Re: Denial of denial of service

On Jan 28, 2007, at 12:51 PM, Yossi Kreinin wrote: I let the traceback (in managed environments) and core dumps (in unmanaged environments) go through to the end user, and the whole universe may professionally fuck itself. You're a bloody Paladin, mate. If everyone was so scrupulous, this who

Re: Denial of denial of service

On 1/28/07, Martin Ebourne wrote: I'd like to point out here and now that getting a null value result from a SQL query is NOT FUCKING EXCEPTIONAL. DON'T THROW AN EXCEPTION, WANKERS! If only I could get an exception! I once dealt with a vendor whose modelling software took an "innovative" app

Re: Denial of denial of service

Peter da Silva wrote: If I run a command and I get "/some/obscure/file: No such file of directory" I've got a place to start winkling at the problem. If I run a command and I get "peter: Not a typewriter" I've got jack. One of my collegues started to work on a merge of pstack and strace, g

Re: Denial of denial of service

* Peter da Silva [2007-01-28 16:00]: > On Jan 28, 2007, at 5:13 AM, Martin Ebourne wrote: > >PS. http://www.google.com/codesearch?q=FIXME > > *boggle* > > There's a Devel::FIXME module? Wow, thanks for pointing that out: * > When Dev

Re: Denial of denial of service

On Jan 28, 2007, at 5:13 AM, Martin Ebourne wrote: PS. http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=en&lr=&q=FIXME%3A&btnG=Search *boggle* There's a Devel::FIXME module?

Re: Denial of denial of service

I don't have a positive experience to cite when it comes to *recovering* from errors in complex cases. But if you need to *detect* errors, a call stack is better than "Is a directory" printed by hell knows what buried hell knows where. And you can do things like run a lot of test modules and sa

Re: Denial of denial of service

Andy Armstrong wrote: -fexceptions Enable exception handling. Generates extra code needed to propagate exceptions. For some targets, this implies GCC will generate frame unwind information for all functions, which can produce significant data size overhead, although it does not

Re: Denial of denial of service

On 28 Jan 2007, at 11:44, Yossi Kreinin wrote: I rarely look at gcc assembly, but I remember it saving things too. -fexceptions Enable exception handling. Generates extra code needed to propagate exceptions. For some targets, this implies GCC will generate frame unwind information

Re: Denial of denial of service

Martin Ebourne wrote: On Sun, 2007-01-28 at 10:04 +0200, Yossi Kreinin wrote: I don't like throw/catch in C++ because it slows down the entire body of code What are you talking about? There is no reason for there to be any performance impact at all on C++ code which handles exceptions right

Re: Denial of denial of service

On Sun, 2007-01-28 at 10:04 +0200, Yossi Kreinin wrote: > I don't like throw/catch in C++ because it slows down the entire body of code What are you talking about? There is no reason for there to be any performance impact at all on C++ code which handles exceptions right up until the point where

Re: Denial of denial of service

Peter da Silva wrote: Back when I was a young programmer, error handling was done by explicitly passing status back up the call chain. You always checked the error status of every call, and handled it or aborted *right there* with the proximate error cause if you couldn't. It is done this way

Re: Denial of denial of service

Bringing it back on topic... http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=en&lr=&q=%22+hate+%22&btnG=Search

Re: Denial of denial of service

On Jan 27, 2007, at 8:34 PM, Robert Rothenberg wrote: http://www.google.com/codesearch? hl=en&lr=&q=%22This+is+the+wrong+way+to+do+this%22&btnG=Search http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=en&lr=&q=%22too+tired%22&btnG=Search

Re: Denial of denial of service

On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 10:41:15PM -0500, Adam Atlas wrote: > >See Google Code Search > > > >http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=en&lr=&q=%22This+is+the+wrong > >+way+to+do+this%22&btnG=Search > > Furthermore: > > http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=en&lr=&q=%22This+is+an+ugly+hack% > 22&btnG=

Re: Denial of denial of service

On 27 Jan 2007, at 21.34, Robert Rothenberg wrote: On 26/01/07 21:48 Timothy Knox wrote: On the other hand, the guy who inherited the build system showed me a comment in the code to the effect "This is the wrong way to do this, but by the time it becomes a problem I expect to be long gone

Re: Denial of denial of service

On 26/01/07 21:48 Timothy Knox wrote: > On the other hand, the guy who inherited the build system showed me a comment > in > the code to the effect "This is the wrong way to do this, but by the time it > becomes a problem I expect to be long gone." Nice, eh? See Google Code Search http://www.go

Java Hate (was Re: Denial of denial of service)

On 26/01/07 16:36 Dan Noe wrote: > ...At work we use C# and I constantly see code like: > > try > { > // do some stuff > } > catch (Exception) > { > throw new UnrelatedException(); > } I've not had the pleasure or pain of using C#, so I'll take a wild guess and say it's just like Jav