|
Unbelievable story … please promise that it was not made up for our amusement … 
|
|
|
|
|
It really happened. Moreover, it's still happening. Because we can't cut the branch without permission from some town official. So far no new crashes. The application is pretty robust and can recover even from unhandled exceptions. This branch randomly found a way. 
In order to understand stack overflow, you must first understand stack overflow.
|
|
|
|
|
Good story about "expect the unexpected.." Thanks for sharing …
BR
|
|
|
|
|
If the branch is hitting the screen hard enough to register, I'm not sure I'd want to be a customer standing there anyway... next thing your tree will become a mugger!
|
|
|
|
|
It's a small town (10k population). I don't really think anyone is buying BTCs there, but that's on our client to decide. We're just making a software. It's a spruce tree and it's just gently brushing the screen in a wind sometimes (about once a few minutes). It would be just very annoying for a potential customer (this BTM has to see one yet), but it can be stopped quite easily. 
In order to understand stack overflow, you must first understand stack overflow.
|
|
|
|
|
I say let the branch be.
I am not the one who knocks. I never knock.
In fact, I hate knocking.
|
|
|
|
|
It's unfortunately not our BTM, but our client's. We have no say in that. 
In order to understand stack overflow, you must first understand stack overflow.
|
|
|
|
|
Reminds me of a user I was helping some 20 years ago.
He told me that whenever he pressed a certain key on his keyboard his machine would restart.
So he demonstrated and the machine did indeed restart.
I also noticed that he had a ring binder folder on the desk and every time he would lean forwards to press the key, the binder would move forwards and the right corner of it would press the restart button on the box.
I really should have just kept my mouth shut and not pointed out to him what was going on
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
modified 3-Aug-18 3:15am.
|
|
|
|
|
Poor guy 
In order to understand stack overflow, you must first understand stack overflow.
|
|
|
|
|
Very similar situation: A lady at church complained that every time she started Word, it opened dozens of windows; on observation, I noticed that the heel of her palm was pressing the Enter key on the keypad.
Also, in the early days of PCs, the highest score on a simple game in our office was held by the office stapler which was leant against the space bar.
|
|
|
|
|
I like it! Nothing uncovers weirdness like random inputs. I have never had a tree available so I used to ask the cleaning lady to try things if I was working really late. She was practically random in her inputs and her testing did help us robustify things. I'm not sure if that's actually a word. What ever.
|
|
|
|
|
Rule #1: If the cleaning lady cannot crash it, release it.
... such stuff as dreams are made on
|
|
|
|
|
It has worked me quite well. Actually, I find it very useful to have someone test software who has virtually no knowledge of it because they do the most unexpected things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hahahaha...
And it's the first time you encounter such code hey?
Welcome to the club!
It seems to me that most code written by junior has such silly "exception handling"...
|
|
|
|
|
i have dealt with many madness in engineering. But this ticked me off. I cordially asked the engineer to fix. But he does not see the issue. but One good thing is he agreed to change the way i think it is okay
I do not fear of failure. I fear of giving up out of frustration.
|
|
|
|
|
maybe he doesn't know about "return" statement or "finally" clause?
|
|
|
|
|
But do you know about the "fault" clause?
It's like "finally", but only executes when an Exception was thrown.
It's basically like:
catch
{
throw;
}But faster since the Exception isn't actually caught and rethrown.
I guess it would look like:
fault
{
}The compiled MSIL code supports it, C# does not (which doesn't mean you can't use it[^]  ) 
|
|
|
|
|
wow, you got me there pal! 
|
|
|
|
|
Well, at first it seems that a simple if statement would do… However, if the condition should not occurs, it might be easier to find the problem during debugging if the debugger stop on exception or write something to the output log.
But let assume that some other code might also throw an Exception and if that case, you want to execute the code in catch clause too, then it might be acceptable after all if that code should not be executed if no exception are thrown.
As shown in the above example, all code can be removed as nothing else is done. In real code, it would not be the case! And the cleanest code to write directly depends on what missing code do and if some other code could throw or not.
Philippe Mori
|
|
|
|
|
You have an excellent point. But this is not the case. I would have understand the point very much if there were other codes that might have thrown exception. There is none  that's why the frustration.
I do not fear of failure. I fear of giving up out of frustration.
|
|
|
|
|
I wish this were weird, but one of the OOAD commandments I was taught was: "Thou shalt not use exceptions for flow control." Clearly all too common.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity."
- Hanlon's Razor
|
|
|
|
|
OOAD commandments: "Thou shalt not use exceptions for flow control."
Right. Because exceptions used for flow control are gotos.
The code jumps to the exception handling routine on error, just as a goto jumps to another place.
|
|
|
|
|
This evening I've been looking at the "MASTER IGNITION ROUTINE" written by Peter Adler and Don Eyles at NASA circa 1968-1969. BURN_BABY_BURN--MASTER_IGNITION_ROUTINE.agc Apollo-11[^]. It's absolutely amazing what they were able to accomplish with that hardware. They were obviously proud of their work and left two notable comments in the source code:
"Shame on anyone who thinks evil of it" at Line 66: "Honi soit qui mal y pense" also the motto of the Order of the Garter[^].
"Touch me not" at Line 72: Noli me tangere[^]
They were working with the 16 bit Apollo Guidance Computer[^] with no floating point instructions and that was all they needed to get to the moon.
- 3840 bytes of RAM
- 69120 byte ROM
- 85,000 CPU instructions executed per second.
I'm writing this post from my development workstation:
- 34,359,738,368 bytes of RAM
- Quad-core Xeon capable of performing over 3 billion operations per second.
The hardware has become so much better... but I somehow feel that something is wrong with the way we write software today.
Best Wishes,
-David Delaune
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: I somehow feel that something is wrong with the way we write software today
I blame the abundance of languages: there are literally too many languages going around, cutting into the learning part that is (or rather was) to shorten code, shorten the number of statements to execute, shorten the time of execution, etc.
IMHO there should only ever be 8 languages:
1. Assembly.
2. C/(maybe)C++ One that you can use to build apps.
3. One from either (Java/C#). This one may or may not be needed much.
4. One language to design webpages HTML/HTML5/CSS.
5. Front End scripting language (JavaScript/TypeScript)
6. Backend Language (PHP/Node.JS/Python).
7. Database Querying language SQL.
8. Maybe I'm missing something.
The reason I chose a limited number of languages contrary to popular beliefs are:
1. Bring quality into the fold when learning.
2. Stop coders from getting jobs just because they can write a few lines of code in some lesser known language.
3. Standardization: this will make data transfers between apps faster.
4. Stop Big Companies especially Google from thinking they can ask consumers to upgrade their hardware specs when they make an update on their software.
Sadly this scheme will never be implemented because most of the companies would lose monopoly over the products that require a specific tech stack.
P.S. Slashes (/) represent exclusive OR not inclusive.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
