Re: [BULK] Re: [WebDNA] abstraction code can be tricky...
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2012
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 108324
interpreted = N
texte = Govinda wrote: [snip] > Here, revised: > > [include ...] > - [include ...] > - [functionA (defined)...] > - [if/then ...] > - [functionA (called) ...] > - [switch/case ...] > - [functionB (defined)...] > - [if/then ...] > - [functionB (called)...] > > > Note that I have no idea if your reproducing the above code will show you the frozen cache phenom., or not. > Just saying that this is one way I have seen it this week. I have seen it on occasion in the past under very different (disparate) circumstances, but always when the file/code-block was pretty demanding of RAM. O.K. Gov. My main problem is that you infer a bug or limitation in WebDNA 6 in your original post (by using the term bug/limitation etc), and then go on to state things about WebDNA as if they were true (ie, RAM limitations, cache problems) without any clear reproducible evidence of such a thing. You didn't even have the correct code structure until your 3rd post. Don't worry, you are not the only one on the list who does this and I am more venting about this topic in general right now... and it's Friday ;-) Anyway, your revised code works fine, but I understand that there are a huge amount of variables at play here. I don't doubt your results, but, as you know, results can come by way of a many different issues. Do bugs exist in WebDNA, likely.. but bugs are defined as reproducible issues that can be identified. Assumptions are bad... and to be honest, your issue here would be difficult to test for, as there is just not enough clear information to go off of. From a personal POV, I always appreciate your contribution to the list, as you are one of the last few of us who tend to push WebDNA's boundary's. I just think if people are going to make claims about WebDNA, they should be held accountable (by their WebDNA peers) to be precise with proof... Platform, Version, and preferably code to reproduce the problem.. etc.. Otherwise, ask for input in a non-assuming way. Donovan (going to need a beer later ;-) -- Donovan Brooke Euca Design Center www.euca.us
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
Govinda wrote: [snip] > Here, revised: > > [include ...] > - [include ...] > - [functionA (defined)...] > - [if/then ...] > - [functionA (called) ...] > - [switch/case ...] > - [functionB (defined)...] > - [if/then ...] > - [functionB (called)...] > > > Note that I have no idea if your reproducing the above code will show you the frozen cache phenom., or not. > Just saying that this is one way I have seen it this week. I have seen it on occasion in the past under very different (disparate) circumstances, but always when the file/code-block was pretty demanding of RAM. O.K. Gov. My main problem is that you infer a bug or limitation in WebDNA 6 in your original post (by using the term bug/limitation etc), and then go on to state things about WebDNA as if they were true (ie, RAM limitations, cache problems) without any clear reproducible evidence of such a thing. You didn't even have the correct code structure until your 3rd post. Don't worry, you are not the only one on the list who does this and I am more venting about this topic in general right now... and it's Friday ;-) Anyway, your revised code works fine, but I understand that there are a huge amount of variables at play here. I don't doubt your results, but, as you know, results can come by way of a many different issues. Do bugs exist in WebDNA, likely.. but bugs are defined as reproducible issues that can be identified. Assumptions are bad... and to be honest, your issue here would be difficult to test for, as there is just not enough clear information to go off of. From a personal POV, I always appreciate your contribution to the list, as you are one of the last few of us who tend to push WebDNA's boundary's. I just think if people are going to make claims about WebDNA, they should be held accountable (by their WebDNA peers) to be precise with proof... Platform, Version, and preferably code to reproduce the problem.. etc.. Otherwise, ask for input in a non-assuming way. Donovan (going to need a beer later ;-) -- Donovan Brooke Euca Design Center www.euca.us
Donovan Brooke
DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!
Top Articles:
Talk List
The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...
Related Readings:
docs for WebCatalog2 (1997)
[date] for today's date, while inside old order file (1998)
TCPConnect / Current Temperature (2004)
Upgrading old WebCat Database Files (1997)
Context and commands (1998)
REPOST [SUM field=xxxx] (2000)
Pgp&emailer (1997)
Resolving variables into field names (1998)
WCS Newbie question (1997)
Re:PCS Customer submissions ? (1997)
[ot] RH 7.2 WU-FTP Question (2003)
triggering an update of two frames (1998)
Template Not Found (1998)
(ot) sitemap generator (1998)
oops private message leaked into talk list (1997)
[OT] gMail accounts (2004)
user/password validation (1998)
Associative lookup style? (1997)
OT: Javascript help (2003)
Summing fields (1997)