+972 52-548-6969
Things you should never do
time to read 1 min | 29 words
That should be pretty high in the list, I think:
FUTURE POSTS
- Partial writes, IO_Uring and safety - about one day from now
- Configuration values & Escape hatches - 4 days from now
- What happens when a sparse file allocation fails? - 6 days from now
- NTFS has an emergency stash of disk space - 8 days from now
- Challenge: Giving file system developer ulcer - 11 days from now
And 4 more posts are pending...
There are posts all the way to Feb 17, 2025
RECENT SERIES
-
Challenge
(77):
20 Jan 2025 - What does this code do? -
Answer
(13):
22 Jan 2025 - What does this code do? -
Production post-mortem
(2):
17 Jan 2025 - Inspecting ourselves to death -
Performance discovery
(2):
10 Jan 2025 - IOPS vs. IOPS
RECENT COMMENTS
-
By Pyth0n on Challenge: What does this code do?
-
By Oren Eini on Performance discovery: IOPS vs. IOPS
-
By kpvleeuwen on Performance discovery: IOPS vs. IOPS
-
By Oren Eini on Aggregating trees with RavenDB
-
By Nicholas Paldino on Aggregating trees with RavenDB
Syndication
| Main feed | |
| Comments feed |
Comments
Wow.... There's a whole bunch of things not to do there.
There's the obvious infinite loop to launching programs.
Then there's hard-coding a complex relative path,
and hard-coding a reference to a (debug) developement folder.
I didn't notice right away why you should "never" do such a thing until i read James' comment.
Would you please be more specific in your post?
Please "Don't Make Me Think" (borrowed from a book-title) ;)
By the way, I can only "assume" that one should not write such code because it will create an infinite loop. But are there any reason that you think why nobody should write such a code?
Actually, the recursive was what I referred
The hard coding is fine, those are test programs.
Sung,
I am posting posts that should make you think.
At the very least, they should spark some conversation.
The main issue is that this will create more and more processes.
The problem with that is that there is no easy way to stop them. At worst, this can make the OS unresponsive and require a forced shutdown to fix
That's assuming of course that duplication is allowed. It could be modified to only allow once instance of each to be running.
Did you try to run at least one of them?...
Isn't a Server starting its Client something like a tail wagging the dog?
Again, this is test code
You can set multiple startup projects in VS if this is how you are testing
Martin,
I didn't know that, how?
Multiple Startup projects:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms165413.aspx
thanks
@[ICR]
Running the same app multiple times isn't all of the problem. Even if each app merely started-up, launched the other program, and died, you'd still have a tremendous strain on the system, even though at any given time, only one instance of each program is in memory. (And stopping the cycle would probably require rebooting).
Thanks for the good laugh this morning.
Comment preview