Ayende @ Rahien

SHODAN commented on An small mistake, just by nine orders of magnitude

Wed, 06 Apr 2011 10:32:59 GMT

Diego, don't take this the wrong way, but if you code in several languages you still need to know them well enough not to make these kinds of mistakes. That being said, we all make mistakes - mine was probably posting a rude comment. I apologise for that.

configurator commented on An small mistake, just by nine orders of magnitude

Wed, 30 Mar 2011 13:39:05 GMT

@Ryan: Yes, I'm fully aware of that. Like I said, I just *don't care*. When I'm talking about Gigabytes, I don't care about a 7% difference; sure, I care if something is 100GB or 200GB, but I don't give a rat's ass about that third digit.

Ryan Heath commented on An small mistake, just by nine orders of magnitude

Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:20:50 GMT

@configurator tell that to drive manufacturers :) They usually advertise the base 10 value [compreviews.about.com/.../ActualHDSizes.htm](http://compreviews.about.com/od/storage/a/ActualHDSizes.htm) // Ryan

Ron Klein commented on An small mistake, just by nine orders of magnitude

Tue, 29 Mar 2011 11:43:11 GMT

That's why I prefer "complex" consts to have the format of: int const Kilo = 1000; int const Mega = 1000 * Kilo; int const Giga = 1000 * Mega;

configurator commented on An small mistake, just by nine orders of magnitude

Tue, 29 Mar 2011 11:00:03 GMT

@Ryan: I couldn't care less. When talking about file size it may be "correct" to consider a gigabyte as 1000000000 bytes, but it is standard to consider a gigabyte as 1073741824 bytes.

Ryan Heath commented on An small mistake, just by nine orders of magnitude

Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:40:58 GMT

@configurator minor nitpick, according to the variable name 'giga', the ( intended) value 1.000.000.000 is correct. 1 << 30 == 1 GB (GiB) == 1.073.741.824 bytes. Just as kilo equals 1000. 1 KB (KiB) equals 1024 bytes. // Ryan

Manu commented on An small mistake, just by nine orders of magnitude

Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:38:27 GMT

@Diego, I believe ** would clash with pointer multiplication

Louis Haußknecht commented on An small mistake, just by nine orders of magnitude

Tue, 29 Mar 2011 09:58:25 GMT

+1 for @configurator.

James commented on An small mistake, just by nine orders of magnitude

Tue, 29 Mar 2011 05:20:27 GMT

@hazzik Testing only proves the presence of bugs not their absence. - Dijkstra

Brian commented on An small mistake, just by nine orders of magnitude

Mon, 28 Mar 2011 22:11:51 GMT

@hazzik, You might consider reading: How to Win Friends & Influence People Unless, of course, you're trying to influence us to consider you in a less than stellar way.

hazzik commented on An small mistake, just by nine orders of magnitude

Mon, 28 Mar 2011 21:14:54 GMT

Write the unit tests first, idiots! TDD in your ass!

configurator commented on An small mistake, just by nine orders of magnitude

Mon, 28 Mar 2011 20:40:11 GMT

I prefer 1 << 30. It's quite clear (everybody knows 1 << 10 is kilobyte) and I find it clearer because you have 10 for each prefix (10 = kilo, 20 = mega, 30 = giga, etc. - easier for me than 3, 6, 9).

Harry Steinhilber commented on An small mistake, just by nine orders of magnitude

Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:25:00 GMT

@Juan, the only problem with the '1e9' notation is that it produces a double. Ayende's constant was an int, so it would require an additional explicit cast. Not terrible, but it does end up messing with readability.

Christopher Bennage commented on An small mistake, just by nine orders of magnitude

Mon, 28 Mar 2011 17:30:21 GMT

@Jason - readability

Christopher Bennage commented on An small mistake, just by nine orders of magnitude

Mon, 28 Mar 2011 17:29:09 GMT

Ha! I totally would have made that mistake. :-P

Andrew Skalkin commented on An small mistake, just by nine orders of magnitude

Mon, 28 Mar 2011 15:21:08 GMT

Two minutes of blankly staring at the snippet and finally the facepalm moment :)

Martin Larsen commented on An small mistake, just by nine orders of magnitude

Mon, 28 Mar 2011 14:54:41 GMT

Jason, the compiler optimizes away the calculation as it is a const value.

Juan Lopes commented on An small mistake, just by nine orders of magnitude

Mon, 28 Mar 2011 14:51:34 GMT

That's why I prefer the "1e9" notation.

Jason commented on An small mistake, just by nine orders of magnitude

Mon, 28 Mar 2011 14:35:06 GMT

Isn't this an ugly way to do things regardless - why calculate the value every time? Why not just use const int giga = 1000000000?

Remco Ros commented on An small mistake, just by nine orders of magnitude

Mon, 28 Mar 2011 13:57:20 GMT

I'm going back to school. . . . ^-^

Diego Mijelshon commented on An small mistake, just by nine orders of magnitude

Mon, 28 Mar 2011 13:45:43 GMT

Shodan, if you code in more than one language (I assume you've read C# for dummies, but not VB for morons, nor Haskell for idiots), it's not hard to use the wrong operator. In that regard, C# is behind other modern languages for not having an exponentiation operator (which could just be an alias for Math.Pow), which is more useful for high-level development than XOR (and they could have used **, which doesn't clash with anything)

SHODAN commented on An small mistake, just by nine orders of magnitude

Mon, 28 Mar 2011 12:34:15 GMT

If you take that long to spot the problem, you need to read some C# for dummies books.

Peter Morlion commented on An small mistake, just by nine orders of magnitude

Mon, 28 Mar 2011 12:18:41 GMT

Also had to enter it in VS before I got it. Even then, had to double-check MSDN :D Learnt something new today!

Ales commented on An small mistake, just by nine orders of magnitude

Mon, 28 Mar 2011 12:09:03 GMT

Same as Martin :-) but takes 15 mins :-D

Martin Larsen commented on An small mistake, just by nine orders of magnitude

Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:44:29 GMT

Hehe.. I actually spent 10 minutes staring at that snippet before realising what was wrong. :-)

Lee Atkinson commented on An small mistake, just by nine orders of magnitude

Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:31:01 GMT

A VB programmer in a pass life, perhaps?

Patrick Huizinga commented on An small mistake, just by nine orders of magnitude

Mon, 28 Mar 2011 10:40:31 GMT

At first I thought it would be interpreted as if ( (copiedStream.Length > 1) * Giga) But then I realized the compiler would give an error (about bools, ints and ifs). And when I entered the above piece of code in VS, I was quite surprised about the actual error. :)