Why Microsoft programmers who throw partially populated exceptions suck today. [modified]

[Simon P Stevens]

Rob Philpott wrote:

'The content has been blocked because of inappropriate content'

You've got some seriously strict filtering if screen shots of visual studio exception dialogs are considered "inappropriate content"

Simon

[Rob Philpott]

Quite possibly! I have seen it on a computer not plugged into the nanny state and indeed harmless enough. Probably 'dropbox' is the bit they don't like.

Regards, Rob Philpott.

[merridus]

Maybe he works for Microsoft ;)

- Rob

[realJSOP]

Many work places block photo sites like that. If you had your own web page and posted it there, it would be different.

.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001

[Nish Nishant]

Well isn't it the implementation and thus the programmers who are responsible for this? Exceptions per se do not encourage or discourage bad practices.

Regards, Nish

---

Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
My latest book : C++/CLI in Action / Amazon.com link

[wolfbinary]

Simon Stevens wrote:

Rob Philpott wrote: 'The content has been blocked because of inappropriate content' You've got some seriously strict filtering if screen shots of visual studio exception dialogs are considered "inappropriate content"

I get the same thing. It sites it as personal storage. It's bureaucracy at it's finest. It makes them feel safer.

[realJSOP]

But can you go here[^]? That's a web site on my own home server.

.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001

[Simon P Stevens]

Very true. Please accept my correction: "Why Microsoft programmers who throw partially populated exceptions suck today."

Simon

[Simon P Stevens]

John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:

If you had your own web page and posted it there, it would be different.

Ahh, but my company block outgoing ftp access, so I can't upload anything to my website from work. :laugh: Bit stuck there. [Actually I've been thinking about writing something for a while that processes and caches content from my dropbox account and includes it in my website - It would mean I could make updates easily from anywhere with a web connection]

Simon

[Nagy Vilmos]

John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:

But can you go here[^]?

where your opinions are noted, and then summarily ignored? Why bother...

---

Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done.

[realJSOP]

Because.

.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001

[AspDotNetDev]

Perhaps they meant "See the inner exception for details, if any exist."

[Forum Guidelines]

[Derek Viljoen]

Here's my educated guess on what happened. It looks like this is a server-side exception in a WCF connection. I'll bet that the inner exception is something that you threw on the server side, but its not serializable, and so it comes through as null to the client. If you ever throw just "new Exception()" then it won't be serializable. Always use something that inherits from ApplicationException.