Search Results

Search found 10115 results on 405 pages for 'coding practices'.

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 16/405 | < Previous Page | 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23  | Next Page >

  • Are endless loops in bad form?

    - by rlbond
    So I have some C++ code for back-tracking nodes in a BFS algorithm. It looks a little like this: typedef std::map<int> MapType; bool IsValuePresent(const MapType& myMap, int beginVal, int searchVal) { int current_val = beginVal; while (true) { if (current_val == searchVal) return true; MapType::iterator it = myMap.find(current_val); assert(current_val != myMap.end()); if (current_val == it->second) // end of the line return false; current_val = it->second; } } However, the while (true) seems... suspicious to me. I know this code works, and logically I know it should work. However, I can't shake the feeling that there should be some condition in the while, but really the only possible one is to use a bool variable just to say if it's done. Should I stop worrying? Or is this really bad form. EDIT: Thanks to all for noticing that there is a way to get around this. However, I would still like to know if there are other valid cases.

    Read the article

  • Is it proper to get and especially set Perl module's global variables directly?

    - by DVK
    I was wondering what the best practice in Perl is regarding getting - or, more importantly, setting - a global variable of some module by directly accessing $Module::varName in case the module didn't provide getter/setter method for it. The reason it smells bad to me is the fact that it sort of circumvents encapsulation. Just because I can do it in Perl, I'm not entirely certain I should (assuming there actually is an alternative such as adding a getter/setter to the module). I'm asking this because I'm about to request an addition of a getter/setter for a global variable in one of the core Perl modules, and I would like to avoid it soundly and unanimously rejected on the grounds of "Why the heck do you need one when you can access the variable in the package directly?" - in case doing the latter is actually considered perfectly OK by the community.

    Read the article

  • Recommendations for 'C' Project architecture guidlines?

    - by SiegeX
    Now that I got my head wrapped around the 'C' language to a point where I feel proficient enough to write clean code, I'd like to focus my attention on project architecture guidelines. I'm looking for a good resource that coves the following topics: How to create an interface that promotes code maintainability and is extensible for future upgrades. Library creation guidelines. Example, when should I consider using static vs dynamic libraries. How to properly design an ABI to cope with either one. Header files: what to partition out and when. Examples on when to use 1:1 vs 1:many .h to .c Anything you feel I missed but is important when attempting to architect a new C project. Ideally, I'd like to see some example projects ranging from small to large and see how the architecture changes depending on project size, function or customer. What resource(s) would you recommend for such topics? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Fluent API Style Usage

    - by Chris Dwyer
    When programming against a fluent API, I've seen the style mostly like this: var obj = objectFactory.CreateObject() .SetObjectParameter(paramName, value) .SetObjectParameter(paramName, value) .DoSomeTransformation(); What is the reasoning behind putting the dot at the beginning of the line instead of the end of the line like this: var obj = objectFactory.CreateObject(). SetObjectParameter(paramName, value). SetObjectParameter(paramName, value). DoSomeTransformation(); Or, is it merely a style thing that a team makes a consensus on?

    Read the article

  • Hyphens or underscores in CSS and HTML identifiers?

    - by Török Gábor
    As both hyphen (-) and underscore (_) are valid characters in CSS and HTML identifiers, what are the advantages and disadvantages using one or the other? I prefer writing CSS class names with hyphens (e.g. field-text) and underscores for IDs (e.g. featured_content). Is there a best practice or it's only the matter of taste?

    Read the article

  • Creative ways to punish (or just curb) laziness in coworkers

    - by FerretallicA
    Like the subject suggests, what are some creative ways to curb laziness in co-workers? By laziness I'm talking about things like using variable names like "inttheemplrcd" instead of "intEmployerCode" or not keeping their projects synced with SVN, not just people who use the last of the sugar in the coffee room and don't refill the jar. So far the two most effective things I've done both involve the core library my company uses. Since most of our programs are in VB.net the lack of case sensitivity is abused a lot. I've got certain features of the library using Reflection to access data in the client apps, which has a negligible performance hit and introduces case sensitivity in a lot places where it is used. In instances where we have an agreed standard which is compromised by blatant laziness I take it a step further, like the DatabaseController class which will blatantly reject any DataTable passed to it which isn't named dtSomething (ie- must begin with dt and third letter must be capitalised). It's frustrating to have to resort to things like this but it has also gradually helped drill more attention to detail into their heads. Another is adding some code to the library's initialisation function to display a big and potentially embarrassing (only if seen by a client) message advising that the program is running in debug mode. We have had many instances where projects are sent to clients built in debug mode which has a lot of implications for us (especially with regard to error recovery) and doing that has made sure they always build to release before distributing. Any other creative (ie- not StyleCop etc) approaches like this?

    Read the article

  • What is your "favorite" anti pattern?

    - by Omar Kooheji
    By favorite I mean the one that gets your goat the most, not the one you enjoy using the most. I'm fairly new to the concept of anti patterns and I'd like a list of do not do's. An explanation of why it's an antipattern and what problems it causes would be good too.

    Read the article

  • Java operator overloading

    - by nimcap
    Not using operators makes my code obscure. (aNumber / aNother) * count is better than aNumber.divideBy(aNother).times(count) After 6 months of not writing a single comment I had to write a comment to the simple operation above. Usually I refactor until I don't need comment. And this made me realize that it is easier to read and perceive math symbols and numbers than their written forms. For example TWENTY_THOUSAND_THIRTEEN.plus(FORTY_TWO.times(TWO_HUNDERED_SIXTY_ONE)) is more obscure than 20013 + 42*261 So do you know a way to get rid of obscurity while not using operator overloading in Java? Update: I did not think my exaggeration on comments would cause such trouble to me. I am admitting that I needed to write comment a couple of times in 6 months. But not more than 10 lines in total. Sorry for that. Update 2: Another example: budget.plus(bonusCoefficient.times(points)) is more obscure than budget + bonusCoefficient * points I have to stop and think on the first one, at first sight it looks like clutter of words, on the other hand, I get the meaning at first look for the second one, it is very clear and neat. I know this cannot be achieved in Java but I wanted to hear some ideas about my alternatives.

    Read the article

  • Revision histories and documenting changes

    - by jasonline
    I work on legacy systems and I used to see revision history of files or functions being modified every release in the source code, for example: // // Rev. No Date Author Description // ------------------------------------------------------- // 1.0 2009/12/01 johnc <Some description> // 1.1 2009/12/24 daveb <Some description> // ------------------------------------------------------- void Logger::initialize() { // a = b; // Old code, just commented and not deleted a = b + c; // New code } I'm just wondering if this way of documenting history is still being practiced by many today? If yes, how do you apply modifications on the source code - do you comment it or delete it completely? If not, what's the best way to document these revisions? If you use version control systems, does it follow that your source files contain pure source codes, except for comments when necessary (no revision history for each function, etc.)?

    Read the article

  • How much of STL is too much?

    - by Darius Kucinskas
    I am using a lot of STL code with std::for_each, bind, and so on, but I noticed that sometimes STL usage is not good idea. For example if you have a std::vector and want to do one action on each item of the vector, your first idea is to use this: std::for_each(vec.begin(), vec.end(), Foo()) and it is elegant and ok, for a while. But then comes the first set of bug reports and you have to modify code. Now you should add parameter to call Foo(), so now it becomes: std::for_each(vec.begin(), vec.end(), std::bind2nd(Foo(), X)) but that is only temporary solution. Now the project is maturing and you understand business logic much better and you want to add new modifications to code. It is at this point that you realize that you should use old good: for(std::vector::iterator it = vec.begin(); it != vec.end(); ++it) Is this happening only to me? Do you recognise this kind of pattern in your code? Have you experience similar anti-patterns using STL?

    Read the article

  • When is JavaScript's eval() not evil?

    - by Richard Turner
    I'm writing some JavaScript to parse user-entered functions (for spreadsheet-like functionality). Having parsed the formula I could convert it into JavaScript and run eval() on it to yield the result. However, I've always shied away from using eval() if I can avoid it because it's evil (and, rightly or wrongly, I've always thought it is even more evil in JavaScript because the code to be evaluated might be changed by the user). Obviously one has to use eval() to parse JSON (I presume that JS libraries use eval() for this somewhere, even if they run the JSON through a regex check first), but when else, other than when manipulating JSON, it is OK to use eval()?

    Read the article

  • Best practice - When to evaluate conditionals of function execution

    - by Tesserex
    If I have a function called from a few places, and it requires some condition to be met for anything it does to execute, where should that condition be checked? In my case, it's for drawing - if the mouse button is held down, then execute the drawing logic (this is being done in the mouse movement handler for when you drag.) Option one says put it in the function so that it's guaranteed to be checked. Abstracted, if you will. public function Foo() { DoThing(); } private function DoThing() { if (!condition) return; // do stuff } The problem I have with this is that when reading the code of Foo, which may be far away from DoThing, it looks like a bug. The first thought is that the condition isn't being checked. Option two, then, is to check before calling. public function Foo() { if (condition) DoThing(); } This reads better, but now you have to worry about checking from everywhere you call it. Option three is to rename the function to be more descriptive. public function Foo() { DoThingOnlyIfCondition(); } private function DoThingOnlyIfCondition() { if (!condition) return; // do stuff } Is this the "correct" solution? Or is this going a bit too far? I feel like if everything were like this function names would start to duplicate their code. About this being subjective: of course it is, and there may not be a right answer, but I think it's still perfectly at home here. Getting advice from better programmers than I is the second best way to learn. Subjective questions are exactly the kind of thing Google can't answer.

    Read the article

  • Recommendations for 'C' Project architecture guidelines?

    - by SiegeX
    Now that I got my head wrapped around the 'C' language to a point where I feel proficient enough to write clean code, I'd like to focus my attention on project architecture guidelines. I'm looking for a good resource that coves the following topics: How to create an interface that promotes code maintainability and is extensible for future upgrades. Library creation guidelines. Example, when should I consider using static vs dynamic libraries. How to properly design an ABI to cope with either one. Header files: what to partition out and when. Examples on when to use 1:1 vs 1:many .h to .c Anything you feel I missed but is important when attempting to architect a new C project. Ideally, I'd like to see some example projects ranging from small to large and see how the architecture changes depending on project size, function or customer. What resource(s) would you recommend for such topics?

    Read the article

  • Use continue or Checked Exceptions when checking and processing objects

    - by Johan Pelgrim
    I'm processing, let's say a list of "Document" objects. Before I record the processing of the document successful I first want to check a couple of things. Let's say, the file referring to the document should be present and something in the document should be present. Just two simple checks for the example but think about 8 more checks before I have successfully processed my document. What would have your preference? for (Document document : List<Document> documents) { if (!fileIsPresent(document)) { doSomethingWithThisResult("File is not present"); continue; } if (!isSomethingInTheDocumentPresent(document)) { doSomethingWithThisResult("Something is not in the document"); continue; } doSomethingWithTheSucces(); } Or for (Document document : List<Document> documents) { try { fileIsPresent(document); isSomethingInTheDocumentPresent(document); doSomethingWithTheSucces(); } catch (ProcessingException e) { doSomethingWithTheExceptionalCase(e.getMessage()); } } public boolean fileIsPresent(Document document) throws ProcessingException { ... throw new ProcessingException("File is not present"); } public boolean isSomethingInTheDocumentPresent(Document document) throws ProcessingException { ... throw new ProcessingException("Something is not in the document"); } What is more readable. What is best? Is there even a better approach of doing this (maybe using a design pattern of some sort)? As far as readability goes my preference currently is the Exception variant... What is yours?

    Read the article

  • Consistency vs Design Guidelines

    - by Adrian Faciu
    Lets say that you get involved in the development of a large project that is already in development for a long period ( more than one year ). The projects follows some of the current design guidelines, but also has a few different, that are currently discouraged ( mostly at naming guidelines ). Supposing that you can't/aren't allowed to change the whole project: What should be more important, consistency, follow the existing ones and defy current guidelines or the usage of the guidelines, creating differences between modules of the same project ? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • best practice on precedence of variable declaration and error handling in C

    - by guest
    is there an advantage in one of the following two approaches over the other? here it is first tested, whether fopen succeeds at all and then all the variable declarations take place, to ensure they are not carried out, since they mustn't have had to void func(void) { FILE *fd; if ((fd = fopen("blafoo", "+r")) == NULL ) { fprintf(stderr, "fopen() failed\n"); exit(EXIT_FAILURE); } int a, b, c; float d, e, f; /* variable declarations */ /* remaining code */ } this is just the opposite. all variable declarations take place, even if fopen fails void func(void) { FILE *fd; int a, b, c; float d, e, f; /* variable declarations */ if ((fd = fopen("blafoo", "+r")) == NULL ) { fprintf(stderr, "fopen() failed\n"); exit(EXIT_FAILURE); } /* remaining code */ } does the second approach produce any additional cost, when fopen fails? would love to hear your thoughts!

    Read the article

  • How to properly document programming languages?

    - by roydukkey
    Where can I find information on how to properly document a programming language? What I mean is that there seems to be a standard way to document code. php.net and api.jquery.com seem to document there code the a similar way. For example, the trim() description on php.net. string trim ( string $str [, string $charlist ] ) And likewise on jquery.com .animate( properties, [ duration ], [ easing ], [ callback ] ) Does anyone even know what this syntax is called?

    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 | 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23  | Next Page >