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:
[WebDNA] anyone use curl with shell? (2010)
New site announcement + Showing once on a founditems (1997)
Setting up shop (1997)
WC2b12: Yes, Formulas.db is for real (1997)
[WebDNA] double emails (2014)
Text data with spaces in them... (1997)
Show if time tags (1997)
no [search] with NT (1997)
Some Questions (1997)
Multiple Search Fields (1998)
Line items in table cells (1997)
Search Result refinement help (2003)
Alternative to Authorize.net (2002)
Is there a list somewhere of what ALL [url] does? (2000)
Phonetic Search (2001)
taxrate - off by 1 cent (1997)
Webcatalog quitting (1997)
[format] (1998)
Format question WC Mac f3 (1997)
WebCatalog Work (2001)