Search Results

Search found 4792 results on 192 pages for 'coding idiot'.

Page 17/192 | < Previous Page | 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  | Next Page >

• Why Should I Avoid Inline Scripting?

  - by thesunneversets

  A knowledgeable friend recently looked at a website I helped launch, and commented something like "very cool site, shame about the inline scripting in the source code". I'm definitely in a position to remove the inline scripting where it occurs; I'm vaguely aware that it's "a bad thing". My question is: what are the real problems with inline scripting? Is there a significant performance issue, or is it mostly just a matter of good style? Can I justify immediate action on the inline scripting front to my superiors, when there are other things to work on that might have a more obvious impact on the site? If you pulled up to a website, and took a peek at the source code, what factors would lead you to say "hmm, professional work here", and what would cause you to recoil from an obviously amateurish job? Okay, that question turned into multiple questions in the writing. But basically, inline scripting - what's the deal?

  Read the article

• Using 'new' in a projection?

  - by davenewza

  I wish to project a collection from one type (Something) to another type (SomethingElse). Yes, this is a very open-eneded question, but which of the two options below do you prefer? Creating a new instance using new: var result = query.Select(something => new SomethingElse(something)); Using a factory: var result = query.Select(something => SomethingElse.FromSomething(something)); When I think of a projection, I generally think of it as a conversion. Using new gives me this idea that I'm creating new objects during a conversion, which doesn't feel right. Semantically, SomethingElse.FromSomething() most definitely fits better. Although, the second option does require addition code to setup a factory, which could become unnecessarily compulsive.

  Read the article

• How do you avoid name similarities between your classes and the native ones?

  - by Oscar

  I just ran into an "interesting problem", which I would like your opinion about: I am developing a system and for many reasons (meaning: abstraction, technology independence, etc) we create our own types for exchanging information. For instance: if there is a method which is called SendEmail and is invoked by the business logic, it way have a parameter of type OurCompany.EMailMessage, which is an object which is completely technology independent and contains only "business relevant data" (for instance, no information abut head encoding). Inside the SendEmail function, we get this information from our EMailMEssage object and create a MailMessage (this one is technolgy specific) object so it can be sent over the network. As you can already notice, our class has a very similar name to the "native" language class. The problem is: this is exactly what they are, email messages, so it is hard to find another meaningful name for them. Do you have this problem often? How do you manage it? Edit: @mgkrebbs just commented about using fully qualified names. This is our current approach, but a little bit too verbose, IMHO. I would like something cleaner, if possible.

  Read the article

• How do you proactively guard against errors of omission?

  - by Gabriel

  I'll preface this with I don't know if anyone else who's been programming as long as I have actually has this problem, but at the very least, the answer might help someone with less xp. I just stared at this code for 5 minutes, thinking I was losing my mind that it didn't work: var usedNames = new HashSet<string>(); Func<string, string> l = (s) => { for (int i = 0; ; i++) { var next = (s + i).TrimEnd('0'); if (!usedNames.Contains(next)) { return next; } } }; Finally I noticed I forgot to add the used name to the hash set. Similarly, I've spent minutes upon minutes over omitting context.SaveChanges(). I think I get so distracted by the details that I'm thinking about that some really small details become invisible to me - it's almost at the level of mental block. Are there tactics to prevent this? update: a side effect of asking this was fixing the error it would have for i 9 (Thanks!) var usedNames = new HashSet<string>(); Func<string, string> name = (s) => { string result = s; if(usedNames.Contains(s)) for (int i = 1; ; result = s + i++) if (!usedNames.Contains(result)) break; usedNames.Add(result); return result; };

  Read the article

• Commenting/In-Code Documentation Styles

  - by Maxpm

  This might be a stupid question, but it's been in the back of my head for a while and I can't find a decent answer anywhere else. I have a teacher who says we should explicitly list each parameter with a description, even if there's only one. This leads to a lot of repetition: double MyFunction(const int MyParam); // Function: MyFunction // Summary: Does stuff with MyParam. // Input: int MyParam - The number to do stuff with. // Output: MyParam with stuff done to it. When writing in-code documentation, how detailed are you?

  Read the article

• Strict C++ guidelines [on hold]

  - by Banex

  Some time ago I ran across an answer here on Programmers that linked a Wikipedia page about some strict guidelines for C++. The only thing I remember is that it didn't allow exceptions and was in general very strict, and that it was used in many workplaces where most C++ features are not considered useful, or are not available (embedded systems, etc). I'd like to know the name of those guidelines, as I searched the whole internet without finding it.

  Read the article

• Is it wrong to use a boolean parameter to determine behavior?

  - by Ray

  I have seen a practice from time to time that "feels" wrong, but I can't quite articulate what is wrong about it. Or maybe it's just my prejudice. Here goes: A developer defines a method with a boolean as one of its parameters, and that method calls another, and so on, and eventually that boolean is used, solely to determine whether or not to take a certain action. This might be used, for example, to allow the action only if the user has certain rights, or perhaps if we are (or aren't) in test mode or batch mode or live mode, or perhaps only when the system is in a certain state. Well there is always another way to do it, whether by querying when it is time to take the action (rather than passing the parameter), or by having multiple versions of the method, or multiple implementations of the class, etc. My question isn't so much how to improve this, but rather whether or not it really is wrong (as I suspect), and if it is, what is wrong about it.

  Read the article

• Where to find common database abbreviations in Spanish

  - by jmh_gr

  I'm doing a little pro bono work for an organization in Central America. I'm ok at Spanish and my contacts are perfectly fluent but are not techincal people. Even if they don't care what I call some fields in a database I still want to make as clean a schema as possible, and I'd like to know what some typical abbreviations are for field / variable names in Spanish. I understand abbreviations and naming conventions are entirely personal. I'm not asking for the "correct" or "best" way to abbreviate database object names. I'm just looking for references to lists of typical abbreviations that would be easily recognizable to a techincally competent native Spanish speaker. I believe I am a decent googler but I've had no luck on this one. For example, in my company (where English is the primary language) 'Date' is always shortened to 'DT', 'Code' to 'CD', 'Item' to 'IT', etc. It's easy for the crowds of IT temp workers who revolve through on various projects to figure out that 'DT' stands for 'Date', 'YR' for 'Year', or 'TN' for 'Transaction' without even having to consult the official abbreviations list.

  Read the article

• How to layout class definition when inheriting from multiple interfaces

  - by gabr

  Given two interface definitions ... IOmniWorkItem = interface ['{3CE2762F-B7A3-4490-BF22-2109C042EAD1}'] function GetData: TOmniValue; function GetResult: TOmniValue; function GetUniqueID: int64; procedure SetResult(const value: TOmniValue); // procedure Cancel; function DetachException: Exception; function FatalException: Exception; function IsCanceled: boolean; function IsExceptional: boolean; property Data: TOmniValue read GetData; property Result: TOmniValue read GetResult write SetResult; property UniqueID: int64 read GetUniqueID; end; IOmniWorkItemEx = interface ['{3B48D012-CF1C-4B47-A4A0-3072A9067A3E}'] function GetOnWorkItemDone: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate; function GetOnWorkItemDone_Asy: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate; procedure SetOnWorkItemDone(const Value: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate); procedure SetOnWorkItemDone_Asy(const Value: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate); // property OnWorkItemDone: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate read GetOnWorkItemDone write SetOnWorkItemDone; property OnWorkItemDone_Asy: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate read GetOnWorkItemDone_Asy write SetOnWorkItemDone_Asy; end; ... what are your ideas of laying out class declaration that inherits from both of them? My current idea (but I don't know if I'm happy with it): TOmniWorkItem = class(TInterfacedObject, IOmniWorkItem, IOmniWorkItemEx) strict private FData : TOmniValue; FOnWorkItemDone : TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate; FOnWorkItemDone_Asy: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate; FResult : TOmniValue; FUniqueID : int64; strict protected procedure FreeException; protected //IOmniWorkItem function GetData: TOmniValue; function GetResult: TOmniValue; function GetUniqueID: int64; procedure SetResult(const value: TOmniValue); protected //IOmniWorkItemEx function GetOnWorkItemDone: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate; function GetOnWorkItemDone_Asy: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate; procedure SetOnWorkItemDone(const Value: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate); procedure SetOnWorkItemDone_Asy(const Value: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate); public constructor Create(const data: TOmniValue; uniqueID: int64); destructor Destroy; override; public //IOmniWorkItem procedure Cancel; function DetachException: Exception; function FatalException: Exception; function IsCanceled: boolean; function IsExceptional: boolean; property Data: TOmniValue read GetData; property Result: TOmniValue read GetResult write SetResult; property UniqueID: int64 read GetUniqueID; public //IOmniWorkItemEx property OnWorkItemDone: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate read GetOnWorkItemDone write SetOnWorkItemDone; property OnWorkItemDone_Asy: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate read GetOnWorkItemDone_Asy write SetOnWorkItemDone_Asy; end; As noted in answers, composition is a good approach for this example but I'm not sure it applies in all cases. Sometimes I'm using multiple inheritance just to split read and write access to some property into public (typically read-only) and private (typically write-only) part. Does composition still apply here? I'm not really sure as I would have to move the property in question out from the main class and I'm not sure that's the correct way to do it. Example: // public part of the interface interface IOmniWorkItemConfig = interface function OnExecute(const aTask: TOmniBackgroundWorkerDelegate): IOmniWorkItemConfig; function OnRequestDone(const aTask: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate): IOmniWorkItemConfig; function OnRequestDone_Asy(const aTask: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate): IOmniWorkItemConfig; end; // private part of the interface IOmniWorkItemConfigEx = interface ['{42CEC5CB-404F-4868-AE81-6A13AD7E3C6B}'] function GetOnExecute: TOmniBackgroundWorkerDelegate; function GetOnRequestDone: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate; function GetOnRequestDone_Asy: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate; end; // implementing class TOmniWorkItemConfig = class(TInterfacedObject, IOmniWorkItemConfig, IOmniWorkItemConfigEx) strict private FOnExecute : TOmniBackgroundWorkerDelegate; FOnRequestDone : TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate; FOnRequestDone_Asy: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate; public constructor Create(defaults: IOmniWorkItemConfig = nil); public //IOmniWorkItemConfig function OnExecute(const aTask: TOmniBackgroundWorkerDelegate): IOmniWorkItemConfig; function OnRequestDone(const aTask: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate): IOmniWorkItemConfig; function OnRequestDone_Asy(const aTask: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate): IOmniWorkItemConfig; public //IOmniWorkItemConfigEx function GetOnExecute: TOmniBackgroundWorkerDelegate; function GetOnRequestDone: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate; function GetOnRequestDone_Asy: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate; end;

  Read the article

• What do you do when working with multiple languages with different capitalization schemes?

  - by dvcolgan

  I'm making a webapp using Django. The Python convention for naming variables is lowercase_with_underscores, but the Javascript convention is camelCase. In addition, I've seen many people use lowercase-with-hyphens for CSS identifiers. Would you suggest using all three naming conventions where appropriate, or picking one and using it, even if the other two recommend something else? Switching back and forth isn't a huge problem, but it can still be mental overhead.

  Read the article

• css - use universal '*' selector vs. html or body selector?

  - by Michael Durrant

  Applying styles to the body tag will be applied to the whole page, so body { font-family: Verdana } will be applied to the whole page. This could also be done with * {font-family: Verdana} which would apply to all elements and so would seem to have the same effect. I understand the principle that in the first instance the style is being applied to one tag, body for the whole page whereas in the second example the font is being applied against each individual html elements. What I am asking is what is the practical difference in doing that, what are the implications and what is a reason, situation or best practice that leads to using one over another. One side-effect is certainly speed (+1 Rob). I am most interested in the actual reason to choose one over the other in terms of functionality.

  Read the article

• If you favor "T *var", do you ever write "T*"?

  - by Roger Pate

  Thinking about where we place our asterisks; how do those that prefer to keep the "pointerness" away from the type and with the identifier (int *i) write code when the identifier is missing? void f(int*); // 1 void f(int *); // 2 The former seems much more common, no matter what your preference when with the identifier. Is this a special case? What makes it an exception? However, the first still isn't universal, because I have seen the latter style. Besides consistency along the lines of "there's always a space with the identifier, so we have one without", are there any other reasons to prefer it? What about casts or array and function types? How would you re-write these: (void*)var /*or*/ (void *)var int[3] /*or*/ int [3] // more relevant in C++ than C: Example<int[3]> void(int) /*or*/ void (int) // more relevant in C++ than C: std::function<void(int)> The latter two would rarely, if ever, be used in C, but are seen with C++ templates.

  Read the article

• Vocabulary: Should I call this apply or map?

  - by Carlos Vergara

  So, I'm tasked with organizing the code and building a library with all the common code among our products. One thing that seems to happen all the time and I wanted to abstract is posted below in pseudocode, and I don't know how to call it (different products have different domain specific implementations and names for it) list function idk_what_to_name_it ( list list_of_callbacks, value common_parameter ): list list_of_results = new list for_each(callback in list_of_callbacks) list_of_results.push(callback(common_parameter)) end for_each return list_of_results end function Would you call this specific construct a list ListOfCallbacks.Map( value value_to_map) method or would it better be value Value.apply(list list_of_callbacks) I'm really curious about this kind of thing. Is there a standard guide for this stuff?

  Read the article

• How can you learn to code faster? [closed]

  - by SDGator

  Possible Duplicate: How to Code Faster (Without Sacrificing Quality) I think I code pretty well. I'd say I'm in the top 20% of the folks doing what I do (ASIC verification using System Verilog). But, out of the folks that I admire and aspire to be like, the difference isn't so much quality of code, but the fact that they can pump out reams of good quality code very quickly. Of course, they've been at it far longer than I have. Is it possible to learn to code faster without compromising quality? Or is that something that only comes with time and experience?

  Read the article

• How should I group these variables?

  - by stariz77

  I have a shape that will be defined by: char s_type; char color; double height; double width; These variables are scanned in from a request string sent to my server and passed into my printing function, which then prints out the shape. Currently they are just local variables sitting in my main(); however, I was wondering if there would be any advantage in creating a struct containing these variables, and then passing the struct to my printing function? or how else might I improve my program's structure/style, would passing a struct by reference have any kind of performance benefit if there were many requests and therefore many printing function calls? printer(char st, char cr, double ht, double wd); int main() { // Other main functionality. char s_type; char color; double height; double width; sscanf (serv_req, "GET /%c/%c/%lf/%lf", &s_type, &color, &height, &width); printer(s_type, color, height, width); // Other main functionality. return 0; } It seemed "neater" if I had a struct or something that didn't leave me with declarations in the middle of everything else going on in main. I'm interested in structure/style as well as performance. EDIT: didn't mean to put printer declaration inside main.

  Read the article

• How will I know when my company is ready to receive an investment? [migrated]

  - by gunshor

  How will I know when my company is ready to receive an investment? I am starting a company and have bootstrapped it so far. I have produced four versions of the demo. The first fully-working version is underway. Getting this to a beta phase product will require capital, which requires an investment, which requires an investor, which requires I stop working on the product and go out and talk to people about it. The last time I raised money from investors, it took a while but I was successful. I don't want it to take a while. I want it to be brain dead simple for an investor to understand the value so that I can optimize the time I spend with the product. Is my logic flawed? What is the best way to approach raising money, while limiting both my time and risk? Thanks.

  Read the article

• How to choose between Tell don't Ask and Command Query Separation?

  - by Dakotah North

  The principle Tell Don't Ask says: you should endeavor to tell objects what you want them to do; do not ask them questions about their state, make a decision, and then tell them what to do. The problem is that, as the caller, you should not be making decisions based on the state of the called object that result in you then changing the state of the object. The logic you are implementing is probably the called object’s responsibility, not yours. For you to make decisions outside the object violates its encapsulation. A simple example of "Tell, don't Ask" is Widget w = ...; if (w.getParent() != null) { Panel parent = w.getParent(); parent.remove(w); } and the tell version is ... Widget w = ...; w.removeFromParent(); But what if I need to know the result from the removeFromParent method? My first reaction was just to change the removeFromParent to return a boolean denoting if the parent was removed or not. But then I came across Command Query Separation Pattern which says NOT to do this. It states that every method should either be a command that performs an action, or a query that returns data to the caller, but not both. In other words, asking a question should not change the answer. More formally, methods should return a value only if they are referentially transparent and hence possess no side effects. Are these two really at odds with each other and how do I choose between the two? Do I go with the Pragmatic Programmer or Bertrand Meyer on this?

  Read the article

• In C and C++, what methods can prevent accidental use of the assignment(=) where equivalence(==) is needed?

  - by DeveloperDon

  In C and C++, it is very easy to write the following code with a serious error. char responseChar = getchar(); int confirmExit = 'y' == tolower(responseChar); if (confirmExit = 1) { exit(0); } The error is that the if statement should have been: if (confirmExit == 1) As coded, it will exit every time, because the assignment of the confirmExit variable occurs, then confirmExit is used as the result of the expression. Are there good ways to prevent this kind of error?

  Read the article

• What's Your Method of not forgetting the end brackets, parentheses

  - by JMC Creative

  disclaimer: for simplicity sake, brackets will refer to brackets, braces, quotes, and parentheses in the couse of this question. Carry on. When writing code, I usually type the beginning and end element first, and then go back and type the inner stuff. This gets to be a lot of backspacing, especially when doing something with many nested elements like: jQuery(function($){$('#element[input="file"]').hover(function(){$(this).fadeOut();})); Is there a more efficient way of remembering how many brackets you've got open ? Or a second example with quotes: <?php echo '<input value="'.$_POST['name'].'" />"; ?>

  Read the article

• When is it appropriate to use colour in a command-line application?

  - by marcoms

  Currently I have a command-line application in C called btcwatch. It has a -C option that it can receive as an argument that compares the current price of Bitcoin with a price that was stored beforehand with -S. Example output with this option is: $ btcwatch -vC # -v = verbose buy: UP $ 32.000000 USD (100.000000 -> 132.000000) sell: UP $ 16.000000 USD (100.000000 -> 116.000000) The dilemma is whether to use colour for the UP or DOWN string (green and red, respectively). Most command-line applications I know of (apart from git) stay away from colour in their output. In my desire for btcwatch to look and be quite "standard" (use of getopt, Makefiles, etc), I'm not sure if colour would look out of place in this situation.

  Read the article

• Is sending data to a server via a script tag an outdated paradigm?

  - by KingOfHypocrites

  I inherited some old javascript code for a website tracker that submits data to the server using a script url: var src = "http://domain.zzz/log/method?value1=x&value2=x" var e = document.createElement('script'); e.src = src; I guess the idea was that cross domain requests didn't haven't to be enabled perhaps. Also it was written back in 2005. I'm not sure how well XmlHttpRequests were supported at the time. Anyone could stick this on their website and send data to our server for logging and it ideally would work in most any browser with javascript. The main limitation is all the server can do is send back javascript code and each request has to wait for a response from the server (in the form of a generic acknowledgement javascript method call) to know it was received, then it sends the next. I can't find anyone doing this online or any metrics as to whether this faster or more secure than XmlHttpRequests. I don't know if this is just an old way of doing things or it's still the best way to send data to the server when you are mostly trying to send data one way and you need the best performance possible. So in summary is sending data via a script tag an outdated paradigm? Should I abandon in favor of using XmlHttpRequsts?

  Read the article

• What is the possible disadvantage of putting declarations in inner blocks, instead of at beginning of function?

  - by shan23

  At the place where I work, there are explicit guidelines for placement of declarations of variables. According to that, it is required to put them at the global level and / or at the beginning of functions, and not in inner blocks (such as a for loop). Since they've been specified by persons more experienced than I am, I'm sure that there must be a good reason for it, but I cannot figure out what that might be. It would be nice to know if there are any compile time / run time advantages at having them declared at a bigger scope.

  Read the article

• When creating a library for a simple program, what must I do to protect others from its lack of thread safety?

  - by DeveloperDon

  When creating a library for a simple program, is it more cost effective to make it thread safe or is there a way to detect the program's use in a multithreaded program and ASSERT() or otherwise determine (preferably at compile or link time) that it may create problems. Related help for this question would be automated tool support for finding potential problems with thread safety, programming language features that enforce it,

  Read the article

• Is the use of explicit ' == true' comparison always bad? [closed]

  - by Slomojo

  Possible Duplicate: Make a big deal out of == true? I've been looking at a lot of code samples recently, and I keep noticing the use of... if( expression == true ) // do something... and... x = ( expression == true ) ? x : y; I've tended to always use... x = ( expression ) ? x : y; and... if( expression ) // do something... Where == true is implicit (and obvious?) Is this just a habit of mine, and I'm being picky about the explicit use of == true, or is it simply bad practice?

  Read the article

• Bikeshedding: Placeholders in strings

  - by dotancohen

  I find that I sometimes use placeholders in strings, like this: $ cat example-apache <VirtualHost *:80> ServerName ##DOMAIN_NAME## ServerAlias www.##DOMAIN_NAME## DocumentRoot /var/www/##DOMAIN_NAME##/public_html </VirtualHost> Now I am sure that it is a minor issue if the placeholder is ##DOMAIN_NAME##, !!DOMAIN_NAME!!, {{DOMAIN_NAME}}, or some other variant. However, I now need to standardize with other developers on a project, and we all have a vested interest in having our own placeholder format made standard in the organization. Are there any good reasons for choosing any of these, or others? I am trying to quantify these considerations: Aesthetics and usability. For example, __dict__ may be hard to read as we don't know how many underscores are in there. Compatibility. Will some language try to do something funny with {} syntax in a string (such as PHP does with "Welcome to {$siteName} today!")? Actually, I know that PHP and Python won't, but others? Will a C++ preprocessor choke on ## format? If I need to store the value in some SQL engine, will it not consider something a comment? Any other pitfalls to be wary of? Maintainability. Will the new guy mistake ##SOME_PLACEHOLDER## as a language construct? The unknown. Surely the wise folk here will think of other aspects of this decision that I have not thought of. I might be bikeshedding this, but if there are real issues that might be lurking then I would certainly like to know about them before mandating that our developers adhere to a potentially-problematic convention.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  | Next Page >