|
I saw that in a Metro App on a friend's computer. I guess the developer agreed with the Fischer Price comparison.
Keep Clam And Proofread
--
√(-1) 23 ∑ π...
And it was delicious.
|
|
|
|
|
I got "Catastrophic Failure" right from MS: a VB6 app I made years (if not decades) ago, which tries to access a MS Access DB. There was a field with junck in it, making that message..
The same message occured in Access itself, so I believe it's an Access error message.
The signature is in building process.. Please wait...
|
|
|
|
|
What about : Welcome to Application suicide booth. Option 5 has been chosen : The user the is too dumb to close the app properly and that's why the application crashed.
Microsoft ... the only place where VARIANT_TRUE != true
|
|
|
|
|
|
I could use that in some old legacy software. It takes a while to shut down. Despite being told to wait, there are users who will use the task manager to force it to turn off immediately. This causes it to stop in the middle of saving settings to an Access DB which often corrupts the DB. So when the user restarts the program it isn’t happy about having a corrupted DB.
Just because the code works, it doesn't mean that it is good code.
|
|
|
|
|
just hide the window and let the user think it has shut down.
<h>
I'm Brazilian; English and other human languages in general aren't my best skills so I apologise for my less than perfect English...
"Given the chance I'd rather work smart than work hard." - PHS241
"'Sophisticated platform' typically means 'I have no idea how it works.'"</h>
|
|
|
|
|
We mostly leave the window there so the users won't try to restart it while it is still shutting down. And, yes, they would do this. It really needs a better status report so users don't think it has frozen, but it is old software with no more updates planned.
Just because the code works, it doesn't mean that it is good code.
|
|
|
|
|
Brisingr Aerowing wrote: I also include a 'Guru Meditation GUID'
Let me guess. you used to program Amigas years ago, right?
We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
try
{
}
catch (Exception e)
{
throw new Exception(e.Message);
}
This is from an online tutorial I recently came across (thankfully not in CP). Apparently if something goes wrong, one can get ALL the information one needs from the exception message. Why bother with stacktrace etc...
... or that's what the author thought, anyway.
Φευ! Εδόμεθα υπό ρηννοσχήμων λύκων!
(Alas! We're devoured by lamb-guised wolves!)
|
|
|
|
|
"An error has occurred, see the inner exception for details."
I'm brazilian and english (well, human languages in general) aren't my best skill, so, sorry by my english. (if you want we can speak in C# or VB.Net =p)
"Given the chance I'd rather work smart than work hard." - PHS241
"'Sophisticated platform' typically means 'I have no idea how it works.'"
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah my point exactly. I'd done that same mistake myself, and thankfully it never got past the testing phase: I got that exact error message, and there was no inner exception to see , so after a bit of digging, I simply changed my
throw new Exception(ex.Message);
to
throw;
(Of course, I had an error logging call just before that, otherwise the entire catch block wouldn't make much sense...)
I was just very (unpleasantly) surprised to come across such a basic coding mistake in an online tutorial.
Φευ! Εδόμεθα υπό ρηννοσχήμων λύκων!
(Alas! We're devoured by lamb-guised wolves!)
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: //do stuff that may fail Well there's the real problem. Why would you purposely write code that may fail. Write it to not fail. Duh!
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree -- and not as a joke. In general code should not fail*.
* -- in case you see my code fail: it was by design.
Greetings - Jacek
|
|
|
|
|
Continuing on your serious note: the code per se, should not fail, I agree. But the final program may fail at times. Say you have a web request in there, and any of the following occurs:
(a) the remote server times out (e.g. the server is offline)
(b) the remote server has a bug, returning a 500 error
(c) the remote server cannot find the requested resource, returning a 404 error
(d) the remote server forbids access to the requested resource, returning a 403 error
Any of the above results in the web request throwing an exception in YOUR application, but your code is not to blame. So there is a chance that a bug-free program CAN fail. That's why you should have error handling and meaningful error reporting.
Φευ! Εδόμεθα υπό ρηννοσχήμων λύκων!
(Alas! We're devoured by lamb-guised wolves!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is in Polish!!!
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is (V).
|
|
|
|
|
Uhm, WHAT is in polish? "zm_prieb"? These "names" are meaningless abbreviations of names in polish. No docs of course...
Greetings - Jacek
|
|
|
|
|
Jacek Gajek wrote: cpar1
cpar2
cpar3
cpar4
cpar5
cpar6
cpar7
cpar8
cpar9 I am pretty sure they switched the positions of 2 of the letters
Microsoft ... the only place where VARIANT_TRUE != true
|
|
|
|
|
That's called obfuscation!!!
|
|
|
|
|
How dare you blame someone because you don't know what a ztlgpu is?
No memory stick has been harmed during establishment of this signature.
|
|
|
|
|
Actually I know what is it, but telling it would require some inappropriate words.
Greetings - Jacek
|
|
|
|
|
I had a boss once that did not believe in comments. He felt names should be descriptive enough that you should be able to read the program and not need them. Who ever wrote this would find all their personal belongings in a brown card board box the next day.
So many years of programming I have forgotten more languages than I know.
|
|
|
|
|
I recently worked on a project and at a certain point noticed that the executable that is created requires elevation. It has this icon indicating that an administrator approval is required, and when it is double clicked, the elevation prompt appears.
It drove me craze to remove this setting, as the nature of the software didn't require it to be elevated. I looked at the Manifest section when there are settings related to UAC (User Account Control), but even when I matched these settings to the ones taken from another project, which didn't require elevation, my new project did.
Today, while speaking to another programmer, he told me how to fix that....
Well, my executable had the string "install" as part of it, and when I renamed it to demo.exe, the icon has changed and no elevation any more required.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure if there's a complete list anywhere, but the heuristics are documented on MSDN:
Installer Detection only applies to:
- 32 bit executables
- Applications without a requestedExecutionLevel
- Interactive processes running as a Standard User with LUA enabled
Before a 32 bit process is created, the following attributes are checked to determine whether it is an installer:
- Filename includes keywords like "install," "setup," "update," etc.
- Keywords in the following Versioning Resource fields: Vendor, Company Name, Product Name, File Description, Original Filename, Internal Name, and Export Name.
- Keywords in the side-by-side manifest embedded in the executable.
- Keywords in specific StringTable entries linked in the executable.
- Key attributes in the RC data linked in the executable.
- Targeted sequences of bytes within the executable.
Note The keywords and sequences of bytes were derived from common characteristics observed from various installer technologies.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|