Richard:
> And now the issue has become doubly conflated.
> To review, there are two issues in this thread:
Yes, I happened to mention that initial conflation today BEFORE you did,
with some slight differences. Your post shadowed mine.
> With your addition, we now have a third concern introduced
> unrelated to AV handling:
> c) The performance optimization efforts demonstrably
> under way with LC's v9 series are not yet complete.
Richard, it seems you're shooting just a little off the mark lately.
It's quite unusual for you to be inaccurate, and I've known you for a
long time. If you have any personal issue with me, accept my apologies
and best regards, but whatever it may be, don't let any feelings throw
off your reading and writing accuracy and honesty. Facts, statements,
and chronology are all public for reference. Sticking a little closer to
them would be appreciated.
So now we may be triple-conflated. different general LC 9 ENGINE
performance optimization issues is a completely different topic that
doesn't belong in this thread and has ONLY been introduced here courtesy
of yourself, Mr. Richard Gaskin. Nothing to do with me.
> While it is apparently of great interest to discuss more
> general performance issues in any thread where the topic
> may be plausibly inserted
That (not of this thread, again cross-threaded by yourself, Richard) was
something I've promoted publicly since Jan 2017, and discussed with LC
prior. And (I explain here ONLY because you force me, to avoid needless
confusion to others, since you've now accused me of injecting it
globally) in Sep 2018 I filed Bug 21561 "Slow LC 9 LCS Performance in
Multiple Areas and Real Applications" to demo irrefutable effects in
multiple areas of engine code BECAUSE at the time discussions of the
optimization effort underway were focusing mainly on arrays. I mentioned
it again in another thread BECAUSE in discussing 6/9 factoring OTHERS
had already mentioned performance. These are all published, and we can
quote and link if you wish, but not on this thread, please. Your recent
comments about that bug report were off too, but I don't want to follow
you on this cross-thread stuff.
I can't see any possible need to bring that topic here into this thread,
and I'm not sure why you saw fit to do so, but again, that was you,
RICHARD GASKIN, injecting it here, and not myself. Here in this thread I
briefly mentioned (quote) "plus improved performance as a bonus" i.e. a
possible (not guaranteed) extra INCENTIVE for fixing one of these AV
problems, what you call the "Defender issue."
That "Defender issue" - in other words, my other Bug 21604 "Script
Editor for LC 901 Unusable on Windows i3/i5" - and the other AV flagging
issue (whether by Defender or any other AV) are both what OTHERS
introduced to this thread when discussing AV, including yourself. Which
is fine by me (both AV) but let's keep the chronology and facts
straight: note that ANY and all conflation (or not) on this thread
happened before my post today. Except this conflation of yours, of
course! :)
> there is a key factor with the subject at hand which you
> may not have noticed in the comments in your bug report:
> Those who have disabled Windows Defender's Real Time Protection
> find the issue immediately resolved.
Again, you are straying from PUBLISHED details and chronology. In fact,
in the very source you mentioned. On Nov 16, the Defender fix was noted.
On Dec 12, I acknowledged that it was the case for me too, and thanked
them for it. I don't think you can accuse me of not noticing something
that I explicitly acknowledged, can you? And what I've emphasized today
is a great quick fix for the symptoms? To overlook multiple statements
of mine and suggest the opposite is going off the rails a little.
On Dec 12, I also warned about telling people to turn off Defender per
se rather than just the affected part, which Panos then identified.
And on that date I mentioned my suspicion/prediction (since others
reported similar symptoms on Mac, plus typing in a window shouldn't be a
biggie) that there was more to this than Defender/AV, potentially the
code design of SE and/or IDE.
> Back on topic in this thread, I agree with your assessment here,
> that if there is an opportunity to alter LC so that it no longer
> triggers this well known Microsoft bug,
Yes, that's where we've agreed, to that extent - that there may be a way
to fix it/avoid it on the LC side. On Dec 12 I suggested it along my
lines, and later the same day you suggested it along slightly different
lines based on MS reports. I don't know whose theory will prove to be
correct, but both possible and involving a shared component: changing
something in LC to avoid this issue permanently.
> If the performance issues you're seeing on your Mac
> Any Mac-specific issues merit their own bug report as well
That's only true if your assumption or theory is correct. It hasn't been
resolved yet. Although my bug report is titled Windows (because I
queried others before posting report and didn't notice or receive any
Mac reports before posting) I did receive Mac reports AFTER posting. And
this is all noted in the same report that you referenced.
> just like the one we're discussing here which you had flagged
> as a Windows issue (#21604), and which led to the discovery of
> the contributory effect of Windows Defender.
Precisely, so Richard, would you agree that me posting on this thread
once might be just a tad relevant, it being the bug I reported? Is that
OK? I posted (A) to remind people of the Defender areas that can be left
on, (B) to remind people that if Macs are involved it's not ONLY a
Defender/AV issue and can be solved on the IDE side, and (C) to note the
conflation that you also followed me in posting again with some
differences. All important - I've let this thread go on without my
involvement, but wanted to post once to make sure those were emphasized.
As a result of my posting the bug report, I was informed by Mac users
who claimed similar symptoms and finally saw it myself with my own eyes.
Noted in the bug report. Perhaps you were not informed and didn't notice
those. A possible projection of the "you may not have noticed" that you
attributed to me? I wouldn't have minded that you didn't see something
(I sure don't see everything) but it's a bit strange to be accused of
what may be the accuser's problem.
Since Mac is less commonly affected with similar symptoms (in fact LC
Ltd suggested a workaround, that's documented in the report) it follows
that POSSIBLY they are of the same cause. And IF they are, it becomes
CERTAINLY not just a Windows Defender issue, obviously. But we'll have
to wait for the final outcome to see.
> but the suggestion that the Script Editor is NOT the cause
> of Microsoft's issue with Defender does indeed seem reasonable.
(My emphasis added.) I was saying either SE or IDE probably INDEED is
the cause, so I think we may disagree on that, unless one of us slipped
in an extra NOT somewhere. And I certainly welcome disagreement; if your
theory pans out I'll be just as happy as if mine does! Again, best
wishes to you and I hope this will clarify any misunderstandings and
avoid confusion to others.
Best wishes,
Curry Kenworthy
Custom Software Development
"Better Methods, Better Results"
LiveCode Training and Consulting
http://livecodeconsulting.com/
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
