Search Results

Search found 12599 results on 504 pages for 'language'.

Page 22/504 | < Previous Page | 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29  | Next Page >

  • How do you read a file line by line in your language of choice?

    - by Jon Ericson
    I got inspired to try out Haskell again based on a recent answer. My big block is that reading a file line by line (a task made simple in languages such as Perl) seems complicated in a functional language. How do you read a file line by line in your favorite language? So that we are comparing apples to other types of apples, please write a program that numbers the lines of the input file. So if your input is: Line the first. Next line. End of communication. The output would look like: 1 Line the first. 2 Next line. 3 End of communication. I will post my Haskell program as an example. Ken commented that this question does not specify how errors should be handled. I'm not overly concerned about it because: Most answers did the obvious thing and read from stdin and wrote to stdout. The nice thing is that it puts the onus on the user to redirect those streams the way they want. So if stdin is redirected from a non-existent file, the shell will take care of reporting the error, for instance. The question is more aimed at how a language does IO than how it handles exceptions. But if necessary error handling is missing in an answer, feel free to either edit the code to fix it or make a note in the comments.

    Read the article

  • What is a Windows scripting language that: does not rely on .NET and offers the most OOP support and

    - by jJack
    What is a Windows scripting language that: does not rely on .NET and offers the most OOP support and has simplest deployment? It doesn't necessarily need to be a scripting language; It can be in the form of a compiled executable, however it needs to be self contained--only ONE file, no DLL's and it cannot be declared to "include" other files. I cannot rely on the user having any .NET installed and it needs to be able to run on Windows 7 64 bit. By "most OOP support", I basically mean anything that has better OOP support than VBScript. A little context: Everything I have done thus far is in VBScript and writes a bunch of data into an .html file, which in the end is to be viewed by Internet Explorer. It also zips up a bunch of directories and files. It heavily relies on accessing the registry, file-system, and WMI (I can probably do without accessing WMI though, as long as I have good registry access). I can bring myself to code in any language so long as it meets me ridonkulous requirements stated above. I look forward to some good answers from those more experienced than I.

    Read the article

  • What programming language do you wish would quietly retire? [closed]

    - by Gregory Higley
    This is the inverse of the "What programming language do you wish would catch on?" question. I was a Delphi programmer for many years, and I still appreciate its power, but I dislike verbose programming languages. So I would love to see Pascal put out to pasture. The same goes for BASIC in any form, despite the fact that it's the language I cut my teeth on. When I look at cathedrals of beauty like Haskell and REBOL, BASIC just makes me cringe. (VB.NET is tolerable, but barely. It has a few nice language features I'd like to see moved to C#.) My dislike of Pascal and VB.NET is subjective. They are powerful languages, but I dislike their syntax esthetically. Try to explain your reasoning, if you can, even if it's just "I don't like its syntax." This question is not meant to be a flame war, argumentative, or hateful. It's meant to be a straightforward, honest discussion of programmers' dislikes.

    Read the article

  • scheme vs common lisp: war stories

    - by SuperElectric
    There are no shortage of vague "Scheme vs Common Lisp" questions on StackOverflow, so I want to make this one more focused. The question is for people who have coded in both languages: While coding in Scheme, what specific elements of your Common Lisp coding experience did you miss most? Or, inversely, while coding in Common Lisp, what did you miss from coding in Scheme? I don't necessarily mean just language features. The following are all valid things to miss, as far as the question is concerned: Specific libraries. Specific features of development environments like SLIME, DrRacket, etc. Features of particular implementations, like Gambit's ability to write blocks of C code directly into your Scheme source. And of course, language features. Examples of the sort of answers I'm hoping for: "I was trying to implement X in Common Lisp, and if I had Scheme's first-class continuations, I totally would've just done Y, but instead I had to do Z, which was more of a pain." "Scripting the build process in Scheme project, got increasingly painful as my source tree grew and I linked in more and more C libraries. For my next project, I moved back to Common Lisp." "I have a large existing C++ codebase, and for me, being able to embed C++ calls directly in my Gambit Scheme code was totally worth any shortcomings that Scheme may have vs Common Lisp, even including lack of SWIG support." So, I'm hoping for war stories, rather than general sentiments like "Scheme is a simpler language" etc.

    Read the article

  • Scheme vs Common Lisp: war stories

    - by SuperElectric
    There are no shortage of vague "Scheme vs Common Lisp" questions on both StackOverflow and on this site, so I want to make this one more focused. The question is for people who have coded in both languages: While coding in Scheme, what specific elements of your Common Lisp coding experience did you miss most? Or, inversely, while coding in Common Lisp, what did you miss from coding in Scheme? I don't necessarily mean just language features. The following are all valid things to miss, as far as the question is concerned: Specific libraries. Specific features of development environments like SLIME, DrRacket, etc. Features of particular implementations, like Gambit's ability to write blocks of C code directly into your Scheme source. And of course, language features. Examples of the sort of answers I'm hoping for: "I was trying to implement X in Common Lisp, and if I had Scheme's first-class continuations, I totally would've just done Y, but instead I had to do Z, which was more of a pain." "Scripting the build process in my Scheme project got increasingly painful as my source tree grew and I linked in more and more C libraries. For my next project, I moved back to Common Lisp." "I have a large existing C++ codebase, and for me, being able to embed C++ calls directly in my Gambit Scheme code was totally worth any shortcomings that Scheme may have vs Common Lisp, even including lack of SWIG support." So, I'm hoping for war stories, rather than general sentiments like "Scheme is a simpler language" etc.

    Read the article

  • Changes in Language Punctuation [closed]

    - by Wes Miller
    More social curiosity than actual programming question... (I got shot for posting this on Stack Overflow. They sent me here. At least i hope here is where they meant.) Based on the few responses I got before the content police ran me off Stack Overflow, I should note that I am legally blind and neatness and consistency in programming are my best friends. A thousand years ago when I took my first programming class (Fortran 66) and a mere 500 years ago when I tokk my first C and C++ classes, there were some pretty standard punctuation practices across languages. I saw them in Basic (shudder), PL/1, PL/AS, Rexx even Pascal. Ok, APL2 is not part of this discussion. Each language has its own peculiar punctuation. Pascal's periods, Fortran's comma separated do loops, almost everybody else's semicolons. As I learned it, each language also has KEYWORDS (if, for, do, while, until, etc.) which are set off by whitespace (or the left margin) if, etc. Each language has function, subroutines of whatever they're called. Some built-in some user coded. They were set off by function_name( parameters );. As in sqrt( x ) or rand( y ); Lately, there seems to be a new set of punctuation rules. Especially in c++ where initializers get glued onto the end of variable declarations int x(0); or auto_ptr p(new gizmo); This usually, briefly fools me into thinking someone is declaring a function prototype or using a function as a integer. Then "if" and 'for' seems to have grown parens; if(true) for(;;), etc. Since when did keywords become functions. I realize some people think they ARE functions with iterators as parameters. But if "for" is a function, where did the arg separating commas go? And finally, functions seem to have shed their parens; sqrt (2) select (...) I know, I koow, loosening whitespace rules is good. Keep reading. Question: when did the old ways disappear and this new way come into vogue? Does anyone besides me find it irritating to read and that the information that the placement of punctuation used to convey is gone? I know full well that K&R put the { at the end of the "if" or "for" to save a byte here and there. Can't use that excuse here. Space as an excuse for loss of readability died as HDD space soared past 100 MiB. Your thoughts are solicited. If there is a good reason to do this, I'll gladly learn it and maybe in another 50 years I'll get used to it. Of course it's good that compilers recognize these (IMHO) typos and keep right on going, but just because you CAN code it that way doesn't mean you HAVE to, right?

    Read the article

  • Locale variables have no effect in remote shell (perl: warning: Setting locale failed.)

    - by Janning
    I have a fresh ubuntu 12.04 installation. When i connect to my remote server i got errors like this: ~$ ssh example.com sudo aptitude upgrade ... Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/bin/apt-listchanges", line 33, in <module> from ALChacks import * File "/usr/share/apt-listchanges/ALChacks.py", line 32, in <module> sys.stderr.write(_("Can't set locale; make sure $LC_* and $LANG are correct!\n")) NameError: name '_' is not defined perl: warning: Setting locale failed. perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings: LANGUAGE = (unset), LC_ALL = (unset), LC_TIME = "de_DE.UTF-8", LC_MONETARY = "de_DE.UTF-8", LC_ADDRESS = "de_DE.UTF-8", LC_TELEPHONE = "de_DE.UTF-8", LC_NAME = "de_DE.UTF-8", LC_MEASUREMENT = "de_DE.UTF-8", LC_IDENTIFICATION = "de_DE.UTF-8", LC_NUMERIC = "de_DE.UTF-8", LC_PAPER = "de_DE.UTF-8", LANG = "en_US.UTF-8" are supported and installed on your system. perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C"). locale: Cannot set LC_ALL to default locale: No such file or directory No packages will be installed, upgraded, or removed. 0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded. Need to get 0 B of archives. After unpacking 0 B will be used. ... I don't have this problem when i connect from an older ubuntu installation. This is output from my ubuntu 12.04 installation, LANG and LANGUAGE are set $ locale LANG=de_DE.UTF-8 LANGUAGE=de_DE:en_GB:en LC_CTYPE="de_DE.UTF-8" LC_NUMERIC=de_DE.UTF-8 LC_TIME=de_DE.UTF-8 LC_COLLATE="de_DE.UTF-8" LC_MONETARY=de_DE.UTF-8 LC_MESSAGES="de_DE.UTF-8" LC_PAPER=de_DE.UTF-8 LC_NAME=de_DE.UTF-8 LC_ADDRESS=de_DE.UTF-8 LC_TELEPHONE=de_DE.UTF-8 LC_MEASUREMENT=de_DE.UTF-8 LC_IDENTIFICATION=de_DE.UTF-8 LC_ALL= Does anybody know what has changed in ubuntu to get this error message on remote servers?

    Read the article

  • Are Java's public fields just a tragic historical design flaw at this point?

    - by Avi Flax
    It seems to be Java orthodoxy at this point that one should basically never use public fields for object state. (I don't necessarily agree, but that's not relevant to my question.) Given that, would it be right to say that from where we are today, it's clear that Java's public fields were a mistake/flaw of the language design? Or is there a rational argument that they're a useful and important part of the language, even today? Thanks! Update: I know about the more elegant approaches, such as in C#, Python, Groovy, etc. I'm not directly looking for those examples. I'm really just wondering if there's still someone deep in a bunker, muttering about how wonderful public fields really are, and how the masses are all just sheep, etc. Update 2: Clearly static final public fields are the standard way to create public constants. I was referring more to using public fields for object state (even immutable state). I'm thinking that it does seem like a design flaw that one should use public fields for constants, but not for state… a language's rules should be enforced naturally, by syntax, not by guidelines.

    Read the article

  • Classes as a compilation unit

    - by Yannbane
    If "compilation unit" is unclear, please refer to this. However, what I mean by it will be clear from the context. Edit: my language allows for multiple inheritance, unlike Java. I've started designing+developing my own programming language for educational, recreational, and potentially useful purposes. At first, I've decided to base it off Java. This implied that I would have all the code be written inside classes, and that code compiles to classes, which are loaded by the VM. However, I've excluded features such as interfaces and abstract classes, because I found no need for them. They seemed to be enforcing a paradigm, and I'd like my language not to do that. I wanted to keep the classes as the compilation unit though, because it seemed convenient to implement, familiar, and I just liked the idea. Then I noticed that I'm basically left with a glorified module system, where classes could be used either as "namespaces", providing constants and functions using the static directive, or as templates for objects that need to be instantiated ("actual" purpose of classes in other languages). Now I'm left wondering: what are the benefits of having classes as compilation units? (Also, any general commentary on my design would be much appreciated.)

    Read the article

  • Is Perl still a useful, viable language?

    - by Bob
    I know it may have been asked before, but here goes nothing... Is Perl still something that would be considered useful? If someone was a new programmer (either completely new to programming or just a few month/years of experience) would Perl be something to be considered worthwhile to learn? Is Perl still used with frequency? Is it still popular? Or is Perl dying out compared to languages like Python, Ruby, PHP, ASP, .NET, etc.? Basically it boils down to this: Is it still used/is it still used frequently? If yes, is it dying? If no, will it make a come back? Is it something that would be worth learning? How does it compare in demand to languages like Python in both popularity and usability/viability? Could languages like Python or Ruby be considered replacements for Perl? Also, will newer versions of Perl really bring a large improvement to the Perl community, and perhaps bring Perl back to centerstage compared to other languages? EDIT: Okay, I suppose here's a better, reworded question: Is Perl still growing, or is it "dying"? Is it still a language worth learning and using? What projects does it really "shine" in compared to other languages? What makes Perl a language to choose? Essentially: is Perl growing obsolete compared to other languages, and if so, do you expect that to change, or to continue? And thank you to everyone who has answered so far, the discussion has been really interesting!

    Read the article

  • So, "Are Design Patterns Missing Language Features"?

    - by Eduard Florinescu
    I saw the answer to this question: How does thinking on design patterns and OOP practices change in dynamic and weakly-typed languages? There it is a link to an article with an outspoken title: Are Design Patterns Missing Language Features. But where you can get snippets that seem very objective and factual and that can be verified from experience like: PaulGraham said "Peter Norvig found that 16 of the 23 patterns in Design Patterns were 'invisible or simpler' in Lisp." and a thing that confirms what I recently seen with people trying to simulate classes in javascript: Of course, nobody ever speaks of the "function" pattern, or the "class" pattern, or numerous other things that we take for granted because most languages provide them as built-in features. OTOH, programmers in a purely PrototypeOrientedLanguage? might well find it convenient to simulate classes with prototypes... I am taking into consideration also that design patterns are a communcation tool and because even with my limited experience participating in building applications I can see as an anti-pattern(ineffective and/or counterproductive) for example forcing a small PHP team to learn GoF patterns for small to medium intranet app, I am aware that scale, scope and purpose can determine what is effective and/or productive. I saw small commercial applications that mixed functional with OOP and still be maintainable, and I don't know if many would need for example in python to write a singleton but for me a simple module does the thing. patterns So are there studies or hands on experience shared that takes into consideration, all this, scale and scope of project, dynamics and size of the team, languages and technologies, so that you don't feel that a (difficult for some)design pattern is there just because there isn't a simpler way to do it or that it cannot be done by a language feature?

    Read the article

  • Syntax Highlighting for Gherkin (Cucumber Language)

    - by Liam McLennan
    SyntaxHighlighter is the de facto standard for syntax highlighting on the web. I am currently working on a tool for publishing BDD specifications on the web and I want syntax highlighting. Unfortunately, SyntaxHighlighter does not support Gherkin, the language Cucumber and SpecFlow use to define BDD specifications. Writing new language parsers for SyntaxHighlighter is very easy, so I implemented one for Gherkin. Here is what a syntax highlighted Gherkin file looks like: # A comment here Feature: Some terse yet descriptive text of what is desired In order to realize a named business value As a explicit system actor I want to gain some beneficial outcome which furthers the goal @secretlabel Scenario: Some determinable business situation Given some precondition And some other precondition When some action by the actor And some other action And yet another action Then some testable outcome is achieved And something else we can check happens too Like all SyntaxHighlighter brushes to use this one you need to install the brush (shBrushGherkin.js). I have also used a custom theme to get it just the way I wanted it (shThemeGherkin.css). If you would like to use my Gherkin brush you may download the code and example page.

    Read the article

  • Types of quotes for an HTML templating language

    - by Ralph
    I'm developing a templating language, and now I'm trying to decide on what I should do with quotes. I'm thinking about having 3 different types of quotes which are all handled differently: backtick ` double quote " single quote ' expand variables ? yes no escape sequences no yes ? escape html no yes yes Backticks Backticks are meant to be used for outputting JavaScript or unescaped HTML. It's often handy to be able to pass variables into JS, but it could also cause issues with things being treated as variables that shouldn't. My variables are PHP-style ($var) so I'm thinking that might mess with jQuery pretty bad... but if I disable variable expansion w/ backticks then, I'm not sure how would insert a variable into a JS code block? Single Quotes Not sure if escape sequences like \n should be treated as literals or converted. I find it pretty rare that I want to disable escape sequences, but if you do, you could use backticks. So I'm leaning towards "yes" for this one, but that would be contrary to how PHP does it. Double Quotes Pretty certain I want everything enabled for this one. Modifiers I'm also thinking about adding modifiers like @ or r in front of the string that would change some of these options to enable a few more combinations. I would need 9 different quotes or 3 quotes and 2 modifiers to get every combination wouldn't I? My language also supports "filters" which can be applied against any "term" (number, variable, string) so you could always write something like "blah blah $var blah"|expandvars Or "my string"|escapehtml Thoughts? What would you prefer? What would be least confusing/most intuitive?

    Read the article

  • Multi language site - use of canonical link and link rel="alternate"

    - by julia
    I keep reading everywhere that if you have a multilanguage site, where the same page appears in, say, French and English, then this is considered as duplicate content by google. It is written that using canonical link is the solution, but I do not understand how to use it in this case. Should I: Choose either French URL or English URL to be the canonical (main) one, and where I will place the canonical link? If so, how do I decide which of the two URLs must be canonical? both languages are important to me and I want the content under both languages to be indexed by google and served to the user, depending on the language in which he searches. OR should I place a canonical link on both French and English URLs? If so, then I do not understand the meaning of using the canonical link? In this case would both URLs be indexed, are both of them considered as "important" by google and not duplicates? Also I read that link rel="alternate" can be used to indicate to google that, for example the French URL is the French-language equivalent of the English page. This makes sense and I understand how to use such links, but how are they combined with canonical links? Should I define both the canonical URL AND specify rel="alternate" in both URLs? Could someone help me to clarify this, cause I'm stuck with this and can't seem to find a good-enough explanation in different sources.

    Read the article

  • Should I pick up a functional programming language?

    - by Statement
    I have recently been more concerned about the way I write my code. After reading a few books on design patterns (and overzealous implementation of them, I'm sure) I have shifted my thinking greatly toward encapsulating that which change. I tend to notice that I write less interfaces and more method-oriented code, where I love to spruce life into old classes with predicates, actions and other delegate tasks. I tend to think that it's often the actions that change, so I encapsulate those. I even often, although not always, break down interfaces to a single method, and then I prefer to use a delegate for the task instead of forcing client code to create a new class. So I guess it then hit me. Should I be doing functional programming instead? Edit: I may have a misconception about functional programming. Currently my language of choice is C#, and I come from a C++ background. I work as a game developer but I am currently unemployed. I have a great passion for architecture. My virtues are clean, flexible, reusable and maintainable code. I don't know if I have been poisoned by these ways or if it is for the better. Am I having a refactoring fever or should I move on? I understand this might be a question about "use the right tool for the job", but I'd like to hear your thoughts. Should I pick up a functional language? One of my fear factors is to leave the comfort of Visual Studio.

    Read the article

  • The Oldest Big Data Problem: Parsing Human Language

    - by dan.mcclary
    There's a new whitepaper up on Oracle Technology Network which details the use of Digital Reasoning Systems' Synthesys software on Oracle Big Data Appliance.  Digital Reasoning's approach is inherently "big data friendly," as it leverages multiple components of the Hadoop ecosystem.  Moreover, the paper addresses the oldest big data problem of them all: extracting knowledge from human text.   You can find the paper here.   From the Executive Summary: There is a wealth of information to be extracted from natural language, but that extraction is challenging. The volume of human language we generate constitutes a natural Big Data problem, while its complexity and nuance requires a particular expertise to model and mine. In this paper we illustrate the impressive combination of Oracle Big Data Appliance and Digital Reasoning Synthesys software. The combination of Synthesys and Big Data Appliance makes it possible to analyze tens of millions of documents in a matter of hours. Moreover, this powerful combination achieves four times greater throughput than conducting the equivalent analysis on a much larger cloud-deployed Hadoop cluster.

    Read the article

  • How to popularize Nemerle (or another programming language)?

    - by keykeeper
    Any .NET developer who is interested in different programming languages knows that F# is the most popular functional language for the .NET platform nowadays. The only fact describing the popularity of F# is the great support of Microsoft. But we are not limited with F# at all. There are some other functional languages on the .NET platform. I'm very disappointed with the fact that Nemerle isn't well-known. It's an awesome language which supports three paradigms: object-oriented, functional and meta- programming. I won't try to explain why I like it so much. The problem is that I can't use it at work. I think that only really brave companies can rely on Nemerle. It's almost unknown, that's why it's hard to find new developers for the project. Noone wants to make a first step with Nemerle if it can influence the budget what is reasonable. So, here is a question: what can I do to make Nemerle more popular? Here are my first ideas: implement open-source projects using Nemerle; make presentations on different conferences; write articles.

    Read the article

  • Mutating Programming Language?

    - by MattiasK
    For fun I was thinking about how one could build a programming language that differs from OOP and came up with this concept. I don't have a strong foundation in computer science so it might be common place without me knowing it (more likely it's just a stupid idea :) I apologize in advance for this somewhat rambling question :) Anyways here goes: In normal OOP methods and classes are variant only upon parameters, meaning if two different classes/methods call the same method they get the same output. My, perhaps crazy idea, is that the calling method and class could be an "invisible" part of it's signature and the response could vary depending on who call's an method. Say that we have a Window object with a Break() method, now anyone (who has access) could call this method on Window with the same result. Now say that we have two different objects, Hammer and SledgeHammer. If Break need to produce different results based on these we'd pass them as parameters Break(IBluntObject bluntObject) With a mutating programming language (mpl) the operating objects on the method would be visible to the Break Method without begin explicitly defined and it could adopt itself based on them). So if SledgeHammer calls Window.Break() it would generate vastly different results than if Hammer did so. If OOP classes are black boxes then MPL are black boxes that knows who's (trying) to push it's buttons and can adapt accordingly. You could also have different permission sets on methods depending who's calling them rather than having absolute permissions like public and private. Does this have any advantage over OOP? Or perhaps I should say, would it add anything to it since you should be able to simply add this aspect to methods (just give access to a CallingMethod and CallingClass variable in context) I'm not sure, might be to hard to wrap one's head around, it would be kinda interesting to have classes that adopted themselves to who uses them though. Still it's an interesting concept, what do you think, is it viable?

    Read the article

  • Is there a language more general than Lisp?

    - by Jon Purdy
    I've been programming for a long time, and writing in Lisp (well, mostly Scheme) for a little less. My experience in these languages (and other functional languages) has informed my ability to write clean code even with less powerful tools. Lisp-family languages have lovely facilities for implementing every abstraction in common use: S-expressions generalise structure. Macros generalise syntax. Continuations generalise flow control. But I'm dissatisfied. Somehow, I want more. Is there a language that's more general? More powerful? As great as Lisp is, I find it hard to believe no one has come up with anything (dare I say) better. I'm well aware that ordinarily a question like this ought to be closed for its argumentative nature. But there seems to be a broad consensus that Lisp represents the theoretical pinnacle of programming language design. I simply refuse to accept that without some kind of proof. Which I guess amounts to questioning whether the lambda calculus is in fact the ideal abstraction of computation.

    Read the article

  • Browser language detection & content ranking for new language on the same site.

    - by Arnaud
    I've been reading a lot about it but it's still really hard to make up my mind. My understand is that if your website provide a link to the other language, this should not be an issue for google as long as your links are clear and clean, google will be able to make his way through it. The website was orginaly in french and I added the english version and I'm just worry that english speaker will just leave if the site is not in the correct language, for the home page I just wanted to get the value from the browser and redirect it to /fr/ or /en/ for the first page. (using php this will be very easy) Could you guys have a look at it and tell me what you think about it http://tinyurl.com/bpc5bn9 I don't want to get it wrong and lost my ranking with google. Also the website has good rank on the french side and the english has been online for 2 weeks and only get few visit a day, is that because all the back link refer to /fr/ and google is cleaver enough to decide that they are 2 differantes website and the back link will have to point to /en/ to increase the ranking value? Or will take few more weeks for the website to grow? Thanks for your hep

    Read the article

  • Scripting language for filling out web form

    - by ityler22
    I have a job as an intern at a technology company, I was given the unfortunate job of performing some data entry into our web management system. The information entered into the web form is stored in a MySQL DB. Upon receiving the data I realized I would have to submit this online form about 1000 different times all consisting of about 10 different text fields / check boxes per form. (So in other words, would be completely mind numbing and be a ridiculous waste of time and resources, or so I thought...) Having used databases a good bit prior to this, my immediate reaction was to just write a short MySQL script to bulk import all of the data, especially since it was already presented to me in an excel spreadsheet ready to go. Thought it may have been some sort of a test since it seemed too obvious. I wrote the script which consisted of about 10 lines of code but was then informed I couldn't be trusted with MySQL Admin privileges to run said script. So my next thought would be to write a script to just enter the information through the web form (Which will take ten times longer but it's what I have to) Being unfamiliar with scripting of this nature (seems like I would need something similar to a bot, but the good kind) I was unsure of how to proceed to do this. Is there a preferred language to use to enter the data i have into the web form I do have access to? I'm not particularly looking for this to be done for me by any means just a nice point in the right direction as far as what scripting language to use and how to pair that with the data I have that needs to be entered. Thanks for the help/ valuable input! EDIT: Is there a way to perform this using perl without having access to place any files on the server? Would I be able to run some Javascript loops to pull the data out of .csv or just a .txt format with line delimiters and insert it into the web form?

    Read the article

  • "Imprinting" as a language feature?

    - by MKO
    Idea I had this idea for a language feature that I think would be useful, does anyone know of a language that implements something like this? The idea is that besides inheritance a class can also use something called "imprinting" (for lack of better term). A class can imprint one or several (non-abstract) classes. When a class imprints another class it gets all it's properties and all it's methods. It's like the class storing an instance of the imprinted class and redirecting it's methods/properties to it. A class that imprints another class therefore by definition also implements all it's interfaces and it's abstract class. So what's the point? Well, inheritance and polymorphism is hard to get right. Often composition gives far more flexibility. Multiple inheritance offers a slew of different problems without much benefits (IMO). I often write adapter classes (in C#) by implementing some interface and passing along the actual methods/properties to an encapsulated object. The downside to that approach is that if the interface changes the class breaks. You also you have to put in a lot of code that does nothing but pass things along to the encapsulated object. A classic example is that you have some class that implements IEnumerable or IList and contains an internal class it uses. With this technique things would be much easier Example (c#) [imprint List<Person> as peopleList] public class People : PersonBase { public void SomeMethod() { DoSomething(this.Count); //Count is from List } } //Now People can be treated as an List<Person> People people = new People(); foreach(Person person in people) { ... } peopleList is an alias/variablename (of your choice)used internally to alias the instance but can be skipped if not needed. One thing that's useful is to override an imprinted method, that could be achieved with the ordinary override syntax public override void Add(Person person) { DoSomething(); personList.Add(person); } note that the above is functional equivalent (and could be rewritten by the compiler) to: public class People : PersonBase , IList<Person> { private List<Person> personList = new List<Person>(); public override void Add(object obj) { this.personList.Add(obj) } public override int IndexOf(object obj) { return personList.IndexOf(obj) } //etc etc for each signature in the interface } only if IList changes your class will break. IList won't change but an interface that you, someone in your team, or a thirdparty has designed might just change. Also this saves you writing a whole lot of code for some interfaces/abstract classes. Caveats There's a couple of gotchas. First we, syntax must be added to call the imprinted classes's constructors from the imprinting class constructor. Also, what happends if a class imprints two classes which have the same method? In that case the compiler would detect it and force the class to define an override of that method (where you could chose if you wanted to call either imprinted class or both) So what do you think, would it be useful, any caveats? It seems it would be pretty straightforward to implement something like that in the C# language but I might be missing something :) Sidenote - Why is this different from multiple inheritance Ok, so some people have asked about this. Why is this different from multiple inheritance and why not multiple inheritance. In C# methods are either virtual or not. Say that we have ClassB who inherits from ClassA. ClassA has the methods MethodA and MethodB. ClassB overrides MethodA but not MethodB. Now say that MethodB has a call to MethodA. if MethodA is virtual it will call the implementation that ClassB has, if not it will use the base class, ClassA's MethodA and you'll end up wondering why your class doesn't work as it should. By the terminology sofar you might already confused. So what happens if ClassB inherits both from ClassA and another ClassC. I bet both programmers and compilers will be scratching their heads. The benefit of this approach IMO is that the imprinting classes are totally encapsulated and need not be designed with multiple inheritance in mind. You can basically imprint anything.

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to create a quine in every turing-complete language?

    - by sub
    I just wanted to know if it is 100% possible, if my language is turing-complete, to write a program in it that prints itself out (of course not using a file reading function) So if the language just has the really necessary things in order to make it turing complete (I would prove that by translating Brainf*ck code to it), like output, variables, conditions and gotos (hell yes, gotos), can I try writing a quine in it? I'm also asking this because I'm not sure that a quine directly fits into Turing's law that the turing machine is capable of any computational task. I just want to know so I don't try for years without knowing that it may be impossible.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29  | Next Page >