Important Notice: Our web hosting provider recently started charging us for additional visits, which was unexpected. In response, we're seeking donations. Depending on the situation, we may explore different monetization options for our Community and Expert Contributors. It's crucial to provide more returns for their expertise and offer more Expert Validated Answers or AI Validated Answers. Learn more about our hosting issue here.

Why does Treehouse Software feel that the insertion of “probes” into NATURAL source code (as done by some application testing tools) is “dangerous”?

0
Posted

Why does Treehouse Software feel that the insertion of “probes” into NATURAL source code (as done by some application testing tools) is “dangerous”?

0

We consider the insertion of probes into source code to be “corruption” of the program. But there are many other reasons we are strongly opposed to using source code “probes”. The insertion of such probes increases the need for backups because of the potential that a database could go down during the insertion of the probes or because the probes could be inserted incorrectly, etc. Further, the “probed” programs are not representative of the Production code because of timing and code location. Probes can be accidentally left in a program, causing it to fail in Production. Programs close to NATURAL size limits may exceed those limits once the probes are inserted. All of these reasons make the use of probes a “dangerous” and unwise practice. An additional “annoyance” of probes is that they require you to recompile your source code after the probes have been inserted. PROFILER does not require source code to be recompiled.

Thanksgiving questions

*Sadly, we had to bring back ads too. Hopefully more targeted.