it's the same code! isn't it?
-
Don't you hate when you're porting something, and you stare at the same section of non-working code over and over, comparing it to the reference source, and not seeing any meaningful difference? Yet it doesn't work. In this case, no sign of life. That has been my morning. Partial updates simply are not working on this display and I can't figure out for the life of me why. The only "decent" documentation for the display is the source code that it shipped with. This kind of thing is the absolute worst. Excepting the other things that are also the absolute worst.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
I was studying some code for an 8051, containing a test 'if (x > y)' and 2-3 statements to calculate a value, followed by an 'else' calculating the same value, but doing the partial expressions in a different order. I spent several hours trying to find the difference between the 'if' and 'else' clauses - mathematically they were identical. In math, 'sign extension' is a non-issue. In 8051 it is a real issue. y < x would lead to a sign extension in one partial expression that would lead to the wrong result in the 'if' clause. With x > y would see the same in another partial expression in the 'else' clause'. Obviously, there was not a single trace of any comment in the code. C code is 'self-documenting'. After seeing the light, I mentioned it to the guy who had programmed it. He just shrugged: 'That's how 8051 is!' Sort of saying 'if you want any comment to explain this, ask the 8051 to write it'.
-
I was studying some code for an 8051, containing a test 'if (x > y)' and 2-3 statements to calculate a value, followed by an 'else' calculating the same value, but doing the partial expressions in a different order. I spent several hours trying to find the difference between the 'if' and 'else' clauses - mathematically they were identical. In math, 'sign extension' is a non-issue. In 8051 it is a real issue. y < x would lead to a sign extension in one partial expression that would lead to the wrong result in the 'if' clause. With x > y would see the same in another partial expression in the 'else' clause'. Obviously, there was not a single trace of any comment in the code. C code is 'self-documenting'. After seeing the light, I mentioned it to the guy who had programmed it. He just shrugged: 'That's how 8051 is!' Sort of saying 'if you want any comment to explain this, ask the 8051 to write it'.
:laugh: I would not want to work with someone like that, frankly. It would be difficult. :)
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
-
I was studying some code for an 8051, containing a test 'if (x > y)' and 2-3 statements to calculate a value, followed by an 'else' calculating the same value, but doing the partial expressions in a different order. I spent several hours trying to find the difference between the 'if' and 'else' clauses - mathematically they were identical. In math, 'sign extension' is a non-issue. In 8051 it is a real issue. y < x would lead to a sign extension in one partial expression that would lead to the wrong result in the 'if' clause. With x > y would see the same in another partial expression in the 'else' clause'. Obviously, there was not a single trace of any comment in the code. C code is 'self-documenting'. After seeing the light, I mentioned it to the guy who had programmed it. He just shrugged: 'That's how 8051 is!' Sort of saying 'if you want any comment to explain this, ask the 8051 to write it'.
-
Don't you hate when you're porting something, and you stare at the same section of non-working code over and over, comparing it to the reference source, and not seeing any meaningful difference? Yet it doesn't work. In this case, no sign of life. That has been my morning. Partial updates simply are not working on this display and I can't figure out for the life of me why. The only "decent" documentation for the display is the source code that it shipped with. This kind of thing is the absolute worst. Excepting the other things that are also the absolute worst.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
honey the codewitch wrote:
Don't you hate when you're porting something, and you stare at the same section of non-working code over and over, comparing it to the reference source, and not seeing any meaningful difference?
Means there's a difference in environment, dear Watson.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
honey the codewitch wrote:
Don't you hate when you're porting something, and you stare at the same section of non-working code over and over, comparing it to the reference source, and not seeing any meaningful difference?
Means there's a difference in environment, dear Watson.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
There's not, because the reference code works in the same precise environment. It means I'm missing something.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
-
There's not, because the reference code works in the same precise environment. It means I'm missing something.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
-
You sure it's you? Not the environment? It can only be you if the code isn't doing the same.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
It's remotely possible. For now I got frustrated with it, so I masked off the partial update feature and released version 0.9.0 without it. When I do figure it out it will slide in underneath without breaking changes.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
-
It's remotely possible. For now I got frustrated with it, so I masked off the partial update feature and released version 0.9.0 without it. When I do figure it out it will slide in underneath without breaking changes.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
-
Don't you hate when you're porting something, and you stare at the same section of non-working code over and over, comparing it to the reference source, and not seeing any meaningful difference? Yet it doesn't work. In this case, no sign of life. That has been my morning. Partial updates simply are not working on this display and I can't figure out for the life of me why. The only "decent" documentation for the display is the source code that it shipped with. This kind of thing is the absolute worst. Excepting the other things that are also the absolute worst.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
In C#, my issue is often missing NuGet packages or different version of those packages. And sometimes stuff like ' vs. `, but those are usually pretty easy to spot (a non-printable character one time was not, though :sigh: ). Sometimes it's just easier to re-invent the wheel :laugh:
Best, Sander Azure DevOps Succinctly (free eBook) Azure Serverless Succinctly (free eBook) Migrating Apps to the Cloud with Azure arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript
-
Don't you hate when you're porting something, and you stare at the same section of non-working code over and over, comparing it to the reference source, and not seeing any meaningful difference? Yet it doesn't work. In this case, no sign of life. That has been my morning. Partial updates simply are not working on this display and I can't figure out for the life of me why. The only "decent" documentation for the display is the source code that it shipped with. This kind of thing is the absolute worst. Excepting the other things that are also the absolute worst.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
Been there, did that, hope never to go bach, Once spent 8 hours looking for a misplaced semi-colon. :(
ed
-
Been there, did that, hope never to go bach, Once spent 8 hours looking for a misplaced semi-colon. :(
ed
Had a similar issue with a text string copied from somewhere (Word? Web page) and inserted into VS. Was failing horribly. After a lot of time spent on this, it turns out a non-printable character was in that string.... Once I manually re-typed the string, worked just fine....
-
Don't you hate when you're porting something, and you stare at the same section of non-working code over and over, comparing it to the reference source, and not seeing any meaningful difference? Yet it doesn't work. In this case, no sign of life. That has been my morning. Partial updates simply are not working on this display and I can't figure out for the life of me why. The only "decent" documentation for the display is the source code that it shipped with. This kind of thing is the absolute worst. Excepting the other things that are also the absolute worst.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
Get up and go for a walk. Give your subconscious a chance to work on it. I've often had the answer during or shortly after a walk that I couldn't "see" before. Cheers!
Sincerely, -Mark mamiller@mhemail.org
-
Get up and go for a walk. Give your subconscious a chance to work on it. I've often had the answer during or shortly after a walk that I couldn't "see" before. Cheers!
Sincerely, -Mark mamiller@mhemail.org
Yeah, I switched gears. I'll pick it up again later. I've already got some ideas on how to either narrow the problem, or uncover a larger issue. That's a start.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
-
Had a similar issue with a text string copied from somewhere (Word? Web page) and inserted into VS. Was failing horribly. After a lot of time spent on this, it turns out a non-printable character was in that string.... Once I manually re-typed the string, worked just fine....
