Am Fri, 19 Aug 2016 07:34:51 -0700 schrieb "H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d" <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com>:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 10:50:20AM +0000, Chris via Digitalmars-d wrote: > > On Thursday, 18 August 2016 at 17:23:09 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 04:56:32PM +0000, ketmar via Digitalmars-d > > > wrote: > > > > On Thursday, 18 August 2016 at 16:17:15 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: > > > > > if the stub reads: > > > > > > /** > > > > > * THE PROGRAMMER WAS TOO LAZY TO FILL THIS IN > > > > > * Params: > > > > > * x = THE PROGRAMMER WAS TOO LAZY TO FILL THIS IN > > > > > * y = THE PROGRAMMER WAS TOO LAZY TO FILL THIS IN > > > > > * Returns: THE PROGRAMMER WAS TOO LAZY TO FILL THIS IN > > > > > */ > > > > > int myFunc(int x, int y) { ... } > > > > > > :-P > > > > i assure you that programmers will still be too lazy to fill the > > > > docs. but they *will* spend alot of time rebuilding (or > > > > hex-editing if there is no source) their IDE to replace the > > > > message. > > > > > > Haha, too true! > > > > > > > > > T > > > > It is true. After all, it's all about writing code and hacking. "Look > > now it says 'THE PROGRAMMER IS COOL'! It only took me 3 hours to > > figure out how to replace the message. I'll write a blog about it! => > > reddit => flame war => please mark as OT ..." > [...] > > And if the pro-doc-ers are equally "cool", there would be an arms race > where the stub is encrypted with strong encryption to prevent tampering, > and the programmers would figure out ways of bypassing it, and develop > an entire subculture of IDE-cracking and doc avoidance. :-P > > > T > Guys if you have too much free time, go fix some compiler bugs. :D -- Marco