The Weird and The Wonderful

Madhanlal JM wrote:

JavaScript

if(1=1){
   doSomeThing();
}
else{
   doBestThing();
}

 
I am waiting for the execution of else part

Argonia wrote:

I am not a goto expert(

Nicholas Marty wrote:

I don't see any reason why an entire application should go boom because one
single thread messed something up

using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;
using System.Threading;
using System.Threading.Tasks;

namespace ConsoleApplication1 {
    class Program {
        static void Main(string[] args) {

            new Thread(_ => { throw new ArgumentException(); }).Start();

            for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
                Console.WriteLine("Wasting time...");
            }

            Console.ReadKey();
        }
    }
}

Quote:

AppDomain.CurrentDomain.UnhandledException fires on any unhandled exception on
any thread, but since CLR 2.0, the CLR forces application shutdown after your event
handler completes.

using System;
using System.Timers;

namespace TimerTest
{
    static class Program
    {
        [STAThread]
        static void Main()
        {
            System.Timers.Timer timer = new Timer();
            timer.Elapsed += (object sender, ElapsedEventArgs e) => { throw new NotImplementedException(); };
            timer.Start();

            Console.ReadKey();
        }
    }
}

Quote:

In the .NET Framework version 2.0 and earlier, the Timer component catches and suppresses all exceptions thrown by event handlers for the Elapsed event. This behavior is subject to change in future releases of the .NET Framework.

Sentenryu wrote:

I guess the designers decided that it was better to not let the application die
due to a simple timed event (that would likely execute again)

PIEBALDconsult wrote:

it's not your job.