First chance exceptions

[John]

Hi

When running my app in vs 2008 IDE I get the below messages in the Immediate
Window repeatedly.

A first chance exception of type 'System.NullReferenceException' occurred in
MyApp.exe
A first chance exception of type
'System.Runtime.InteropServices.InvalidComObjectException' occurred in
MyApp.exe
A first chance exception of type 'System.IO.FileNotFoundException' occurred
in System.Drawing.dll
A first chance exception of type 'System.ArgumentNullException' occurred in
mscorlib.dll

They don't crash the app but it seems the app slows downs when one of these
errors occurs. What is the problem and how can I fix tit?

Thanks

Regards

 

[Kerry Moorman]

John,

Have you already googled "first chance exception"? Which of the many results
did you read and what didn't you understand?

Kerry Moorman

 

[Scott M.]

Wow, what a sarcastic "answer"!

John,

Have you already googled "first chance exception"? Which of the many
results
did you read and what didn't you understand?

Kerry Moorman

 

[Cor Ligthert[MVP]]

John,

As your program is not breaking on this, than there should be something
terrible wrong.

Hoppely you did not make something as

Try
Whatever
Catch
End Catch

In C#
Try{whatever}Catch{//nothing}


Cor

 

[Family Tree Mike]

In general, it is easier to fix a first error, rather than ignoring them,
which appears to be what your code does. If the errors are as you presented,
then identify the line with the null reference, get it fixed, then move on to
subsequent ones. With no code shown we can't possibly help with the null
reference issue though.

 

[rowe_newsgroups]

Wow, what a sarcastic "answer"!

lol

You obviously haven't noticed the amount of questions that "John"
posts here without even making an attempt to fix himself. I'm just
glad to see someone besides myself telling him to do a bit of the leg
work.

After all, aren't we here to help other professions and not to babysit
people too lazy to do some research?

Thanks,

Seth Rowe [MVP]

 

[Scott M.]

After all, aren't we here to help other professions and not to babysit

people too lazy to do some research?

True, but we're not here to be sarcastic and call people names either. I
recently told a poster the same thing, but I did provide the answer and
politely told him how he could be better served by Google.

-Scott

 

[rowe_newsgroups]

True, but we're not here to be sarcastic and call people names either. I
recently told a poster the same thing, but I did provide the answer and
politely told him how he could be better served by Google.

-Scott

I see your point, and that's very good advice for users who do not
know to search google or the usenet archives.

But what would you do if that same user you told use google and still
gave him the answer continued to post with the same lack of effort for
months following? Would you continue to answer his 20+ questions a
month when it's clear he will not do any of the work himself? Or would
you finally get sarcastic with him in response to his unwillingness in
hopes that he might respond better to a more blunt approach?

Oh, and please don't go for the "then why don't you just ignore him"
post - remember I'm only here defending Kerry's response, which isn't
my place, I'm just shedding some light on why I believe he made that
post.

Thanks,

Seth Rowe [MVP]

 

[Bob Simoneau]

Do you know the person, therefore know they are lazy? It is a fairly easy
choice. Either help or not help.

Bob Simoneau [MVP]

 

[rowe_newsgroups]

Do you know the person, therefore know they are lazy?  It is a fairly easy
choice.  Either help or not help.

Bob Simoneau [MVP]







- Show quoted text -

Bob,

The person repeatable posts questions that could be found by a quick
search of the archives or google. I have repeatedly asked the person
to search google or the archives and yet they still do not.

What word(s) would you describe this behavior as?

I describe it as laziness, and no, a person does not need to
personally know someone to decide, in their opinion, if they are lazy.
And as far as "Either help or not help" part of your post, I believe I
addressed this in my earlier post. My statement is that they should
"Either help or not help" themselves by searching google or the
archives before posting, if they chose not too, and they supply no
other reason, I will assume laziness if they have been asked numerous
times in the past to research before posting.

Thanks,

Seth Rowe [MVP]

 

[Scott M.]

I would do exactly what you suggest I not tell you that I do - I'd just
ignore the poster and not waste my time.

Honestly, if politely explaining how Google may be the better route to go
doesn't work, then why would you think that a sarcastic response would? At
that point, you are just wasting your time.

-Scott

 

[rowe_newsgroups]

I would do exactly what you suggest I not tell you that I do - I'd just
ignore the poster and not waste my time.

Honestly, if politely explaining how Google may be the better route to go
doesn't work, then why would you think that a sarcastic response would?  At
that point, you are just wasting your time.

-Scott








- Show quoted text -

Actually, I'm already ignoring most posts of his, unless they are an
original question that couldn't be found easily on google or the
archives. I only joined this thread to shed some light on a possible
reason why Kerry posted the sarcastic response.

With that said, maybe the reason for the sarcasm wasn't to reach the
OP directly, but to inform the other posters to not post answers in
hopes of getting the OP to do some of the work?

This obviously isn't the best solution, so how would you (or others
reading) suggest a way to stop "lazy" posters and encourage the people
in need of help to do some of the work themselves? The benefits are
obvious, as volunteers we don't spend all day hoping to answer every
question that comes our way. Wouldn't it be better to only have to
answer questions that haven't been answered ad nauseum and be able to
focus our limited time on people who truely could benefit from our
experience?

Thanks,

Seth Rowe [MVP]

 

[Lloyd Sheen]

I would do exactly what you suggest I not tell you that I do - I'd just
ignore the poster and not waste my time.

Honestly, if politely explaining how Google may be the better route to go
doesn't work, then why would you think that a sarcastic response would? At
that point, you are just wasting your time.

-Scott








- Show quoted text -

Actually, I'm already ignoring most posts of his, unless they are an
original question that couldn't be found easily on google or the
archives. I only joined this thread to shed some light on a possible
reason why Kerry posted the sarcastic response.

With that said, maybe the reason for the sarcasm wasn't to reach the
OP directly, but to inform the other posters to not post answers in
hopes of getting the OP to do some of the work?

This obviously isn't the best solution, so how would you (or others
reading) suggest a way to stop "lazy" posters and encourage the people
in need of help to do some of the work themselves? The benefits are
obvious, as volunteers we don't spend all day hoping to answer every
question that comes our way. Wouldn't it be better to only have to
answer questions that haven't been answered ad nauseum and be able to
focus our limited time on people who truely could benefit from our
experience?

Thanks,

Seth Rowe [MVP]


I usually don't like getting into things like this but I think that if
people notice a poster either not taking advice or seemingly not trying to
get info from googling etc. then ignoring the poster is the best way. Then
if the poster asks why their questions are not being answered people would
have the right to point out why.

Since the poster has asked the question he/she cannot be offended by the
answer (as long it is put in a civil manner).

LS

 

[rowe_newsgroups]

I usually don't like getting into things like this

I try to stay out as well, and I wish that I would have refrained from
posting this time.

It's frustrating to say the least when you see post after post from
the same user who has blantently ignored the requests for them to do
some research before posting. What's more frustrating is that even
though I (and probably others) quit answering those types of questions
already, their are plenty of others who readily step up and offer the
simple answers to the questions. The problem is that if the OP is
receiving answers, from anybody, then he/she has no reason to change
habits and do research on his own time.

Perhaps I just care too much about the newsgroups and am hoping to fix
one of the core problems (posting without research)?

Thanks,

Seth Rowe [MVP]

 

[Scott M.]

Actually, I'm already ignoring most posts of his, unless they are an

original question that couldn't be found easily on google or the
archives. I only joined this thread to shed some light on a possible
reason why Kerry posted the sarcastic response.

With that said, maybe the reason for the sarcasm wasn't to reach the
OP directly, but to inform the other posters to not post answers in
hopes of getting the OP to do some of the work?

This obviously isn't the best solution, so how would you (or others
reading) suggest a way to stop "lazy" posters and encourage the people
in need of help to do some of the work themselves?

I would suggest that you not think of it as your responsibility to "stop"
lazy posters at all. Simply inform them of the usefullness of Google and
move on. A good example is the "general" NG. People mistakenly post there
all the time with general Windows questions, not realizing that it is for
general .NET questions. By providing a sarcastic response to one person who
does this, you're not going to stop others from doing so.

Wouldn't it be better to only have to answer questions that haven't been
answered ad nauseum and be able to
focus our limited time on people who truely could benefit from our
experience?

I guess that's my point. We are volunteers. We don't "have" to answer
anyone's posts. Respond to the posts that you have insight into and don't
respond to ones that bother you. Ultimately, it's your choice.

Just my 2 cents.

-Scott