Search Results

Search found 14074 results on 563 pages for 'programmers'.

Page 244/563 | < Previous Page | 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251  | Next Page >

  • What follows after lexical analysis?

    - by madflame991
    I'm working on a toy compiler (for some simple language like PL/0) and I have my lexer up and running. At this point I should start working on building the parse tree, but before I start I was wondering: How much information can one gather from just the string of tokens? Here's what I gathered so far: One can already do syntax highlighting having only the list of tokens. Numbers and operators get coloured accordingly and keywords also. Autoformatting (indenting) should also be possible. How? Specify for each token type how many white spaces or new line characters should follow it. Also when you print tokens modify an alignment variable (when the code printer reads "{" increment the alignment variable by 1, and decrement by 1 for "}". Whenever it starts printing on a new line the code printer will align according to this alignment variable) In languages without nested subroutines one can get a complete list of subroutines and their signature. How? Just read what follows after the "procedure" or "function" keyword until you hit the first ")" (this should work fine in a Pascal language with no nested subroutines) In languages like Pascal you can even determine local variables and their types, as they are declared in a special place (ok, you can't handle initialization as well, but you can parse sequences like: "var a, b, c: integer") Detection of recursive functions may also be possible, or even a graph representation of which subroutine calls who. If one can identify the body of a function then one can also search if there are any mentions of other function's names. Gathering statistics about the code, like number of lines, instructions, subroutines EDIT: I clarified why I think some processes are possible. As I read comments and responses I realise that the answer depends very much on the language that I'm parsing.

    Read the article

  • Seeking some advice on pursuing MS in CS from Stanford or Carnegie Mellon or Caltech

    - by avi
    What kinds of projects are given preference in top notch colleges like Stanford, Caltech, etc to get admission into MS programme in Computer Science? I have an average academic portfolio. I'm pursuing Btech from a not so popular university in India with an aggregate of 67%. I'm good at designing algorithms and possess good knowledge of core subjects but helpless with my percentage. So, I think the only way I can impress them is with my project(s). Can anyone please suggest me the kinds of projects that are given preference by such top level institutes? Could you please also suggest some good projects? My area of interest would be Artificial Intelligence or any application/software/algorithm design which could be of some help to common people. Or if you have any other random idea for my project then please share it with me. Note: Web based projects and management projects like lib management wouldn't be my priority.

    Read the article

  • Is there a name for the Builder Pattern where the Builder is implemented via interfaces so certain parameters are required?

    - by Zipper
    So we implemented the builder pattern for most of our domain to help in understandability of what actually being passed to a constructor, and for the normal advantages that a builder gives. The one twist was that we exposed the builder through interfaces so we could chain required functions and unrequired functions to make sure that the correct parameters were passed. I was curious if there was an existing pattern like this. Example below: public class Foo { private int someThing; private int someThing2; private DateTime someThing3; private Foo(Builder builder) { this.someThing = builder.someThing; this.someThing2 = builder.someThing2; this.someThing3 = builder.someThing3; } public static RequiredSomething getBuilder() { return new Builder(); } public interface RequiredSomething { public RequiredDateTime withSomething (int value); } public interface RequiredDateTime { public OptionalParamters withDateTime (DateTime value); } public interface OptionalParamters { public OptionalParamters withSeomthing2 (int value); public Foo Build ();} public static class Builder implements RequiredSomething, RequiredDateTime, OptionalParamters { private int someThing; private int someThing2; private DateTime someThing3; public RequiredDateTime withSomething (int value) {someThing = value; return this;} public OptionalParamters withDateTime (int value) {someThing = value; return this;} public OptionalParamters withSeomthing2 (int value) {someThing = value; return this;} public Foo build(){return new Foo(this);} } } Example of how it's called: Foo foo = Foo.getBuilder().withSomething(1).withDateTime(DateTime.now()).build(); Foo foo2 = Foo.getBuilder().withSomething(1).withDateTime(DateTime.now()).withSomething2(3).build();

    Read the article

  • IS it ok to use REST for CRUD operations?

    - by l0l0l0l0l
    Recently I moved to Laravel and I was surprised on how good setting the controllers as RESTful is, it made routes and my code cleaner. I'm kinda new on web development and never used REST before since all my clients' projects are basically CRUD operations. Are there any cool buzzword to this "approach" or I'm just stupid for doing it? I don't plan to follow any REST patterns, just to make my life easier and code cleaner. Basically just GET/POST, the other ones are not native anyway so (emulated on hidden form value).

    Read the article

  • Should I incorporate exit cost into choosing a solution

    - by Mr Happy
    I'm currently choosing between two viable software designs/solutions. Solution 1 is easy to implement, but will lock some data in a propriaty format, and will be hard to change later. Solution 2 is hard to implement, but will be a lot easier to change later on. Should I go YAGNI on this or should I incorporate the exit cost in the decision making? Or asked differently, is the exit cost part of the TCO? I'm thinking of going back to the customer with this to ask wether or not he thinks the exit costs are relevant, but I'd like to know what the community thinks first. P.S. Is exit cost the correct term?

    Read the article

  • Is writing software in the absence of requirements a skill to possess or a situation I should avoid?

    - by Brian Reindel
    I find that some software developers are very adept at this, and often times are praised for their ability to deliver a working concept with abstract requirements. Frankly, this drives me crazy, and I don't like "making it up" as I go. I used to think this was problematic, but I've started to sense a shift, and I'm wondering if I need to adjust my thought (and programming) process when given very little direction. Should I begin to acquire this ability as a skill, or stick to the idea that requirement's gathering and business rules are the first priority?

    Read the article

  • Japanese Multiplication simulation - is a program actually capable of improving calculation speed?

    - by jt0dd
    On SuperUser, I asked a (possibly silly) question about processors using mathematical shortcuts and would like to have a look at the possibility at the software application of that concept. I'd like to write a simulation of Japanese Multiplication to get benchmarks on large calculations utilizing the shortcut vs traditional CPU multiplication. I'm curious as to whether it makes sense to try this. My Question: I'd like to know whether or not a software math shortcut, as described above is actually a shortcut at all. This is a question of programming concept. By utilizing the simulation of Japanese Multiplication, is a program actually capable of improving calculation speed? Or am I doomed from the start? The answer to this question isn't required to determine whether or not the experiment will succeed, but rather whether or not it's logically possible for such a thing to occur in any program, using this concept as an example. My theory is that since addition is computed faster than multiplication, a simulation of Japanese multiplication may actually allow a program to multiply (large) numbers faster than the CPU arithmetic unit can. I think this would be a very interesting finding, if it proves to be true. If, in the multiplication of numbers of any immense size, the shortcut were to calculate the result via less instructions (or faster) than traditional ALU multiplication, I would consider the experiment a success.

    Read the article

  • Should data structures be integrated into the language (as in Python) or be provided in the standard library (as in Java)?

    - by Anto
    In Python, and most likely many other programming languages, common data structures can be found as an integrated part of the core language with their own dedicated syntax. If we put LISP's integrated list syntax aside, I can't think of any other languages that I know which provides some kind of data structure above the array as an integrated part of their syntax, though all of them (but C, I guess) seem to provide them in the standard library. From a language design perspective, what are your opinions on having a specific syntax for data structures in the core language? Is it a good idea, and does the purpose of the language (etc.) change how good this could be of a choice? Edit: I'm sorry for (apparently) causing some confusion about which data structures I mean. I talk about the basic and commonly used ones, but still not the most basic ones. This excludes trees (too complex, uncommon), stacks (too seldom used), arrays (too simple) but includes e.g. sets, lists and hashmaps.

    Read the article

  • How to share code as open source?

    - by Ethel Evans
    I have a little program that I wrote for a local group to handle a somewhat complicated scheduling issue for scheduling multiple meetings in multiple locations that change weekly according to certain criteria. It's a niche need, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are other groups that could use software like this. In fact, we've had requests from others for directions on starting a group like this, and if their groups get as big, they might also want special software to help with scheduling. I plan to continue developing the program and eventually make it an online web app, but a very simple alpha version is completed as a console app. I'd like to make it available as open source, but I have no idea what kind of process I should go through first. Right now, all I have is Java code, not even unit-tested thoroughly. I haven't shown the code to anyone else. There is no documentation. I don't know where I would put the code so others could access it. I don't know anything about licensing it. I don't know what kind of support people will expect from me if I release it as open source. I have no idea what else I should worry about. Can someone outline for me (or post an article(s) that outlines) the process of taking open source software from "coded" to "completed / available"? I really don't want to embarrass myself by doing things weirdly.

    Read the article

  • How to explain why design choices are good?

    - by Telastyn
    As I've become a better developer, I find that much of my design skill comes more from intuition than mechanical analysis. This is great. It lets me read code and get a feel for it quicker. It lets me translate designs between languages and abstractions much easier. And it let's me get stuff done faster. The downside is that I find it harder to explain to teammates (and worse, management) why a particular design is advantageous; especially teammates that are behind the times on best practices. "This design is more testable!" or "You should favor composition over inheritance." go right over their heads, and lead into the rabbit hole of me trying to clue everyone in to the last decade of software engineering advances. I'll get better at it with practice of course, but in the mean time it involves a lot of wasted time and/or bad design (that will lead to wasted time fixing it later). How can I better explain why a certain design is superior, when the benefits aren't completely obvious to the audience?

    Read the article

  • What is the precise definition of programming paradigm?

    - by Kazark
    Wikipedia defines programming paradigm thus: a fundamental style of computer programming which is echoed in the descriptive text of the paradigms tag on this site. I find this a disappointing definition. Anyone who knows the words programming and paradigm could do about that well without knowing anything else about it. There are many styles of computer programming at many level of abstraction; within any given programming paradigm, multiple styles are possible. For example, Bob Martin says in Clean Code (13), Consider this book a description of the Object Mentor School of Clean Code. The techniques and teachings within are the way that we practice our art. We are willing to claim that if you follow these teachings, you will enjoy the benefits that we have enjoyed, and you will learn to write code that is clean and professional. But don't make the mistake of thinking that we are somehow "right" in any absolute sense. Thus Bob Martin is not claiming to have the correct style of Object-Oriented programming, even though he, if anyone, might have some claim to doing so. But even within his school of programming, we might have different styles of formatting the code (K&R, etc). There are many styles of programming at many levels. So how can we define programming paradigm rigorously, to distinguish it from other categories of programming styles? Fundamental is somewhat helpful, but not specific. How can we define the phrase in a way that will communicate more than the separate meanings of each of the two words—in other words, how can we define it in a way that will provide additional meaning for someone who speaks English but isn't familiar with a variety of paradigms?

    Read the article

  • Using Domain name in EULA of a software rather than my name in the Licensor field

    - by user17330
    I intend to sell a software solution.I have already registered a domain but i dont have a registered company.Can i use my website/domain name eg:myproduct.com for the licensor field in the EULA rather than using myname.I will renew my domain yearly is there a problem with this.Do you know any software companies that work like this.Im confused about the users point of view will they find it a bit different. Please help me out.

    Read the article

  • Trying not to get ahead of myself but it is hard!

    - by Andrew
    Well I made a 5 year plan for myself (11years-16years) I am pretty good at Java, HTML, and PHP. I have already done some end projects: Small Java Platform Game A Small Polynomial Solver A Small Image Sharing Site A Chess Website: chesslounge.net I am currently doing some Android Development and so far I have made a program that Vibrates, Blinks the Light, or Creates a custom status message based on the user input. And a program that rotates a pyramid with a texture. My question is: Should I stick to what I am doing or Learn something a little new? I am itching to do C++, but what is your advice?

    Read the article

  • What are the real life implications for an Apache 2 license?

    - by Duopixel
    I want to use SVG Edit for project. This software is distributed under the Apache 2 license. I've seen that: all copies, modified or unmodified, are accompanied by a copy of the licence all modifications are clearly marked as being the work of the modifier all notices of copyright, trademark and patent rights are reproduced accurately in distributed copies the licensee does not use any trademarks that belong to the licensor Do these pertain to the code or should I display the license somewhere in the GUI? The orignal software displays a "powered by SVG Edit", is it ok if I remove this? And most importantly: what is the correct etiquette for doing this? I don't want to be an asshole, but at the same time I want to simplify the UI as much as possible and removing the link will be part of it if it's not considered rude.

    Read the article

  • Actor library / framework for C++

    - by Giorgio
    In the C++ project I am working for we would like to use something like Scala actors and remote actors (see e.g. this tutorial). Being able to use remote actors (actors living in different processes, possibly on different machines and communicating via TCP/IP) has higher priority for us because we have an application consisting of several processes deployed on different machines. Being able to use several actors living in the same process (possibly different threads) is also interesting, but has lower priority for the moment. On wikipedia I have found some links to actor libraries for C++ and I have started to look at Theron. Before I dive too deep into the details and build an extended example with Theron, I wanted to ask if anybody has experience with any of these libraries and which one they would recommend.

    Read the article

  • What is a good way to share internal helpers?

    - by toplel32
    All my projects share the same base library that I have build up over quite some time. It contains utilities and static helper classes to assist them where .NET doesn't exactly offer what I want. Originally all the helpers were written mainly to serve an internal purpose and it has to stay that way, but sometimes they prove very useful to other assemblies. Now making them public in a reliable way is more complicated than most would think, for example all methods that assume nullable types must now contain argument checking while not charging internal utilities with the price of doing so. The price might be negligible, but it is far from right. While refactoring, I have revised this case multiple times and I've come up with the following solutions so far: Have an internal and public class for each helper The internal class contains the actual code while the public class serves as an access point which does argument checking. Cons: The internal class requires a prefix to avoid ambiguity (the best presentation should be reserved for public types) It isn't possible to discriminate methods that don't need argument checking   Have one class that contains both internal and public members (as conventionally implemented in .NET framework). At first, this might sound like the best possible solution, but it has the same first unpleasant con as solution 1. Cons: Internal methods require a prefix to avoid ambiguity   Have an internal class which is implemented by the public class that overrides any members that require argument checking. Cons: Is non-static, atleast one instantiation is required. This doesn't really fit into the helper class idea, since it generally consists of independent fragments of code, it should not require instantiation. Non-static methods are also slower by a negligible degree, which doesn't really justify this option either. There is one general and unavoidable consequence, alot of maintenance is necessary because every internal member will require a public counterpart. A note on solution 1: The first consequence can be avoided by putting both classes in different namespaces, for example you can have the real helper in the root namespace and the public helper in a namespace called "Helpers".

    Read the article

  • Books / blogs that discuss service excellence? [closed]

    - by Bogdan Gavril
    I'm looking for information about service excellence topics such as: 0 downtime deployment how to deal with versioning (backward and forward compatibility) environment strategies (how many staging envs ? etc.) performance testing testing in production monitoring I am looking at the Microsoft stack, but the concepts should be the same everywhere. Do you have any recommendations of books or blogs on the subject? PS: I have found some good articles from I.M.Wright's "Hard Code" blog. Anything else?

    Read the article

  • Complete RESTful API debugging/testing tool

    - by vartec
    I'm looking for the most complete tool, preferably portable GUI or browser plugin to test RESTful API. What I need is: GET/POST/DELETE/PUT support multiple file uploads as fields (multipart/form-data) file uploads as body Extra points for: possibility to save multiple configurations and use them to pre-fill parameters OAuth support nice JSON response formatting Currently I'm using 3 tools: Chrome REST Console extension — My favorite, very nicely done. Has OAuth. However the functionality missing for me is sending file as a body of the request; Cannot send multiple files; Firefox Poster add-on — Quite nice, but the functionality it's missing for file as POST fields parameters; Also cannot send multiple files; cURL — can do anything, but it's quite tedious to use it from command line.

    Read the article

  • what does composition example vs aggregation

    - by meWantToLearn
    Composition and aggregation both are confusion to me. Does my code sample below indicate composition or aggregation? class A { public static function getData($id) { //something } public static function checkUrl($url) { // something } class B { public function executePatch() { $data = A::getData(12); } public function readUrl() { $url = A::checkUrl('http/erere.com'); } public function storeData() { //something not related to class A at all } } } Is class B a composition of class A or is it aggregation of class A? Does composition purely mean that if class A gets deleted class B does not works at all and aggregation if class A gets deleted methods in class B that do not use class A will work?

    Read the article

  • Should extension scripts be run in a sandbox?

    - by Cubic
    In particular, this is about game extensions written in lua (luajit-2.0). I was contemplating whether I should restrict what these scripts can do, and arrived at the conclusion that I probably shouldn't: It's hard to get right. Sounds silly, but chances are my sandbox is gonna end up leaky anyways. The only benefit I could think of would be giving users some sense of security when running third party scripts. The disadvantages would be that it's just incredibly annoying for extension writers. That is, for now, myself (game content will be mostly scripted). The reason I'm asking this now before I actually have anything presentable is that adding a sandbox early on is easy, but would impose said annoying restrictions on myself too. However if I first go on with it and then later decide I do need a sandbox after all, I'm gonna run into problems (I'd either have to rewrite the scripts that are already there, or introduce some form of trust management system which seems to be more trouble than it's worth).

    Read the article

  • How should I host our scalable worker processes?

    - by Pieter Breed
    We are designing a new architecture for an enterprise business. The principles we've followed so far is not to develop what you can (possible buy and) deploy, ie, don't reinvent any wheels. In this way we've decided on CQRS, RabbitMQ, Riak and a bunch of other things. We still need to write /some/ business code though and these will be in the form of worker processes, which will consume commands from a message queue and after any side-effects, produce events onto another message queue. The idea behind this is that via the competing-consumers design we will have a scalable design right out of the box. One option is of writing a management infrastructure that will know how to: deploy code instantiate processes kill processes update configuration etc IE provide fault tolerance and scalability. Also, this is exactly what something like GAE and Heroku does for you, but in a public setting and in our organization, public is bad. My question is, is there an out-of-the-box solution that we can use to host our consumers in? Like a private cloud or private platform-as-a-service. Private Heroku or GAE. Is there some kind of software or software product with which we can do all of these things and thereby get scalability and fault tolerance over our consumers?

    Read the article

  • Should a poll framework be closed sourced

    - by samquo
    I was having a chat with a coworker who is working on a polling app and framework. He was asking technical questions and I suggested he open source the application to get more quality opinions from developers who are interested in this problem and are willing to give it heavy though. He has a different point of view which I think is still valid so I want to open this question for discussion here. He says he believes something like a polling framework should not be open sourced because it will reduce its security and validity as people reveal loopholes through which they can cheat. Can't say I completely disagree. I see a somewhat valid point there, but I always believed that solutions by a group of people are almost always better than a solution thought by a single person asking a small number of coworkers, no matter how smart that person is. Again I'm willing to accept that maybe some types of applications are different. Does anyone have an argument in his favor? I'd really like to present your responses to him.

    Read the article

  • Understanding clojure keywords

    - by tjb1982
    I'm taking my first steps with Clojure. Otherwise, I'm somewhat competent with JavaScript, Python, Java, and a little C. I was reading this artical that describes destructuring vectors and maps. E.g. => (def point [0 0]) => (let [[x y] point] => (println "the coordinates are:" x y)) the coordinates are: 0 0 but I'm having a difficult time understanding keywords. At first glance, they seem really simple, as they just evaluate to themselves: => :test :test But they seem to be used is so many different ways and I don't understand how to think about them. E.g., you can also do stuff like this: => (defn full-name [& {first :first last :last}] => (println first last)) => (full-name :first "Tom" :last "Brennan") Tom Brennan nil This doesn't seem intuitive to me. I would have guessed the arguments should have been something more like: (full-name {:first "Tom" :last "Brennan"}) because it looks like in the function definition that you're saying "no required arguments, but a variable number of arguments comes in the form of a single map". But it seems more like you're saying "no required arguments, but a variable number of arguments comes which should be a list of alternating keywords and values... ?" I'm not really sure how to wrap my brain around this. Also, things like this confuse me too: => (def population {:humans 5 :zombies 1000}) => (:zombies population) 1000 => (population :zombies) 1000 How do maps and keywords suddenly become functions? If I could get some clarification on the use of keywords in these two examples, that would be really helpful. Update I've also seen http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3337888/clojure-named-arguments and while the accepted answer is a great demonstration of how to use keywords with destructuring and named arguments, I'm really looking more for understanding how to think about them--why the language is designed this way and how I can best internalize their use.

    Read the article

  • Play or Lift: which one is more explicit?

    - by Andrea
    I am going to investigate web development with Scala, and the choice is between learning Lift or Play: probably I will not have enough time to try both, at least at first. Now, many comparisons between the two are available on the internet, but I would like to know how do they compare with respect to being explicit and involving less magic. Let me explain what I mean by example. I have used, to various degrees, CakePHP, symfony2, Django and Grails. I feel a very clear distinction between Django and symfony2, which are very explicit about what you are doing, and Grails and CakePHP, which try to do their best to guess what you are trying to achieve and often feel "magical". Let me give some examples comparing Django and Grails. In Django, views are functions that take a request as input and return a response. You can instantiate explicitly an instance of HttpResponse and populate its body with a string, or you can use shortcut functions to leverage the template system. In any case the return value from your view always has the same type. In contrast, the render method from Grails is highly polymorphic. You can throw a context at it and it will try to render a template which is found by convention using that context. Or you can pass it a pair of a template path and a context and that will work too. Or a string. Or XML. Grails tries hard to make sense of whatever you return from your controller. In the Django ORM, each model class has a static attribute representing the manager for that class. That manager exposes a fluent interface to build querysets. In Grails, you can have a similar functionality by composing detached criteria. Still, the most common way to query objects seems to be the use of runtime-generated methods like FindUserByEmailNotNull or FindPostByDateGreaterThan. I will not go further, but my point is that in Django-like frameworks you have control over the whole flow of the request/response process, while in Grails-like ones I feel I only have to feel the blanks and the framework will manage the rest of the flow for me. This is not to criticize Grails or CakePHP; which type you prefer is mainly a matter of preference. In fact, I happen to like some aspects of Grails, but I feel more comfortable with a framework which does less for me. Back to the point of the question: which one among Play and Lift is more explicit about what you do and which one tries to simplify more what you have to do with a layer of "magic"?

    Read the article

  • What is a user-friendly solution to editing email templates with replacement variables?

    - by Daniel Magliola
    I'm working on a system where we rely a lot of "admins / managers" emailing users from the database. One of the key features is being able to email several people at the same time, with specific information relevant to each of them. Another key feature is to be able to hand-craft emails, because it tends to be be necessary to slightly modify them each time, but having a basic template saves a lot of time. For this, we have the typical "templates" solution, where we have a template that looks kind of like this: Hello {{recipient.full_name}}, Your application to {{activity.title}} has been accepted. You have requested to participate on dates {{application.dates}}, in role {{application.role}} Blah blah blah The problem we are having is obviously that (as we expected), managers don't get the whole "variables" idea, and they do things like overwriting them, which doesn't let them email more than one person at a time, assuming those are not going to get replaced and that the system is broken, or even inexplicable things like "Hello {{John}}". The big problem is that this isn't relegated, as usual, to an "admin" section where only a few power users have access to editing the templates that are automatically send out, and they're expected to know what they are doing. Every user of the system gets exposed to this problem. The obvious solution would be to replace the variables before showing this template for the user to edit, but that doesn't work when emailing several people. This seems like a reasonably common problem, and we are kind of hoping that someone has already solved it. Have you seen anywhere/created/can think of good solutions to this problem?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251  | Next Page >