What is the programmer equivalent of "spitting in the customer's

Programming in java

>>56384142
depends.
if you're trying to be obviously spiteful and get caught, do it with infinite loops like for(;;), while(true) without break statements.

if you're trying to be somewhat subtle but still fuck this up, then you want to use arrays and go out of bounds.

if you want the equivalent of busting a nut on a burger and passing it off as mayo, use an endless stream of if statements to not only create conditionals but also to define variables themselves.

no documentation

>>56384142

did you read the post on /diy/ "what is the contractor's equivalent of spinning in your food?"

>>56384142

When it meets the specification but pushes the limits

>>56384294
That's what brought me here, yes.

>>56384142
Doing a bad job/being lazy about edge cases, tests, etc.

A backdoor

Although that might be more like shitting in their food

Nothing because you don't fucking eat code you retard.

Unless it's spaghetti code.........

>>56384389
Mmm... Code

No mans sky

File: uwotm8.gif (2MB, 260x260px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 260x260px

>>56384389

File: image.jpg (51KB, 453x519px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 453x519px

>>56384423

Using linked listsfor everything. never hashtables/trees/array based lists.
Not sanitizing inputs.
No error handling, just swallowing exceptions.
Mutable state in singletons/static or global state

>>56384286
Good way to get fired when your boss gets back a copy of your code

>>56384294
that thread disgusted me, i bet the same faggot is posting similar threads in every board

>>56384535
>Having a boss that's going to read your code ever
Where the fuck do you work?

>>56384324
This basically...

Everything else will never get past basic testing

>>56384546
at initech

>>56384142
Telling somebody you're a programmer, and they immediately go, "OMG, I have this website that I want to build..." and then you fucking do it for them by cranking out a Wordpress site, but secretly use all the plugins that are full of anal bead gay dildo ads in their javascript.

>>56384255
If you're gonna do number 2 somehow accomplish it with eval so it's harder to debug

framing good coders on your team with embarrassing mistakes, getting them fired

Using GPL incompatible licenses.

>>56384433
Underrated

>>56384142
Proprietary programs.

>>56384142
Hardcoding something and justify it with O(1) complexity; making a monolithic files with +1000 lines of spaghetti code and one liners, with no documentation.

>>56384433
Dub dubs
>>56384716
Thanks

Depends on what you're coding.

In all cases, as long as the code is not going to be reviewed, add a function that checks for time. When it hits a certain date, something changes to either fuck the code, or display something inappropriate.

For example, on a webpage, you could exchange a banner or logo with a picture of something repulsive. In a binary program, it's the same idea, but less fixable.

Going with the webpage one, it'd be like this:
Someone hires you to make a webpage. You dislike them a lot. You want to spit in their food, so to speak. You create an ID on the logo, say "main-logo". You put a picture there, a logo for example. Don't definite the height/width, in case you want your repulsive picture to be bigger. Make a JavaScript module with a few layers of private functions, which a public function calls. Make the name of that public function something nice, like code.function.niceLayout, which is called on page load, along with a few other innocent functions. Add an if statement, checking if the date is greater then or equal to two months from now. When that date is hit, change the logo to a horrible picture.
??? Profit.

When they call you, be hard to reach. Respond in like 3 days, then say it must've been a hacker or something. "fix" it. Set it for 5 months now. Hearty fun to be had.

>>56384142

Just spit in their food, man. Not like you learn spitting in CS, is it.

>>56384286
>>56384535
Undocumented things will get documented.

Incorrectly documented things will never get fixed, perhaps an advisory will go out, more likely very few people will notice, and the ones who do will work around it and continue on, grumbling about the asshole dev who didn't document properly.

Hint: Make the documentation "obviously" "correct", but the actual code the documentation refers to should be subtly wrong - using subtly different variables, maybe some code that looks like it's doing something but actually ends up doing nothing in a non-obvious way.

Incorrect documentation can be insidious.

>>56385627 reminds me, check out the winners of the underhanded C competition.

>>56384433
>>56384716
>>56384997
Fuck off

File: 1446837762893.jpg (43KB, 233x233px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 233x233px

>>56386665
hah hurt fanboii

>>56384142
Having pauses for loading when no loading is actually taking place.

>>56384142

Backdoors?

>>56384142
not commenting on your code

File: 1459873053477.jpg (28KB, 604x347px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 604x347px

>>56387642
oh god I can't stop laughing