Search Results

Search found 12093 results on 484 pages for 'partial classes'.

Page 269/484 | < Previous Page | 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276  | Next Page >

• Should I stay in my degree or take an opportunity for management experience?

  - by Adam

  I've read a couple other post along these lines and they've been helpful but I'm wondering if my case is any different. I've been working towards my CS degree while working part time in a programming job. I'm now about two years away from getting my degree and was just offered a management position at my job. This would mean that I have to work full-time at my job and I can't really work towards my degree anymore in person. My school doesn't really offer CS classes after hours nor online. It seems that getting a degree is very important from the other post that I read. Does having management experience trump that? I'm currently leaning towards taking the job and finding some sort of online degree. Also my school only offers a business degree online, could I just get this in place. Does the type of degree really matter? For some jobs it's not the type of degree just that you have one, is there any merit for this in the programming industry? Thanks :)

  Read the article

• The Correct Usage of DLLs with a DirectX Game?

  - by smoth190

  I'm using DirectX 10 (in C++) to make a game engine, and a test driver program on top of it. Now that I've written many messy rough drafts of an engine, I want to make the final (or sorta final) clean version. I choose to follow how I've seen other engines do it, and that's to have all the core nasty messy crap in a DLL, and then you can create games with just a few functions (well, not really :D). However, I'm unsure of what nasty messy crap to put in that DLL. I don't know about speed restrictions with DLLs. What I've done is put my winproc in the DLL, and have a class that takes the messages, and sends them through to the program using the DLL. Then that program does what it needs to do, and calls a rendering functions back in the DLL that renders everything. Only problem is it gets very low FPS (2, to be exact...). I've looked through everything, and I don't know if the way I'm using DLLs in causing this, or its something different. Whether it's the DLLs or not, I still want to know how to use a DLL correctly with a game engine. I like being neat, I hate having to see all those long names of DirectX classes. I use typedef a lot.

  Read the article

• Naming a class that processes orders

  - by p.campbell

  I'm in the midst of refactoring a project. I've recently read Clean Code, and want to heed some of the advice within, with particular interest in Single Responsibility Principle (SRP). Currently, there's a class called OrderProcessor in the context of a manufacturing product order system. This class is currently performs the following routine every n minutes: check database for newly submitted + unprocessed orders (via a Data Layer class already, phew!) gather all the details of the orders mark them as in-process iterate through each to: perform some integrity checking call a web service on a 3rd party system to place the order check status return value of the web service for success/fail email somebody if web service returns fail constantly log to a text file on each operation or possible fail point I've started by breaking out this class into new classes like: OrderService - poor name. This is the one that wakes up every n minutes OrderGatherer - calls the DL to get the order from the database OrderIterator (? seems too forced or poorly named) - OrderPlacer - calls web service to place the order EmailSender Logger I'm struggling to find good names for each class, and implementing SRP in a reasonable way. How could this class be separated into new class with discrete responsibilities?

  Read the article

• Designing a plug-in system

  - by madflame991

  I'm working on a Java project and I would like to add a plug-in system. More precisely, I would like to let the user design his own module, pack it into a jar, leave it in a "plugins/" subfolder of my application and be done with it. I've managed to get a child classloader to instantiate objects of classes located in external jars, but now I'm facing a design dilemma: Say Joe makes a plug-in and he packs it in joeplugin.jar. I would really like Joe to have a class named "instantiation.Factory" and I would also like everyone to have this class with this exact location and name. (This factory class obviously implements a interface that I provide and through it I get what I want from the plug-in.) If Joe wouldn't be restricted in this way I would have to look into his entire jar for some class that implements my factory interface and I don't want to imagine how complicated things get. So my question is: should I enforce a strict naming convention for this single class? I have no idea how plug-in systems work.

  Read the article

• The Enterprise Side of JavaFX: Part Two

  - by Janice J. Heiss

  A new article, part of a three-part series, now up on the front page of otn/java, by Java Champion Adam Bien, titled “The Enterprise Side of JavaFX,” shows developers how to implement the LightView UI dashboard with JavaFX 2. Bien explains that “the RESTful back end of the LightView application comes with a rudimentary HTML page that is used to start/stop the monitoring service, set the snapshot interval, and activate/deactivate the GlassFish monitoring capabilities.”He explains that “the configuration view implemented in the org.lightview.view.Browser component is needed only to start or stop the monitoring process or set the monitoring interval.”Bien concludes his article with a general summary of the principles applied:“JavaFX encourages encapsulation without forcing you to build models for each visual component. With the availability of bindable properties, the boundary between the view and the model can be reduced to an expressive set of bindable properties. Wrapping JavaFX components with ordinary Java classes further reduces the complexity. Instead of dealing with low-level JavaFX mechanics all the time, you can build simple components and break down the complexity of the presentation logic into understandable pieces. CSS skinning further helps with the separation of the code that is needed for the implementation of the presentation logic and the visual appearance of the application on the screen. You can adjust significant portions of an application's look and feel directly in CSS files without touching the actual source code.”Check out the article here.

  Read the article

• What Does Installing Ubuntu "Alongside" Windows Entail?

  - by Soft Skeleton

  I recently posted a question about an error I was receiving trying to access Ubuntu from the boot menu. I am using Windows 7 and Ubuntu 12.x (I THINK because I haven't accessed it in over a year due to being unable to run an important program for one of my classes on Ubuntu). On another laptop, I partitioned the hard drive and installed Windows and Ubuntu on the partitions. On this laptop, I simply installed Ubuntu from Windows, picking the option "alongside Windows", and didn't partition my hard drive manually. I was under the impression "alongside" entailed that Ubuntu would partition my hard drive, and that if I were to return my Windows partition to factory settings it would not affect the Ubuntu partition. However, given my current problem, I am wondering if I was mistaken in this assumption? When installing Ubuntu from Windows, selecting "alongside" Windows as the option from the Ubuntu installer, does that simply install Ubuntu within the Windows partition and thus returning it to factory settings would wipe out anything I had on the Ubuntu OS as well? Ubuntu is still in the boot menu as an option, but when I try to access it it says the drive is "corrupt" and wubi is mentioned in the error. I additionally tried to download a program ran from Windows to investigate partitions and there were no sign of my Ubuntu partition viewable from Windows. Is it possible Windows just can't see it? Any insight, corrections or answers is appreciated.

  Read the article

• Avoid overwriting all the methods in the child class

  - by Heckel

  The context I am making a game in C++ using SFML. I have a class that controls what is displayed on the screen (manager on the image below). It has a list of all the things to draw like images, text, etc. To be able to store them in one list I created a Drawable class from which all the other drawable class inherit. The image below represents how I would organize each class. Drawable has a virtual method Draw that will be called by the manager. Image and Text overwrite this method. My problem is that I would like Image::draw method to work for Circle, Polygon, etc. since sf::CircleShape and sf::ConvexShape inherit from sf::Shape. I thought of two ways to do that. My first idea would be for Image to have a pointer on sf::Shape, and the subclasses would make it point onto their sf::CircleShape or sf::ConvexShape classes (Like on the image below). In the Polygon constructor I would write something like ptr_shape = &polygon_shape; This doesn't look very elegant because I have two variables that are, in fact, just one. My second idea is to store the sf::CircleShape and sf::ConvexShape inside the ptr_shape like ptr_shape = new sf::ConvexShape(...); and to use a function that is only in ConvexShape I would cast it like so ((sf::ConvexShape*)ptr_shape)->convex_method(); But that doesn't look very elegant either. I am not even sure I am allowed to do that. My question I added details about the whole thing because I thought that maybe my whole architecture was wrong. I would like to know how I could design my program to be safe without overwriting all the Image methods. I apologize if this question has already been asked; I have no idea what to google.

  Read the article

• What should I "forget" when going to Javascript?

  - by ElGringoGrande

  I went from C=64 Basic and assembler to FORTRAN and C to C++ and Java. Professionally I started in Visual Basic for applications then to Visual Basic 4, 5, 6. After that VB.NET AND C# with some Java here and there. I have played with Ruby and Python and found both fun. During each step I never felt like I had to forget what I had learned before. I always felt like I was just learning better and/or slightly different ways of doing things but the difference was not major. The difference was like the difference between American, Australian and British English. (Maybe assembler was Latin and FORTRAN was Spanish.) But now I am using JavaScript to do real, actual work. (Before used it as a "Scripting" language pure a simple.) And I just feel like I have to forget some things to become proficient in it. It feels like some old Egyptian language. What should I forget? Is it just that code organization is different (no real classes so no one class one file)? Or is it something more basic?

  Read the article

• Should components have sub-components in a component-based system like Artemis?

  - by Daniel Ingraham

  I am designing a game using Artemis, although this is more of philosophical question about component-based design in general. Let's say I have non-primitive data which applies to a given component (a Component "animal" may have qualities such as "teeth" or "diet"). There are three ways to approach this in data-driven design, as I see it: 1) Generate classes for these qualities using "traditional" OOP. I imagine this has negative implications for performance, as systems then must be made aware of these qualities in order to process them. It also seems counter to the overall philosophy of data-driven design. 2) Include these qualities as sub-components. This seems off, in that we are now confusing the role of components with that of entities. Moreover out of the box Artemis isn't capable of mapping these subcomponents onto their parent components. 3) Add "teeth", "diet", etc. as components to the overall entity alongside "animal". While this feels odd hierarchically, it may simply be a peculiarity of component-based systems. I suspect 3 is the correct way to think about things, but I was curious about other ideas.

  Read the article

• Name for Osherove's modified singleton pattern?

  - by Kazark

  I'm pretty well sold on the "singletons are evil" line of thought. Nevertheless, there are limited occurrences when you want to limit the creation of an object. Roy Osherove advises, If you're planning to use a singleton in your design, separate the logic of the singleton class and the logic that makes it a singleton (the part that initializes a static variables, for example) into two separate classes. That way, you can keep the single responsibility principle (SRP) and also have a way to override singleton logic. (The Art of Unit Testing 261-262) This pattern still perpetuates the global state. However, it does result in a testable design, so it seems to me to be a good pattern for mitigating the damage of a singleton. However, Osherove does not give a name to this pattern; but naming a pattern, according to the Gang of Four, is important: Naming a pattern immediately increases our design vocabulary. It lets us design at a higher level of abstraction. (3) Is there a standard name for this pattern? It seems different enough from a standard singleton to deserve a separate name. Decoupled Singleton, perhaps?

  Read the article

• Am I an idealist?

  - by ereOn

  This is not only a question, this is also a call for help. Since I started my career as a programmer, I always tried to learn from my mistakes. I worked hard to learn best-practices and while I don't consider myself a C++ expert, I still believe I'm not a beginner either. I was recently hired into a company for C++ development. There I was told that my way to work was "against the rules" and that I would have to change my mind. Here are the topics I disagree with my hierarchy (their words): "You should not use separate header files for your different classes. One big header file is both easier to read and faster to compile." "Trying to use different headers is counter-productive : use the same super-set of headers everywhere, and enforce the use #pragma hdrstop to hasten compilation" "You may not use Boost or any other library that uses nested directories to organize its files. Our build-machine doesn't work with nested directories. Moreover, you don't need Boost to create great software." One might think I'm somehow exaggerated things, but the sad truth is that I didn't. That's their actual words. I believe that having separate files enhance maintainability and code-correctness and can fasten compilation time by the use of the proper includes. Have you been in a similar situation? What should I do? I feel like it's actually impossible for me to work that way and day after day, my frustration grows.

  Read the article

• How do you keep SOA DRY?

  - by TaylorOtwell

  In our organization, we've shifted to a more "service oriented architecture". To give an example, let's assume we need to retrieve a "Quote" object. This quote has a shipper, a consignee, phone numbers, contacts, email addresses, and other location information. In other words, a Quote object is made up of many other objects. So, it seems like it would make sense to make a "Quote Retrieval Service". In our situation, we've accomplished this by creating a .NET solution and writing the service. The service API looks something like this (in pseudo-code): Function GetQuote(String ID) Returns Quote So, so far so good. Now, when this service is consumed, to keep things "de-coupled", we are creating essentially a duplicate of the Quote object and mapping from the QuoteService version of the Quote into the consumer's version of the Quote. In many cases, these classes will have the exact same properties. So, if the Quote service is consumed by 5 other applications, we would have 6 definitions of what a "Quote" is. One for each consumer, and one for the service. This feels wrong. I thought code was supposed to be DRY, but it seems like our method of SOA is forcing us to create tons of duplicated class definitions. What are we doing wrong, or is the code duplication just a "necessary evil" of SOA?

  Read the article

• c# vocabulary

  - by foxjazz

  I have probably seen and used the word Encapsulation 4 times in my 20 years of programming.I now know what it is again, after an interview for a c# job. Even though I have used the public, private, and protected key words in classes for as long as c# was invented. I can sill remember coming across the string.IndexOf function and thinking, why didn't they call it IndexAt.Now with all the new items like Lambda and Rx, Linq, map and pmap etc, etc. I think the more choices there is to do 1 or 2 things 10 or 15 differing ways, the more programmers think to stay with what works and try and leverage the new stuff only when it really becomes beneficial.For many, the new stuff is harder to read, because programmers aren't use to seeing declarative notation.I mean I have probably used yield break, twice in my project where it may have been possible to use it many more times. Or the using statement ( not the declaration of namespace references) but inline using. I never really saw a big advantage to this, other than confusion. It is another form of local encapsulation (oh there 5 times used in my programming career) but who's counting?  THE COMPUTERS ARE COUNTING!In business logic most programming is about displaying lists, selecting items in a list, and sending those choices to some other system or database to keep track of those selections. What makes this difficult is how these items relate to one, each other, and two externally listed items.Well I probably need to go back to school and learn c# certification so I can say I am an expert in c#. Apparently using all aspects of c# (even unsafe code) in my programming life, doesn't make me certified, just certifiable.This is a good time to sign off:Fox-jazzy

  Read the article

• Can higher-order functions in FP be interpreted as some kind of dependency injection?

  - by Giorgio

  According to this article, in object-oriented programming / design dependency injection involves a dependent consumer, a declaration of a component's dependencies, defined as interface contracts, an injector that creates instances of classes that implement a given dependency interface on request. Let us now consider a higher-order function in a functional programming language, e.g. the Haskell function filter :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> [a] from Data.List. This function transforms a list into another list and, in order to perform its job, it uses (consumes) an external predicate function that must be provided by its caller, e.g. the expression filter (\x -> (mod x 2) == 0) [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10] selects all even numbers from the input list. But isn't this construction very similar to the pattern illustrated above, where the filter function is the dependent consumer, the signature (a -> Bool) of the function argument is the interface contract, the expression that uses the higher-order is the injector that, in this particular case, injects the implementation (\x -> (mod x 2) == 0) of the contract. More in general, can one relate higher-order functions and their usage pattern in functional programming to the dependency injection pattern in object-oriented languages? Or in the inverse direction, can dependency injection be compared to using some kind of higher-order function?

  Read the article

• What level of detail to use in an interface members descriptions?

  - by famousgarkin

  I am extracting interfaces from some classes in .NET, and I am not completely sure about what level of detail of description to use for some of the interface members (properties, methods). An example: interface ISomeInterface { /// <summary> /// Checks if the object is checked out. /// </summary> /// <returns> /// Returns true if the object is checked out, or if the object locking is not enabled, /// otherwise returns false. /// </returns> bool IsObjectCheckedOut(); } class SomeImplementation : ISomeInterface { public bool IsObjectCheckedOut() { // An implementation of the method that returns true if the object is checked out, // or if the object locking is not enabled } } The part in question is the <returns>...</returns> section of the IsObjectCheckedOut description in the interface. Is it ok to include such a detail about return value in the interface itself, as the code that will work with the interface should know exactly what that method will do? All the current implementations of the method will do just that. But is it ok to limit the possible other/future implementations by description this way? Or should this not be included in the interface description, as there is no way to actually ensure that other/future implementations will do exactly this? Is it better to be as general as possible regarding the interface in such circumstances? I am currently inclined to the latter option.

  Read the article

• How to visualize code?

  - by gablin

  I've mostly only had to read my own code. As such, I've had no need to visualize the code as I already know how each and every class and module communicate with one another. But the few times I've had to read someone else's code - let us now assume we are talking about at least one larger module which contains several internal classes - I've almost always found myself wishing "This would have been so much easier to understand if I could just visualize it!" So what are the common methods or tools for enabling this? Which do you use, and why do you prefer them over the others? I've heard stuff like UML, module and class diagrams, but I imagine there are more. Furthermore, any of these is most likely better than anything I can devise on my own. EDIT: For those who answer with "Use pen and paper and just draw it": This isn't very helpful unless you explain this further. What exactly am I supposed to draw? A box for each class? Should I include the public methods? What about its fields? How should I draw connections that explain how one class uses another? What about modules? What if the language isn't object-oriented but functional or logical, or even just imperative (C, for instance)? What about global variables and functions? Is there an already-standardized way of drawing this, or do I need to think up of a method of my own? You get the drift.

  Read the article

• Writing Java in Java

  - by Skeith

  I have been using Java for several months at work now and am becoming mildly competent in it. The problem I think I am having is that I program C++ in Java . By that I mean I have always used C++ and am treating Java as a simple syntax change instead of appreciate if for its own language. For instance a static variable in C++ is the same as a normal variable in Java as Java is all classes so they maintain there values between function calls. Little things like this are tripping me up constantly as I am self taught. What I want is to invest the time to become a good java programmer not just a C++ programmer that can write in Java. The problem is I do not know how to do this. I have tried reading the Java doc pages but I find them very clinical and hard to understand. So what I am looking for is recommendations on how I can learn to think in Java. Books that teach Java concepts not Java syntax, online tutorials that I can work through that give it a context, established Java traditions/best practices and any other thing that you could recommend.

  Read the article

• How do I get others to see past my prior inexperience?

  - by Kevin

  My core question is how do I proceed from the following predicament. I will be honest with you, I wasted my College Experience. I slacked off and didn't take any of my comp sci classes that seriously, somehow i still got out with a 3.25 GPA. But truth be told I learned nothing. I befriended most of my professors who went pretty lenient on me in terms of grading. However, I basically came out of College knowing how to program a simple calculator in VB.Net. I was (to my great surprise) hired by a very large respected company in Denver as a Junior developer. Well the long and the short of it is that I knew so little about programming that I quickly became the office pariah and was almost fired due to my incompetence. It has been 8 months now and I feel I have learned some basic things and I am not as picked on as I used to be by the other developers. However, everyone hates me and the first few months have given the other developers a horrible perception of me. I am no longer afraid of code or learning, but I have put my self in the precarious position of being the scapegoat of our department. I hate going to work every day because no one there is my friend and pretty much everyone is hostile to me. What should I do? Any advice?

  Read the article

• Grails project structure

  - by Martin Janicek

  Good news everyone! I've changed the structure of the Grails project as requested in the issue 160028 and it should be much more user friendly than before. There are actually two things I've fixed/implemented. First of all the source folders are finally represented in the same way as for the Java projects (which means instead of the folder based structure it uses package based structure). The difference can be seen on pictures bellow:    Folder based structure:                                                 Package based structure: Second, minor and quite related change could be seen on those pictures too. There are different icons for different structures. For example Views and Layouts items are folder based, Domain Classes are package based and so on.

  Read the article

• How to keep track of previous scenes and return to them in libgdx

  - by MxyL

  I have three scenes: SceneTitle, SceneMenu, SceneLoad. (The difference between the title scene and the menu scene is that the title scene is what you see when you first turn on the game, and the menu scene is what you can access during the game. During the game, meaning, after you've hit "play!" in the title scene.) I provide the ability to save progress and consequently load a particular game. An issue that I've run into is being able to easily keep track of the previous scene. For example, if you enter the load scene and then decide to change your mind, the game needs to go back to where you were before; this isn't something that can be hardcoded. Now, an easy solution off the top of my head is to simply maintain a scene stack, which basically keeps track of history for me. A simple transaction would be as follows I'm currently in the menu scene, so the top of the stack is SceneMenu I go to the load scene, so the game pushes SceneLoad onto the stack. When I return from the load scene, the game pops SceneLoad off the stack and initializes the scene that's currently at the top, which is SceneMenu I'm coding in Java, so I can't simply pass around Classes as if they were objects, so I've decided implemented as enum for eac scene and put that on the stack and then have my scene managing class go through a list of if conditions to return the appropriate instance of the class. How can I implement my scene stack without having to do too much work maintaining it?

  Read the article

• I need some career/education advice regarding computer science [on hold]

  - by user2521987

  So I'm a senior mathematics major this fall and I have only taken three CS classes (Java I, Java II, and C++). This summer, I am participating in a mathematics REU (Research Experience for Undergraduates), and I program in C++ about 8 hours a day...and I find that I absolutely love it. I love using programming to solve math problems in my research. I think I want to pursue a career in programming. I have a few options Stay at my university an extra 1-1.5 years (beyond the 4) and do a double major in Math/CS. This will put me in up to around 7-10k in debt (currently I have no debt and am scheduled to graduate debt free). Then apply to a masters in CS. Apply directly to a masters in CS from a math undergraduate degree. I don't like this idea because I likely won't get into a good program or funded with such little background. Go to graduate school, funded, in applied mathematics and try to further my knowledge in computer science while there. Then apply to a masters in CS. I'm not sure if 1 or 3 would be better. My end goal would be to go to a top 20-30 CS graduate program and to get a cool, good job. What would you recommend?

  Read the article

• What to do as a new team lead on a project with maintainability problems?

  - by Mr_E

  I have just been put in charge of a code project with maintainability problems. What things can I do to get the project on a stable footing? I find myself in a place where we are working with a very large multi-tiered .NET system that is missing a lot of the important things such as unit tests, IOC, MEF, too many static classes, pure datasets etc. I'm only 24 but I've been here for almost three years (this app has been in development for 5) and mostly due to time constraints we've been just adding in more crap to fit the other crap. After doing a number of projects in my free time I have begun to understand just how important all those concepts are. Also due to employee shifting I find myself to now be the team lead on this project and I really want to come up with some smart ways to improve this app. Ways where the value can be explained to management. I have ideas of what I would like to do but they all seem so overwhelming without much upfront gain. Any stories of how people have or would have dealt with this would be a very interesting read. Thanks.

  Read the article

• Assuming "clean code/architecture" is there a difference in "effort" between PHP or Java/J2EE web application development?

  - by PhD

  A client asked us to estimate effort when selecting PHP as the implementation language for his next web-based application. We spent about a week exploring PHP, prototyping, testing etc., We are quite new to this language - may have hacked around it in the past but, let's go with PHP-noobs but application development experts (for the lack of a better, less flattering word :) It seems, that if we write, clean maintainable code, follow separation of concerns, enterprise architecture patters (DAOs etc.) the 'effort' in creating an object-oriented PHP based web-application seems to be the same for a Java based one. Here's our equation for estimating the effort (development/delivery time): ConstructionEffort = f(analysis, design, coding, testing, review, deployment) We were specifically comparing effort estimates in creating an enterprise application with the following: PHP + CakePHP/CodeIgniter (should we have considered others?) Java + Spring + Restlet It's an end-to-end application: Client: Javascript/jQuery + HTML/CSS Middle tier/Business Logic - (Still evaluating PHP/Java) Database: MySQL The effort estimates of the 1st and 3rd tier are constant and relatively independent of the middle tier's technology. At a high level with an initial breakdown into user stories of the requested features as well as a high-level SWAG on the sheer number of classes/SLOC that would be required for PHP doesn't seem to differ by much from what is required of the same in Java. Is this correct? We are basing our initial estimates on the initial prototyping/coding we've done with PHP - we are currently disregarding fluency with the language as a factor, since that'll be an initial hurdle and not a long term impediment IMHO (we also have sufficient time to become quite fluent with PHP). I'm interested in knowing the programmers' perspective with respect to effort when creating similar applications with either of the languages to justify choosing one over the other. Are we missing something here? It seems we are going against popular belief of PHP being quicker to market (or we being very fluent with Java have our vision clouded). It doesn't seem to have any coding/programming effort saving from what we/ve played around with.

  Read the article

• Questioning one of the arguments for dependency injection: Why is creating an object graph hard?

  - by oberlies

  Dependency injection frameworks like Google Guice give the following motivation for their usage (source): To construct an object, you first build its dependencies. But to build each dependency, you need its dependencies, and so on. So when you build an object, you really need to build an object graph. Building object graphs by hand is labour intensive (...) and makes testing difficult. But I don't buy this argument: Even without dependency injection, I can write classes which are both easy to instantiate and convenient to test. E.g. the example from the Guice motivation page could be rewritten in the following way: class BillingService { private final CreditCardProcessor processor; private final TransactionLog transactionLog; // constructor for tests, taking all collaborators as parameters BillingService(CreditCardProcessor processor, TransactionLog transactionLog) { this.processor = processor; this.transactionLog = transactionLog; } // constructor for production, calling the (productive) constructors of the collaborators public BillingService() { this(new PaypalCreditCardProcessor(), new DatabaseTransactionLog()); } public Receipt chargeOrder(PizzaOrder order, CreditCard creditCard) { ... } } So there may be other arguments for dependency injection (which are out of scope for this question!), but easy creation of testable object graphs is not one of them, is it?

  Read the article

• Why is the use of abstractions (such as LINQ) so taboo?

  - by Matthew Patrick Cashatt

  I am an independent contractor and, as such, I interview 3-4 times a year for new gigs. I am in the midst of that cycle now and got turned down for an opportunity even though I felt like the interview went well. The same thing has happened to me a couple of times this year. Now, I am not a perfect guy and I don't expect to be a good fit for every organization. That said, my batting average is lower than usual so I politely asked my last interviewer for some constructive feedback, and he delivered! The main thing, according to the interviewer, was that I seemed to lean too much towards the use of abstractions (such as LINQ) rather than towards lower-level, organically grown algorithms. On the surface, this makes sense--in fact, it made the other rejections make sense too because I blabbed about LINQ in those interviews as well and it didn't seem that the interviewers knew much about LINQ (even though they were .NET guys). So now I am left with this question: If we are supposed to be "standing on the shoulders of giants" and using abstractions that are available to us (like LINQ), then why do some folks consider it so taboo? Doesn't it make sense to pull code "off the shelf" if it accomplishes the same goals without extra cost? It would seem to me that LINQ, even if it is an abstraction, is simply an abstraction of all the same algorithms one would write to accomplish exactly the same end. Only a performance test could tell you if your custom approach was better, but if something like LINQ met the requirements, why bother writing your own classes in the first place? I don't mean to focus on LINQ here. I am sure that the JAVA world has something comparable, I just would like to know why some folks get so uncomfortable with the idea of using an abstraction that they themselves did not write. UPDATE As Euphoric pointed out, there isn't anything comparable to LINQ in the Java world. So, if you are developing on the .NET stack, why not always try and make use of it? Is it possible that people just don't fully understand what it does?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276  | Next Page >