Search Results

Search found 5894 results on 236 pages for 'enjoy coding'.

Page 11/236 | < Previous Page | 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18  | Next Page >

  • What's wrong with relative imports in Python?

    - by Oddthinking
    I recently upgraded versions of pylint, a popular Python style-checker. It has gone ballistic throughout my code, pointing out places where I import modules in the same package, without specifying the full package path. The new error message is W0403. W0403: Relative import %r, should be %r Used when an import relative to the package directory is detected. Example For example, if my packages are structured like this: /cake /__init__.py /icing.py /sponge.py /drink and in the sponge package I write: import icing instead of import cake.icing I will get this error. While I understand that not all Pylint messages are of equal importance, and I am not afraid to dismiss them, I don't understand why such a practice is considered a poor idea. I was hoping someone could explain the pitfalls, so I could improve my coding style rather than (as I currently plan to do) turning off this apparently spurious warning.

    Read the article

  • Why is trailing whitespace a big deal?

    - by EpsilonVector
    Trailing whitespace is enough of a problem for programmers that editors like Emacs have special functions that highlight it or get rid of it automatically, and many coding standards require you to eliminate all instances of it. I'm not entirely sure why though. I can think of one practical reason of avoiding unnecessary whitespace, and it is that if people are not careful about avoiding it, then they might change it in between commits, and then we get diffs polluted with seemingly unchanged lines, just because someone removed or added a space. This already sounds like a pretty good reason to avoid it, but I do want to see if there's more to it than that. So, why is trailing whitespace such a big deal?

    Read the article

  • Should a programmer take writing lessons to enhance code expressiveness?

    - by Jose Faeti
    Given that programmers are authors and write code to express abstract thoughts and concepts, and good code should be read by other programmers without difficulties and misunderstandings, should a programmer take writing lessons to write better code? Abstracting concepts and real world problems/entities is an important part of writing good code, and a good mastery of the language used for coding should allow the programmer to express his thoughts more easily, or in a better way. Besides, when trying to write or rewrite some code to make it better, much time can be spent in deciding the names for functions, variables or data structures. I think this could also help to avoid writing code with more than one meaning, often cause of misunderstanding between different programmers. Code should always express clearly its function unambiguously.

    Read the article

  • Should *'s go next to the type or the variable name? [closed]

    - by derekerdmann
    Possible Duplicate: int* i; or int *i; or int * i; When working in C or C++, how should pointers be declared? Like this: char* derp; or this: char *derp; I typically use the first method, because the variable is a character pointer, but I know that it can create confusion when declaring multiple variables at once: char* herp, derp; herp becomes a character pointer, while derp is just a character. I know it often comes down to coding style, but which one is "better?" Should I sacrifice clarity to eliminate potential confusion?

    Read the article

  • User defined type for healthcare / Medical Records variable name prefixes?

    - by Peter Turner
    I was reading Code Complete regarding variable naming in trying to find an answer to this question and stumbled on a table of commonly accepted prefixes for programming word processor software. Well, I'm not a word processor software programmer, but if I was, I'd be happy to use those user defined types. Since I'm a programmer for a smallish healthcare ISV, and have no contact with the larger community of healthcare software programmers (other than the neglected and forsaken HealthCareIT.SE where I never had the chance to ask this question). I want to know if there is a coding convention for medical records. Like Patient = pnt and Chart = chrt and Medication = med or mdctn or whatever. I'm not talking full on hungarian notation, but just a standard that would fit in code complete in place of that wonderful chart of word processor UDT's which are of so little use to me.

    Read the article

  • Is it any good to use binary arithmetic in a C++ code like "C style"?

    - by user827992
    I like the fact that the C language lets you use binary arithmetic in an explicit way in your code, sometimes the use of the binary arithmetic can also give you a little edge in terms of performance; but since I started studying C++ i can't really tell how much i have seen the explicit use of something like that in a C++ code, something like a pointer to pointer structure or an instruction for jumping to a specific index value through the binary arithmetic. Is the binary arithmetic still important and relevant in the C++ world? How i can optimize my arithmetic and/or an access to a specific index? What about the C++ and the way in which the bits are arranged according to the standard? ... or i have taken a look at the wrong coding conventions ... ?

    Read the article

  • How to convince my boss to improve code quality?

    - by Vimvq1987
    The place I'm working for is a service provider. We have a lot of services, which are written to deal with deadline, so their code are really terrible: No coding convention, everyone codes in his own style No unit testing (which is really bad) No refactoring (which is truly worse) No automation build/deployment etc and these code are used again and again, so bad code continue to spread all over my department. I really want to set up a standard quality for our code, by requiring everyone to follow "rules": every line of code which does not follow convention will be rejected, and every function of code which does not pass unit testing will not be committed,...But I don't know how to convince my boss to allow me to do this. I'm relatively new comer, so inspiring people from my works is really hard, and I think it's easier if my boss support me to this. Thank you very much for your advices

    Read the article

  • Associate Tech Support to Code Development [on hold]

    - by Abhay
    I have been selected for the first phase selection criteria of a company called CITRIX for the role of Associate Tech Support. Now, we have to undergo a 3 months in-depth technical training (most probably no certificate) and will only get the job on getting through the final test which includes selecting 50% of the total selected candidates in the first phase. Actually, I want to get in the field of coding and there lies my passion. Is there any way i can into any development department of this or any other company using my current profile which i can get into ?? Actually, i was wondering whether to go for the training or go for any java based course (6 months) for certification ??? Please note : The Company is not asking for any bonds

    Read the article

  • Why does Zend discourage "floating functions"?

    - by kojiro
    Zend's Coding Standard Naming Convention says Functions in the global scope (a.k.a "floating functions") are permitted but discouraged in most cases. Consider wrapping these functions in a static class. The common wisdom in Python says practically the opposite: Finally, use staticmethod sparingly! There are very few situations where static-methods are necessary in Python, and I've seen them used many times where a separate "top-level" function would have been clearer. (Not only does the above StackOverflow answer warn against overuse of static methods, but more than one Python linter will warn the same.) Is this something that can be generalized across programming languages, and if so, why does Python differ so from PHP? If it's not something that can be generalized, what is the basis for one approach or the other, and is there a way to immediately recognize in a language whether you should prefer bare functions or static methods?

    Read the article

  • "more than 3 levels of indentation, you're screwed" How should I understand this quote ?

    - by jokoon
    The answer to that is that if you need more than 3 levels of indentation, you're screwed anyway, and should fix your program. What can I deduct from this quote ? On top of the fact that too long methods are hard to maintain, are they hard or impossible to optimize for the compiler ? I don't really understand if this quote encourages better coding practice or is really a mathematical/algorithmic sort of truth... I also read in some C++ optimizing guide that dividing up a program into more function improves its design is a common thing taught at school, but it should be not done too much, since it can turn into a lot of JMP calls (even if the compiler can inline some methods by itself).

    Read the article

  • Why do developers learn to code by developing todo lists, yet all the todo lists that are available still suck? [closed]

    - by gunshor
    Why do developers learn to code by developing todo lists, yet all the todo lists that are available still suck? I understand that: - coding a todo list is an easy way to learn how to code. - there are an infinite number of ways of building todo lists. - there has never been a todo list that become the defacto standard industry leader. But when I get questions from investors on this topic (usually by asking "Why hasn't anyone solved this before?"), I'd like to have a good answer ready that's not obvious. What should my answer be? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • T-4 Templates for ASP.NET Web Form Databound Control Friendly Logical Layers

    - by joycsharp
    I just released an open source project at codeplex, which includes a set of T-4 templates to enable you to build logical layers (i.e. DAL/BLL) with just few clicks! The logical layers implemented here are  based on Entity Framework 4.0, ASP.NET Web Form Data Bound control friendly and fully unit testable. In this open source project you will get Entity Framework 4.0 based T-4 templates for following types of logical layers: Data Access Layer: Entity Framework 4.0 provides excellent ORM data access layer. It also includes support for T-4 templates, as built-in code generation strategy in Visual Studio 2010, where we can customize default structure of data access layer based on Entity Framework. default structure of data access layer has been enhanced to get support for mock testing in Entity Framework 4.0 object model. Business Logic Layer: ASP.NET web form based data bound control friendly business logic layer, which will enable you few clicks to build data bound web applications on top of ASP.NET Web Form and Entity Framework 4.0 quickly with great support of mock testing. Download it to make your web development productive. Enjoy!

    Read the article

  • Is it customary to write Java domain objects / data transfer objects with public member variables on mobile platforms?

    - by Sean Mickey
    We performed a code review recently of mobile application Java code that was developed by an outside contractor and noticed that all of the domain objects / data transfer objects are written in this style: public class Category { public String name; public int id; public String description; public int parentId; } public class EmergencyContact { public long id; public RelationshipType relationshipType; public String medicalProviderType; public Contact contact; public String otherPhone; public String notes; public PersonName personName; } Of course, these members are then accessed directly everywhere else in the code. When we asked about this, the developers told us that this is a customary performance enhancement design pattern that is used on mobile platforms, because mobile devices are resource-limited environments. It doesn't seem to make sense; accessing private members via public getters/setters doesn't seem like it could add much overhead. And the added benefits of encapsulation seem to outweigh the benefits of this coding style. Is this generally true? Is this something that is normally done on mobile platforms for the reasons given above? All feedback welcome and appreciated -

    Read the article

  • Is 'Protection' an acceptable Java class name

    - by jonny
    This comes from a closed thread at stack overflow, where there are already some useful answers, though a commenter suggested I post here. I hope this is ok! I'm trying my best to write good readable, code, but often have doubts in my work! I'm creating some code to check the status of some protected software, and have created a class which has methods to check whether the software in use is licensed (there is a separate Licensing class). I've named the class 'Protection', which is currently accessed, via the creation of an appProtect object. The methods in the class allow to check a number of things about the application, in order to confirm that it is in fact licensed for use. Is 'Protection' an acceptable name for such a class? I read somewhere that if you have to think to long in names of methods, classes, objects etc, then perhaps you may not be coding in an Object Oriented way. I've spent a lot of time thinking about this before making this post, which has lead me to doubt the suitability of the name! In creating (and proof reading) this post, I'm starting to seriously doubt my work so far. I'm also thinking I should probably rename the object to applicationProtection rather than appProtect (though am open to any comments on this too?). I'm posting non the less, in the hope that I'll learn something from others views/opinions, even if they're simply confirming I've "done it wrong"!

    Read the article

  • Co-worker uses ridiculous commenting convention, how to cope? [closed]

    - by Jessica Friedman
    A co-worker in the small start-up I work at writes (C++) code like this: // some class class SomeClass { // c'tor SomeClass(); // d'tor ~SomeClass(); // some function void someFunction(int x, int y); }; // some function void SomeClass::someFunction(int x, int y) { // init worker m_worker.init(); // log LOG_DEBUG("Worker initialized"); // find current cache auto it = m_currentCache.find(); // flush if (it->flush() == false) { // return return false } // return return true } This is how he writes 100% of his code: a spacer line, a useless comment which says nothing other than what is plainly stated in the following statement, and the statement itself. This is absolutely driving me insane. A simple class written by him spans 3 times as much as it's supposed to, It looks well commented but the comments contain no new information. In fact the code is completely undocumented in any normal definition of "documentation". All of the comments are just a repetition of what is written in C++ in the following line. I've confronted him several times about it and each time he seems to understand what I am saying but then goes on to not change his coding and not fix old code which is written like this. I've went on and on again and again about the distinct disadvantages of writing code like this but nothing get through to him. Other co-workers doesn't seem to mind it as much and management doesn't seem to really care. What do I do? (sorry for the rant)

    Read the article

  • which style of member-access is preferable

    - by itwasntpete
    the purpose of oop using classes is to encapsulate members from the outer space. i always read that accessing members should be done by methods. for example: template<typename T> class foo_1 { T state_; public: // following below }; the most common doing that by my professor was to have a get and set method. // variant 1 T const& getState() { return state_; } void setState(T const& v) { state_ = v; } or like this: // variant 2 // in my opinion it is easier to read T const& state() { return state_; } void state(T const& v) { state_ = v; } assume the state_ is a variable, which is checked periodically and there is no need to ensure the value (state) is consistent. Is there any disadvantage of accessing the state by reference? for example: // variant 3 // do it by reference T& state() { return state_; } or even directly, if I declare the variable as public. template<typename T> class foo { public: // variant 4 T state; }; In variant 4 I could even ensure consistence by using c++11 atomic. So my question is, which one should I prefer?, Is there any coding standard which would decline one of these pattern? for some code see here

    Read the article

  • Generic software code style enforcer

    - by FuzziBear
    It seems to me to be a fairly common thing to do, where you have some code that you'd like to automatically run through a code style tool to catch when people break your coding style guide(s). Particularly if you're working on code that has multiple languages (which is becoming more common with web-language-x and javascript), you generally want to apply similar code style guides to both and have them enforced. I've done a bit of research, but I've only been able to find tools to enforce code style guidelines (not necessarily applying the code style, just telling you when you break code style guidelines) for a particular language. It would seem to me a reasonably trivial thing to do by just using current IDE rules for syntax highlighting (so that you don't check style guide rules inside quotes or strings, etc) and a whole lot of regexes to enforce some really generic things. Examples: if ( rather than if( checking lines with only whitespace Are there any tools that do this kind of really generic style checking? I'd prefer it to be easily configurable for different languages (because like it or not, some things would just not work cross language) and to add new "rules" to check new things.

    Read the article

  • Standards & compliances for secure web application development?

    - by MarkusK
    I am working with developers right now that write code the way they want and when i tell them to do it other way they respond that its just matter of preference how to do it and they have their way and i have mine. I am not talking about the formatting of code, but rather of way site is organized in classes and the way the utilize them. and the way they create functions and process forms etc. Their coding does not match my standards, but again they argue that its matter of preference and as long as goal achieved the can be different way's to do it. I agree but their way is proven to have bugs and we spend a lot of time going back and forth with them to fix all problems security or functionality, yet they still write same code no matter how many times i asked them to stop doing certain things. Now i am ready to dismiss them but friend of mine told me that he has same exact problem with freelance developers he work with. So i don't want to trade one bad apple for another. Question is is there some world wide (or at least europe and usa) accepted standard or compliance on how write secure web based applications. What application architecture should be for maintainable application. Is there are some general standard that can be used for any language ruby php or java govern security and functionality and quality of code? Or at least for PHP and MySQL i use for my website. So i can make them follow this strict standard and stop making excuses.

    Read the article

  • Am I the only one this anal / obsessive about code? [closed]

    - by Chris
    While writing a shared lock class for sql server for a web app tonight, I found myself writing in the code style below as I always do: private bool acquired; private bool disposed; private TimeSpan timeout; private string connectionString; private Guid instance = Guid.NewGuid(); private Thread autoRenewThread; Basically, whenever I'm declaring a group of variables or writing a sql statement or any coding activity involving multiple related lines, I always try to arrange them where possible so that they form a bell curve (imagine rotating the text 90deg CCW). As an example of something that peeves the hell out of me, consider the following alternative: private bool acquired; private bool disposed; private string connectionString; private Thread autoRenewThread; private Guid instance = Guid.NewGuid(); private TimeSpan timeout; In the above example, declarations are grouped (arbitrarily) so that the primitive types appear at the top. When viewing the code in Visual Studio, primitive types are a different color than non-primitives, so the grouping makes sense visually, if for no other reason. But I don't like it because the right margin is less of an aesthetic curve. I've always chalked this up to being OCD or something, but at least in my mind, the code is "prettier". Am I the only one?

    Read the article

  • Where did the notion of "one return only" come from?

    - by FredOverflow
    I often talk to Java programmers who say "Don't put multiple return statements in the same method." When I ask them to tell me the reasons why, all I get is "The coding standard says so." or "It's confusing." When they show me solutions with a single return statement, the code looks uglier to me. For example: if (blablabla) return 42; else return 97; "This is ugly, you have to use a local variable!" int result; if (blablabla) result = 42; else result = 97; return result; How does this 50% code bloat make the program any easier to understand? Personally, I find it harder, because the state space has just increased by another variable that could easily have been prevented. Of course, normally I would just write: return (blablabla) ? 42 : 97; But the conditional operator gets even less love among Java programmers. "It's incomprehensible!" Where did this notion of "one return only" come from, and why do people adhere to it rigidly?

    Read the article

  • Is it reasonable to null guard every single dereferenced pointer?

    - by evadeflow
    At a new job, I've been getting flagged in code reviews for code like this: PowerManager::PowerManager(IMsgSender* msgSender) : msgSender_(msgSender) { } void PowerManager::SignalShutdown() { msgSender_->sendMsg("shutdown()"); } I'm told that last method should read: void PowerManager::SignalShutdown() { if (msgSender_) { msgSender_->sendMsg("shutdown()"); } } i.e., I must put a NULL guard around the msgSender_ variable, even though it is a private data member. It's difficult for me to restrain myself from using expletives to describe how I feel about this piece of 'wisdom'. When I ask for an explanation, I get a litany of horror stories about how some junior programmer, some-year, got confused about how a class was supposed to work and accidentally deleted a member he shouldn't have (and set it to NULL afterwards, apparently), and things blew up in the field right after a product release, and we've "learned the hard way, trust us" that it's better to just NULL check everything. To me, this feels like cargo cult programming, plain and simple. A few well-meaning colleagues are earnestly trying to help me 'get it' and see how this will help me write more robust code, but... I can't help feeling like they're the ones who don't get it. Is it reasonable for a coding standard to require that every single pointer dereferenced in a function be checked for NULL first—even private data members? (Note: To give some context, we make a consumer electronics device, not an air traffic control system or some other 'failure-equals-people-die' product.) EDIT: In the above example, the msgSender_ collaborator isn't optional. If it's ever NULL, it indicates a bug. The only reason it is passed into the constructor is so PowerManager can be tested with a mock IMsgSender subclass.

    Read the article

  • Standard/Compliance for web programming?

    - by MarkusK
    I am working with developers right now that write code the way they want and when i tell them to do it other way they respond that its just matter of preference how to do it and they have their way and i have mine. I am not talking about the formatting of code, but rather of way site is organized in classes and the way the utilize them. and the way they create functions and process forms etc. Their coding does not match my standards, but again they argue that its matter of preference and as long as goal achieved the can be different way's to do it. I agree but their way is proven to have bugs and we spend a lot of time going back and forth with them to fix all problems security or functionality, yet they still write same code no matter how many times i asked them to stop doing certain things. Now i am ready to dismiss them but friend of mine told me that he has same exact problem with freelance developers he work with. So i don't want to trade one bad apple for another. Question is is there some world wide (or at least europe and usa) accepted standard or compliance on how write secure web based applications. What application architecture should be for maintainable application. Is there are some general standard that can be used for any language ruby php or java govern security and functionality and quality of code? Or at least for PHP and MySQL i use for my website. So i can make them follow this strict standard and stop making excuses.

    Read the article

  • Anonymous Methods / Lambda's (Coding Standards)

    - by Mystagogue
    In Jeffrey Richter's "CLR via C#" (the .net 2.0 edtion page, 353) he says that as a self-discipline, he never makes anonymous functions longer than 3 lines of code in length. He cites mostly readability / understandability as his reasons. This suites me fine, because I already had a self-discipline of using no more than 5 lines for an anonymous method. But how does that "coding standard" advice stack against lambda's? At face value, I'd treat them the same - keeping a lambda equally as short. But how do others feel about this? In particular, when lambda's are being used where (arguably) they shine brightest - when used in LINQ statements - is there genuine cause to abandon that self-discipline / coding standard?

    Read the article

  • How to find a coding buddy

    - by Lirik
    I was reading Jeff Atwood's blog and he mentioned that he was suffering from code-paralysis (he called it analysis paralysis, but I feel like it's also code paralysis) when he didn't have a code buddy: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/ Unfortunately I think that Jeff has set the bar a bit high, because he only works with developers who are really amazing. The only reason really amazing developers would work with me is if I was really amazing too, but sometimes I don't feel that amazing... the only thing I feel is that if I had a coding buddy I could be amazing :). I'm working on a project and I don't have many friends that are programmers, let alone friends that have time to spend on extracurricular activities. Jeff seems to have been able to find like-minded people that are actually willing to work together. I feel like I'm in a code-paralysis stage too and I need some coding buddies, where would I find some? How would I approach them?

    Read the article

  • How closely related is music composition to coding?

    - by ehsanul
    It seems to me as if there are a higher proportion of musicians in the programming field than in the general public. Maybe it's just an illusion caused by the fact that I'm an amateur guitarist myself, so I tend to notice coding musicians (or musical coders?) more. But I wonder if there really is some connection. Perhaps a shared set of skills or an innate quality that makes it more likely for someone who enjoys programming to also enjoy playing and composing music. How closely related is music composition to coding? I'd especially like to hear from the musicians around here.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18  | Next Page >