Split Programming off from Software forum

[kamper]

Originally posted by: Evadman
Dim m as lotusMemo
Do until ForumExists("Programming") = true
m.SendTo(1) = "anand@Anandtech.com"
m.SendTo(2) = "Moderator@anandtech.com"
m.cc(1) = "fs5@wherever.com"
m.Subject = "New Forum Request"
m.Body = "Please give us a programming forum!" & vbcrlf & vbcrlf & "Evadman"
m.Replyto = "Evadman"
m.Attachment = "ROFLcopter.gif"
Call SendLotusEmail(m)
loop
Call msgbox ("OMG! the programming forum exists!",vbcritical,"Horray!")

Nice! You almost had me for a second with saying that it exists But what's ROFLcopter.gif?

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Evadman
Dim m as lotusMemo
Do until ForumExists("Programming") = true

I believe that you can optimize this - the "= true" part should be redundant. Unless of course your corporate coding style guide dictates it.

Originally posted by: Evadman
m.SendTo(1) = "anand@Anandtech.com"
m.SendTo(2) = "Moderator@anandtech.com"

Couldn't that be implemented as "X,Y", on the same line? Is m.SendTo a dynamic array? Is that safe from exploitation due to buffer-overflows?

Originally posted by: Evadman
m.cc(1) = "fs5@wherever.com"
m.Subject = "New Forum Request"
m.Body = "Please give us a programming forum!" & vbcrlf & vbcrlf & "Evadman"
m.Replyto = "Evadman"

Doesn't the m.ReplyTo need to have an "@domain" after it, for it to be properly recieved, if someone chooses to reply?

Originally posted by: Evadman
m.Attachment = "ROFLcopter.gif"

What about the path? Isn't that exploitable, if someone changes the current drive/directory in a batch file, and then executes this code? What if they rename something to .gif.exe, and the recipient has "show extensions" disabled. Evil!

Originally posted by: Evadman
Call SendLotusEmail(m)
loop
Call msgbox ("OMG! the programming forum exists!",vbcritical,"Horray!")

Again, unless corporate style guidelines dictate it, aren't both of those "call" statements unnecessary and superfluous?

(Disclaimer, my code-review should be considered tongue-in-cheek, and really, it was just a devious excuse to bump this thread. But it's been ages since I've done any BASIC programming, so I'm not sure if my "corrections" are right or not. Port the code to C++ and then we'll talk.)

 

[kamper]

Just goes to show how much we need a Programming Forum. Now it's even leaking into Forum Issues!!

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: kamper
Just goes to show how much we need a Programming Forum. Now it's even leaking into Forum Issues!!

If my devious little plan suceeds, this will become the new 'Programming' forum. Mwhahahaha...

Who's with me??? We must overthrow the AT Admin oppressors, and claim this forum for our own!!!


(Mods have mercy, this is meant toungue-in-cheek.)

 

[remagavon]

This is a great idea, I'd be productive at AT :Q

 

[WarDemon666]

Agreed! I think its a great idea

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

 

[Evadman]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
I believe that you can optimize this - the "= true" part should be redundant. Unless of course your corporate coding style guide dictates it.

It is, I did it specificly so people not familiar with VB could follow it.

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Couldn't that be implemented as "X,Y", on the same line? Is m.SendTo a dynamic array? Is that safe from exploitation due to buffer-overflows?

It is a static array of 51 string elements. The strings are checked for validity in the SendLotusMail function.

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Doesn't the m.ReplyTo need to have an "@domain" after it, for it to be properly recieved, if someone chooses to reply?

No. I wrote the function, and it has some "undocumented" features. Since this function was inteneded for internal company use, it automaticly adds the @Domain of my company on any mail strings that do not have it.

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
What about the path? Isn't that exploitable, if someone changes the current drive/directory in a batch file, and then executes this code? What if they rename something to .gif.exe, and the recipient has "show extensions" disabled. Evil!

There is no file checking. Any filly qualified path can be used. Whatever the file is will be added as an attachment. If it was a batch file, then it would add the batch file as an attachment. EXE's and BAT's are very valid attachaments for the stuff I use this for. As for the recipient, if they go opening unknown crap for whatever reason, then it is their own damn fault. Putting an executable checker on the attachment add would be pointless in the long run.

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Again, unless corporate style guidelines dictate it, aren't both of those "call" statements unnecessary and superfluous?

Yes. They are not required, but I usually use them, as it assists me with speed reading my code.

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
(Disclaimer, my code-review should be considered tongue-in-cheek, and really, it was just a devious excuse to bump this thread. But it's been ages since I've done any BASIC programming, so I'm not sure if my "corrections" are right or not. Port the code to C++ and then we'll talk.)

They are close enough . Oh, and BUMP!

 

[TheLonelyPhoenix]

A dedicated Programming forum is a great idea. Let's hope it happens.

 

[kylef]

If you build the forum, Programmers will come!

I would certainly participate.

But we would definitely need a better way to share code. The "Attach Code" thing is clunky.

 

[alisajid]

Hell yeah. I've gotten a couple of useful answers to quesitons on AT forums. A more focused area would be great.

 

[imported_waldo]

I think it is a great thing...I would love it, even for stupid questions like how to program this or that in flash, all the way to php, squl and building your own app!

 

[fs5]

Request is approacing 3 months with no response from anybody official.... sigh....

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: Evadman

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
I believe that you can optimize this - the "= true" part should be redundant. Unless of course your corporate coding style guide dictates it.

It is, I did it specificly so people not familiar with VB could follow it.

Leaving the "=true" is more readable. In this case, I'd say readability is more important than any optimization.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

i enjoy both topics and would patronize separate forums.

i think it is a logical reorganization.

:thumbsup:

 

[n0cmonkey]

We could include scripting in the programming section, and let the web developers have some fun too.

 

[KoolDrew]

Originally posted by: DurocShark
I support this.

 

[jamesave]

Originally posted by: KoolDrew

Originally posted by: DurocShark
I support this.

 

[Mucman]

I definitely support this!

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Not even a "it won't be happening" or anything?

I wonder why this is being ignored, with such overwhelming support.

 

[AFB]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey
Not even a "it won't be happening" or anything?

I wonder why this is being ignored, with such overwhelming support.

Please

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey
Not even a "it won't be happening" or anything?

I wonder why this is being ignored, with such overwhelming support.

I figure the silence means that they are considering it. If it was a definite no they would have said so and maybe locked the thread. But any change in forum structure is probably something they take a while to think about. Maybe they want to see how serious we're taking it. At any rate, I'm pretty hopeful.

 

[jgbishop]

In the words of Coach Z, "Great jorb!".

I like this idea very much.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: kamper

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey
Not even a "it won't be happening" or anything?

I wonder why this is being ignored, with such overwhelming support.

I figure the silence means that they are considering it. If it was a definite no they would have said so and maybe locked the thread. But any change in forum structure is probably something they take a while to think about. Maybe they want to see how serious we're taking it. At any rate, I'm pretty hopeful.

I have been thinking the same, but this thread is 3 months old! Seems ridiculous to me. Just bite the bullet and do it or don't.

 

[jonmullen]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: kamper

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey
Not even a "it won't be happening" or anything?

I wonder why this is being ignored, with such overwhelming support.

I figure the silence means that they are considering it. If it was a definite no they would have said so and maybe locked the thread. But any change in forum structure is probably something they take a while to think about. Maybe they want to see how serious we're taking it. At any rate, I'm pretty hopeful.

I have been thinking the same, but this thread is 3 months old! Seems ridiculous to me. Just bite the bullet and do it or don't.

well I guess all we can do is keep the thread in their minds untill we get an answer one way or the other.