Search Results

Search found 89033 results on 3562 pages for 'style css template file'.

Page 202/3562 | < Previous Page | 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209  | Next Page >

• Any Practical Alternative to the Signals + Slots model for GUI Programming?

  - by IntermediateHacker

  The majority of GUI Toolkits nowadays use the Signals + Slots model. It was Qt and GTK+, if I am not wrong, who pioneered it. You know, the widgets or graphical objects (sometimes even ones that aren't displayed) send signals to the main-loop handler. The main-loop handler then calls the events, callbacks or slots assigned for that widget / graphical object. There are usually default (and in most cases virtual) event-handlers already provided by the toolkit for handling all pre-defined signals, therefore, unlike previous designs where the developer had to write the entire main-loop and handler for each and every message himself (think WINAPI), the developer only has to worry about the signals he needs to implement new functionality on. Now this design is being used in most modern toolkits as far as I know. There are Qt, GTK+, FLTK etc. There is Java Swing. C# even has a language feature for it ( events and delegates ), and Windows Forms has been developed on this design. In fact, over the last decade, this design for GUI programming has become a kind of an unwritten standard. Since it increases productivity and provides greater abstraction. However, my question is: Is there any alternative design, that is parallel or practical for modern GUI programming? i.e Is the Signals + Slots design, the only practical one in town? Is it feasible to do GUI Programming with any other design? Are any modern (preferably successful and popular) GUI toolkits built on an alternative design?

  Read the article

• Why the recent shift to removing/omitting semicolons from Javascript?

  - by Jonathan

  It seems to be fashionable recently to omit semicolons from Javascript. There was a blog post a few years ago emphasising that in Javascript, semicolons are optional and the gist of the post seemed to be that you shouldn't bother with them because they're unnecessary. The post, widely cited, doesn't give any compelling reasons not to use them, just that leaving them out has few side-effects. Even GitHub has jumped on the no-semicolon bandwagon, requiring their omission in any internally-developed code, and a recent commit to the zepto.js project by its maintainer has removed all semicolons from the codebase. His chief justifications were: it's a matter of preference for his team; less typing Are there other good reasons to leave them out? Frankly I can see no reason to omit them, and certainly no reason to go back over code to erase them. It also goes against (years of) recommended practice, which I don't really buy the "cargo cult" argument for. So, why all the recent semicolon-hate? Is there a shortage looming? Or is this just the latest Javascript fad?

  Read the article

• Arguments for a coding standard?

  - by acidzombie24

  A few friends and i are planning to work on a project together and we want a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT coding standard. We do NOT want to use the coding standard the libraries/language uses. Its our project and we want to mess around. So i came here to ask what you guys think are good standards and arguments for it (or what not to do and arguments against it). The styles i remember most are Upper casing the entire word Camel and Pascal casing Using '_' to separate each word pre or postfixing letters or words (i hate m for member but i think IsCond() is a good func name. SomethingException as a postfix example) Using '_' at the start or end of words Brace placement. On a new or same line? I know of libs that use Pascal casing on all public and protected members. But would you ever get confused if something is a func, var or even property if the lang supports it? What about if you decide a public member to be private (or vice versa) wouldnt that great a lot of fix up work or inconsistencies? Is prefixing C to every class a good idea? I ask what do you think and why?

  Read the article

• Why write clean, refactored code?

  - by Shamal Karunarathne

  Hi programming lovers, This is a question I've been asking myself for a long time. Thought of throwing out it to you. From my experience of working on several Java based projects, I've seen tons of codes which we call 'dirty'. The unconventional class/method/field naming, wrong way of handling of exceptions, unnecessarily heavy loops and recursion etc. But the code gives the intended results. Though I hate to see dirty code, it's time taking to clean them up and eventually comes the question of "is it worth? it's giving the desired results so what's the point of cleaning?" In team projects, should there be someone specifically to refactor and check for clean code? Or are there situations where the 'dirty' codes fail to give intended results or make the customers unhappy? Do feel free to comment and reply. And tell me if I'm missing something here. Thanks.

  Read the article

• Jump-start Your Mind

  - by João Angelo

  I haven’t written in a while mostly because I’ve spent my time reading what others wrote and today I’m writing purely motivated by what I just finished reading. Mindfire: Big Ideas for Curious Mind by Scott Berkun was such a pleasure to read and ended up igniting parts of my mind which I have to admit were becoming a bit numb that I felt the urge to take some time to first say thank you to the author and then recommend it to all your curious minds out there. Now, go read it… it’s time well spent.

  Read the article

• Using table-styled divs instead of tables

  - by mister martin

  I was referred here from stackoverflow as my question was apparently too broad. I'm working on a template, and I know using CSS is preferred over HTML tables for positioning... But, is it acceptable to get the best of both worlds and use table-like styles on my divs? For example: display: table; This not only helps solve the sticky footer problem, but it also avoids the pains associated with using floats. Somehow it feels dirty, but I can't logically explain why because it works without any "tricks" or ugly hacks, which is how it should be, right? Is this technically incorrect, or does it ultimately boil down to just a matter of opinion? ...Thoughts?

  Read the article

• Is there an easy way to type in common math symbols?

  - by srcspider

  Disclaimer: I'm sure someone is going to moan about easy-of-use, for the purpose of this question consider readability to be the only factor that matters So I found this site that converts to easting northing, it's not really important what that even means but here's how the piece of javascript looks. /** * Convert Ordnance Survey grid reference easting/northing coordinate to (OSGB36) latitude/longitude * * @param {OsGridRef} gridref - easting/northing to be converted to latitude/longitude * @returns {LatLonE} latitude/longitude (in OSGB36) of supplied grid reference */ OsGridRef.osGridToLatLong = function(gridref) { var E = gridref.easting; var N = gridref.northing; var a = 6377563.396, b = 6356256.909; // Airy 1830 major & minor semi-axes var F0 = 0.9996012717; // NatGrid scale factor on central meridian var f0 = 49*Math.PI/180, ?0 = -2*Math.PI/180; // NatGrid true origin var N0 = -100000, E0 = 400000; // northing & easting of true origin, metres var e2 = 1 - (b*b)/(a*a); // eccentricity squared var n = (a-b)/(a+b), n2 = n*n, n3 = n*n*n; // n, n², n³ var f=f0, M=0; do { f = (N-N0-M)/(a*F0) + f; var Ma = (1 + n + (5/4)*n2 + (5/4)*n3) * (f-f0); var Mb = (3*n + 3*n*n + (21/8)*n3) * Math.sin(f-f0) * Math.cos(f+f0); var Mc = ((15/8)*n2 + (15/8)*n3) * Math.sin(2*(f-f0)) * Math.cos(2*(f+f0)); var Md = (35/24)*n3 * Math.sin(3*(f-f0)) * Math.cos(3*(f+f0)); M = b * F0 * (Ma - Mb + Mc - Md); // meridional arc } while (N-N0-M >= 0.00001); // ie until < 0.01mm var cosf = Math.cos(f), sinf = Math.sin(f); var ? = a*F0/Math.sqrt(1-e2*sinf*sinf); // nu = transverse radius of curvature var ? = a*F0*(1-e2)/Math.pow(1-e2*sinf*sinf, 1.5); // rho = meridional radius of curvature var ?2 = ?/?-1; // eta = ? var tanf = Math.tan(f); var tan2f = tanf*tanf, tan4f = tan2f*tan2f, tan6f = tan4f*tan2f; var secf = 1/cosf; var ?3 = ?*?*?, ?5 = ?3*?*?, ?7 = ?5*?*?; var VII = tanf/(2*?*?); var VIII = tanf/(24*?*?3)*(5+3*tan2f+?2-9*tan2f*?2); var IX = tanf/(720*?*?5)*(61+90*tan2f+45*tan4f); var X = secf/?; var XI = secf/(6*?3)*(?/?+2*tan2f); var XII = secf/(120*?5)*(5+28*tan2f+24*tan4f); var XIIA = secf/(5040*?7)*(61+662*tan2f+1320*tan4f+720*tan6f); var dE = (E-E0), dE2 = dE*dE, dE3 = dE2*dE, dE4 = dE2*dE2, dE5 = dE3*dE2, dE6 = dE4*dE2, dE7 = dE5*dE2; f = f - VII*dE2 + VIII*dE4 - IX*dE6; var ? = ?0 + X*dE - XI*dE3 + XII*dE5 - XIIA*dE7; return new LatLonE(f.toDegrees(), ?.toDegrees(), GeoParams.datum.OSGB36); } I found that to be a really nice way of writing an algorythm, at least as far as redability is concerned. Is there any way to easily write the special symbols. And by easily write I mean NOT copy/paste them.

  Read the article

• What is the ideal length of a method?

  - by iPhoneDeveloper

  In object-oriented programming, there is no exact rule on the maximum length of a method , but I still found these two qutes somewhat contradicting each other, so I would like to hear what you think. In Clean Code: A Handbook of Agile Software Craftsmanship, Robert Martin says: The first rule of functions is that they should be small. The second rule of functions is that they should be smaller than that. Functions should not be 100 lines long. Functions should hardly ever be 20 lines long. and he gives an example from Java code he sees from Kent Beck: Every function in his program was just two, or three, or four lines long. Each was transparently obvious. Each told a story. And each led you to the next in a compelling order. That’s how short your functions should be! This sounds great, but on the other hand, in Code Complete, Steve McConnell says something very different: The routine should be allowed to grow organically up to 100-200 lines, decades of evidence say that routines of such length no more error prone then shorter routines. And he gives a reference to a study that says routines 65 lines or long are cheaper to develop. So while there are diverging opinions about the matter, is there a functional best-practice towards determining the ideal length of a method for you?

  Read the article

• Best practice in setting return value (use else or?)

  - by Deckard

  Whenever you want to return a value from a method, but whatever you return depends on some other value, you typically use branching: int calculateSomething() { if (a == b) { return x; } else { return y; } } Another way to write this is: int calculateSomething() { if (a == b) { return x; } return y; } Is there any reason to avoid one or the other? Both allow adding "else if"-clauses without problems. Both typically generate compiler errors if you add anything at the bottom. Note: I couldn't find any duplicates, although multiple questions exist about whether the accompanying curly braces should be on their own line. So let's not get into that.

  Read the article

• How prevent useless content load on the page in Responsive Design

  - by Ícaro Leandro

  In Responsive Design, we hide elements in the page with @media queries and display: hide in the CSS. Ok, But in my system: Browsers that have less than width: 800px, the layout must hide some content, not only hide, but avoid them load fully. I mean, in access with desktop with more than 800px of screen, the page load fully; In mobile devices, or even in desktop with less than 800px, not load some content. I want to make the page load faster in this browsers. The system are maked in PHP and have some Javascript. Thanks...

  Read the article

• Origins of code indentation

  - by Daniel Mahler

  I am interested in finding out who introduced code indentation, as well as when and where it was introduced. It seems so critical to code comprehension, but it was not universal. Most Fortran and Basic code was (is?) unindented, and the same goes for Cobol. I am pretty sure I have even seen old Lisp code written as continuous, line-wrapped text. You had to count brackets in your head just to parse it, never mind understanding it. So where did such a huge improvement come from? I have never seen any mention of its origin. Apart from original examples of its use, I am also looking for original discussions of indentation.

  Read the article

• How to find the exact font used by the browser

  - by sreekanth

  I have used the css style sheet as font-family:arial,helvicta,sans-serif,etc... in a php file when i checked it in browser i dont know which font it is using from the font-family . i wanted to know the exact font used by the browser to display. i.e whether it is using arial or helvicta or sans-serif for the text i have displayed. please any one let me know to find this. i have checked by putting this in wordpad but it is taking my default system font. Thanks in advance

  Read the article

• How forgiving do you need to be on new employees?

  - by Arcturus

  Recently we have a new developer in our team. We are getting him up to speed and he is picking it all up quite fast, but a new developer means new (foreign) coding styles and ways to solve things. It feels kinda petty to start whining about coding styles at the first three classes he codes, but how forgiving are you guys when dealing with new developers? Do you let them muddle on, and point it out later? Or do you wield the scepter of intolerance immediately? When do you draw the line, or if not, why not? P.S. New guy, if you read this: you are doing great, keep up the good work ;) Edit: I've accepted the most up-voted answer, as most answers share the same message: Be nice, but tell them asap! Thanks all for the nice answers! Really appreciated it!

  Read the article

• Is 'Protection' an acceptable Java class name

  - by jonny

  This comes from a closed thread at stack overflow, where there are already some useful answers, though a commenter suggested I post here. I hope this is ok! I'm trying my best to write good readable, code, but often have doubts in my work! I'm creating some code to check the status of some protected software, and have created a class which has methods to check whether the software in use is licensed (there is a separate Licensing class). I've named the class 'Protection', which is currently accessed, via the creation of an appProtect object. The methods in the class allow to check a number of things about the application, in order to confirm that it is in fact licensed for use. Is 'Protection' an acceptable name for such a class? I read somewhere that if you have to think to long in names of methods, classes, objects etc, then perhaps you may not be coding in an Object Oriented way. I've spent a lot of time thinking about this before making this post, which has lead me to doubt the suitability of the name! In creating (and proof reading) this post, I'm starting to seriously doubt my work so far. I'm also thinking I should probably rename the object to applicationProtection rather than appProtect (though am open to any comments on this too?). I'm posting non the less, in the hope that I'll learn something from others views/opinions, even if they're simply confirming I've "done it wrong"!

  Read the article

• Is it good practice to use functions just to centralize common code?

  - by EpsilonVector

  I run across this problem a lot. For example, I currently write a read function and a write function, and they both check if buf is a NULL pointer and that the mode variable is within certain boundaries. This is code duplication. This can be solved by moving it into its own function. But should I? This will be a pretty anemic function (doesn't do much), rather localized (so not general purpose), and doesn't stand well on its own (can't figure out what you need it for unless you see where it is used). Another option is to use a macro, but I want to talk about functions in this post. So, should you use a function for something like this? What are the pros and cons?

  Read the article

• Struggling with the Single Responsibility Principle

  - by AngryBird

  Consider this example: I have a website. It allows users to make posts (can be anything) and add tags that describe the post. In the code, I have two classes that represent the post and tags. Lets call these classes Post and Tag. Post takes care of creating posts, deleting posts, updating posts, etc. Tag takes care of creating tags, deleting tags, updating tags, etc. There is one operation that is missing. The linking of tags to posts. I am struggling with who should do this operation. It could fit equally well in either class. On one hand, the Post class could have a function that takes a Tag as a parameter, and then stores it in a list of tags. On the other hand, the Tag class could have a function that takes a Post as a parameter and links the Tag to the Post. The above is just an example of my problem. I am actually running into this with multiple classes that are all similar. It could fit equally well in both. Short of actually putting the functionality in both classes, what conventions or design styles exist to help me solve this problem. I am assuming there has to be something short of just picking one? Maybe putting it in both classes is the correct answer?

  Read the article

• SVG images grow and create scrollbars when on the server

  - by zuko

  Okay so I embedded some SVG images into my page and opened it locally on Chrome and it looked fine. I upload the same file to the server and look at the page online and the SVG images have grown by maybe 5-10% and are surrounded by scroll bars like they are overflowing. I think it probably has to do with my lack of knowledge on how SVG and Embed work. What's really puzzling me though, is that it works fine locally. (I have cache disabled.) Help? Thanks. Edit: code HTML: <embed type="image/svg+xml" src="content/web-logo.svg"/> There's no CSS on the image. I'm not sure if I was just wrong before or if I changed something I'm not aware of, but it doesn't appear to be actually changing size anymore. It just decides to stuff it into a scrollbox. pic: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wt1aufi7nl1fpyi/svg-problem.png

  Read the article

• Method flags as arguments or as member variables?

  - by Martin

  I think the title "Method flags as arguments or as member variables?" may be suboptimal, but as I'm missing any better terminology atm., here goes: I'm currently trying to get my head around the problem of whether flags for a given class (private) method should be passed as function arguments or via member variable and/or whether there is some pattern or name that covers this aspect and/or whether this hints at some other design problems. By example (language could be C++, Java, C#, doesn't really matter IMHO): class Thingamajig { private ResultType DoInternalStuff(FlagType calcSelect) { ResultType res; for (... some loop condition ...) { ... if (calcSelect == typeA) { ... } else if (calcSelect == typeX) { ... } else if ... } ... return res; } private void InteralStuffInvoker(FlagType calcSelect) { ... DoInternalStuff(calcSelect); ... } public void DoThisStuff() { ... some code ... InternalStuffInvoker(typeA); ... some more code ... } public ResultType DoThatStuff() { ... some code ... ResultType x = DoInternalStuff(typeX); ... some more code ... further process x ... return x; } } What we see above is that the method InternalStuffInvoker takes an argument that is not used inside this function at all but is only forwarded to the other private method DoInternalStuff. (Where DoInternalStuffwill be used privately at other places in this class, e.g. in the DoThatStuff (public) method.) An alternative solution would be to add a member variable that carries this information: class Thingamajig { private ResultType DoInternalStuff() { ResultType res; for (... some loop condition ...) { ... if (m_calcSelect == typeA) { ... } ... } ... return res; } private void InteralStuffInvoker() { ... DoInternalStuff(); ... } public void DoThisStuff() { ... some code ... m_calcSelect = typeA; InternalStuffInvoker(); ... some more code ... } public ResultType DoThatStuff() { ... some code ... m_calcSelect = typeX; ResultType x = DoInternalStuff(); ... some more code ... further process x ... return x; } } Especially for deep call chains where the selector-flag for the inner method is selected outside, using a member variable can make the intermediate functions cleaner, as they don't need to carry a pass-through parameter. On the other hand, this member variable isn't really representing any object state (as it's neither set nor available outside), but is really a hidden additional argument for the "inner" private method. What are the pros and cons of each approach?

  Read the article

• Named arguments (parameters) as a readability aid

  - by Damian Mehers

  A long time ago I programmed a lot in ADA, and it was normal to name arguments when invoking a function - SomeObject.DoSomething(SomeParameterName = someValue); Now that C# supports named arguments, I'm thinking about reverting to this habit in situations where it might not be obvious what an argument means. You might argue that it should always be obvious what an argument means, but if you have a boolean argument, and callers are passing in "true" or "false" then qualifying the value with the name makes the call site more readable. contentFetcher.DownloadNote(note, manual : true); I guess I could create Enums instead of using true or false (Manual, Automatic in this case). What do you think about occasionally using named arguments to make code easier to read?

  Read the article

• Anonymous function vs. separate named function for initialization in jquery

  - by Martin N.

  We just had some controversial discussion and I would like to see your opinions on the issue: Let's say we have some code that is used to initialize things when a page is loaded and it looks like this: function initStuff() { ...} ... $(document).ready(initStuff); The initStuff function is only called from the third line of the snippet. Never again. Now I would say: Usually people put this into an anonymous callback like that: $(document).ready(function() { //Body of initStuff }); because having the function in a dedicated location in the code is not really helping with readability, because with the call on ready() makes it obvious, that this code is initialization stuff. Would you agree or disagree with that decision? And why? Thank you very much for your opinion!

  Read the article

• Are there efforts to build a collaboratively edited HTML/JS/DOM reference?

  - by Pekka

  W3Schools has a reputation of being incomplete, sometimes incorrect, and ridden with advertising; still, when looking to look up some things or link to documentation when answering a SO question, it still is the only handy cross-browser resource. There are other resources like the Mozilla Developer Network that is doing an increasingly great job documenting JavaScript, and the legendary and great Quirksmode. But they, as brilliant as they are, cover only parts of the areas I am talking about, and provide no community editing and quality control options. Is anybody aware of efforts to create a collaboratively edited, cross-browser HTML/CSS/JavaScript/DOM encyclopedia? If you will, I'm thinking of a challenger to W3Schools like SO was to Experts Exchange. (I thought this more suitable on Programmers than on SO proper - please correct me if I'm wrong.)

  Read the article

• Switch or a Dictionary when assigning to new object

  - by KChaloux

  Recently, I've come to prefer mapping 1-1 relationships using Dictionaries instead of Switch statements. I find it to be a little faster to write and easier to mentally process. Unfortunately, when mapping to a new instance of an object, I don't want to define it like this: var fooDict = new Dictionary<int, IBigObject>() { { 0, new Foo() }, // Creates an instance of Foo { 1, new Bar() }, // Creates an instance of Bar { 2, new Baz() } // Creates an instance of Baz } var quux = fooDict[0]; // quux references Foo Given that construct, I've wasted CPU cycles and memory creating 3 objects, doing whatever their constructors might contain, and only ended up using one of them. I also believe that mapping other objects to fooDict[0] in this case will cause them to reference the same thing, rather than creating a new instance of Foo as intended. A solution would be to use a lambda instead: var fooDict = new Dictionary<int, Func<IBigObject>>() { { 0, () => new Foo() }, // Returns a new instance of Foo when invoked { 1, () => new Bar() }, // Ditto Bar { 2, () => new Baz() } // Ditto Baz } var quux = fooDict[0](); // equivalent to saying 'var quux = new Foo();' Is this getting to a point where it's too confusing? It's easy to miss that () on the end. Or is mapping to a function/expression a fairly common practice? The alternative would be to use a switch: IBigObject quux; switch(someInt) { case 0: quux = new Foo(); break; case 1: quux = new Bar(); break; case 2: quux = new Baz(); break; } Which invocation is more acceptable? Dictionary, for faster lookups and fewer keywords (case and break) Switch: More commonly found in code, doesn't require the use of a Func< object for indirection.

  Read the article

• Why didn't IE8 support border-radius, evil or ignorance?

  - by Mark Rogers

  When I think back to the time of the release of IE7, I was surprised that there wasn't border-radius support. It seems like an obviously great idea to have a css-property name for rounded corners, which can potentially make a site look less like it came from the computer stone-age. Finally, today we have IE9 and Microsoft finally decided to play ball with the rest of the world. But the question remains, why didn't Microsoft bother to support border-radius in IE8? The problem probably became obvious to the company as the growing chorus of complaints from web developers got louder after the release of IE7. Was the company so isolated or in group-think mode that they were blind for that many years? Or did Microsoft have some additional motive to suppress the border-radius property?

  Read the article

• How to handle interruptions in developer work without losing concentration? [closed]

  - by tomaszs

  I work as a developer for some years now. Mainly the issue why it's antisocial work is because you need to spend much time programming. I've been always the kind of developer who likes to cut off from any sources of distraction and spend several hours on project because in this way i (as i hope) do it faster. There are also other kinds of developers, more social that can chat, read, watch movies while development and they are ok with this and don't hesitate to be interrupted in their work in any time and come back to the project without any problem. For me any distraction is source of frustration because i need to spend substantial time to load my mind with all info about the project and to concentrate back on the tasks. I always thought it's better to do this that way because project is completed faster. But it makes some things difficult: it's hard to chat with someone who needs to have some important info: because you are a bit frustrated when you know you loose your Zen. And sometimes its more important to chat with someone than to loose Zen. Well.. mostly in any other kind of work the ability to be "multitask" is very important. But as a developer and as a person it's also very important to stay social. And i see now that the problem of concentration makes it difficult to make the right chose: the cost of maintaining concentration is just sometimes so damn high! So is it only me that i have so little concentration skills so any interruption is for me a big deal? Maybe it's just i have so bad memory so that i dont remember all issues of a project so long? Or maybe i develop the project in a fashion that requires me to store so much info on my mind only to be able to start working with code? Or should i just accept that being more social will make me finish project slower and in the fashion that i personally consider non 100% productive? And it's just normal thing and i should just accept it and start to live like any other person who has many works and don't assume that programming is in any case other than any other work and i just do fuzz about the whole concentration thing? This is question for mid-pro developers. I think you was having the same dillema in your life. I would be glad if you could help me take the right road here because it's just driving me and i suppose people i work with crazy for years.

  Read the article

• Intentional misspellings to avoid reserved words

  - by Renesis

  I often see code that include intentional misspellings of common words that for better or worse have become reserved words: klass or clazz for class: Class clazz = ThisClass.class kount for count in SQL: count(*) AS kount Personally I find this decreases readability. In my own practice I haven't found too many cases where a better name couldn't have been used — itemClass or recordTotal. However, it's so common that I can't help but wonder if I'm the only one? Anyone have any advice or even better, quoted recommendations from well-respected programmers on this practice?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209  | Next Page >