←back to thread

123 points eterm | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
eterm ◴[] No.43925356[source]
A post in which I try to rubber-duck a CoreWCF issue I've been having, because stackoverflow no longer seems suitable for asking questions about programming issues.

Screaming into the void of the blogosphere is catharsis for getting my SO question closed.

And because I know you're all nosy, the SO question is here: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/79605462/high-cpu-usage-... . Please feel free to point out more ways in which I screwed up asking my SO question.

replies(10): >>43925551 #>>43925669 #>>43925930 #>>43925975 #>>43926332 #>>43927351 #>>43931071 #>>43933405 #>>43933839 #>>43935803 #
matsemann ◴[] No.43925669[source]
Honestly, I agree with it not being a good fit for a Q&A site. It's a debugging problem, probably needing a discussion, and might even not be of any use to others being that "high cpu" is kinda vague. Seems better suited for a bug report / issue tracker of the relevant library.
replies(5): >>43925828 #>>43925881 #>>43925895 #>>43926071 #>>43932335 #
wokwokwok ◴[] No.43925895[source]
How can a question that is:

1) clearly technical

2) reproducible

3) has a clear failure condition

Not be a suitable candidate for S/O?

Did we step into a dimension where only "How do I print('hello world')?" is a valid question while I wasn't watching, because it has a trivial one-line answer?

Hard questions doesn't mean they're bad, it just means many people aren't competent answer them. The same goes for obscure questions; there might just not be many people who care, but the question itself is entirely valid.

Does that mean they're not suitable for S/O?

I... can't believe anyone seriously believes that hard niche problems are too obscure or too hard for S/O to be bothered to grace themselves with.

It's absurd.

It just baffles me that a question that might take some effort to figure an answer out to might 'not be suitable' to S/O.

replies(2): >>43925997 #>>43926561 #
1. robertlagrant ◴[] No.43925997[source]
> 2) reproducible

Is it? What hardware and OS version should I use to reproduce the server?

replies(1): >>43933878 #
2. Const-me ◴[] No.43933878[source]
Almost any hardware, .NET runs on x86, AMD64, ARMv7 and ARM64 processors. Almost any desktop or server OS, .NET runs on reasonably modern versions of Windows, Linux and MacOS.

The complete source code of the server is in the question.

replies(1): >>43934835 #
3. robertlagrant ◴[] No.43934835[source]
> .NET runs on x86, AMD64, ARMv7 and ARM64 processors. Almost any desktop or server OS, .NET runs on reasonably modern versions of Windows, Linux and MacOS.

I'm not really asking where .NET runs; I'm asking what is the environment to reproduce it in? If it only affects certain ones it's a waste of time to just make people guess.

> The complete source code of the server is in the question.

Yes, I saw.

replies(1): >>43939184 #
4. Const-me ◴[] No.43939184{3}[source]
The .NET runtime is cross-platform, the lower level asp-net infrastructure is included in the runtime. The higher level CoreWCF RPC library OP uses is written fully in C#. I would expect it to run in all environments supported by the .NET runtime.

Personally, I have reproduced the bug on Windows 10 running on AMD64 processor. BTW, the code in the question only communicates to localhost address i.e. doesn’t need any networking on the computer.