Search Results

Search found 8638 results on 346 pages for 'f vs c'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 109/346 | < Previous Page | 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116  | Next Page >

  • WHERE vs HAVING

    - by baloo
    Why is it that you need to place columns you create yourself (for example "select 1 as number") after HAVING and not WHERE in MySQL? And are there any downsides instead of doing "WHERE 1" (writing the whole definition instead of a column name)

    Read the article

  • IoC.Resolve vs Constructor Injection

    - by Omu
    I heard a lot of people saying that it is a bad practice to use IoC.Resolve(), but I never heard a good reason why (if it's all about testing than you can just mock the container, and you're done). now the advantages of using Resolve instead of Constructor Injection is that you don't need to create classes that have 5 parameters in the constructor, and whenever you are going to create a instance of that class you're not gonna need to provide it with anything

    Read the article

  • Android dev time vs iPhone dev time

    - by Daniel Benedykt
    Hi IF someone has to develop the same application for Android and iPhone, is it more difficult to develop in one platform than on the other? Does it take more time? Lets think about the average app. Lists, text , buttons, fetch information from the internet. Thanks

    Read the article

  • What are the pros and cons of using manual list iteration vs recursion through fail

    - by magus
    I come up against this all the time, and I'm never sure which way to attack it. Below are two methods for processing some season facts. What I'm trying to work out is whether to use method 1 or 2, and what are the pros and cons of each, especially large amounts of facts. methodone seems wasteful since the facts are available, why bother building a list of them (especially a large list). This must have memory implications too if the list is large enough ? And it doesn't take advantage of Prolog's natural backtracking feature. methodtwo takes advantage of backtracking to do the recursion for me, and I would guess would be much more memory efficient, but is it good programming practice generally to do this? It's arguably uglier to follow, and might there be any other side effects? One problem I can see is that each time fail is called, we lose the ability to pass anything back to the calling predicate, eg. if it was methodtwo(SeasonResults), since we continually fail the predicate on purpose. So methodtwo would need to assert facts to store state. Presumably(?) method 2 would be faster as it has no (large) list processing to do? I could imagine that if I had a list, then methodone would be the way to go.. or is that always true? Might it make sense in any conditions to assert the list to facts using methodone then process them using method two? Complete madness? But then again, I read that asserting facts is a very 'expensive' business, so list handling might be the way to go, even for large lists? Any thoughts? Or is it sometimes better to use one and not the other, depending on (what) situation? eg. for memory optimisation, use method 2, including asserting facts and, for speed use method 1? season(spring). season(summer). season(autumn). season(winter). % Season handling showseason(Season) :- atom_length(Season, LenSeason), write('Season Length is '), write(LenSeason), nl. % ------------------------------------------------------------- % Method 1 - Findall facts/iterate through the list and process each %-------------------------------------------------------------- % Iterate manually through a season list lenseason([]). lenseason([Season|MoreSeasons]) :- showseason(Season), lenseason(MoreSeasons). % Findall to build a list then iterate until all done methodone :- findall(Season, season(Season), AllSeasons), lenseason(AllSeasons), write('Done'). % ------------------------------------------------------------- % Method 2 - Use fail to force recursion %-------------------------------------------------------------- methodtwo :- % Get one season and show it season(Season), showseason(Season), % Force prolog to backtrack to find another season fail. % No more seasons, we have finished methodtwo :- write('Done').

    Read the article

  • iphone float vs integer rounding?

    - by Rob
    Okay, from what I understand, an integer that is a fraction will be rounded one way or the other so that if a formula comes up with say 5/6 - it will automatically round it to 1. I have a calculation: xyz = ((1300 - [abc intValue])/6) + 100; xyz is defined as an NSInteger, abc is an NSString that is chosen via a UIPicker. I want the calculation (1300 - [abc intValue]) to add 1 to 100 for each 6 units below 1300. For example, 1255 should result in xyz having a value of 100 and 1254 should result in a value of 101. Now, I understand that my formula above is wrong because of the rounding principles, but I am getting some CRAZY results from the program itself. When I punched in 1259 - I got 106. When I punched in 1255 - I got 107. Why would it behave that way?

    Read the article

  • #include - brackets vs quotes in XCode?

    - by Chris Becke
    In MSVC++ #include files are searched for differently depending on whether the file is enclosed in "" or <. The quoted form searches first in the local folder, then in /I specified locations, The angle bracket form avoids the local folder. This means, in MSVC++, its possible to have header files with the same name as runtime and SDK headers. So, for example, I need to wrap up the windows sdk windows.h file to undefine some macro's that cause trouble. With MSVS I can just add a (optional) windows.h file to my project as long as I include it using the quoted form :- // some .cpp file #include "windows.h" // will include my local windows.h file And in my windows.h, I can pull in the real one using the angle bracket form: // my windows.h #include <windows.h> // will load the real one #undef ConflictingSymbol Trying this trick with GCC in XCode didn't work. angle bracket #includes in system header files in fact are finding my header files with similar names in my local folder structure. The MSVC system means its quite safe to have a "String.h" header file in my own folder structre. On XCode this seems to be a major no no. Is there some way to control this search path behaviour in XCode to be more like MSVC's? Or do I just have to avoid naming any of my headers anything that might possibly conflict with a system header. Writing cross platform code and using lots of frameworks means the possibility of incidental conflicts seems large.

    Read the article

  • Trial vs free with limited functionality

    - by Morten K
    Hi everyone, Not a programming question as such, but a bit more business oriented question about software product development. We have just released a small app, and is offering a free, fully functional trial which lasts for 15 days. I have the gut feeling however, that to reach any kind of penetration on the web, we'd need to offer a version which is free forever, but then has a few limitations in terms of functionality (still quite usable, but not full-throttle). For example, the Roboform browser plugin is somewhat similar in purpose to ours. Not functionality wise, but it's basically a little util that saves time and removes some repetitive-action pain. They offer a free version with limitations and then a pro version for around 30 USD. Roboform has gotten very much attention over the years, and I can't help to think that this is because they have a product which is obviously good, but also free, thus adoption becomes much higher than if they had only offered a 15 day trial. I am wondering if any of you have experience in a similar scenario? Or any thoughts on the two models? Again, I know it's not directly programming related, but it's still a question I feel best answered by a community of developers.

    Read the article

  • Improving Javascript Load Times - Concatenation vs Many + Cache

    - by El Yobo
    I'm wondering which of the following is going to result in better performance for a page which loads a large amount of javascript (jQuery + jQuery UI + various other javascript files). I have gone through most of the YSlow and Google Page Speed stuff, but am left wondering about a particular detail. A key thing for me here is that the site I'm working on is not on the public net; it's a business to business platform where almost all users are repeat visitors (and therefore with caches of the data, which is something that YSlow assumes will not be the case for a large number of visitors). First up, the standard approach recommended by tools such as YSlow is to concatenate it, compress it, and serve it up in a single file loaded at the end of your page. This approach sounds reasonably effective, but I think that a key part of the reasoning here is to improve performance for users without cached data. The system I currently have is something like this * All javascript files are compressed and loaded at the bottom of the page * All javascript files have far future cache expiration dates, so will remain (for most users) in the cache for a long time * Pages only load the javascript files that they require, rather than loading one monolithic file, most of which will not be required Now, my understanding is that, if the cache expiration date for a javascript file has not been reached, then the cached version is used immediately; there is no HTTP request sent at to the server at all. If this is correct, I would assume that having multiple tags is not causing any performance penalty, as I'm still not having any additional requests on most pages (recalling from above that almost all users have populated caches). In addition to this, not loading the JS means that the browser doesn't have to interpret or execute all this additional code which it isn't going to need; as a B2B application, most of our users are unfortunately stuck with IE6 and its painfully slow JS engine. Another benefit is that, when code changes, only the affected files need to be fetched again, rather than the whole set (granted, it would only need to be fetched once, so this is not so much of a benefit). I'm also looking at using LabJS to allow for parallel loading of the JS when it's not cached. So, what do people think is a better approach? In a similar vein, what do you think about a similar approach to CSS - is monolithic better?

    Read the article

  • .NET Performance: Deep Recursion vs Queue

    - by JeffN825
    I'm writing a component that needs to walk large object graphs, sometimes 20-30 levels deep. What is the most performant way of walking the graph? A. Enqueueing "steps" so as to avoid deep recursion or B. A DFS (depth first search) which may step many levels deep and have a "deep" stack trace at times. I guess the question I'm asking is: Is there a performance hit in .NET for doing a DFS that causes a "deep" stack trace? If so, what is the hit? And would I better better off with some BFS by means of queueing up steps that would have been handled recursively in a DFS? Sorry if I'm being unclear. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Behaviour difference Dim oDialog1 as Dialog1 = New Dialog1 VS Dim oDialog1 as Dialog1 = Dialog1

    - by user472722
    VB.Net 2005 I have a now closed Dialog1. To get information from the Dialog1 from within a module I need to use Dim oDialog1 as Dialog1 = New Dialog1. VB.Net 2008 I have a still open Dialog1. To get information from the Dialog1 from within a module I need to use Dim oDialog1 as Dialog1 = Dialog1. VB.Net 2005 does not compile using Dim oDialog1 as Dialog1 = Dialog1 and insists on NEW What is going on and why do I need the different initialisation syntax?

    Read the article

  • MySQL Prepared Statements vs Stored Procedures Performance

    - by amardilo
    Hi there, I have an old MySQL 4.1 database with a table that has a few millions rows and an old Java application that connects to this database and returns several thousand rows from this this table on a frequent basis via a simple SQL query (i.e. SELECT * FROM people WHERE first_name = 'Bob'. I think the Java application uses client side prepared statements but was looking at switching this to the server, and in the example mentioned the value for first_name will vary depending on what the user enters). I would like to speed up performance on the select query and was wondering if I should switch to Prepared Statements or Stored Procedures. Is there a general rule of thumb of what is quicker/less resource intensive (or if a combination of both is better)

    Read the article

  • Use of properties vs backing-field inside owner class

    - by whatispunk
    I love auto-implemented properties in C# but lately there's been this elephant standing in my cubicle and I don't know what to do with him. If I use auto-implemented properties (hereafter "aip") then I no longer have a private backing field to use internally. This is fine because the aip has no side-effects. But what if later on I need to add some extra processing in the get or set? Now I need to create a backing-field so I can expand my getters and setters. This is fine for external code using the class, because they won't notice the difference. But now all of the internal references to the aip are going to invoke these side-effects when they access the property. Now all internal access to the once aip must be refactored to use the backing-field. So my question is, what do most of you do? Do you use auto-implemented properties or do you prefer to always use a backing-field? What do you think about properties with side-effects?

    Read the article

  • Android -- Object Creation/Memory Allocation vs. Performance

    - by borg17of20
    Hello all, This is probably an easy one. I have about 20 TextViews/ImageViews in my current project that I access like this: ((TextView)multiLayout.findViewById(R.id.GameBoard_Multi_Answer1_Text)).setText(""); //or ((ImageView)multiLayout.findViewById(R.id.GameBoard_Multi_Answer1_Right)).setVisibility(View.INVISIBLE); My question is this, am I better off, from a performance standpoint, just assigning these object variables? Further, am I losing some performance to the constant "search" process that goes on as a part of the findViewById(...) method? (i.e. Does findsViewById(...) use some sort of hashtable/hashmap for look-ups or does it implement an iterative search over the view hierarchy?) At present, my program never uses more than 2.5MB of RAM, so will assigning 20 or so more object variables drastically affect this? I don't think so, but I figured I'd ask. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • LINQ extention SelectMany in 3.5 vs 4.0?

    - by Moberg
    Hi When I saw Darins suggestion here .. IEnumerable<Process> processes = new[] { "process1", "process2" } .SelectMany(Process.GetProcessesByName); ( http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3059667/process-getprocessesbyname/3059733#3059733 ) .. I was a bit intrigued and I tried it in VS2008 with .NET 3.5 - and it did not compiling unless I changed it to .. IEnumerable<Process> res = new string[] { "notepad", "firefox", "outlook" } .SelectMany(s => Process.GetProcessesByName(s)); Having read some Darins answers before I suspected that it was me that were the problem, and when I later got my hands on a VS2010 with.NET 4.0 - as expected - the original suggestion worked beautifully. My question is : What have happend from 3.5 to 4.0 that makes this (new syntax) possible? Is it the extentionmethods that have been extended(hmm) or new rules for lambda syntax or? I've tried to search but my google-fu was not strong enough. Please forgive if the question is a bit naive and note that I've taged it as beginner :)

    Read the article

  • NSNotifications vs delegate for multiple instances of same protocol

    - by Brent Traut
    I could use some architectural advice. I've run into the following problem a few times now and I've never found a truly elegant way to solve it. The issue, described at the highest level possible:I have a parent class that would like to act as the delegate for multiple children (all using the same protocol), but when the children call methods on the parent, the parent no longer knows which child is making the call. I would like to use loose coupling (delegates/protocols or notifications) rather than direct calls. I don't need multiple handlers, so notifications seem like they might be overkill. To illustrate the problem, let me try a super-simplified example: I start with a parent view controller (and corresponding view). I create three child views and insert each of them into the parent view. I would like the parent view controller to be notified whenever the user touches one of the children. There are a few options to notify the parent: Define a protocol. The parent implements the protocol and sets itself as the delegate to each of the children. When the user touches a child view, its view controller calls its delegate (the parent). In this case, the parent is notified that a view is touched, but it doesn't know which one. Not good enough. Same as #1, but define the methods in the protocol to also pass some sort of identifier. When the child tells its delegate that it was touched, it also passes a pointer to itself. This way, the parent know exactly which view was touched. It just seems really strange for an object to pass a reference to itself. Use NSNotifications. The parent defines a separate method for each of the three children and then subscribes to the "viewWasTouched" notification for each of the three children as the notification sender. The children don't need to attach themselves to the user dictionary, but they do need to send the notification with a pointer to themselves as the scope. Same as #4, but rather than using separate methods, the parent could just use one with a switch case or other branching along with the notification's sender to determine which path to take. Create multiple man-in-the-middle classes that act as the delegates to the child views and then call methods on the parent either with a pointer to the child or with some other differentiating factor. This approach doesn't seem scalable. Are any of these approaches considered best practice? I can't say for sure, but it feels like I'm missing something more obvious/elegant.

    Read the article

  • help with installing clamav for remote apache server vs WAMP localserver

    - by Scarface
    Hey guys, I have never installed an extension before so I am not really sure where to start. I want to do 2 things: install clamav virus scanner http://sourceforge.net/projects/php-clamav/ on my remote server which is a linux apache setup using cpanel as a gui. install clamav on my localserver on my home computer which operates on windows and has WAMP server installed for server-side activity What is the difference between the two installation methods? What is required for each installation? If anyone can point me in the right direction in any way, I would really appreciate it. Even if it is just an article or tutorial on how to get started.

    Read the article

  • casting vs using the 'as' keyword in the CLR

    - by Frank V
    I'm learning about design patterns and because of that I've ended using a lot of interfaces. One of my "goals" is to program to an interface, not an implementation. What I've found is that I'm doing a lot of casting or object type conversion. What I'd like to know is if there is a difference between these two methods of conversion: public interface IMyInterface { void AMethod(); } public class MyClass : IMyInterface { public void AMethod() { //Do work } // other helper methods.... } public class Implementation { IMyInterface _MyObj; MyClass _myCls1; MyClass _myCls2; public Implementation() { _MyObj = new MyClass(); // What is the difference here: _myCls1 = (MyClass)_MyObj; _myCls2 = (_MyObj as MyClass); } } If there is a difference, is there a cost difference or how does this affect my program? Hopefully this makes sense. Sorry for the bad example; it is all I could think of... Update: What is "in general" the preferred method? (I had a question similar to this posted in the 'answers'. I moved it up here at the suggestion of Michael Haren. Also, I want to thank everyone who's provided insight and perspective on my question.

    Read the article

  • Real pagination vs Next and Previous buttons

    - by Pablo
    By real pagination i mean something like this when in page 3: <<Previous 1 | 2 | {3} | 4 | 5 |...| 15 | Next>> By Next and Previous buttons i mean something like this when in page 3: <<previous Next>> Performance wise im sure the Previous and Next Buttons are better since unlike the real pagination it doesn't require over-querying the database. By over-querying the database i mean getting more information from the database than what you will need to display on the page. My theory is that the Previous and Next Buttons can drastically increase a site performance as it only requires the exact information you will need to display on a page, please correct me if im wrong on this. so, do users really have preference when it comes to this two options? is it just a Developer preference and its convenience? Which one do you prefer? why? *Note: Previous and Next Buttons are usually labeled Newer and older.

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116  | Next Page >