Search Results

Search found 1860 results on 75 pages for 'describe'.

Page 2/75 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Please Describe Your Struggles with Minimizing Use of Global Variables

    - by MetaHyperBolic
    Most of the programs I write are relatively flowchartable processes, with a defined start and hoped-for end. The problems themselves can be complex but do not readily lean towards central use of objects and event-driven programming. Often, I am simply churning through great varied batches of text data to produce different text data. Only occasionally do I need to create a class: As an example, to track warnings, errors, and debugging message, I created a class (Problems) with one instantiation (myErr), which I believe to be an example of the Singleton design pattern. As a further factor, my colleagues are more old school (procedural) than I and are unacquainted with object-oriented programming, so I am loath to create things they could not puzzle through. And yet I hear, again and again, how even the Singleton design pattern is really an anti-pattern and ought to be avoided because Global Variables Are Bad. Minor functions need few arguments passed to them and have no need to know of configuration (unchanging) or program state (changing) -- I agree. However, the functions in the middle of the chain, which primarily control program flow, have a need for a large number of configuration variables and some program state variables. I believe passing a dozen or more arguments along to a function is a "solution," but hardly an attractive one. I could, of course, cram variables into a single hash/dict/associative array, but that seems like cheating. For instance, connecting to the Active Directory to make a new account, I need such configuration variables as an administrative username, password, a target OU, some default groups, a domain, etc. I would have to pass those arguments down through a variety of functions which would not even use them, merely shuffle them off down through a chain which would eventually lead to the function that actually needs them. I would at least declare the configuration variables to be constant, to protect them, but my language of choice these days (Python) provides no simple manner to do this, though recipes do exist as workarounds. Numerous Stack Overflow questions have hit on the why? of the badness and the requisite shunning, but do not often mention tips on living with this quasi-religious restriction. How have you resolved, or at least made peace with, the issue of global variables and program state? Where have you made compromises? What have your tricks been, aside from shoving around flocks of arguments to functions?

    Read the article

  • How do you describe your profession in a public place or conference?

    - by Jenko
    I've often been in situations where non-technical people ask me, "So, what do you do?" ... and I've found it somewhat hard to describe that I spend the entirely of my days pouring over colored text. Of course, its quite reasonable to say "I design software" or "I develop computer applications", but that still feels somewhat "lame" and generic. So how do you describe your profession in public situations? are there any insights for those of us less gifted in public speaking?

    Read the article

  • Does your organization still use the term "screens" to describe a user interface?

    - by bit-twiddler
    I have been in the field long enough to remember when the term "screen" entered our lexicon. As difficult as it is to believe, the early systems on which I worked had no user interface (UI), that is, unless one counts a keypunch machine and job listings as a user interface. These systems ran as "card image" production jobs back in a day when being a computer operator required a reasonably deep understanding of how computers worked. Flashing forward to today: I cringe every time I hear a systems practitioner use the term "screen." The metaphor no longer fits the medium. The term somewhat fit back when the user dialog consumed 100% of available monitor real estate; however, the term lost its relevance the moment we moved to windowed environments. With the above said, does your organization still use the term "screens" to describe an application's UI? Has anyone successfully purged the term from an organization? For those who do not use the term to describe UI dialog elements, what term do you use in place of “screen.”

    Read the article

  • Failing rspec Rails Tutorial Chapter 9.3

    - by greyghost24
    I am failing 3 tests and I have found numerous examples on here and on on the internet in general but I can't seem to find where I'm going wrong. Thanks for any help. 1) User pages signup with valid information edit page Failure/Error: before { visit edit_user_path(user) } ActionView::Template::Error: undefined method `model_name' for NilClass:Class # ./app/views/users/edit.html.erb:6:in `_app_views_users_edit_html_erb___4113112884365867193_70232486166220' # ./spec/requests/user_pages_spec.rb:96:in `block (5 levels) in <top (required)>' 2) User pages signup with valid information edit page Failure/Error: before { visit edit_user_path(user) } ActionView::Template::Error: undefined method `model_name' for NilClass:Class # ./app/views/users/edit.html.erb:6:in `_app_views_users_edit_html_erb___4113112884365867193_70232486166220' # ./spec/requests/user_pages_spec.rb:96:in `block (5 levels) in <top (required)>' 3) User pages signup with valid information edit page Failure/Error: before { visit edit_user_path(user) } ActionView::Template::Error: undefined method `model_name' for NilClass:Class # ./app/views/users/edit.html.erb:6:in `_app_views_users_edit_html_erb___4113112884365867193_70232486166220' # ./spec/requests/user_pages_spec.rb:96:in `block (5 levels) in <top (required)>' Finished in 0.26515 seconds 3 examples, 3 failures Failed examples: rspec ./spec/requests/user_pages_spec.rb:100 # User pages signup with valid information edit page rspec ./spec/requests/user_pages_spec.rb:99 # User pages signup with valid information edit page rspec ./spec/requests/user_pages_spec.rb:101 # User pages signup with valid information edit page authentication_pages_spec.rb require 'spec_helper' describe "Authentication" do subject { page } describe "signin page" do before { visit signin_path } it { should have_selector('h1', text: 'Sign in') } it { should have_selector('title', text: 'Sign in') } end describe "signin" do before { visit signin_path } describe "with invalid information" do before { click_button "Sign in" } it { should have_selector('title', text: 'Sign in') } it { should have_selector('div.alert.alert-error', text: 'Invalid') } describe "after visiting another page" do before { click_link "Home" } it { should_not have_selector('div.alert.alert-error') } end end describe "with valid information" do let(:user) { FactoryGirl.create(:user) } before do fill_in "Email", with: user.email fill_in "Password", with: user.password click_button "Sign in" end it { should have_selector('title', text: user.name) } it { should have_link('Profile', href: user_path(user)) } it { should have_link('Sign out', href: signout_path) } it { should_not have_link('Sign in', href: signin_path) } describe "followed by signout" do before { click_link "Sign out" } it { should have_link('Sign in') } end end end end Here is the users_controller: class UsersController < ApplicationController def show @user = User.find(params[:id]) end def new @user = User.new end def create @user = User.new(params[:user]) if @user.save sign_in @user flash[:success] = "Welcome to the Sample App!" redirect_to @user else render 'new' end end end def edit @user = User.find(params[:id]) end edit.html.erb: <% provide(:title, "Edit user") %> <h1>Update your profile</h1> <div class="row"> <div class="span6 offset3"> <%= form_for(@user) do |f| %> <%= render 'shared/error_messages' %> <%= f.label :name %> <%= f.text_field :name %> <%= f.label :email %> <%= f.text_field :email %> <%= f.label :password %> <%= f.password_field :password %> <%= f.label :password_confirmation, "Confirm Password" %> <%= f.password_field :password_confirmation %> <%= f.submit "Save changes", class: "btn btn-large btn-primary" %> <% end %> <%= gravatar_for @user %> <a href="http://gravatar.com/emails">change</a> </div> here is the user_pages_spec: require 'spec_helper' describe "User pages" do subject { page } describe "profile page" do let(:user) { FactoryGirl.create(:user) } before { visit user_path(user) } it { should have_selector('h1', text: user.name) } it { should have_selector('title', text: user.name) } end describe "signup page" do before { visit signup_path } it { should have_selector('h1', text: 'Sign up') } it { should have_selector('title', text: full_title('Sign up')) } end describe "signup" do before { visit signup_path } describe "with invalid information" do it "should not create a user" do expect { click_button "Create my account" }.not_to change(User, :count) end describe "error messages" do before { click_button "Create my account" } it { should have_selector('title', text: 'Sign up') } it { should have_content('error') } end end describe "with valid information" do before do fill_in "Name", with: "Example User" fill_in "Email", with: "[email protected]" fill_in "Password", with: "foobar" fill_in "Confirmation", with: "foobar" end it "should create a user" do expect do click_button "Create my account" end.to change(User, :count).by(1) end describe "after saving the user" do before { click_button "Create my account" } let(:user) { User.find_by_email('[email protected]') } it { should have_selector('title', text: user.name) } it { should have_selector('div.alert.alert-success', text: 'Welcome') } it { should have_link('Sign out') } end end end describe "signup page" do before { visit signup_path } it { should have_selector('h1', text: 'Sign up') } it { should have_selector('title', text: full_title('Sign up')) } end describe "signup" do before { visit signup_path } let(:submit) { "Create my account" } describe "with invalid information" do it "should not create a user" do expect { click_button submit }.not_to change(User, :count) end end describe "with valid information" do before do fill_in "Name", with: "Example User" fill_in "Email", with: "[email protected]" fill_in "Password", with: "foobar" fill_in "Confirmation", with: "foobar" end it "should create a user" do expect { click_button submit }.to change(User, :count).by(1) end describe "edit" do let(:user) { FactoryGirl.create(:user) } before { visit edit_user_path(user) } describe "page" do it { should have_selector('h1', text: "Update your profile") } it { should have_selector('title', text: "Edit user") } it { should have_link('change', href: 'http://gravatar.com/emails') } end describe "with invalid information" do before { click_button "Save changes" } it { should have_content('error') } end end end end end edit: users_controllers.rb was formatted incorrectly. It should look like this: class UsersController < ApplicationController def show @user = User.find(params[:id]) end def new @user = User.new end def create @user = User.new(params[:user]) if @user.save sign_in @user flash[:success] = "Welcome to the Sample App!" redirect_to @user else render 'new' end end def edit @user = User.find(params[:id]) end end

    Read the article

  • Is there an antipattern to describe this method of coding?

    - by P.Brian.Mackey
    I have a codebase where the programmer tended to wrap things up in areas that don't make sense. For example, given an Error log we have you can log via ErrorLog.Log(ex, "friendly message"); He added various other means to accomplish the exact same task. E.G. SomeClass.Log(ex, "friendly message"); Which simply turns around and calls the first method. This adds levels of complexity with no added benefit. Is there an anti-pattern to describe this?

    Read the article

  • Programmatically determine whether to describe an object with "a" or "an"?

    - by MarathonStudios
    I have a database of nouns (ex "house", "exclamation point", "apple") that I need to output and describe in my application. It's hard to put together a natural-sounding sentence to describe an item without using "a" or "an" - "a house is BIG", "an exclamation point is SMALL", etc. Is there any function, library, or hack i can use in PHP to determine whether it is more appropriate to describe any given noun with A or AN?

    Read the article

  • How should I describe the process of learning someone else's code? (In an invoicing situation.)

    - by MattyG
    I have a contract to upgrade some in-house software for a large company. The company has requested multiple feature additions and a few bug fixes. This is my first freelance style job. First, I needed to become familiar with how the application worked - I learnt it as if I was a user. Next, I had to learn how the software worked. I started with broad concepts, and then narrowed down into necessary detail before working on each bug fix and feature. At least at the start of the project, it took me a lot longer to learn the existing code than it did to write the additional features. How can I describe the process of learning the existing code on the invoice? (This part of the company usually does things in-house, so doesn't have much experience dealing with software contractors like me, and I fear they may not understand the overhead of learning someone else's code). I don't want to just tack the learning time onto the actual feature upgrade, because in some cases this would make a 'simple task' look like it took me way too long. I want break the invoice into relevant steps, and communicate that I'm charging for the large overhead of learning someone else's code before being able to add my own to it. Is there a standard way of describing this sort of activity when billing for a job?

    Read the article

  • Is 'Old-School' the Wrong Way to Describe Reliable Security?

    - by rickramsey
    source The Hotel Toronto apparently knows how to secure its environment. "Built directly into the bedrock in 1913, the vault features an incredible 4-foot thick steel door that weighs 40 tonnes, yet can nonetheless be moved with a single finger. During construction, the gargantuan door was hauled up Yonge Street from the harbour by a team of 18 horses. " 1913. Those were the days. Sysadmins had to be strong as bulls and willing to shovel horse maneur. At least nowadays you don't have to be that strong. And, if you happen to be trying to secure your Oracle Linux environment, you may be able to avoid the shoveling, as well. Provided you know the tricks of the trade contained in these two recently published articles. Tips for Hardening an Oracle Linux Server General strategies for hardening an Oracle Linux server. Oracle Linux comes "secure by default," but the actions you take when deploying the server can increase or decrease its security. How to minimize active services, lock down network services, and many other tips. By Ginny Henningsen, James Morris and Lenz Grimmer. Tips for Securing an Oracle Linux Environment System logging with logwatch and process accounting with psacct can help detect intrusion attempts and determine whether a system has been compromised. So can using the RPM package manager to verifying the integrity of installed software. These and other tools are described in this second article, which takes a wider perspective and gives you tips for securing your entire Oracle Linux environment. Also by the crack team of Ginny Henningsen, James Morris and Lenz Grimmer. - Rick Website Newsletter Facebook Twitter

    Read the article

  • Is there a better term than "smoothness" or "granularity" to describe this language feature?

    - by Chris Stevens
    One of the best things about programming is the abundance of different languages. There are general purpose languages like C++ and Java, as well as little languages like XSLT and AWK. When comparing languages, people often use things like speed, power, expressiveness, and portability as the important distinguishing features. There is one characteristic of languages I consider to be important that, so far, I haven't heard [or been able to come up with] a good term for: how well a language scales from writing tiny programs to writing huge programs. Some languages make it easy and painless to write programs that only require a few lines of code, e.g. task automation. But those languages often don't have enough power to solve large problems, e.g. GUI programming. Conversely, languages that are powerful enough for big problems often require far too much overhead for small problems. This characteristic is important because problems that look small at first frequently grow in scope in unexpected ways. If a programmer chooses a language appropriate only for small tasks, scope changes can require rewriting code from scratch in a new language. And if the programmer chooses a language with lots of overhead and friction to solve a problem that stays small, it will be harder for other people to use and understand than necessary. Rewriting code that works fine is the single most wasteful thing a programmer can do with their time, but using a bazooka to kill a mosquito instead of a flyswatter isn't good either. Here are some of the ways this characteristic presents itself. Can be used interactively - there is some environment where programmers can enter commands one by one Requires no more than one file - neither project files nor makefiles are required for running in batch mode Can easily split code across multiple files - files can refeence each other, or there is some support for modules Has good support for data structures - supports structures like arrays, lists, and especially classes Supports a wide variety of features - features like networking, serialization, XML, and database connectivity are supported by standard libraries Here's my take on how C#, Python, and shell scripting measure up. Python scores highest. Feature C# Python shell scripting --------------- --------- --------- --------------- Interactive poor strong strong One file poor strong strong Multiple files strong strong moderate Data structures strong strong poor Features strong strong strong Is there a term that captures this idea? If not, what term should I use? Here are some candidates. Scalability - already used to decribe language performance, so it's not a good idea to overload it in the context of language syntax Granularity - expresses the idea of being good just for big tasks versus being good for big and small tasks, but doesn't express anything about data structures Smoothness - expresses the idea of low friction, but doesn't express anything about strength of data structures or features Note: Some of these properties are more correctly described as belonging to a compiler or IDE than the language itself. Please consider these tools collectively as the language environment. My question is about how easy or difficult languages are to use, which depends on the environment as well as the language.

    Read the article

  • Is there a better term than "smoothness" or "granularity" to describe this language feature?

    - by Chris
    One of the best things about programming is the abundance of different languages. There are general purpose languages like C++ and Java, as well as little languages like XSLT and AWK. When comparing languages, people often use things like speed, power, expressiveness, and portability as the important distinguishing features. There is one characteristic of languages I consider to be important that, so far, I haven't heard [or been able to come up with] a good term for: how well a language scales from writing tiny programs to writing huge programs. Some languages make it easy and painless to write programs that only require a few lines of code, e.g. task automation. But those languages often don't have enough power to solve large problems, e.g. GUI programming. Conversely, languages that are powerful enough for big problems often require far too much overhead for small problems. This characteristic is important because problems that look small at first frequently grow in scope in unexpected ways. If a programmer chooses a language appropriate only for small tasks, scope changes can require rewriting code from scratch in a new language. And if the programmer chooses a language with lots of overhead and friction to solve a problem that stays small, it will be harder for other people to use and understand than necessary. Rewriting code that works fine is the single most wasteful thing a programmer can do with their time, but using a bazooka to kill a mosquito instead of a flyswatter isn't good either. Here are some of the ways this characteristic presents itself. Can be used interactively - there is some environment where programmers can enter commands one by one Requires no more than one file - neither project files nor makefiles are required for running in batch mode Can easily split code across multiple files - files can refeence each other, or there is some support for modules Has good support for data structures - supports structures like arrays, lists, and especially classes Supports a wide variety of features - features like networking, serialization, XML, and database connectivity are supported by standard libraries Here's my take on how C#, Python, and shell scripting measure up. Python scores highest. Feature C# Python shell scripting --------------- --------- --------- --------------- Interactive poor strong strong One file poor strong strong Multiple files strong strong moderate Data structures strong strong poor Features strong strong strong Is there a term that captures this idea? If not, what term should I use? Here are some candidates. Scalability - already used to decribe language performance, so it's not a good idea to overload it in the context of language syntax Granularity - expresses the idea of being good just for big tasks versus being good for big and small tasks, but doesn't express anything about data structures Smoothness - expresses the idea of low friction, but doesn't express anything about strength of data structures or features Note: Some of these properties are more correctly described as belonging to a compiler or IDE than the language itself. Please consider these tools collectively as the language environment. My question is about how easy or difficult languages are to use, which depends on the environment as well as the language.

    Read the article

  • Is a Mission Oriented Architecture (MOA) a better way to describe things than SOA?

    - by Brian Langbecker
    I might sound like a troll, but I would like to seriously understand this deeper. The place I work at has started to use the term MOA, versus SOA as we believe it drives more clarity and want to compare it to the true goals of SOA. A Mission Oriented Architecture is an approach whereby an application is broken down into various business mission elements, with the database, file assets, batch and real time functionality all tightly coupled in terms of delivering that piece of the functionality. The mission allows the developers to focus on a specific piece of functionality to get it right, and to build it with the ability for that piece to scale as an independent entity within the overall application. By tightly coupling the data, file assets and business logic you achieve the goals of working on a very large problem in bite size pieces. Some definitions of SOA mix it up with what is essentially a method call on a web service versus a true "service". As an architect, I have always found it fun getting everyone on the same page regarding SOA. Is it better to call it a "mission" versus a "service"?

    Read the article

  • When defining Product Backlog items, is it s a bad idea to describe what will be part of the user experience?

    - by DDiVita
    First, I am using the TFS 2010 SCRUM template. I am wondering if this is a bad idea... I started defining a PBI for User Interface Elements. Basically, this will hold all the tasks that developers will be assigned when developing UI elements for a web application. Since this has to do with user interaction and usability I was thinking it may be OK, however my struggle is that it also can be considered functionality and may not fit as a PBI.

    Read the article

  • In a specification, should I describe what a product does (ideally) or what it should/must do?

    - by Arlaud Pierre
    I'm writting a German specification (I'm not German). Differences may appear for this process in different cultures, especially in the terminology, but usually here's the idea: The client writes his needs and wishes in a document, called a scope statement or requirements document. The supplier tries to understand the actual need of the client (which might be different to what was written and to what the client meant to say and to what the client thinks he needs, etc.) The supplier writes a specification for the product, which should fill the client's need. The specification needs to be precise enough for the product to be made (ambiguity problems occur). The client and the supplier can check whether they have understood each other, and discuss details of the product. The client agrees with the specification (or at least its current iteration) and the supplier is ready to start the work. (it may of course be expected of you to disagree with this process, but this is irrelevant to my problem): I'm now somewhere around the last two steps and I've been criticized because I wrote what the product must do, and not what it will do ideally. Usually along the lines of The product must be able to perform task A And I was expected to write The product performs task A This is a simple word play, but I feel saying what the product does, while the product isn't even on the way to be made yet, is wrong. I would tend to consider a specification as a contract of what the product is expected to do (what it must do and how it should do it), and not what it does. Said differently, I feel this is the specification and not the manual of the end product…… Should I say what the product must do or what it does?

    Read the article

  • Is there a phrase or word to describe an algorithim or programme is complete in that given any value for its arguments there is a predictable outcome?

    - by Mrk Mnl
    Is there a phrase to describe an algorithim or programme is complete in that given any possible value for its arguments there is a predicatable outcome? i.e. all the ramifications have been considered whatever the context? A simple example would be the below function: function returns string get_item_type(int type_no) { if(type_no < 10) return "hockey stick" else if (type_no < 20) return "bulldozer" else return "unknown" } (excuse the dismal pseudo code) No matter what number is supplied all possibiblites are catered for. My question is: is there a word to fill the blank here: "get_item_type() is ______ complete" ? (The answer is not Turing Complete - that is something quite different - but I annoyingly always think of something as "Turing Complete" when I am thinking of the above).

    Read the article

  • Is there a phrase or word to describe an algorithim or program is complete in that given any value for its arguments there is a defined outcome?

    - by Mrk Mnl
    Is there a phrase or word to describe an algorithim or programme is complete in that given any value for its arguments there is a defined outcome? i.e. all the ramifications have been considered whatever the context? A simple example would be the below function: function returns string get_item_type(int type_no) { if(type_no < 10) return "hockey stick" else if (type_no < 20) return "bulldozer" else return "unknown" } (excuse the dismal pseudo code) No matter what number is supplied all possibiblites are catered for. My question is: is there a word to fill the blank here: "get_item_type() is ______ complete" ? (The answer is not Turing Complete - that is something quite different - but I annoyingly always think of something as "Turing Complete" when I am thinking of the above).

    Read the article

  • What is the term(s) used to describe programming language syntax?

    - by Mr Roys
    Is there an exact/correct term to describe this difference between the syntax/constructs of programming langauges e.g VB6 with its (if ... else ... endif) and C# with its curly braces for conditional statements. I'm using VB6 syntax and C# as examples since I'm more familiar with their syntax. For example, Visual Basic 6's syntax uses a more verbose, natural language like structure. If (id = 0) Then id = MyObject.Add(Me) Else Call MyObject.Update(Me) End If while C# has more concise syntax like: if (id == 0) { id = MyObject.Add(this); } else { MyObject.Update(this); } Conciseness? Natural languageness? Or is there a more "scientific" word for describing syntax?

    Read the article

  • How you would you describe the Observer pattern in beginner language?

    - by Sheldon
    Currently, my level of understanding is below all the coding examples on the web about the Observer Pattern. I understand it simply as being almost a subscription that updates all other events when a change is made that the delegate registers. However, I'm very unstable in my true comprehension of the benefits and uses. I've done some googling, but most are above my level of understanding. I'm trying to implement this pattern with my current homework assignment, and to truly make sense on my project need a better understanding of the pattern itself and perhaps an example to see what its use. I don't want to force this pattern into something just to submit, I need to understand the purpose and develop my methods accordingly so that it actually serves a good purpose. My text doesn't really go into it, just mentions it in one sentence. MSDN was hard for me to understand, as I'm a beginner on this, and it seems more of an advanced topic. How would you describe this Observer pattern and its uses in C# to a beginner? For an example, please keep code very simple so I can understand the purpose more than complex code snippets. I'm trying to use it effectively with some simple textbox string manipulations and using delegates for my assignment, so a pointer would help!

    Read the article

  • Can someone describe through code a practical example of backtracking with iteration instead of recursion?

    - by chrisapotek
    Recursion makes backtracking easy as it guarantees that you won't go through the same path again. So all ramifications of your path are visited just once. I am trying to convert a backtracking tail-recursive (with accumulators) algorithm to iteration. I heard it is supposed to be easy to convert a perfectly tail-recursive algorithm to iteration. But I am stuck in the backtracking part. Can anyone provide a example through code so myself and others can visualize how backtracking is done? I would think that a STACK is not needed here because I have a perfectly tail-recursive algorithm using accumulators, but I can be wrong here.

    Read the article

  • Can someone describe the nested set model from a C#/LINQ perspective?

    - by Chad
    I know the nested set model doesn't pertain to the C# language or LINQ directly... it's what I'm using to develop my web app. For hierarchical data (categories with sub-categories in my case), I'm currently using something similar to the Adjacency List model. At the moment, I've only got 2 levels of categories, but I'd like to take it further and allow for n levels of categories using the nested set model. I'm not quite clear on how to use it in a C# context. Here's the article I'm reading on the nested set model. Though this article cleared up my confusion some, I still have a big ?? in my head: - Is inserting, updating or deleting categories tedious? It looks like the left and right numbers would require re-numbering... what would the LINQ queries look like for the following scenarios? Delete a child node (re-number all node's left/right values) Delete a parent node (what do you do with the orphans?) Move a child node to a different parent node (renumber again) If my understanding is correct, at all times the child node's left/right values will always be between the parent node's left/right values, am I correct? Seems easy enough, if only the categories were static... most likely I need to spend more time to get my head around the concept. Any help is greatly appreciated!

    Read the article

  • What computer science topic am I trying to describe?

    - by ItzWarty
    I've been programming for around... 6-8 years, and I've begun to realize that I don't really know what really happens at the low-ish level when I do something like int i = j%348 The thing is, I know what j%348 does, it divides j by 348 and finds the remainder. What I don't know is HOW the computer does this. Similarly, I know that try { blah(); }catch(Exception e){ blah2(); } will invoke blah and if blah throws, it will invoke blah2... however, I have no idea how the computer does this instead of err... crashing or ending execution. And I figure that in order for me to get "better" at programming, I should probably know what my code is really doing. [This would probably also help me optimize and... err... not do stupid things] I figure that what I'm asking for is probably something huge taught in universities or something, but to be honest, if I could learn a little, I would be happy. The point of the question is: What topic/computer-science-course am I asking about? Because in all honesty, I don't know. Since I don't know what the topic is called, I'm unable to actually find a book or online resource to learn about the topic, so I'm sort of stuck. I'd be eternally thankful if someone helped me =/

    Read the article

  • What exactly can concrete domains be used to describe?

    - by Exander
    I have read the formal definition of a "concrete domain", but I still don't quite get it. Could someone explain it to me in simpler terms, preferably with some examples? The definition is available in Reasoning in Description Logics with a Concrete Domain in the Framework of Resolution by Ullrich Hustadt, Boris Motik, Ulrike Sattler. Page 1, Definition 1.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >