Search Results

Search found 38343 results on 1534 pages for 'project design'.

Page 178/1534 | < Previous Page | 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185  | Next Page >

  • Builder Pattern: When to fail?

    - by skiwi
    When implementing the Builder Pattern, I often find myself confused with when to let building fail and I even manage to take different stands on the matter every few days. First some explanation: With failing early I mean that building an object should fail as soon as an invalid parameter is passed in. So inside the SomeObjectBuilder. With failing late I mean that building an object only can fail on the build() call that implicitely calls a constructor of the object to be built. Then some arguments: In favor of failing late: A builder class should be no more than a class that simply holds values. Moreover, it leads to less code duplication. In favor of failing early: A general approach in software programming is that you want to detect issues as early as possible and therefore the most logical place to check would be in the builder class' constructor, 'setters' and ultimately in the build method. What is the general concensus about this?

    Read the article

  • Absolute statements in IT that are wrong

    - by Dan McGrath
    I was recently in a discussion about the absolute statement "It costs more in programming time to optimise software than it costs to throw hardware at a problem". The general thought (of which I agree with) is that as an absolute statement this is wrong. There are too many variables to ever generalise in such a way. What other statements do you hear about software/programming that simply do not work as an absolute and why?

    Read the article

  • Should these concerns be separated into separate objects?

    - by Lewis Bassett
    I have objects which implement the interface BroadcastInterface, which represents a message that is to be broadcast to all users of a particular group. It has a setter and getter method for the Subject and Body properties, and an addRecipientRole() method, which takes a given role and finds the contact token (e.g., an email address) for each user in the role and stores it. It then has a getContactTokens() method. BroadcastInterface objects are passed to an object that implements BroadcasterInterface. These objects are responsible for broadcasting a passed BroadcastInterface object. For example, an EmailBroadcaster implementation of the BroadcasterInterface will take EmailBroadcast objects and use the mailer services to email them out. Now, depending on what BroadcasterInterface implementation is used to broadcast, a different implementation of BroadcastInterface is used by client code. The Single Responsibility Principle seems to suggest that I should have a separate BroadcastFactory object, for creating BroadcastInterface objects, depending on what BroadcasterInterface implementation is used, as creating the BroadcastInterface object is a different responsibility to broadcasting them. But the class used for creating BroadcastInterface objects depends on what implementation of BroadcasterInterface is used to broadcast them. I think, because the knowledge of what method is used to send the broadcasts should only be configured once, the BroadcasterInterface object should be responsible for providing new BroadcastInterface objects. Does the responsibility of “creating and broadcasting objects that implement the BroadcastInterface interface” violate the Single Responsibility Principle? (Because the contact token for sending the broadcast out to the users will differ depending on the way it is broadcasted, I need different broadcast classes—though client code will not be able to tell the difference.)

    Read the article

  • Is the 'C' in MVC really necessary?

    - by Anne Nonimus
    I understand the role of the model and view in the Model-View-Controller pattern, but I have a hard time understanding why a controller is necessary. Let's assume we're creating a chess program using an MVC approach; the game state should be the model, and the GUI should be the view. What exactly is the controller in this case? Is it just a separate class that has all the functions that will be called when you, say, click on a tile? Why not just perform all the logic on the model in the view itself?

    Read the article

  • Gathering all data in single iteration vs using functions for readable code

    - by user828584
    Say I have an array of runners with which I need to find the tallest runner, the fastest runner, and the lightest runner. It seems like the most readable solution would be: runners = getRunners(); tallestRunner = getTallestRunner(runners); fastestRunner = getFastestRunner(runners); lightestRunner = getLightestRunner(runners); ..where each function iterates over the runners and keeps track of the largest height, greatest speed, and lowest weight. Iterating over the array three times, however, doesn't seem like a very good idea. It would instead be better to do: int greatestHeght, greatestSpeed, leastWeight; Runner tallestRunner, fastestRunner, lightestRunner; for(runner in runners){ if(runner.height > greatestHeight) { greatestHeight = runner.height; tallestRunner = runner; } if(runner.speed > ... } While this isn't too unreadable, it can get messy when there is more logic for each piece of information being extracted in the iteration. What's the middle ground here? How can I use only a single iteration while still keeping the code divided into logical units?

    Read the article

  • Database Schema Usage

    - by CrazyHorse
    I have a question regarding the appropriate use of SQL Server database schemas and was hoping that some database gurus might be able to offer some guidance around best practice. Just to give a bit of background, my team has recently shrunk to 2 people and we have just been merged with another 6 person team. My team had set up a SQL Server environment running off a desktop backing up to another desktop (and nightly to the network), whilst the new team has a formal SQL Server environment, running on a dedicated server, with backups and maintenance all handled by a dedicated team. So far it's good news for my team. Now to the query. My team designed all our tables to belong to a 3-letter schema name (e.g. User = USR, General = GEN, Account = ACC) which broadly speaking relate to specific applications, although there is a lot of overlap. My new team has come from an Access background and have implemented their tables within dbo with a 3-letter perfix followed by "_tbl" so the examples above would be dbo.USR_tblTableName, dbo.GEN_tblTableName and dbo.ACC_tblTableName. Further to this, neither my old team nor my new team has gone live with their SQL Servers yet (we're both coincidentally migrating away from Access environments) and the new team have said they're willing to consider adopting our approach if we can explain how this would be beneficial. We are not anticipating handling table updates at schema level, as we will be using application-level logins. Also, with regards to the unwieldiness of the 7-character prefix, I'm not overly concerned myself as we're using LINQ almost exclusively so the tables can simply be renamed in the DMBL (although I know that presents some challenges when we update the DBML). So therefore, given that both teams need to be aligned with one another, can anyone offer any convincing arguments either way?

    Read the article

  • Did the developers of Java conciously abandon RAII?

    - by JoelFan
    As a long-time C# programmer, I have recently come to learn more about the advantages of Resource Acquisition Is Initialization (RAII). In particular, I have discovered that the C# idiom: using (my dbConn = new DbConnection(connStr) { // do stuff with dbConn } has the C++ equivalent: { DbConnection dbConn(connStr); // do stuff with dbConn } meaning that remembering to enclose the use of resources like DbConnection in a using block is unnecessary in C++ ! This seems to a major advantage of C++. This is even more convincing when you consider a class that has an instance member of type DbConnection, for example class Foo { DbConnection dbConn; // ... } In C# I would need to have Foo implement IDisposable as such: class Foo : IDisposable { DbConnection dbConn; public void Dispose() { dbConn.Dispose(); } } and what's worse, every user of Foo would need to remember to enclose Foo in a using block, like: using (var foo = new Foo()) { // do stuff with "foo" } Now looking at C# and its Java roots I am wondering... did the developers of Java fully appreciate what they were giving up when they abandoned the stack in favor of the heap, thus abandoning RAII? (Similarly, did Stroustrup fully appreciate the significance of RAII?)

    Read the article

  • The use of Test-Driven Development in Non-Greenfield Projects?

    - by JHarley1
    So here is a question for you, having read some great answers to questions such as "Test-Driven Development - Convince Me". So my question is: "Can Test-Driven Development be used effectively on non-Greenfield projects?" To specify: I would really like to know if people have had experience in using TDD in projects where there was already non-TDD elements present? And the problems that they then faced.

    Read the article

  • Need game development sandbox like Etoys to do 2D games prototyping

    - by Dimitry Tato
    I am new to game development, and currently working on development a mobile 2D game (for android). As the part of the development process, I need to build a prototype and playtest it, to see if the game mechanics and user interaction is ok For example: if I have a starship shooting at ememies, I need to see what's the best size for my starship. what trajectories should the enemy ships fly and what velocity. Should the enemy ships be coming only from left to right, or also from top Should the enemy ships form a 'flock' or just fly by themselves what's the best 'powerup' pickup mechanics: to shoot it, or to pick it with the ship etc Implementing these details directly in Java (Android) is time consuming and as many of the 'hypotheses' will be rejected, I also don't want to invest a lot of time to code thigs, majority of which gonna be rejected. I found 'tool' Etoys http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34cWCnLC5nM&feature=related and official website http://www.squeakland.org/ which helps to build 'prototype' quickly, but Etoys is meant for children learning programming and is too basic. SO MY QUESTION IS: Is there any prototyping tool, as simple as Etoys and with better prototype quality?

    Read the article

  • How to avoid big and clumpsy UITableViewController on iOS?

    - by Johan Karlsson
    I have a problem when implementing the MVC-pattern on iOS. I have searched the Internet but seems not to find any nice solution to this problem. Many UITableViewController implementations seems to be rather big. Most example I have seen lets the UITableViewController implement UITableViewDelegate and UITableViewDataSource. These implementations are a big reason why UITableViewControlleris getting big. One solution would be to create separate classes that implements UITableViewDelegate and UITableViewDataSource. Of course these classes would have to have a reference to the UITableViewController. Are there any drawbacks using this solution? In general I think you should delegate the functionality to other "Helper" classes or similar, using the delegate pattern. Are there any well established ways of solving this problem? I do not want the model to contain to much functionality, nor the view. A believe that the logic should really be in the controller class, since this is one of the cornerstones of the MVC-pattern. But the big question is; How should you divide the controller of a MVC-implementation into smaller manageable pieces? (Applies to MVC in iOS in this case) There might be a general pattern for solving this, although I am specifically looking for a solution for iOS. Please give an example of a good pattern for solving this issue. Also an argument why this solution is awesome.

    Read the article

  • Software Management Tools for Agile Process Development

    - by Graviton
    We would like to implement the Agile/ Scrum process in our daily software management, so as to provide better progress visibility and feature managements, here are some of the activities that we want to do: Daily stand-up Release cycles of 6 weeks with 3 2-week iterations. Having a product back-log of tasks (integrate with bugzilla) and bugs estimated out. Printing a daily burn down to make velocity visible. When used as motivator, it's great. Easy feature development tracking and full blown visibility, especially for the sales and stake holders ( this means that it must be a web based tool). My team is distributed, so physical whiteboards aren't feasible. Is there such a web based tool that meets our needs? I heard icescrum may be one, but I've never used it so I don't know. There are a few more suggestions as here, but I've never heard of them, anyone cares to elaborate or suggest new tools?

    Read the article

  • which platform to choose for designing a game

    - by Pramod
    I am new to gaming platform and don't have any experience in gaming as well. I want to develop a small shooting game and don't have any idea from where to start and which platform to use like things. I have some experience in java and .net. Can anyone help me in giving me a start? I don't mind even if this question is voted down or closed. But please do help me. I've tried searching other similar questions but everyone is already into gaming and i can't get any of the words. Please refer me to some books or tutorials

    Read the article

  • signal processing libraries

    - by khinester
    Are there any open source libraries/projects which work in a similar way to http://www.tagattitude.fr/en/products/technology? I am trying to understand the process. At first I thought this could work like when you send a fax to a fax machine. It is basically using the mobile phone’s microphone as a captor and its audio channel as a transporter. Are there any libraries for generating the signal and then being able to decode it?

    Read the article

  • Use the latest technology or use a mature technology as a developer?

    - by Ted Wong
    I would like to develop an application for a group of people to use. I have decided to develop using python, but I am thinking of using python 2.X or python 3.X. If I use python 2.X, I need to upgrade it for the future... But it is more mature, and has many tools and libraries. If I develop using 3.X, I don't need to think of future integration, but currenttly it doesn't have many libraries, even a python to executable is not ready for all platforms. Also, one of the considerations is that it is a brand new application, so I don't have the history burden to maintain the old libraries. Any recommendation on this dilemma? More information about this application: Native application Time for maintenance: 5 years+ Library/Tools must need: don't have idea, yet. Must need feature that in 2.X: Convert to an executable for both Windows and Mac OS X

    Read the article

  • Using XML as data storage

    - by Kian Mayne
    I was thinking about the XML format and the following quote: “XML is not a database. It was never meant to be a database. It is never going to be a database. Relational databases are proven technology with more than 20 years of implementation experience. They are solid, stable, useful products. They are not going away. XML is a very useful technology for moving data between different databases or between databases and other programs. However, it is not itself a database. Don't use it like one.“ -Effective XML: 50 Specific Ways to Improve Your XML by Elliotte Rusty Harold (page 230, Part 4, Item 41, 2nd paragraph) This seems to really stress that XML should not be used for data storage and should only be used for program to program interoperability. Personally, I disagree and .NET's app.config file that's used to store a program's settings is an example of data storage in an XML file. However for databases rather than configurations etc XML should not be used. To develop my point, I will use two examples: A) Data about customers with fields that are all on one level i.e. there are a number of fields all relating to one customer with no children B) Data about configuration of an application where nested fields and properties make a lot of sense So my question is, Is this still a valid statement and is it now acceptable to store data using XML? EDIT: I've sent an email to the author of that quote to ask for his input/extra context.

    Read the article

  • Simple 2d game pathfinding

    - by Kooi Nam Ng
    So I was trying to implement a simple pathfinding on iOS and but the outcome seems less satisfactory than what I intended to achieve.The thing is units in games like Warcraft and Red Alert move in all direction whereas units in my case only move in at most 8 directions as these 8 directions direct to the next available node.What should I do in order to achieve the result as stated above?Shrink the tile size? The screenshot intended for illustration. Those rocks are the obstacles whereas the both ends of the green path are the starting and end of the path.The red line is the path that I want to achieve. http://i.stack.imgur.com/lr19c.jpg

    Read the article

  • RTS game diplomacy heuristics

    - by kd304
    I'm reimplementing an old 4X space-rts game which has diplomacy options. The original was based on a relation scoring system (0..100) and a set of negotiation options (improve relations, alliance, declare war, etc.) The AI player usually had 3 options: yes, maybe and no; each adding or removing some amount to the relation score. How should the AI chose between the options? How does the diplomacy work in other games and how are they imlemented? Any good books/articles on the subject? (Googling the term diplomacy yields the game Diplomacy, which is unhelpful.)

    Read the article

  • What are some small, but extendable game ideas to use for inspiration?

    - by Earlz
    I recently came across the game Dopewars(or more generically, Drugwars). Now this is an extremely simple game to implement. A trivial basic implementation could be done in a couple of days, at the most. And it's extremely extendable. Now, my question is what other games are out there that follow this same kind of "difficulty level" for implementation? A game that is actually entertaining, yet trivial to implement, and can easily be extended?

    Read the article

  • Style bits vs. Separate bool's

    - by peterchen
    My main platform (WinAPI) still heavily uses bits for control styles etc. (example). When introducing custom controls, I'm permanently wondering whether to follow that style or rather use individual bool's. Let's pit them against each other: enum EMyCtrlStyles { mcsUseFileIcon = 1, mcsTruncateFileName = 2, mcsUseShellContextMenu = 4, }; void SetStyle(DWORD mcsStyle); void ModifyStyle(DWORD mcsRemove, DWORD mcsAdd); DWORD GetStyle() const; ... ctrl.SetStyle(mcsUseFileIcon | mcsUseShellContextMenu); vs. CMyCtrl & SetUseFileIcon(bool enable = true); bool GetUseFileIcon() const; CMyCtrl & SetTruncteFileName(bool enable = true); bool GetTruncteFileName() const; CMyCtrl & SetUseShellContextMenu(bool enable = true); bool GetUseShellContextMenu() const; ctrl.SetUseFileIcon().SetUseShellContextMenu(); As I see it, Pro Style Bits Consistent with platform less library code (without gaining complexity), less places to modify for adding a new style less caller code (without losing notable readability) easier to use in some scenarios (e.g. remembering / transferring settings) Binary API remains stable if new style bits are introduced Now, the first and the last are minor in most cases. Pro Individual booleans Intellisense and refactoring tools reduce the "less typing" effort Single Purpose Entities more literate code (as in "flows more like a sentence") No change of paradim for non-bool properties These sound more modern, but also "soft" advantages. I must admit the "platform consistency" is much more enticing than I could justify, the less code without losing much quality is a nice bonus. 1. What do you prefer? Subjectively, for writing the library, or for writing client code? 2. Any (semi-) objective statements, studies, etc.?

    Read the article

  • Procedural world generation oriented on gameplay features

    - by Richard Fabian
    In large procedural landscape games, the land seems dull, but that's probably because the real world is largely dull, with only limited places where the scenery is dramatic or tactical. Looking at world generation from this point of view, a landscape generator for a game needs to not follow the rules of landscaping, but instead some rules married to the expectations of the gamer. For example, there could be a choke point / route generator that creates hills ravines, rivers and mountains between cities, rather than cities plotted on the land based on the resources or conditions generated by the mountains and rainfall patterns. Is there any existing work being done like this? Start with cities or population centres and then add in terrain afterwards?

    Read the article

  • What is the evidence that an API has exceeded its orthogonality in the context of types?

    - by hawkeye
    Wikipedia defines software orthogonality as: orthogonality in a programming language means that a relatively small set of primitive constructs can be combined in a relatively small number of ways to build the control and data structures of the language. The term is most-frequently used regarding assembly instruction sets, as orthogonal instruction set. Jason Coffin has defined software orthogonality as Highly cohesive components that are loosely coupled to each other produce an orthogonal system. C.Ross has defined software orthogonality as: the property that means "Changing A does not change B". An example of an orthogonal system would be a radio, where changing the station does not change the volume and vice-versa. Now there is a hypothesis published in the the ACM Queue by Tim Bray - that some have called the Bánffy Bray Type System Criteria - which he summarises as: Static typings attractiveness is a direct function (and dynamic typings an inverse function) of API surface size. Dynamic typings attractiveness is a direct function (and static typings an inverse function) of unit testing workability. Now Stuart Halloway has reformulated Banfy Bray as: the more your APIs exceed orthogonality, the better you will like static typing My question is: What is the evidence that an API has exceeded its orthogonality in the context of types? Clarification Tim Bray introduces the idea of orthogonality and APIs. Where you have one API and it is mainly dealing with Strings (ie a web server serving requests and responses), then a uni-typed language (python, ruby) is 'aligned' to that API - because the the type system of these languages isn't sophisticated, but it doesn't matter since you're dealing with Strings anyway. He then moves on to Android programming, which has a whole bunch of sensor APIs, which are all 'different' to the web server API that he was working on previously. Because you're not just dealing with Strings, but with different types, the API is non-orthogonal. Tim's point is that there is a empirical relationship between your 'liking' of types and the API you're programming against. (ie a subjective point is actually objective depending on your context).

    Read the article

  • Looking for reading material on application architecture with web UI

    - by toong
    I'm looking for articles (or other reading material) on the topic of fat client applications with a web UI layer. Open-source projects that use this architecture would be very interesting too. Such an application would embed one (or more) browser-window(s) (chromiumembedded for example). You would need bidirectional communication between your web-UI and your domain model/services. I think this allows quick prototyping the UI, a clean separation between logic and UI and potentially easier portability across platforms (compared to WinForms for example). But that is just my view, I was looking for the view of people who have been on that road. An example of an application using a web-ui layer is Light Table. Unfortunately it is not open source (at this point?).

    Read the article

  • C++ - Constructor or Initialize Method to Startup

    - by Bob Fincheimer
    I want to determine when to do non-trivial initialization of a class. I see two times to do initialization: constructor and other method. I want to figure out when to use each. Choice 1: Constructor does initialization MyClass::MyClass(Data const& data) : m_data() { // does non-trivial initialization here } MyClass::~MyClass() { // cleans up here } Choice 2: Defer initialization to an initialize method MyClass::MyClass() : m_data() {} MyClass::Initialize(Data const& data) { // does non-trivial initialization here } MyClass::~MyClass() { // cleans up here } So to try and remove any subjectivity I want to figure out which is better in a couple of situations: Class that encapsulates a resource (window/font/some sort of handle) Class that composites resources to do something (a control/domain object) Data structure classes (tree/list/etc.) [Anything else you can think of] Things to analyze: Performance Ease of use by other developers How error-prone/opportunities for bugs [Anything else you can think of]

    Read the article

  • When should a method of a class return the same instance after modifying itself?

    - by modiX
    I have a class that has three methods A(), B() and C(). Those methods modify the own instance. While the methods have to return an instance when the instance is a separate copy (just as Clone()), I got a free choice to return void or the same instance (return this;) when modifying the same instance in the method and not returning any other value. When deciding for returning the same modified instance, I can do neat method chains like obj.A().B().C();. Would this be the only reason for doing so? Is it even okay to modify the own instance and return it, too? Or should it only return a copy and leave the original object as before? Because when returning the same modified instance the user would maybe admit the returned value is a copy, otherwise it would not be returned? If it's okay, what's the best way to clarify such things on the method?

    Read the article

  • Is rotating the lead developer a good or bad idea?

    - by Renesis
    I work on a team that has been flat organizationally since it's creation several months ago. My manager is non-technical and this means that our whole team is responsible for decision-making. My manager is beginning to realize that there are several benefits to having a lead developer, both for his sake (a single point of contact and single responsible party for tasks) and ours (dispute resolution, organized technical guidance, etc.). Because the team has been flat, one concern is that picking one lead developer may discourage the others. A non-developer suggested to my manager that rotating the lead developer is a possible way to avoid this issue. One developer would be lead one month, another the next, and so on. Is this a good idea? Why or why not? Keep in mind that this means all developers — All developers are good, but not necessarily equally suited to leadership. And if it is not, suppose I am likely the best candidate for lead developer — how do I recommend that we avoid this approach without looking like it's merely for selfish reasons? (In other words, the team is small enough that anyone recommending a single leader is likely to appear to be recommending themselves — especially those who have been part of the team longer.)

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185  | Next Page >