Search Results

Search found 15353 results on 615 pages for 'compiled language'.

Page 135/615 | < Previous Page | 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142  | Next Page >

  • Writing a windows web service and not sure what language to use?

    - by badpanda
    So I am required to write a fairly basic Windows service and have never done so before. Of C#, C++ (the Visual Studio suite), what is the best language to develop in? I am a student, and am most familiar with OO languages such as Java. Additionally, if anyone can recommend any books, articles, or google searches that would be relevant to the project I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks! badPanda

    Read the article

  • Is it a good idea for me to learn Python before C or some other Compiler language?

    - by Dream Lane
    Right now I am going through MIT's introduction to Computer Science course via OpenCourseWare. As a part of this course I am learning the Python Language. I've read a lot of things about the benefits of learning C. Before I dig any deeper into Python I wonder if I will be hindered or helped by learning Python first. Do you think that I will develop any bad habits or anything like that from Python?

    Read the article

  • Yet another list comprehension question

    - by relima
    I had this: if Setting["Language"] == "en": f.m_radioBox3.SetSelection(0) elif Setting["Language"] == "pt": f.m_radioBox3.SetSelection(1) elif Setting["Language"] == "fr": f.m_radioBox3.SetSelection(2) elif Setting["Language"] == "es": f.m_radioBox3.SetSelection(3) Then I did this: Linguas = ["en","pt","fr","es"] a = 0 for i in Linguas: if i == Setting["Language"]: f.m_radioBox3.SetSelection(a) a += 1 Is it possible to further simplify this and make it into a one-liner?

    Read the article

  • Does a syntax for this exist? In any language?

    - by Michael
    It seems pretty common to me to have an argument, in a dynamically typed language that is either an Object or a key to lookup that object. For instance when I'm working with a database I might have a method getMyRelatedStuff(person) All I really need to lookup the related stuff is the id of the person so my method could look like this in python: def getMyRelatedStuff(person_or_id): id = person_or_id.id if isinstance(person,User) else person_or_id #do some lookup Or going the other direction: def someFileStuff(file_or_name): file = file_or_name if hasattr(file,'write') else open(file_or_name)

    Read the article

  • Which ISO format should I use to store a user's language?

    - by John Himmelman
    Should I use ISO 639-1 (2-letter abbreviation) or ISO 639-2 (3 letter abbrv) to store the user's language? Both are official standards, but which is the de facto standard in the development community? I think ISO 639-1 would be easier to remember, and is probably more popular for that reason, but thats just a guess. The site I'm building will have a separate site for the US, Brazil, Russia, China, & the UK. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_639

    Read the article

  • If i write in assembly or machine language, will the program work on any computer with a compatible processor?

    - by user663425
    Basically, i'm wanting to know if i can use either machine or assembly language to write a program that will work on any computer with an x86 processor, despite differences in operating systems. For example, you run a program and no matter what computer it's on, it'll display "Hello, World!" I know it's a little crazy to want to know either of these to languages, but i figure it's an incredible thing to learn, so why not?

    Read the article

  • Joining the same model twice in a clean way, but making the code reusable

    - by Shako
    I have a model Painting which has a Paintingtitle in each language and a Paintingdescription in each language: class Painting < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :paintingtitles, :dependent => :destroy has_many :paintingdescriptions, :dependent => :destroy end class Paintingtitle < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :painting belongs_to :language end class Paintingdescription < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :painting belongs_to :language end class Language < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :paintingtitles, :dependent => :nullify has_many :paintingdescriptions, :dependent => :nullify has_many :paintings, :through => :paintingtitles end As you might notice, I reference the Language model from my Painting model via both the Paintingtitle model and Paintingdescription model. This works for me when getting a list of paintings with their title and description in a specific language: cond = {"paintingdescription_languages.code" => language_code, "paintingtitle_languages.code" => language_code} cond['paintings.publish'] = 1 unless admin paginate( :all, :select => ["paintings.id, paintings.publish, paintings.photo_file_name, paintingtitles.title, paintingdescriptions.description"], :joins => " INNER JOIN paintingdescriptions ON (paintings.id = paintingdescriptions.painting_id) INNER JOIN paintingtitles ON (paintings.id = paintingtitles.painting_id) INNER JOIN languages paintingdescription_languages ON (paintingdescription_languages.id = paintingdescriptions.language_id) INNER JOIN languages paintingtitle_languages ON (paintingtitle_languages.id = paintingtitles.language_id) ", :conditions => cond, :page => page, :per_page => APP_CONFIG['per_page'], :order => "id DESC" ) Now I wonder if this is a correct way of doing this. I need to fetch paintings with their title and description in different functions, but I don't want to specify this long join statement each time. Is there a cleaner way, for instance making use of the has_many through? e.g. has_many :paintingdescription_languages, :through => :paintingdescriptions, :source => :language has_many :paintingtitle_languages, :through => :paintingtitles, :source => :language But if I implement above 2 lines together with the following ones, then only paintingtitles are filtered by language, and not the paintingdescriptions: cond = {"languages.code" => language_code} cond['paintings.publish'] = 1 unless admin paginate( :all, :select => ["paintings.id, paintings.publish, paintings.photo_file_name, paintingtitles.title, paintingdescriptions.description"], :joins => [:paintingdescription_languages, :paintingtitle_languages], :conditions => cond, :page => page, :per_page => APP_CONFIG['per_page'], :order => "id DESC" )

    Read the article

  • Introducing functional programming constructs in non-functional programming languages

    - by Giorgio
    This question has been going through my mind quite a lot lately and since I haven't found a convincing answer to it I would like to know if other users of this site have thought about it as well. In the recent years, even though OOP is still the most popular programming paradigm, functional programming is getting a lot of attention. I have only used OOP languages for my work (C++ and Java) but I am trying to learn some FP in my free time because I find it very interesting. So, I started learning Haskell three years ago and Scala last summer. I plan to learn some SML and Caml as well, and to brush up my (little) knowledge of Scheme. Well, a lot of plans (too ambitious?) but I hope I will find the time to learn at least the basics of FP during the next few years. What is important for me is how functional programming works and how / whether I can use it for some real projects. I have already developed small tools in Haskell. In spite of my strong interest for FP, I find it difficult to understand why functional programming constructs are being added to languages like C#, Java, C++, and so on. As a developer interested in FP, I find it more natural to use, say, Scala or Haskell, instead of waiting for the next FP feature to be added to my favourite non-FP language. In other words, why would I want to have only some FP in my originally non-FP language instead of looking for a language that has a better support for FP? For example, why should I be interested to have lambdas in Java if I can switch to Scala where I have much more FP concepts and access all the Java libraries anyway? Similarly: why do some FP in C# instead of using F# (to my knowledge, C# and F# can work together)? Java was designed to be OO. Fine. I can do OOP in Java (and I would like to keep using Java in that way). Scala was designed to support OOP + FP. Fine: I can use a mix of OOP and FP in Scala. Haskell was designed for FP: I can do FP in Haskell. If I need to tune the performance of a particular module, I can interface Haskell with some external routines in C. But why would I want to do OOP with just some basic FP in Java? So, my main point is: why are non-functional programming languages being extended with some functional concept? Shouldn't it be more comfortable (interesting, exciting, productive) to program in a language that has been designed from the very beginning to be functional or multi-paradigm? Don't different programming paradigms integrate better in a language that was designed for it than in a language in which one paradigm was only added later? The first explanation I could think of is that, since FP is a new concept (it isn't new at all, but it is new for many developers), it needs to be introduced gradually. However, I remember my switch from imperative to OOP: when I started to program in C++ (coming from Pascal and C) I really had to rethink the way in which I was coding, and to do it pretty fast. It was not gradual. So, this does not seem to be a good explanation to me. Or can it be that many non-FP programmers are not really interested in understanding and using functional programming, but they find it practically convenient to adopt certain FP-idioms in their non-FP language? IMPORTANT NOTE Just in case (because I have seen several language wars on this site): I mentioned the languages I know better, this question is in no way meant to start comparisons between different programming languages to decide which is better / worse. Also, I am not interested in a comparison of OOP versus FP (pros and cons). The point I am interested in is to understand why FP is being introduced one bit at a time into existing languages that were not designed for it even though there exist languages that were / are specifically designed to support FP.

    Read the article

  • Functional programming constructs in non-functional programming languages

    - by Giorgio
    This question has been going through my mind quite a lot lately and since I haven't found a convincing answer to it I would like to know if other users of this site have thought about it as well. In the recent years, even though OOP is still the most popular programming paradigm, functional programming is getting a lot of attention. I have only used OOP languages for my work (C++ and Java) but I am trying to learn some FP in my free time because I find it very interesting. So, I started learning Haskell three years ago and Scala last summer. I plan to learn some SML and Caml as well, and to brush up my (little) knowledge of Scheme. Well, a lot of plans (too ambitious?) but I hope I will find the time to learn at least the basics of FP during the next few years. What is important for me is how functional programming works and how / whether I can use it for some real projects. I have already developed small tools in Haskell. In spite of my strong interest for FP, I find it difficult to understand why functional programming constructs are being added to languages like C#, Java, C++, and so on. As a developer interested in FP, I find it more natural to use, say, Scala or Haskell, instead of waiting for the next FP feature to be added to my favourite non-FP language. In other words, why would I want to have only some FP in my originally non-FP language instead of looking for a language that has a better support for FP? For example, why should I be interested to have lambdas in Java if I can switch to Scala where I have much more FP concepts and access all the Java libraries anyway? Similarly: why do some FP in C# instead of using F# (to my knowledge, C# and F# can work together)? Java was designed to be OO. Fine. I can do OOP in Java (and I would like to keep using Java in that way). Scala was designed to support OOP + FP. Fine: I can use a mix of OOP and FP in Scala. Haskell was designed for FP: I can do FP in Haskell. If I need to tune the performance of a particular module, I can interface Haskell with some external routines in C. But why would I want to do OOP with just some basic FP in Java? So, my main point is: why are non-functional programming languages being extended with some functional concept? Shouldn't it be more comfortable (interesting, exciting, productive) to program in a language that has been designed from the very beginning to be functional or multi-paradigm? Don't different programming paradigms integrate better in a language that was designed for it than in a language in which one paradigm was only added later? The first explanation I could think of is that, since FP is a new concept (it isn't new at all, but it is new for many developers), it needs to be introduced gradually. However, I remember my switch from imperative to OOP: when I started to program in C++ (coming from Pascal and C) I really had to rethink the way in which I was coding, and to do it pretty fast. It was not gradual. So, this does not seem to be a good explanation to me. Also, I asked myself if my impression is just plainly wrong due to lack of knowledge. E.g., do C# and C++11 support FP as extensively as, say, Scala or Caml do? In this case, my question would be simply non-existent. Or can it be that many non-FP programmers are not really interested in using functional programming, but they find it practically convenient to adopt certain FP-idioms in their non-FP language? IMPORTANT NOTE Just in case (because I have seen several language wars on this site): I mentioned the languages I know better, this question is in no way meant to start comparisons between different programming languages to decide which is better / worse. Also, I am not interested in a comparison of OOP versus FP (pros and cons). The point I am interested in is to understand why FP is being introduced one bit at a time into existing languages that were not designed for it even though there exist languages that were / are specifically designed to support FP.

    Read the article

  • Code Metrics: Number of IL Instructions

    - by DigiMortal
    In my previous posting about code metrics I introduced how to measure LoC (Lines of Code) in .NET applications. Now let’s take a step further and let’s take a look how to measure compiled code. This way we can somehow have a picture about what compiler produces. In this posting I will introduce you code metric called number of IL instructions. NB! Number of IL instructions is not something you can use to measure productivity of your team. If you want to get better idea about the context of this metric and LoC then please read my first posting about LoC. What are IL instructions? When code written in some .NET Framework language is compiled then compiler produces assemblies that contain byte code. These assemblies are executed later by Common Language Runtime (CLR) that is code execution engine of .NET Framework. The byte code is called Intermediate Language (IL) – this is more common language than C# and VB.NET by example. You can use ILDasm tool to convert assemblies to IL assembler so you can read them. As IL instructions are building blocks of all .NET Framework binary code these instructions are smaller and highly general – we don’t want very rich low level language because it executes slower than more general language. For every method or property call in some .NET Framework language corresponds set of IL instructions. There is no 1:1 relationship between line in high level language and line in IL assembler. There are more IL instructions than lines in C# code by example. How much instructions there are? I have no common answer because it really depends on your code. Here you can see some metrics from my current community project that is developed on SharePoint Server 2007. As average I have about 7 IL instructions per line of code. This is not metric you should use, it is just illustrative example so you can see the differences between numbers of lines and IL instructions. Why should I measure the number of IL instructions? Just take a look at chart above. Compiler does something that you cannot see – it compiles your code to IL. This is not intuitive process because you usually cannot say what is exactly the end result. You know it at greater plain but you don’t know it exactly. Therefore we can expect some surprises and that’s why we should measure the number of IL instructions. By example, you may find better solution for some method in your source code. It looks nice, it works nice and everything seems to be okay. But on server under load your fix may be way slower than previous code. Although you minimized the number of lines of code it ended up with increasing the number of IL instructions. How to measure the number of IL instructions? My choice is NDepend because Visual Studio is not able to measure this metric. Steps to make are easy. Open your NDepend project or create new and add all your application assemblies to project (you can also add Visual Studio solution to project). Run project analysis and wait until it is done. You can see over-all stats form global summary window. This is the same window I used to read the LoC and the number of IL instructions metrics for my chart. Meanwhile I made some changes to my code (enabled advanced caching for events and event registrations module) and then I ran code analysis again to get results for this section of this posting. NDepend is also able to tell you exactly what parts of code have problematically much IL instructions. The code quality section of CQL Query Explorer shows you how much problems there are with members in analyzed code. If you click on the line Methods too big (NbILInstructions) you can see all the problematic members of classes in CQL Explorer shown in image on right. In my case if have 10 methods that are too big and two of them have horrible number of IL instructions – just take a look at first two methods in this TOP10. Also note the query box. NDepend has easy and SQL-like query language to query code analysis results. You can modify these queries if you like and also you can define your own ones if default set is not enough for you. What is good result? As you can see from query window then the number of IL instructions per member should have maximally 200 IL instructions. Of course, like always, the less instructions you have, the better performing code you have. I don’t mean here little differences but big ones. By example, take a look at my first method in warnings list. The number of IL instructions it has is huge. And believe me – this method looks awful. Conclusion The number of IL instructions is useful metric when optimizing your code. For analyzing code at general level to find out too long methods you can use the number of LoC metric because it is more intuitive for you and you can therefore handle the situation more easily. Also you can use NDepend as code metrics tool because it has a lot of metrics to offer.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142  | Next Page >