Editing 1513: Code Quality

* [[2138: Wanna See the Code?]]

First, she suggests that reading his code is like being in a house built by a child, using a hatchet (a small ax) 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 that they are not intended for.

Second, she suggests that it looks like a salad recipe, written by a corporate lawyer on a phone with auto-correct that only corrected 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 reexamining the problem and solving it in a better way.

Third, she describes it as a transcript of a couple arguing at a branch of the Swedish retail chain {{w|IKEA}}, which 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 an infinite amount of monkeys bashing away on typewriters for an infinite amount of time eventually producing 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 bad that it does not compile, and people edited the code until it compiles so they can see what the code accomplishes. That Cueball's code is in this bad 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.  

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 has 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 is the only proper response to it.

:[Ponytail sits at desk, Cueball stand behind her.]

:[Ponytail sits at desk, Cueball stand behind her.]

*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 [http://hexascii.com/sad-emoticons/ UTF-8 characters].