|Date:||February 14, 2007 / year-entry #54|
|Summary:||One phenomenon I've noticed quite a bit is something I'm going to call "technology hypochondria", the belief that you are suffering from whatever problem you just read about. It reminds me of this joke: A man goes to his doctor. "Doctor," he says, "I'm pretty sure I've got this disease here. All the symptoms match....|
One phenomenon I've noticed quite a bit is something I'm going to call "technology hypochondria", the belief that you are suffering from whatever problem you just read about. It reminds me of this joke:
One of my relatives who is a medical doctor in a public hospital explained to me that in his experience, you should never trust the diagnosis of a med student. "When we bring them along on rounds and show them a patient and ask them what they think the problem might be, they always answer with the disease they just studied last week."
When I describe one way a program can become unresponsive, that doesn't necessarily mean that that's why your program is unresponsive. A program can become unresponsive for any of a million reasons, most of which have the same basic symptoms: "When I click on the program, nothing happens." That's really not enough information from which to make a diagnosis. To make a diagnosis, you need to whack a debugger under the program and see why the UI thread isn't processing messages. (Mark Russinovich did exactly that to investigate a process startup delay he was experiencing, and the cause in his case was something I hadn't seen before.)
If you post a comment to one of my articles asking, "Could this be why my program also has a similar problem?", don't expect much of an answer from me. It's like writing a letter to a newspaper's medical advice column saying, "I'm suffering from fatigue and loss of appetite. Do I have AIDS?"
<-- Back to Old New Thing Archive Index