Search Results

Search found 764 results on 31 pages for 'fro oo'.

Page 14/31 | < Previous Page | 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21  | Next Page >

  • Is Programming == Math?

    - by moffdub
    I've heard many times that all programming is really a subset of math. Some suggest that OO, at its roots, is mathematically based. I don't get the connection. Aside from some obvious examples: using induction to prove a recursive algorithm formal correctness proofs functional languages lambda calculus asymptotic complexity DFAs, NFAs, Turing Machines, and theoretical computation in general the fact that everything on the box is binary In what ways is programming really a subset of math? I'm looking for an explanation that might have relevance to enterprise/OO development (if there is a strong enough connection, that is). Thanks in advance. Edit: as I stated in a comment to an answer, math is uber important to programming, but what I struggle with is the "subset" argument.

    Read the article

  • Object Oriented Design Questions

    - by Robert
    Hello there. I am going to develop a Tic-Tac-Toe game using Java(or maybe other OO Languages).Now I have a picture in my mind about the general design. Interface: Player ,then I will be able to implement a couple of Player classes,based on how I want the opponent to be,for example,random player,intelligent player. Classes: Board class,with a two-dimensional array of integers,0 indicates open,1 indicates me,-1 indicates opponent.The evaluation function will be in here as well,to return the next best move based on the current board arrangement and whose turn it is. Refree class,which will create instance of the Board and two player instances,then get the game begin. This is a rough idea of my OO design,could anybody give me any critiques please,I find this is really beneficial,thank you very much.

    Read the article

  • Ria Services vs WCF Dataservices

    - by NPehrsson
    My Team are evaluation to a bigger Business portal. (Invoicing, Bookkeeping, Salaries.....) We are all used to work with DDD, O/R mappers with NHibernate as our first choice. We have chosen to work with CompositeWPF to keep modularity between all modules and part system in the business portal. Now we have evaluated Ria Services and are kind of disappointed how it works in a Data Oriented way, Data Oriented can be good in a service oriented scenario, but we feel that we can with an Object Oriented approach to, and we feel that we can get an application with less complexity with the OO approach than the DO approach. For example it doesn't allow Value Objects, Many-to-many relations, everything needs to have keys and so on. We haven't looked at WCF Data Services yet so our question is WCF Data Services our answere? Does it integrate good with Silverlight 4? Can we work with it in a OO manor?

    Read the article

  • Moose::Error::Croak error reporting not from perspective of caller.

    - by crashpoint_zero
    I just recently started out on Moose and its a great OO framework not only to use but also to learn new OO concepts. One of the things I wanted to do was to do error reporting from perspective of caller during object creation. I saw that Moose has the module Moose::Error::Croak which tells Moose to override the default error reporting by croak call. I used it but it did not seem to help Moose code - Foo.pm package Foo; use metaclass ( metaclass => 'Moose::Meta::Class', error_class => 'Moose::Error::Croak', ); use Moose; has 'attr1' => ( is => 'rw', isa => 'Str', required => '1', ); no Moose; 1; Moose code - fooser.pl #!/usr/bin/perl use strict; use warnings; use Foo; my $foobj = Foo->new(); This fails with error: Attribute (attr1) is required at /usr/local/lib/perl/5.8.8/Class/MOP/Class.pm line 364 which is terse than the actual stack trace if Moose::Error::Croak is not used. But it does not report it from perspective of caller. If this were a Perl 5 OO code and I had Foo.pm as: package Foo; use strict; use warnings; use Carp; sub new { my ($class, %args) = @_; my $self = {}; if (! exists $args{'attr1'}) { croak "ERR: did not provide attr1"; } $self->{'attr1'} = $args{attr1}; bless $self, $class; return $self; } 1; And if fooser.pl was executed I would have got the error: "ERR: did not provide attr1 at fooser.pl line 6" which is from the perspective of the caller as it points to line no. 6 of fooser.pl rather than MOP.pm's line no. 364. How can I do this in Moose? Or am I misunderstanding something here?

    Read the article

  • How to compare two maps by their values

    - by lewap
    How to compare two maps by their values? I have two maps containing equal values and want to compare them by their values. Here is an example: Map a = new HashMap(); a.put("f"+"oo", "bar"+"bar"); a.put("fo"+"o", "bar"+"bar"); Map b = new HashMap(); a.put("f"+"oo", "bar"+"bar"); a.put("fo"+"o", "bar"+"bar"); System.out.println("equals: " + a.equals(b)); // obviously false .... what to call to obtain a true? Obviously, to implement a comparison it not difficult, it is enough to compare all keys and their associated values. I don't believe I'm the first one to do this, so there must be already a library functions either in java or in one of the jakarta.commons libraries. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Learning to think in the Object Oriented Way

    - by SpikETidE
    Hi Everyone.... I am a programmer trying to learn to code in the object oriented paradigm... I mainly work with PHP and i thought of learning the zend framework... So, felt I need to learn to code in OO PHP.... The problem is, having done code using functions for quite a long time, i just can't get my head to think in the OO way.... Also felt that probably I am not the only one facing this problem since the beginning of time... So, how did you people learn object oriented programming... especially how did you succeed in "unlearning" to code using functions... and learn to see you code as objects...? Is there any good resource books or sites where one could find help...?? Thanks for sharing your knowledge and experiences...

    Read the article

  • Is Python appropriate for algorithms focused on scientific computing?

    - by gmatt
    My interests in programming lie mainly in algorithms, and lately I have seen many reputable researchers write a lot of their code in python. How easy and convenient is python for scientific computing? Does it have a library of algorithms that compares to matlab's? Is Python a scripting language or does it compile? Is it a great language for prototyping an algorithm? How long would it take me to learn enough of it to be productive provided I know C well and OO programming somewhat? Is it OO based? Sorry for the condensed format of questions, but I'm very curious and was hoping a more experienced programmer could help me out.

    Read the article

  • Whats the deal with python?

    - by gmatt
    My interests in programming lie mainly in algorithms, and lately I have seen many reputable researchers write a lot of their code in python. How easy and convenient is python for scientific computing? Does it have a library of algorithms that compares to matlab's? Is Python a scripting language or does it compile? Is it a great language for prototyping an algorithm? How long would it take me to learn enough of it to be productive provided I know C well and OO programming somewhat? Is it OO based? Sorry for the condensed format of questions, but I'm very curious and was hoping a more experienced programmer could help me out.

    Read the article

  • Interview question: difference between object and object-oriented languages.

    - by Bar
    My friend was asked the following question: what's the difference between object language and object-oriented language? It's a little unintelligible question. What does term «object language» correspond to? Does that mean «pure» object-oriented language, like the Wikipedia article says: Languages called "pure" OO languages, because everything in them is treated consistently as an object, from primitives such as characters and punctuation, all the way up to whole classes, prototypes, blocks, modules, etc. They were designed specifically to facilitate, even enforce, OO methods. Examples: Smalltalk, Eiffel, Ruby, JADE, VB.NET.

    Read the article

  • Where to store frequently used functions in a OOP correct way

    - by Stefan Kuijers
    I'm working on a project which I want to build up OO. Now I came with a function that checks or a value is valid. private function valid(value:*, acceptedValues:Array):Boolean { for(var i:uint = 0; i < acceptedValues.length; i++) { if (value == acceptedValues[i]) { return true; } } return false; } As you can see, the function is very general and will be accessed across different classes. Now my question is; where do I store it in a OO correct way? Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Pass javascript array to php by using curly braces key name

    - by user7031
    My js code: $(function(){ var arr = new Array('jj', 'kk', 'oo'); $.post('test12.php', {'arr[]': arr}, function(data){ alert(data); }); }); PHP code: <?php echo print_r($_POST['arr']); The thing is,$.post receive a key named 'arr[]',it should be used in PHP as 'arr[]' instead of 'arr',but '$_POST['arr[]']' doesn't work,'arr' works.Which seems that Jquery might do something with curly braces '[]' before sending something to PHP. Secondly,when I remove the single quotas around 'arr[]',PHP can not receive anything by using $_POST['arr'];,I don't know why? Doing this task in a traditional way with no curly braces: $.post('test12.php', {arr: arr}, function(data){ alert(data); }); It works fine. So when sending javascript array to PHP,why bothering using single quote and curly braces like 'arr[]' instead of using a concise way like arr:arr My return result is Array( [0]=>jj [1]=>kk [2]=>oo ) 1 Notice there is a 1 under the array,why?

    Read the article

  • Why are configuration arrays acceptible parameters in PHP and Javascript?

    - by RenderIn
    In most other OO languages it would be sacrilege to have each function receive a single associative array of Objects rather than enumerating each in the method signature. Why is it acceptable and commonly used in most popular frameworks for both of these languages to do this? Is there some justification beyond wishing to have concise method signatures? I do see a benefit in this -- that the API could remain unchanged as new, optional parameters are added. But Javascript and PHP already allow for optional parameters in their method signatures. If anything, it seems like Java or another OO language would benefit from this more... and yet I rarely see this pattern there. What gives?

    Read the article

  • windows 2003 DNS server and DNS SEC

    - by pQd
    hi, i have almost out-of-the-box windows 2003 server which is also domain name server fro some users. should i be worried of 5th of may's deployment of dnssec on root name servers ? i have already run: dnscmd /Config /EnableEDnsProbes 1 thanks a lot!

    Read the article

  • what are the components you can install on RHEL?

    - by user16654
    I just got a question from a customer(actually from a customer to my manager then to me) and he is asking the following question: What are the components that were installed with RHEL? It may sound like a silly question but to me it sounds vague. The main thing I am thinking about now is during install you can select three components: webserver software development and virtualisation. Could they be asking fro something else?

    Read the article

  • Intel GMA 500 support for 11.10

    - by lucazade
    I would like to know if the new open-source video driver included in kernel 3.0.x for the Intel GMA 500 will be included by default in the kernel that will be shipped in OO. The driver support of this GFX chipset has always been poor and mainly community-driven, now finally we have a KMS open-source driver, written by kernel hackers, and actually included in staging kernel repo. If there is any kind of testing needed there is a mega-thread on Ubuntu Forums with hundreds of users ready to test everything.

    Read the article

  • What source code organization approach helps improve modularity and API/Implementation separation?

    - by Berin Loritsch
    Few languages are as restrictive as Java with file naming standards and project structure. In that language, the file name must match the public class declared in the file, and the file must live in a directory structure matching the class package. I have mixed feelings about that approach. While I never have to guess where a file lives, there's still a lot of empty directories and artificial constraints. There's several languages that define everything about a class in one file, at least by convention. C#, Python (I think), Ruby, Erlang, etc. The commonality in most these languages is that they are object oriented, although that statement can probably be rebuffed (there is one non-OO language in the list already). Finally, there's quite a few languages mostly in the C family that have a separate header and implementation file. For C I think this makes sense, because it is one of the few ways to separate the API interface from implementations. With C it seems that feature is used to promote modularity. Yet, with C++ the way header and implementation files are split seems rather forced. You don't get the same clean API separation that you do with C, and you are forced to include some private details in the header you would rather keep only in the implementation. There's quite a few languages that have a concept that overlaps with interfaces like Java, C#, Go, etc. Some languages use what feels like a hack to provide the same concept like C# using pure virtual abstract classes. Still others don't really have an interface concept and rely on "duck" typing--for example Ruby. Ruby has modules, but those are more along the lines of mixing in behaviors to a class than they are for defining how to interact with a class. In OO terms, interfaces are a powerful way to provide separation between an API client and an API implementation. So to hurry up and ask the question, from a personal experience point of view: Does separation of header and implementation help you write more modular code, or does it get in the way? (it helps to specify the language you are referring to) Does the strict file name to class name scheme of Java help maintainability, or is it unnecessary structure for structure's sake? What would you propose to promote good API/Implementation separation and project maintenance, how would you prefer to do it?

    Read the article

  • Book Review: Brownfield Application Development in .NET

    - by DotNetBlues
    I recently finished reading the book Brownfield Application Development in .NET by Kyle Baley and Donald Belcham.  The book is available from Manning.  First off, let me say that I'm a huge fan of Manning as a publisher.  I've found their books to be top-quality, over all.  As a Kindle owner, I also appreciate getting an ebook copy along with the dead tree copy.  I find ebooks to be much more convenient to read, but hard-copies are easier to reference. The book covers, surprisingly enough, working with brownfield applications.  Which is well and good, if that term has meaning to you.  It didn't for me.  Without retreading a chunk of the first chapter, the authors break code bases into three broad categories: greenfield, brownfield, and legacy.  Greenfield is, essentially, new development that hasn't had time to rust and is (hopefully) being approached with some discipline.  Legacy applications are those that are more or less stable and functional, that do not expect to see a lot of work done to them, and are more likely to be replaced than reworked. Brownfield code is the gray (brown?) area between the two and the authors argue, quite effectively, that it is the most likely state for an application to be in.  Brownfield code has, in some way, been allowed to tarnish around the edges and can be difficult to work with.  Although I hadn't realized it, most of the code I've worked on has been brownfield.  Sometimes, there's talk of scrapping and starting over.  Sometimes, the team dismisses increased discipline as ivory tower nonsense.  And, sometimes, I've been the ignorant culprit vexing my future self. The book is broken into two major sections, plus an introduction chapter and an appendix.  The first section covers what the authors refer to as "The Ecosystem" which consists of version control, build and integration, testing, metrics, and defect management.  The second section is on actually writing code for brownfield applications and discusses object-oriented principles, architecture, external dependencies, and, of course, how to deal with these when coming into an existing code base. The ecosystem section is just shy of 140 pages long and brings some real meat to the matter.  The focus on "pain points" immediately sets the tone as problem-solution, rather than academic.  The authors also approach some of the topics from a different angle than some essays I've read on similar topics.  For example, the chapter on automated testing is on just that -- automated testing.  It's all well and good to criticize a project as conflating integration tests with unit tests, but it really doesn't make anyone's life better.  The discussion on testing is more focused on the "right" level of testing for existing projects.  Sometimes, an integration test is the best you can do without gutting a section of functional code.  Even if you can sell other developers and/or management on doing so, it doesn't actually provide benefit to your customers to rewrite code that works.  This isn't to say the authors encourage sloppy coding.  Far from it.  Just that they point out the wisdom of ignoring the sleeping bear until after you deal with the snarling wolf. The other sections take a similarly real-world, workable approach to the pain points they address.  As the section moves from technical solutions like version control and continuous integration (CI) to the softer, process issues of metrics and defect tracking, the authors begin to gently suggest moving toward a zero defect count.  While that really sounds like an unreasonable goal for a lot of ongoing projects, it's quite apparent that the authors have first-hand experience with taming some gruesome projects.  The suggestions are grounded and workable, and the difficulty of some situations is explicitly acknowledged. I have to admit that I started getting bored by the end of the ecosystem section.  No matter how valuable I think a good project manager or business analyst is to a successful ALM, at the end of the day, I'm a gear-head.  Also, while I agreed with a lot of the ecosystem ideas, in theory, I didn't necessarily feel that a lot of the single-developer projects that I'm often involved in really needed that level of rigor.  It's only after reading the sidebars and commentary in the coding section that I had the context for the arguments made in favor of a strong ecosystem supporting the development process.  That isn't to say that I didn't support good product management -- indeed, I've probably pushed too hard, on occasion, for a strong ALM outside of just development.  This book gave me deeper insight into why some corners shouldn't be cut and how damaging certain sins of omission can be. The code section, though, kept me engaged for its entirety.  Many technical books can be used as reference material from day one.  The authors were clear, however, that this book is not one of these.  The first chapter of the section (chapter seven, over all) addresses object oriented (OO) practices.  I've read any number of definitions, discussions, and treatises on OO.  None of the chapter was new to me, but it was a good review, and I'm of the opinion that it's good to review the foundations of what you do, from time to time, so I didn't mind. The remainder of the book is really just about how to apply OOP to existing code -- and, just because all your code exists in classes does not mean that it's object oriented.  That topic has the potential to be extremely condescending, but the authors miraculously managed to never once make me feel like a dolt or that they were wagging their finger at me for my prior sins.  Instead, they continue the "pain points" and problem-solution presentation to give concrete examples of how to apply some pretty academic-sounding ideas.  That's a point worth emphasizing, as my experience with most OO discussions is that they stay in the academic realm.  This book gives some very, very good explanations of why things like the Liskov Substitution Principle exist and why a corporate programmer should even care.  Even if you know, with absolute certainty, that you'll never have to work on an existing code-base, I would recommend this book just for the clarity it provides on OOP. This book goes beyond just theory, or even real-world application.  It presents some methods for fixing problems that any developer can, and probably will, encounter in the wild.  First, the authors address refactoring application layers and internal dependencies.  Then, they take you through those layers from the UI to the data access layer and external dependencies.  Finally, they come full circle to tie it all back to the overall process.  By the time the book is done, you're left with a lot of ideas, but also a reasonable plan to begin to improve an existing project structure. Throughout the book, it's apparent that the authors have their own preferred methodology (TDD and domain-driven design), as well as some preferred tools.  The "Our .NET Toolbox" is something of a neon sign pointing to that latter point.  They do not beat the reader over the head with anything resembling a "One True Way" mentality.  Even for the most emphatic points, the tone is quite congenial and helpful.  With some of the near-theological divides that exist within the tech community, I found this to be one of the more remarkable characteristics of the book.  Although the authors favor tools that might be considered Alt.NET, there is no reason the advice and techniques given couldn't be quite successful in a pure Microsoft shop with Team Foundation Server.  For that matter, even though the book specifically addresses .NET, it could be applied to a Java and Oracle shop, as well.

    Read the article

  • Intel Gma500 support for Oneiric Ocelot

    - by lucazade
    I would like to know if the new opensource video driver included in kernel 3.0.x for the Intel Gma500 will be included by default in the kernel that will be shipped in OO. The driver support of this gfx chipset has always been poor and mainly community-driven, now finally we have a KMS opensource driver, written by kernel hackers, and actually included in staging kernel repo. If there is any kind of testing needed there is a mega-thread on ubuntu-forums with hundreds of users ready to test everything :)

    Read the article

  • How to apply Data Oriented Design with Object Oriented Programming?

    - by Pombal
    Hi. I've read lots of articles about DOD and I understand it but I can't design an Object Oriented system with DOD in mind, I think my OOP education is blocking me. How should I think to mix the two? The objective is to have a nice OO interface while using DOD behind the scenes. I saw this too but didn't help much: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3872354/how-to-apply-dop-and-keep-a-nice-user-interface

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21  | Next Page >