Splice and I got into an argument about verifying stuff entered into settings. Making sure it is actually a number, I can understand it being part of noob-proofing. Taking an extra step to make sure it isn't a negative number when it isn't recommended, I don't think a noob would be that clever.
If somebody wants to try and be smart, then they more than likely deserve the result that they get. For those that don't know what happens if you have Python wait a negative amount of seconds, it is either a very very long time or forever (not worth looking through the code to find out for sure).
So what are your thoughts on this? Let them feel the burn or protect the noobs?
0
Should the programs make sure you don't put in a negative number?
Started by
Kway
, Dec 20 2011 09:46 PM
15 replies to this topic
#2
Posted 20 December 2011 - 09:49 PM
I don't like to coddle people. As long as there's a label calling for correct input I don't see a problem.
nymh (1:46:09 PM): I want a penis.
nymh (1:48:20 PM): Can I make it look like a snail shell
nymh (1:48:45 PM): I would hang stuff from it
nymh (1:48:20 PM): Can I make it look like a snail shell
nymh (1:48:45 PM): I would hang stuff from it
Spoiler
#3
Posted 20 December 2011 - 09:52 PM
Scot, on 20 December 2011 - 09:49 PM, said:
I don't like to coddle people. As long as there's a label calling for correct input I don't see a problem.
This. And there are plenty of guides here that show users how to PROPERLY use the programs and what settings are considered "safe." If someone chooses to not follow these, its on them if their account gets iced.
Credit: California :)
#4
Posted 20 December 2011 - 09:56 PM
I have no problem with you not checking for input >=0 just as long in the guide or user manual you mention what is appropriate input.
but do you want to deal with the people who come to the forums and complain about it? there are tons of people don't read the entire post or thread and keep asking the same stuff.
but do you want to deal with the people who come to the forums and complain about it? there are tons of people don't read the entire post or thread and keep asking the same stuff.
-~-~-~ Signature ~-~-~-
#5
Posted 20 December 2011 - 10:06 PM
Just check the keyascii in the box and don't worry about it after that...
I generally try to noob proof it, simply so there's one less thig I have to troubleshoot when they tell me there is an issue. Then again, once you idiot proof something, someone goes out and makes a bigger idiot.
I generally try to noob proof it, simply so there's one less thig I have to troubleshoot when they tell me there is an issue. Then again, once you idiot proof something, someone goes out and makes a bigger idiot.
Quote
dorino: you look bad ass from the neck down and above that you're a god damn nerd, soul
#6
Posted 20 December 2011 - 10:09 PM
Also this is relevant
nymh (1:46:09 PM): I want a penis.
nymh (1:48:20 PM): Can I make it look like a snail shell
nymh (1:48:45 PM): I would hang stuff from it
nymh (1:48:20 PM): Can I make it look like a snail shell
nymh (1:48:45 PM): I would hang stuff from it
Spoiler
#7
Posted 20 December 2011 - 10:55 PM
As a high school compsci TA, I was supposed to break as many programs as I could including checking if the student can deal with incorrect input :c
Then again, it is high school.
Then again, it is high school.
#8
Posted 21 December 2011 - 02:27 AM
If there's the possibility of it causing an error you should check for it.
#9
Russell
-
- Advanced Member
-
- 100% Positive Feedback
- 14 1 0
- 604 posts
Pyro (699) Maniac
- Trader Score:13.56
Posted 21 December 2011 - 02:38 AM
Waser Lave, on 21 December 2011 - 02:27 AM, said:
If there's the possibility of it causing an error you should check for it.
This. If the program isn't perfect, some idiot will find a way to exploit that error, and undoubtedly, kill us all.
The - key isn't very far from the numbers as well (on my keyboard at least).
Spoiler
My Buying (Shells) Thread.
My Selling (Advanced) Thread.
Neocodex for Noobs - A Simple Pictoral Explanation
#10
Posted 21 December 2011 - 12:09 PM
The time it takes to answer the same questions all the time > the time it takes to check input.
Spoiler
#11
Posted 21 December 2011 - 12:22 PM
Sida, on 21 December 2011 - 12:09 PM, said:
The time it takes to answer the same questions all the time > the time it takes to check input.
I wanted to buy with negative profits before to try clearing out a shop. Obviously I was unsuccessful.
Buing Account Shells 4 month + and AAA shells with NP
#12
Posted 21 December 2011 - 12:41 PM
They should, because I don't think anyone wants to deal with the idiots running to the forum to ask why their programs are 'broken'.
#13
Posted 21 December 2011 - 12:55 PM
Its called error handling.
Do it. Always.
Do it. Always.
Credits to Joanna for the Sig!
Old sigs
Spoiler
Programs Progress
Spoiler
Click here and ask me anything.
#14
Posted 21 December 2011 - 01:15 PM
iargue, on 21 December 2011 - 12:55 PM, said:
Its called error handling.
Do it. Always.
Do it. Always.
But don't just catch and pass them.
#15
Posted 21 December 2011 - 02:04 PM
Waser Lave, on 21 December 2011 - 01:15 PM, said:
But don't just catch and pass them.
Write all your code, slap the initial call in your main method and wrap it in a single try/catch with messagebox: "something broke."
Yes, I've seen that before
Spoiler
#16
Posted 21 December 2011 - 02:06 PM
Sida, on 21 December 2011 - 02:04 PM, said:
Write all your code, slap the initial call in your main method and wrap it in a single try/catch with messagebox: "something broke."
Yes, I've seen that before
Yes, I've seen that before
That's still better than just catching an error and not displaying anything at all.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
