Search Results

Search found 40386 results on 1616 pages for 'object design'.

Page 106/1616 | < Previous Page | 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113  | Next Page >

  • How to load cascading style sheet into C# object?

    - by Krishnaraj
    Hello, I am developing a web application, where i want to give freedom of changing style elements of css linked to a page via an admin screen. So I am wondering is there any way I can load CSS file into a C# object or into XML passable formate and update it from the admin screen inputs? Thank you, Krishnaraj

    Read the article

  • What is best practice in converting XML to Java object?

    - by newbie
    I need to convert XML data to Java objects. What would be best practice to convert this XML data to object? Idea is to fetch data via a web service (it doesn't use WSDL, just HTTP GET queries, so I cannot use any framework) and answers are in XML. What would be best practice to handle this situation?

    Read the article

  • Is possible to initialize an object in javascript in this way?

    - by Kucebe
    I'd like to initialize an object in javascript calling directly a method that belongs to it: var obj = (function(){ return{ init: function(){ console.log("initialized!"); }, uninit: function(x){ console.log("uninitialized!"); } }; }).init(); //later obj.uninit(); obj.init(); This specific example doesn't work, is there something similar?

    Read the article

  • Displaying individual elements of an object in an Arraylist through a for loop?

    - by user1180888
    I'm trying to Display individual elements of an Object I have created. It is a simple Java program that allows users to add and keep track of Player Details. I'm just stumped when it comes to displaying the details after they have been added already. here is what my code looks like I can create the object and input it into the arraylist no problem using the case 2, but when I try to print it out I want to do something like System.out.println("Player Name" + myPlayersArrayList.PlayerName + "Player Position" + myPlayerArrayList.PlayerPosition + "Player Age" + "Player Age"); I know that is not correct, but I dont really know what to do, if anyone can be of any help it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks System.out.println("Welcome to the Football Player database"); System.out.print(System.getProperty("line.separator")); UserInput myFirstUserInput = new UserInput(); int selection; ArrayList<Player> myPlayersArrayList = new ArrayList<Player>(); while (true) { System.out.println("1. View The Players"); System.out.println("2. Add A Player"); System.out.println("3. Edit A Player"); System.out.println("4. Delete A Player"); System.out.println("5. Exit ") ; System.out.print(System.getProperty("line.separator")); selection = myFirstUserInput.getInt("Please select an option"); System.out.print(System.getProperty("line.separator")); switch(selection){ case 1: if (myPlayersArrayList.isEmpty()) { System.out.println("No Players Have Been Entered Yet"); System.out.print(System.getProperty("line.separator")); break;} else {for(int i = 0; i < myPlayersArrayList.size(); i++){ System.out.println(myPlayersArrayList); } break; case 2: { String playerName,playerPos; int playerAge; playerName = (myFirstUserInput.getString("Enter Player name")); playerPos = (myFirstUserInput.getString("Enter Player Position")); playerAge = (myFirstUserInput.getInt("Enter Player Age")); myPlayersArrayList.add(new Player(playerName, playerPos, playerAge)); ; break; }

    Read the article

  • How might one teach OO without referencing physical real-world objects?

    - by hal10001
    I remember reading somewhere that the original concepts behind OO were to find a better architecture for handling the messaging of data between multiple systems in a way that protected the state of that data. Now that is probably a poor paraphrase, but it made me wonder if there is a way of teaching OO without the (Bike, Car, Person, etc.) object analogies, and that instead focuses on the messaging aspects. If you have articles, links, books, etc., that would be helpful.

    Read the article

  • what's the point of method overloading?

    - by David
    I am following a textbook in which I have just come across method overloading. It briefly described method overloading as: when the same method name is used with different parameters its called method overloading. From what I've learned so far in OOP is that if I want different behaviors from an object via methods, I should use different method names that best indicate the behavior, so why should I bother with method overloading in the first place?

    Read the article

  • Super constructor must be a first statement in Java constructor [closed]

    - by Val
    I know the answer: "we need rules to prevent shooting into your own foot". Ok, I make millions of programming mistakes every day. To be prevented, we need one simple rule: prohibit all JLS and do not use Java. If we explain everything by "not shooting your foot", this is reasonable. But there is not much reason is such reason. When I programmed in Delphy, I always wanted the compiler to check me if I read uninitializable. I have discovered myself that is is stupid to read uncertain variable because it leads unpredictable result and is errorenous obviously. By just looking at the code I could see if there is an error. I wished if compiler could do this job. It is also a reliable signal of programming error if function does not return any value. But I never wanted it do enforce me the super constructor first. Why? You say that constructors just initialize fields. Super fields are derived; extra fields are introduced. From the goal point of view, it does not matter in which order you initialize the variables. I have studied parallel architectures and can say that all the fields can even be assigned in parallel... What? Do you want to use the unitialized fields? Stupid people always want to take away our freedoms and break the JLS rules the God gives to us! Please, policeman, take away that person! Where do I say so? I'm just saying only about initializing/assigning, not using the fields. Java compiler already defends me from the mistake of accessing notinitialized. Some cases sneak but this example shows how this stupid rule does not save us from the read-accessing incompletely initialized in construction: public class BadSuper { String field; public String toString() { return "field = " + field; } public BadSuper(String val) { field = val; // yea, superfirst does not protect from accessing // inconstructed subclass fields. Subclass constr // must be called before super()! System.err.println(this); } } public class BadPost extends BadSuper { Object o; public BadPost(Object o) { super("str"); this. o = o; } public String toString() { // superconstructor will boom here, because o is not initialized! return super.toString() + ", obj = " + o.toString(); } public static void main(String[] args) { new BadSuper("test 1"); new BadPost(new Object()); } } It shows that actually, subfields have to be inilialized before the supreclass! Meantime, java requirement "saves" us from writing specializing the class by specializing what the super constructor argument is, public class MyKryo extends Kryo { class MyClassResolver extends DefaultClassResolver { public Registration register(Registration registration) { System.out.println(MyKryo.this.getDepth()); return super.register(registration); } } MyKryo() { // cannot instantiate MyClassResolver in super super(new MyClassResolver(), new MapReferenceResolver()); } } Try to make it compilable. It is always pain. Especially, when you cannot assign the argument later. Initialization order is not important for initialization in general. I could understand that you should not use super methods before initializing super. But, the requirement for super to be the first statement is different. It only saves you from the code that does useful things simply. I do not see how this adds safety. Actually, safety is degraded because we need to use ugly workarounds. Doing post-initialization, outside the constructors also degrades safety (otherwise, why do we need constructors?) and defeats the java final safety reenforcer. To conclude Reading not initialized is a bug. Initialization order is not important from the computer science point of view. Doing initalization or computations in different order is not a bug. Reenforcing read-access to not initialized is good but compilers fail to detect all such bugs Making super the first does not solve the problem as it "Prevents" shooting into right things but not into the foot It requires to invent workarounds, where, because of complexity of analysis, it is easier to shoot into the foot doing post-initialization outside the constructors degrades safety (otherwise, why do we need constructors?) and that degrade safety by defeating final access modifier When there was java forum alive, java bigots attecked me for these thoughts. Particularly, they dislaked that fields can be initialized in parallel, saying that natural development ensures correctness. When I replied that you could use an advanced engineering to create a human right away, without "developing" any ape first, and it still be an ape, they stopped to listen me. Cos modern technology cannot afford it. Ok, Take something simpler. How do you produce a Renault? Should you construct an Automobile first? No, you start by producing a Renault and, once completed, you'll see that this is an automobile. So, the requirement to produce fields in "natural order" is unnatural. In case of alarmclock or armchair, which are still chair and clock, you may need first develop the base (clock and chair) and then add extra. So, I can have examples where superfields must be initialized first and, oppositely, when they need to be initialized later. The order does not exist in advance. So, the compiler cannot be aware of the proper order. Only programmer/constructor knows is. Compiler should not take more responsibility and enforce the wrong order onto programmer. Saying that I cannot initialize some fields because I did not ininialized the others is like "you cannot initialize the thing because it is not initialized". This is a kind of argument we have. So, to conclude once more, the feature that "protects" me from doing things in simple and right way in order to enforce something that does not add noticeably to the bug elimination at that is a strongly negative thing and it pisses me off, altogether with the all the arguments to support it I've seen so far. It is "a conceptual question about software development" Should there be the requirement to call super() first or not. I do not know. If you do or have an idea, you have place to answer. I think that I have provided enough arguments against this feature. Lets appreciate the ones who benefit form it. Let it just be something more than simple abstract and stupid "write your own language" or "protection" kind of argument. Why do we need it in the language that I am going to develop?

    Read the article

  • How to store multiple requirements with OR and AND?

    - by Cano
    Well I'm working on a personal project that needs to check if a user has met certain requirements, and they come in a form of Requirement: [c1 OR c2] AND [d1 OR d2] Requirement: [c1 AND c2] OR [d1 AND d2] Requirement: c1 AND any dn(n can be any integer) I'm just not sure how to store these sorts of requirements, I'm thinking of using another object to hold c1,c2,d1,d2....dn and OR, but that seems like a roundabout way of doing things. Is there a better method?

    Read the article

  • Handling null values and missing object properties in Silverlight 4

    - by PeterTweed
    Before Silverlight 4 to bind a data object to the UI and display a message associated with either a null value or if the binding path was wrong, you would need to write a Converter.  In Silverlight 4 we find the addition of the markup extensions TargetNullValue and FallbackValue that allows us to display a value when a null value is found in the bound to property and display a value when the property being bound to is not found. This post will show you how to use both markup extensions. Steps: 1. Create a new Silverlight 4 application 2. In the body of the MainPage.xaml.cs file replace the MainPage class with the following code:     public partial class MainPage : UserControl     {         public MainPage()         {             InitializeComponent();             this.Loaded += new RoutedEventHandler(MainPage_Loaded);         }           void MainPage_Loaded(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)         {             person p = new person() { NameValue = "Peter Tweed" };             this.DataContext = p;         }     }       public class person     {         public string NameValue { get; set; }         public string TitleValue { get; set; }     } This code defines a class called person with two properties.  A new instance of the class is created, only defining the value for one of the properties and bound to the DataContext of the page. 3.  In the MainPage.xaml file copy the following XAML into the LayoutRoot grid:         <Grid.RowDefinitions>             <RowDefinition Height="60*" />             <RowDefinition Height="28*" />             <RowDefinition Height="28*" />             <RowDefinition Height="30*" />             <RowDefinition Height="154*" />         </Grid.RowDefinitions>         <Grid.ColumnDefinitions>             <ColumnDefinition Width="86*" />             <ColumnDefinition Width="314*" />         </Grid.ColumnDefinitions>         <TextBlock Grid.Row="1" Height="23" HorizontalAlignment="Left" Margin="32,0,0,0" Name="textBlock1" Text="Name Value:" VerticalAlignment="Top" />         <TextBlock Grid.Row="2" Height="23" HorizontalAlignment="Left" Margin="32,0,0,0" Name="textBlock2" Text="Title Value:" VerticalAlignment="Top" />         <TextBlock Grid.Row="3" Height="23" HorizontalAlignment="Left" Margin="32,0,0,0" Name="textBlock3" Text="Non Existant Value:" VerticalAlignment="Top" />         <TextBlock Grid.Column="1" Grid.Row="1" Height="23" HorizontalAlignment="Left" Name="textBlock4" Text="{Binding NameValue, TargetNullValue='No Name!!!!!!!'}" VerticalAlignment="Top" Margin="6,0,0,0" />         <TextBlock Grid.Column="1" Grid.Row="2" Height="23" HorizontalAlignment="Left" Name="textBlock5" Text="{Binding TitleValue, TargetNullValue='No Title!!!!!!!'}" VerticalAlignment="Top" Margin="6,0,0,0" />         <TextBlock Grid.Column="1" Grid.Row="3" Height="23" HorizontalAlignment="Left" Margin="6,0,0,0" Name="textBlock6" Text="{Binding AgeValue, FallbackValue='No such property!'}" VerticalAlignment="Top" />    This XAML defines three textblocks – two of which use the TargetNull and one that uses the FallbackValue markup extensions.  4. Run the application and see the person name displayed as defined for the person object, the expected string displayed for the TargetNullValue when no value exists for the boudn property and the expected string displayed for the FallbackValue when the property bound to is not found on the bound object. It's that easy!

    Read the article

  • OpenGL Fast-Object Instancing Error

    - by HJ Media Studios
    I have some code that loops through a set of objects and renders instances of those objects. The list of objects that needs to be rendered is stored as a std::map, where an object of class MeshResource contains the vertices and indices with the actual data, and an object of classMeshRenderer defines the point in space the mesh is to be rendered at. My rendering code is as follows: glDisable(GL_BLEND); glEnable(GL_CULL_FACE); glDepthMask(GL_TRUE); glClear(GL_COLOR_BUFFER_BIT | GL_DEPTH_BUFFER_BIT); glEnable(GL_DEPTH_TEST); for (std::map<MeshResource*, std::vector<MeshRenderer*> >::iterator it = renderables.begin(); it != renderables.end(); it++) { it->first->setupBeforeRendering(); cout << "<"; for (unsigned long i =0; i < it->second.size(); i++) { //Pass in an identity matrix to the vertex shader- used here only for debugging purposes; the real code correctly inputs any matrix. uniformizeModelMatrix(Matrix4::IDENTITY); /** * StartHere fix rendering problem. * Ruled out: * Vertex buffers correctly. * Index buffers correctly. * Matrices correct? */ it->first->render(); } it->first->cleanupAfterRendering(); } geometryPassShader->disable(); glDepthMask(GL_FALSE); glDisable(GL_CULL_FACE); glDisable(GL_DEPTH_TEST); The function in MeshResource that handles setting up the uniforms is as follows: void MeshResource::setupBeforeRendering() { glEnableVertexAttribArray(0); glEnableVertexAttribArray(1); glEnableVertexAttribArray(2); glEnableVertexAttribArray(3); glEnableVertexAttribArray(4); glBindBuffer(GL_ELEMENT_ARRAY_BUFFER, iboID); glBindBuffer(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, vboID); glVertexAttribPointer(0, 3, GL_FLOAT, GL_FALSE, sizeof(Vertex), 0); // Vertex position glVertexAttribPointer(1, 3, GL_FLOAT, GL_FALSE, sizeof(Vertex), (const GLvoid*) 12); // Vertex normal glVertexAttribPointer(2, 2, GL_FLOAT, GL_FALSE, sizeof(Vertex), (const GLvoid*) 24); // UV layer 0 glVertexAttribPointer(3, 3, GL_FLOAT, GL_FALSE, sizeof(Vertex), (const GLvoid*) 32); // Vertex color glVertexAttribPointer(4, 1, GL_UNSIGNED_SHORT, GL_FALSE, sizeof(Vertex), (const GLvoid*) 44); //Material index } The code that renders the object is this: void MeshResource::render() { glDrawElements(GL_TRIANGLES, geometry->numIndices, GL_UNSIGNED_SHORT, 0); } And the code that cleans up is this: void MeshResource::cleanupAfterRendering() { glDisableVertexAttribArray(0); glDisableVertexAttribArray(1); glDisableVertexAttribArray(2); glDisableVertexAttribArray(3); glDisableVertexAttribArray(4); } The end result of this is that I get a black screen, although the end of my rendering pipeline after the rendering code (essentially just drawing axes and lines on the screen) works properly, so I'm fairly sure it's not an issue with the passing of uniforms. If, however, I change the code slightly so that the rendering code calls the setup immediately before rendering, like so: void MeshResource::render() { setupBeforeRendering(); glDrawElements(GL_TRIANGLES, geometry->numIndices, GL_UNSIGNED_SHORT, 0); } The program works as desired. I don't want to have to do this, though, as my aim is to set up vertex, material, etc. data once per object type and then render each instance updating only the transformation information. The uniformizeModelMatrix works as follows: void RenderManager::uniformizeModelMatrix(Matrix4 matrix) { glBindBuffer(GL_UNIFORM_BUFFER, globalMatrixUBOID); glBufferSubData(GL_UNIFORM_BUFFER, 0, sizeof(Matrix4), matrix.ptr()); glBindBuffer(GL_UNIFORM_BUFFER, 0); }

    Read the article

  • About Data Objects and DAO Design when using Hibernate

    - by X. Ma
    I'm hesitating between two designs of a database project using Hibernate. Design #1. (1) Create a general data provider interface, including a set of DAO interfaces and general data container classes. It hides the underneath implementation. A data provider implementation could access data in database, or an XML file, or a service, or something else. The user of a data provider does not to know about it. (2) Create a database library with Hibernate. This library implements the data provider interface in (1). The bad thing about Design #1 is that in order to hide the implementation details, I need to create two sets of data container classes. One in the general data provider interface - let's call them DPI-Objects, the other set is used in the database library, exclusively for entity/attribute mapping in Hibernate - let's call them H-Objects. In the DAO implementation, I need to read data from database to create H-Objects (via Hibernate) and then convert H-Objects into DPI-Objects. Design #2. Do not create a general data provider interface. Expose H-Objects directly to components that use the database lib. So the user of the database library needs to be aware of Hibernate. I like design #1 more, but I don't want to create two sets of data container classes. Is that the right way to hide H-Objects and other Hibernate implementation details from the user who uses the database-based data provider? Are there any drawbacks of Design #2? I will not implement other data provider in the new future, so should I just forget about the data provider interface and use Design #2? What do you think about this? Thanks for your time!

    Read the article

  • Is comparing an OO compiler to a SQL compiler/optimizer valid?

    - by Brad
    I'm now doing a lot of SQL development at my new job where as before I was doing Object Oriented desktop app stuff. I keep running across very large scripts (thousands of lines) and wanting to refactor in some way. I am seeing that SQL is a different sort of beast and it's probably fine to have these big scripts for the most part but while explaining this to me people are also insisting that the whole idea of refactoring is bad. That stuff like the .NET compiler are actually burdened by refactored code and that a big wall of code is more efficient and better design than code designed for reuse, readability and scalability. The other argument is that OO compilers are almost dangerously inefficient and don't have efficient memory management or runs too many CPU instructions compared to older "simpler" compilers and compared to SQL. Are these valid complaints? Even if some compiler like a C compiler is modestly more "efficient" (whatever that means on this high of a level without seeing code) would you want to write applications in C over C# or Java? Is comparing an OO compiler to a SQL compiler/optimizer even valid?

    Read the article

  • Very simple OOP question

    - by Mosty Mostacho
    I was creating and discussing a class diagram with a partner of mine. To simplify things, I've modify the real domain we're working on and made up the following diagram: Basically, a company works on constructions that are quite different one from each other but are still constructions. Note I've added one field for each class but there should be many more. Now, I thought this was the way to go but my partner told me that if in the future new construction classes appear we would have to modify the Company class, which is correct. So the new proposed class diagram would be this: Now I've been wondering: Should the fact that in no place of the application will there be mixed lists of planes and bridges affect the design in any way? When we have to list only planes for a company, how are we supposed to distinguish them from the other elements in the list without checking for their class names? Related to the previous question, is it correct to assume that this type of diagram should be high-level and this is something it shouldn't matter at this stage but rather be thought and decided at implementation time? Any comment will be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • What alternative is better to diagram this scenario?

    - by Mosty Mostacho
    I was creating and discussing a class diagram with a partner of mine. To simplify things, I've modify the real domain we're working on and made up the following diagram: Basically, a company works on constructions that are quite different one from each other but are still constructions. Note I've added one field for each class but there should be many more. Now, I thought this was the way to go but my partner told me that if in the future new construction classes appear we would have to modify the Company class, which is correct. So the new proposed class diagram would be this: Now I've been wondering: Should the fact that in no place of the application will there be mixed lists of planes and bridges affect the design in any way? When we have to list only planes for a company, how are we supposed to distinguish them from the other elements in the list without checking for their class names? Related to the previous question, is it correct to assume that this type of diagram should be high-level and this is something it shouldn't matter at this stage but rather be thought and decided at implementation time? Any comment will be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Override methods should call base method?

    - by Trevor Pilley
    I'm just running NDepend against some code that I have written and one of the warnings is Overrides of Method() should call base.Method(). The places this occurs are where I have a base class which has virtual properties and methods with default behaviour but which can be overridden by a class which inherits from the base class and doesn't call the overridden method. For example, in the base class I have a property defined like this: protected virtual char CloseQuote { get { return '"'; } } And then in an inheriting class which uses a different close quote: protected override char CloseQuote { get { return ']'; } } Not all classes which inherit from the base class use different quote characters hence my initial design. The alternatives I thought of were have get/set properties in the base class with the defaults set in the constructor: protected BaseClass() { this.CloseQuote = '"'; } protected char CloseQuote { get; set; } public InheritingClass() { this.CloseQuote = ']'; } Or make the base class require the values as constructor args: protected BaseClass(char closeQuote, ...) { this.CloseQuote = '"'; } protected char CloseQuote { get; private set; } public InheritingClass() base (closeQuote: ']', ...) { } Should I use virtual in a scenario where the base implementation may be replaced instead of extended or should I opt for one of the alternatives I thought of? If so, which would be preferable and why?

    Read the article

  • c++ Design pattern for CoW, inherited classes, and variable shared data?

    - by krunk
    I've designed a copy-on-write base class. The class holds the default set of data needed by all children in a shared data model/CoW model. The derived classes also have data that only pertains to them, but should be CoW between other instances of that derived class. I'm looking for a clean way to implement this. If I had a base class FooInterface with shared data FooDataPrivate and a derived object FooDerived. I could create a FooDerivedDataPrivate. The underlying data structure would not effect the exposed getters/setters API, so it's not about how a user interfaces with the objects. I'm just wondering if this is a typical MO for such cases or if there's a better/cleaner way? What peeks my interest, is I see the potential of inheritance between the the private data classes. E.g. FooDerivedDataPrivate : public FooDataPrivate, but I'm not seeing a way to take advantage of that polymorphism in my derived classes. class FooDataPrivate { public: Ref ref; // atomic reference counting object int a; int b; int c; }; class FooInterface { public: // constructors and such // .... // methods are implemented to be copy on write. void setA(int val); void setB(int val); void setC(int val); // copy constructors, destructors, etc. all CoW friendly private: FooDataPrivate *data; }; class FooDerived : public FooInterface { public: FooDerived() : FooInterface() {} private: // need more shared data for FooDerived // this is the ???, how is this best done cleanly? };

    Read the article

  • Why is there no service-oriented language?

    - by Wolfgang
    Edit: To avoid further confusion: I am not talking about web services and such. I am talking about structuring applications internally, it's not about how computers communicate. It's about programming languages, compilers and how the imperative programming paradigm is extended. Original: In the imperative programming field, we saw two paradigms in the past 20 years (or more): object-oriented (OO), and service-oriented (SO) aka. component-based (CB). Both paradigms extend the imperative programming paradigm by introducing their own notion of modules. OO calls them objects (and classes) and lets them encapsulates both data (fields) and procedures (methods) together. SO, in contrast, separates data (records, beans, ...) from code (components, services). However, only OO has programming languages which natively support its paradigm: Smalltalk, C++, Java and all other JVM-compatibles, C# and all other .NET-compatibles, Python etc. SO has no such native language. It only comes into existence on top of procedural languages or OO languages: COM/DCOM (binary, C, C++), CORBA, EJB, Spring, Guice (all Java), ... These SO frameworks clearly suffer from the missing native language support of their concepts. They start using OO classes to represent services and records. This leads to designs where there is a clear distinction between classes that have methods only (services) and those that have fields only (records). Inheritance between services or records is then simulated by inheritance of classes. Technically, its not kept so strictly but in general programmers are adviced to make classes to play only one of the two roles. They use additional, external languages to represent the missing parts: IDL's, XML configurations, Annotations in Java code, or even embedded DSL like in Guice. This is especially needed, but not limited to, since the composition of services is not part of the service code itself. In OO, objects create other objects so there is no need for such facilities but for SO there is because services don't instantiate or configure other services. They establish an inner-platform effect on top of OO (early EJB, CORBA) where the programmer has to write all the code that is needed to "drive" SO. Classes represent only a part of the nature of a service and lots of classes have to be written to form a service together. All that boiler plate is necessary because there is no SO compiler which would do it for the programmer. This is just like some people did it in C for OO when there was no C++. You just pass the record which holds the data of the object as a first parameter to the procedure which is the method. In a OO language this parameter is implicit and the compiler produces all the code that we need for virtual functions etc. For SO, this is clearly missing. Especially the newer frameworks extensively use AOP or introspection to add the missing parts to a OO language. This doesn't bring the necessary language expressiveness but avoids the boiler platform code described in the previous point. Some frameworks use code generation to produce the boiler plate code. Configuration files in XML or annotations in OO code is the source of information for this. Not all of the phenomena that I mentioned above can be attributed to SO but I hope it clearly shows that there is a need for a SO language. Since this paradigm is so popular: why isn't there one? Or maybe there are some academic ones but at least the industry doesn't use one.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113  | Next Page >