Search Results

Search found 11482 results on 460 pages for 'style'.

Page 18/460 | < Previous Page | 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  | Next Page >

  • Conditions with common logic: question of style, readability, efficiency, ...

    - by cdonner
    I have conditional logic that requires pre-processing that is common to each of the conditions (instantiating objects, database lookups etc). I can think of 3 possible ways to do this, but each has a flaw: Option 1 if A prepare processing do A logic else if B prepare processing do B logic else if C prepare processing do C logic // else do nothing end The flaw with option 1 is that the expensive code is redundant. Option 2 prepare processing // not necessary unless A, B, or C if A do A logic else if B do B logic else if C do C logic // else do nothing end The flaw with option 2 is that the expensive code runs even when neither A, B or C is true Option 3 if (A, B, or C) prepare processing end if A do A logic else if B do B logic else if C do C logic end The flaw with option 3 is that the conditions for A, B, C are being evaluated twice. The evaluation is also costly. Now that I think about it, there is a variant of option 3 that I call option 4: Option 4 if (A, B, or C) prepare processing if A set D else if B set E else if C set F end end if D do A logic else if E do B logic else if F do C logic end While this does address the costly evaluations of A, B, and C, it makes the whole thing more ugly and I don't like it. How would you rank the options, and are there any others that I am not seeing?

    Read the article

  • jQuery - improve/reduce my ipod-style dropdown code! - challenge?

    - by aSeptik
    Hi all guys! by keeping inspiration from this http://www.filamentgroup.com/examples/menus/ipod.php i have maked my own from scratch cause i have needed this smarty dropdown solution for a client, but more lightweight & efficient! so with a good cup of coffe in my hand i have maked this DEMO: http://jsbin.com/ufuga SOURCE: http://jsbin.com/ufuga/edit since this is a proof o concept, whould be nice to know, before port this into a plugin, what you think about it! is good, bad or can be improved or reduced in size!? i'm glad to share this code with you and whould be nice if you want give me any feedback! ;-) PS: work perfectly in IE6+, Firefox, Chrome, Opera and of course support the jQuery Theme Roller and have zero configuration steps! thank you guys!

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to embed Cockburn style textual UML Use Case content in the code base to improve code

    - by fooledbyprimes
    experimenting with Cockburn use cases in code I was writing some complicated UI code. I decided to employ Cockburn use cases with fish,kite,and sea levels (discussed by Martin Fowler in his book 'UML Distilled'). I wrapped Cockburn use cases in static C# objects so that I could test logical conditions against static constants which represented steps in a UI workflow. The idea was that you could read the code and know what it was doing because the wrapped objects and their public contants gave you ENGLISH use cases via namespaces. Also, I was going to use reflection to pump out error messages that included the described use cases. The idea is that the stack trace could include some UI use case steps IN ENGLISH.... It turned out to be a fun way to achieve a mini,psuedo light-weight Domain Language but without having to write a DSL compiler. So my question is whether or not this is a good way to do this? Has anyone out there ever done something similar? c# example snippets follow Assume we have some aspx page which has 3 user controls (with lots of clickable stuff). User must click on stuff in one particular user control (possibly making some kind of selection) and then the UI must visually cue the user that the selection was successful. Now, while that item is selected, the user must browse through a gridview to find an item within one of the other user controls and then select something. This sounds like an easy thing to manage but the code can get ugly. In my case, the user controls all sent event messages which were captured by the main page. This way, the page acted like a central processor of UI events and could keep track of what happens when the user is clicking around. So, in the main aspx page, we capture the first user control's event. using MyCompany.MyApp.Web.UseCases; protected void MyFirstUserControl_SomeUIWorkflowRequestCommingIn(object sender, EventArgs e) { // some code here to respond and make "state" changes or whatever // // blah blah blah // finally we have this (how did we know to call fish level method?? because we knew when we wrote the code to send the event in the user control) UpdateUserInterfaceOnFishLevelUseCaseGoalSuccess(FishLevel.SomeNamedUIWorkflow.SelectedItemForPurchase) } protected void UpdateUserInterfaceOnFishLevelGoalSuccess(FishLevel.SomeNamedUIWorkflow goal) { switch (goal) { case FishLevel.SomeNamedUIWorkflow.NewMasterItemSelected: //call some UI related methods here including methods for the other user controls if necessary.... break; case FishLevel.SomeNamedUIWorkFlow.DrillDownOnDetails: //call some UI related methods here including methods for the other user controls if necessary.... break; case FishLevel.SomeNamedUIWorkFlow.CancelMultiSelect: //call some UI related methods here including methods for the other user controls if necessary.... break; // more cases... } } } //also we have protected void UpdateUserInterfaceOnSeaLevelGoalSuccess(SeaLevel.SomeNamedUIWorkflow goal) { switch (goal) { case SeaLevel.CheckOutWorkflow.ChangedCreditCard: // do stuff // more cases... } } } So, in the MyCompany.MyApp.Web.UseCases namespace we might have code like this: class SeaLevel... class FishLevel... class KiteLevel... The workflow use cases embedded in the classes could be inner classes or static methods or enumerations or whatever gives you the cleanest namespace. I can't remember what I did originally but you get the picture.

    Read the article

  • Have I taken a wrong path in programming by being excessively worried about code elegance and style?

    - by Ygam
    I am in a major stump right now. I am a BSIT graduate, but I only started actual programming less than a year ago. I observed that I have the following attitude in programming: I tend to be more of a purist, scorning unelegant approaches to solving problems using code I tend to look at anything in a large scale, planning everything before I start coding, either in simple flowcharts or complex UML charts I have a really strong impulse on refactoring my code, even if I miss deadlines or prolong development times I am obsessed with good directory structures, file naming conventions, class, method, and variable naming conventions I tend to always want to study something new, even, as I said, at the cost of missing deadlines I tend to see software development as something to engineer, to architect; that is, seeing how things relate to each other and how blocks of code can interact (I am a huge fan of loose coupling) i.e the OOP thinking I tend to combine OOP and procedural coding whenever I see fit I want my code to execute fast (thus the elegant approaches and refactoring) This bothers me because I see my colleagues doing much better the other way around (aside from the fact that they started programming since our first year in college). By the other way around I mean, they fire up coding, gets the job done much faster because they don't have to really look at how clean their codes are or how elegant their algorithms are, they don't bother with OOP however big their projects are, they mostly use web APIs, piece them together and voila! Working code! CLients are happy, they get paid fast, at the expense of a really unmaintainable or hard-to-read code that lacks structure and conventions, or slow executions of certain actions (which the common reasoning against would be that internet connections are much faster these days, hardware is more powerful). The excuse I often receive is clients don't care about how you write the code, but they do care about how long you deliver it. If it works then all is good. Now, did my "purist" approach to programming may have been the wrong way to start programming? Should I just dump these purist concepts and just code the hell up because I have seen it: clients don't really care how beautifully coded it is?

    Read the article

  • (CKEditor) Looking for exhaustive list of commands and a way to set style...?

    - by humble_coder
    Hi All, I'm currently working with CKEditor (http://ckeditor.com/). I'm looking for: 1) an exhaustive list of commands available by default via 'execCommand'. 2) a mechanism by which to set styles (as in the same way the FONT and SIZE combo boxes do it). I saw the function called 'setStyle' in the documentation, however it seems to require an exact element. I can't for the life of me figure out how to do so based on the selection -- there is no way to use ID or CLASS, as the selected portions have none. I've posted to the forums but they don't seem to be terribly active as far as replies are concerned. Any assistance would be most appreciated. Best.

    Read the article

  • Is it bad programming style to have a single, maybe common, generic exception?

    - by m0s
    Hi, so in my program I have parts where I use try catch blocks like this try { DirectoryInfo dirInfo = new DirectoryInfo(someString); //I don't know if that directory exists //I don't know if that string is valid path string... it could be anything //Some operations here } catch(Exception iDontCareWhyItFailed) { //Didn't work? great... we will say: somethings wrong, try again/next one } Of course I probably could do checks to see if the string is valid path (regex), then I would check if directory exists, then I could catch various exceptions to see why my routine failed and give more info... But in my program it's not really necessary. Now I just really need to know if this is acceptable, and what would a pro say/think about that. Thanks a lot for attention.

    Read the article

  • Naming member functions/methods with a single underscore, good style or bad?

    - by Extrakun
    In some languages where you cannot override the () operator, I have seen methods with a single underscore, usually for 'helper' classes. Something likes this: class D10 { public function _() { return rand(1,10); } } Is it better to have the function called Roll()? Is a underscore fine? After all, there is only one function, and it removes the need to look up the name of the class. Any thoughts?

    Read the article

  • html tags between <style> tags

    - by Gagan
    <html> <body> <style type="text/css"> p.first {color:blue} p.second {color:green} </style> <p class="first">Hello World</p> <p class="second">Hello World</p> <style type="text/css"> p.first {color:green} p.second {color:blue} </style> <p class="first">Hello World</p> <p class="second">Hello World</p> </body> </html> How is a browser supposed to render css which is non contiguous? Is it supposed to generate some data structure using all the css styles on a page and use that for rendering? Or does it render using style information in the order it sees?

    Read the article

  • Using <style> tags in the <body> with other HTML

    - by Gagan
    <html> <body> <style type="text/css"> p.first {color:blue} p.second {color:green} </style> <p class="first">Hello World</p> <p class="second">Hello World</p> <style type="text/css"> p.first {color:green} p.second {color:blue} </style> <p class="first">Hello World</p> <p class="second">Hello World</p> </body> </html> How is a browser supposed to render css which is non contiguous? Is it supposed to generate some data structure using all the css styles on a page and use that for rendering? Or does it render using style information in the order it sees?

    Read the article

  • Which style is preferable when writing this boolean expression?

    - by Jeppe Stig Nielsen
    I know this question is to some degree a matter of taste. I admit this is not something I don't understand, it's just something I want to hear others' opinion about. I need to write a method that takes two arguments, a boolean and a string. The boolean is in a sense (which will be obvious shortly) redundant, but it is part of a specification that the method must take in both arguments, and must raise an exception with a specific message text if the boolean has the "wrong" value. The bool must be true if and only if the string is not null or empty. So here are some different styles to write (hopefully!) the same thing. Which one do you find is the most readable, and compliant with good coding practice? // option A: Use two if, repeat throw statement and duplication of message string public void SomeMethod(bool useName, string name) { if (useName && string.IsNullOrEmpty(name)) throw new SomeException("..."); if (!useName && !string.IsNullOrEmpty(name)) throw new SomeException("..."); // rest of method } // option B: Long expression but using only && and || public void SomeMethod(bool useName, string name) { if (useName && string.IsNullOrEmpty(name) || !useName && !string.IsNullOrEmpty(name)) throw new SomeException("..."); // rest of method } // option C: With == operator between booleans public void SomeMethod(bool useName, string name) { if (useName == string.IsNullOrEmpty(name)) throw new SomeException("..."); // rest of method } // option D1: With XOR operator public void SomeMethod(bool useName, string name) { if (!(useName ^ string.IsNullOrEmpty(name))) throw new SomeException("..."); // rest of method } // option D2: With XOR operator public void SomeMethod(bool useName, string name) { if (useName ^ !string.IsNullOrEmpty(name)) throw new SomeException("..."); // rest of method } Of course you're welcome to suggest other possibilities too. Message text "..." would be something like "If 'useName' is true a name must be given, and if 'useName' is false no name is allowed".

    Read the article

  • Documentation style: how do you differentiate variable names from the rest of the text within a comm

    - by Alix
    Hi, This is a quite superfluous and uninteresting question, I'm afraid, but I always wonder about this. When you're commenting code with inline comments (as opposed to comments that will appear in the generated documentation) and the name of a variable appears in the comment, how do you differentiate it from normal text? E.g.: // Try to parse type. parsedType = tryParse(type); In the comment, "type" is the name of the variable. Do you mark it in any way to signify that it's a symbol and not just part of the comment's text? I've seen things like this: // Try to parse "type". // Try to parse 'type'. // Try to parse *type*. // Try to parse <type>. // Try to parse [type]. And also: // Try to parse variable type. (I don't think the last one is very helpful; it's a bit confusing; you could think "variable" is an adjective there) Do you have any preference? I find that I need to use some kind of marker; otherwise the comments are sometimes ambiguous, or at least force you to reread them when you realise a particular word in the comment was actually the name of a variable. (In comments that will appear in the documentation I use the appropriate tags for the generator, of course: @code, <code></code>, etc) Thanks!

    Read the article

  • jQuery selector - style values

    - by kender
    I got a series of divs like this: <div class="message" style="padding-left: 0px;">...</div> <div class="message" style="padding-left: 20px;">...</div> <div class="message" style="padding-left: 20px;">...</div> <div class="message" style="padding-left: 40px;">...</div> <div class="message" style="padding-left: 20px;">...</div> And I would like to make a selector that would get me the divs with padding greater then 20px. Would it be possible with just using jquery? Or I should modify my html tree and add some attribute that would distinguish those elemenents with high padding value?

    Read the article

  • How to customize and reuse a DataGridColumnHeader style?

    - by instcode
    Hi all, I'm trying to customize the column headers of a DataGrid to show sub-column headers as in the following screenshot: I've made a style for 2 sub-column as in the following XAML: <UserControl xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml/presentation" xmlns:x="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml" xmlns:data="clr-namespace:System.Windows.Controls;assembly=System.Windows.Controls.Data" xmlns:primitives="clr-namespace:System.Windows.Controls.Primitives;assembly=System.Windows.Controls.Data" xmlns:sl="clr-namespace:UI" xmlns:d="http://schemas.microsoft.com/expression/blend/2008" xmlns:mc="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/markup-compatibility/2006" x:Class="UI.ColumnHeaderGrid" mc:Ignorable="d"> <UserControl.Resources> <Style x:Key="SplitColumnHeaderStyle" TargetType="primitives:DataGridColumnHeader"> <Setter Property="Foreground" Value="#FF000000"/> <Setter Property="HorizontalContentAlignment" Value="Center"/> <Setter Property="VerticalContentAlignment" Value="Center"/> <Setter Property="IsTabStop" Value="False"/> <Setter Property="SeparatorBrush" Value="#FFC9CACA"/> <Setter Property="Padding" Value="4"/> <Setter Property="Template"> <Setter.Value> <ControlTemplate TargetType="primitives:DataGridColumnHeader"> <Grid x:Name="Root"> <Grid.ColumnDefinitions> <ColumnDefinition/> <ColumnDefinition Width="Auto"/> </Grid.ColumnDefinitions> <Rectangle x:Name="BackgroundRectangle" Fill="#FF1F3B53" Stretch="Fill" Grid.ColumnSpan="2"/> <Rectangle x:Name="BackgroundGradient" Stretch="Fill" Grid.ColumnSpan="2"> <Rectangle.Fill> <LinearGradientBrush EndPoint=".7,1" StartPoint=".7,0"> <GradientStop Color="#FCFFFFFF" Offset="0.015"/> <GradientStop Color="#F7FFFFFF" Offset="0.375"/> <GradientStop Color="#E5FFFFFF" Offset="0.6"/> <GradientStop Color="#D1FFFFFF" Offset="1"/> </LinearGradientBrush> </Rectangle.Fill> </Rectangle> <Grid> <Grid.ColumnDefinitions> <ColumnDefinition/> <ColumnDefinition Width="1"/> <ColumnDefinition/> </Grid.ColumnDefinitions> <Grid.RowDefinitions> <RowDefinition/> <RowDefinition/> <RowDefinition/> </Grid.RowDefinitions> <TextBlock Grid.Row="0" Grid.ColumnSpan="3" Text="Headers" TextAlignment="Center"/> <Rectangle Grid.Row="1" Grid.ColumnSpan="3" Fill="{TemplateBinding SeparatorBrush}" Height="1"/> <TextBlock Grid.Row="2" Grid.Column="0" Text="Header 1" TextAlignment="Center"/> <Rectangle Grid.Row="2" Grid.Column="1" Fill="{TemplateBinding SeparatorBrush}" Width="1"/> <TextBlock Grid.Row="2" Grid.Column="2" Text="Header 2" TextAlignment="Center"/> <Path x:Name="SortIcon" Grid.Column="2" Fill="#FF444444" Stretch="Uniform" HorizontalAlignment="Left" Margin="4,0,0,0" VerticalAlignment="Center" Width="8" Opacity="0" RenderTransformOrigin=".5,.5" Data="F1 M -5.215,6.099L 5.215,6.099L 0,0L -5.215,6.099 Z "/> </Grid> <Rectangle x:Name="VerticalSeparator" Fill="{TemplateBinding SeparatorBrush}" VerticalAlignment="Stretch" Width="1" Visibility="{TemplateBinding SeparatorVisibility}" Grid.Column="1"/> </Grid> </ControlTemplate> </Setter.Value> </Setter> </Style> </UserControl.Resources> <data:DataGrid x:Name="LayoutRoot"> <data:DataGrid.Columns> <data:DataGridTemplateColumn HeaderStyle="{StaticResource SplitColumnHeaderStyle}"> <data:DataGridTemplateColumn.CellTemplate> <DataTemplate> <Grid> <Grid.ColumnDefinitions> <ColumnDefinition/> <ColumnDefinition/> </Grid.ColumnDefinitions> <Border Grid.Column="0" BorderBrush="#FFC9CACA" BorderThickness="0,0,0,0"> <TextBlock Grid.Column="0" Text="{Binding GridData.Column1}"/> </Border> <Border Grid.Column="1" BorderBrush="#FFC9CACA" BorderThickness="1,0,0,0"> <TextBlock Grid.Column="0" Text="{Binding GridData.Column2}"/> </Border> </Grid> </DataTemplate> </data:DataGridTemplateColumn.CellTemplate> </data:DataGridTemplateColumn> </data:DataGrid.Columns> </data:DataGrid> Now I want to reuse & extend this style to support 2-6 sub-column headers but I don't know if there is a way to do this, like ContentPresenter "overriding": <Style x:Key="SplitColumnHeaderStyle" TargetType="primitives:DataGridColumnHeader"> <Setter property="Template"> <Setter.Value> ... <ContentPresenter Content="{TemplateBinding Content}".../> ... </Setter.Value> </Setter> </Style> <Style x:Key="TwoSubColumnHeaderStyle" BasedOn="SplitColumnHeaderStyle"> <Setter property="Content"> <Setter.Value> <Grid 2x2.../> </Setter.Value> </Setter> </Style> <Style x:Key="ThreeSubColumnHeaderStyle" BasedOn="SplitColumnHeaderStyle"> <Setter property="Content"> <Setter.Value> <Grid 2x3.../> </Setter.Value> </Setter> </Style> Anyway, please help me on these issues: Given the template above, how to support more sub-column headers without having to create new new new new template for each? Assume that the issue above is solved. How could I attach column names outside the styles? I see that some parts, properties & visualization rules in the XAML are just copies from the original Silverlight component's style, i.e. BackgroundGradient, BackgroundRectangle, VisualStateManager... They must be there in order to support default behaviors or effects but... does anyone know how to remove them, but keep all the default behaviors/effects? Please be specific because I'm just getting start with C# & Silverlight. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • How can I learn to effectively write Pythonic code?

    - by Matt Fenwick
    I'm tired of getting downvoted and/or semi-rude comments on my Python answers, saying things like "this isn't Pythonic" or "that's not the Python way of doing things". To clarify, I'm not tired of getting corrected and downvoted, and I'm not tired of being wrong: I'm tired of feeling like there's a whole field of Python that I know nothing about, and seems to be implicit knowledge of experienced Python programmers. Doing a google search for "Pythonic" reveals a wide range of interpretations. The wikipedia page says: A common neologism in the Python community is pythonic, which can have a wide range of meanings related to program style. To say that code is pythonic is to say that it uses Python idioms well, that it is natural or shows fluency in the language. Likewise, to say of an interface or language feature that it is pythonic is to say that it works well with Python idioms, that its use meshes well with the rest of the language. It also discusses the term "unpythonic": In contrast, a mark of unpythonic code is that it attempts to write C++ (or Lisp, Perl, or Java) code in Python—that is, provides a rough transcription rather than an idiomatic translation of forms from another language. The concept of pythonicity is tightly bound to Python's minimalist philosophy of readability and avoiding the "there's more than one way to do it" approach. Unreadable code or incomprehensible idioms are unpythonic. I suspect one way to learn the Pythonic way is just to program in Python a whole bunch. But I bet I could write a bunch of crap and not improve that much without some guidance, whereas a good resource might speed up the learning process significantly. PEP 8 might be exactly what I'm looking for, or maybe not. I'm not sure; on the one hand it covers a lot of ground, but on the other hand, I feel like it's more suited as a reference for knowledgeable programmers than a tutorial for fresh 'uns. How do I get my foot in the Pythonic/Python way of doing things door?

    Read the article

  • How to avoid general names for abstract classes?

    - by djechlin
    In general it's good to avoid words like "handle" or "process" as part of routine names and class names, unless you are dealing with (e.g.) file handles or (e.g.) unix processes. However abstract classes often don't really know what they're going to do with something besides, say, process it. In my current situation I have an "EmailProcessor" that logs into a user's inbox and processes messages from it. It's not really clear to me how to give this a more precise name, although I've noticed the following style matter arises: better to treat derived classes as clients and named the base class by the part of the functionality it implements? Gives it more meaning but will violate is-a. E.g. EmailAcquirer would be a reasonable name since it's acquiring for the derived class, but the derived class won't be acquiring for anyone. Or just really vague name since who knows what the derived classes will do. However "Processor" is still too general since it's doing many relevant operations, like logging in and using IMAP. Any way out of this dilemma? Problem is more evident for abstract methods, in which you can't really answer the question "what does this do?" because the answer is simply "whatever the client wants."

    Read the article

  • Practical considerations for HTML / CSS naming conventions (syntax)

    - by Jeroen
    Question: what are the practical considerations for the syntax in class and id values? Note that I'm not asking about the semantics, i.e. the actual words that are being used, as for example described in this blogpost. There are a lot of resources on that side of naming conventions already, in fact obscuring my search for practical information on the various syntactical bits: casing, use of interpunction (specifically the - dash), specific characters to use or avoid, etc. To sum up the reasons I'm asking this question: The naming restrictions on id and class don't naturally lead to any conventions The abundance of resources on the semantic side of naming conventions obscure searches on the syntactic considerations I couldn't find any authorative source on this There wasn't any question on SE Programmers yet on this topic :) Some of the conventions I've considered using: UpperCamelCase, mainly as a cross-over habit from server side coding lowerCamelCase, for consistency with JavaScript naming conventions css-style-classes, which is consistent with naming of css properties (but can be annoying when Ctrl+Shift+ArrowKey selection of text) with_under_scores, which I personally haven't seen used much alllowercase, simple to remember but can be hard to read for longer names UPPERCASEFTW, as a great way to annoy your fellow programmers (perhaps combined with option 4 for readability) And probably I've left out some important options or combinations as well. So: what considerations are there for naming conventions, and to which convention do they lead?

    Read the article

  • Using prefix incremented loops in C#

    - by KChaloux
    Back when I started programming in college, a friend encouraged me to use the prefix incrementation operator ++i instead of the postfix i++, citing that there was a slight chance of better performance with no real chance of a downside. I realize this is true in C++, and it's become a general habit that I continue to do. I'm led to believe that it makes little to no difference when used in a loop in C#, regardless of data type. Apparently the ++ operator can't be overridden. Nevertheless, I like the appearance more, and don't see a direct downside to it. It did astonish a coworker just a moment ago though, he made the (fairly logical) assumption that my loop would terminate early as a result. He's a self-taught programmer, and apparently never came across the C++ convention. That made me question whether or not the equivalent behavior of pre- and post-fix increment and decrement operators in loops is well known enough. Is it acceptable for me to continue using ++i in looping constructs because of style preference, even though it has no real performance benefit? Or is it likely to cause confusion amongst other programmers? Note: This is assuming the ++i convention is used consistently throughout all code.

    Read the article

  • Am I the only one this anal / obsessive about code? [closed]

    - by Chris
    While writing a shared lock class for sql server for a web app tonight, I found myself writing in the code style below as I always do: private bool acquired; private bool disposed; private TimeSpan timeout; private string connectionString; private Guid instance = Guid.NewGuid(); private Thread autoRenewThread; Basically, whenever I'm declaring a group of variables or writing a sql statement or any coding activity involving multiple related lines, I always try to arrange them where possible so that they form a bell curve (imagine rotating the text 90deg CCW). As an example of something that peeves the hell out of me, consider the following alternative: private bool acquired; private bool disposed; private string connectionString; private Thread autoRenewThread; private Guid instance = Guid.NewGuid(); private TimeSpan timeout; In the above example, declarations are grouped (arbitrarily) so that the primitive types appear at the top. When viewing the code in Visual Studio, primitive types are a different color than non-primitives, so the grouping makes sense visually, if for no other reason. But I don't like it because the right margin is less of an aesthetic curve. I've always chalked this up to being OCD or something, but at least in my mind, the code is "prettier". Am I the only one?

    Read the article

  • Dealing with the node.js callback pyramid

    - by thecoop
    I've just started using node, and one thing I've quickly noticed is how quickly callbacks can build up to a silly level of indentation: doStuff(arg1, arg2, function(err, result) { doMoreStuff(arg3, arg4, function(err, result) { doEvenMoreStuff(arg5, arg6, function(err, result) { omgHowDidIGetHere(); }); }); }); The official style guide says to put each callback in a separate function, but that seems overly restrictive on the use of closures, and making a single object declared in the top level available several layers down, as the object has to be passed through all the intermediate callbacks. Is it ok to use function scope to help here? Put all the callback functions that need access to a global-ish object inside a function that declares that object, so it goes into a closure? function topLevelFunction(globalishObject, callback) { function doMoreStuffImpl(err, result) { doMoreStuff(arg5, arg6, function(err, result) { callback(null, globalishObject); }); } doStuff(arg1, arg2, doMoreStuffImpl); } and so on for several more layers... Or are there frameworks etc to help reduce the levels of indentation without declaring a named function for every single callback? How do you deal with the callback pyramid?

    Read the article

  • Should you always pass the bare minimum data needed into a function

    - by Anders Holmström
    Let's say I have a function IsAdmin that checks whether a user is an admin. Let's also say that the admin checking is done by matching user id, name and password against some sort of rule (not important). In my head there are then two possible function signatures for this: public bool IsAdmin(User user); public bool IsAdmin(int id, string name, string password); I most often go for the second type of signature, thinking that: The function signature gives the reader a lot more info The logic contained inside the function doesn't have to know about the User class It usually results in slightly less code inside the function However I sometimes question this approach, and also realize that at some point it would become unwieldy. If for example a function would map between ten different object fields into a resulting bool I would obviously send in the entire object. But apart from a stark example like that I can't see a reason to pass in the actual object. I would appreciate any arguments for either style, as well as any general observations you might offer. I program in both object oriented and functional styles, so the question should be seen as regarding any and all idioms.

    Read the article

  • I can't program because the code I am using uses old coding styles. Is this normal to programmers? [closed]

    - by Renato Dinhani Conceição
    I'm in my first real job as programmer, but I can't solve any problems because of the coding style used. The code here: Does not have comments Does not have functions (50, 100, 200, 300 or more lines executed in sequence) Uses a lot of if statements with a lot of paths Has variables that make no sense (eg.: cf_cfop, CF_Natop, lnom, r_procod) Uses an old language (Visual FoxPro 8 from 2002), but there are new releases from 2007. I feel like I have gone back to 1970. Is it normal for a programmer familiar with OOP, clean-code, design patterns, etc. to have trouble with coding in this old-fashion way? EDIT: All the answers are very good. For my (un)hope, appears that there are a lot of this kind of code bases around the world. A point mentioned to all answers is refactor the code. Yeah, I really like to do it. In my personal project, I always do this, but... I can't refactor the code. Programmers are only allowed to change the files in the task that they are designed for. Every change in old code must be keep commented in the code (even with Subversion as version control), plus meta informations (date, programmer, task) related to that change (this became a mess, there are code with 3 used lines and 50 old lines commented). I'm thinking that is not only a code problem, but a management of software development problem.

    Read the article

  • Dealing with the node callback pyramid

    - by thecoop
    I've just started using node, and one thing I've quickly noticed is how quickly callbacks can build up to a silly level of indentation: doStuff(arg1, arg2, function(err, result) { doMoreStuff(arg3, arg4, function(err, result) { doEvenMoreStuff(arg5, arg6, function(err, result) { omgHowDidIGetHere(); }); }); }); The official style guide says to put each callback in a separate function, but that seems overly restrictive on the use of closures, and making a single object declared in the top level available several layers down, as the object has to be passed through all the intermediate callbacks. Is it ok to use function scope to help here? Put all the callback functions that need access to a global-ish object inside a function that declares that object, so it goes into a closure? function topLevelFunction(globalishObject, callback) { function doMoreStuffImpl(err, result) { doMoreStuff(arg5, arg6, function(err, result) { callback(null, globalishObject); }); } doStuff(arg1, arg2, doMoreStuffImpl); } and so on for several more layers... Or are there frameworks etc to help reduce the levels of indentation without declaring a named function for every single callback? How do you deal with the callback pyramid?

    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

< Previous Page | 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  | Next Page >