Search Results

Search found 14074 results on 563 pages for 'programmers'.

Page 197/563 | < Previous Page | 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204  | Next Page >

  • Explanation of the definition of interface inheritance as described in GoF book

    - by Geek
    I am reading the first chapter of the Gof book. Section 1.6 discusses about class vs interface inheritance: Class versus Interface Inheritance It's important to understand the difference between an object's class and its type. An object's class defines how the object is implemented.The class defines the object's internal state and the implementation of its operations.In contrast,an object's type only refers to its interface--the set of requests on which it can respond. An object can have many types, and objects of different classes can have the same type. Of course, there's a close relationship between class and type. Because a class defines the operations an object can perform, it also defines the object's type . When we say that an object is an instance of a class, we imply that the object supports the interface defined by the class. Languages like c++ and Eiffel use classes to specify both an object's type and its implementation. Smalltalk programs do not declare the types of variables; consequently,the compiler does not check that the types of objects assigned to a variable are subtypes of the variable's type. Sending a message requires checking that the class of the receiver implements the message, but it doesn't require checking that the receiver is an instance of a particular class. It's also important to understand the difference between class inheritance and interface inheritance (or subtyping). Class inheritance defines an object's implementation in terms of another object's implementation. In short, it's a mechanism for code and representation sharing. In contrast,interface inheritance(or subtyping) describes when an object can be used in place of another. I am familiar with the Java and JavaScript programming language and not really familiar with either C++ or Smalltalk or Eiffel as mentioned here. So I am trying to map the concepts discussed here to Java's way of doing classes, inheritance and interfaces. This is how I think of of these concepts in Java: In Java a class is always a blueprint for the objects it produces and what interface(as in "set of all possible requests that the object can respond to") an object of that class possess is defined during compilation stage only because the class of the object would have implemented those interfaces. The requests that an object of that class can respond to is the set of all the methods that are in the class(including those implemented for the interfaces that this class implements). My specific questions are: Am I right in saying that Java's way is more similar to C++ as described in the third paragraph. I do not understand what is meant by interface inheritance in the last paragraph. In Java interface inheritance is one interface extending from another interface. But I think the word interface has some other overloaded meaning here. Can some one provide an example in Java of what is meant by interface inheritance here so that I understand it better?

    Read the article

  • LINQ Style preference

    - by Erin
    I have come to use LINQ in my every day programming a lot. In fact, I rarely, if ever, use an explicit loop. I have, however, found that I don't use the SQL like syntax anymore. I just use the extension functions. So rather then saying: from x in y select datatransform where filter I use: x.Where(c => filter).Select(c => datatransform) Which style of LINQ do you prefer and what are others on your team are comfortable with?

    Read the article

  • What is the best retort to "premature optimization is the root of all evil"

    - by waffles
    Often I hear the sentiment ... "Why worry about performance, write slow code, get your product to market ... don't worry about performance. You can sort that out later" The culmination of this sentiment is: "... premature optimization is the root of all evil ... #winning" I was wondering, does anybody have a good retort to this one liner. Ideally an equally strong one liner that encompasses the reverse of this sentiment?

    Read the article

  • Preventing RSI (Repetitive Strain Injuries)

    - by nightcracker
    I am 16 years old and I love to program and playing the piano. It's not uncommon that I'm bashing away on my mouse and keyboard all day long. I do not feel any pains doing so. Yet I am still worried, because I often hear from people that they can never type for longer then 10 minutes again without getting severe pains. Given my two hobbies, programming and playing the piano that worries me a lot. My current situation is this: G15 keyboard and G5 mouse A chair that looks like this (the back of the chair is surprisingly supportive): http://www.ikea.com/nl/nl/images/products/torbjorn-bureaustoel__0084333_PE210956_S4.JPG In my "normal sitting position" the table is around the height of my bellybutton. A LG Flatron L194wt screen (too small IMO, getting a new one soon) Should I be worrying about RSI/similar health issues? If yes, what can/should I do about it?

    Read the article

  • If your unit test code "smells" does it really matter?

    - by Buttons840
    Usually I just throw my unit tests together using copy and paste and all kind of other bad practices. The unit tests usually end up looking quite ugly, they're full of "code smell," but does this really matter? I always tell myself as long as the "real" code is "good" that's all that matters. Plus, unit testing usually requires various "smelly hacks" like stubbing functions. How concerned should I be over poorly designed ("smelly") unit tests?

    Read the article

  • Why are tools like git-svn that allow git to integrate with svn useful? [closed]

    - by Wes
    I have read these related questions: I'm a Subversion geek, why should I consider or not consider Mercurial or Git or any other DVCS? git for personal (one-man) projects. Overkill? ...and I understand why git is useful. What I don't understand is why tools like git-svn that allow git to integrate with svn are useful. When, for example, a team is working with svn, or any other centralised SCM, why would a member of the team opt to use git-svn? Are there any practical advantages for a developer that has to synchronize with a centralized repository?

    Read the article

  • What does this piece of code in C++ mean? [closed]

    - by user1838418
    const double pi = 3.141592653589793; const angle rightangle = pi/2; inline angle deg2rad(angle degree) { return degree * rightangle / 90.; } angle function1() { return rightangle * ( ((double) rand()) / ((double) RAND_MAX) - .5 ); } bool setmargin(angle theta, angle phi, angle margin) { return (theta > phi-margin && theta < phi+margin); } Please help me. I'm new to C++

    Read the article

  • Automated architecture validation

    - by P.Brian.Mackey
    I am aware of the fact that TFS 2010 ultimate edition can create and validate architecture diagrams. For example, I can create a new modeling project add Layer Diagram Add Layer called View Add BL Layer Add DL layer. Then I can validate this architecture as part of the build process when someone tries to check code into TFS. In other words, if the View references the DL then the compilation process will fail and the checkin will not be allowed. For those without an MSDN ultimate license, can FxCop or some 3rd party utility be used to validate architecture in an automated fashion? I prefer a TFS install-able plugin, but a local VS plugin will do.

    Read the article

  • Are SQL Injection vulnerabilities in a PHP application acceptable if mod_security is enabled?

    - by Austin Smith
    I've been asked to audit a PHP application. No framework, no router, no model. Pure PHP. Few shared functions. HTML, CSS, and JS all mixed together. I've discovered numerous places where SQL injection would be easily possible. There are other problems with the application (XSS vulnerabilities, rampant inline CSS, code copy-pasted everywhere) but this is the biggest. Sometimes they escape inputs, not using a prepared query or even mysql_real_escape_string(), mind you, but using addslashes(). Often, though, their queries look exactly like this (pasted from their code but with columns and variable names changed): $user = mysql_query("select * from profile where profile_id='".$_REQUEST["profile_id"]."'"); The developers in question claimed that they were unable to hack their application. I tried, and found mod_security to be enabled, resulting in HTTP 406 for some obvious SQL injection attacks. I believe there to be sophisticated workarounds for mod_security, but I don't have time to chase them down. They claim that this is a "conceptual" matter and not a "practical" one since the application can't easily be hacked. Their internal auditor agreed that there were problems, but emphasized the conceptual nature of the issues. They also use this conceptual/practical argument to defend against inline CSS and JS, absence of code organization, XSS vulnerabilities, and massive amounts of repetition. My client (rightly so, perhaps) just wants this to go away so they can launch their product. The site works. You can log in, do what you need to do, and things are visibly functional, if slow. SQL Injection would indeed be hard to do, given mod_security. Further, their talk of "conceptual vs. practical" is rhetorically brilliant, considering that my client doesn't understand web application security. I worry that they've succeeded in making me sound like an angry puritan. In many ways, this is a problem of politics, not technology, but I am at a loss. As a developer, I want to tell them to toss the whole project and start over with a new team, but I face a strong defense from the team that built it and a client who really needs to ship their product. Is my position here too harsh? Even if they fix the SQL Injection and XSS problems can I ever endorse the release of an unmaintainable tangle of spaghetti code?

    Read the article

  • Use of Service Bus in a Pub-Sub Engine

    - by JoseK
    In one of our projects, we've built a Publisher - Subscriber Engine on Oracle Service Bus. The functionality being a series of events are published and subscribers (JMS queues) receive these whenever a new event is published. We are facing some technical issues now, performance-wise and hence an architectural review is underway. Now for my questions: Architecturally the ESB has to publish events into a DB and read from the DB which users wish to be notified, then push the event onto their respective queues. There is a high amount of DB interaction and the question is whether ESB should be having such high amount of interaction with the DB in the first place? Or should there have been some alternate component responsible for doing this. Alternately is there any non-DB approach in which we can store the events and subscribers? Where else can this application data be held within the ESB context?

    Read the article

  • Open source framework quality [closed]

    - by Jonas Byström
    It's not hard to find snippets, components or tools/toolkits in the open source world which holds the quality bar really high. Myself I use git, python, linux, gcc, bash and a whole range of others on a daily basis, and I love them. But when it comes to bigger frameworks, which are intended for facilitating larger tasks of an application without much interference, I'm not as enthusiastic. I've tried a few commercial frameworks (game engines), which were okay, but all big open source frameworks which I've used myself, or which I have seen used in applications were decidedly worse than the commercial equivalent. But I'm not sure if my experience was typical. Where have bigger open source frameworks for facilitating larger tasks of an application been able to equal or exceed commercial frameworks, and how were they better?

    Read the article

  • What are the safety benefits of a type system?

    - by vandros526
    In Javascript: The Good Parts by Douglas Crockford, he mentions in his inheritance chapter, "The other benefit of classical inheritance is that it includes the specification of a system of types. This mostly frees the programmer from having to write explicit casting operations, which is a very good thing because when casting, the safety benefits of a type system are lost." So first of all, what actually is safety? protection against data corruption, or hackers, or system malfunctions, etc? What are the safety benefits of a type system? What makes a type system different that allows it to provide these safety benefits?

    Read the article

  • Should *'s go next to the type or the variable name? [closed]

    - by derekerdmann
    Possible Duplicate: int* i; or int *i; or int * i; When working in C or C++, how should pointers be declared? Like this: char* derp; or this: char *derp; I typically use the first method, because the variable is a character pointer, but I know that it can create confusion when declaring multiple variables at once: char* herp, derp; herp becomes a character pointer, while derp is just a character. I know it often comes down to coding style, but which one is "better?" Should I sacrifice clarity to eliminate potential confusion?

    Read the article

  • Is making my own copyright licence safe?

    - by abcd
    I've seen various open source libraries (actually I've seen it for assets as well) having a home-baked license in the following manner : SomeGuy's License:1. You can use this code freely in commercial projects and modify it as you wish, but not sell it2. If you want to sell a modified version, drop me an email first, or give credits to me Edit: The above example is ambiguous, so I am giving another one, I want to know if 3 lines of license will hold some ground: SomeGuy's License:1. You can use this code in a commercial project as a 3rd party library2. You can't sell it as a derivative work I know that such license is not polished at all, for example the Creative Commons set of licenses seem to be short, but actually have some large legal stuff underneath it, but I wonder if at least some level of protection can be gained with a hobby license like that ? My question is, could this hold any ground in the court, or would the corporative lawyers of the company X tear it apart ?

    Read the article

  • Calendar like tool for managing multiple clients simultaneously?

    - by Yuji Tomita
    I've tried several systems to keep my clients requests / work organized, but somehow they still fall through the cracks. I don't like the idea of a bug tracker-like site for every client (I would not check them all). Ideally, it's all in one page but separated by client. What systems do you guys use? I'm about to just use a spreadsheet with columns for clients. Just curious if there's something better out there :) I've seen smartsheet in action which is basically a really nice spreadsheet that shows bars of time between things that are due. This looks promising.

    Read the article

  • Why is prefixing column names considered bad practice?

    - by P.Brian.Mackey
    According to a popular SO post is it considered a bad practice to prefix table names. At my company every column is prefixed by a table name. This is difficult for me to read. I'm not sure the reason, but this naming is actually the company standard. I can't stand the naming convention, but I have no documentation to back up my reasoning. All I know is that reading AdventureWorks is much simpler. In this our company DB you will see a table, Person and it might have column name: Person_First_Name or maybe even Person_Person_First_Name (don't ask me why you see person 2x) Why is it considered a bad practice to pre-fix column names? Are underscores considered evil in SQL as well? Note: I own Pro SQL Server 2008 - Relation Database design and implementation. References to that book are welcome.

    Read the article

  • When is a Use Case layer needed?

    - by Meta-Knight
    In his blog post The Clean Architecture Uncle Bob suggests a 4-layer architecture. I understand the separation between business rules, interfaces and infrastructure, but I wonder if/when it's necessary to have separate layers for domain objects and use cases. What added value will it bring, compared to just having the uses cases as "domain services" in the domain layer? The only useful info I've found on the web about a use case layer is an article by Martin Fowler, who seems to contradict Uncle Bob about its necessity: At some point I may run into the problems, and then I'll make a Use Case Controller - but only then. And even when I do that I rarely consider the Use Case Controllers to occupy a separate layer in the system architecture. Edit: I stumbled upon a video of Uncle Bob's Architecture: The Lost Years keynote, in which he explains this architecture in depth. Very informative.

    Read the article

  • What are the advantages of GLSL's compilation model?

    - by Kos
    GLSL is fundamentally different from other shader solutions because the server (GPU driver) is responsible for shader compilation. Cg and HLSL are (afaik) generally compiled a priori and sent to the GPU in that way. This causes some real-world practical issues: many drivers provide buggy compilers compilers differ in terms of strictness (one GPU can accept a program while another won't) also we can't know how the assembler code will be optimised What are the upsides of GLSL's current approach? Is it worth it?

    Read the article

  • Javascript: Machine Constants Applicable?

    - by DavidB2013
    I write numerical routines for students of science and engineering (although they are freely available for use by anybody else as well) and am wondering how to properly use machine constants in a JavaScript program, or if they are even applicable. For example, say I am writing a program in C++ that numerically computes the roots of the following equation: exp(-0.7x) + sin(3x) - 1.2x + 0.3546 = 0 A root-finding routine should be able to compute roots to within the machine epsilon. In C++, this value is specified by the language: DBL_EPSILON. C++ also specifies the smallest and largest values that can be held by a float or double variable. However, how does this convert to JavaScript? Since a Javascript program runs in a web browser, and I don't know what kind of computer will run the program, and JavaScript does not have corresponding predefined values for these quantities, how can I implement my own version of these constants so that my programs compute results to as much accuracy as allowed on the computer running the web browser? My first draft is to simply copy over the literal constants from C++: FLT_MIN: 1.17549435082229e-038 FLT_MAX: 3.40282346638529e+038 DBL_EPSILON: 2.2204460492503131e-16 I am also willing to write small code blocks that could compute these values for each machine on which the program is run. That way, a supercomputer might compute results to a higher accuracy than an old, low-level, PC. BUT, I don't know if such a routine would actually reach the computer, in which case, I would be wasting my time. Anybody here know how to compute and use (in Javascript) values that correspond to machine constants in a compiled language? Is it worth my time to write small programs in Javascript that compute DBL_EPSILON, FLT_MIN, FLT_MIN, etc. for use in numerical routines? Or am I better off simply assigning literal constants that come straight from C++ on a standard Windows PC?

    Read the article

  • Dynamic vs Statically typed languages for websites

    - by Bradford
    Wanted to hear what others thought about this statement: I’ll contrast that with building a website. When rendering web pages, often you have very many components interacting on a web page. You have buttons over here and little widgets over there and there are dozens of them on a webpage, as well as possibly dozens or hundreds of web pages on your website that are all dynamic. With a system with a really large surface area like that, using a statically typed language is actually quite inflexible. I would find it painful probably to program in Scala and render a web page with it, when I want to interactively push around buttons and what-not. If the whole system has to be coherent, like the whole system has to type check just to be able to move a button around, I think that can be really inflexible. Source: http://www.infoq.com/interviews/kallen-scala-twitter

    Read the article

  • Why fork a library for your own application?

    - by Mr. Shickadance
    Why should a programmer ever fork a library for inclusion in a widely used application? I ask this question because I was reading an article about why Chromium isn't packaged for many Linux distros like Fedora. Apparently its largely due to the fact that Google has forked a number of libraries, modified them, and included them in Chromium. This has driven up the complexity of packaging releases. There are a number of reasons why this can be a bad thing, but how strong a case can you actually make for doing so in a large widely used application such as Chromium? The original article: http://ostatic.com/blog/making-projects-easier-to-package-why-chromium-isnt-in-fedora Isn't it usually worth the effort to make slight modifications to your own program in order to use a popular and well developed library?

    Read the article

  • C++ simple arrays and pointers question

    - by nashmaniac
    So here's the confusion, let's say I declare an array of characters char name[3] = "Sam"; and then I declare another array but this time using pointers char * name = "Sam"; What's the difference between the two? I mean they work the same way in a program. Also how does the latter store the size of the stuff that someone puts in it, in this case 3 characters? Also how is it different from char * name = new char[3]; If those three are different where should they be used I mean in what circumstances?

    Read the article

  • Parsing stdout with custom format or standard format?

    - by linquize
    To integrate with other executables, a executable may launch another executable and capture its output from stdout. But most programs writes the output message to stdout in custom format and usually in human readable format. So it requires the system integrator to write a function to parse the output, which is considered trouble and the parser code may be buggy. Do you think this is old fashioned? Most Unix-style programs do that. Very few programs write to stdout in standard format such as XML or JSON, which is more modern. Example: Veracity (DVCS) writes JSON to stdout. Should we switch to use modern formats? For a console program, human readable or easy parsable: which is more important ?

    Read the article

  • Should a programmer "think" for the client?

    - by P.Brian.Mackey
    I have gotten to the point where I hate requirements gathering. Customer's are too vague for their own good. In an agile environment, where we can show the client a piece of work to completion it's not too bad as we can make small regular corrections/updates to functionality. In a "waterfall" type in environment (requirements first, nearly complete product next) things can get ugly. This kind of environment has led me to constantly question requirements. E.G. Customer wants "automatically convert input to the number 1" (referring to a Qty in an order). But what they don't think about is that "input" could be a simple type-o. An "x" in a textbox could be a "woops" not I want 1 of those "toothpaste" products. But, there's so much in the air with requirements that I could stand and correct for hours on end smashing out what they want. This just isn't healthy. Working for a corporation, I could try to adjust the culture to fit the agile model that would help us (no small job, above my pay grade). Or, sweep ugly details under the rug and hope for the best. Maybe my customer is trying to get too close to the code? How does one handle the problem of "thinking for the client" without pissing them off with too many questions?

    Read the article

  • Quality of Code in unit tests?

    - by m3th0dman
    Is it worth to spend time when writing unit tests in order that the code written there has good quality and is very easy to read? When writing this kinds of tests I break very often the Law of Demeter, for faster writing and not using so many variables. Technically, unit tests are not reused directly - are strictly bound to the code so I do not see any reason for spending much time on them; they only need to be functionaly.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204  | Next Page >