Re: Sending an interrupt to the frontend?
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg127436] Re: Sending an interrupt to the frontend?
- From: Ralph Dratman <ralph.dratman at gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 02:30:55 -0400 (EDT)
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Yves, Do you know any way to prevent the insertion of code classified as "dynamic"? I don't knowingly use any code of that kind, yet I frequently see a message to the effect that my notebook contains "unsafe" dynamic content! Ralph On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 3:48 AM, Yves Klett <yves.klett at googlemail.com> wrote: > Michael, > > the subjective stability changed brutally between versions 5 and 6 with > the introduction of the whole dynamic frontend stuff. With version 6 and > all the very desirable interactivity the number of kernel kills rocketed > for me. > > If you use this heavily there are often hangs/crashes that seem > difficult to reproduce. Sometimes it works, sometimes it does not. Which > can be quite vexing. Of course this may still be due to bad programming, > but in a rather non-deterministic fashion. > > Regards, > Yves > > Am 19.07.2012 09:51, schrieb Michael Weyrauch: >> Ralph, >> >> I really would like to understand your critical remarks somewhat >> better. >> >> It is clear that one can easily and quickly run the frontend irresponsive. >> However, in most cases I know, this is actually due to bad programming >> (from Mathematica's point of view) rather than an instable product. >> >> One typical reason is that a command returns symbolic results where the >> programmer actually expected only numerical stuff, and quickly things get completely out of hand. But how should Mathematica know that all this was not intended? >> >> It is the tremendous flexibility and the many possibilities which >> sometims get into the way, and as a consequence the frontend can not >> handle the output from the kernel any more. >> >> I really do not understand where you expect Wolfram to get "its act >> together". My experience tells me: A good Mathematica program may run >> for days without any instability. But my stupitidy and/or lasy >> programming can run it against >> the wall within seconds. Mathematica as such is definitely not unstable. >> (of course, sometimes there are bugs as with any other major (and minor) >> software). >> >> Michael >> >> >> Am 15.07.2012 10:28, schrieb Ralph Dratman: >>> David, >>> >>> "Troublesome" puts the matter rather tactfully. >>> >>> Bluntly, there is no excuse for a major product to display such a >>> level of instability in 2012. >>> >>> Since I personally like Mathematica so much, and because I use it >>> constantly, I find the crashes to be both an embarrassment and a >>> disappointment. >>> >>> I can only hope Wolfram Research will soon get its act together on >>> this critically important issue. >>> >>> Ralph >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 1:28 AM, David Bailey <dave at removedbailey.co.uk> wrote: >>>> On 12/07/2012 10:00, Yves Klett wrote: >>>>> In earlier incarnations, the kernel would show up as a separate entry in >>>>> the taskbar (on Win XP, that was), which made it very convenient to >>>>> kill. I kind of miss that behaviour (when things go wrong repeatedly). >>>> >>>> I wrote a C program that executes the command >>>> >>>> c:\windows\System32\taskkill.exe /im MathKernel.exe /t /f >>>> >>>> This runs in the background all the time, and responds to a hot key! >>>> >>>> The fact that I took time to set this up, probably reflects just how >>>> troublesome kernel hangs can be! >>>> >>>> Perhaps at the very least Mathematica could spawn a program of this type. >>>> >>>> David Bailey >>>> http://www.dbaileyconsultancy.co.uk >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >