Search Results

Search found 3283 results on 132 pages for 'aspect oriented'.

Page 12/132 | < Previous Page | 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19  | Next Page >

  • Where does this concept of "favor composition over inheritance" come from?

    - by Mason Wheeler
    In the last few months, the mantra "favor composition over inheritance" seems to have sprung up out of nowhere and become almost some sort of meme within the programming community. And every time I see it, I'm a little bit mystified. It's like someone said "favor drills over hammers." In my experience, composition and inheritance are two different tools with different use cases, and treating them as if they were interchangeable and one was inherently superior to the other makes no sense. Also, I never see a real explanation for why inheritance is bad and composition is good, which just makes me more suspicious. Is it supposed to just be accepted on faith? Liskov substitution and polymorphism have well-known, clear-cut benefits, and IMO comprise the entire point of using object-oriented programming, and no one ever explains why they should be discarded in favor of composition. Does anyone know where this concept comes from, and what the rationale behind it is?

    Read the article

  • Fundamental programming book [closed]

    - by Luke Annison
    I'm a fairly new programmer and currently learning ruby on rails with the intention of developing a web application. I am currently going reading Agile Web Development with Rails 4th Edition and its working well for me, however I'm wondering if somebody can recommend a more general, almost classic book to read casually alongside to help cement the fundamentals in place. As I said, I'm for the most part a beginner and the only education I've had is this and briefly one other technical book, so I'm sure there must be some "must reads" out there that give me a more substantial context for the basics of either Ruby on Rails, Ruby, objective oriented programming, or programming in general. What books helped you grasp a deeper and more rounded understanding of your skills as a programmer? All suggestions are welcome and appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Multiple Object Instantiation

    - by Ricky Baby
    I am trying to get my head around object oriented programming as it pertains to web development (more specifically PHP). I understand inheritance and abstraction etc, and know all the "buzz-words" like encapsulation and single purpose and why I should be doing all this. But my knowledge is falling short with actually creating objects that relate to the data I have in my database, creating a single object that a representative of a single entity makes sense, but what are the best practises when creating 100, 1,000 or 10,000 objects of the same type. for instance, when trying to display a list of the items, ideally I would like to be consistent with the objects I use, but where exactly should I run the query/get the data to populate the object(s) as running 10,000 queries seems wasteful. As an example, say I have a database of cats, and I want a list of all black cats, do I need to set up a FactoryObject which grabs the data needed for each cat from my database, then passes that data into each individual CatObject and returns the results in a array/object - or should I pass each CatObject it's identifier and let it populate itself in a separate query.

    Read the article

  • Books or help on OO Analysis

    - by Pat
    I have this course where we learn about the domain model, use cases, contracts and eventually leap into class diagrams and sequence diagrams to define good software classes. I just had an exam and I got trashed, but part of the reason is we barely have any practical material, I spent at least two good months without drawing a single class diagram by myself from a case study. I'm not here to blame the system or the class I'm in, I'm just wondering if people have some exercise-style books that either provide domain models with glossaries, system sequence diagrams and ask you to use GRASP to make software classes? I could really use some alone-time practicing going from analysis to conception of software entities. I'm almost done with Larman's book called "Applying UML and Patterns An Introduction to Object-Oriented Analysis and Design and Iterative Development, Third Edition". It's a good book, but I'm not doing anything by myself since it doesn't come with exercises. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • How to make the transition to functional programming?

    - by tahatmat
    Lately, I have been very intrigued with F# which I have been working a bit with. Coming mostly from Java and C#, I like how concise and easily understandable it is. However, I believe that my background with these imperative languages disturb my way of thinking when programming in F#. I found a comparison of the imperative and functional approach, and I surely do recognize the "imperative way" of programming, but I also find it difficult to define problems to fit well with the functional approach. So my question is: How do I best make the transition from object-oriented programming to functional programming? Can you provide some tips or perhaps provide some literature that can help one to think "in functions" in general?

    Read the article

  • Why are most GNU's software written in C

    - by BallroomProgrammer
    I am a Java developer, and I rarely write GUI program in C. However, I noticed that many GNU's projects, such as PSPP, R, Dia, etc., are written in C, instead of Java or C++. I personally don't mind this, but I am really curious why GNU favors C so much. My understanding is that C is the one that supports the least in object-oriented programming, and today's CS education really emphasizes OOP, as OOP really makes codes more reusable. In this case, why would so many developers choose to develop in C instead of C++ or Java. Does anyone know why GNU's software are so exclusively written in C? Do you think or GNU's software should be written in C++ or Java so that the source code could be more useful to people? Why or why not?

    Read the article

  • Getting My Head Around Immutability

    - by Michael Mangold
    I'm new to object-oriented programming, and one concept that has been taking me a while to grasp is immutability. I think the light bulb went off last night but I want to verify: When I come across statements that an immutable object cannot be changed, I'm puzzled because I can, for instance, do the following: NSString *myName = @"Bob"; myName = @"Mike"; There, I just changed myName, of immutable type NSString. My problem is that the word, "object" can refer to the physical object in memory, or the abstraction, "myName." The former definition applies to the concept of immutability. As for the variable, a more clear (to me) definition of immutability is that the value of an immutable object can only be changed by also changing its location in memory, i.e. its reference (also known as its pointer). Is this correct, or am I still lost in the woods?

    Read the article

  • Is OOP becoming easier or harder?

    - by tunmise fasipe
    When the concepts of Object Oriented Programming were introduced to programmers years back it looks interesting and programming was cleaner. OOP was like this Stock stock = new Stock(); stock.addItem(item); stock.removeItem(item); That was easier to understand with self-descriptive name. But now OOP, with pattern like Data Transfer Objects (or Value Objects), Repository, Dependency Injection etc, has become more complex. To achieve the above you may have to create several classes (e.g. abstract, factory, DAO etc) and Implement several interfaces Note: I am not against best practices that makes Collaboration, Testing and Integration easier

    Read the article

  • What makes C so popular in the age of OOP?

    - by GradGuy
    I code a lot both in C and C++ but did not expect C to be the second popular language, slightly behind Java! http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html I'm curious as why, in this age of OOP, C is still all that popular? Note that 4 out of top 5 popular languages are all "modern" object-oriented capable languages. Now I agree that you can do OOP in C to some extend, but that's sort of painful and not quite elegant! (well at least compared to C++ I guess) So what makes C this popular? efficiency? being low-level? or the vast majority of libraries that already exist? ... or something else?

    Read the article

  • Is there an imperative language with a Haskell-like type system?

    - by Graham Kaemmer
    I've tried to learn Haskell a few times over the last few years, and, maybe because I know mainly scripting languages, the functional-ness of it has always bothered me (monads seem like a huge mess for doing lots of I/O). However, I think it's type system is perfect. Reading through a guide to Haskell's types and typeclasses (like this), I don't really see a reason why they would require a functional language, and furthermore, they seem like they would be perfect for an industry-grade object-oriented language (like Java). This all begs the question: has anyone ever taken Haskell's typing system and made a imperative, OOP language with it? If so, I want to use it.

    Read the article

  • How to deal with OOP design problems in interviews?

    - by haps10
    This is a question where I seek guidance from fellow/senior developers to get into my dream company - it's a pioneer in OOP and Agile. I've already failed once to clear an interview. One part I feel most challenging is to come up with a proper Object Oriented design(classes, interfaces, methods, interactions etc.) in a very short time for certain situations like Pacman, Game Of Life and so on. As the problems are unprecedented ones - my approach is mostly to try different things and then make decisions - which they feel is not clear and not what they expect from a developer with 5+ years of experience. I've already studied a few books on patterns, OOP - it didn't help me much and I think it'll take a bit more than that. Could some one please guide on what specifically shall I practice so that I can do better at design problems as above. I want to refine my approach and have a better thought process.

    Read the article

  • asp.net image aspect ratio help

    - by StealthRT
    Hey all, i am in need of some help with keeping an image aspect ratio in check. This is the aspx code that i have to resize and upload an image the user selects. <%@ Page Trace="False" Language="vb" aspcompat="false" debug="true" validateRequest="false"%> <%@ Import Namespace=System.Drawing %> <%@ Import Namespace=System.Drawing.Imaging %> <%@ Import Namespace=System %> <%@ Import Namespace=System.Web %> <SCRIPT LANGUAGE="VBScript" runat="server"> const Lx = 500 ' max width for thumbnails const Ly = 60 ' max height for thumbnails const upload_dir = "/uptest/" ' directory to upload file const upload_original = "sample" ' filename to save original as (suffix added by script) const upload_thumb = "thumb" ' filename to save thumbnail as (suffix added by script) const upload_max_size = 512 ' max size of the upload (KB) note: this doesn't override any server upload limits dim fileExt ' used to store the file extension (saves finding it mulitple times) dim newWidth, newHeight as integer ' new width/height for the thumbnail dim l2 ' temp variable used when calculating new size dim fileFld as HTTPPostedFile ' used to grab the file upload from the form Dim originalimg As System.Drawing.Image ' used to hold the original image dim msg ' display results dim upload_ok as boolean ' did the upload work ? </script> <% randomize() ' used to help the cache-busting on the preview images upload_ok = false if lcase(Request.ServerVariables("REQUEST_METHOD"))="post" then fileFld = request.files(0) ' get the first file uploaded from the form (note:- you can use this to itterate through more than one image) if fileFld.ContentLength > upload_max_size * 1024 then msg = "Sorry, the image must be less than " & upload_max_size & "Kb" else try originalImg = System.Drawing.Image.FromStream(fileFld.InputStream) ' work out the width/height for the thumbnail. Preserve aspect ratio and honour max width/height ' Note: if the original is smaller than the thumbnail size it will be scaled up If (originalImg.Width/Lx) > (originalImg.Width/Ly) Then L2 = originalImg.Width newWidth = Lx newHeight = originalImg.Height * (Lx / L2) if newHeight > Ly then newWidth = newWidth * (Ly / newHeight) newHeight = Ly end if Else L2 = originalImg.Height newHeight = Ly newWidth = originalImg.Width * (Ly / L2) if newWidth > Lx then newHeight = newHeight * (Lx / newWidth) newWidth = Lx end if End If Dim thumb As New Bitmap(newWidth, newHeight) 'Create a graphics object Dim gr_dest As Graphics = Graphics.FromImage(thumb) ' just in case it's a transparent GIF force the bg to white dim sb = new SolidBrush(System.Drawing.Color.White) gr_dest.FillRectangle(sb, 0, 0, thumb.Width, thumb.Height) 'Re-draw the image to the specified height and width gr_dest.DrawImage(originalImg, 0, 0, thumb.Width, thumb.Height) try fileExt = System.IO.Path.GetExtension(fileFld.FileName).ToLower() originalImg.save(Server.MapPath(upload_dir & upload_original & fileExt), originalImg.rawformat) thumb.save(Server.MapPath(upload_dir & upload_thumb & fileExt), originalImg.rawformat) msg = "Uploaded " & fileFld.FileName & " to " & Server.MapPath(upload_dir & upload_original & fileExt) upload_ok = true catch msg = "Sorry, there was a problem saving the image." end try ' Housekeeping for the generated thumbnail if not thumb is nothing then thumb.Dispose() thumb = nothing end if catch msg = "Sorry, that was not an image we could process." end try end if ' House Keeping ! if not originalImg is nothing then originalImg.Dispose() originalImg = nothing end if end if %> What i am looking for is a way to just have it go by the height of what i set it: const Ly = 60 ' max height for thumbnails And have the code for the width just be whatever. So if i had an image... say 600 x 120 (w h) and i used photoshop to change just the height, it would keep it in ratio and have it 300 x 60 (w x h). Thats what i am looking to do with this code here. However, i can not think of a way to do this (or to just leave a wildcard for the width setting. Any help would be great :o) David

    Read the article

  • How to scale an Image in ImageView to keep the aspect ratio

    - by michael
    Hi, In android, I defined an ImageView's layoutWidth to be 'fill_parent' (which takes up the full width of the phone). My question is if the Image i put to ImageView is bigger than the layoutWidth, android will scale it, right? But what about the height? when android scale it, will it keeps the aspect ratio? What I find out is, there is some 'white space' at the top/bottom of the ImageView when android scales an image which is bigger than the ImageView. Is that true? If yes, how can I eliminate that white spaces? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • minimum enclosing rectangle of fixed aspect ratio

    - by Ramya Narasimha
    I have an Image with many rectangles at different positions in the image and of different sizes (both overlapping and non-overlapping). I also have a non-negative scores associated with each of these rectangles. My problem now is to find one larger rectangle *of a fixed (given) aspect ratio* that encloses as many of these rectangles as possible. I am looking for an algorithm to do this, if anyone has a solution, even a partial one it would be helpful. Please note that the positions of the rectangles in the image is fixed and cannot be moved around and there is no orientation issue as all of them are upright.

    Read the article

  • Spring Roo and aspect-oriented programming

    - by marcos
    Hello, i've been running some experiments of my own with Spring Roo and it seems to be pretty cool, but i noticed that this tool makes heavy use of AOP on the model layer. I'm thinking about creating a real project using Roo and what i would like to know is: Why AOP is everywhere? Is That ok? What are advantages and disadvantages of this approach? I'm quite new to aspect-oriented programming and some guidance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • How to conciliate OOAD and Database Design?

    - by user1620696
    Recently I've studied about object oriented analysis and design and I liked a lot about it. In every place I've read people say that the idea is to start with the minimum set of requirements and go improving along the way, revisiting this each iteration and making it better as we contiuously develop and contact the customer interested in the software. In particular, one course from Lynda.com said a lot of that: we don't want to spend a lot of time planing everything upfront, we just want to have the minimum to get started and then improve this each iteration. Now, I've also seem a course from the same guy about database design, and there he says differently. He says that although when working with object orientation he likes the agile iterative approach, for database design we should really spend a lot of time planing things upfront instead of just going along the way with the minimum. But this confuses me a little. Indeed, the database will persist important data from our domain model and perhaps configurations of the software and so on. Now, if I'm going to continuously revist the analysis and design of the model, it seems the database design should change also. In the same way, if we plan all the database upfront it seems we are also planing all the model upfront, so the two ideas seems to be incompatible. I really like agile iterative approach, but I'm also looking at getting better design for the database also, so when working with agile iterative approach, how should we deal with the database design?

    Read the article

  • IT Optimization Plan Pays Off For UK Retailer

    - by Brian Dayton
    I caught this article in ComputerworldUK yesterday. The headline talks about UK-based supermarket chain Morrisons is increasing their IT spend...OK, sounds good. Even nicer that Oracle is a big part of that. But what caught my eye were three things: 1) Morrison's truly has a long term strategy for IT. In this case, modernizing and optimizing how they use IT for business advantage.   2) Even in a tough economic climate, Morrison's views IT investments as contributing to and improving the bottom line. Specifically, "The investment in IT contributed to a 21 percent increase in Morrison's underlying profit.."   3) The phased, 3-year "Optimization Plan" took a holistic approach to their business--from CRM and Supply Chain systems to the underlying application infrastructure. On the infrastructure front, adopting a more flexible Service-Oriented Architecture enabled them to be more agile and adapt their business and Identity Management helped with sometimes mundane (but costly) issues like lost passwords and being able to document who has access to what.   Things don't always turn out so rosy. And I know it was a long and difficult process...but it's nice to see a happy ending every once in a while.  

    Read the article

  • Are Get-Set methods a violation of Encapsulation?

    - by Dipan Mehta
    In an Object oriented framework, one believes there must be strict encapsulation. Hence, internal variables are not to be exposed to outside applications. But in many codebases, we see tons of get/set methods which essentially open a formal window to modify internal variables that were originally intended to be strictly prohibited. Isn't it a clear violation of encapsulation? How broadly such a practice is seen and what to do about it? EDIT: I have seen some discussions where there are two opinions in extreme: on one hand people believe that because get/set interface is used to modify any parameter, it does qualifies not be violating encapsulation. On the other hand, there are people who believe it is does violate. Here is my point. Take a case of UDP server, with methods - get_URL(), set_URL(). The URL (to listen to) property is quite a parameter that application needs to be supplied and modified. However, in the same case, if the property like get_byte_buffer_length() and set_byte_buffer_length(), clearly points to values which are quite internal. Won't it imply that it does violate the encapsulation? In fact, even get_byte_buffer_length() which otherwise doesn't modify the object, still misses the point of encapsulation, because, certainly there is an App which knows i have an internal buffer! Tomorrow, if the internal buffer is replaced by something like a *packet_list* the method goes dysfunctional. Is there a universal yes/no towards get set method? Is there any strong guideline that tell programmers (specially the junior ones) as to when does it violate encapsulation and when does it not?

    Read the article

  • Web workflow solution - how should I approach the design?

    - by Tom Pickles
    We've been tasked with creating a web based workflow tool to track change management. It has a single workflow with multiple synchronous tasks for the most part, but branch out at a point to tasks running in parallel which meet up later on. There will be all sorts of people using the application, and all of them will need to see their outstanding tasks for each change, but only theirs, not others. There will also be a high level group of people who oversee all changes, so need to see everything. They will need to see tasks which have not been done in the specified time, who's responsible etc. The data will be persisted to a SQL database. It'll all be put together using .Net. I've been trying to learn and implement OOP into my designs of late, but I'm wondering if this is moot in this instance as it may be better to have the business logic for this in stored procedures in the DB. I could use POCO's, a front end layer and a data access layer for the web application and just use it as a mechanism for CRUD actions on the DB, then use SP's fired in the DB to apply the business rules. On the other hand, I could use an object oriented design within the web app, but as the data in the app is state-less, is this a bad idea? I could try and model out the whole application into a class structure, implementing interfaces, base classes and all that good stuff. So I would create a change class, which contained a list of task classes/types, which defined each task, and implement an ITask interface etc. Put end-user types into the tasks to identify who should be doing what task. Then apply all the business logic in the respective class methods etc. What approach do you guys think I should be using for this solution?

    Read the article

  • When too much encapsulation was reached

    - by Samuel
    Recently, I read a lot of gook articles about how to do a good encapsulation. And when I say "good encapsulation", I don't talk about hiding private fields with public properties; I talk about preventing users of your Api to do wrong things. Here is two good articles about this subject: http://blog.ploeh.dk/2011/05/24/PokayokeDesignFromSmellToFragrance.aspx http://lostechies.com/derickbailey/2011/03/28/encapsulation-youre-doing-it-wrong/ At my job, the majority a our applications are not destined to other programmers but rather to the customers. About 80% of the application code is at the top of the structure (Not used by other code). For this reason, there is probably no chance ever that this code will be used by other application. An example of encapsulation that prevent user to do wrong thing with your Api is to return an IEnumerable instead of IList when you don't want to give the ability to the user to add or remove items in the list. My question is: When encapsulation could be considered like too much of purism object oriented programming while keeping in mind that each hour of programming is charged to the customer? I want to do good code that is maintainable, easy to read and to use but when this is not a public Api (Used by other programmer), where could we put the line between perfect code and not so perfect code? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Is comparing an OO compiler to a SQL compiler/optimizer valid?

    - by Brad
    I'm now doing a lot of SQL development at my new job where as before I was doing Object Oriented desktop app stuff. I keep running across very large scripts (thousands of lines) and wanting to refactor in some way. I am seeing that SQL is a different sort of beast and it's probably fine to have these big scripts for the most part but while explaining this to me people are also insisting that the whole idea of refactoring is bad. That stuff like the .NET compiler are actually burdened by refactored code and that a big wall of code is more efficient and better design than code designed for reuse, readability and scalability. The other argument is that OO compilers are almost dangerously inefficient and don't have efficient memory management or runs too many CPU instructions compared to older "simpler" compilers and compared to SQL. Are these valid complaints? Even if some compiler like a C compiler is modestly more "efficient" (whatever that means on this high of a level without seeing code) would you want to write applications in C over C# or Java? Is comparing an OO compiler to a SQL compiler/optimizer even valid?

    Read the article

  • Getting rid of Massive View Controller in iOS?

    - by Earl Grey
    I had a discussion with my colleague about the following problem. We have an application where we need filtering functionality. On any main screen within the upper navigation bar, there is a button in the upper right corner. Once you touch that button, an custom written Alert View like view will pop up modally, behind it a semitransparent black overlay view. In that modal view, there is a table view of options, and you can choose one exclusively. Based on your selection, once this modal view is closed, the list of items in the main view is filtered. It is simply a modally presented filter to filter the main table view.This UI design is dictated by the design department, I cannot do anything about it so let accept this as a premise. Also the main filter button in the navbar will change colours to indicate that the filter is active. The question I have is about implementation. I suggested to my colleague that we create a separate XYZFilter class that will be an instance created by the main view controller acquire the filtering options handle saving and restoration of its state - i.e. last filter selected provide its two views - the overlay view and the modal view be the datasource for the table in its modal view. For some unknown reason, my colleague was not impressed by that approach at all. He simply wants to do these functionalities in the main view controller, maybe out of being used to do this in the past like that :-/ Is there any fundamental problem with my approach? I want to keep the view controller small, not to have spaghetti code create a reusable component (for use outside the project) have more object oriented, decoupled approach. prevent duplication of code as we need the filtering in two different places but it looks the same in both.. Any advice?

    Read the article

  • IT Optimization Plan Pays Off For UK Retailer

    - by [email protected]
    I caught this article in ComputerworldUK yesterday. The headline talks about UK-based supermarket chain Morrisons is increasing their IT spend...OK, sounds good. Even nicer that Oracle is a big part of that. But what caught my eye were three things: 1) Morrison's truly has a long term strategy for IT. In this case, modernizing and optimizing how they use IT for business advantage. 2) Even in a tough economic climate, Morrison's views IT investments as contributing to and improving the bottom line. Specifically, "The investment in IT contributed to a 21 percent increase in Morrison's underlying profit.." 3) The phased, 3-year "Optimization Plan" took a holistic approach to their business--from CRM and Supply Chain systems to the underlying application infrastructure. On the infrastructure front, adopting a more flexible Service-Oriented Architecture enabled them to be more agile and adapt their business and Identity Management helped with sometimes mundane (but costly) issues like lost passwords and being able to document who has access to what. Things don't always turn out so rosy. And I know it was a long and difficult process...but it's nice to see a happy ending every once in a while.

    Read the article

  • What is the ideal length of a method?

    - by iPhoneDeveloper
    In object-oriented programming, there is no exact rule on the maximum length of a method , but I still found these two qutes somewhat contradicting each other, so I would like to hear what you think. In Clean Code: A Handbook of Agile Software Craftsmanship, Robert Martin says: The first rule of functions is that they should be small. The second rule of functions is that they should be smaller than that. Functions should not be 100 lines long. Functions should hardly ever be 20 lines long. and he gives an example from Java code he sees from Kent Beck: Every function in his program was just two, or three, or four lines long. Each was transparently obvious. Each told a story. And each led you to the next in a compelling order. That’s how short your functions should be! This sounds great, but on the other hand, in Code Complete, Steve McConnell says something very different: The routine should be allowed to grow organically up to 100-200 lines, decades of evidence say that routines of such length no more error prone then shorter routines. And he gives a reference to a study that says routines 65 lines or long are cheaper to develop. So while there are diverging opinions about the matter, is there a functional best-practice towards determining the ideal length of a method for you?

    Read the article

  • Teaching OO to VBA developers [closed]

    - by Eugene
    I work with several developers that come from less object oriented background like (VB6, VBA) and are mostly self-taught. As part of moving away from those technologies we recently we started having weekly workshops to go over the features of C#.NET and OO practices and design principles. After a couple of weeks of basic introduction I noticed that they had a lot of problems implementing even basic code. For instance it took probably 15 minutes to implement a Stack.push() and a full hour to implement a simple Stack fully. These developers were trying to do things like passing top index as a parameter to the method, not creating an private array, using variables out of scope. But most of all not going through the "design (dia/mono)log" (I need something to do X, so maybe I'll make an array, or put it here). I am a little confused because they are smart people and are able to produce functional code in their traditional environments. I'm curious if anybody else has encountered a similar thing and if there are any particular resources, exercises, books, ideas that would be helpful in this circumstance.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19  | Next Page >