Search Results

Search found 182 results on 8 pages for 'e mental'.

Page 2/8 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  | Next Page >

  • Good DBAs Do Baselines

    - by Louis Davidson
    One morning, you wake up and feel funny. You can’t quite put your finger on it, but something isn’t quite right. What now? Unless you happen to be a hypochondriac, you likely drag yourself out of bed, get on with the day and gather more “evidence”. You check your symptoms over the next few days; do you feel the same, better, worse? If better, then great, it was some temporal issue, perhaps caused by an allergic reaction to some suspiciously spicy chicken. If the same or worse then you go to the doctor for some health advice, but armed with some data to share, and having ruled out certain possible causes that are fixed with a bit of rest and perhaps an antacid. Whether you realize it or not, in comparing how you feel one day to the next, you have taken baseline measurements. In much the same way, a DBA uses baselines to gauge the gauge health of their database servers. Of course, while SQL Server is very willing to share data regarding its health and activities, it has almost no idea of the difference between good and bad. Over time, experienced DBAs develop “mental” baselines with which they can gauge the health of their servers almost as easily as their own body. They accumulate knowledge of the daily, natural state of each part of their database system, and so know instinctively when one of their databases “feels funny”. Equally, they know when an “issue” is just a passing tremor. They see their SQL Server with all of its four CPU cores running close 100% and don’t panic anymore. Why? It’s 5PM and every day the same thing occurs when the end-of-day reports, which are very CPU intensive, are running. Equally, they know when they need to respond in earnest when it is the first time they have heard about an issue, even if it has been happening every day. Nevertheless, no DBA can retain mental baselines for every characteristic of their systems, so we need to collect physical baselines too. In my experience, surprisingly few DBAs do this very well. Part of the problem is that SQL Server provides a lot of instrumentation. If you look, you will find an almost overwhelming amount of data regarding user activity on your SQL Server instances, and use and abuse of the available CPU, I/O and memory. It seems like a huge task even to work out which data you need to collect, let alone start collecting it on a regular basis, managing its storage over time, and performing detailed comparative analysis. However, without baselines, though, it is very difficult to pinpoint what ails a server, just by looking at a single snapshot of the data, or to spot retrospectively what caused the problem by examining aggregated data for the server, collected over many months. It isn’t as hard as you think to get started. You’ve probably already established some troubleshooting queries of the type SELECT Value FROM SomeSystemTableOrView. Capturing a set of baseline values for such a query can be as easy as changing it as follows: INSERT into BaseLine.SomeSystemTable (value, captureTime) SELECT Value, SYSDATETIME() FROM SomeSystemTableOrView; Of course, there are monitoring tools that will collect and manage this baseline data for you, automatically, and allow you to perform comparison of metrics over different periods. However, to get yourself started and to prove to yourself (or perhaps the person who writes the checks for tools) the value of baselines, stick something similar to the above query into an agent job, running every hour or so, and you are on your way with no excuses! Then, the next time you investigate a slow server, and see x open transactions, y users logged in, and z rows added per hour in the Orders table, compare to your baselines and see immediately what, if anything, has changed!

    Read the article

  • Visual C# GUI Designer - Recommended way of removing generated event handler-code & basic tutorial

    - by cusack
    Hi, I'm new to the Visual C# designer so these are general and pretty basic question on how to work with the designer. When we for instance add a label to a form and then double-click on it in the Visual C# designer (I'm using Microsoft Visual C# 2008 Express Edition), the following things happen: The designer generates code within Form1.Designer.cs (assume default names for simplicity) to add the label, then with the double-click it will add the event handler label1_Click to the label within Form1.Designer.cs, using the following code this.label1.Click += new System.EventHandler(this.label1_Click); and it adds the event handler method to Form1.cs private void label1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e) { } If I now remove the label only the code within Form1.Designer.cs will be removed but the label1_Click method will stay within Form1.cs even if it isn't used by anything else. But if I'm using reset within Properties-Events for the Click-event from within the designer even the label1_Click method in Form1.cs will be removed. 1.) Isn't that a little inconsistent behavior? 2.) What is the recommended way of removing such generated event handler-code? 3.) What is the best "mental approach"/best practice for using the designer? I would approach it by mental separation in the way that Form1.cs is 100% my responsibility and that on the other hand I'm not touching the code in Form1.Designer.cs at all. Does that make sense or not? Since sometimes the designer removes sth. from Form1.cs I'm not sure about this. 4.) Can you recommend a simple designer tutorial that assumes no Visual C# designer knowledge but expects/doesn't explain C#. The following one is an example of what I would not want it explains what a c#-comment is and I'd prefer text over video as well: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/beginner/bb964631.aspx

    Read the article

  • What is the the relation between programming and mathematics?

    - by Math Grad
    Programmers seem to think that their work is quite mathematical. I understand this when you try to optimize something in performance, find the most efficient alogithm, etc.. But it patently seems false when you look at a billing application for a shop, or a systems software riddled with I/O calls. So what is it exactly? Is computation and associated programming really mathematical? Here I have in mind particularly the words of the philosopher Schopenhauer in mind: That arithmetic is the basest of all mental activities is proved by the fact that it is the only one that can be accomplished by means of a machine. Take, for instance, the reckoning machines that are so commonly used in England at the present time, and solely for the sake of convenience. But all analysis finitorum et infinitorum is fundamentally based on calculation. Therefore we may gauge the “profound sense of the mathematician,” of whom Lichtenberg has made fun, in that he says: “These so-called professors of mathematics have taken advantage of the ingenuousness of other people, have attained the credit of possessing profound sense, which strongly resembles the theologians’ profound sense of their own holiness.” I lifted the above quote from here. It seems that programmers are doing precisely the sort of mechanized base mental activity the grand old man is contemptuous about. So what exactly is the deal? Is programming really the "good" kind of mathematics, or just the baser type, or altogether something else just meant for business not to be confused with a pure discipline?

    Read the article

  • What are the best tricks for learning how to -think- in Objective-C?

    - by Braintapper
    Before I get flamed out for not checking previous questions, I have read most of the tutorials, and have Hillegass' book, as well as O'Reilly's book on it. I'm not asking for tips on Cocoa or what IDE to use. Where my issue lies - my 'mental muscle memory' is making it hard for me to read Objective-C code. I have no problems at all reading Java and C code and understanding what's going on. Maybe I'm getting to old to learn a new syntax, but it's a struggle shifting mental gears and looking at Objective-C code and just "getting it" (I thought it might be an isolated case, but I have other friends who are seasoned devs who have said the same thing). Are there any tricks that any non-Objective-C programmers who now know Objective-C used to help process the syntactical differences when learning it? For some reason, I get dyslexic when reading Objective-C code. Maybe I'm not meant to be able to learn it (and that's ok too). I was hoping/wondering if there might be others who have had the same experience.

    Read the article

  • The Incremental Architect&acute;s Napkin - #2 - Balancing the forces

    - by Ralf Westphal
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/theArchitectsNapkin/archive/2014/06/02/the-incremental-architectacutes-napkin---2---balancing-the-forces.aspxCategorizing requirements is the prerequisite for ecconomic architectural decisions. Not all requirements are created equal. However, to truely understand and describe the requirement forces pulling on software development, I think further examination of the requirements aspects is varranted. Aspects of Functionality There are two sides to Functionality requirements. It´s about what a software should do. I call that the Operations it implements. Operations are defined by expressions and control structures or calls to frameworks of some sort, i.e. (business) logic statements. Operations calculate, transform, aggregate, validate, send, receive, load, store etc. Operations are about behavior; they take input and produce output by considering state. I´m not using the term “function” here, because functions - or methods or sub-programs - are not necessary to implement Operations. Functions belong to a different sub-aspect of requirements (see below). Operations alone are not enough, though, to make a customer happy with regard to his/her Functionality requirements. Only correctly implemented Operations provide full value. This should make clear, why testing is so important. And not just manual tests during development of some operational feature, but automated tests. Because only automated tests scale when over time the number of operations increases. Without automated tests there is no guarantee formerly correct operations are still correct after more got added. To retest all previous operations manually is infeasible. So whoever relies just on manual tests is not really balancing the two forces Operations and Correctness. With manual tests more weight is put on the side of the scale of Operations. That might be ok for a short period of time - but in the long run it will bite you. You need to plan for Correctness in the long run from the first day of your project on. Aspects of Quality As important as Functionality is, it´s not the driver for software development. No software has ever been written to just implement some operation in code. We don´t need computers just to do something. All computers can do with software we can do without them. Well, at least given enough time and resources. We could calculate the most complex formulas without computers. We could do auctions with millions of people without computers. The only reason we want computers to help us with this and a million other Operations is… We don´t want to wait for the results very long. Or we want less errors. Or we want easier accessability to complicated solutions. So the main reason for customers to buy/order software is some Quality. They want some Functionality with a higher Quality (e.g. performance, scalability, usability, security…) than without the software. But Qualities come in at least two flavors: Most important are Primary Qualities. That´s the Qualities software truely is written for. Take an online auction website for example. Its Primary Qualities are performance, scalability, and usability, I´d say. Auctions should come within reach of millions of people; setting up an auction should be very easy; finding a suitable auction and bidding on it should be as fast as possible. Only if those Qualities have been implemented does security become relevant. A secure auction website is important - but not as important as a fast auction website. Nobody would want to use the most secure auction website if it was unbearably slow. But there would be people willing to use the fastest auction website even it was lacking security. That´s why security - with regard to online auction software - is not a Primary Quality, but just a Secondary Quality. It´s a supporting quality, so to speak. It does not deliver value by itself. With a password manager software this might be different. There security might be a Primary Quality. Please get me right: I don´t want to denigrate any Quality. There´s a long list of non-functional requirements at Wikipedia. They are all created equal - but that does not mean they are equally important for all software projects. When confronted with Quality requirements check with the customer which are primary and which are secondary. That will help to make good economical decisions when in a crunch. Resources are always limited - but requirements are a bottomless ocean. Aspects of Security of Investment Functionality and Quality are traditionally the requirement aspects cared for most - by customers and developers alike. Even today, when pressure rises in a project, tunnel vision will focus on them. Any measures to create and hold up Security of Investment (SoI) will be out of the window pretty quickly. Resistance to customers and/or management is futile. As long as SoI is not placed on equal footing with Functionality and Quality it´s bound to suffer under pressure. To look closer at what SoI means will help to become more conscious about it and make customers and management aware of the risks of neglecting it. SoI to me has two facets: Production Efficiency (PE) is about speed of delivering value. Customers like short response times. Short response times mean less money spent. So whatever makes software development faster supports this requirement. This must not lead to duct tape programming and banging out features by the dozen, though. Because customers don´t just want Operations and Quality, but also Correctness. So if Correctness gets compromised by focussing too much on Production Efficiency it will fire back. Customers want PE not just today, but over the whole course of a software´s lifecycle. That means, it´s not just about coding speed, but equally about code quality. If code quality leads to rework the PE is on an unsatisfactory level. Also if code production leads to waste it´s unsatisfactory. Because the effort which went into waste could have been used to produce value. Rework and waste cost money. Rework and waste abound, however, as long as PE is not addressed explicitly with management and customers. Thanks to the Agile and Lean movements that´s increasingly the case. Nevertheless more could and should be done in many teams. Each and every developer should keep in mind that Production Efficiency is as important to the customer as Functionality and Quality - whether he/she states it or not. Making software development more efficient is important - but still sooner or later even agile projects are going to hit a glas ceiling. At least as long as they neglect the second SoI facet: Evolvability. Delivering correct high quality functionality in short cycles today is good. But not just any software structure will allow this to happen for an indefinite amount of time.[1] The less explicitly software was designed the sooner it´s going to get stuck. Big ball of mud, monolith, brownfield, legacy code, technical debt… there are many names for software structures that have lost the ability to evolve, to be easily changed to accomodate new requirements. An evolvable code base is the opposite of a brownfield. It´s code which can be easily understood (by developers with sufficient domain expertise) and then easily changed to accomodate new requirements. Ideally the costs of adding feature X to an evolvable code base is independent of when it is requested - or at least the costs should only increase linearly, not exponentially.[2] Clean Code, Agile Architecture, and even traditional Software Engineering are concerned with Evolvability. However, it seems no systematic way of achieving it has been layed out yet. TDD + SOLID help - but still… When I look at the design ability reality in teams I see much room for improvement. As stated previously, SoI - or to be more precise: Evolvability - can hardly be measured. Plus the customer rarely states an explicit expectation with regard to it. That´s why I think, special care must be taken to not neglect it. Postponing it to some large refactorings should not be an option. Rather Evolvability needs to be a core concern for every single developer day. This should not mean Evolvability is more important than any of the other requirement aspects. But neither is it less important. That´s why more effort needs to be invested into it, to bring it on par with the other aspects, which usually are much more in focus. In closing As you see, requirements are of quite different kinds. To not take that into account will make it harder to understand the customer, and to make economic decisions. Those sub-aspects of requirements are forces pulling in different directions. To improve performance might have an impact on Evolvability. To increase Production Efficiency might have an impact on security etc. No requirement aspect should go unchecked when deciding how to allocate resources. Balancing should be explicit. And it should be possible to trace back each decision to a requirement. Why is there a null-check on parameters at the start of the method? Why are there 5000 LOC in this method? Why are there interfaces on those classes? Why is this functionality running on the threadpool? Why is this function defined on that class? Why is this class depending on three other classes? These and a thousand more questions are not to mean anything should be different in a code base. But it´s important to know the reason behind all of these decisions. Because not knowing the reason possibly means waste and having decided suboptimally. And how do we ensure to balance all requirement aspects? That needs practices and transparency. Practices means doing things a certain way and not another, even though that might be possible. We´re dealing with dangerous tools here. Like a knife is a dangerous tool. Harm can be done if we use our tools in just any way at the whim of the moment. Over the centuries rules and practices have been established how to use knifes. You don´t put them in peoples´ legs just because you´re feeling like it. You hand over a knife with the handle towards the receiver. You might not even be allowed to cut round food like potatos or eggs with it. The same should be the case for dangerous tools like object-orientation, remote communication, threads etc. We need practices to use them in a way so requirements are balanced almost automatically. In addition, to be able to work on software as a team we need transparency. We need means to share our thoughts, to work jointly on mental models. So far our tools are focused on working with code. Testing frameworks, build servers, DI containers, intellisense, refactoring support… That´s all nice and well. I don´t want to miss any of that. But I think it´s not enough. We´re missing mental tools, tools for making thinking and talking about software (independently of code) easier. You might think, enough of such tools already exist like all those UML diagram types or Flow Charts. But then, isn´t it strange, hardly any team is using them to design software? Or is that just due to a lack of education? I don´t think so. It´s a matter value/weight ratio: the current mental tools are too heavy weight compared to the value they deliver. So my conclusion is, we need lightweight tools to really be able to balance requirements. Software development is complex. We need guidance not to forget important aspects. That´s like with flying an airplane. Pilots don´t just jump in and take off for their destination. Yes, there are times when they are “flying by the seats of their pants”, when they are just experts doing thing intuitively. But most of the time they are going through honed practices called checklist. See “The Checklist Manifesto” for very enlightening details on this. Maybe then I should say it like this: We need more checklists for the complex businss of software development.[3] But that´s what software development mostly is about: changing software over an unknown period of time. It needs to be corrected in order to finally provide promised operations. It needs to be enhanced to provide ever more operations and qualities. All this without knowing when it´s going to stop. Probably never - until “maintainability” hits a wall when the technical debt is too large, the brownfield too deep. Software development is not a sprint, is not a marathon, not even an ultra marathon. Because to all this there is a foreseeable end. Software development is like continuously and foreever running… ? And sometimes I dare to think that costs could even decrease over time. Think of it: With each feature a software becomes richer in functionality. So with each additional feature the chance of there being already functionality helping its implementation increases. That should lead to less costs of feature X if it´s requested later than sooner. X requested later could stand on the shoulders of previous features. Alas, reality seems to be far from this despite 20+ years of admonishing developers to think in terms of reusability.[1] ? Please don´t get me wrong: I don´t want to bog down the “art” of software development with heavyweight practices and heaps of rules to follow. The framework we need should be lightweight. It should not stand in the way of delivering value to the customer. It´s purpose is even to make that easier by helping us to focus and decreasing waste and rework. ?

    Read the article

  • RDP access to DirectAccess Server via DirectAccess

    - by crgnz
    I have just setup a Win2008R2 DirectAccess server (and also a Win2008R2 Active Directory server). From the Internet I can Remote Desktop login to the AD server, but I cannot RDP into the DirectAccess server. I can PING both servers and get an IPv6 response. (I can RDP to the DirectAccess server from the internal company network) DirectAccess is configured to allow full intranet access. I think I've hit a mental block, the answer will probably be obvious, but I just can't see it.

    Read the article

  • Does overheating cause a computer to slow down?

    - by anonymous coward
    It's a pet peeve of mine that people leave the tower of their desktop computers in the small enclosed cabinet part of computer desks. I've heard that heat issues can cause problems with PCs, but is this realistic? Is leaving the desktop in a cabinet area, or above-average-room-temp, a realistic potential cause of slowdowns? (I'm completely aware that there are other contributing factors to computer 'slowness', just wondering if this is a realistic problem, or mostly mental).

    Read the article

  • How to approach people you've found through internet with similar programming interests?

    - by randomguy
    I've recently really dived into Ruby/Rails and I'm falling in love. I have a gut feeling this might be something that could last for a while. What I've been missing is interaction with people who are as passionate about Ruby, Rails and things closely related to these. I live in a relatively small city, but was able to find five local people through a RoR website. Weekly meetups with Macs, beer and bro-love rushed through my mental theater. Seriously though, I have no clue how I could approach these people. I have their e-mail addresses. Any advice?

    Read the article

  • Does one's native spoken language affect quality of code?

    - by Xepoch
    There is a school of thought in linguistics that problem solving is very much tied to the syntax, semantics, grammar, and flexibility of one's own native spoken language. Working with various international development teams, I can clearly see a mental culture (if you will) in the codebase. Programming language aside, the German coding is quite different from my colleagues in India. As well, code is distinctly different in Middle America as it is in Coastal America (actually, IBM noticed this years ago). Do you notice with your international colleagues (from ANY country) that coding style and problem solving are in-line with native tongues?

    Read the article

  • What is the difference between debugging and testing?

    - by persepolis
    Introduction To Software Testing (Ammann & Offutt) mentions on p.32 a 5-level testing maturity model: Level 0 There’s no difference between testing and debugging. Level 1 The purpose of testing is to show that the software works. Level 2 The purpose of testing is to show that the software doesn’t work. Level 3 The purpose of testing is not to prove anything specific, but to reduce the risk of using the software. Level 4 Testing is a mental discipline that helps all IT professionals develop higher quality software. Although they don't go into much further detail. What are the differences between debugging and testing?

    Read the article

  • Google I/O 2012 - Advanced Design for Engineers

    Google I/O 2012 - Advanced Design for Engineers Alex Faaborg, Christian Robertson Design isn't black magic, it's a field that people can learn. In this talk two elite designers from Google will give you an advanced crash course in interactive and visual design. Topics will include mental models, natural mappings, metaphors, mode errors, visual hierarchies, typography and gestalt principles. Correctly applied this knowledge can drastically improve the quality of your work. For all I/O 2012 sessions, go to developers.google.com From: GoogleDevelopers Views: 158 9 ratings Time: 55:50 More in Science & Technology

    Read the article

  • Are there any resources for motion-planning puzzle design?

    - by Salano Software
    Some background: I'm poking at a set of puzzles along the lines of Rush Hour/Sokoban/etc; for want of a better description, call them 'motion planning' puzzles - the player has to figure out the correct sequence of moves to achieve a particular configuration. (It's the sort of puzzle that's generically PSPACE-complete if that actually helps anyone's mental image). While I have a few straightforward 'building blocks' that I can use for puzzle crafting and I have a few basic examples put together, I'm trying to figure out how to avoid too much sameness over a large swath of these kinds of puzzles, and I'm also trying to figure out how to make puzzles that have more of a feel of logical solution than trial-and-error. Does anyone know of good resources out there for designing instances of this sort of puzzle once the core puzzle rules are in place? Most of what I've found on puzzle design only covers creating the puzzle rules, not building interesting puzzles out of a set of rules.

    Read the article

  • Is there a way to specify a CSS3 transition to occur only on :hover and when returning from hover, not on every event? [closed]

    - by Steve
    You could define the transition on the :hover event, which causes the browser to render only the effect into the hover and not out of it. a:hover { transition... } Using scale as an example, an image being scaled up would scale up on hover, but go straight back down without any transition when the cursor leaves the image. Or, you can set the transition on the element directly: a { transition... } Which by definition means any change that effects the scale of the element such as any developer set styles will work, but also the user zooming in and out the page, will cause there to be a transition. All the tutorials being spewed onto the internet at the moment point to using the latter, but wouldn't one consider this a usability flaw for anyone wanting to resize the page or taking any other action that may cause similar scenarios? Pages with large amounts of transitional hover scaling can go pretty mental if you zoom in and out of them.

    Read the article

  • Why is the concept of Marshalling called as such?

    - by chickeninabiscuit
    I've always thought that the concept of Marshalling had a bit of a funny name. My mental conception of the process would always involve an ol' wildwest gunslinging marshall who would coerce objects into serialized form at gunpoint. I just found out the real reason Marshalling is called what it's called and chuckled. Do you know the real reason, or perhaps you too are familiar with my gunslinger?

    Read the article

  • Perforce for a Subversion user?

    - by Roger Lipscombe
    I've just changed jobs. My previous employer uses Subversion, my new employer uses Perforce. Are there any resources out there that'll help me, as a user change my mental model from a Subversion one to a Perforce one? What are the analogs to common SVN command, which concepts are implemented differently?

    Read the article

  • Is there a Rails authentication library which separates users from login methods?

    - by Gareth
    In my mental model of authentication, a user should be distinct from the way they log in. So for example, a User could have an associated EmailLogin (with an email/password), or they could have many (or none). Similarly they could have 0..* associated OpenIDLogin credentials. Are there any existing authentication libraries for Rails which use this method? Alternatively, is this a really terrible idea?

    Read the article

  • prohibiting instantiation as a temporary object (C++)

    - by SuperElectric
    I like using sentry classes in c++, but I seem to have a mental affliction that results in repeatedly writing bugs like the following: { MySentryClass(arg); // ... other code } Needless to say, this fails because the sentry dies immediately after creation, rather than at the end of the scope, as intended. Is there some way to prevent MySentryClass from being instantiated as a temporary, so that the above code either fails to compile, or at least aborts with an error message at runtime?

    Read the article

  • What is the most easy way to get in advanced Type Theory.

    - by Bubba88
    Of course, by 'advanced' I mean here just something beyond what every programmer does know. I'm currently more-or-less comfortable with the basics and want to understand the most important, most elegant and most practically applicable achievements of modern type theory. I just do not have much time, desire and mental powers to study all the formalistics more thoroughly and that may change in the future. But there is something really attractive for me in that branch, that just forces to ask silly questions like this :) Thank you very much!

    Read the article

  • Programmatically access currency exchange rates

    - by Adam Pierce
    I'm setting up an online ordering system but I'm in Australia and for international customers I'd like to show prices in US dollars or Euros so they don't have to make the mental effort to convert from Australian dollars. Does anyone know if I can pull up to date exchange rates off the net somewhere in an easy-to-parse format I can access from my PHP script ? UPDATE: I have now written a PHP class which implements this. You can get the code from my website.

    Read the article

  • Where is the api reference for nhibernate?

    - by Simon
    I may be going mental, but I can not find any api reference material for nhibernate. I've found plenty of manuals, tutorials, ebooks etc but no api reference. I saw the chm file on the nhibernate sourceforge page, but it doesn't seem to work on any of my PCs (different OSes) Can someone please point me in the right direction?

    Read the article

  • Setting last N bits in an array

    - by Martin
    I'm sure this is fairly simple, however I have a major mental block on it, so I need a little help here! I have an array of 5 integers, the array is already filled with some data. I want to set the last N bits of the array to be random noise. [int][int][int][int][int] set last 40 bits [unchanged][unchanged][unchanged][24 bits of old data followed 8 bits of randomness][all random] This is largely language agnostic, but I'm working in C# so bonus points for answers in C#

    Read the article

  • format - Help with printing a table

    - by Michael Kohl
    This question will probably end in a facepalm, but I've tried for a while and am still stuck despite reading through the hyperspec. Basically what I want to do is something like (format t "~{|~{ ~5d~}|~%~}" '((1 23 2 312) (23 456 1 7890))) but instead of hard-coding the 5 it should be calculated from the list (length of longest element from any nested list + 1) to give something like | 1 23 2 312| | 23 456 1 7890| Maybe I'm thinking way too complicated here and there is an easier way to do what I want, but I think I ran myself into a mental corner that I can't get out of.

    Read the article

  • Easy - Read a file into a array

    - by ineedtehhelpz
    So I have a .dat file that just holds a list of names, each name is on a new line. I am having a day of complete mental blanks but how would I go about getting those names out of the file and puting them into a array. Thanks for any help

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  | Next Page >