Search Results

Search found 5930 results on 238 pages for 'coding standards'.

Page 21/238 | < Previous Page | 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28  | Next Page >

• Programming by dictation?

  - by Andrew M

  ie. you speak out the code, and someone else across the room types it in Anyone tried this? Obviously the person taking the dictation would need to be a coder too, so you didn't have to explain everything and go into tedious detail (not 'open bracket, new line...' but more like 'create a new class called myParser that takes three arguments, first one is...'). I thought of it because sometimes I'm too easily distracted at my computer. Surrounded by buttons, instant gratification a click away, the world at my fingertips. To get stuff done, I want to get away, write my code on paper. But that would mean losing access to necessary resources, and necessitate tedious typing-up later on. The solution? Dictate. Pros: no chance to check reddit, stackexchange, gmail, etc. code while you pace the room, lie down, play billiards, whatever train your brain to think more abstractedly (have to visualize things if you can't just see the screen) skip the tedious details (closing brackets etc.) the typist gets to shadow a more experienced programmer and learn how they work the typist can provide assistance/suggestions external pressure of typist expecting instructions, urging you to stay focussed Cons might be too hard might not work any better rather inefficient use of assisting programmer need to find/pay someone to do this

  Read the article

• Are More Comments Better in High-Turnover Environments?

  - by joshin4colours

  I was talking with a colleague today. We work on code for two different projects. In my case, I'm the only person working on my code; in her case, multiple people work on the same codebase, including co-op students who come and go fairly regularly (between every 8-12 months). She said that she is liberal with her comments, putting them all over the place. Her reasoning is that it helps her remember where things are and what things do since much of the code wasn't written by her and could be changed by someone other than her. Meanwhile, I try to minimize the comments in my code, putting them in only in places with a unobvious workaround or bug. However, I have a better understanding of my code overall, and have more direct control over it. My opinion in that comments should be minimal and the code should tell most of the story, but her reasoning makes sense too. Are there any flaws in her reasoning? It may clutter the code but it ultimately could be quite helpful if there are many people working on it in the short- to medium-run.

  Read the article

• Style bits vs. Separate bool's

  - by peterchen

  My main platform (WinAPI) still heavily uses bits for control styles etc. (example). When introducing custom controls, I'm permanently wondering whether to follow that style or rather use individual bool's. Let's pit them against each other: enum EMyCtrlStyles { mcsUseFileIcon = 1, mcsTruncateFileName = 2, mcsUseShellContextMenu = 4, }; void SetStyle(DWORD mcsStyle); void ModifyStyle(DWORD mcsRemove, DWORD mcsAdd); DWORD GetStyle() const; ... ctrl.SetStyle(mcsUseFileIcon | mcsUseShellContextMenu); vs. CMyCtrl & SetUseFileIcon(bool enable = true); bool GetUseFileIcon() const; CMyCtrl & SetTruncteFileName(bool enable = true); bool GetTruncteFileName() const; CMyCtrl & SetUseShellContextMenu(bool enable = true); bool GetUseShellContextMenu() const; ctrl.SetUseFileIcon().SetUseShellContextMenu(); As I see it, Pro Style Bits Consistent with platform less library code (without gaining complexity), less places to modify for adding a new style less caller code (without losing notable readability) easier to use in some scenarios (e.g. remembering / transferring settings) Binary API remains stable if new style bits are introduced Now, the first and the last are minor in most cases. Pro Individual booleans Intellisense and refactoring tools reduce the "less typing" effort Single Purpose Entities more literate code (as in "flows more like a sentence") No change of paradim for non-bool properties These sound more modern, but also "soft" advantages. I must admit the "platform consistency" is much more enticing than I could justify, the less code without losing much quality is a nice bonus. 1. What do you prefer? Subjectively, for writing the library, or for writing client code? 2. Any (semi-) objective statements, studies, etc.?

  Read the article

• C# return variables

  - by pb01

  In a debate regarding return variables, some members of the team prefer a method to return the result directly to the caller, whereas others prefer to declare a return variable that is then returned to the caller (see code examples below) The argument for the latter is that it allows a developer that is debugging the code to find the return value of the method before it returns to the caller thereby making the code easier to understand: This is especially true where method calls are daisy-chained. Are there any guidelines as to which is the most efficient and/or are there any other reasons why we should adopt one style over another? Thanks private bool Is2(int a) { return a == 2; } private bool Is3(int a) { var result = a == 3; return result; }

  Read the article

• Is it bad idea to use flag variable to search MAX element in array?

  - by Boris Treukhov

  Over my programming career I formed a habit to introduce a flag variable that indicates that the first comparison has occured, just like Msft does in its linq Max() extension method implementation public static int Max(this IEnumerable<int> source) { if (source == null) { throw Error.ArgumentNull("source"); } int num = 0; bool flag = false; foreach (int num2 in source) { if (flag) { if (num2 > num) { num = num2; } } else { num = num2; flag = true; } } if (!flag) { throw Error.NoElements(); } return num; } However I have met some heretics lately, who implement this by just starting with the first element and assigning it to result, and oh no - it turned out that STL and Java authors have preferred the latter method. Java: public static <T extends Object & Comparable<? super T>> T max(Collection<? extends T> coll) { Iterator<? extends T> i = coll.iterator(); T candidate = i.next(); while (i.hasNext()) { T next = i.next(); if (next.compareTo(candidate) > 0) candidate = next; } return candidate; } STL: template<class _FwdIt> inline _FwdIt _Max_element(_FwdIt _First, _FwdIt _Last) { // find largest element, using operator< _FwdIt _Found = _First; if (_First != _Last) for (; ++_First != _Last; ) if (_DEBUG_LT(*_Found, *_First)) _Found = _First; return (_Found); } Are there any preferences between one method or another? Are there any historical reasons for this? Is one method more dangerous than another?

  Read the article

• Simple vs Complex (but performance efficient) solution - which one to choose and when?

  - by ManojGumber

  I have been programming for a couple of years and have often found myself at a dilemma. There are two solutions - one is simple one i.e. simple approach, easier to understand and maintain. It involves some redundancy, some extra work (extra IO, extra processing) and therefore is not the most optimal solution. but other uses a complex approach,difficult to implement, often involving interaction between lot of modules and is a performance efficient solution. Which solution should I strive for when I do not have hard performance SLA to meet and even the simple solution can meet the performance SLA? I have felt disdain among my fellow developers for simple solution. Is it good practice to come up with most optimal complex solution if your performance SLA can be met by a simple solution?

  Read the article

• Scientific evidence that supports using long variable names instead of abbreviations?

  - by Sebastian Dietz

  Is there any scientific evidence that the human brain can read and understand fully written variable names better/faster than abbreviated ones? Like PersistenceManager persistenceManager; in contrast to PersistenceManager pm; I have the impression that I get a better grasp of code that does not use abbreviations, even if the abbreviations would have been commonly used throughout the codebase. Can this individual feeling be backed up by any studies?

  Read the article

• Is there a resource that explains the benefits of layered programming?

  - by P.Brian.Mackey

  Some developers I know favor what I would call a procedural programming style. I recognize that procedural programming has its uses, albeit not in the business application world of .NET programming. So let's say we have a winform application with a buttonclick event. The buttonclick handles everything from the UI configuration to the database call and data manipulation. So you end up with a method that is 100's of lines of code long. Outside the fact that this code can't be considered test-able for various reasons, this style of programming is fragile to change. I can talk bout OO, Anti-patterns, etc. The problem is that any distinct topic I can dream up requires a great deal of explanation to understand the potential benefits. Outside of finding a new job (lots of businesses program this way), how can I teach these kinds of developers how to write better code? Obviously we can't sit around a round table and discuss pro's and con's all day due to time constraints and real work that has to be done. Although, training and intense training is the only thing I can think of to fix these problems. Not to say I write perfect code, I most certainly do not. I do believe there are certain best practices that should be followed as a rule E.G. OO in the context of .NET. The most common excuse I hear is "we can't write code fast enough if we do it like that".

  Read the article

• Programming in academic environment vs industry environment [closed]

  - by user200340

  Possible Duplicate: Differences between programming in school vs programming in industry? This is a general discussion about programming in the industry environment. The background story is that my colleague sent me a very interesting article called "10 Things Entrepreneurs Don’t Learn in College." The first point in that post is about the author's experience of programming in the academic environment vs industry environment. After finishing a 4 year Computer Science degree course, I am currently working in the academic environment as a developer, mainly writing Java, J2EE, Javascript code. I know there are differences between academic programming and industry programming, but I was shocked after reading that post. Trying to avoid this happening on me in the future, or the others. Can anyone from industry give some general advice about how to program in industry. For example, What exactly happens when a task is received? What is the flow from the beginning to the end? What are the main differences between the programming in industry and academia? Is it more structured? Are more frameworks used? It would be great if some code examples could be given. Thanks.

  Read the article

• Code maintenance: keeping a bad pattern when extending new code for being consistent or not ?

  - by Guillaume

  I have to extend an existing module of a project. I don't like the way it has been done (lots of anti-pattern involved, like copy/pasted code). I don't want to perform a complete refactor. Should I: create new methods using existing convention, even if I feel it wrong, to avoid confusion for the next maintainer and being consistent with the code base? or try to use what I feel better even if it is introducing another pattern in the code ? Precison edited after first answers: The existing code is not a mess. It is easy to follow and understand. BUT it is introducing lots of boilerplate code that can be avoided with good design (resulting code might become harder to follow then). In my current case it's a good old JDBC (spring template inboard) DAO module, but I have already encounter this dilemma and I'm seeking for other dev feedback. I don't want to refactor because I don't have time. And even with time it will be hard to justify that a whole perfectly working module needs refactoring. Refactoring cost will be heavier than its benefits. Remember: code is not messy or over-complex. I can not extract few methods there and introduce an abstract class here. It is more a flaw in the design (result of extreme 'Keep It Stupid Simple' I think) So the question can also be asked like that: You, as developer, do you prefer to maintain easy stupid boring code OR to have some helpers that will do the stupid boring code at your place ? Downside of the last possibility being that you'll have to learn some stuff and maybe you will have to maintain the easy stupid boring code too until a full refactoring is done)

  Read the article

• When to write an explicit return statement in Groovy?

  - by Roland Schneider

  At the moment I am working on a Groovy/Grails project (which I'm quite new in) and I wonder whether it is good practice to omit the return keyword in Groovy methods. As far as I know you have to explicitly insert the keyword i.e. for guard clauses, so should one use it also everywhere else? In my opinion the additional return keyword increases readability. Or is it something you just have to get used to? What is your experience with that topic? Some examples: def foo(boolean bar) { // Not consistent if (bar) { return positiveBar() } negativeBar() } def foo2() { // Special Grails example def entitiy = new Entity(foo: 'Foo', bar: 'Bar') entity.save flush: true // Looks strange to me this way entity }

  Read the article

• How to deal with ad-hoc mindsets?

  - by Rotian

  I joined a dev team of six two month ago. People are nice, all is good. But more and more I observe an ad-hoc mindset. Stuff gets quick fixed, at the cost of future usability, there is little testing and two people happily admitted, that they like to carry the knowledge around in their head, rather than to write it down. How to deal with this? I'd like to lead by example, but time is limited - I like architecting and actually implementing the stuff. But I'm afraid the ad-hoc mindset infects me and rather than striving for clearness and simplicity in design and code - which isn't simple to establish - I get pulled down the drain of an endless spiral of hacks on hacks - which no outsider can uncouple - just for schedule's and management's sake.

  Read the article

• Is there something better than a StringBuilder for big blocks of SQL in the code

  - by Eduardo Molteni

  I'm just tired of making a big SQL statement, test it, and then paste the SQL into the code and adding all the sqlstmt.append(" at the beginning and the ") at the end. It's 2011, isn't there a better way the handle a big chunk of strings inside code? Please: don't suggest stored procedures or ORMs. edit Found the answer using XML literals and CData. Thanks to all the people that actually tried to answer the question without questioning me for not using ORM, SPs and using VB edit 2 the question leave me thinking that languages could try to make a better effort for using inline SQL with color syntax, etc. It will be cheaper that developing Linq2SQL. Just something like: dim sql = <sql> SELECT * ... </sql>

  Read the article

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

  - by Austin Smith

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

  Read the article

• Pythonic use of the isinstance function?

  - by Pace

  Whenever I find myself wanting to use the isinstance() function I usually know that I'm doing something wrong and end up changing my ways. However, in this case I think I have a valid use for it. I will use shapes to illustrate my point although I am not actually working with shapes. I am parsing XML configuration files that look like the following: <square> <width>7</width> </square> <rectangle> <width>5</width> <height>7</height> </rectangle> <circle> <radius>4</radius> </circle> For each element I create an instance of the Shape class and build up a list of Shape objects in a class called the ShapeContainer. Different parts of the rest of my application need to refer to the ShapeContainer to get certain shapes. Depending on what the code is doing it might need just rectangles, or it might operate on all quadrangles, or it might operate on all shapes. I have created the following function in the ShapeContainer class (the actual function uses a list comprehension but I have expanded it here for readability): def locate(self, shapeClass): result = [] for shape in self.__shapes: if isinstance(shape,shapeClass): result.append(shape) return result Is this a valid use of the isinstance function? Is there another way I can do this which might be more pythonic?

  Read the article

• Why Use !boolean_variable Over boolean_variable == false

  - by ell

  A comment on this question: Calling A Method that returns a boolean value inside a conditional statement says that you should use !boolean instead of boolean == false when testing conditions. Why? To me boolean == false is much more natural in English and is more explicit. I apologise if this is just a matter of style, but I was wondering if there was some other reason for this preference of !boolean?

  Read the article

• What should my "code sample" look like?

  - by thesunneversets

  I've just had quite a good phone interview (for a CakePHP-related position, not that it's especially important to the question). The interviewer seemed to be impressed with my resume and personality. At the end, though, he asked me to email him a code sample from my existing work project, "to check you're not secretly a terrible programmer, ha ha!" I'm not too worried that my code can't stand on its own two feet, but I'm very much an intermediate programmer rather than an expert. What obvious pitfalls should I make sure my code sample doesn't fall into, in case they rule me out on the spot? Secondly, and this is probably the harder part of the question to answer, what features in a code sample would be so impressive that they would instantly make you much more favourably inclined towards the programmer? All ideas or suggestions welcomed!

  Read the article

• Is extensive documentation a code smell?

  - by Griffin

  Every library, open-source project, and SDK/API I've ever come across has come packaged with a (usually large) documentation file, and this seems contradictory to the wide-spread belief that good code needs little to no comments. What separates documentation from this programming methodology? a one to two page overview of a package seems reasonable, but elegant code combined with standard intelisense should have theoretically deprecated the practice of documentation by now IMO. I feel like companies only create detailed documentation and tutorials because its what they've always done. Why should developers have to constantly be searching through online documentation in order to learn how to do things when such information should be intrinsic to the classes, methods and namespaces?

  Read the article

• Is '@' Error Suppression a Valid Technique for Testing for an Optional Array Key?

  - by MikeSchinkel

  Rarst and I were debating offline about the use of the '@' error suppression operator in PHP, specifically for use to test for existence of "optional" array keys, i.e. array keys that are being used as a switch here a their lack of existence in the array is functionally equivalent to the array having the key with a value equaling false. Here is pseudo-code for this scenario: function do_something( $args = array() ) { if ( @$args['switch'] ) { // Do something with this switch } // continue on... } vs. this approach: function do_something( $args = array() ) { if ( ! empty( $args['switch'] ) && $args['switch'] ) { // Do something with this switch } // continue on... } Of course in most use-cases, suppressing errors would not be A Good Thing(tm). However in this use-case where an array is passed with an optional element, it seems to me that it is actually a very good technique but I could be wrong and would like to hear other's opinions on the subject before I make up my mind. I do know that there are alleged performance hits for using the former approach but I'd like to know how they compare with the alternative and if they performance hits really matter in real world scenarios? P.S. I decided to post this because, after debating this offline with Rarst, he asked a more general question here on Programmers but didn't actually give a detailed example of the specific use-case we were debating. And since I'm pretty sure he'll want to use the out-of-context answers on that other question as justification for why the above is "bad" I decided I needed to get opinions on this specific use-case.

  Read the article

• When does the "Do One Thing" paradigm become harmful?

  - by Petr

  For the sake of argument here's a sample function that prints contents of a given file line-by-line. Version 1: void printFile(const string & filePath) { fstream file(filePath, ios::in); string line; while (file.good()) { getline(file, line); cout << line << endl; } } I know it is recommended that functions do one thing at one level of abstraction. To me, though code above does pretty much one thing and is fairly atomic. Some books (such as Robert C. Martin's Clean Code) seem to suggest breaking the above code into separate functions. Version 2: void printLine(const string & line) { cout << line << endl; } void printLines(fstream & file) { string line; while (file.good()) { getline(file, line); printLine(line); } } void printFile(const string & filePath) { fstream file(filePath, ios::in); printLines(file); } I understand what they want to achieve (open file / read lines / print line), but isn't it a bit of overkill? The original version is simple and in some sense already does one thing - prints a file. The second version will lead to a large number of really small functions which may be far less legible than the first version. Wouldn't it be, in this case, better to have the code at one place? At which point does the "Do One Thing" paradigm become harmful?

  Read the article

• 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 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

• LINQ Style preference

  - by Erin

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

  Read the article

• 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

• 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

< Previous Page | 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28  | Next Page >