Search Results

Search found 16554 results on 663 pages for 'programmers identity'.

Page 103/663 | < Previous Page | 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110  | Next Page >

  • Exception Handling Frequency/Log Detail

    - by Cyborgx37
    I am working on a fairly complex .NET application that interacts with another application. Many single-line statements are possible culprits for throwing an Exception and there is often nothing I can do to check the state before executing them to prevent these Exceptions. The question is, based on best practices and seasoned experience, how frequently should I lace my code with try/catch blocks? I've listed three examples below, but I'm open to any advice. I'm really hoping to get some pros/cons of various approaches. I can certainly come up with some of my own (greater log granularity for the O-C approach, better performance for the Monolithic approach), so I'm looking for experience over opinion. EDIT: I should add that this application is a batch program. The only "recovery" necessary in most cases is to log the error, clean up gracefully, and quit. So this could be seen to be as much a question of log granularity as exception handling. In my mind's eye I can imagine good reasons for both, so I'm looking for some general advice to help me find an appropriate balance. Monolitich Approach class Program{ public static void Main(){ try{ Step1(); Step2(); Step3(); } catch (Exception e) { Log(e); } finally { CleanUp(); } } public static void Step1(){ ExternalApp.Dangerous1(); ExternalApp.Dangerous2(); } public static void Step2(){ ExternalApp.Dangerous3(); ExternalApp.Dangerous4(); } public static void Step3(){ ExternalApp.Dangerous5(); ExternalApp.Dangerous6(); } } Delegated Approach class Program{ public static void Main(){ try{ Step1(); Step2(); Step3(); } finally { CleanUp(); } } public static void Step1(){ try{ ExternalApp.Dangerous1(); ExternalApp.Dangerous2(); } catch (Exception e) { Log(e); throw; } } public static void Step2(){ try{ ExternalApp.Dangerous3(); ExternalApp.Dangerous4(); } catch (Exception e) { Log(e); throw; } } public static void Step3(){ try{ ExternalApp.Dangerous5(); ExternalApp.Dangerous6(); } catch (Exception e) { Log(e); throw; } } } Obsessive-Compulsive Approach class Program{ public static void Main(){ try{ Step1(); Step2(); Step3(); } finally { CleanUp(); } } public static void Step1(){ try{ ExternalApp.Dangerous1(); } catch (Exception e) { Log(e); throw; } try{ ExternalApp.Dangerous2(); } catch (Exception e) { Log(e); throw; } } public static void Step2(){ try{ ExternalApp.Dangerous3(); } catch (Exception e) { Log(e); throw; } try{ ExternalApp.Dangerous4(); } catch (Exception e) { Log(e); throw; } } public static void Step3(){ try{ ExternalApp.Dangerous5(); } catch (Exception e) { Log(e); throw; } try{ ExternalApp.Dangerous6(); } catch (Exception e) { Log(e); throw; } } } Other approaches welcomed and encouraged. Above are examples only.

    Read the article

  • What micro web-framework has the lowest overhead but includes templating

    - by Simon Martin
    I want to rewrite a simple small (10 page) website and besides a contact form it could be written in pure html. It is currently built with classic asp and Dreamweaver templates. The reason I'm not simply writing 10 html pages is that I want to keep the layout all in 1 place so would need either includes or a masterpage. I don't want to use Dreamweaver templates, or batch processing (like org-mode) because I want to be able to edit using notepad (or Visual Studio) because occasionally I might need to edit a file on the server (Go Daddy's IIS admin interface will let me edit text). I don't want to use ASP.NET MVC or WebForms (which I use in my day job) because I don't need all the overhead they bring with them when essentially I'm serving up 9 static files, 1 contact form and 1 list of clubs (that I aim to use jQuery to filter). The shared hosting package I have on Go Daddy seems to take a long time to spin up when serving aspx files. Currently the clubs page is driven from an MS SQL database that I try to keep up to date by manually checking the dojo locator on the main HQ pages and editing the entries myself, this is again way over the top. I aim to get a text file with the club details (probably in JSON or xml format) and use that as the source for the clubs page. There will need to be a bit of programming for this as the HQ site is unable to provide an extract / feed so something will have to scrape the site periodically to update my clubs persistence file. I'd like that to be automated - but I'm happy to have that triggered on a visit to the clubs page so I don't need to worry about scheduling a job. I would probably have a separate process that updates the persistence that has nothing to do with the rest of the site. Ideally I'd like to use Mercurial (or git) to publish, I know Bitbucket (and github) both serve static page sites so they wouldn't work in this scenario (dynamic pages and a contact form) but that's the model I'd like to use if there is such a thing. My requirements are: Simple templating system, 1 place to define header, footers, menu etc., that can be edited using just notepad. Very minimal / lightweight framework. I don't need a monster for 10 pages Must run either on IIS7 (shared Go Daddy Windows hosting) or other free host

    Read the article

  • Android Design - Service vs Thread for Networking

    - by Nevyn
    I am writing an Android app, finally (yay me) and for this app I need persistant, but user closeable, network sockets (yes, more than one). I decided to try my hand at writing my own version of an IRC Client. My design issue however, is I'm not sure how to run the Socket connectivity itself. If I put the sockets at the Activity level, they keeps getting closed shortly after the Activity becomes non-visible (also a problem that needs solving...but I think i figured that one out)...but if I run a "connectivity service", I need to find out if I can have multiple instances of it running (the service, that is...one per server/socket). Either that or a I need a way to Thread the sockets themselves and have multiple threads running that I can still communicate with directly (ID system of some sort). Thus the question: Is it a 'better', or at least more "proper" design pattern, to put the Socket and networking in a service, and have the Activities consume said service...or should I tie the sockets directly to some Threaded Process owned by the UI Activity and not bother with the service implementation at all? I do know better than to put the networking directly on the UI thread, but that's as far as I've managed to get.

    Read the article

  • Learning Smalltalk as a Java programmer

    - by VeeKay
    I am a Java programmer willing to learn smalltalk. As of now I am working within the Pharo environment. Trying to switch from Java to Smalltalk is being a bit of a headache, honestly. I would like to learn Smalltalk with the help of a code base available but I believe that there aren't many Smalltalk example projects available on the web. So are there any particular websites that involve learning Smalltalk (Pharo) based on some simple examples? Currently I am taking the help of Pharo By Example doc but I feel it is just not sufficient for me. I am looking for more some code examples in Smalltalk.

    Read the article

  • Computer Science: Arts or Science?

    - by sunpech
    Various colleges and universities may offer a degree in Computer Science either as an Arts or a Science. What differences are there between the two? Would recruiters and those who conduct interviews favor one over the other? (Bachelor of Arts vs Bachelor of Sciences etc...) Update - Just wanted to add this link to Joel Spolsky's site to give a better frame of reference: BA or BS in Computer Science

    Read the article

  • Who practices, or is likely to practice, the IEEE Software Engineering? [closed]

    - by user72757
    There is an interesting issue in Software Engineering which I'd like to explore. The issue is firstly what is and what is not software engineering. Secondly, if software engineering is what the IEEE defines it to be, what are good examples of companies which practice the SE? Detailed question: Software engineering (SE) is the application of a systematic, disciplined, quantifiable approach to the design, development, operation, and maintenance of software, and the study of these approaches; that is, the application of engineering to software. [updated definition, originating in 610.12-1990 - IEEE Standard Glossary of Software Engineering Terminology] If we consider as SE only those approaches that 100% match the above definition, we naturally get to SWEBOK (Software Engineering Body of Knowledge) which is created by the IEEE and the ACM. I'm seeking the answer to this: How can I find a company outside the defence industry which practices the SE as defined by IEEE? Clues: SE originates in 1968 NATO conference. The Software Engineering Institute (SEI) is based in the US at Carnegie Mellon University. Funding of the SEI is largely done by the US DoD. Defence industry uses the SE and sometimes has a partnership with the IEEE (as in case of Boeing). Possible decomposition of my big question into smaller chunks: a) Where is anyone who acknowledges the IEEE Software Engineering standards at work and perhaps even uses some of them? http://cs.hbg.psu.edu/cmpsc487/IEEEStds_List.htm b) Where can I find a person or a company building around SWEBOK? http://www.computer.org/portal/web/swebok/html/contents c) What is an example of a company professionally using CSDP (apart from those at IEEE website)? Does anyone have any possible contribution to this question?

    Read the article

  • Does my use of the strategy pattern violate the fundamental MVC pattern in iOS?

    - by Goodsquirrel
    I'm about to use the 'strategy' pattern in my iOS app, but feel like my approach violates the somehow fundamental MVC pattern. My app is displaying visual "stories", and a Story consists (i.e. has @properties) of one Photo and one or more VisualEvent objects to represent e.g. animated circles or moving arrows on the photo. Each VisualEvent object therefore has a eventType @property, that might be e.g. kEventTypeCircle or kEventTypeArrow. All events have things in common, like a startTime @property, but differ in the way they are being drawn on the StoryPlayerView. Currently I'm trying to follow the MVC pattern and have a StoryPlayer object (my controller) that knows about both the model objects (like Story and all kinds of visual events) and the view object StoryPlayerView. To chose the right drawing code for each of the different visual event types, my StoryPlayer is using a switch statement. @implementation StoryPlayer // (...) - (void)showVisualEvent:(VisualEvent *)event onStoryPlayerView:storyPlayerView { switch (event.eventType) { case kEventTypeCircle: [self showCircleEvent:event onStoryPlayerView:storyPlayerView]; break; case kEventTypeArrow: [self showArrowDrawingEvent:event onStoryPlayerView:storyPlayerView]; break; // (...) } But switch statements for type checking are bad design, aren't they? According to Uncle Bob they lead to tight coupling and can and should almost always be replaced by polymorphism. Having read about the "Strategy"-Pattern in Head First Design Patterns, I felt this was a great way to get rid of my switch statement. So I changed the design like this: All specialized visual event types are now subclasses of an abstract VisualEvent class that has a showOnStoryPlayerView: method. @interface VisualEvent : NSObject - (void)showOnStoryPlayerView:(StoryPlayerView *)storyPlayerView; // abstract Each and every concrete subclass implements a concrete specialized version of this drawing behavior method. @implementation CircleVisualEvent - (void)showOnStoryPlayerView:(StoryPlayerView *)storyPlayerView { [storyPlayerView drawCircleAtPoint:self.position color:self.color lineWidth:self.lineWidth radius:self.radius]; } The StoryPlayer now simply calls the same method on all types of events. @implementation StoryPlayer - (void)showVisualEvent:(VisualEvent *)event onStoryPlayerView:storyPlayerView { [event showOnStoryPlayerView:storyPlayerView]; } The result seems to be great: I got rid of the switch statement, and if I ever have to add new types of VisualEvents in the future, I simply create new subclasses of VisualEvent. And I won't have to change anything in StoryPlayer. But of cause this approach violates the MVC pattern since now my model has to know about and depend on my view! Now my controller talks to my model and my model talks to the view calling methods on StoryPlayerView like drawCircleAtPoint:color:lineWidth:radius:. But this kind of calls should be controller code not model code, right?? Seems to me like I made things worse. I'm confused! Am I completely missing the point of the strategy pattern? Is there a better way to get rid of the switch statement without breaking model-view separation?

    Read the article

  • Why does Clojure neglect the uniform access principle?

    - by Alexey
    My background is Ruby, C#, JavaScript and Java. And now I'm learning Clojure. What makes me feel uncomfortable about the later is that idiomatic Clojure seems to neglect the Uniform access principle (wiki, c2) and thus to a certain degree encapsulation as well by suggesting to use maps instead of some sort of "structures" or "classes". It feels like step back. So a couple of questions, if anyone informed: Which other design decisions/concerns it conflicted with and why it was considered less important? Did you have the same concern as well and how it end up when you switched from a language supporting UAP by default (Ruby, Eiffel, Python, C#) to Clojure?

    Read the article

  • Triggering custom events in AJAX callbacks

    - by Sabrina Gelbart
    I'm pretty new to JavaScript, but one of the things that's been frustrating is that our AJAX callbacks have been getting packed with different functionality, making it difficult to keep everything separated and organized. I'm really new to programming, I have a feeling learning MVC a bit more would help me, but for now using custom events seems like it could help me keep my code a lot cleaner and prevent some problems. Here's what I'm talking about: function myAjaxFunction(){ $.post('ajax/test.html', function(data) { $(document).trigger('testDataLoaded',data); }); } function myOtherFunctionThatsDependentUponAjax(){ $(document).one('testDataLoaded', function(data){ alert (data); } } I also don't know if it's ok that I'm triggering document or not... Are there any patterns that look like this that I can read more about? What are the potential problems with this?

    Read the article

  • When should complexity be removed?

    - by ElGringoGrande
    Prematurely introducing complexity by implementing design patterns before they are needed is not good practice. But if you follow all (or even most of) the SOLID principles and use common design patterns you will introduce some complexity as features and requirements are added or changed to keep your design as maintainable and flexible as needed. However once that complexity is introduced and working like a champ when do you removed it? Example. I have an application written for a client. When originally created there where several ways to give raises to employees. I used the strategy pattern and factory to keep the whole process nice and clean. Over time certain raise methods where added or removed by the application owner. Time passes and new owner takes over. This new owner is hard nosed, keeps everything simple and only has one single way to give a raise. The complexity needed by the strategy pattern is no longer needed. If I where to code this from the requirements as they are now I would not introduce this extra complexity (but make sure I could introduce it with little or no work should the need arise). So do I remove the strategy implementation now? I don't think this new owner will ever change how raises are given. But the application itself has demonstrated that this could happen. Of course this is just one example in an application where a new owner takes over and has simplified many processes. I could remove dozens of classes, interfaces and factories and make the whole application much more simple. Note that the current implementation does works just fine and the owner is happy with it (and surprised and even happier that I was able to implement her changes so quickly because of the discussed complexity). I admit that a small part of this doubt is because it is highly likely the new owner isn't going to use me any longer. I don't really care that somebody else will take this over since it has not been a big income generator. But I do care about 2 (related) things I care a bit that the new maintainer will have to think a bit harder when trying to understand the code. Complexity is complexity and I don't want to anger the psycho maniac coming after me. But even more I worry about a competitor seeing this complexity and thinking I just implement design patterns to pad my hours on jobs. Then spreading this rumor to hurt my other business. (I have heard this mentioned.) So... In general should previously needed complexity be removed even though it works and there has been a historically demonstrated need for the complexity but you have no indication that it will be needed in the future? Even if the question above is generally answered "no" is it wise to remove this "un-needed" complexity if handing off the project to a competitor (or stranger)?

    Read the article

  • What functionality does dynamic typing allow?

    - by Justin984
    I've been using python for a few days now and I think I understand the difference between dynamic and static typing. What I don't understand is under what circumstances it would be preferred. It is flexible and readable, but at the expense of more runtime checks and additional required unit testing. Aside from non-functional criteria like flexibility and readability, what reasons are there to choose dynamic typing? What can I do with dynamic typing that isn't possible otherwise? What specific code example can you think of that illustrates a concrete advantage of dynamic typing?

    Read the article

  • Pure Front end JavaScript with Web API versus MVC views with ajax

    - by eyeballpaul
    This was more a discussion for what peoples thoughts are these days on how to split a web application. I am used to creating an MVC application with all its views and controllers. I would normally create a full view and pass this back to the browser on a full page request, unless there were specific areas that I did not want to populate straight away and would then use DOM page load events to call the server to load other areas using AJAX. Also, when it came to partial page refreshing, I would call an MVC action method which would return the HTML fragment which I could then use to populate parts of the page. This would be for areas that I did not want to slow down initial page load, or areas that fitted better with AJAX calls. One example would be for table paging. If you want to move on to the next page, I would prefer it if an AJAX call got that info rather than using a full page refresh. But the AJAX call would still return an HTML fragment. My question is. Are my thoughts on this archaic because I come from a .net background rather than a pure front end background? An intelligent front end developer that I work with, prefers to do more or less nothing in the MVC views, and would rather do everything on the front end. Right down to web API calls populating the page. So that rather than calling an MVC action method, which returns HTML, he would prefer to return a standard object and use javascript to create all the elements of the page. The front end developer way means that any benefits that I normally get with MVC model validation, including client side validation, would be gone. It also means that any benefits that I get with creating the views, with strongly typed html templates etc would be gone. I believe this would mean I would need to write the same validation for front end and back end validation. The javascript would also need to have lots of methods for creating all the different parts of the DOM. For example, when adding a new row to a table, I would normally use the MVC partial view for creating the row, and then return this as part of the AJAX call, which then gets injected into the table. By using a pure front end way, the javascript would would take in an object (for, say, a product) for the row from the api call, and then create a row from that object. Creating each individual part of the table row. The website in question will have lots of different areas, from administration, forms, product searching etc. A website that I don't think requires to be architected in a single page application way. What are everyone's thoughts on this? I am interested to hear from front end devs and back end devs.

    Read the article

  • Does programming knowledge have a half-life?

    - by Gary Rowe
    In answering this question, I asserted that programming knowledge has a half-life of about 18 months. In physics, we have radioactive decay which is the process by which a radioactive element transforms into something less energetic. The half-life is the measure of how long it takes for this process to result in only half of the material to remain. A parallel concept might be that over time our programming knowledge ceases to be the current idiom and eventually becomes irrelevant. Noting that a half-life is asymptotic (so some knowledge will always be relevant), what are your thoughts on this? Is 18 months a good estimate? Is it even the case? Does it apply to design patterns, but over a longer period? What are the inherent advantages/disadvantages of this half-life? Update Just found this question which covers the material fairly well: "Half of everything you know will be obsolete in 18-24 months" = ( True, or False? )

    Read the article

  • What are the disadvantages of automated testing?

    - by jkohlhepp
    There are a number of questions on this site that give plenty of information about the benefits that can be gained from automated testing. But I didn't see anything that represented the other side of the coin: what are the disadvantages? Everything in life is a tradeoff and there are no silver bullets, so surely there must be some valid reasons not to do automated testing. What are they? Here's a few that I've come up with: Requires more initial developer time for a given feature Requires a higher skill level of team members Increase tooling needs (test runners, frameworks, etc.) Complex analysis required when a failed test in encountered - is this test obsolete due to my change or is it telling me I made a mistake? Edit I should say that I am a huge proponent of automated testing, and I'm not looking to be convinced to do it. I'm looking to understand what the disadvantages are so when I go to my company to make a case for it I don't look like I'm throwing around the next imaginary silver bullet. Also, I'm explicity not looking for someone to dispute my examples above. I am taking as true that there must be some disadvantages (everything has trade-offs) and I want to understand what those are.

    Read the article

  • Haskell web frameworks survey

    - by Phuc Nguyen
    There are several web frameworks for Haskell like Happstack, Snap, and Yesod, and probably a few more. In what aspects do they differ from each other? For example: features (e.g. server only, or also client scripting, easy support for different kinds of database) maturity (e.g. stability, documentation quality) scalability (e.g. performance, handy abstraction) main targets Also, what are examples of real-world sites / web apps using these frameworks? Many thanks.

    Read the article

  • Perforce: Best diff editor on Linux ?

    - by shan23
    I'm looking for a Linux based diff viewer/editor for Perforce, which would allow me to retain my VIM editing shortcuts, at the same time having the navigational advantages of a diff editor (goto next/previous edit, view old and new side by side). I have a very good Windows diff viewer(BC3), so please don't suggest anything for Windows. If that editor doesn't require X server (i.e it can be used from cmd line in a putty session), that would be ideal !!

    Read the article

  • Implicit Intent is not working [migrated]

    - by Sayem Siam
    I have a activity class named Notelist.In the Notelist class i have tried to insert a new note.For that i have used implicit Intent.But when i click to insert a new note it gives a run time error. public boolean onOptionsItemSelected(MenuItem item) { switch (item.getItemId()) { case R.id.menu_add: Log.d("sayem", "in case of fd"); Toast.makeText(this, "in the", Toast.LENGTH_LONG).show(); startActivity(new Intent(Intent.ACTION_INSERT, getIntent() .getData())); break; default: throw new IllegalArgumentException("not matched"); } return true; } And i have NoteEditor activity clas to Insert a new note. And here is my Androidmanifesto.xml file. <uses-sdk android:minSdkVersion="14" /> <application android:icon="@drawable/ic_launcher" android:label="@string/app_name" > <activity android:label="@string/app_name" android:name=".NotesList" > <intent-filter > <action android:name="android.intent.action.MAIN" /> <category android:name="android.intent.category.LAUNCHER" /> </intent-filter> <intent-filter> <action android:name="android.intent.action.VIEW" /> <action android:name="android.intent.action.EDIT" /> <action android:name="android.intent.action.PICK" /> <category android:name="android.intent.category.DEFAULT" /> <data android:mimeType="vnd.android.cursor.dir/vnd.google.note" /> </intent-filter> <intent-filter > <action android:name="android.intent.action.GET_CONTENT" /> <category android:name="android.intent.category.DEFAULT" /> <data android:mimeType="vnd.android.cursor.item/vnd.google.note" /> </intent-filter> </activity> <activity android:name="NoteEditor" > <intent-filter> <action android:name="NoteEditor"></action> <action android:name="android.intent.action.INSERT" /> <action android:name="android.intent.action.PASTE" /> <category android:name="android.intent.category.DEFAULT" /> <data android:mimeType="vnd.android.cursor.dir/vnd.google.note" /> </intent-filter> </activity> </application>

    Read the article

  • Going into Web Development without a C.S. Degree - Suggestions

    - by Klaint Cokeman
    I plan on seeking a career in web development and I'm about two semesters away from graduating with a CIS degree. Although I'm very satisfied with my choice of degree, I'm concerned that I may be lacking knowledge in a few areas because of not majoring in computer science. The programming side of things is no problem for me, I'm just wondering to what extent data structures/theory/etc. might benefit me to learn over spending more time with hands-on programming... and also what aspects of C.S. would be most appropriate to look into you would think would be most applicable to web development. In short, I'd like to expand my horizons a little bit. I'd very much appreciate and advice/suggestions/book or tutorial recommendations, etc. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Is there any evidence that one of the current alternate JVM languages might catch on?

    - by FarmBoy
    There's been a lot of enthusiasm about JRuby, Jython, Groovy, and now Scala and Clojure as the language to be the successor to Java on the JVM. But currently only Groovy and Scala are in the TIOBE top 100, and none are in the top 50. Is there any reason to think that any of this bunch will ever gain significant adoption? My question is not primarily about TIOBE, but about any evidence that you might see that could indicate that one of these languages could get significant backing that goes beyond the enthusiasts.

    Read the article

  • when to use a scaled/enterprise agile software development framework and when to let agile processes 'emerge'?

    - by SHC
    There are quite a few enterprise agile software development frameworks available: Scott Ambler: Disciplined Agile Delivery Dean Leffingwell: Scaled Agile Framework Alan Shalloway: Enterprise Agile Book Craig Larman: Scaling Lean and Agile Barry Boehm: Balancing Agility and Discipline Brian Wernham: Agile Project Management in Government - DSDM I've also spoken with people that state that your enterprise agile processes should just 'emerge' and that you shouldn't need or use a framework because they constrain you. Question 1: When should one choose an enterprise agile software development framework, and when should one just let their agile processes 'emerge'. Question 2: If choosing an enterprise agile software development framework, how does one select the appropriate framework to use for their organisation? Please provide evidence of your experience or research when answering questions rather than just presenting opinions.

    Read the article

  • Is Tax Localization a good use for Workflow Foundation?

    - by JustinDoesWork
    Scenario: We have both Winforms and MVC code that is being used to work on a nation wide multi-user platform that does lots of logistics for lots of users. Tax rules change per state and even per city or county. These tax rules make a huge difference for our industry. The other issue is that rules can change based on legislation. The system will have to handle cases where before a date it works one way and then different after that date. This changeover will need to be entered into the system and tested before that date comes. Proposed Solution: Use Workflow Foundation to create a time based system where our users can change and add rules that change the way taxes are calculated. Question: I have not used Workflow Foundation and searching has returned books to look at but not a lot of examples of people using this technology successfully. Is my scenario a good use of Workflow Foundation?(I think so.) If you have any experience with Workflow Foundation, any tips on making this work well?

    Read the article

  • unix systems programming jobs in India [closed]

    - by mnunna
    Hi, I am currently working on a HP-UX platform and my role as a prod support team member involves mostly to write shell scripts. But i want to branch out into core systems programming in unix. A quick search on the internet threw no "unix systems programming jobs" in india. I'm confused as what to do. I really would like to continue with unix as my core competency, but unix jobs in india are mostly of sys admin/ prod support type, of which i do not want a part of. Can anyone of you give me an informed advice on the career oppurtinities that await unix professionals in india?? Any advice would be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • What's the benefit of object-oriented programming over procedural programming?

    - by niko
    I'm trying to understand the difference between procedural languages like C and object-oriented languages like C++. I've never used C++, but I've been discussing with my friends on how to differentiate the two. I've been told C++ has object-oriented concepts as well as public and private modes for definition of variables: things C does not have. I've never had to use these for while developing programs in Visual Basic.NET: what are the benefits of these? I've also been told that if a variable is public, it can be accessed anywhere, but it's not clear how that's different from a global variable in a language like C. It's also not clear how a private variable differs from a local variable. Another thing I've heard is that, for security reasons, if a function needs to be accessed it should be inherited first. The use-case is that an administrator should only have as much rights as they need and not everything, but it seems a conditional would work as well: if ( login == "admin") { // invoke the function } Why is this not ideal? Given that there seems to be a procedural way to do everything object-oriented, why should I care about object-oriented programming?

    Read the article

  • Are there any empirical studies on the effect of different languages on software quality?

    - by jgre
    The proponents of functional programming languages assert that functional programming makes it easier to reason about code. Those in favor of statically typed languages say that their compilers catch enough errors to make up for the additional complexity of type systems. But everything I read on these topics is based on rational argument, not on empirical data. Are there any empirical studies on what effects the different categories of programming languages have on defect rates or other quality metrics? (The answers to this question seem to indicate that there are no such studies, at least not for the dynamic vs. static debate)

    Read the article

  • Why not Green Threads?

    - by redjamjar
    Whilst I know questions on this have been covered already (e.g. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5713142/green-threads-vs-non-green-threads), I don't feel like I've got a satisfactory answer. The question is: why don't JVM's support green threads anymore? It says this on the code-style Java FAQ: A green thread refers to a mode of operation for the Java Virtual Machine (JVM) in which all code is executed in a single operating system thread. And this over on java.sun.com: The downside is that using green threads means system threads on Linux are not taken advantage of and so the Java virtual machine is not scalable when additional CPUs are added. It seems to me that the JVM could have a pool of system processes equal to the number of cores, and then run green threads on top of that. This could offer some big advantages when you have a very number large of threads which block often (mostly because current JVM's cap the number of threads). Thoughts?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110  | Next Page >