Search Results

Search found 6 results on 1 pages for 'mattiask'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

• Mutating Programming Language?

  - by MattiasK

  For fun I was thinking about how one could build a programming language that differs from OOP and came up with this concept. I don't have a strong foundation in computer science so it might be common place without me knowing it (more likely it's just a stupid idea :) I apologize in advance for this somewhat rambling question :) Anyways here goes: In normal OOP methods and classes are variant only upon parameters, meaning if two different classes/methods call the same method they get the same output. My, perhaps crazy idea, is that the calling method and class could be an "invisible" part of it's signature and the response could vary depending on who call's an method. Say that we have a Window object with a Break() method, now anyone (who has access) could call this method on Window with the same result. Now say that we have two different objects, Hammer and SledgeHammer. If Break need to produce different results based on these we'd pass them as parameters Break(IBluntObject bluntObject) With a mutating programming language (mpl) the operating objects on the method would be visible to the Break Method without begin explicitly defined and it could adopt itself based on them). So if SledgeHammer calls Window.Break() it would generate vastly different results than if Hammer did so. If OOP classes are black boxes then MPL are black boxes that knows who's (trying) to push it's buttons and can adapt accordingly. You could also have different permission sets on methods depending who's calling them rather than having absolute permissions like public and private. Does this have any advantage over OOP? Or perhaps I should say, would it add anything to it since you should be able to simply add this aspect to methods (just give access to a CallingMethod and CallingClass variable in context) I'm not sure, might be to hard to wrap one's head around, it would be kinda interesting to have classes that adopted themselves to who uses them though. Still it's an interesting concept, what do you think, is it viable?

  Read the article

• Agressive Auto-Updating?

  - by MattiasK

  What do you guys think is best practice regarding auto-updating? Google Chrome for instance seems to auto-update itself as soon as it get's a chance without asking and I'm fine with it. I think most "normal" users benefits from updates being a transparent process. Then again, some more technical users might be miffed if you update their app without permission, as I see it there's 3 options: 1) Have a checkbox when installing that says "allow automatic updates" 2) Just have a preference somewhere that allows you to "disable automatic updates" so that you have to "check for updates manually" I'm leaning towards 2) because 1) feels like it might alienate non-technical users and I'd rather avoid installation queries if possible. Also I'm thinking about making it easy to downgrade if an upgrade (heaven forbid) causes trouble, what are your thoughts? Another question, even if auto-updates are automatically, perhaps they should be announced. If there's new features for example otherwise you might not realize and use them One thing that kinda scares me though is the security implications, someone could theorically hack my server and push out spyware/zombieware to all my customers. It seems that using digital signatures to prevent man-in-the-middle attacks is the least you could do otherwise you might be hooked up to a network that spoofs the address of of update server.

  Read the article

• Aggressive Auto-Updating?

  - by MattiasK

  What do you guys think is best practice regarding auto-updating? Google Chrome for instance seems to auto-update itself as soon as it get's a chance without asking and I'm fine with it. I think most "normal" users benefits from updates being a transparent process. Then again, some more technical users might be miffed if you update their app without permission, as I see it there's 3 options: 1) Have a checkbox when installing that says "allow automatic updates" 2) Just have a preference somewhere that allows you to "disable automatic updates" so that you have to "check for updates manually" I'm leaning towards 2) because 1) feels like it might alienate non-technical users and I'd rather avoid installation queries if possible. Also I'm thinking about making it easy to downgrade if an upgrade (heaven forbid) causes trouble, what are your thoughts? Another question, even if auto-updates are automatically, perhaps they should be announced. If there's new features for example otherwise you might not realize and use them One thing that kinda scares me though is the security implications, someone could theorically hack my server and push out spyware/zombieware to all my customers. It seems that using digital signatures to prevent man-in-the-middle attacks is the least you could do otherwise you might be hooked up to a network that spoofs the address of of update server.

  Read the article

• Getting a "summary" of a webpage

  - by MattiasK

  I have something of a a hairy problem, I'd like to generate a couple of paragraphs of "description" of a given url, normally the start of an article. The Meta description field is one way to go but it isn't always good or set properly. It's fair to say it's a bit problematic to accomplish this from the screenscraped HTML. I had a general idea that perhaps one could scan the HTML for the first "appropriate" segment but it's hard to say what that is, perhaps something like the first paragraph containing a certain amount of text... Anyone have any good ideas? :) It doesn't have to be foolproof

  Read the article

• Persisting and applying Linq Query to collection

  - by MattiasK

  I have a scenario where I would want a plugin to construct a LINQ (to objects) query, send it across an appdomain and then apply and run it against a collection of my choosing Is it possible, how? If not, perhaps I could send a whole method (interface) across the appdomain and run it against the data on the appside? The main thing is that I want the data to reside in the CurrentDomain and the logic for operating on it in the plugin so I don't have to send the data across the boundary...

  Read the article

• Does [Serializable] work for inherited classes?

  - by MattiasK

  I haven't worked much with remoting so excuse this rather rudimentary question, If I derive a class from an abstract class marked as [Serializable] (for passing the data across an appdomain), does the other side get the actual overriden implementation? ie does polymorphism work over remoting/Serializable? I need to create a clone on the other side rather than operating on the original so MarshalByRef is not an option...

  Read the article

1