Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/16/05 01:22 PM, NegativeONE wrote: It's much easier to look at when you're sifting through large chunks of code to look for problematic areas or remind yourself what that chunk does. When you're actually making games, rather than trinkets, this becomes handy.

Hey, some people actually prefer to use if statements (you, as an obvious example) and I don't really care. I personally think looking through ?: statements is easier than if statements but some obviouslly disagree.

I take personal offense when you hold your own coding style on such a pedestal and literally call other peoples' shitty.

I don't see why you're taking offense here though, I really never meant to insinuate that my style is better than anyone elses and that everyone elses style is shitty.. I don't know where you got that from, I just personally think it's easier to use a ?: than an if in most circumstances. If you don't use ?: and use if's instead, then just ignore that as it is your personal preference.. that's all.

if statements are a big thing, and they're not going anywhere.

I agree, if statements are great.. I use them a lot still, in circumstances where if's are better than ?:s [FOR ME].

Though I think this is kinda simple, and using an if would be a waste of time:

space = (Key.isDown(Key.SPACE) ? true : false);

If you see what I mean.

At 11/16/05 01:29 PM, -liam- wrote: I don't see why you're taking offense here though, I really never meant to insinuate that my style is better than anyone elses and that everyone elses style is shitty.. I don't know where you got that from

Because the topic is called "You know you're a shitty coder WHEN", and you finished that sentence with "When you use an if statement when a ?: would work perfectly fine". I don't think it gets much more explicit than that.

space = (Key.isDown(Key.SPACE) ? true : false);
If you see what I mean.

Please don't patronize me. I know what the syntax means, I just don't think it makes if statements quite so obsolete. I use the ?: syntax in some cases where I feel that it fits the logical flow of things, but most times I find that an if statement is just more comprehensive.

So this is where all the nerds hang out.

At 11/16/05 01:43 PM, _Luis_ wrote: So this is where all the nerds hang out.

Well, it was all the nerds except for one, until just now.

At 11/16/05 01:37 PM, NegativeONE wrote: Please don't patronize me. I know what the syntax means

Oh my fucking god, patronize you? I meant if you understand how I mean that it is easier to use a ?: in that situation

I just don't think it makes if statements quite so obsolete. I use the ?: syntax in some cases where I feel that it fits the logical flow of things, but most times I find that an if statement is just more comprehensive.

Bleh, when I said the thing about using an if statement when a ?: would work fine, the emphasis was kinda on the last three words. Of course there are situations where if is better/more suitable than a ?: statement.

you know your a shitty coder whn you make a thread about it on newgrounds

At 11/16/05 01:50 PM, MaxV wrote: you know your a shitty coder whn you make a thread about it on newgrounds

you know you suck at life when you join the party one page too late...

go back to sleep

At 11/16/05 01:29 PM, -liam- wrote: space = (Key.isDown(Key.SPACE) ? true : false);

Well, since you're putting down that that is the easiest method, I'll correct you on what is.

space = Key.isDown(Key.SPACE)
You don't need a ?: for that, because it already outputs true or false.

But back to the point, I use if a lot more than ?:, only if it's for one liner stuff.

By the way, sorry about that other post I just made, I'm in school and was testing if I was still banned. (I thought i had a reasonable amount of time left)-

At 11/16/05 01:49 PM, -liam- wrote: Bleh, when I said the thing about using an if statement when a ?: would work fine, the emphasis was kinda on the last three words. Of course there are situations where if is better/more suitable than a ?: statement.

You should be more careful with your words. I noticed that you didn't respond to the evidence that you were calling neglect of ?: a practice in shitty scripting. I don't know if that's because you see that it's true or whether you just don't want to address the matter. Either way, I'm fine to be done with it. I knew someone would come in here and be so afraid to hurt their pride that they chose something like "Using aVariable+=1 instead of aVariable++!!!!!" or something else bordering on inconsequential. I just didn't think it'd take weeks to happen.

At 11/16/05 01:58 PM, fwe wrote: Well, since you're putting down that that is the easiest method, I'll correct you on what is.

Actually I was saying which was easier out of ?: and if in that situation, but I hadn't thought of using your way and it is better.

When first... you write 700+ lines of code for something that could be 400 or less...

ALL in the _root timeline, with onLoad = function.

Then can't firgure out how to insert a preloader or intro for 2 weeks, because onLoad has to be on the first frame in the first scene...

Then re-write all of the code.

I did just that in my crappy ass eyeball game. Wow, now I'm n00b. Then, I was uber n00b.

OOOORRRRRR... my favorite.

When you spend 2 hours trying to figure out why your duplicateMovieClip isn't working, only to realize, you gave the MC an insance name of Box, not square.

when:

You make a game which can be wrecked when you right click and press play or forward

At 3/17/04 08:23 AM, shade_v2 wrote: To kick things off... You Know You're a Shitty Coder WHEN:

The variables oldx and oldy appear in your movement code.
(See illustration.)

WRONG! If done correctly oldx and oldy can be very useful! (magnetism used them, but not for walls [used them for the motion trail])

You know your a shitty coder when you first start learning ActionScript :p

At 11/16/05 02:47 PM, JeremysFilms wrote: You know your a shitty coder when you first start learning ActionScript :p

another untrue one. i started learning actionscript four months ago, and i had already been programming for years, so it only took me about 20 minutes to learn. i wasnt a [bad] coder... i was just new to actionscript.

of course, im still learning ^_^

At 11/16/05 02:47 PM, JeremysFilms wrote: You know your a shitty coder when you first start learning ActionScript :p

lol. I kind of enjoy that, JF. I find ActionScript to be such a whiny little bitch of a language sometimes... with it's requisite mid command capitalizations and what-not.

P-shaw, I say! P-shaw to ActionScript. ;)

At 11/16/05 02:35 PM, Glaiel_Gamer wrote: WRONG! If done correctly oldx and oldy can be very useful! (magnetism used them, but not for walls [used them for the motion trail])

No glaiel, you are just a shitty coder. =)

<3

You know you're a shitty coder when

you try coding in Clock Crew language

on (release) {
paly();
}

And then spend hours on the clock crew forums complaining about them no teaching you the correct codes

At 11/19/05 03:54 PM, cheese_meister wrote: on (release) {
paly();
}

It's

on(letGo):Void{
paly(true);
}

Methinks.

When you (I) spent half an hour finding a workaround for this codes refusal to work.

for(i=8; i <1; i--){
_root["console"+i] = null
}

having only just ascended from

for(i=8, i <1, i--){
_root["console"+i] = null
}

It was my first time using for. have pity on me.

lol at bleeblap, that's happened to me too... I nearly restructed an entire movie because of test scene

When:

You become so frustrated with the seemingly random errors coming from your code that you start reversing the less than and greater than symbols in your conditional statements; Thinking, perhaps, that you've gone retarded at some point during the session and simply didn't notice.

Several hours later, you realize that the data you've been accessing is being read as strings rather than integers. You wrap several variables in an int(), fixing the problem, and then shoot yourself in the face as penance for your moronitudedness.

At 4/14/06 01:30 AM, shade_v2 wrote: You become so frustrated with the seemingly random errors coming from your code that you start reversing the less than and greater than symbols in your conditional statements; Thinking, perhaps, that you've gone retarded at some point during the session and simply didn't notice.

that actually reminds me of a time at 3am when i spent 20 min staring at an inequality that said 4 > 1, and i was CONVINCED that was wrong. eventually, i realized that > = greater than, not less than. it was at that point that i realized i needed sleep.

You Know You're a Shitty Coder WHEN

You don't get any of the jokes in this thread

At 3/17/04 08:27 AM, qweasdzxc wrote: You know you are a shitty coder when:

You post in this thread, excluding me.

Including you of course

At 4/14/06 01:37 AM, brainface wrote:

You Know You're a Shitty Coder WHEN

You don't get any of the jokes in this thread

that one beats them all XD I laughed so loud.

By the way, this thread is SOOO last year!

... when you copy and paste this...

on(release){
//code goes here
}

and expect it to do something

When you think this will work

i saw that post ages ago

i was looking for it

thank you!

At 8/6/05 05:56 PM, GooGum wrote: ...you drink massive amounts of Pepsi rather than massive amounts of Coke.

i have this problem every day!

ooh and you know your a shit coder when you put

onClipEvent(enterframe){}
on a frame >:(

i have got into a habbit of doing that :(

At 8/6/05 04:17 PM, shade_v2 wrote: WHEN:

You spend twenty minutes reading and re-reading the code you've just written muttering to yourself, "This should be working, why isnt' this working?" Only to find the code is perfect, and the error was in the output trap you've been monitoring it with.

haha, ive done that so many times