Search Results

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

Page 111/268 | < Previous Page | 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118  | Next Page >

  • What should I use to increase performance. View/Query/Temporary Table

    - by Shantanu Gupta
    I want to know the performance of using Views, Temp Tables and Direct Queries Usage in a Stored Procedure. I have a table that gets created every time when a trigger gets fired. I know this trigger will be fired very rare and only once at the time of setup. Now I have to use that created table from triggers at many places for fetching data and I confirms it that no one make any changes in that table. i.e ReadOnly Table. I have to use this tables data along with multiple tables to join and fetch result for further queries say select * from triggertable By Using temp table select ... into #tx from triggertable join t2 join t3 and so on select a,b, c from #tx --do something select d,e,f from #tx ---do somethign --and so on --around 6-7 queries in a row in a stored procedure. By Using Views create view viewname ( select ... from triggertable join t2 join t3 and so on ) select a,b, c from viewname --do something select d,e,f from viewname ---do somethign --and so on --around 6-7 queries in a row in a stored procedure. This View can be used in other places as well. So I will be creating at database rather than at sp By Using Direct Query select a,b, c from select ... into #tx from triggertable join t2 join t3 join ... --do something select a,b, c from select ... into #tx from triggertable join t2 join t3 join ... --do something . . --and so on --around 6-7 queries in a row in a stored procedure. Now I can create a view/temporary table/ directly query usage in all upcoming queries. What would be the best to use in this case.

    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

  • Technical non-terminating condition in a loop

    - by Snarfblam
    Most of us know that a loop should not have a non-terminating condition. For example, this C# loop has a non-terminating condition: any even value of i. This is an obvious logic error. void CountByTwosStartingAt(byte i) { // If i is even, it never exceeds 254 for(; i < 255; i += 2) { Console.WriteLine(i); } } Sometimes there are edge cases that are extremely unlikeley, but technically constitute non-exiting conditions (stack overflows and out-of-memory errors aside). Suppose you have a function that counts the number of sequential zeros in a stream: int CountZeros(Stream s) { int total = 0; while(s.ReadByte() == 0) total++; return total; } Now, suppose you feed it this thing: class InfiniteEmptyStream:Stream { // ... Other members ... public override int Read(byte[] buffer, int offset, int count) { Array.Clear(buffer, offset, count); // Output zeros return count; // Never returns -1 (end of stream) } } Or more realistically, maybe a stream that returns data from external hardware, which in certain cases might return lots of zeros (such as a game controller sitting on your desk). Either way we have an infinite loop. This particular non-terminating condition stands out, but sometimes they don't. A completely real-world example as in an app I'm writing. An endless stream of zeros will be deserialized into infinite "empty" objects (until the collection class or GC throws an exception because I've exceeded two billion items). But this would be a completely unexpected circumstance (considering my data source). How important is it to have absolutely no non-terminating conditions? How much does this affect "robustness?" Does it matter if they are only "theoretically" non-terminating (is it okay if an exception represents an implicit terminating condition)? Does it matter whether the app is commercial? If it is publicly distributed? Does it matter if the problematic code is in no way accessible through a public interface/API? Edit: One of the primary concerns I have is unforseen logic errors that can create the non-terminating condition. If, as a rule, you ensure there are no non-terminating conditions, you can identify or handle these logic errors more gracefully, but is it worth it? And when? This is a concern orthogonal to trust.

    Read the article

  • Comparing objects and inheritance

    - by ereOn
    Hi, In my program I have the following class hierarchy: class Base // Base is an abstract class { }; class A : public Base { }; class B : public Base { }; I would like to do the following: foo(const Base& one, const Base& two) { if (one == two) { // Do something } else { // Do something else } } I have issues regarding the operator==() here. Of course comparing an instance A and an instance of B makes no sense but comparing two instances of Base should be possible. (You can't compare a Dog and a Cat however you can compare two Animals) I would like the following results: A == B = false A == A = true or false, depending on the effective value of the two instances B == B = true or false, depending on the effective value of the two instances My question is: is this a good design/idea ? Is this even possible ? What functions should I write/overload ? My apologies if the question is obviously stupid or easy, I have some serious fever right now and my thinking abilities are somewhat limited :/ Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Is it better to adopt the same technologies used at work to be effective on your home projects ?

    - by systempuntoout
    Is it better to start developing an home project using the same technologies used at work to be more productive and effective? I'm not talking about a simple hello world web page but an home project with all bells and whistles that one day, maybe, you could sell on internet. This dilemma is often subject of flames between me and a friend. He thinks that if you want to make a great home-made project you need to use the same technologies used daily at work staying in the same scope too; for example, a c++ computer game programmer should develope an home-made c++ game. I'm pretty sure that developing using the same technologies used at work can be more productive at beginning, but surely less exciting and stimulating of working with other languages\ides\libraries out of your daily job. What's your opinion about that?

    Read the article

  • Why do I need to give my options a value attribute in my dropdown? JQuery.

    - by Alex
    So far in my web developing experiences, I've noticed that almost all web developers/designers choose to give their options in a select a value like so: <select name="foo"> <option value="bar">BarCheese</option> // etc. // etc. </select> Is this because it is best practice to do so? I ask this because I have done a lot of work with jQuery and dropdown's lately, and sometimes I get really annoyed when I have to check something like: $('select[name=foo]').val() == "bar"); To me, many times that seems less clear than just being able to check the val() against BarCheese. So why is it that most web developers/designers specify a value paramater instead of just letting the options actual value be its value?

    Read the article

  • In which controller do you put the CRUD for the child part of a relationship?

    - by uriDium
    I am using ASP.Net MVC but this probably applies to all MVC patterns in general. My problem, for example I have companies and in each company I have a list of contacts. When I have selected a company I can see its details and a list of the contacts for that company. When I want to add a new contact for that company, should the implementation of that action go into the company controller as an "AddContact" action or should it go into the contact controller into a "New" action and we pass the Company ID in the URL? What is the usual way of dealing with this sort of thing in ASP.Net MVC? Is there a better stategy?

    Read the article

  • why copy and paste codes is dangerous

    - by Yigang Wu
    sometimes, my boss will complain us why we need so long time to implement a feature, actually, the feature has been implemented in other AP before, you just need to copy and paste codes from there. The cost should be low. It's really a hard question, because copy and paste codes is not a easy thing from my point. Do you have any good reason to explain your boss who doesn't know technology?

    Read the article

  • Why is Visual Basic used?

    - by Arrieta
    I don't mean to start a holy war here, but I cannot fathom why would anybody use Visual Basic for a new project. Can you explain me why is it used? What new applications (which a lay person may be familiar with) have been developed in it? Why is it chosen over other languages? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Where do you put your unit test?

    - by soulmerge
    I have found several conventions to housekeeping unit tests in a project and I'm not sure which approach would be suitable for our next PHP project. I am trying to find the best convention to encourage easy development and accessibility of the tests when reviewing the source code. I would be very interested in your experience/opinion regarding each: One folder for productive code, another for unit tests: This separates unit tests from the logic files of the project. This separation of concerns is as much a nuisance as it is an advantage: Someone looking into the source code of the project will - so I suppose - either browse the implementation or the unit tests (or more commonly: the implementation only). The advantage of unit tests being another viewpoint to your classes is lost - those two viewpoints are just too far apart IMO. Annotated test methods: Any modern unit testing framework I know allows developers to create dedicated test methods, annotating them (@test) and embedding them in the project code. The big drawback I see here is that the project files get cluttered. Even if these methods are separated using a comment header (like UNIT TESTS below this line) it just bloats the class unnecessarily. Test files within the same folders as the implementation files: Our file naming convention dictates that PHP files containing classes (one class per file) should end with .class.php. I could imagine that putting unit tests regarding a class file into another one ending on .test.php would render the tests much more present to other developers without tainting the class. Although it bloats the project folders, instead of the implementation files, this is my favorite so far, but I have my doubts: I would think others have come up with this already, and discarded this option for some reason (i.e. I have not seen a java project with the files Foo.java and FooTest.java within the same folder.) Maybe it's because java developers make heavier use of IDEs that allow them easier access to the tests, whereas in PHP no big editors have emerged (like eclipse for java) - many devs I know use vim/emacs or similar editors with little support for PHP development per se. What is your experience with any of these unit test placements? Do you have another convention I haven't listed here? Or am I just overrating unit test accessibility to reviewers?

    Read the article

  • Using a message class static method taking in an action to wrap Try/Catch

    - by Chris Marisic
    I have a Result object that lets me pass around a List of event messages and I can check whether an action was successful or not. I've realized I've written this code in alot of places Result result; try { //Do Something ... //New result is automatically a success for not having any errors in it result = new Result(); } catch (Exception exception) { //Extension method that returns a Result from the exception result = exception.ToResult(); } if(result.Success) .... What I'm considering is replacing this usage with public static Result CatchException(Action action) { try { action(); return new Result(); } catch (Exception exception) { return exception.ToResult(); } } And then use it like var result = Result.CatchException(() => _model.Save(something)); Does anyone feel there's anything wrong with this or that I'm trading reusability for obscurity?

    Read the article

  • Using typedefs (or #defines) on built in types - any sensible reason?

    - by jb
    Well I'm doing some Java - C integration, and throught C library werid type mappings are used (theres more of them;)): #define CHAR char /* 8 bit signed int */ #define SHORT short /* 16 bit signed int */ #define INT int /* "natural" length signed int */ #define LONG long /* 32 bit signed int */ typedef unsigned char BYTE; /* 8 bit unsigned int */ typedef unsigned char UCHAR; /* 8 bit unsigned int */ typedef unsigned short USHORT; /* 16 bit unsigned int */ typedef unsigned int UINT; /* "natural" length unsigned int*/ Is there any legitimate reason not to use them? It's not like char is going to be redefined anytime soon. I can think of: Writing platform/compiler portable code (size of type is underspecified in C/C++) Saving space and time on embedded systems - if you loop over array shorter than 255 on 8bit microprocessor writing: for(uint8_t ii = 0; ii < len; ii++) will give meaureable speedup.

    Read the article

  • Find recipes that can be cooked from provided ingridients

    - by skaurus
    Sorry for bad English :( Suppose i can preliminary organize recipes and ingredients data in any way. How can i effectively conduct search of recipes by user-provided ingredients, preferably sorted by max match - so, first going recipes that use maximum of provided ingridients and do not contain any other ingrs, after them recipes that uses less of provided set and still not any other ingrs, after them recipes with minimum additional requirements and so on? All i can think about is represent recipe ingridients like bitmasks, and compare required bitmask with all recipes, but it is obviously a bad way to go. And related things like Levenstein distance i don't see how to use here. I believe it should be quite common task...

    Read the article

  • Is it weird or strange to make multiple WCF Calls to build a ViewModel before presenting it?

    - by Nate Bross
    Am I doing something wrong if I need code like this in a Controller? Should I be doing something differently? public ActionResult Details(int id) { var svc = new ServiceClient(); var model = new MyViewModel(); model.ObjectA = svc.GetObjectA(id); model.ObjectB = svc.GetObjectB(id); model.ObjectC = svc.GetObjectC(id); return View(model); } The reason I ask, is because I've got Linq-To-Sql on the back end and a WCF Service which exposes functionality through a set of DTOs which are NOT the Linq-To-Sql generated classes and thus do not have the parent/child properties; but in the detail view, I would like to see some of the parent/child data.

    Read the article

  • Getting up to speed on modern architecture

    - by Matt Thrower
    Hi, I don't have any formal qualifications in computer science, rather I taught myself classic ASP back in the days of the dotcom boom and managed to get myself a job and my career developed from there. I was a confident and, I think, pretty good programmer in ASP 3 but as others have observed one of the problems with classic ASP was that it did a very good job of hiding the nitty-gritty of http so you could become quite competent as a programmer on the basis of relatively poor understanding of the technology you were working with. When I changed on to .NET at first I treated it like classic ASP, developing stand-alone applications as individual websites simply because I didn't know any better at the time. I moved jobs at this point and spent the next several years working on a single site whose architecture relied heavily on custom objects: in other words I gained a lot of experience working with .NET as a middle-tier development tool using a quite old-fashioned approach to OO design along the lines of the classic "car" class example that's so often used to teach OO. Breaking down programs into blocks of functionality and basing your classes and methods around that. Although we worked under an Agile approach to manage the work the whole setup was classic client/server stuff. That suited me and I gradually got to grips with .NET and started using it far more in the manner that it should be, and I began to see the power inherent in the technology and precisely why it was so much better than good old ASP 3. In my latest job I have found myself suddenly dropped in at the deep end with two quite young, skilled and very cutting-edge programmers. They've built a site architecture which is modelling along a lot of stuff which is new to me and which, in truth I'm having a lot of trouble understanding. The application is built on a cloud computing model with multi-tenancy and the architecture is all loosely coupled using a lot of interfaces, factories and the like. They use nHibernate a lot too. Shortly after I joined, both these guys left and I'm now supposedly the senior developer on a system whose technology and architecture I don't really understand and I have no-one to ask questions of. Except you, the internet. Frankly I feel like I've been pitched in at the deep end and I'm sinking. I'm not sure if this is because I lack the educational background to understand this stuff, if I'm simply not mathematically minded enough for modern computing (my maths was never great - my approach to design is often to simply debug until it works, then refactor until it looks neat), or whether I've simply been presented with too much of too radical a nature at once. But the only way to find out which it is is to try and learn it. So can anyone suggest some good places to start? Good books, tutorials or blogs? I've found a lot of internet material simply presupposes a level of understanding that I just don't have. Your advice is much appreciated. Help a middle-aged, stuck in the mud developer get enthusastic again! Please!

    Read the article

  • highlite text parts with jquery, best practice

    - by helle
    Hey guys, i have a list of items containig names. then i have a eventlistener, which ckecks for keypress event. if the user types i.g. an A all names starting with an A should be viewed with the A bold. so all starting As should be bold. what is the best way using jquery to highlite only a part of a string? thanks for your help

    Read the article

  • How to differentiate between exceptions i can show the user, and ones i can't?

    - by Ian Boyd
    i have some business logic that traps some logically invalid situations, e.g. trying to reverse a transaction that was already reversed. In this case the correct action is to inform the user: Transaction already reversed or Cannot reverse a reversing transaction or You do not have permission to reverse transactions or This transaction is on a session that has already been closed or This transaction is too old to be reversed The question is, how do i communicate these exceptional cases back to the calling code, so they can show the user? Do i create a separate exception for each case: catch (ETransactionAlreadyReversedException) MessageBox.Show('Transaction already reversed') catch (EReversingAReversingTransactionException) MessageBox.Show('Cannot reverse a reversing transaction') catch (ENoPermissionToReverseTranasctionException) MessageBox.Show('You do not have permission to reverse transactions') catch (ECannotReverseTransactionOnAlredyClosedSessionException) MessageBox.Show('This transaction is on a session that has already been closed') catch (ECannotReverseTooOldTransactionException) MessageBox.Show('This transaction is too old to be reversed') Downside for this is that when there's a new logical case to show the user: Tranasctions created by NSL cannot be reversed i don't simply show the user a message, and instead it leaks out as an unhandled excpetion, when really it should be handled with another MessageBox. The alternative is to create a single exception class: `EReverseTransactionException` With the understanding that any exception of this type is a logical check, that should be handled with a message box: catch (EReverseTransactionException) But it's still understood that any other exceptions, ones that involve, for example, an memory ECC parity error, continue unhandled. In other words, i don't convert all errors that can be thrown by the ReverseTransaction() method into EReverseTransactionException, only ones that are logically invalid cause of the user.

    Read the article

  • Why is 'virtual' optional for overridden methods in derived classes?

    - by squelart
    When a method is declared as virtual in a class, its overrides in derived classes are automatically considered virtual as well, and the C++ language makes this keyword virtual optional in this case: class Base { virtual void f(); }; class Derived : public Base { void f(); // 'virtual' is optional but implied. }; My question is: What is the rationale for making virtual optional? I know that it is not absolutely necessary for the compiler to be told that, but I would think that developers would benefit if such a constraint was enforced by the compiler. E.g., sometimes when I read others' code I wonder if a method is virtual and I have to track down its superclasses to determine that. And some coding standards (Google) make it a 'must' to put the virtual keyword in all subclasses.

    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

  • Use of properties vs backing-field inside owner class

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

    Read the article

  • What is the reason not to use select * ?

    - by Chris Lively
    I've seen a number of people claim that you should specifically name each column you want in your select query. Assuming I'm going to use all of the columns anyway, why would I not use SELECT *? Even considering the question from 9/24, I don't think this is an exact duplicate as I'm approaching the issue from a slightly different perspective. One of our principles is to not optimize before it's time. With that in mind, it seems like using SELECT * should be the preferred method until it is proven to be a resource issue or the schema is pretty much set in stone. Which, as we know, won't occur until development is completely done. That said, is there an overriding issue to not use SELECT *?

    Read the article

  • How to track IIS server performance

    - by Chris Brandsma
    I have a reoccurring issue where a customer calls up and complains that the web site is too slow. Specifically, if they are inactive for a short period of time, then go back to the site, there will be a minute-two minute delay before the user sees a response. (the standard browser is Firefox in this case) I have Perfmon up and running, the cpu utilization is usually below 20% (single proc...don't ask). The database is humming along. And I'm pulling my hair out. So, what metrics/tools do you find useful when evaluating IIS performance?

    Read the article

  • Do you ever make a code change and just test rather than trying to fully understand the change you'v

    - by Clay Nichols
    I'm working in a 12 year old code base which I have been the only developer on. There are times that I'll make a a very small change based on an intuition (or quantum leap in logic ;-). Usually I try to deconstruct that change and make sure I read thoroughly the code. However sometimes, (more and more these days) I just test and make sure it had the effect I wanted. (I'm a pretty thorough tester and would test even if I read the code). This works for me and we have surprisingly (compared to most software I see) few bugs escape into the wild. But what I'm wondering is whether this is just the "art" side of coding. Yes, in an ideal world you would exhaustively read every bit of code that your change modified, but I in practice, if you're confident that it only affects a small section of code, is this a common practice? I can obviously see where this would be a disastrous approach in the hands of a poor programmer. But then, I've seen programmers who ostensibly are reading the code and break stuff left and right (in their own code based which only they have been working on).

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118  | Next Page >