Save stacks periodically to avoid crashes? [OT]
see3d at writeme.com
Sat Mar 25 19:58:01 CST 2006
You need to tell your friend that that's ridiculous. These programs
can't tell which data is important or when your deadline is. It is
all zeros and ones. Nope, it is just a simple calculation. The user
provides the correlation inadvertently. If the data is important,
the user will suffer more when it goes bye bye. If the deadline is
looming, the user will be so engrosed in completing it on time, that
they will forget to save periodically. That is why it is so
important to wipe that ability to concentrate completely on a task to
the exclusion of all else from the gene pool.
On Mar 25, 2006, at 4:13 PM, Jim Ault wrote:
> Thanks for clearing up part of the mystery for me.. I thought it
> was some
> sort of cubic spline and the volume under that surface. Glad to
> know it is
> only a random number.
> One of my friends still believes it is an inverse proportion to the
> importance of the data and the minutes until the deadline...
> freq = importance/time = maximizing relative loss
> Jim Ault
> Las Vegas
> On 3/25/06 12:32 PM, "Dennis Brown" <see3d at writeme.com> wrote:
>> After a lot of clever hacking, I have found that I can almost always
>> find the counter in any application that counts the number of
>> keystrokes since the last save. Once the counter crosses a certain
>> threshold, a random number is invoked in each new keystroke. If the
>> random number matches the keystroke count, then a crash is provoked.
>> It is all part of a secret programmers guild directive designed to
>> help users learn to save and back up their work regularly. It is
>> expected that after 11 generations, the urge to save will become a
>> reflex built into the human genome through natural selection. Those
>> who do not learn to save will become failures in life --unable to
>> attract a mate. Their "bad" genes will then vanish from the species.
>> Dennis ;-)
>> On Mar 24, 2006, at 11:49 AM, Jon Seymour wrote:
>>> Hi, I've been using Rev for about a year. I'm sure it won't shock
>>> most of you to hear that periodically Rev just seems tired and
>>> crashes. Now I am sure that coding glitches are sometimes at fault,
>>> but generally speaking I think Rev (esp. 2.7) has stability issues.
>>> Here's the thing, though: it seems that if I am saving the stack
>>> periodically, which I would tend to do to avoid losing data in a
>>> crash, the program actually crashes less. It's as if saving has
>>> some benefit to memory management or who-knows-what-else in the
>>> engine. It's like a "refresh" function. Has anyone else observed
>>> this? Is there a rationale? Would it be smart to have a commercial
>>> application save its stacks regularly, not only to store user
>>> changes, but simply to confer stability?
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
More information about the use-livecode