Re: [BULK] Re: [WebDNA] abstraction code can be tricky...
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2012
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 108325
interpreted = N
texte = > 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 ;-) >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > =46rom 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > Donovan (going to need a beer later ;-) Understood.. and appreciated. Just so I am certain, are you saying that you were NOT able to see the = issue?... that my "revised" code (the more-clearly-expressed sample of = the *problem* code, was, for you, not in fact a problem, for you? I apologize if you tried to reproduce the issue that I see.. and were = unable. (or, maybe that is a good thing ;-) I just meant to say in my posts on this thread that I do experience the = cache freeze thing, as have others, (and to offer my workaround, in my = case, this week)...=20 ...and for you to reproduce it.. well I suppose the only sure way would = be that you would need my *exact code*, and exact environment. Maybe = then we could perhaps extract out the pattern that was guaranteed = reproducible. Meanwhile, you are right.. it is hard to make sense of = peoples' wild posts.. let alone help them. What can we do? :-) I = don't even drink beer. :-D -Govinda=
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
> 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 ;-) >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > =46rom 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > Donovan (going to need a beer later ;-) Understood.. and appreciated. Just so I am certain, are you saying that you were NOT able to see the = issue?... that my "revised" code (the more-clearly-expressed sample of = the *problem* code, was, for you, not in fact a problem, for you? I apologize if you tried to reproduce the issue that I see.. and were = unable. (or, maybe that is a good thing ;-) I just meant to say in my posts on this thread that I do experience the = cache freeze thing, as have others, (and to offer my workaround, in my = case, this week)...=20 ...and for you to reproduce it.. well I suppose the only sure way would = be that you would need my *exact code*, and exact environment. Maybe = then we could perhaps extract out the pattern that was guaranteed = reproducible. Meanwhile, you are right.. it is hard to make sense of = peoples' wild posts.. let alone help them. What can we do? :-) I = don't even drink beer. :-D -Govinda=
Govinda
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:
Multiple prices (1997)
[WebDNA] lookup in tables defined in functions - bug? (2016)
Need help from WebDNA user using WebStar Plugin (2005)
Renaming TextA (1998)
Size Limitation through a POST via SSL? (2005)
Problem displaying search result (1997)
Anyone using unix? Having problems... (2000)
WebCat2 - [format thousands] (1997)
problems with 2 tags (1997)
[ShowNext] feature in 2.0 (1997)
LOOP and IF statements (1997)
Date Sorting (1997)
RE: Netscape v. IE (1997)
[SHOWIF AND/OR] (1997)
[WebDNA] multi [sendmail] inside [search] (2012)
[WebDNA] WebDNA databases not showing? (2013)
Hummm .... (2002)
Creating main- and sub-category search (1997)
[WebDNA] thisAutonumber? (2011)
Non-Cart Files in Shopping Cart Folder (1997)