Search Results

Search found 28590 results on 1144 pages for 'best pactice'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 141/1144 | < Previous Page | 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148  | Next Page >

  • int i vs int index etc. Which one is better?

    - by Earlz
    Coming from a C background I've always used int i for generic loop variables. Of course in big nested loops or other complex things I may use a descriptive name but which one had you rather see? int i; for(i=0;i<Controls.Count;i++){ DoStuff(Controls[i]); } or int index; for(index=0;index<Controls.Count;index++){ DoStuff(Controls[index]); } In the current project I am working on there are both of these styles and index being replaced by ndx. Which one is better? Is the i variable too generic? Also what about the other C style names? i, j, k Should all of these be replaced by actual descriptive variables?

    Read the article

  • Should I create a new extension for an xml file?

    - by macleojw
    I'm working with a data model stored in XML files. I want to create some metadata for the model and store it alongside, but would like to be able to distinguish between the two. The data model is imported into some software from time to time and we don't want it to try to import the meta data files. To get round this, I've been thinking of creating a new extension for the metadata xml files (say .mdml). Is this good practice?

    Read the article

  • What are the standard practices for throwing Javascript Exceptions?

    - by T.R.
    w3schools says that exceptions can be strings, integers, booleans, or objects, but the example given doesn't strike me as good practice, since exception type checking is done through string comparison. Is this the preferred method of exception handling in Javascript? Are there built-in exception types (like NullPointerException)? (if so, what are they, what kind of inheritance do they use, and are they preferred over other options?)

    Read the article

  • AS3: Performance question calling an event function with null param

    - by adehaas
    Lately I needed to call a listener function without an actual listener like so: foo(null); private function foo(event:Event):void { //do something } So I was wondering if there is a significant difference regarding performance between this and using the following, in which I can prevent the null in calling the function without the listener, but am still able to call it with a listener as well: foo(); private function foo(event:Event = null):void { } I am not sure wether it is just a question of style, or actually bad practice and I should write two similar functions, one with and one without the event param (which seems cumbersome to me). Looking forward to your opinions, thx.

    Read the article

  • How should I best store these files?

    - by Triton Man
    I have a set of image files, they are generally very small, between 5k and 100k. They can be any size though, upwards of 50mb but this is very rare. When these images are put into the system they are not ever modified. There is about 50 TB of these images total. They are currently chunked and stored in BLOBs in Oracle, but we want to change this since it requires special software to extract them. These images are access sometimes at a rate of over 100 requests per second among about 10 servers. I'm thinking about Hadoop or Cassandra, but I really don't know which would be best or how best to index them.

    Read the article

  • STLifying C++ classes

    - by shambulator
    I'm trying to write a class which contains several std::vectors as data members, and provides a subset of vector's interface to access them: class Mesh { public: private: std::vector<Vector3> positions; std::vector<Vector3> normals; // Several other members along the same lines }; The main thing you can do with a mesh is add positions, normals and other stuff to it. In order to allow an STL-like way of accessing a Mesh (add from arrays, other containers, etc.), I'm toying with the idea of adding methods like this: public: template<class InIter> void AddNormals(InIter first, InIter last); Problem is, from what I understand of templates, these methods will have to be defined in the header file (seems to make sense; without a concrete iterator type, the compiler doesn't know how to generate object code for the obvious implementation of this method). Is this actually a problem? My gut reaction is not to go around sticking huge chunks of code in header files, but my C++ is a little rusty with not much STL experience outside toy examples, and I'm not sure what "acceptable" C++ coding practice is on this. Is there a better way to expose this functionality while retaining an STL-like generic programming flavour? One way would be something like this: (end list) class RestrictedVector<T> { public: RestrictedVector(std::vector<T> wrapped) : wrapped(wrapped) {} template <class InIter> void Add(InIter first, InIter last) { std::copy(first, last, std::back_insert_iterator(wrapped)); } private: std::vector<T> wrapped; }; and then expose instances of these on Mesh instead, but that's starting to reek a little of overengineering :P Any advice is greatly appreciated!

    Read the article

  • Avoiding repetition with libraries that use a setup + execute model

    - by lijie
    Some libraries offer the ability to separate setup and execution, esp if the setup portion has undesirable characteristics such as unbounded latency. If the program needs to have this reflected in its structure, then it is natural to have: void setupXXX(...); // which calls the setup stuff void doXXX(...); // which calls the execute stuff The problem with this is that the structure of setupXXX and doXXX is going to be quite similar (at least textually -- control flow will prob be more complex in doXXX). Wondering if there are any ways to avoid this. Example: Let's say we're doing signal processing: filtering with a known kernel in the frequency domain. so, setupXXX and doXXX would probably be something like... void doFilter(FilterStuff *c) { for (int i = 0; i < c->N; ++i) { doFFT(c->x[i], c->fft_forward_setup, c->tmp); doMultiplyVector(c->tmp, c->filter); doFFT(c->tmp, c->fft_inverse_setup, c->x[i]); } } void setupFilter(FilterStuff *c) { setupFFT(..., &(c->fft_forward_setup)); // assign the kernel to c->filter ... setupFFT(..., &(c->fft_inverse_setup)); }

    Read the article

  • how to organize classes in ruby if they are literal subclasses

    - by RetroNoodle
    I know that title didn't make sense, Im sorry! Its hard to word what I am trying to ask. I had trouble googling it for the same reason. So this isn't even Ruby specific, but I am working in ruby and I am new to it, so bear with me. So you have a class that is a document. Inside each document, you have sentences, and each sentence has words. Words will have properties, like "noun" or a count of how many times they are used in the document, etc. I would like each of the elements, document, sentence, word be an object. Now, if you think literally - sentences are in documents, and words are in sentences. Should this be organized literally like this as well? Like inside the document class you will define and instantiate the sentence objects, and inside the sentence class you will define and instantiate the words? Or, should everything be separate and reference each other? Like the word class would sit outside the sentence class but the sentence class would be able to instantiate and work with words? This is a basic OOP question I guess, and I suppose you could argue to do it either way. What do you guys think? Each sentence in the document could be stored in a hash of sentence objects inside the document object, and each word in the sentence could be stored in a hash of word objects inside the sentence. I dont want to code myself into a corner here, thats why I am asking, plus I have wondered this before in other situations. Thank you!

    Read the article

  • Call a non member funcion on an instance before is constructed.

    - by Tom
    Hi everyone. I'm writing a class, and this doubt came up. Is this undef. behaviour? On the other hand, I'm not sure its recommended, or if its a good practice. Is it one if I ensure no exceptions to be thrown in the init function? //c.h class C{ float vx,vy; friend void init(C& c); public: C(); ~C(); }; //c.cpp C::C() { init(*this); } void init(C& c) //throws() to ensure no exceptions ? { c.vx = 0; c.vy = 0; } Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • Am i using too much jquery? When i'm crossing the line?

    - by Andrea
    Lately i find myself using jquery and javascript a lot, often to do the same things that i did before using css. For example, i alternate table rows color or create buttons and links hover effects using javascript/jquery. Is this acceptable? Or should i keep using css for these kind of things? So the real question is: When i'm using too much jquery? How can i understand when i'm crossing the line? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • CSS: Base styles on body or html?

    - by Svish
    When I declare some base styles for my site I have used to do that on the body tag. Like for example body { font-size: medium; line-height: 1.3em; } But I have also seen people do things like that on the html tag. And on both. Where should it be done? Should some be at one and some at the other? Should all be on one of them? Or does it simply not matter at all? Or?

    Read the article

  • Defining implicit and explicit casts for C# interfaces

    - by ehdv
    Is there a way to write interface-based code (i.e. using interfaces rather than classes as the types accepted and passed around) in C# without giving up the use of things like implicit casts? Here's some sample code - there's been a lot removed, but these are the relevant portions. public class Game { public class VariantInfo { public string Language { get; set; } public string Variant { get; set; } } } And in ScrDictionary.cs, we have... public class ScrDictionary: IScrDictionary { public string Language { get; set; } public string Variant { get; set; } public static implicit operator Game.VariantInfo(ScrDictionary s) { return new Game.VariantInfo{Language=sd.Language, Variant=sd.Variant}; } } And the interface... public interface IScrDictionary { string Language { get; set; } string Variant { get; set; } } I want to be able to use IScrDictionary instead of ScrDictionary, but still be able to implicitly convert a ScrDictionary to a Game.VariantInfo. Also, while there may be an easy way to make this work by giving IScrDictionary a property of type Game.VariantInfo my question is more generally: Is there a way to define casts or operator overloading on interfaces? (If not, what is the proper C# way to maintain this functionality without giving up interface-oriented design?)

    Read the article

  • Tests that are 2-3 times bigger than the testable code

    - by HeavyWave
    Is it normal to have tests that are way bigger than the actual code being tested? For every line of code I am testing I usually have 2-3 lines in the unit test. Which ultimately leads to tons of time being spent just typing the tests in (mock, mock and mock more). Where are the time savings? Do you ever avoid tests for code that is along the lines of being trivial? Most of my methods are less than 10 lines long and testing each one of them takes a lot of time, to the point where, as you see, I start questioning writing most of the tests in the first place. I am not advocating not unit testing, I like it. Just want to see what factors people consider before writing tests. They come at a cost (in terms of time, hence money), so this cost must be evaluated somehow. How do you estimate the savings created by your unit tests, if ever?

    Read the article

  • Best way to support large dropdowns

    - by JustAProgrammer
    Say I have a report that can be restricted by specifying some value in a dropdown. This dropdown list references a table with 30,000 records. I don't think this would be feasible to populate a dropdown with! So, what is the best way to provide the user the ability to select a value given this situation? These values do not really have categories and even if I subdivided (by having some nesting dropdown situation) by the first letter of the value, that may still leave a few thousand entries. What's the best way to deal with this?

    Read the article

  • Fastest way to check for value existance.

    - by Itay Moav
    I have a list of values I have to check my input against it for existence. What is the faster way? This is really out of curiosity on how the internals work, not any stuff about premature optimization etc... 1. $x=array('v'=>'','c'=>'','w'=>); .. .. array_key_exists($input,$x); 2. $x=array('v','c','w'); .. .. in_array($input,$x);

    Read the article

  • Generating new tasks in a foreach loop

    - by Scott Chamberlain
    I know from the codeing guidlines that I have read you should not do for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) { Task.Factory.StartNew(() => Console.WriteLine(i)); } Console.ReadLine(); as it will write 5 5's, I understand that and I think i understand why it is happening. I know the solution is just to do for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) { int localI = i; Task.Factory.StartNew(() => Console.WriteLine(localI)); } Console.ReadLine(); However is something like this ok to do? Task currentTask = myFirstTask; currentTask.Start(); foreach (Task task in _TaskList) { currentTask.ContinueWith((antecendent) => { if(antecendent.IsCompleated) { task.Start(); } else //do error handling; }); currentTask = task; } } or do i need to do this? Task currentTask = myFirstTask; foreach (Task task in _TaskList) { Task localTask = task; currentTask.ContinueWith((antecendent) => { if(antecendent.IsCompleated) { localTask.Start(); } else //do error handling; }); currentTask = task; }

    Read the article

  • Call a non member function on an instance before is constructed.

    - by Tom
    Hi everyone. I'm writing a class, and this doubt came up. Is this undef. behaviour? On the other hand, I'm not sure its recommended, or if its a good practice. Is it one if I ensure no exceptions to be thrown in the init function? //c.h class C{ float vx,vy; friend void init(C& c); public: C(); }; //c.cpp C::C() { init(*this); } void init(C& c) //throws() to ensure no exceptions ? { c.vx = 0; c.vy = 0; } Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • Flexible array members in C - bad?

    - by Lionel
    I recently read that using flexible array members in C was poor software engineering practice. However, that statement was not backed by any argument. Is this an accepted fact? (Flexible array members are a C feature introduced in C99 whereby one can declare the last element to be an array of unspecified size. For example: ) struct header { size_t len; unsigned char data[]; };

    Read the article

  • Should I go back and fix work when you learn something new/better?

    - by SnOrfus
    Considering that we're all constantly learning, we've all got to come across a point where we learn something just awesome that improves our code or parts of it significantly. The question is, when you've learned some new technique, strategy or whatever, do your or should you go back to code that you know works, but could be so much better/maintainable/faster/generally improved and implement this new knowledge? I understand the concept of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" but when does that become losing pride in code you've already written and what does it say for refactoring.

    Read the article

  • Best way to save info in hash

    - by qwertymk
    I have a webpage that the user inputs data into a textarea and then process and display it with some javascript. For example if the user types: _Hello_ *World* it would do something like: <underline>Hello</underline> <b>World</b> Or something like that, the details aren't important. Now the user can "save" the page to make it something like site.com/page#_Hello_%20*World* and share that link with others. My question is: Is this the best way to do this? Is there a limit on a url that I should be worried about? Should I do something like what jsfiddle does? I would prefer not to as the site would work offline if the full text would be in the hash, and as the nature of the site is to be used offline, the user would have to first cache the jsfiddle-like hash before they could use it. What's the best way to do this?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148  | Next Page >