Search Results

Search found 12067 results on 483 pages for 'cascading style sheets'.

Page 26/483 | < Previous Page | 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33  | Next Page >

• 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

• 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

• Portable Class Library even better in .NET 4.5

  - by nmarun

  Visual Studio 2012 makes Cross-Platform development even easier. It comes with a feature called Portable Class Library (PCL). This feature was available in Visual Studio 2010 as well, but it required an additional install as against being out-of-the-box for 2012. It’s also worth noting that PCL is available only for Pro and above versions of 2012. So it’s not available with the Express edition of Visual Studio 2012. Let’s get started. In Visual Studio 2012 you can see a template called Portable Class...(read more)

  Read the article

• What C++ coding standard do you use?

  - by gablin

  For some time now, I've been unable to settle on a coding standard and use it concistently between projects. When starting a new project, I tend to change some things around (add a space there, remove a space there, add a line break there, an extra indent there, change naming conventions, etc.). So I figured that I might provide a piece of sample code, in C++, and ask you to rewrite it to fit your standard of coding. Inspiration is always good, I say. ^^ So here goes: #ifndef _DERIVED_CLASS_H__ #define _DERIVED_CLASS_H__ /** * This is an example file used for sampling code layout. * * @author Firstname Surname */ #include <stdio> #include <string> #include <list> #include "BaseClass.h" #include "Stuff.h" /** * The DerivedClass is completely useless. It represents uselessness in all its * entirety. */ class DerivedClass : public BaseClass { //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // CONSTRUCTORS / DESTRUCTORS //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// public: /** * Constructs a useless object with default settings. * * @param value * Is never used. * @throws Exception * If something goes awry. */ DerivedClass (const int value) : uselessSize_ (0) {} /** * Constructs a copy of a given useless object. * * @param object * Object to copy. * @throws OutOfMemoryException * If necessary data cannot be allocated. */ ItemList (const DerivedClass& object) {} /** * Destroys this useless object. */ ~ItemList (); //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // PUBLIC METHODS //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// public: /** * Clones a given useless object. * * @param object * Object to copy. * @return This useless object. */ DerivedClass& operator= (const DerivedClass& object) { stuff_ = object.stuff_; uselessSize_ = object.uselessSize_; } /** * Does absolutely nothing. * * @param useless * Pointer to useless data. */ void doNothing (const int* useless) { if (useless == NULL) { return; } else { int womba = *useless; switch (womba) { case 0: cout << "This is output 0"; break; case 1: cout << "This is output 1"; break; case 2: cout << "This is output 2"; break; default: cout << "This is default output"; break; } } } /** * Does even less. */ void doEvenLess () { int mySecret = getSecret (); int gather = 0; for (int i = 0; i < mySecret; i++) { gather += 2; } } //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // PRIVATE METHODS //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// private: /** * Gets the secret value of this useless object. * * @return A secret value. */ int getSecret () const { if ((RANDOM == 42) && (stuff_.size() > 0) || (1000000000000000000 > 0) && true) { return 420; } else if (RANDOM == -1) { return ((5 * 2) + (4 - 1)) / 2; } int timer = 100; bool stopThisMadness = false; while (!stopThisMadness) { do { timer--; } while (timer > 0); stopThisMadness = true; } } //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // FIELDS //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// private: /** * Don't know what this is used for. */ static const int RANDOM = 42; /** * List of lists of stuff. */ std::list <Stuff> stuff_; /** * Specifies the size of this object's uselessness. */ size_t uselessSize_; }; #endif

  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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• Worst coding standard you've ever had to follow?

  - by finnw

  Have you ever had to work to coding standards that: Greatly decreased your productivity? Were originally included for good reasons but were kept long after the original concern became irrelevant? Were in a list so long that it was impossible to remember them all? Made you think the author was just trying to leave their mark rather than encouraging good coding practice? You had no idea why they were included? If so, what is your least favourite rule and why? Some examples here

  Read the article

• Should a programmer take writing lessons to enhance code expressiveness?

  - by Jose Faeti

  Given that programmers are authors and write code to express abstract thoughts and concepts, and good code should be read by other programmers without difficulties and misunderstandings, should a programmer take writing lessons to write better code? Abstracting concepts and real world problems/entities is an important part of writing good code, and a good mastery of the language used for coding should allow the programmer to express his thoughts more easily, or in a better way. Besides, when trying to write or rewrite some code to make it better, much time can be spent in deciding the names for functions, variables or data structures. I think this could also help to avoid writing code with more than one meaning, often cause of misunderstanding between different programmers. Code should always express clearly its function unambiguously.

  Read the article

• Working on someone else's code

  - by Xavi Valero

  I have hardly a year's experience in coding. After I started working, most of the time I would be working on someone else's code, either adding new features over the existing ones or modifying the existing features. The guy who has written the actual code doesn't work in my company any more. I am having a hard time understanding his code and doing my tasks. Whenever I tried modifying the code, I have in some way messed with the working features. What all should I keep in mind, while working over someone else's code?

  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

• Create new variable or make multiple chained calls?

  - by Rodrigo

  What is the best way to get this attributes, thinking in performance and code quality? Using chained calls: name = this.product.getStock().getItems().get(index).getName(); id = this.product.getStock().getItems().get(index).getId(); Creating new variable: final item = this.product.getStock().getItems().get(index); name = item.getName(); it = item.getId(); I prefer the second way, to let the code cleaner. But I would like to see some opinions about it. Thank you!

  Read the article

• Are there well-known PowerShell coding conventions?

  - by Tahir Hassan

  Are there any well-defined conventions when programming in PowerShell? For example, in scripts which are to be maintained long-term, do we need to: Use the real cmdlet name or alias? Specify the cmdlet parameter name in full or only partially (dir -Recurse versus dir -r) When specifying string arguments for cmdlets do you enclose them in quotes (New-Object 'System.Int32' versus New-Object System.Int32 When writing functions and filters do you specify the types of parameters? Do you write cmdlets in the (official) correct case? For keywords like BEGIN...PROCESS...END do you write them in uppercase only? It seems that MSDN lack coding conventions document for PowerShell, while such document exist for example for C#.

  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

• 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 '@' 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• Arguments for a coding standard?

  - by acidzombie24

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

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33  | Next Page >