ninjarobot

Trace .NET Core Applications on Linux with strace

Troubleshooting a running application can be difficult, usually it starts around checking log output and then following through the likely code paths to get an idea of where a failure may occur. In a development environment, you might attach a debugger a step through source, but troubleshooting isn't always that convenient. There are several helpful tools that can assist, but one that gives the most comprehensive view of a running application is strace. With strace you are able to see all of the system calls an application makes to get a detailed understanding of what is going on "under the hood" in order to troubleshoot an issue.

Take a simple "hello world" F# application, the kind you get from dotnet new console -lang F# -n strace-sample". Build it with dotnet build and then launch it with strace to get a trace of all the system calls in a file called trace.log(adjusting for your build output path if on a different framework vers

battermann

#load @"paket-files/fsprojects/Chessie/src/Chessie/ErrorHandling.fs"

type Continuation<'output, 'next> = 'output -> 'next

module TerminalDsl =
    open Chessie.ErrorHandling

    type Terminal<'next> =
    | WriteLine    of string * Continuation<unit, 'next>
    | ReadLine     of unit   * Continuation<string, 'next>

battermann

[<AutoOpen>]
module IO = 
    type IO<'a> =
        private 
        | Return of (unit -> 'a)
        | Suspend of (unit -> IO<'a>)

    let rec run x =
        match x with
        | Return v -> v()

Porges

module Implicit

type Implicitly<'i, 't> = private Implicitly of ('i -> 't)

let implicitly = Implicitly

let runImplicit impl (Implicitly f) = f impl

type ImplicitBuilder<'i> () =
    member __.ReturnFrom x = x

CarstenKoenig

namespace ReaderM

type ReaderM<'d,'out> = 
    'd -> 'out

module Reader =

    // basic operations

    let run dep (rm : ReaderM<_,_>) =

chitchcock

Stevey's Google Platforms Rant

I was at Amazon for about six and a half years, and now I've been at Google for that long. One thing that struck me immediately about the two companies -- an impression that has been reinforced almost daily -- is that Amazon does everything wrong, and Google does everything right. Sure, it's a sweeping generalization, but a surprisingly accurate one. It's pretty crazy. There are probably a hundred or even two hundred different ways you can compare the two companies, and Google is superior in all but three of them, if I recall correctly. I actually did a spreadsheet at one point but Legal wouldn't let me show it to anyone, even though recruiting loved it.

I mean, just to give you a very brief taste: Amazon's recruiting process is fundamentally flawed by having teams hire for themselves, so their hiring bar is incredibly inconsistent across teams, despite various efforts they've made to level it out. And their operations are a mess; they don't real