:19 AM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1573889

Hi tejek; So you and Mother Jones are claiming that the warning about privacy was just a comment? That's even more damning than it being in active code. Huh? What are you talking about? I was talking about the ACA?

To: Bilow who wrote (749348)	10/25/2013 8:11:04 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573889

Carl and SilentZ, there are two schools of thought with regard to removing legacy code. One is to comment it out, because you won't know in the short term exactly how your changes will affect anyone else. Therefore if you need to restore the code that you removed, it's as easy as uncommenting it. The other is to just delete it and rely on whatever revision control system you have to save the old code. If you or someone else wants to restore the old code, you use the system and run a "diff" on the versions. The latter method leads to cleaner, easier to read code, but it can be hard to tell at a glance what was removed. The former method will leave all that old code in the file so that you or future editors of that file can see right there how things used to be done. As to that warning in the code, it's relatively benign, but it's kind of odd that someone put that statement in there in the first place. I mean, it's one thing to neglect reasonable privacy safeguards, but it's another when someone flat out intended on not implementing them in the first place. Tenchusatsu