Search Results

Search found 289 results on 12 pages for 'maintainability'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

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

  • Encapsulate standard C functions?

    - by Jack Stout
    While studying the C programming language and learning safe practices, I'm inclined to write a layer of functionality over several parts of the standard library. This would serve two purposes: I could use standard parts of the language in ways that feel more familiar or rational to me, and I could easily replace that functionality with my own, if I needed to. I could benefit from this, but should I do it? As an example, we can consider memory management. If I've written malloc() into the constructors of each of my objects, then decide that I need to handle memory allocation on my own, I have to edit the constructor associated with every object. By referencing my own function, I can change the contents of that function without writing a new constructors. It seems obvious that I should do this, but I'm used to Python. I'm extremely comfortable in that environment and have no problem linking to any part of the standard library from any part of my program because I know I will almost certainly leave that relationship untouched for the life of the project. The situation I'm running into with C feels like I'm trying to hide the language from myself. Will writing a layer of functionality over the C standard library help me in learning the language and developing a codebase, or will it stifle my understanding going forward?

    Read the article

  • When creating a library for a simple program, what must I do to protect others from its lack of thread safety?

    - by DeveloperDon
    When creating a library for a simple program, is it more cost effective to make it thread safe or is there a way to detect the program's use in a multithreaded program and ASSERT() or otherwise determine (preferably at compile or link time) that it may create problems. Related help for this question would be automated tool support for finding potential problems with thread safety, programming language features that enforce it,

    Read the article

  • Easymock vs Mockito: Design vs Maintainability?

    - by RAbraham
    One way of thinking about this is: if we care about the Design of the code then Easymock is the better choice as it gives feedback to you by its concept of expectations If we care about the maintainability of tests( easier to read,write and having less brittle tests which are not affected much by change), then Mockito seems a better choice. My question is: - If you have used Easymock in large scale projects, do you find that your tests are harder to maintain? - What are the limitations of Mockito( other than endo testing)

    Read the article

  • DRY vs Security and Maintainability with MVC and View Models

    - by Mystere Man
    I like to strive for DRY, and obviously it's not always possible. However, I have to scratch my head over a concept that seems pretty common in MVC, that of the "View Model". The View Model is designed to only pass the minimum amount of information to the view, for both security, maintainability, and testing concerns. I get that. It makes sense. However, from a DRY perspective, a View Model is simply duplicating data you already have. The View Model may be temporary, and used only as a DTO, but you're basically maintaing two different versions of the same model which seems to violate the DRY principal. Do View Models violate DRY? Are they a necessary evil? Do they do more good than bad?

    Read the article

  • Why This Maintainability Index Increase?

    - by Timothy
    I would be appreciative if someone could explain to me the difference between the following two pieces of code in terms of Visual Studio's Code Metrics rules. Why does the Maintainability Index increase slightly if I don't encapsulate everything within using ( )? Sample 1 (MI score of 71) public static String Sha1(String plainText) { using (SHA1Managed sha1 = new SHA1Managed()) { Byte[] text = Encoding.Unicode.GetBytes(plainText); Byte[] hashBytes = sha1.ComputeHash(text); return Convert.ToBase64String(hashBytes); } } Sample 2 (MI score of 73) public static String Sha1(String plainText) { Byte[] text, hashBytes; using (SHA1Managed sha1 = new SHA1Managed()) { text = Encoding.Unicode.GetBytes(plainText); hashBytes = sha1.ComputeHash(text); } return Convert.ToBase64String(hashBytes); } I understand metrics are meaningless outside of a broader context and understanding, and programmers should exercise discretion. While I could boost the score up to 76 with return Convert.ToBase64String(sha1.ComputeHash(Encoding.Unicode.GetBytes(plainText))), I shouldn't. I would clearly be just playing with numbers and it isn't truly any more readable or maintainable at that point. I am curious though as to what the logic might be behind the increase in this case. It's obviously not line-count.

    Read the article

  • Why Does This Maintainability Index Increase?

    - by Timothy
    I would be appreciative if someone could explain to me the difference between the following two pieces of code in terms of Visual Studio's Code Metrics rules. Why does the Maintainability Index increase slightly if I don't encapsulate everything within using ( )? Sample 1 (MI score of 71) public static String Sha1(String plainText) { using (SHA1Managed sha1 = new SHA1Managed()) { Byte[] text = Encoding.Unicode.GetBytes(plainText); Byte[] hashBytes = sha1.ComputeHash(text); return Convert.ToBase64String(hashBytes); } } Sample 2 (MI score of 73) public static String Sha1(String plainText) { Byte[] text, hashBytes; using (SHA1Managed sha1 = new SHA1Managed()) { text = Encoding.Unicode.GetBytes(plainText); hashBytes = sha1.ComputeHash(text); } return Convert.ToBase64String(hashBytes); } I understand metrics are meaningless outside of a broader context and understanding, and programmers should exercise discretion. While I could boost the score up to 76 with return Convert.ToBase64String(sha1.ComputeHash(Encoding.Unicode.GetBytes(plainText))), I shouldn't. I would clearly be just playing with numbers and it isn't truly any more readable or maintainable at that point. I am curious though as to what the logic might be behind the increase in this case. It's obviously not line-count.

    Read the article

  • .net code readability and maintainability

    - by george9170
    There Currently is a local debate as to which code is more readability We have one programmer who comes from a c background and when that programmer codes it looks like string foo = "bar"; if (foo[foo.Length - 1] == 'r') { } We have another programmer that doesn't like this methodology and would rather use if (foo.EndsWith("r")) { } which way of doing these types of operations is better?

    Read the article

  • How do I layout a form in WPF using grid or other controls for maintainability

    - by Jason Coyne
    I have a WPF form, I want to lay out a standard form onto it. Each form element will have a label, and then a control. Pretty standard stuff. If I use a wrap panel, it can cause the label and the control to be separated, but I want them to stay together. is there some WPF equivalent of nobr? Grid works, and allows for column spanning etc, however I really really hate that you specify the column and row on each control. This makes it extremely inconvenient to reorder or insert things into the list. Is there a way to get the grid to use more HTML style column/rows where the items are a child of the row they are in, so that I can re-order easily? Is there some other control that will let me layout a form easily?

    Read the article

  • Page markup maintainability

    - by Tony
    Hi where js folder is under the root. if u put this JS ref in common\SomeControl.ascx, it will work fine if SomeControl is placed on ~/SomePage.aspx because SomePage is under the website root. How to put JS ref in SomeControl and allow it to be placed at any path on the website without losing the JS ref. Thanks

    Read the article

  • small scale web site - global javascript file style/format/pattern - improving maintainability

    - by yaya3
    I frequently create (and inherit) small to medium websites where I have the following sort of code in a single file (normally named global.js or application.js or projectname.js). If functions get big, I normally put them in a seperate file, and call them at the bottom of the file below in the $(document).ready() section. If I have a few functions that are unique to certain pages, I normally have another switch statement for the body class inside the $(document).ready() section. How could I restructure this code to make it more maintainable? Note: I am less interested in the functions innards, more so the structure, and how different types of functions should be dealt with. I've also posted the code here - http://pastie.org/999932 in case it makes it any easier var ProjectNameEnvironment = {}; function someFunctionUniqueToTheHomepageNotWorthMakingConfigurable () { $('.foo').hide(); $('.bar').click(function(){ $('.foo').show(); }); } function functionThatIsWorthMakingConfigurable(config) { var foo = config.foo || 700; var bar = 200; return foo * bar; } function globallyRequiredJqueryPluginTrigger (tooltip_string) { var tooltipTrigger = $(tooltip_string); tooltipTrigger.tooltip({ showURL: false ... }); } function minorUtilityOneLiner (selector) { $(selector).find('li:even').not('li ul li').addClass('even'); } var Lightbox = {}; Lightbox.setup = function(){ $('li#foo a').attr('href','#alpha'); $('li#bar a').attr('href','#beta'); } Lightbox.init = function (config){ if (typeof $.fn.fancybox =='function') { Lightbox.setup(); var fade_in_speed = config.fade_in_speed || 1000; var frame_height = config.frame_height || 1700; $(config.selector).fancybox({ frameHeight : frame_height, callbackOnShow: function() { var content_to_load = config.content_to_load; ... }, callbackOnClose : function(){ $('body').height($('body').height()); } }); } else { if (ProjectNameEnvironment.debug) { alert('the fancybox plugin has not been loaded'); } } } // ---------- order of execution ----------- $(document).ready(function () { urls = urlConfig(); (function globalFunctions() { $('.tooltip-trigger').each(function(){ globallyRequiredJqueryPluginTrigger(this); }); minorUtilityOneLiner('ul.foo') Lightbox.init({ selector : 'a#a-lightbox-trigger-js', ... }); Lightbox.init({ selector : 'a#another-lightbox-trigger-js', ... }); })(); if ( $('body').attr('id') == 'home-page' ) { (function homeFunctions() { someFunctionUniqueToTheHomepageNotWorthMakingConfigurable (); })(); } });

    Read the article

  • Maintainability of Boolean logic - Is nesting if statements needed?

    - by Vaccano
    Which of these is better for maintainability? if (byteArrayVariable != null) if (byteArrayVariable .Length != 0) //Do something with byteArrayVariable OR if ((byteArrayVariable != null) && (byteArrayVariable.Length != 0)) //Do something with byteArrayVariable I prefer reading and writing the second, but I recall reading in code complete that doing things like that is bad for maintainability. This is because you are relying on the language to not evaluate the second part of the if if the first part is false and not all languages do that. (The second part will throw an exception if evaluated with a null byteArrayVariable.) I don't know if that is really something to worry about or not, and I would like general feedback on the question. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • small code redundancy within while-loops (doesn't feel clean)

    - by wallacoloo
    So, in Python (though I think it can be applied to many languages), I find myself with something like this quite often: the_input = raw_input("what to print?\n") while the_input != "quit": print the_input the_input = raw_input("what to print?\n") Maybe I'm being too picky, but I don't like how the line the_input = raw_input("what to print?\n") has to get repeated. It decreases maintainability and organization. But I don't see any workarounds for avoiding the duplicate code without further decreasing the problem. In some languages, I could write something like this: while ((the_input=raw_input("what to print?\n")) != "quit") { print the_input } This is definitely not Pythonic, and Python doesn't even allow for assignment within loop conditions AFAIK. This valid code fixes the redundancy, while 1: the_input = raw_input("what to print?\n") if the_input == "quit": break print the_input But doesn't feel quite right either. The while 1 implies that this loop will run forever; I'm using a loop, but giving it a fake condition and putting the real one inside it. Am I being too picky? Is there a better way to do this? Perhaps there's some language construct designed for this that I don't know of?

    Read the article

  • What to do as a new team lead on a project with maintainability problems?

    - by Mr_E
    I have just been put in charge of a code project with maintainability problems. What things can I do to get the project on a stable footing? I find myself in a place where we are working with a very large multi-tiered .NET system that is missing a lot of the important things such as unit tests, IOC, MEF, too many static classes, pure datasets etc. I'm only 24 but I've been here for almost three years (this app has been in development for 5) and mostly due to time constraints we've been just adding in more crap to fit the other crap. After doing a number of projects in my free time I have begun to understand just how important all those concepts are. Also due to employee shifting I find myself to now be the team lead on this project and I really want to come up with some smart ways to improve this app. Ways where the value can be explained to management. I have ideas of what I would like to do but they all seem so overwhelming without much upfront gain. Any stories of how people have or would have dealt with this would be a very interesting read. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Is there such thing like a "refactoring/maintainability group" role in software companies?

    - by dukeofgaming
    So, I work in a company that does embedded software development, other groups focus in the core development of different products' software and my department (which is in another geographical location) which is located at the factory has to deal with software development as well, but across all products, so that we can also fix things quicker when the lines go down due to software problems with the product. In other words, we are generalists while other groups specialize on each product. Thing is, it is kind of hard to get involved in core development when you are distributed geographically (well, I know it really isn't that hard, but there might be unintended cultural/political barriers when it comes to the discipline of collaborating remotely). So I figured that, since we are currently just putting fires out and somewhat being idle/sub-utilized (even though we are a new department, or maybe that is the reason), I thought that a good role for us could be detecting areas of opportunity of refactoring and rearchitecting code and all other implementations that might have to do with stewarding maintainability and modularity. Other groups aren't focused on this because they don't have the time and they have aggressive deadlines, which damage the quality of the code (eternal story of software projects) The thing is that I want my group/department to be recognized by management and other groups with this role officially, and I'm having trouble to come up with a good definition/identity of our group for this matter. So my question is: is this role something that already exists?, or am I the first one to make something like this up?

    Read the article

  • Usefulness of Toggle functions

    - by roygbiv
    Is it better to write functions that explicitly do something (i.e. HideForm/ShowForm etc...) or is it better to write 'Toggle' type functions (i.e. ToggleVisibility)? I find Toggle type functions awkard because it's hard to track the state by reading the code. In what situations is a toggle type function useful?

    Read the article

  • Which of these is better practice?

    - by Fletcher Moore
    You have a sequence of functions to execute. Case A: They do not depend on each other. Which of these is better? function main() { a(); b(); c(); } or function main() { a(); } function a() { ... b(); } function b() { ... c(); } Case B: They do depend on successful completion of the previous. function main() { if (a()) if (b()) c(); } or function main() { if (!a()) return false; if (!b()) return false; c(); } or function main() { a(); } function a() { ... // maybe return false b(); } funtion b() { ... // maybe return false c(); } Better, of course, means more maintainable and easier to follow.

    Read the article

  • How did Perl gain a reputation for being a write-only language?

    - by Andrew Grimm
    How did Perl gain a reputation (deserved, undeserved, or used to be deserved, no longer so) of being a "write only language"? Was it The syntax of the language Specific features that were available in the language Specific features not being available in the language (or at least old versions of it) The kind of tasks Perl was being used for The kind of people who use Perl (people who aren't full-time programmers) Criticism from people committed to another language Something else? Background: I'd like to know if some aspects that gave Perl the reputation of being write-only also apply to other languages (specifically ruby). Disclaimer: I recognise that Perl doesn't force people to do write-only code (can any language?), and that you can write bad code in any language.

    Read the article

  • Maintaining both free and pro versions of an application

    - by Immortal
    I want to create a PRO version of my application for Android and was wondering how to structure my repository. For know I have a trunk and feature branches. I'd like to put a pro version in another branch but maybe there is a better way? For example, maybe I should create two branches - one for free version, the other for pro? Pro version will have additional features and will be ads-free, so eg. I don't want to include AdMob libraries in the pro version. Do you have any experience or suggestions as to what would be the best way to structure the repository in this case?

    Read the article

  • Open Source Project & Language Selection

    - by James
    I'm getting ready to start an open-source project that will target .NET/Mono. For those who have started their own open source venture... Do you let the fact that a project is going to be open-source weigh on the decision of what language to use? For example. Most .NET open-source projects are written in C#. However, if you were more comfortable with VB.NET, Boo, Nemerle, etc... would you use it? What other considerations are there? This particular project will be a core library and application for geocaching. Similar to GSAK.

    Read the article

  • Is there any appreciable difference between if and if-else?

    - by Drew
    Given the following code snippets, is there any appreciable difference? public boolean foo(int input) { if(input > 10) { doStuff(); return true; } if(input == 0) { doOtherStuff(); return true; } return false; } vs. public boolean foo(int input) { if(input > 10) { doStuff(); return true; } else if(input == 0) { doOtherStuff(); return true; } else { return false; } } Or would the single exit principle be better here with this piece of code... public boolean foo(int input) { boolean toBeReturned = false; if(input > 10) { doStuff(); toBeReturned = true; } else if(input == 0) { doOtherStuff(); toBeReturned = true; } return toBeReturned; } Is there any perceptible performance difference? Do you feel one is more or less maintainable/readable than the others?

    Read the article

  • Program structure in long running data processing python script

    - by fmark
    For my current job I am writing some long-running (think hours to days) scripts that do CPU intensive data-processing. The program flow is very simple - it proceeds into the main loop, completes the main loop, saves output and terminates: The basic structure of my programs tends to be like so: <import statements> <constant declarations> <misc function declarations> def main(): for blah in blahs(): <lots of local variables> <lots of tightly coupled computation> for something in somethings(): <lots more local variables> <lots more computation> <etc., etc.> <save results> if __name__ == "__main__": main() This gets unmanageable quickly, so I want to refactor it into something more manageable. I want to make this more maintainable, without sacrificing execution speed. Each chuck of code relies on a large number of variables however, so refactoring parts of the computation out to functions would make parameters list grow out of hand very quickly. Should I put this sort of code into a python class, and change the local variables into class variables? It doesn't make a great deal of sense tp me conceptually to turn the program into a class, as the class would never be reused, and only one instance would ever be created per instance. What is the best practice structure for this kind of program? I am using python but the question is relatively language-agnostic, assuming a modern object-oriented language features.

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

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