• LeadGameDev (unregistered) in reply to xtremezone
    xtremezone:
    I much prefer Linux for 99% of everything. I'd sure like to rid myself of Windows entirely, but unfortunately game developers don't yet give Linux the attention it deserves. :(

    Oh dear. Please move to Linux forever and leave game development to us, professionals!

  • Anonymous (unregistered)

    Oh wow, I've just got into work today and started reading the moronic retorts from Erik Naggum after the whole forum called him out on generally being a retard. How does this guy survive life being such a self-absorbed idiot? Thanks for the laugh Erik, this is how all days should start!

  • (cs) in reply to Anonymous
    Anonymous:
    Oh wow, I've just got into work today and started reading the moronic retorts from Erik Naggum after the whole forum called him out on generally being a retard. How does this guy survive life being such a self-absorbed idiot? Thanks for the laugh Erik, this is how all days should start!
    I don't expect to hear anything from Erik. He gave himself an excuse to duck out by saying, "I'm done commenting on this thread unless I find a glimmer of intelligence in a response."

    Given that his are the only posts with a glimmer of intelligence, I figure he won't be back.

  • (cs)

    Clearly Erik has contracted the "overly aggravated tech" virus that I had earlier this week (see my vitrioloic outpourings in "Validating a Date with a Sledghammer" for details!).

    Sorry Dude!

    Although, on that note:

    xtremezone:
    I much prefer Linux for 99% of everything. I'd sure like to rid myself of Windows entirely, but unfortunately game developers don't yet give Linux the attention it deserves. :(
    Did you ever consider that perhaps Linux geeks don't give game development the attention it deserves?

  • (cs) in reply to SoonerMatt
    SoonerMatt:
    jpaull:
    Based on my experience, where most DBAs automatically dismiss anything suggested by a developer, I was not surprised to hear that they passed on the revised code.

    I must be very fortunate to work in my environment. Our db team does a very similar "quantity" of coding as our web team. There are always several ways to accomplish a task and we generally agree on whether something should be written in PL/SQL or on our end.

    Here developers write PL/SQL, DBAs only install the scripts into the database (because developers aren't supposed to have the admin username/password for the production machine, not because we're technically incapable of doing it ourselves). It's a good division of labour, they don't have to think and we don't have to stay up nights to run things after office hours :)

  • (cs) in reply to aliquot
    aliquot:
    Wow, what is up with all this hostility toward DBA's? In my previous job I was a DBA *and* a programmer - I handled the stored procedures, the other 3 dev's handled the java code, we collaborated on schema design and I helped the other dev's optimize their queries for performance. There was none of the bitter rivalry I'm seeing here. It was all sunshine and roses.

    I've seen a lot of situations where DBAs were extremely hostile towards developers, refused even speak with them, let alone do anything to help them solve problems. Apparently that attitude is pretty common in the industry and whenever developers get a chance they vent their frustration at the situation.

    Where I'm working now there's not much hostility, but DBAs are almost never in direct contact with developers to the point where most of them never even work in the same location (they have their own office some 100 miles away where developers never come).

    The difference: Developers generally tend to be less aggressive, more often than not resorting to quips and jokes rather than namecalling and open insults than are many DBAs.

  • JoAnne Smith (unregistered) in reply to Mike-RaWare
    Mike-RaWare:
    This script reminds me of this simple piece of code.

    Thank you for that, you made my day.

  • (cs) in reply to D C Ross
    D C Ross:
    ebs2002:
    Ohh...a sailboat!
    You dumb bastard. It's not a sailboat, it's a schooner.
    COOL!!! Let's do abbreviations and acronyms again! I'll start...

    A schooner is a sailboat, but a sailboat isn't necessarily a schooner (it could be a sloop, a yawl, a ketch...)

    Who's next?

  • (cs) in reply to xtremezone
    xtremezone:
    I noticed that as well. I gave the submitter/poster/editor the benefit of the doubt and assumed that the script was executing in a UNIX-like environment with [*ugh*] case-insensitive environment variables... :-X Either that, or the poster/editor is a Windows-y user and doesn't realize case is important. ;D Either way, you get the point. And the Windows-y users never will. ;D

    I'm not sure what you're getting at. Unix environment variables are case-sensitive on every shell I've used. Then you imply that a "Windows-y user" wouldn't know that case is important.

    Or maybe it's that you're not sure what you're getting at. Either way, you just made a dope of yourself.

  • (cs) in reply to rfsmit
    rfsmit:
    xtremezone:
    I noticed that as well. I gave the submitter/poster/editor the benefit of the doubt and assumed that the script was executing in a UNIX-like environment with [*ugh*] case-insensitive environment variables... :-X Either that, or the poster/editor is a Windows-y user and doesn't realize case is important. ;D Either way, you get the point. And the Windows-y users never will. ;D

    I'm not sure what you're getting at. Unix environment variables are case-sensitive on every shell I've used. Then you imply that a "Windows-y user" wouldn't know that case is important.

    Yes, UNIX environment variables are case-sensitive in every shell I've used as well. However, I haven't used many so I merely gave the submitter/author/editor the benefit of the doubt assuming that somewhere out there exists a UNIX-like environment with case-insensitive environment variables (though for the sake of sanity I'd prefer it didn't exist).

    Then I humored the possibility that the poster and editor were [predominantly] Windows users unfamiliar with (or not used to) the case-sensitivity in UNIX environments, and therefore, less likely to catch what seems like an error in the submitter's solution (and since he seems to know a thing or two about UNIX shell scripts I have to assume he knows better, which suggests that the error may, though not necessarily, have been introduced by the author/editor).

    rfsmit:
    Or maybe it's that you're not sure what you're getting at. Either way, you just made a dope of yourself.
    So I fail to see how I made a "dope" of myself. ::)
  • Greg (unregistered) in reply to sqlblindman

    I enjoyed sliding the scrollbar up and down rapidly and watching the pattern oscillate.

  • ysth (unregistered)

    /bin/sh friendly:

    for i in seq 2 119; do file="$file,$WORKSPACE/ewprd${i}_$DATECODE.dmp"; done

  • danielc (unregistered)

    The phrase "Thom passed on the suggestion" is confusing. By "passed on" you mean "ignored." But I initially read it as to mean "sent it up the chain," making the rest of the sentence make absolutely no sense. :)

  • Andrew (unregistered) in reply to ysth

    seq(1) is nice trick; I hadn't seen that command before. However, your code does not correctly handle the first filename in the list (your list will start with a ',').

  • Andrew (unregistered) in reply to Ignacio

    I actually wrote shell script that uses dtrace to compare both methods of initializing the variable. The "static" initialization (i.e. the very long line) is much, much faster. malloc(3) is called 11 million times when the 4-line loop is run with 100 iterations!

  • kono (unregistered) in reply to T604
    T604:
    Wow, every job I've ever had the dbas would say "We don't write stored procedures" you write it and give it to us to maintain. I've always wondered what it is they do? Write create/alter sql and then sit around waiting for indexes to corrupt? I can never understand how their pay is on the same scale (or better) than a developers.
    because they speak "PHB", that's why.
  • (cs) in reply to Erik Naggum

    The REAL Erik Naggum on TDWTF? That we may be deserving of such an honor!

    Erik Naggum:
    I appear to be the first DB-person /and/ programmer who noticed that the 'helpful' script solution completely fails to solve the original problem.

    No, but you appear to be the first who would make such a claim without bothering to use his browser's text search function first. In two words: You fail.

    Erik Naggum:
    DB-folks are generally much older and have established egos

    You fail once more. The point in personal development is not to establish an ego, it's to kill the goddamned thing! Your confusion is understandable however because you probably don't know what an ego is in the first place. While the English syllable "self" isn't a foolproof way of catching the ego, it's a good start.

    But now for something completely different - your poster child LISP! While you rightly criticize C++ for being inelegant (not that I would use the same wording), C++ has one thing going for it: It's blazingly fast (also, it's more interoperable than mostly anything else).

    It may be said that purity and elegance beat performance. However, and this is the argument I fiendishly prepared, I will now propose a language which is both more pure and more elegant than LISP, which is a bastard (by which I merely mean "multi-paradigm programming language", of course) just like C++. This language is Haskell. In fact, it's the only general purpose language I know of where expressions are free of environmental side effects. Also, Haskell is a much faster growing functional programming language in terms of adoption and availability of libraries and tools.

    But then, we might reason, LISP may still be useful assuming it sacrifices some of the high-falutin' purity and abstraction that characterize Haskell for performance. Unfortunately this is incorrect. The Glasgow Haskell Compiler butchers Common LISP and Scheme alike, performance-wise.

    There you have it - you're the language bigot who's outbigotted, and your personal pet language is completely redundant (apart from customizing Emacs, of course). Oh, the irony.

    Of course, I don't have anything against you, just your "established" ego, or let's call it the old dogma you can't teach any tricks to.

  • (cs) in reply to ysth
    ysth:
    /bin/sh friendly:

    for i in seq 2 119; do file="$file,$WORKSPACE/ewprd${i}_$DATECODE.dmp"; done

    Haskell:

    intercalate "," $
  map (\i -> join [workspace,"/ewprd",show i,"_",datecode,".dmp"]) [1..119]

    A bit shorter still because no special case for the first file name is necessary (intercalate handles that).

  • Incen (unregistered) in reply to HypocriteWorld
    HypocriteWorld:
    Andy Goth:
    Looping is not a proven technology, and Thom is right not to trust it. Looping takes work away from the programmer and is therefore a threat to job security. Loops are for the lazy. The only legitimate use of looping is the for-case paradigm.
    For all other cases, recursion must be used!
    Is that you, Prolog?
  • Armand A. Verstappen (unregistered)

    Apart from rejecting the much more elegant alternative, did you guys end up fixing the first one? If not, I'm afraid that the .dmp's for ewprd117 will not be backed up because of the typo $WORKSAPCE ...

  • Crash (unregistered) in reply to Tim Ward
    Tim Ward:
    MeRp:
    Tim Ward:
    Puzzled ... is there perhaps a language difference here?

    In English "passed on" means "conveyed this information to those best placed to act on it". Does it mean something different in American perhaps?

    In the American dialectic it can mean that, or it can mean that the individual who did the "passing" chose not to utilize whatever was passed on. e.g. If I passed on lunch, then I chose not to have lunch.

    Ah, so another example of the same phrase meaning the exact opposite in American to what it means in English then.

    Actually the interesting thing is that it can have either meaning in America based on the context in which it was used.

  • BottomCod3r (unregistered) in reply to Buddy
    Buddy:

    Some would disagree. The designers of Python and Eiffel considered case insensitivity to be a superior design but some implementations enforce case sensitivity for a number of reasons. Foremost was the ability to interface with the existing code base in other languages.

    News flash: CPython is the cannonical python interpreter, it's case sensitive.

  • Jim (unregistered)

    Why is the "119" hard-coded in that script?

  • RealLazyDBA (unregistered) in reply to jwenting

    I seriously wish every developer was forced to work as an operational DBA, with the responsibilies that comes with it, for a few critical systems (i'd say anywhere between 200-900 instanses, heterogenous in vendor, hardware and versions) for lets say 6 months.

    then come back and whine about not getting sys/sysadm/sa rights, about lack of change mgmt, about the incompetense of their DBA's, and my favourite of the day: that any decent dev would make a decent DBA.. hint: it's not only technology, by a mindset.

    There is more then one type of DBA in the world...

    but, as someone said earlier, hey, please try, more money for the freelance DBA's who actually ARE worth their salt ;)

Leave a comment on “The Backup Snippet”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article