There's a language out there called "Progress Advanced Business Language" (or "Open Edge Advanced Business Language"). Just hearing that string of words in a sequence tells you you're in for it. It's a verbose, "English-like" programming language. But we're not here to pick on the language.

A long time ago, Mirjam had the "pleasure" of working in a Progress ABL environment. At some point, one of the developers had needed to find a date six months prior to the current date. It didn't need to be accurate, and thus said developer littered the code with comments reminding everyone that it didn't need to be that accurate. They arguably spent more time defending the choice to be inaccurate than it would have taken to write code that would have been accurate.

If you want to connect to another system, you need to supply credentials. That's a pretty obvious requirement. We can set aside the whole technical challenge of managing those credentials and the security problems various techniques create, and just focus in on: you must supply some credentials to authenticate.

Lisa has inherited a method which connects to another system. It, correctly, will complain if you don't supply parameters for credentials. It will, incorrectly, mislead you about their requirement:

Daniel recently started a new job. His first task was to fetch some data from the database and render it to the user. Easy enough, and there were already wrapper functions around the database to make it easy. He called execute_read, passed it a query, and checked the results.

There were no results. But the query definitely should have returned results. What was going on?

A horse can only be so tenderized, but as well established at this point: I don't like Hungarian Notation. Richard G sends us an example of yet more of it, being misused, as well as some bad date handling. That's basically two of the easiest things to complain about, so let's take a look!

DateTime sCDate2 = Convert.ToDateTime(Hdn_SelectedDate.Value);
Double dStart2 = double.Parse(Hdn_SelectedShifts.Value.Split('@')[0]); // Gets something like "10.5" for 10:30

// More code ...

DateTime lSelectedStartAdd = DateTime.Parse(sCDate2.ToShortDateString() + " " + DateTime.FromOADate((dStart2) / 24).ToShortTimeString());

Stella (previously) sends us a much elided snippet. The original code is several thousand lines contained in a single try block. But the WTF is pretty clear without seeing all of that:

try:
  # the whole business logic without any exception handling
except:
  print("Fudge")

We should always be wary of "(.+)-driven development". Things like test-driven development, or domain-driven development are fine, but they're also frequently approached from a perspective of dogma, which creates its own terrible outcomes.

But let's talk about domain-driven development. Without getting too bogged down into the details of the approach, the idea is pretty straightforward: describe you domain model without reference to any lower-level concerns, so you can effectively write your domain logic in an abstract language tuned to your specific needs. In other words, it's just a pretty good practice. DDD offers tools and techniques for doing it, and as stated, can be adopted as a point of dogma instead of technique.

Today's anonymous submitter sends us a React view that presents some admin options. Of course, it should only show us those admin options if the user is authorized to do that. So let's see how they implemented it:

{(isAdmin || canSeeResults) && (
    <div>
        <p>Admin Actions</p>
            {(isAdmin || canSeeResults) && (
                <div>
                    <button> Show Results </button>
                </div>
            )}
    </div>
)}