Search Results

Search found 1783 results on 72 pages for 'computation theory'.

Page 16/72 | < Previous Page | 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23  | Next Page >

  • Algorithms for positioning rectangles evenly spaced with unknown connecting lines

    - by MacGyver
    I'm new to game development, but I'm trying to figure out a good algorithm for positioning rectangles (of any width and height) in a given surface area, and connecting them with any variation of lines. Two rectangles will never have more than one line connecting them. Where would I begin working on a problem like this? This is only a 2 dimensional surface. I read about graph theory, and it seems like this is a close representation of that. The rectangles would be considered a node, and the lines connecting them would be considered an edge in graph theory.

    Read the article

  • How to devise instruction set of a stack based machine?

    - by Anindya Chatterjee
    Stack based virtual machines like CLR and JVM has different set of instructions. Is there any theory behind devising the instruction set while creating a virtual machine? e.g. there are JVM instruction sets to load constants from 0-5 onto the stack iconst_0 iconst_1 iconst_2 iconst_3 iconst_4 iconst_5 whereas in CLR there are instruction set to load number from 0 to 8 onto the stack as follows ldc.i4.0 ldc.i4.1 ldc.i4.2 ldc.i4.3 ldc.i4.4 ldc.i4.5 ldc.i4.6 ldc.i4.7 ldc.i4.8 why there is no ldc.i4.9 and if ldc.i4 is there why we need the above opcodes? And there are others like these. I am eager to know what is the reason behind this difference between opcodes of different VMs? Is there any specific theory to devise these opcodes or it is totally driven by the characteristics of the VM itself or depends on the high-level language constructs?

    Read the article

  • Dealing with engineers that frequently leave their jobs [closed]

    - by ??? Shengyuan Lu
    My friend is a project manager for a software company. The most frustrating thing for him is that his engineers frequently leave their jobs. The company works hard to recruit new engineers, transfer projects, and keep a stable quality product. When people leave, it drives my friend crazy. These engineers are quite young and ambitious, and they want higher salaries and better positions. The big boss only thinks about it in financial terms, and his theory is that “three newbies are always better than one veteran” (which, as an experienced engineer, I know is wrong). My friend hates that theory. Any advice for him?

    Read the article

  • Dealing with engineers that frequently leave their jobs

    - by ??? Shengyuan Lu
    My friend is a project manager for a software company. The most frustrating thing for him is that his engineers frequently leave their jobs. The company works hard to recruit new engineers, transfer projects, and keep a stable quality product. When people leave, it drives my friend crazy. These engineers are quite young and ambitious, and they want higher salaries and better positions. The big boss only thinks about it in financial terms, and his theory is that “three newbies are always better than one veteran” (which, as an experienced engineer, I know is wrong). My friend hates that theory. Any advice for him?

    Read the article

  • Misconceptions about purely functional languages?

    - by Giorgio
    I often encounter the following statements / arguments: Pure functional programming languages do not allow side effects (and are therefore of little use in practice because any useful program does have side effects, e.g. when it interacts with the external world). Pure functional programming languages do not allow to write a program that maintains state (which makes programming very awkward because in many application you do need state). I am not an expert in functional languages but here is what I have understood about these topics until now. Regarding point 1, you can interact with the environment in purely functional languages but you have to explicitly mark the code (functions) that introduces them (e.g. in Haskell by means of monadic types). Also, AFAIK computing by side effects (destructively updating data) should also be possible (using monadic types?) but is not the preferred way of working. Regarding point 2, AFAIK you can represent state by threading values through several computation steps (in Haskell, again, using monadic types) but I have no practical experience doing this and my understanding is rather vague. So, are the two statements above correct in any sense or are they just misconceptions about purely functional languages? If they are misconceptions, how did they come about? Could you write a (possibly small) code snippet illustrating the Haskell idiomatic way to (1) implement side effects and (2) implement a computation with state?

    Read the article

  • Floating point undesireable in highly critical code?

    - by Kirt Undercoffer
    Question 11 in the Software Quality section of "IEEE Computer Society Real-World Software Engineering Problems", Naveda, Seidman, lists fp computation as undesirable because "the accuracy of the computations cannot be guaranteed". This is in the context of computing acceleration for an emergency braking system for a high speed train. This thinking seems to be invoking possible errors in small differences between measurements of a moving object but small differences at slow speeds aren't a problem (or shouldn't be), small differences between two measurements at high speed are irrelevant - can there be a problem with small roundoff errors during deceleration for an emergency braking system? This problem has been observed with airplane braking systems resulting in hydroplaning but could this actually happen in the context of a high speed train? The concern about fp errors seems to not be well-founded in this context. Any insight? The fp is used for acceleration so perhaps the concern is inching over a speed limit? But fp should be just fine if they use a double in whatever implementation language. The actual problem in the text states: During the inspection of the code for the emergency braking system of a new high speed train (a highly critical, real-time application), the review team identifies several characteristics of the code. Which of these characteristics are generally viewed as undesirable? The code contains three recursive functions (well that one is obvious). The computation of acceleration uses floating point arithmetic. All other computations use integer arithmetic. The code contains one linked list that uses dynamic memory allocation (second obvious problem). All inputs are checked to determine that they are within expected bounds before they are used.

    Read the article

  • Floating point undesirable in highly critical code?

    - by Kirt Undercoffer
    Question 11 in the Software Quality section of "IEEE Computer Society Real-World Software Engineering Problems", Naveda, Seidman, lists fp computation as undesirable because "the accuracy of the computations cannot be guaranteed". This is in the context of computing acceleration for an emergency braking system for a high speed train. This thinking seems to be invoking possible errors in small differences between measurements of a moving object but small differences at slow speeds aren't a problem (or shouldn't be), small differences between two measurements at high speed are irrelevant - can there be a problem with small roundoff errors during deceleration for an emergency braking system? This problem has been observed with airplane braking systems resulting in hydroplaning but could this actually happen in the context of a high speed train? The concern about fp errors seems to not be well-founded in this context. Any insight? The fp is used for acceleration so perhaps the concern is inching over a speed limit? But fp should be just fine if they use a double in whatever implementation language. The actual problem in the text states: During the inspection of the code for the emergency braking system of a new high speed train (a highly critical, real-time application), the review team identifies several characteristics of the code. Which of these characteristics are generally viewed as undesirable? The code contains three recursive functions (well that one is obvious). The computation of acceleration uses floating point arithmetic. All other computations use integer arithmetic. The code contains one linked list that uses dynamic memory allocation (second obvious problem). All inputs are checked to determine that they are within expected bounds before they are used.

    Read the article

  • Possible iphone animation timing/rendering bug?

    - by David
    Hi all, I have been working on an iphone apps for several weeks. Now I encounter an animation problem that I can't figure out how to resolve. Mayhbe you can help. Here is the details (a little long, bear with me): Basically the effect I want to achieve is, when user click a button, a loading view pops up, hiding the whole screen; and then the apps does a lot of heavy computation, which takes a few seconds. Once the computation is done, soem result views (something likes checkers on a checker board) are rendered under the loading view. Once all result views are rendered, I used animation animation to remove the loading view nand show the result views to the user. Here is what I do: when user click a button, run this code: [UIView beginAnimations:nil context:nil]; [UIView setAnimationDuration:1.0]; [UIView setAnimationBeginsFromCurrentState:YES]; [UIView setAnimationTransition:UIViewAnimationTransitionCurlDown forView:self.view cache:YES]; [UIView setAnimationDelegate:self]; [UIView setAnimationDidStopSelector:@selector(loadingViewInserted:finished:context:)]; // use a really high index number so it will always on top [self.view insertSubview:loadingViewController.view atIndex:1000]; [UIView commitAnimations]; In the "loadingViewInserted" function, it calls another function doing the heavy computation work. Once the computation is done, a lot of result views (like checkers on a checker board) are rendered under the loading view. for(int colIndex = 1; colIndex <= result.columns; colIndex++) { for(int rowIndex = 1; rowIndex <= result.rows; rowIndex++) { ResultView *rv = [ResultView resultViewWithData:results[colIndex][rowIndex]]; [self.view addSubview:rv]; } } Once all result views are added, following animation is invoked to remove the loading view: [UIView beginAnimations:nil context:nil]; [UIView setAnimationDuration:1.0]; [UIView setAnimationBeginsFromCurrentState:YES]; [UIView setAnimationTransition:UIViewAnimationTransitionCurlUp forView:self.view cache:YES]; [loadingViewController.view removeFromSuperview]; [UIView commitAnimations]; By doing this, most of the time (maybe 90%) it does exactly what I want. However, sometime I see some weird result: the loading view shows up first as expected, then before it disappears, some result views, which suppose to be under the loading view, suddenly appears on top of the loading view; and some of them are partial rendered. And then the loading view curled up, and everything looks normal again. The weird situation only lasts for less than a second, but already bad enough to screw up the UI. I have tried all different kinds of thing to fix this (using another thread to remove the loading view, make the loading view non-transparent), but none of them works. The only thing that makes a little better is, I hide all the result views first; after the last animation finished, in its call back, unhide all result views. But this loses the nice effect that when curling up the loading view, the results are already there. At this point, I really think this is a bug in iphone (I compile it with OS 3.0) OS. Or maybe you can point out what I have done wrong (or could do differently). (thanks for finishing this long post, :-) )

    Read the article

  • Should I amortize scripting cost via bytecode analysis or multithreading?

    - by user18983
    I'm working on a game sort of thing where users can write arbitrary code for individual agents, and I'm trying to decide the best way to divide up computation time. The simplest option would be to give each agent a set amount of time and skip their turn if it elapses without an action being decided upon, but I would like people to be able to write their agents decision functions without having to think too much about how long its taking unless they really want to. The two approaches I'm considering are giving each agent a set number of bytecode instructions (taking cost into account) each timestep, and making players deal with the consequences of the game state changing between blocks of computation (as with Battlecode) or giving each agent it's own thread and giving each thread equal time on the processor. I'm about equally knowledgeable on both concurrency and bytecode stuff, which is to say not very, so I'm wondering which approach would be best. I have a clearer idea of how I'd structure things if I used bytecode, but less certainty about how to actually implement the analysis. I'm pretty sure I can work up a concurrency based system without much trouble, but I worry it will be messier with more overhead and will add unnecessary complexity to the project.

    Read the article

  • Searching through large data set

    - by calccrypto
    how would i search through a list with ~5 mil 128bit (or 256, depending on how you look at it) strings quickly and find the duplicates (in python)? i can turn the strings into numbers, but i don't think that's going to help much. since i haven't learned much information theory, is there anything about this in information theory? and since these are hashes already, there's no point in hashing them again

    Read the article

  • glFramebufferTexture2D performance

    - by nornagon
    I'm doing heavy computation using the GPU, which involves a lot of render-to-texture operations. It's an iterative computation, so there's a lot of rendering to a texture, then rendering that texture to another texture, then rendering the second texture back to the first texture and so on, passing the texture through a shader each time. My question is: is it better to have a separate FBO for each texture I want to render into, or should I rather have one FBO and bind the target texture using glFramebufferTexture2D each time I want to change render target? My platform is OpenGL ES 2.0 on the iPhone.

    Read the article

  • How to Pythonically yield all values from a list?

    - by bodacydo
    Suppose I have a list that I wish not to return but to yield values from. What is the most Pythonic way to do that? Here is what I mean. Thanks to some non-lazy computation I have computed the list ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd'], but my code through the project uses lazy computation, so I'd like to yield values from my function instead of returning the whole list. I currently wrote it as following: List = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd'] for item in List: yield item But this doesn't feel Pythonic to me. Looking forward to some suggestions, thanks. Boda Cydo.

    Read the article

  • Don't understand the typing of Scala's delimited continuations (A @cps[B,C])

    - by jkff
    I'm struggling to understand what precisely does it mean when a value has type A @cps[B,C] and what types of this form should I assign to my values when using the delimited continuations facility. I've looked at some sources: http://lamp.epfl.ch/~rompf/continuations-icfp09.pdf http://www.scala-lang.org/node/2096 http://dcsobral.blogspot.com/2009/07/delimited-continuations-explained-in.html http://blog.richdougherty.com/2009/02/delimited-continuations-in-scala_24.html but they didn't give me much intuition into this. In the last link, the author tries to give an explicit explanation, but it is not clear enough anyway. The A here represents the output of the computation, which is also the input to its continuation. The B represents the return type of that continuation, and the C represents its "final" return type—because shift can do further processing to the returned value and change its type. I don't understand the difference between "output of the computation", "return type of the continuation" and "final return type of the continuation". They sound like synonyms.

    Read the article

  • How do you implement Software Transactional Memory?

    - by Joseph Garvin
    In terms of actual low level atomic instructions and memory fences (I assume they're used), how do you implement STM? The part that's mysterious to me is that given some arbitrary chunk of code, you need a way to go back afterward and determine if the values used in each step were valid. How do you do that, and how do you do it efficiently? This would also seem to suggest that just like any other 'locking' solution you want to keep your critical sections as small as possible (to decrease the probability of a conflict), am I right? Also, can STM simply detect "another thread entered this area while the computation was executing, therefore the computation is invalid" or can it actually detect whether clobbered values were used (and thus by luck sometimes two threads may execute the same critical section simultaneously without need for rollback)?

    Read the article

  • Continuation monad "interface"

    - by sdcvvc
    The state monad "interface" class MonadState s m where get :: m s put :: s -> m () (+ return and bind) allows to construct any possible computation with State monad without using State constructor. For example, State $ \s -> (s+1, s-1) can be written as do s <- get put (s-1) return (s+1) Similarily, I never have to use Reader constructor, because I can create that computation using ask, return and (>>=). Precisely: Reader f == ask >>= return . f. Is it the same true for continuations - is it possible to write all instances of Cont r a using callCC (the only function in MonadCont), return and bind, and never type something like Cont (\c -> ...)?

    Read the article

  • How do you implement Software Transactional Memory?

    - by Joseph Garvin
    In terms of actual low level atomic instructions and memory fences (I assume they're used), how do you implement STM? The part that's mysterious to me is that given some arbitrary chunk of code, you need a way to go back afterward and determine if the values used in each step were valid. How do you do that, and how do you do it efficiently? This would also seem to suggest that just like any other 'locking' solution you want to keep your critical sections as small as possible (to decrease the probability of a conflict), am I right? Also, can STM simply detect "another thread entered this area while the computation was executing, therefore the computation is invalid" or can it actually detect whether clobbered values were used (and thus by luck sometimes two threads may execute the same critical section simultaneously without need for rollback)?

    Read the article

  • How do we know the correct moves of Tower of Hanoi?

    - by Saqib
    We know that: In case of iterative solution: Alternating between the smallest and the next-smallest disks, follow the steps for the appropriate case: For an even number of disks: make the legal move between pegs A and B make the legal move between pegs A and C make the legal move between pegs B and C repeat until complete For an odd number of disks: make the legal move between pegs A and C make the legal move between pegs A and B make the legal move between pegs B and C repeat until complete In case of recursive solution: To move n discs from peg A to peg C: move n-1 discs from A to B. This leaves disc n alone on peg A move disc n from A to C move n-1 discs from B to C so they sit on disc n Now the questions are: How did we get this two solutions? Only by intuition? Or by logical/mathematical computation? If computation, how?

    Read the article

  • Counting vowels in a string using recursion

    - by Daniel Love Jr
    In my python class we are learning about recursion. I understand that it's when a function calls itself, however for this particular assignment I can't figure out how exactly to get my function to call it self to get the desired results. I need to simply count the vowels in the string given to the function. def recVowelCount(s): 'return the number of vowels in s using a recursive computation' vowelcount = 0 vowels = "aEiou".lower() if s[0] in vowels: vowelcount += 1 else: ??? I'm really not sure where to go with this, it's quite frustrating. I came up with this in the end, thanks to some insight from here. def recVowelCount(s): 'return the number of vowels in s using a recursive computation' vowels = "aeiouAEIOU" if s == "": return 0 elif s[0] in vowels: return 1 + recVowelCount(s[1:]) else: return 0 + recVowelCount(s[1:])

    Read the article

  • Refactoring a long method that simply populates

    - by Jeune
    I am refactoring a method which is over 500 lines (don't ask me why) The method basically queries a list of maps from the database and for each map in the list does some computation and adds the value of that computation to the map. There are however too many computations and puts being done that the code has reached over 500 lines already! Here's a sample preview: public List<Hashmap> getProductData(...) { List<Hashmap> products = productsDao.getProductData(...); for (Product product: products) { product.put("Volume",new BigDecimanl(product.get("Height")* product.get("Width")*product.get("Length")); if (some condition here) { //20 lines worth of product.put(..,..) } else { //20 lines worth of product.put(..,..) } //3 more if-else statements like the one above try { product.put(..,..) } catch (Exception e) { product.put("",..) } //over 8 more try-catches of the form above } Any ideas on how to go about refactoring this?

    Read the article

  • Calculating all distances between one point and a group of points efficiently in R

    - by dbarbosa
    Hi, First of all, I am new to R (I started yesterday). I have two groups of points, data and centers, the first one of size n and the second of size K (for instance, n = 3823 and K = 10), and for each i in the first set, I need to find j in the second with the minimum distance. My idea is simple: for each i, let dist[j] be the distance between i and j, I only need to use which.min(dist) to find what I am looking for. Each point is an array of 64 doubles, so > dim(data) [1] 3823 64 > dim(centers) [1] 10 64 I have tried with for (i in 1:n) { for (j in 1:K) { d[j] <- sqrt(sum((centers[j,] - data[i,])^2)) } S[i] <- which.min(d) } which is extremely slow (with n = 200, it takes more than 40s!!). The fastest solution that I wrote is distance <- function(point, group) { return(dist(t(array(c(point, t(group)), dim=c(ncol(group), 1+nrow(group)))))[1:nrow(group)]) } for (i in 1:n) { d <- distance(data[i,], centers) which.min(d) } Even if it does a lot of computation that I don't use (because dist(m) computes the distance between all rows of m), it is way more faster than the other one (can anyone explain why?), but it is not fast enough for what I need, because it will not be used only once. And also, the distance code is very ugly. I tried to replace it with distance <- function(point, group) { return (dist(rbind(point,group))[1:nrow(group)]) } but this seems to be twice slower. I also tried to use dist for each pair, but it is also slower. I don't know what to do now. It seems like I am doing something very wrong. Any idea on how to do this more efficiently? ps: I need this to implement k-means by hand (and I need to do it, it is part of an assignment). I believe I will only need Euclidian distance, but I am not yet sure, so I will prefer to have some code where the distance computation can be replaced easily. stats::kmeans do all computation in less than one second.

    Read the article

  • Memory mapped files and "soft" page faults. Unavoidable?

    - by Robert Oschler
    I have two applications (processes) running under Windows XP that share data via a memory mapped file. Despite all my efforts to eliminate per iteration memory allocations, I still get about 10 soft page faults per data transfer. I've tried every flag there is in CreateFileMapping() and CreateFileView() and it still happens. I'm beginning to wonder if it's just the way memory mapped files work. If anyone there knows the O/S implementation details behind memory mapped files I would appreciate comments on the following theory: If two processes share a memory mapped file and one process writes to it while another reads it, then the O/S marks the pages written to as invalid. When the other process goes to read the memory areas that now belong to invalidated pages, this causes a soft page fault (by design) and the O/S knows to reload the invalidated page. Also, the number of soft page faults is therefore directly proportional to the size of the data write. My experiments seem to bear out the above theory. When I share data I write one contiguous block of data. In other words, the entire shared memory area is overwritten each time. If I make the block bigger the number of soft page faults goes up correspondingly. So, if my theory is true, there is nothing I can do to eliminate the soft page faults short of not using memory mapped files because that is how they work (using soft page faults to maintain page consistency). What is ironic is that I chose to use a memory mapped file instead of a TCP socket connection because I thought it would be more efficient. Note, if the soft page faults are harmless please note that. I've heard that at some point if the number is excessive, the system's performance can be marred. If soft page faults intrinsically are not significantly harmful then if anyone has any guidelines as to what number per second is "excessive" I'd like to hear that. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Has any hobbyist attempted to make a simple VGA-graphics based operating system in machine code?

    - by Bigyellow Bastion
    I mean real bare bones, bare machine here(no Linux kernel, pre-existing kernel, or any bootloader). I mean honestly write the bootloading software in direct microarchitecture-specific machine opcode, host the operating system, interrupts, I/O, services, and graphical software and all hardware interaction, computation, and design entirely in binary. I know this is quite the leap here, but I was thinking to practice first in x86 assembly (not binary) 16-bit style. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Which is the most practical way to add functionality to this piece of code?

    - by Adam Arold
    I'm writing an open source library which handles hexagonal grids. It mainly revolves around the HexagonalGrid and the Hexagon class. There is a HexagonalGridBuilder class which builds the grid which contains Hexagon objects. What I'm trying to achieve is to enable the user to add arbitrary data to each Hexagon. The interface looks like this: public interface Hexagon extends Serializable { // ... other methods not important in this context <T> void setSatelliteData(T data); <T> T getSatelliteData(); } So far so good. I'm writing another class however named HexagonalGridCalculator which adds some fancy pieces of computation to the library like calculating the shortest path between two Hexagons or calculating the line of sight around a Hexagon. My problem is that for those I need the user to supply some data for the Hexagon objects like the cost of passing through a Hexagon, or a boolean flag indicating whether the object is transparent/passable or not. My question is how should I implement this? My first idea was to write an interface like this: public interface HexagonData { void setTransparent(boolean isTransparent); void setPassable(boolean isPassable); void setPassageCost(int cost); } and make the user implement it but then it came to my mind that if I add any other functionality later all code will break for those who are using the old interface. So my next idea is to add annotations like @PassageCost, @IsTransparent and @IsPassable which can be added to fields and when I'm doing the computation I can look for the annotations in the satelliteData supplied by the user. This looks flexible enough if I take into account the possibility of later changes but it uses reflection. I have no benchmark of the costs of using annotations so I'm a bit in the dark here. I think that in 90-95% of the cases the efficiency is not important since most users wont't use a grid where this is significant but I can imagine someone trying to create a grid with a size of 5.000.000.000 X 5.000.000.000. So which path should I start walking on? Or are there some better alternatives? Note: These ideas are not implemented yet so I did not pay too much attention to good names.

    Read the article

  • Lazy Initailization in .NET 4.0

    Lazy initialization or lazy instantiation means that an object is not created until it is first referenced. Lazy initialization is used to reduce wasteful computation, memory requirements. Following is an example where Lazy initialization is particularly useful.

    Read the article

  • Google I/O 2012 - Computing Map Tiles with Go on App Engine

    Google I/O 2012 - Computing Map Tiles with Go on App Engine Chris Broadfoot, Andrew Gerrand In this talk we use the Maps API and Go on App Engine to build an app to build custom tile sets for Google Maps. The app demonstrates using Go's suitability for computation in the cloud and App Engine's key scalability features, such as Task Queues and Backends. For all I/O 2012 sessions, go to developers.google.com From: GoogleDevelopers Views: 1170 21 ratings Time: 47:22 More in Science & Technology

    Read the article

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