Offset Bad Code, With Bad Code Offsets 279
An anonymous reader writes "Two weeks ago, The Daily WTF's Alex Papadimoulis announced Bad Code Offsets, a join venture between many big names in the software development community (including StackOverflow's Jeff Atwood and Jon Skeet and SourceGear's Eric Sink). The premise is that you can offset bad code by purchasing Bad Code Offsets (much in the same way a carbon-footprint is offset). The profits are donated to Free Software projects which work to eliminate bad code, such as the Apache Foundation and FreeBSD. The first cheques were sent out earlier today." Hopefully, they work better than carbon offsets, actually.
Deliberately bad? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why??
Re:Deliberately bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the intent is that you buy them as penance for bad code you've already written.
Which makes them pretty much unlike carbon offsets, but I guess someone thinks they're being amusing.
It's a clever fund-raising campaign for certain projects; I wouldn't read much more into it than that.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the intent is that you buy them as penance for bad code you've already written.
Which makes them pretty much unlike carbon offsets. .
Regardless of prior or future offense, it's an old idea: simony.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the intent is that you buy them as penance for bad code you've already written.
Which makes them pretty much unlike carbon offsets. .
Regardless of prior or future offense, it's an old idea: simony.
but that's only a venial sin, right?
So I only have to worry about being cursed with ridiculous hair [wikipedia.org]?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Deliberately bad? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the intent is that you buy them as penance for bad code you've already written.
No way could I come up with that kind of coin.
Re:Deliberately bad? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think it's that clever. People who frequent WTF think it's the other guy who writes bad code.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No no no. Do you know how Carbon offsets work?
My company spews out X amount of carbon a year. My Government puts a limit to Y amount of Carbon a year. Since it's detrimental to my business (reducing client base) to reduce my carbon output, I can purchase Carbon offsets so that some of my money goes towards greener projects. Thus I keep my clients Happy and I meet government regulation.
Now, there is no LAW forbidding bad code. But the same basic principle applies: You want to reduce the amount of Bad code yo
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
For your specific type of business. Other businesses have other limits. Other governments put other limits, or no limits, on businesses in their jurisdiction.
Since it's detrimental to my business (reducing client base) to reduce my carbon output,...
I don't know what you mean by "reducing client base". You won't lose clients if you reduce your carbon output. It may cost you a VERY large bundle of mon
Re: (Score:2)
I know - in an Ideal world, things wouldn't be set up the way they are right now. I was using this "Ideal example" of how carbon offsets should work to mirror the idea of how these Bade code offsets DO work.
It's not going to reduce the bad code you've written, no. But it would (in theory, its practically impossible to imperically measure) go towards increasing the amount of Good code produced in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a huge difference between badly written code and non-functioning code. Users will feel the effect of non-functioning code.
Developers will feel the effect of badly written code. One of the reasons each Windows release has a handful of bugs is because its written by LOTS of different people. When you code things in such a manner that it's easier for other people to understand, bug fixes and general maintenance are much easier. It's also easier to add on to later.
Open Source projects are the kind that
Re:Deliberately bad? (Score:5, Funny)
Do you think Microsoft doesn't have any sort of internal code and bug tracking system?
Sometimes I wonder...
Re: (Score:2)
This model has worked well for cheat offsets [cheatneutral.com], too.
Re: (Score:2)
Cheat offsetting does not work because cheating is a personal thing. Imagine peoples ABCD. A cheats on B then pays in to a offset scheme, this goes to person C who then does not cheat on person D (pretty sure relationships also don't work this way, further breaking the analogy). In the end person B is still heartbroken, while person D is saved.
Com
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Deliberately bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Why would someone feel guilty for selling a car with the hood welded shut?
Re:Deliberately bad? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would someone feel guilty for that? It's not like the buyer has no choice.
Re:Deliberately bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Deliberately bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
In what way? Closed source says nothing about whether you actually use some of the very-bad laws on the books to prevent people from inspecting the workings of your program. Its perfectly possibly for me to write a closed-source program and not drag people to court for reverse engineering, and even write a license to that effect.
If I do not explicitly permit someone to distribute modifications of my software, that *would* fall under copyright law, but that's not covered by the analogy. In fact, its pretty difficult to come up with a car analogy that actually makes sense. Whether you view copyright as moral or not falls to your personal belief. My belief is that, despite Stallman's protestations, it is possible to distribute software under copyright morally, even though a lot of proprietary software vendors do not do so.
Re:Deliberately bad? (Score:4, Funny)
Wrong. The real reason someone would feel bad for writing bad code is because afterwards they'd have to put up with RMS picketing their offices every morning. I can imagine the boardroom now:
Director 1: We're making millions from this closed source software, it's the company's greatest success.
Director 2: Yea, but that scary guy with the beard and the long hair keeps turning up and making my morning miserable.
Director 1: I know, he's really annoying. All in favor of scuttling our revenue in the interests of making him go away, say "aye".
Directors 1 - 20: "AYE!"
Re: (Score:2)
Which you can do with this also.
You can specify which org the cash will go to, and 100% of the donation is given to that org.
This is just a gimmick to encourage people to donate. Donate directly, if you like. Donate via Alex's charity. Whatever floats your boat -- but if you want to support F/OSS, then donate time, code, or money (the F/OSS equivalent to ass, grass, or cash).
You want me to pay what? (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It won't be much if we just place a tax on all software sales.
Re: (Score:2)
The idea is ammusing and having the money donated to a open source project is cool but the prices are a tad high for my blood...
At the risk of being whooshed, I hope you noticed that it's basically just a donation in pretty much whatever amount you want. The lowest amount they have right now is $1.50, though I would understand if they made it $5.00 or $10.00.
Re:You want me to pay what? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
so could ati's and nvidia's.....
each independently.
now throw in the shit wrong with half the projects included in ubuntu by default and we could wipe out world debt.
Re: (Score:2)
and christ, how can i forget adobe and sun (java)?????
we have a surplus.
we can feed africa for a generation!!!!
Apache & FreeBSD = bad code? (Score:5, Funny)
which work to eliminate bad code, such as the Apache Foundation and FreeBSD.
Wow, that's a quite direct attack.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't tell if you're completely misreading or trying to be funny.
But the money is going towards the Apache Foundation and FreeBSD, not that they are bad code.
Re:Apache & FreeBSD = bad code? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
What could possibly be bad in a code base that contains functions such as "void die_you_gravy_sucking_pig_dog(void)"?
That it's not written in CamelCase.
Depends on the language if that's a good thing or not.
Re:Apache & FreeBSD = bad code? (Score:4, Informative)
camelCase and the 10 different cases (Score:2)
[X] Real prOGRammeRS USe STudLYCApS
[X] In Soviet Russia, bad code offsets YOU!
[X] Ask Tiger Woods wife to fix it instead - if she can beat Tiger Woods driver with any old club on her first try, she can probably fix bad code just by looking at it. Think female Chuck Norris.
[X] camelCaseStyle (humps in middle)
[X] ProperCaseStyle
[X] Title_Case_Style
[X] classic_style
[X] InJavaAllClassNamesMustBeAsLongAsPossible.AndRandomMixOfProperCaseAndALL_CAPS_YOU_IGNORANT_
Just call them by the real name, indulgences... (Score:5, Insightful)
* (carbon, code, whatever) offsets are really the Papal indulgences of the 21st century.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yup. Environmentalism is the religion of the 21st century... and just like any religion, it can be used to control the populace and ensure that those in power remain in power.
Re: (Score:2)
That's so funny, considering that those who oppose CO2 emission regulation control enormous amounts of wealth, and, until very recently, controlled all branches of the US government.
Re:Just call them by the real name, indulgences... (Score:4, Informative)
More or less yes, but the principle is sound. Offsets are voluntary so those who feel "guilty" pay.
Essentially, no individual person or company pays for pollution - we all do, all across the world. I'm talking about any and all kinds of pollution, not just greenhouse gases.
Carbon credits - the government taxy, non-voluntary way - is a good idea because if, say, GM releases a bunch of sulfuric acid into the atmosphere, they don't need to pay for it, or any of the costs it inflicts on the planet. Instead, everybody does.
Credits are a perfect example of free-market ideals - polluting becomes a cost of doing business, and as the cost of polluting rises, companies will become more efficient or less profitable.
Re:Just call them by the real name, indulgences... (Score:5, Insightful)
They are an attempt to provide an economic incentive to pollute less. Without such incentive, the tragedy of the commons ensures we will wreck our collective selves while seeking individual profits.
This is not anywhere near the same thing as imaginary religious crap. It's economics, man.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead of carbon offsets, why not tax carbon directly?
Any carbon extracted from the ground in coal or gas format will be taxed per ton. Carbon derived from recent organic sources (trees, crops) would be exempt from the tax.
Increase the taxes until our carbon use is at some desired target.
The only downsid
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.teslamotors.com/performance/well_to_wheel.php [teslamotors.com]
It's hard to go through life *without* spending money here or there lining the pockets of "bad" people, just because of how money filters through the economy. But with regards to this issue, I believe we've made the correct choice.
Re: (Score:2)
More efficient than internal combustion? Most definitely. Now, how efficient we are at producing the electricity to charge the batteries that power the electric vehicle is a question, too, though.
Physical science doesn't lie, but marketers do, and you apparently always find "scientific evidence" for anything you want... you just have to be willing to ignore things, too. Yes, I'm a skeptic :P hehe.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is this evil? Of course not, it makes perfectly good friggen sense.
How about a more corporate version.
If you don't think it counts because it is one compan
Re:Just call them by the real name, indulgences... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but buying credits from a company that doesn't produce as much carbon emission as the government says it can is in no way actually helping the environment. It's a ponzi scheme. You produce the same amount of carbon, THEY produce the same amount of carbon, but YOUR costs to do business go up and the middleman brokering the credits makes a fortune.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, everyone produces the same amount of carbon TODAY. But with an economic incentive to produce less carbon it will be cost effective to install greener technology and produce less TOMORROW.
Re:Just call them by the real name, indulgences... (Score:5, Insightful)
If it was cost effective to install greener technology and produce less carbon today, companies would do it and save money.
If it becomes cost effective TOMORROW, they'll do it TOMORROW to save money.
In the meantime, the cost of carbon offsets has done nothing but cost them, and thus every one of their customers, money. Money which makes carbon brokers richer. Costs which may force that company to move their jobs overseas. That costs us all.
It's a shell game. Plain and simple. Carbon, carbon, who's got the carbon?
Re:Just call them by the real name, indulgences... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm sorry, but buying credits from a company that doesn't produce as much carbon emission as the government says it can is in no way actually helping the environment.
Wrong. It gives people a financial incentive to reduce their carbon emissions if possible.
If you merely tax or fine people, they will reduce their carbon emissions to the point where the cost of further reductions would outweigh the fines/taxes they'll have to pay. If they have the prospect of selling further reductions i.e. making money out of them, there is an incentive to make further investments to cut emissions below statutory levels.
If you and I both manufacture widgets, but I invest to reduce carbon emissions below whatever limit is placed and you don't, under a tax / fining system I'd be bonkers to go below the limit, or even to the limit. If it costs me $20 to avoid a fine of $10 it'd be stupid.
Under a carbon trading system, if I reduce my emissions below the limit, I can sell the credits to you so you can continue to emit the same levels of carbon. So the people who buy your high carbon widgets are subsidising the people who buy my low carbon widgets.
I'd go so far as to say a properly constructed carbon trading system is the only way forward.
By the way, there is a precedent. The US EPA introduced a trading system for sulphur dioxide emissions and apparently it worked like a charm.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Creating artificial limits on a gas that exists in nature and is produced by every animal on the planet is ludicrous. A gas that is REQUIRED for the plant life on this planet, which is required for the animal life. That should be really simple to see.
You wouldn't mind drinking 100 gallons of water right now, then, right? After all, water exists in nature and is required for humans to live.
How about salt? Would you like to eat fifty pounds of salt? After all, it exists in nature and is required for human life!
But control is a strong urge. We ... must .... control .... others....
Must... only... think... in... black... and... white...
Can... never... have... too... much... of... a... good... thing...
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that a lot of the carbon-offsets money doesn't go to things like green-energy research, subsidizing alternative energy, or other such things that would help the environment. A good portion gets paid directly to polluters, who in return promise to pollute less than they "otherwise" would have, a totally notional promise that rewards the worst polluters, who agree to be slightly less bad in the future in return for the cash.
Re: (Score:2)
...and now for something entirely unrelated. (Score:4, Insightful)
"Hopefully, they work better than carbon offsets, actually."
Way to ensure this whole thread goes off track, by trolling on an unrelated and politically charged topic. And with an example poorly chosen as proof of anything, at that.
Re:...and now for something entirely unrelated. (Score:5, Funny)
"Hopefully, they work better than carbon offsets, actually."
Way to ensure this whole thread goes off track, by trolling on an unrelated and politically charged topic. And with an example poorly chosen as proof of anything, at that.
Don't pay any attention to the last line of the summary. If you ignore it, it will go away.
... just like global warming.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Admittedly, I was awful tempted to just troll the heck out of this thread (never done it, and I have no foes, which makes me think I'm doing something wrong), but instead I will abstain. I really don't know enough about how they're being implemented to have an opinion. I do think it's more about implementation than the idea itself, but that's true of most things.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I've never actually met or talked to somebody that thought carbon offsets weren't a scam, except for those trying to sell them. I get your point about derailing the thread, but have to ask... do you actually think carbon offsets are legitimate?
There are two kinds of carbon offsets. The Wikipedia Carbon offset [wikipedia.org] article describes them as two markets, right up top.
The larger carbon offset market is based upon laws limiting total industrial carbon dioxide emissions, and in this market companies buy carbon offsets in the amount of carbon dioxide they are emitting, and, yes, sell any excess ones they have to other companies. The difference between this and a simple tax on carbon dioxide emissions is that the total amount of offsets available in any ye
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad the moderation system for the most part extends only to comments and not the front page story its self. Mod the story and the editors -1 troll, dupe etc. and filter the front page like you would the comments in the story. If a story is modded into the ground, it doesn't show up on the front if you've set your view threshold high
Re:...and now for something entirely unrelated. (Score:5, Funny)
I really hope Mozilla won't be getting money from this. If anything, they should be contributing...
Not realistic (Score:5, Funny)
I can't really see how Microsoft can afford this...
Re:Not realistic (Score:5, Funny)
Windows ME alone would probably throw them bankrupt.
Re:Not realistic (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only possible way this works is... (Score:3, Funny)
And no, I'm not going to RTFA. This is a horrible idea.
Re:The only possible way this works is... (Score:4, Informative)
It's actually a great idea. Essentially its a way to donate to Open Source projects and better coding without having to decide which one and going through the hassle of contacting the project manager and trying to get his paypal information to send some cash over.
It is not so much a penalty as it is a donation, simply because no one is forcing you. They simply structured it around an already existing system (carbon offsets) - probably to give it a more meaningful feel to it.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not so much a penalty as it is a donation, simply because no one is forcing you. They simply structured it around an already existing system (carbon offsets) - probably to give it a more meaningful feel to it.
Then call it a donation. Meaningful feel to it? It feels silly, to me... not meaningful. :)
Re: (Score:2)
And no, I'm not going to RTFA. This is a horrible idea.
I agree, RTFA is a horrible idea. So what is your thoughts on the bad code offsets?
Re-apply faulty offset concept.... (Score:2, Insightful)
...to yet another place it will not work.
A single incorrect critical line of code has the potential to bring down a system just like a single loose coupling on a remote control aircraft will bring turn it into a pile of broken wood. In some things any less than 100% just won't do the job. You can't offset that.
Re: (Score:2)
You're missing the point. As long as that wood doesn't burn during the crash, the carbon remains sequestered!
Why - what are you talking about?
I'm selling carbon offsets! (Score:3, Insightful)
Reply with your email address and I will send you my PayPal info! Thanks for saving Christmas^H^H^H^H^Hthe environment.
Bad code offsets? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Bad code offsets? (Score:4, Funny)
That is a goto, so yes.
Re: (Score:2)
There’s CALL/RET and then of course there is the assortment of conditional jump statements.
You’d still use JMP sometimes, though.
Re: (Score:2)
it only works in 32-bit or greater ISAs.
JMP 0X0BADCODE
or
JMP 0xBAADCODE
if your programmers are sheeple.
Re: (Score:2)
More like
JMP F00
Actually, that one's good code, if it's directed to a banker on top of a building.
Lutherans (Score:5, Funny)
As a Catholic, let me tell all you greens and bad coders that letting people buy their way out of their sins just gets stuff nailed to your door. But good luck with it anyway.
Good thing they aren't mandatory (Score:4, Funny)
Carbon trading is stupid. (Score:3)
No, it really is. It advocates that 3rd world countries can only advance to 1st world status by polluting... a lot. Instead of trying to develop these countries without all the pollution we had to do in the past, they are basically saying that 1st world countries have to subsidize that pollution advancement by lowering their own pollution in response.
It's a totally assanine proposition and basically is advocating that it's fine for 3rd world countries to pollute if they advance themselves up.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it really is. It advocates that 3rd world countries can only advance to 1st world status by writing bad code... a lot. Instead of trying to develop these countries' software without all the bad code we had to do in the past, they are basically saying that 1st world countries have to subsidize that poorly written software by lowering their own coding standards in response. It's a totally asanine proposition and basically is advocating that it's fine for 3rd world countries to program poorly if they advance themselves up.
Put that back on topic for you.
Gave up on DailyWTF (Score:5, Insightful)
The day Alex announced this was the day I finally stopped reading the DailyWTF. It's gotten worse and worse over the past few years, with stories that were so embellished that you stop caring. The fun part about the site was laughing at real IT blunders. But Alex and his creative writing team overdid the writing to the point where the stories were often incredibly far from the real fact (the original submitters would often explain the "real" story in the comments". This might be bearable if their writing wasn't so awful. But often they interchange important character names, have horribly confusing grammatical constructs, and generally just make a mess out of the stories.
Then to top it off, Alex shows up occasionally and comes up with nonsense like this instead of posting another story.
I'm done. Yes, it was amusing for awhile, but I'm moving on.
It's like a swear box (Score:3, Interesting)
It seems like a lot of people don't get this.
It's like a swear box. You know, in an attempt to get out of the habit of swearing, you put a dollar in box every time you swear. The contents of the box goes to charity.
This is exactly the same, except that in this case the habit you're trying to get out of is releasing bad code.
We all sneak out bad code from time to time - "it's ugly but it works; I can clean it up, or I can ship it and have an extra hour doing [insert recreation of choice]". The 'swear box' makes cleaning it up seem more attractive. And if you don't, a worthy cause benefits.
The analogy to carbon offsets is pretty weak, but I guess it's wry humour of a sort.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not our fucking fault that management and customers demand sufficiently working code on time rather than perfect code late.
I kind of feel offended by the whole idea that I would personally and deliberately release code that is not perfect in every way. :)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I guess that's a dollar to the swear box.
Stupidity Offsets? (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe we can sell Stupidity Offsets to dump rich people, I can think of a couple dozen people in Hollywood who would qualify to buy these, they would go towards educating people in universities on the subject of physics, chemistry, and biology.
Oh and I get to keep 10% of the money for my own "Operating Expenses".
Richard Garriott's take on carbon offsets (Score:2, Interesting)
Richard G blasted into space last year [facebook.com], and to offset the tons of jet fuel his spaceship burned, he purchased some carbon offsets. At a talk in Austin earlier this year, he made what I thought was an interesting point: carbon offsets might not work as effectively as planned, but they help get you in the habit of doing something about the problem. When/if we discover a better way, then you've already got the habit formed -- you just switch it to whatever this new method might be.
I'm sure there are some flaws
Offsets are crap (Score:3, Insightful)
Now if we could have a tax on bad code on the other hand...
can most people afford enough? (Score:2)
OK, I'm in the process of debugging somebody else's 43,000 lines of FORTRAN code. (I hate FORTRAN...). What I see in here would require a number of offsets which would cost approximately the entire US GDP to buy. This is not the first time I have seen code like this, either.
maybe we need Big Ego offsets (Score:2)
why not mangle some climate code? (Score:4, Funny)
I work in the climate science department of a well known university in E Anglia, UK, and am proud to be the owner of a 4 x 4 and also an excruciatingly bad programmer. No, sorry, I got that wrong, I have no car, walk to work, and only write in equisitely structured C++.
You can all assuage your guilt from driving those 4 x 4s and writing all that crap code in Python. Ruby or whatever by sending me large sums of money, and I will continue my low guilt lifestyle as long as the cheques keep coming.
You can carry on shopping at malls in your 4 x 4s, and writing your terrible code.
We will all be happy. I will get rich. Everyone wins. We save the planet. What's the problem?
More honest than carbon offsets (Score:3, Insightful)
This seems to be more of a fun way to give to charity than the guilt-driven indulgence scam that is carbon offsets.
Re:cyber-indugences (Score:5, Insightful)
You're missing the point. The point is to poke fun at carbon schemes and raise money for free software. It's not to actually offset bad code, just to support good code writing organizations.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
There is no amount of offsets you can buy for Windows ME.
Re: (Score:2)
Stackoverflow, essentially a simplified web forum that could be designed by a semi-literate PHP monkey in 48 hours of work
How about you reply here on Monday with a link to your full working clone of it, then? Might as well submit it as a story, too, I'm sure a large number of people would be interested in trying it out.
Re: (Score:2)
The guy that thinks that Stackoverflow, essentially a simplified web forum that could be designed by a semi-literate PHP monkey in 48 hours of work, is a major feat of software engineering?
Your point is addressed here:
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001284.html [codinghorror.com]
If stackoverflow is so simple, why is there no other site that does the job as well?
Re: (Score:2)
There is no bad code, only bad developers. Can you offset one of these jokers?
Yes, an bad developer can be offset by having a very good developer dedicated to just fixing everything they break.
Re: (Score:2)
I have written bad code. I try to make all my code good, but the occasional bad line slips through. I'll admit it.
Re:If you write bad code... (Score:4, Funny)
I know my code is all peaches and cream!
Typo: You misspelled "patches".