|
Now, I just want to remember once more the interesting facts I discovered in the misunderstandings of the forgotten past. you'll find this in the OP's comments on an OriginalGriff response here: [^] ... for me, this is surreal poetry 
Having just re-watched Sergei Parajanov's 1965 "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors" [^], I am hearing these words set to Carpathian Hutsul dorian scales, as goats are bleating.
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
modified 16-Nov-20 7:26am.
|
|
|
|
|
Reading the discussion I may even know what he means
Not sure what that says about me though 
|
|
|
|
|
I think i understand him too. Some of it i can chalk up to language, but not the sort of lackadaisical attitude toward facts. That I think is something else. I mean, I'm not even judging, as I can relate, but I try not to post questions here when that happens, much less argue about the answers I get.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
He's actually right, I think.
You say "The proper way to request that a disposable object dispose itself is IDisposable.Dispose()."
But his point is that while TcpClient is IDisposable, you can't call Dispose on it.
When you try, you get the message "TcpClient.Dispose(bool) is inaccessible due to its protection level"
Like I said, in my answer to his question, you can either cast the TcpClient to an IDisposable and call Dispose or you can call Close, which calls Dispose internally.
The Dispose method is available in .NET 4.7.2, but not in 4.5 and earlier (haven't checked versions between those).
So this guy may be right that it's a bug... In any case, he's right that he can't simply call Dispose() despite it being an IDisposable 
|
|
|
|
|
That's why I said IDisposable.Dispose() and not simply Dispose(). What I didn't think I had to explain was that some classes hide interface members and expose a Close() method instead. Maybe I should have.
But IDisposable.Dispose() always gets you there, because the method is *not* private, it's simply hidden but maybe that's just how i look at it - the big difference being you *can* get to it because it's on a an interface that itself is publicly accessible
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, but when I see stuff like that, it's mostly that ((ISomeInterface)someInstance).SomeHiddenMethodOnThatInterface() throws a NotImplementedException.
Which would be extremely bad design in the case of IDisposable
I guess this guy's knowledge of OO is not as firm as yours, so when you say he should call IDisposable.Dispose() he's just think "but I just said I can't!"
It's weird though, to hide Dispose like that.
So I get his confusion, I get why he thinks it's a bug, and I get how he gets frustrated with a bunch of guys telling him he should just call IDisposable.Dispose because "it's there!"
|
|
|
|
|
One of the things I picked up in my decades on this rock is that the right questions are infinitely more valuable than the right answers.
I think that applies here. You're the first person I've heard who may have made sense of what he was asking.
When I said I understood earlier I meant specifically about that "past forgotten memories" thing or whatever. Not the question. It seemed to me he was looking for a framework method to free objects.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: You're the first person I've heard who may have made sense of what he was asking.
The result of dealing with end-users for over a decade!
Seriously though, people rarely ask directly what they want to know.
|
|
|
|
|
my QA answer, posted 1/12/2014, accepted today [^]
from such serendipitous crumbs as these, i partially repair an ego well past its use-by date.
woof, woof
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
It's Amazing!
It took a while, but your wisdom finally permeated the Internet! 
|
|
|
|
|
I know that some QA querists can be slow learners, but ...
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
The ESP32 IoT SoC has great CPU power saving capabilities including a deep sleep mode which can take as few as 20uA according to the documentation. It's on a development board with LEDs, voltage regulators and whatever else so it draws quite a bit more than that in practice, but still it sips power in sleep mode.
Furthermore even while awoken the chip can run at different frequencies which you can set in software. As low as 2Mhz although in practice 80MhZ is the happiest "slow" speed and 240mhz is the max.
However, when I try to set the CPU frequency to a low setting the power use increases dramatically. I think by default it's 160mhz. Anyway:
without setting the CPU Freq:
goes from 2.5mA sleeping to 6.8mA when the CPU wakes to 9.3mA when the radio engages
with setting the CPU Freq to 80Mhz
goes from 2.5mA sleeping to 39mA when the CPU wakes to 42mA when the radio engages!
This is unacceptable and completely surprising. Looking at the espressif forums suggests their CPU change code is experimental but why even put it in if this is the result?
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Apparently they expect their users to do the experiments. This attitude seems to be becoming more common.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know what the deal is. Over all this is an amazing chip, and a joy to program. I guess I shouldn't complain so much about this, but I'm trying to get it to the point where I can drop it in the woods for a week on a couple of AA batteries and let it log some stuff.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
sell your stock, and return your swag 
seriously, i hope you are raising issues on the product forums, as well as on the Lounge your personal blog.
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
Funny how it's my personal blog when I rant about something but the posts below mine do the same thing and you have nothing to say. Gosh. It's almost like you're trying to start something again.
Maybe you need a hobby, Bill.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
But, my Diva Assoluta, no one equals you in terms of sheer volume, and glass-ceiling shattering frequency 
Your latest articles are great !
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
Looking at Power Management - ESP32 - — ESP-IDF Programming Guide latest documentation[^] I suspect what is happening is that, absent any explicit frequency setting, it defaults to a minimum power mode - "when the OS has nothing to do, light sleep." When you set CPU freq explicitly, it switches off that power saving.
(I can't find anything to back up what I'm saying; just the gut feeling of an old hardware guy.)
Cheers,
Peter
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Good find. You could very well be right. It's curious though that it would start out light sleeping, not that I mind. It's just, I intend to write several articles about this chip so I'm trying to figure out its major properties.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, good point. 
"In testa che avete, Signor di Ceprano?"
-- Rigoletto
|
|
|
|
|
Every time I reboot the PC and start Outlook, I now must re-enter the passwords for all 4 of the email addresses that it's configured to display. Every. Single. Time.
Yes, I check the "remember password" checkbox, but it has no effect.
This is very annoying. 
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Wow!
In political double-speak: "So much winning!"
|
|
|
|
|
This past Friday out of the blue, I was alerted that one of our hosted websites was 'down'. A quick check revealed that it was reachable with the static IP, pointing to a DNS issue. To double-check I tried it from a remote server and got the same results. WTE? It was working fine the day before.
I logged in to the registrar to make sure the domain name/account was still in good standing and it was. As it turns out, both of the name servers were unreachable. I hate changing these settings, so I put it off for the day hoping that it was just a temporary outage.
The next morning I checked again,.. still not working so I decided since it's the weekend, to go ahead and swap the unreachable name servers for a new pair and it's all working again, almost instantly in fact, despite the huge warning in big red font that changes will take from 24 to 36 hours.
If anyone else is using dynamicname.com name servers, you should check your stuff. I had hoped they would have 'resolved' their issues quickly but 2 days was too long for me to wait.
When I get a problem like this, it's just natural to understand what happened to cause it and what can I do to keep it from happening again. So here, I see the weakness as having both name servers at the same domain...but (someone please correct me if I'm wrong!) that seems to be the rule. I searched through a dozen or so articles for guidance. All of the examples show the ns differing only by the server name. (domain staying constant) This seems to make sense as I would think there is a local cache between the primary and secondary's, but I'm a programmer, not a network specialist! 
So I've got it working with the registrar's recommended named servers, which are just sequenced names to the same domain. If that domain goes down, I'll be in the same situation as before. Is it OK for me to use another registrar's (or even Googles') DNS as a secondary? (or just add it to the chain) Probably not, but I can't seem to find a source that tells me it can't be done. BTW, the original name servers setup for that domain had been reliable for 20+ years, so it's not like it's a common thing.
This answers last week's survey...'Who does your IT support?'
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
"Hope is contagious"
|
|
|
|
|
Not an expert here but if both are pointing to the host site why not change the second one to googles DNS server?
I mean - if your DNS is down - that's bad. If Googles DNS is also down - then access to your site is probably the least of your(and our) worries!
If you can't laugh at yourself - ask me and I will do it for you.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
