Search Results

Search found 6690 results on 268 pages for 'worst practices'.

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 109/268 | < Previous Page | 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116  | Next Page >

  • Using different numeric variable types

    - by DataPimp
    Im still pretty new so bear with me on this one, my question(s) are not meant to be argumentative or petty but during some reading something struck me as odd. Im under the assumption that when computers were slow and memory was expensive using the correct variable type was much more of a necessity than it is today. Now that memory is a bit easier to come by people seem to have relaxed a bit. For example, you see this sample code everywhere: for (int i = 0; i < length; i++) int? (-2,147,483,648 to 2,147,483,648) for length? Isnt byte (0-255) a better choice? So Im curious of your opinion and what you believe to be best practice, I hate to think this would be used only because the acronym "int" is more intuitive for a beginner...or has memory just become so cheap that we really dont need to concern ourselves with such petty things and therefore we should just use long so we can be sure any other numbers/types(within reason) used can be cast automagically? ...or am Im just being silly by concerning myself with such things?

    Read the article

  • Should a developer write their own test plan for Q/A?

    - by Mat Nadrofsky
    Who writes the test plans in your shop? Who should write them? I realize developers (like me) regularly do their own unit testing whilst developing and in some cases even their own Q/A depending on the size of the shop and the nature of the business, but in a big software shop with a full development team and Q/A team, who should be writing those official "my changes are done now" test plans? Soon, we'll be bringing on another Q/A member to our development team. My question is, going forward, is it a good practice to get your developers to write their own test plans? Something tells me that part of that might make sense but another part might not... What I like about that: Developer is very familiar with the changes made, thus it's easy to produce a document... What I don't like about that: Developer knows how it's supposed to work and might write a test plan that caters to this without knowing it. So, with the above in mind, what is the general stance on this topic? I'm of course already reading books like the Mythical Man-Month, Code Complete and a few others which really do help, but I'd like to get some input from the group as well.

    Read the article

  • Should a C++ constructor do real work?

    - by Wade Williams
    I'm strugging with some advice I have in the back of my mind but for which I can't remember the reasoning. I seem to remember at some point reading some advice (can't remember the source) that C++ constructors should not do real work. Rather, they should initialize variables only. The advice when on to explain that real work should be done in some sort of init() method, to be called separately after the instance was created. The situation is I have a class that represents a hardware device. It makes logical sense to me for the constructor to call the routines that query the device in order to build up the instance variables that describe the device. In other words, once new instantiates the object, the developer receives an object which is ready to be used, no separate call to object-init() required. Is there a good reason why constructors shouldn't do real work? Obviously it could slow allocation time, but that wouldn't be any different if calling a separate method immediately after allocation. Just trying to figure out what gotchas I not currently considering that might have lead to such advice.

    Read the article

  • Arguments to convince to switch from CVS to SVN

    - by ereOn
    Hi, The UNIX department of my company currently uses CVS as source-version control system. They use it in a very strange way: different repositories for development/testing/production code (for the same project), no one tags anything, weird directory architecture, and so on. The system has been set for ages but now, I have an opportunity to organize a meeting where I have to suggest changes. I'd like to make them change from CVS to SVN (Mercurial or Git might be even better, however I can't really recommand using a system I don't know well, and switching to SVN will already be a great step forward). I don't have much experience with CVS so I can't compare them efficiently: I just know it doesn't support atomic operations and that it is deprecated. What killer arguments would you use to convince my collegues to do the switch ? Thank you very much.

    Read the article

  • PHP explode and set to empty string the missing pieces

    - by Marco Demaio
    What's the best way to accomplish the following. I have strings in this format: $s1 = "name1|type1"; //(pipe is the separator) $s2 = "name2|type2"; $s3 = "name3"; //(in some of them type can be missing) Let's assume namen/typen are strings and they can not contain a pipe. Since I need to exctract the name/type separetly, I do: $temp = explode($s1, '|'); $name = $temp[0]; $type = ( isset($temp[1]) ? $temp[1] : '' ); Is there an easier (smarter whatever faster) way to do this without having to do isset($temp[1]) or count($temp). Thanks!

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET MVC Filters: How to set Viewdata for Dropdown based on action parameter

    - by CRice
    Hi, Im loading an entity 'Member' from its id in route data. [ListItemsForMembershipType(true)] public ActionResult Edit(Member someMember) {...} The attribute on the action loads the membership type list items for a dropdown box and sticks it in viewdata. This is fine for add forms, and search forms (it gets all active items) but I need the attribute to execute BASED ON THE VALUE someMember.MembershipTypeId, because its current value must always be present when loading the item (i.e. all active items, plus the one from the loaded record). So the question is, what is the standard pattern for this? How can my attribute accept the value or should I be loading the viewdata for the drop down in a controller supertype or during model binding or something else? It is in an attribute now because the code to set the viewdata would otherwise be duplicated in each usage in each action.

    Read the article

  • Is concatenating with an empty string to do a string conversion really that bad?

    - by polygenelubricants
    Let's say I have two char variables, and later on I want to concatenate them into a string. This is how I would do it: char c1, c2; // ... String s = "" + c1 + c2; I've seen people who say that the "" + "trick" is "ugly", etc, and that you should use String.valueOf or Character.toString instead. I prefer this construct because: I prefer using language feature instead of API call if possible In general, isn't the language usually more stable than the API? If language feature only hides API call, then even stronger reason to prefer it! More abstract! Hiding is good! I like that the c1 and c2 are visually on the same level String.valueOf(c1) + c2 suggests something is special about c1 It's shorter. Is there really a good argument why String.valueOf or Character.toString is preferrable to "" +? Trivia: in java.lang.AssertionError, the following line appears 7 times, each with a different type: this("" + detailMessage);

    Read the article

  • Haskell function composition (.) and function application ($) idioms: correct use.

    - by Robert Massaioli
    I have been reading Real World Haskell and I am nearing the end but a matter of style has been niggling at me to do with the (.) and ($) operators. When you write a function that is a composition of other functions you write it like: f = g . h But when you apply something to the end of those functions I write it like this: k = a $ b $ c $ value But the book would write it like this: k = a . b . c $ value Now to me they look functionally equivalent, they do the exact same thing in my eyes. However, the more I look, the more I see people writing their functions in the manner that the book does: compose with (.) first and then only at the end use ($) to append a value to evaluate the lot (nobody does it with many dollar compositions). Is there a reason for using the books way that is much better than using all ($) symbols? Or is there some best practice here that I am not getting? Or is it superfluous and I shouldn't be worrying about it at all? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Repository Design Pattern Guidance

    - by thefactor
    Let's say you have an MVVM CRM application. You have a number of customer objects in memory, through a repository. What would be the appropriate place to handle tasks that aren't associated with traditional MVVM tasks from a GUI? For example, let's say every few minutes you want to check to see if their address is valid and pop up a notification if it is not. Or you want to send out an hourly e-mail update. Or you want a window to pop up to remind you to call a customer at a specific time. Where does this logic go? It's not GUI/action-oriented, and it's not logic that would be appropriate for a repository, I think.

    Read the article

  • Extend legacy site with another server-side programming platform best practice

    - by Andrew Florko
    Company I work for have a site developed 6-8 years ago by a team that was enthusiastic enough to use their own private PHP-based CMS. I have to put dynamic data from one intranet company database on this site in one week: 2-3 pages. I contacted company site administrator and she showed me administrative part - CMS allows only to insert html blocks & manage site map (site is deployed on machine that is inside company & fully accessible & upgradeable). I'm not a PHP-guy & I don't want to dive into legacy hardly-who-ever-heard-about CMS engine I also don't want to contact developers team, 'cos I'm not sure they are still present and capable enough to extend this old days site and it'll take too much time anyway. I am about to deploy helper asp.net site on IIS with 2-3 pages required & refer helper site via iframe from present site. New pages will allow to download some dynamic content from present site also. Is it ok and what are the pitfalls with iframe approach?

    Read the article

  • typeof === "undefined" vs. != null

    - by Thor Thurn
    I often see JavaScript code which checks for undefined parameters etc. this way: if (typeof input !== "undefined") { // do stuff } This seems kind of wasteful, since it involves both a type lookup and a string comparison, not to mention its verbosity. It's needed because 'undefined' could be renamed, though. My question is: How is that code any better than this approach: if (input != null) { // do stuff } As far as I know, you can't redefine null, so it's not going to break unexpectedly. And, because of the type-coercion of the != operator, this checks for both undefined and null... which is often exactly what you want (e.g. for optional function parameters). Yet this form does not seem widespread, and it even causes JSLint to yell at you for using the evil != operator. Why is this considered bad style?

    Read the article

  • Performing centralized authorization for multiple applications

    - by Vaibhav
    Here's a question that I have been wrestling with for a while. We have a situation wherein we have a number of applications that we have created. These have grown organically over a period of time. All of these applications have permissions code built into them that controls access to various parts of the application depending on whether the currently logged in user has the necessary permissions or not. Alongside these applications is a utility application which allows an administrator to map users to permissions for all applications - the way it works is that every application has code which reads this external database of the said utility application to check if the currently logged in user has the necessary permission or not. Now, the question is this. Should the user-permissions mapping information reside in and be owned by the applications themselves, or is it okay to have this information reside within an external entity/DB (as in this case the utility application's database). Part of me thinks that application permissions are very specific to the application context itself, so shouldn't be separated from the application itself. But I am not sure. Any comments?

    Read the article

  • Am I using too much jQuery? When am I crossing the line?

    - by Andrea
    Lately I found myself using jQuery and JavaScript a lot, often to do the same things that I did before using CSS. For example, I alternate table rows color or create buttons and links hover effects using JavaScript/jQuery. Is this acceptable? Or should I keep using CSS for these kinds of things? So the real question is: When I'm using too much jQuery? How can I understand when I'm crossing the line?

    Read the article

  • What real life bad habits has programming given you? [closed]

    - by Jacob T. Nielsen
    Programming has given me a lot of bad habits and it continues to give me more everyday. But I have also gotten some bad habits from the mindset that I have put myself in. There simply are some things that are deeply rooted in my nature, though some of them I wish I could get rid of. A few: Looking for polymorphism, inheritance and patterns in all of God's creations. Explaining the size of something in pixels and colors in hex code. Using code related abstract terms in everyday conversations. How have you been damaged?

    Read the article

  • How to evade writing a lot of repetitive code when mapping?

    - by JPCF
    I have a data access layer (DAL) using Entity Framework, and I want to use Automapper to communicate with upper layers. I will have to map data transfer objects (DTOs) to entities as the first operation on every method, process my inputs, then proceed to map from entities to DTOs. What would you do to skip writing this code? As an example, see this: //This is a common method in my DAL public CarDTO getCarByOwnerAndCreditStatus(OwnerDTO ownerDto, CreditDto creditDto) { //I want to automatize this code on all methods similar to this Mapper.CreateMap<OwnerDTO,Owner>(); Mapper.CreateMap<CreditDTO,Credit>(); Owner owner = Mapper.map(ownerDto); Owner credit = Mapper.map(creditDto) //... Some code processing the mapped DTOs //I want to automatize this code on all methods similar to this Mapper.CreateMap<Car,CarDTO>(); Car car = Mapper.map(ownedCar); return car; }

    Read the article

  • Access of private field of another object in copy constructors - Really a problem?

    - by DR
    In my Java application I have some copy-constructors like this public MyClass(MyClass src) { this.field1 = src.field1; this.field2 = src.field2; this.field3 = src.field3; ... } Now Netbeans 6.9 warns about this and I wonder what is wrong with this code? My concerns: Using the getters might introduce unwanted side-effects. The new object might no longer be considered a copy of the original. If it is recommended using the getters, wouldn't it be more consistent if one would use setters for the new instance as well?

    Read the article

  • Displaying performance metrics in a modern web app?

    - by Charles
    We're updating our ancient internal PHP application at work. Right now, we gather extensive performance measurements on every pageview, and log them to the database. Additionally, users requested that some of the metrics be displayed at the bottom of the page. This worked out pretty well for us, because the last thing that the application does on every request is include the file containing the HTML footer. The updated parts of the application use an MVC framework and a Dispatch/Request/Response loop. The page footer is no longer the last thing done. In fact, it could very well be the first thing done, before the rest of the page is created. Because we can grab the Response before it's returned to the user, we could try to include placeholders for the performance metrics in the footer and simply replace them with the actual numbers, but this strikes me as a bad idea somehow. How do you handle this in your modern web app? While we're using PHP, I'm curious how it's done in a Ruby/Rails app, and in your favorite Python framework.

    Read the article

  • Bad Design? Constructor of composition uses `this`

    - by tanascius
    Example: class MyClass { Composition m_Composition; void MyClass() { m_Composition = new Composition( this ); } } I am interested in using depenency-injection here. So I will have to refactor the constructor to something like: void MyClass( Composition composition ) { m_Composition = composition; } However I get a problem now, since the Composition-object relies on the object of type MyClass which is just created. Can a dependency container resolve this? Is it supposed to do so? Or is it just bad design from the beginning on?

    Read the article

  • Why cast null before checking if object is equal to null?

    - by jacerhea
    I was looking through the "Domain Oriented N-Layered .NET 4.0 Sample App" project and ran across some code that I do not understand. In this project they often use syntax like the following to check arguments for null: public GenericRepository(IQueryableContext context,ITraceManager traceManager) { if (context == (IQueryableContext)null) throw new ArgumentNullException("context", Resources.Messages.exception_ContainerCannotBeNull); Why would you cast null to the type of the object you are checking for null?

    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 >