Search Results

Search found 108518 results on 4341 pages for 'reading source code'.

Page 11/4341 | < Previous Page | 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18  | Next Page >

  • Is commented out code really always bad?

    - by nikie
    Practically every text on code quality I've read agrees that commented out code is a bad thing. The usual example is that someone changed a line of code and left the old line there as a comment, apparently to confuse people who read the code later on. Of course, that's a bad thing. But I often find myself leaving commented out code in another situation: I write a computational-geometry or image processing algorithm. To understand this kind of code, and to find potential bugs in it, it's often very helpful to display intermediate results (e.g. draw a set of points to the screen or save a bitmap file). Looking at these values in the debugger usually means looking at a wall of numbers (coordinates, raw pixel values). Not very helpful. Writing a debugger visualizer every time would be overkill. I don't want to leave the visualization code in the final product (it hurts performance, and usually just confuses the end user), but I don't want to loose it, either. In C++, I can use #ifdef to conditionally compile that code, but I don't see much differnce between this: /* // Debug Visualization: draw set of found interest points for (int i=0; i<count; i++) DrawBox(pts[i].X, pts[i].Y, 5,5); */ and this: #ifdef DEBUG_VISUALIZATION_DRAW_INTEREST_POINTS for (int i=0; i<count; i++) DrawBox(pts[i].X, pts[i].Y, 5,5); #endif So, most of the time, I just leave the visualization code commented out, with a comment saying what is being visualized. When I read the code a year later, I'm usually happy I can just uncomment the visualization code and literally "see what's going on". Should I feel bad about that? Why? Is there a superior solution? Update: S. Lott asks in a comment Are you somehow "over-generalizing" all commented code to include debugging as well as senseless, obsolete code? Why are you making that overly-generalized conclusion? I recently read Robert Glass' "Clean Code", which says: Few practices are as odious as commenting-out code. Don't do this!. I've looked at the paragraph in the book again (p. 68), there's no qualification, no distinction made between different reasons for commenting out code. So I wondered if this rule is over-generalizing (or if I misunderstood the book) or if what I do is bad practice, for some reason I didn't know.

    Read the article

  • If your unit test code "smells" does it really matter?

    - by Buttons840
    Usually I just throw my unit tests together using copy and paste and all kind of other bad practices. The unit tests usually end up looking quite ugly, they're full of "code smell," but does this really matter? I always tell myself as long as the "real" code is "good" that's all that matters. Plus, unit testing usually requires various "smelly hacks" like stubbing functions. How concerned should I be over poorly designed ("smelly") unit tests?

    Read the article

  • What are the strategies to become a good open source developer?

    - by u3050
    I always hear that involving with open source projects is good for career and the more (good) open source you release, the closer you will be to getting your dream job before you've even had an interview.I am expert in Java and I am trying to become fluent in Scala. I always think about getting involved in open source development in Java/Scala but the following confusions stopping me to do so. How/where do I start in open source development projects in GitHub etc? Or How to find active/busy open source development projects? How to find an area where improvement is required or enhancement required in such projects? It looks too complex in the first analysis or its pretty hard to find such opportunities. What are the common strategies to follow if I want to become hobbyist/free time open source developer?People who have experience in open source development please share your learnings/expertise from scratch.Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Pointless Code In Your Source

    - by Ali
    I've heard stories of this from senior coders and I've seen some of it myself. It seems that there are more than a few instances of programmers writing pointless code. I will see things like: Method or function calls that do nothing of value. Redundant checks done in a separate class file, object or method. if statements that always evaluate to true. Threads that spin off and do nothing of note. Just to name a few. I've been told that this is because programmers want to intentionally make the code confusing to raise their own worth to the organization or make sure of repeat business in the case of contractual or outsourced work. My question is. Has anyone else seen code like this? What was your conclusion was to why that code was there? If anyone has written code like this, can you share why?

    Read the article

  • Is there a good Open Source alternative to the commercial software "Quicken"?

    - by Alex R
    I just need good solid double-entry / multi-account transactions with a variety of simple reports. I've previously used Quicken but their file and OS version compatibility issues are a nightmare. I need a software that will have a good chance of still opening the files I create today, several years from now. Quicken has failed me in this regard. So I figure anything that comes with source code is a safer bet.

    Read the article

  • VS 2012 Code Review &ndash; Before Check In OR After Check In?

    - by Tarun Arora
    “Is Code Review Important and Effective?” There is a consensus across the industry that code review is an effective and practical way to collar code inconsistency and possible defects early in the software development life cycle. Among others some of the advantages of code reviews are, Bugs are found faster Forces developers to write readable code (code that can be read without explanation or introduction!) Optimization methods/tricks/productive programs spread faster Programmers as specialists "evolve" faster It's fun “Code review is systematic examination (often known as peer review) of computer source code. It is intended to find and fix mistakes overlooked in the initial development phase, improving both the overall quality of software and the developers' skills. Reviews are done in various forms such as pair programming, informal walkthroughs, and formal inspections.” Wikipedia No where does the definition mention whether its better to review code before the code has been committed to version control or after the commit has been performed. No matter which side you favour, Visual Studio 2012 allows you to request for a code review both before check in and also request for a review after check in. Let’s weigh the pros and cons of the approaches independently. Code Review Before Check In or Code Review After Check In? Approach 1 – Code Review before Check in Developer completes the code and feels the code quality is appropriate for check in to TFS. The developer raises a code review request to have a second pair of eyes validate if the code abides to the recommended best practices, will not result in any defects due to common coding mistakes and whether any optimizations can be made to improve the code quality.                                             Image 1 – code review before check in Pros Everything that gets committed to source control is reviewed. Minimizes the chances of smelly code making its way into the code base. Decreases the cost of fixing bugs, remember, the earlier you find them, the lesser the pain in fixing them. Cons Development Code Freeze – Since the changes aren’t in the source control yet. Further development can only be done off-line. The changes have not been through a CI build, hard to say whether the code abides to all build quality standards. Inconsistent! Cumbersome to track the actual code review process.  Not every change to the code base is worth reviewing, a lot of effort is invested for very little gain. Approach 2 – Code Review after Check in Developer checks in, random code reviews are performed on the checked in code.                                                      Image 2 – Code review after check in Pros The code has already passed the CI build and run through any code analysis plug ins you may have running on the build server. Instruct the developer to ensure ZERO fx cop, style cop and static code analysis before check in. Code is cleaner and smell free even before the code review. No Offline development, developers can continue to develop against the source control. Cons Bad code can easily make its way into the code base. Since the review take place much later in the cycle, the cost of fixing issues can prove to be much higher. Approach 3 – Hybrid Approach The community advocates a more hybrid approach, a blend of tooling and human accountability quotient.                                                               Image 3 – Hybrid Approach 1. Code review high impact check ins. It is not possible to review everything, by setting up code review check in policies you can end up slowing your team. More over, the code that you are reviewing before check in hasn't even been through a green CI build either. 2. Tooling. Let the tooling work for you. By running static analysis, fx cop, style cop and other plug ins on the build agent, you can identify the real issues that in my opinion can't possibly be identified using human reviews. Configure the tooling to report back top 10 issues every day. Mandate the manual code review of individuals who keep making it to this list of shame more often. 3. During Merge. I would prefer eliminating some of the other code issues during merge from Main branch to the release branch. In a scrum project this is still easier because cheery picking the merges is a possibility and the size of code being reviewed is still limited. Let the tooling work for you, if some one breaks the CI build often, put them on a gated check in build course until you see improvement. If some one appears on the top 10 list of shame generated via the build then ensure that all their code is reviewed till you see improvement. At the end of the day, the goal is to ensure that the code being delivered is top quality. By enforcing a code review before any check in, you force the developer to work offline or stay put till the review is complete. What do the experts say? So I asked a few expects what they thought of “Code Review quality gate before Checking in code?" Terje Sandstrom | Microsoft ALM MVP You mean a review quality gate BEFORE checking in code????? That would mean a lot of code staying either local or in shelvesets, and not even been through a CI build, and a green CI build being the main criteria for going further, f.e. to the review state. I would not like code laying around with no checkin’s. Having a requirement that code is checked in small pieces, 4-8 hours work max, and AT LEAST daily checkins, a manual code review comes second down the lane. I would expect review quality gates to happen before merging back to main, or before merging to release.  But that would all be on checked-in code.  Branching is absolutely one way to ease the pain.   Another way we are using is automatic quality builds, running metrics, coverage, static code analysis.  Unfortunately it takes some time, would be great to be on CI’s – but…., so it’s done scheduled every night. Based on this we get, among other stuff,  top 10 lists of suspicious code, which is then subjected to reviews.  If a person seems to be very popular on these top 10 lists, we subject every check in from that person to a review for a period. That normally helps.   None of the clients I have can afford to have every checkin reviewed, so we need to find ways around it. I don’t disagree with the nicety of having all the code reviewed, but I find it hard to find those resources in today’s enterprises. David V. Corbin | Visual Studio ALM Ranger I tend to agree with both sides. I hate having code that is not checked in, but at the same time hate having “bad” code in the repository. I have found that branching is one approach to solving this dilemma. Code is checked into the private/feature branch before the review, but is not merged over to the “official” branch until after the review. I advocate both, depending on circumstance (especially team dynamics)   - The “pre-checkin” is usually for elements that may impact the project as a whole. Think of it as another “gate” along with passing unit tests. - The “post-checkin” may very well not be at the changeset level, but correlates to a review at the “user story” level.   Again, this depends on team dynamics in play…. Robert MacLean | Microsoft ALM MVP I do not think there is no right answer for the industry as a whole. In short the question is why do you do reviews? Your question implies risk mitigation, so in low risk areas you can get away with it after check in while in high risk you need to do it before check in. An example is those new to a team or juniors need it much earlier (maybe that is before checkin, maybe that is soon after) than seniors who have shipped twenty sprints on the team. Abhimanyu Singhal | Visual Studio ALM Ranger Depends on per scenario basis. We recommend post check-in reviews when: 1. We don't want to block other checks and processes on manual code reviews. Manual reviews take time, and some pieces may not require manual reviews at all. 2. We need to trace all changes and track history. 3. We have a code promotion strategy/process in place. For risk mitigation, post checkin code can be promoted to Accepted branches. Or can be rejected. Pre Checkin Reviews are used when 1. There is a high risk factor associated 2. Reviewers are generally (most of times) have immediate availability. 3. Team does not have strict tracking needs. Simply speaking, no single process fits all scenarios. You need to select what works best for your team/project. Thomas Schissler | Visual Studio ALM Ranger This is an interesting discussion, I’m right now discussing details about executing code reviews with my teams. I see and understand the aspects you brought in, but there is another side as well, I’d like to point out. 1.) If you do reviews per check in this is not very practical as a hard rule because this will disturb the flow of the team very often or it will lead to reduce the checkin frequency of the devs which I would not accept. 2.) If you do later reviews, for example if you review PBIs, it is not easy to find out which code you should review. Either you review all changesets associate with the PBI, but then you might review code which has been changed with a later checkin and the dev maybe has already fixed the issue. Or you review the diff of the latest changeset of the PBI with the first but then you might also review changes of other PBIs. Jakob Leander | Sr. Director, Avanade In my experience, manual code review: 1. Does not get done and at the very least does not get redone after changes (regardless of intentions at start of project) 2. When a project actually do it, they often do not do it right away = errors pile up 3. Requires a lot of time discussing/defining the standard and for the team to learn it However code review is very important since e.g. even small memory leaks in a high volume web solution have big consequences In the last years I have advocated following approach for code review - Architects up front do “at least one best practice example” of each type of component and tell the team. Copy from this one. This should include error handling, logging, security etc. - Dev lead on project continuously browse code to validate that the best practices are used. Especially that patterns etc. are not broken. You can do this formally after each sprint/iteration if you want. Once this is validated it is unlikely to “go bad” even during later code changes Agree with customer to rely on static code analysis from Visual Studio as the one and only coding standard. This has HUUGE benefits - You can easily tweak to reach the level you desire together with customer - It is easy to measure for both developers/management - It is 100% consistent across code base - It gets validated all the time so you never end up getting hammered by a customer review in the end - It is easy to tell the developer that you do not want code back unless it has zero errors = minimize communication You need to track this at least during nightly builds and make sure team sees total # issues. Do not allow #issues it to grow uncontrolled. On the project I run I require code analysis to have run on code before checkin (checkin rule). This means -  You have to have clean compile (or CA wont run) so this is extra benefit = very few broken builds - You can change a few of the rules to compile as errors instead of warnings. I often do this for “missing dispose” issues which you REALLY do not want in your app Tip: Place your custom CA rules files as part of solution. That  way it works when you do branching etc. (path to CA file is relative in VS) Some may argue that CA is not as good as manual inspection. But since manual inspection in reality suffers from the 3 issues in start it is IMO a MUCH better (and much cheaper) approach from helicopter perspective Tirthankar Dutta | Director, Avanade I think code review should be run both before and after check ins. There are some code metrics that are meant to be run on the entire codebase … Also, especially on multi-site projects, one should strive to architect in a way that lets men manage the framework while boys write the repetitive code… scales very well with the need to review less by containment and imposing architectural restrictions to emphasise the design. Bruno Capuano | Microsoft ALM MVP For code reviews (means peer reviews) in distributed team I use http://www.vsanywhere.com/default.aspx  David Jobling | Global Sr. Director, Avanade Peer review is the only way to scale and its a great practice for all in the team to learn to perform and accept. In my experience you soon learn who's code to watch more than others and tune the attention. Mikkel Toudal Kristiansen | Manager, Avanade If you have several branches in your code base, you will need to merge often. This requires manual merging, when a file has been changed in both branches. It offers a good opportunity to actually review to changed code. So my advice is: Merging between branches should be done as often as possible, it should be done by a senior developer, and he/she should perform a full code review of the code being merged. As for detecting architectural smells and code smells creeping into the code base, one really good third party tools exist: Ndepend (http://www.ndepend.com/, for static code analysis of the current state of the code base). You could also consider adding StyleCop to the solution. Jesse Houwing | Visual Studio ALM Ranger I gave a presentation on this subject on the TechDays conference in NL last year. See my presentation and slides here (talk in Dutch, but English presentation): http://blog.jessehouwing.nl/2012/03/did-you-miss-my-techdaysnl-talk-on-code.html  I’d like to add a few more points: - Before/After checking is mostly a trust issue. If you have a team that does diligent peer reviews and regularly talk/sit together or peer review, there’s no need to enforce a before-checkin policy. The peer peer-programming and regular feedback during development can take care of most of the review requirements as long as the team isn’t under stress. - Under stress, enforce pre-checkin reviews, it might sound strange, if you’re already under time or budgetary constraints, but it is under such conditions most real issues start to be created or pile up. - Use tools to catch most common errors, Code Analysis/FxCop was already mentioned. HP Fortify, Resharper, Coderush etc can help you there. There are also a lot of 3rd party rules you can add to Code Analysis. I’ve written a few myself (http://fccopcontrib.codeplex.com) and various teams from Microsoft have added their own rules (MSOCAF for SharePoint, WSSF for WCF). For common errors that keep cropping up, see if you can define a rule. It’s much easier. But more importantly make sure you have a good help page explaining *WHY* it's wrong. If you have small feature or developer branches/shelvesets, you might want to review pre-merge. It’s still better to do peer reviews and peer programming, but the most important thing is that bad quality code doesn’t make it into the important branch. So my philosophy: - Use tooling as much as possible. - Make sure the team understands the tooling and the importance of the things it flags. It’s too easy to just click suppress all to ignore the warnings. - Under stress, tighten process, it’s under stress that the problems of late reviews will really surface - Most importantly if you do reviews do them as early as possible, but never later than needed. In other words, pre-checkin/post checking doesn’t really matter, as long as the review is done before the code is released. It’ll just be much more expensive to fix any review outcomes the later you find them. --- I would love to hear what you think!

    Read the article

  • remove duplicate source entry [closed]

    - by yosa
    Possible Duplicate: Duplicate sources.list entry but cannot find the duplicates? This is my source.list and seems fine to me # deb cdrom:[Ubuntu 12.04 LTS _Precise Pangolin_ - Release amd64 (20120425)]/ precise main restricted # deb cdrom:[Ubuntu 12.04 LTS _Precise Pangolin_ - Release amd64 (20120425)]/ dists/precise/restricted/binary-i386/ # deb cdrom:[Ubuntu 12.04 LTS _Precise Pangolin_ - Release amd64 (20120425)]/ dists/precise/main/binary-i386/ # deb cdrom:[Ubuntu 11.10]/ natty main restricted # deb cdrom:[Ubuntu 11.04 _Natty Narwhal_ - Release i386 (20110427.1)]/ natty main restricted # deb cdrom:[Ubuntu 11.10 _Oneiric Ocelot_ - Release amd64 (20111012)]/ dists/oneiric/main/binary-i386/ # deb cdrom:[Ubuntu 11.10 _Oneiric Ocelot_ - Release amd64 (20111012)]/ oneiric main restricted # See http://help.ubuntu.com/community/UpgradeNotes for how to upgrade to # newer versions of the distribution. deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise main restricted ## Major bug fix updates produced after the final release of the ## distribution. ## N.B. software from this repository is ENTIRELY UNSUPPORTED by the Ubuntu ## team. Also, please note that software in universe WILL NOT receive any ## review or updates from the Ubuntu security team. deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise universe ## N.B. software from this repository is ENTIRELY UNSUPPORTED by the Ubuntu ## team, and may not be under a free licence. Please satisfy yourself as to ## your rights to use the software. Also, please note that software in ## multiverse WILL NOT receive any review or updates from the Ubuntu ## security team. deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise multiverse ## Uncomment the following two lines to add software from the 'backports' ## repository. ## N.B. software from this repository may not have been tested as ## extensively as that contained in the main release, although it includes ## newer versions of some applications which may provide useful features. ## Also, please note that software in backports WILL NOT receive any review ## or updates from the Ubuntu security team. # deb-src http://ma.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ natty-backports main restricted universe multiverse ## Uncomment the following two lines to add software from Canonical's ## 'partner' repository. ## This software is not part of Ubuntu, but is offered by Canonical and the ## respective vendors as a service to Ubuntu users. deb http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu precise partner # deb-src http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu natty partner ## This software is not part of Ubuntu, but is offered by third-party ## developers who want to ship their latest software. deb http://extras.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise main deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise-updates restricted main multiverse universe deb http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ precise-security restricted main multiverse universe deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise main universe deb-src http://extras.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise main # See http://help.ubuntu.com/community/UpgradeNotes for how to upgrade to # newer versions of the distribution. deb-src http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise main restricted ## Major bug fix updates produced after the final release of the ## distribution. deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise-updates restricted deb-src http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise-updates main restricted ## N.B. software from this repository is ENTIRELY UNSUPPORTED by the Ubuntu ## team. Also, please note that software in universe WILL NOT receive any ## review or updates from the Ubuntu security team. deb-src http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise universe deb-src http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise-updates universe ## N.B. software from this repository is ENTIRELY UNSUPPORTED by the Ubuntu ## team, and may not be under a free licence. Please satisfy yourself as to ## your rights to use the software. Also, please note that software in ## multiverse WILL NOT receive any review or updates from the Ubuntu ## security team. deb-src http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise multiverse deb-src http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise-updates multiverse ## N.B. software from this repository may not have been tested as ## extensively as that contained in the main release, although it includes ## newer versions of some applications which may provide useful features. ## Also, please note that software in backports WILL NOT receive any review ## or updates from the Ubuntu security team. deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise-backports main restricted universe multiverse deb-src http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise-backports main restricted universe multiverse deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise-security main restricted deb-src http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise-security main restricted deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise-security universe deb-src http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise-security universe deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise-security multiverse deb-src http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise-security multiverse ## Uncomment the following two lines to add software from Canonical's ## 'partner' repository. ## This software is not part of Ubuntu, but is offered by Canonical and the ## respective vendors as a service to Ubuntu users. # deb http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu oneiric partner # deb-src http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu oneiric partner ## This software is not part of Ubuntu, but is offered by third-party ## developers who want to ship their latest software. # See http://help.ubuntu.com/community/UpgradeNotes for how to upgrade to # newer versions of the distribution. ## Major bug fix updates produced after the final release of the ## distribution. ## N.B. software from this repository is ENTIRELY UNSUPPORTED by the Ubuntu ## team. Also, please note that software in universe WILL NOT receive any ## review or updates from the Ubuntu security team. ## N.B. software from this repository is ENTIRELY UNSUPPORTED by the Ubuntu ## team, and may not be under a free licence. Please satisfy yourself as to ## your rights to use the software. Also, please note that software in ## multiverse WILL NOT receive any review or updates from the Ubuntu ## security team. ## N.B. software from this repository may not have been tested as ## extensively as that contained in the main release, although it includes ## newer versions of some applications which may provide useful features. ## Also, please note that software in backports WILL NOT receive any review ## or updates from the Ubuntu security team. ## Uncomment the following two lines to add software from Canonical's ## 'partner' repository. ## This software is not part of Ubuntu, but is offered by Canonical and the ## respective vendors as a service to Ubuntu users. # deb http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu precise partner # deb-src http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu precise partner ## This software is not part of Ubuntu, but is offered by third-party ## developers who want to ship their latest software. # deb http://packages.dotdeb.org stable all # deb-src http://packages.dotdeb.org stable all # deb http://ppa.launchpad.net/bean123ch/burg/ubuntu lucid main # deb-src http://ppa.launchpad.net/bean123ch/burg/ubuntu lucid main this is the error given by apt-get update which stops at 64% reading W: Duplicate sources.list entry http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ precise/main amd64 Packages (/var/lib/apt/lists/archive.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_precise_main_binary-amd64_Packages) W: Duplicate sources.list entry http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ precise/universe amd64 Packages (/var/lib/apt/lists/archive.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_precise_universe_binary-amd64_Packages) W: Duplicate sources.list entry http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ precise/main i386 Packages (/var/lib/apt/lists/archive.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_precise_main_binary-i386_Packages) W: Duplicate sources.list entry http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ precise/universe i386 Packages (/var/lib/apt/lists/archive.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_precise_universe_binary-i386_Packages) W: Duplicate sources.list entry http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ precise-updates/restricted amd64 Packages (/var/lib/apt/lists/archive.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_precise-updates_restricted_binary-amd64_Packages) W: Duplicate sources.list entry http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ precise-updates/restricted i386 Packages (/var/lib/apt/lists/archive.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_precise-updates_restricted_binary-i386_Packages)

    Read the article

  • Web Apps for Source Code Discussion

    - by Wilco
    Are there any web apps that allow for source code collaboration? I'm thinking of something that could look at an SVN repo/local folder/etc. and publish the code with support for threaded discussions under each file or class. Ideally I want to find something that I could deploy/host myself, so being based in PHP would be a huge plus.

    Read the article

  • Design Code Outside of an IDE (C#)?

    - by ryanzec
    Does anyone design code outside of an IDE? I think that code design is great and all but the only place I find myself actually design code (besides in my head) is in the IDE itself. I generally think about it a little before hand but when I go to type it out, it is always in the IDE; no UML or anything like that. Now I think having UML of your code is really good because you are able to see a lot more of the code on one screen however the issue I have is that once I type it in UML, I then have to type the actual code and that is just a big duplicate for me. For those who work with C# and design code outside of Visual Studio (or at least outside Visual Studio's text editor), what tools do you use? Do those tools allow you to convert your design to actual skeleton code? It is also possible to convert code to the design (when you update the code and need an updated UML diagram or whatnot)?

    Read the article

  • What is the minimal licensable source code?

    - by Hernán Eche
    Let's suppose I want to "protect" this code about being used without attribution, patenting it, or through any open source licence... #include<stdio.h> int main (void) { int version=2; printf("\r\n.Hello world, ver:(%d).", version); return 0; } It's a little obvious or just a language definition example.. When a source stop being "trivial, banal, commonplace, obvious", and start to be something that you may claim "rights"? Perhaps it depends on who read it, something that could be great geniality for someone that have never programmed, could be just obvious for an expert. It's easy when watching two sources there are 10000 same lines of code, that's a theft.. but that's not always so obvious. How to measure amount of "ownness", it's about creativity? line numbers? complexity? I can't imagine objetive answers for that, only some patches. For example perhaps the complexity, It's not fair to replace "years of engeneering" with "copy and paste". But is there any objetive index for objetive determination of this subject? (In a funny way I imagine this criterion: If the licence is longer than the code, then there is no owner, just to punish not caring storage space and world resources =P)

    Read the article

  • How can a code editor effectively hint at code nesting level - without using indentation?

    - by pgfearo
    I've written an XML text editor that provides 2 view options for the same XML text, one indented (virtually), the other left-justified. The motivation for the left-justified view is to help users 'see' the whitespace characters they're using for indentation of plain-text or XPath code without interference from indentation that is an automated side-effect of the XML context. I want to provide visual clues (in the non-editable part of the editor) for the left-justified mode that will help the user, but without getting too elaborate. I tried just using connecting lines, but that seemed too busy. The best I've come up with so far is shown in a mocked up screenshot of the editor below, but I'm seeking better/simpler alternatives (that don't require too much code). [Edit] Taking the heatmap idea (from: @jimp) I get this and 3 alternatives - labelled a, b and c: The following section describes the accepted answer as a proposal, bringing together ideas from a number of other answers and comments. As this question is now community wiki, please feel free to update this. NestView The name for this idea which provides a visual method to improve the readability of nested code without using indentation. Contour Lines The name for the differently shaded lines within the NestView The image above shows the NestView used to help visualise an XML snippet. Though XML is used for this illustration, any other code syntax that uses nesting could have been used for this illustration. An Overview: The contour lines are shaded (as in a heatmap) to convey nesting level The contour lines are angled to show when a nesting level is being either opened or closed. A contour line links the start of a nesting level to the corresponding end. The combined width of contour lines give a visual impression of nesting level, in addition to the heatmap. The width of the NestView may be manually resizable, but should not change as the code changes. Contour lines can either be compressed or truncated to keep acheive this. Blank lines are sometimes used code to break up text into more digestable chunks. Such lines could trigger special behaviour in the NestView. For example the heatmap could be reset or a background color contour line used, or both. One or more contour lines associated with the currently selected code can be highlighted. The contour line associated with the selected code level would be emphasized the most, but other contour lines could also 'light up' in addition to help highlight the containing nested group Different behaviors (such as code folding or code selection) can be associated with clicking/double-clicking on a Contour Line. Different parts of a contour line (leading, middle or trailing edge) may have different dynamic behaviors associated. Tooltips can be shown on a mouse hover event over a contour line The NestView is updated continously as the code is edited. Where nesting is not well-balanced assumptions can be made where the nesting level should end, but the associated temporary contour lines must be highlighted in some way as a warning. Drag and drop behaviors of Contour Lines can be supported. Behaviour may vary according to the part of the contour line being dragged. Features commonly found in the left margin such as line numbering and colour highlighting for errors and change state could overlay the NestView. Additional Functionality The proposal addresses a range of additional issues - many are outside the scope of the original question, but a useful side-effect. Visually linking the start and end of a nested region The contour lines connect the start and end of each nested level Highlighting the context of the currently selected line As code is selected, the associated nest-level in the NestView can be highlighted Differentiating between code regions at the same nesting level In the case of XML different hues could be used for different namespaces. Programming languages (such as c#) support named regions that could be used in a similar way. Dividing areas within a nesting area into different visual blocks Extra lines are often inserted into code to aid readability. Such empty lines could be used to reset the saturation level of the NestView's contour lines. Multi-Column Code View Code without indentation makes the use of a multi-column view more effective because word-wrap or horizontal scrolling is less likely to be required. In this view, once code has reach the bottom of one column, it flows into the next one: Usage beyond merely providing a visual aid As proposed in the overview, the NestView could provide a range of editing and selection features which would be broadly in line with what is expected from a TreeView control. The key difference is that a typical TreeView node has 2 parts: an expander and the node icon. A NestView contour line can have as many as 3 parts: an opener (sloping), a connector (vertical) and a close (sloping). On Indentation The NestView presented alongside non-indented code complements, but is unlikely to replace, the conventional indented code view. It's likely that any solutions adopting a NestView, will provide a method to switch seamlessly between indented and non-indented code views without affecting any of the code text itself - including whitespace characters. One technique for the indented view would be 'Virtual Formatting' - where a dynamic left-margin is used in lieu of tab or space characters. The same nesting-level data used to dynamically render the NestView could also used for the more conventional-looking indented view. Printing Indentation will be important for the readability of printed code. Here, the absence of tab/space characters and a dynamic left-margin means that the text can wrap at the right-margin and still maintain the integrity of the indented view. Line numbers can be used as visual markers that indicate where code is word-wrapped and also the exact position of indentation: Screen Real-Estate: Flat Vs Indented Addressing the question of whether the NestView uses up valuable screen real-estate: Contour lines work well with a width the same as the code editor's character width. A NestView width of 12 character widths can therefore accommodate 12 levels of nesting before contour lines are truncated/compressed. If an indented view uses 3 character-widths for each nesting level then space is saved until nesting reaches 4 levels of nesting, after this nesting level the flat view has a space-saving advantage that increases with each nesting level. Note: A minimum indentation of 4 character widths is often recommended for code, however XML often manages with less. Also, Virtual Formatting permits less indentation to be used because there's no risk of alignment issues A comparison of the 2 views is shown below: Based on the above, its probably fair to conclude that view style choice will be based on factors other than screen real-estate. The one exception is where screen space is at a premium, for example on a Netbook/Tablet or when multiple code windows are open. In these cases, the resizable NestView would seem to be a clear winner. Use Cases Examples of real-world examples where NestView may be a useful option: Where screen real-estate is at a premium a. On devices such as tablets, notepads and smartphones b. When showing code on websites c. When multiple code windows need to be visible on the desktop simultaneously Where consistent whitespace indentation of text within code is a priority For reviewing deeply nested code. For example where sub-languages (e.g. Linq in C# or XPath in XSLT) might cause high levels of nesting. Accessibility Resizing and color options must be provided to aid those with visual impairments, and also to suit environmental conditions and personal preferences: Compatability of edited code with other systems A solution incorporating a NestView option should ideally be capable of stripping leading tab and space characters (identified as only having a formatting role) from imported code. Then, once stripped, the code could be rendered neatly in both the left-justified and indented views without change. For many users relying on systems such as merging and diff tools that are not whitespace-aware this will be a major concern (if not a complete show-stopper). Other Works: Visualisation of Overlapping Markup Published research by Wendell Piez, dated from 2004, addresses the issue of the visualisation of overlapping markup, specifically LMNL. This includes SVG graphics with significant similarities to the NestView proposal, as such, they are acknowledged here. The visual differences are clear in the images (below), the key functional distinction is that NestView is intended only for well-nested XML or code, whereas Wendell Piez's graphics are designed to represent overlapped nesting. The graphics above were reproduced - with kind permission - from http://www.piez.org Sources: Towards Hermenutic Markup Half-steps toward LMNL

    Read the article

  • How can I download the source code for linux-image-3.2.0-24-generic?

    - by keepitsimpleengineer
    The directions at Ubuntu Wiki apt-get source linux-image-$(uname -r) and askubuntu question Where can I find the source code for the Ubuntu Kernel? don't work… sudouser@64bitws:~# uname -r 3.2.0-24-generic and sudouser@64bitws:~# apt-get source linux-image-3.2.0-24-generic Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done Picking 'linux' as source package instead of 'linux-image-3.2.0-24-generic' E: Unable to find a source package for linux

    Read the article

  • What are some reasonable arguments in favor of closed source software? [closed]

    - by Goma
    I like a technology (including programming language) but its platform is closed sourece and many times I meet people who ask me, "why do you use a closed source platform, why not use an open source alternative? If there is something wrong it should be with the closed source not with the open source, (as they say)". Actually I don't know how to answer their question. Could anyone tell me a good answer? Why do you use a closed source platform?

    Read the article

  • How can I download the source code for linux-image-3.2.0-*-generic?

    - by keepitsimpleengineer
    The directions at Ubuntu Wiki apt-get source linux-image-$(uname -r) and askubuntu question Where can I find the source code for the Ubuntu Kernel? don't work… sudouser@64bitws:~# uname -r 3.2.0-24-generic and sudouser@64bitws:~# apt-get source linux-image-3.2.0-24-generic Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done Picking 'linux' as source package instead of 'linux-image-3.2.0-24-generic' E: Unable to find a source package for linux

    Read the article

  • How should code reviews be Carried Out?

    - by Graviton
    My previous question has to do with how to advance code reviews among the developers. Here I am interested in how a code review session should be carried out, so that both the reviewer and reviewed are feeling comfortable with it. I have done some code reviews before and the experience has been very unpleasant. My previous manager would come to us --on an ad hoc basis-- and tell us to explain our code to him. Since he wasn't very familiar with the code base, whenever he would ask me to explain my code, I'd find myself spending a huge amount of time explaining the most basic structure of my code. As a result, each review would last much too long, and the process would leave both of us exhausted. Once I was done explaining my work, he would continue by raising issues with it. Most of the issues he raised were cosmetic in nature ( e.g, don't use region for this code block, change the variable name from xxx to yyy even though the later makes even less sense, and so on). After trying this process for few rounds, we found the review session didn't derive much benefits for either of us, and we stopped. How would you go about making each code review a natural, enjoyable, thought stimulating, bug-fixing and mutual-learning experience? Also, how frequently you do your code reviews - as soon as the code is checked in? Do you allocate a fixed time every week to do this? What are the guidelines that you follow during your code reviews?

    Read the article

  • Is there an alternative to Google Code Search?

    - by blunders
    Per the Official Google Blog: Code Search, which was designed to help people search for open source code all over the web, will be shut down along with the Code Search API on January 15, 2012. Google Code Search is now gone, and since that makes it much harder to understand the features it presented, here's my attempt to render them via information I gathered from a cache of the page for the Search Options: The "In Search Box" just notes the syntax to type the command directly in the main search box instead of using the advance search interface. Package (In Search Box: "package:linux-2.6") Language (In Search Box: "lang:c++") (OPTIONS: any language, actionscript, ada, applescript, asp, assembly, autoconf, automake, awk, basic, bat, c, c#, c++, caja, cobol, coldfusion, configure, css, d, eiffel, erlang, fortran, go, haskell, inform, java, java, javascript, jsp, lex, limbo, lisp, lolcode, lua, m4, makefile, maple, mathematica, matlab, messagecatalog, modula2, modula3, objectivec, ocaml, pascal, perl, php, pod, prolog, proto, python, python, r, rebol, ruby, sas, scheme, scilab, sgml, shell, smalltalk, sml, sql, svg, tcl, tex, texinfo, troff, verilog, vhdl, vim, xslt, xul, yacc) File (In Search Box: "file:^.*.java$") Class (In Search Box: "class:HashMap") Function (In Search Box: "function:toString") License (In Search Box: "license:mozilla") (OPTIONS: null/any-license, aladdin/Aladdin-Public-License, artistic/Artistic-License, apache/Apache-License, apple/Apple-Public-Source-License, bsd/BSD-License, cpl/Common-Public-License, epl/Eclipse-Public-License, agpl/GNU-Affero-General-Public-License, gpl/GNU-General-Public-License, lgpl/GNU-Lesser-General-Public-License, disclaimer/Historical-Permission-Notice-and-Disclaimer, ibm/IBM-Public-License, lucent/Lucent-Public-License, mit/MIT-License, mozilla/Mozilla-Public-License, nasa/NASA-Open-Source-Agreement, python/Python-Software-Foundation-License, qpl/Q-Public-License, sleepycat/Sleepycat-License, zope/Zope-Public-License) Case Sensitive (In Search Box: "case:no") (OPTIONS: yes, no) Also of use in understanding the search tool would be the still live FAQs page for Google Code Search. Is there any code search engine that would fully replace Google Code Search's features?

    Read the article

  • How to Install vaio-control-center from source?

    - by KasiyA
    I have a problem about turning off keyboard backlight that I asked here with no useful answers. After searching on internet I find a package for vaio control center and downloaded it from here, I don't know how to install it. This is the output of trying one solution: USER@XXXXpc:~/vaio-control-center-0.1$ ls compile Makefile run vaio-control-center vcc COPYING moc_main_window.cpp ui_main_window.h vaio-control-center.pro USER@XXXXpc:~/vaio-control-center-0.1$ ./compile make: *** No rule to make target `/usr/share/qt/mkspecs/linux-g++-64/qmake.conf', needed by `Makefile'. Stop. USER@XXXXpc:~/vaio-control-center-0.1$ ./run ./run: 3: ./run: ./vaio-control-center: not found USER@XXXXpc:~/vaio-control-center-0.1$ Updated I tried also with @pandya's suggestion from here. and the output is as follows: root@user-pc:/# cd /home/user/vaio-f11-linux.control-center root@user-pc:/home/user/vaio-f11-linux.control-center# ls compile COPYING resource.qrc run sony-acpid vaio-control-center.pro vcc root@user-pc:/home/user/vaio-f11-linux.control-center# ./compile -su: ./compile: Permission denied root@user-pc:/home/user/vaio-f11-linux.control-center# sudo ./compile sudo: ./compile: command not found root@user-pc:/home/user/vaio-f11-linux.control-center# gksudo ./compile root@user-pc:/home/user/vaio-f11-linux.control-center# <----- nothing happened here root@user-pc:/home/user/vaio-f11-linux.control-center# ./run -su: ./run: Permission denied root@user-pc:/home/user/vaio-f11-linux.control-center# sudo ./run sudo: ./run: command not found root@user-pc:/home/user/vaio-f11-linux.control-center# gksudo ./run root@user-pc:/home/user/vaio-f11-linux.control-center# <----- nothing happened here root@user-pc:/home/user/vaio-f11-linux.control-center# and after running that I didn't see any affect on keyboard backlight.

    Read the article

  • Interesting/Innovative Open Source tools for indie games

    - by Gastón
    Just out of curiosity, I want to know opensource tools or projects that can add some interesting features to indie games, preferably those that could only be found on big-budget games. EDIT: As suggested by The Communist Duck and Joe Wreschnig, I'm putting the examples as answers. EDIT 2: Please do not post tools like PyGame, Inkscape, Gimp, Audacity, Slick2D, Phys2D, Blender (except for interesting plugins) and the like. I know they are great tools/libraries and some would argue essential to develop good games, but I'm looking for more rare projects. Could be something really specific or niche, like generating realistic trees and plants, or realistic AI for animals.

    Read the article

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