XML Considered Harmful

[Michael F. Stemper]

On 27/09/2021 20.01, Avi Gross wrote:
> Michael,
> 
> Given your further explanation, indeed reading varying numbers of points in
> using a CSV is not valid, albeit someone might just make N columns (maybe a
> few more than 7) to handle a hopefully worst case. Definitely it makes more
> sense to read in a list or other data structure.
> 
> You keep talking about generators, though. If the generators are outside of
> your program, then yes, you need to read in whatever they produce.

My original post (which is as the snows of yesteryear) made explicit the
fact that when I refer to a generator, I'm talking about something made
from tons of iron and copper that is oil-filled and rotates at 1800 rpm.
(In most of the world other than North America, they rotate at 1500 rpm.)

Nothing to do with the similarly-named python construct. Sorry for the
ambiguity.

> But if
> your data generator is within your own program,

The data is created in my mind, and approximates typical physical
characteristics of real generators.

> My impression is you may not be using your set of data points for any other
> purposes except when ready to draw a spline.

Nope, the points give a piecewise-linear curve, and values between two
consecutive points are found by linear interpolation. It's industry
standard practice.


> Can I just ask if by a generator, you do NOT mean the more typical use of
> "generator" as used in python

Nope; I mean something that weighs 500 tons and rotates, producing
electrical energy.

>   Do you mean something that creates
> realistic test cases to simulate a real-word scenario?

The thing that creates realistic test cases is my brain.

>   These often can
> create everything at once and often based on random numbers.

I have written such, but not in the last thirty years. At that time, I
needed to make up data for fifty or one hundred generators, along with
tie lines and loads.

What I'm working on now only needs a handful of generators at a time;
just enough to test my hypothesis. (Theoretically, I could get by with
two, but that offends my engineering sensibilities.)

> create everything at once and often based on random numbers. Again, if you
> have or build such code, it is not clear it needs to be written to disk and
> then read back.

Well, I could continue to hard-code the data into one of the test
programs, but that would mean that every time that I wanted to look
at a different scenario, I'd need to modify a program. And when I
discover anomalous behavior, I'd need to copy the hard-coded data
into another program.

Having the data in a separate file means that I can provide a function
to read that file and return a list of generators (or fuels) to a
program. Multiple test cases are then just multiple files, all of which
are available to multiple programs.

>   You may of course want to save it, perhaps as a log, to show
> what your program was working on.

That's another benefit of having the data in external files.

-- 
Michael F. Stemper
A preposition is something you should never end a sentence with.