Search Results

Search found 4702 results on 189 pages for 'coding district'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 28/189 | < Previous Page | 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35  | Next Page >

  • Revision histories and documenting changes

    - by jasonline
    I work on legacy systems and I used to see revision history of files or functions being modified every release in the source code, for example: // // Rev. No Date Author Description // ------------------------------------------------------- // 1.0 2009/12/01 johnc <Some description> // 1.1 2009/12/24 daveb <Some description> // ------------------------------------------------------- void Logger::initialize() { // a = b; // Old code, just commented and not deleted a = b + c; // New code } I'm just wondering if this way of documenting history is still being practiced by many today? If yes, how do you apply modifications on the source code - do you comment it or delete it completely? If not, what's the best way to document these revisions? If you use version control systems, does it follow that your source files contain pure source codes, except for comments when necessary (no revision history for each function, etc.)?

    Read the article

  • Java: repetition, overuse -- ?

    - by HH
    I try to be as minimalist as possible. Repetition is a problem. I hate it. When is it really a problem? what is static-overuse? what is field-method overuse? what is class-overuse? are there more types of overuse? Problem A: when it is too much to use of static? private static class Data { private static String fileContent; private static SizeSequence lineMap; private static File fileThing; private static char type; private static boolean binary; private static String name; private static String path; } private static class Print { //<1st LINE, LEFT_SIDE, 2nd LINE, RIGHT_SIDE> private Integer[] printPositions=new Integer[4]; private static String fingerPrint; private static String formatPrint; } Problem B: when it is too much to get field data with private methods? public Stack<Integer> getPositions(){return positions;} public Integer[] getPrintPositions(){return printPositions;} private Stack<String> getPrintViews(){return printViews;} private Stack<String> getPrintViewsPerFile(){return printViewsPerFile;} public String getPrintView(){return printView;} public String getFingerPrint(){return fingerPrint;} public String getFormatPrint(){return formatPrint;} public String getFileContent(){return fileContent;} public SizeSequence getLineMap(){return lineMap;} public File getFile(){return fileThing;} public boolean getBinary(){return binary;} public char getType(){return type;} public String getPath(){return path;} public FileObject getData(){return fObj;} public String getSearchTerm(){return searchTerm;} Related interface overuse

    Read the article

  • XML: When to use attributes instead of child nodes?

    - by Rosarch
    For tree leaves in XML, when is it better to use attributes, and when is it better to use descendant nodes? For example, in the following XML document: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?> <savedGame> <links> <link rootTagName="zombies" packageName="zombie" /> <link rootTagName="ghosts" packageName="ghost" /> <link rootTagName="players" packageName="player" /> <link rootTagName="trees" packageName="tree" /> </links> <locations> <zombies> <zombie> <positionX>41</positionX> <positionY>100</positionY> </zombie> <zombie> <positionX>55</positionX> <positionY>56</positionY> </zombie> </zombies> <ghosts> <ghost> <positionX>11</positionX> <positionY>90</positionY> </ghost> </ghosts> </locations> </savedGame> The <link> tag has attributes, but it could also be written as: <link> <rootTagName>trees</rootTagName> <packageName>tree</packageName> </link> Similarly, the location tags could be written as: <zombie positionX="55" positionY="56" /> instead of: <zombie> <positionX>55</positionX> <positionY>56</positionY> </zombie> What reasons are there to prefer one over the other? Is it just a stylistic issue? Any performance considerations?

    Read the article

  • How much of STL is too much?

    - by Darius Kucinskas
    I am using a lot of STL code with std::for_each, bind, and so on, but I noticed that sometimes STL usage is not good idea. For example if you have a std::vector and want to do one action on each item of the vector, your first idea is to use this: std::for_each(vec.begin(), vec.end(), Foo()) and it is elegant and ok, for a while. But then comes the first set of bug reports and you have to modify code. Now you should add parameter to call Foo(), so now it becomes: std::for_each(vec.begin(), vec.end(), std::bind2nd(Foo(), X)) but that is only temporary solution. Now the project is maturing and you understand business logic much better and you want to add new modifications to code. It is at this point that you realize that you should use old good: for(std::vector::iterator it = vec.begin(); it != vec.end(); ++it) Is this happening only to me? Do you recognise this kind of pattern in your code? Have you experience similar anti-patterns using STL?

    Read the article

  • When is JavaScript's eval() not evil?

    - by Richard Turner
    I'm writing some JavaScript to parse user-entered functions (for spreadsheet-like functionality). Having parsed the formula I could convert it into JavaScript and run eval() on it to yield the result. However, I've always shied away from using eval() if I can avoid it because it's evil (and, rightly or wrongly, I've always thought it is even more evil in JavaScript because the code to be evaluated might be changed by the user). Obviously one has to use eval() to parse JSON (I presume that JS libraries use eval() for this somewhere, even if they run the JSON through a regex check first), but when else, other than when manipulating JSON, it is OK to use eval()?

    Read the article

  • What's the reason for leaving an extra blank line at the end of a code file?

    - by Lord Torgamus
    Eclipse and MyEclipse create new Java files with an extra blank line after the last closing brace by default. I think CodeWarrior did the same thing a few years back, and that some people leave such blank lines in their code either by intention or laziness. So, this seems to be at least a moderately widespread behavior. As a former human language editor -- copy editing newspapers, mostly -- I find that those lines look like sloppiness or accidents, and I can't think of a reason to leave them in source files. I know they don't affect compilation in C-style languages, including Java. Are there benefits to having those lines, and if so, what are they?

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to embed Cockburn style textual UML Use Case content in the code base to improve code

    - by fooledbyprimes
    experimenting with Cockburn use cases in code I was writing some complicated UI code. I decided to employ Cockburn use cases with fish,kite,and sea levels (discussed by Martin Fowler in his book 'UML Distilled'). I wrapped Cockburn use cases in static C# objects so that I could test logical conditions against static constants which represented steps in a UI workflow. The idea was that you could read the code and know what it was doing because the wrapped objects and their public contants gave you ENGLISH use cases via namespaces. Also, I was going to use reflection to pump out error messages that included the described use cases. The idea is that the stack trace could include some UI use case steps IN ENGLISH.... It turned out to be a fun way to achieve a mini,psuedo light-weight Domain Language but without having to write a DSL compiler. So my question is whether or not this is a good way to do this? Has anyone out there ever done something similar? c# example snippets follow Assume we have some aspx page which has 3 user controls (with lots of clickable stuff). User must click on stuff in one particular user control (possibly making some kind of selection) and then the UI must visually cue the user that the selection was successful. Now, while that item is selected, the user must browse through a gridview to find an item within one of the other user controls and then select something. This sounds like an easy thing to manage but the code can get ugly. In my case, the user controls all sent event messages which were captured by the main page. This way, the page acted like a central processor of UI events and could keep track of what happens when the user is clicking around. So, in the main aspx page, we capture the first user control's event. using MyCompany.MyApp.Web.UseCases; protected void MyFirstUserControl_SomeUIWorkflowRequestCommingIn(object sender, EventArgs e) { // some code here to respond and make "state" changes or whatever // // blah blah blah // finally we have this (how did we know to call fish level method?? because we knew when we wrote the code to send the event in the user control) UpdateUserInterfaceOnFishLevelUseCaseGoalSuccess(FishLevel.SomeNamedUIWorkflow.SelectedItemForPurchase) } protected void UpdateUserInterfaceOnFishLevelGoalSuccess(FishLevel.SomeNamedUIWorkflow goal) { switch (goal) { case FishLevel.SomeNamedUIWorkflow.NewMasterItemSelected: //call some UI related methods here including methods for the other user controls if necessary.... break; case FishLevel.SomeNamedUIWorkFlow.DrillDownOnDetails: //call some UI related methods here including methods for the other user controls if necessary.... break; case FishLevel.SomeNamedUIWorkFlow.CancelMultiSelect: //call some UI related methods here including methods for the other user controls if necessary.... break; // more cases... } } } //also we have protected void UpdateUserInterfaceOnSeaLevelGoalSuccess(SeaLevel.SomeNamedUIWorkflow goal) { switch (goal) { case SeaLevel.CheckOutWorkflow.ChangedCreditCard: // do stuff // more cases... } } } So, in the MyCompany.MyApp.Web.UseCases namespace we might have code like this: class SeaLevel... class FishLevel... class KiteLevel... The workflow use cases embedded in the classes could be inner classes or static methods or enumerations or whatever gives you the cleanest namespace. I can't remember what I did originally but you get the picture.

    Read the article

  • [PHP] Invalid argument supplied for foreach()

    - by Roberto Aloi
    It often happens to me to handle data that can be either an array or a null variable and to feed some foreach with these data. $values = get_values(); foreach ($values as $value){ ... } When you feed a foreach with data that are not an array, you get a warning: Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in [...] Assuming it's not possible to refactor the get_values() function to always return an array (backward compatibility, not available source code, whatever other reason), I'm wondering which is the cleanest and most efficient way to avoid these warnings: Casting $values to array Initializing $values to array Wrapping the foreach with an if Other (please suggest)

    Read the article

  • Checkstyle for Python

    - by oneself
    Is there an application similar to Java's Checkstyle for Python? By which I mean, I tool that analyzes Python code, and can be run as part of continuous integration (e.g. CruiseControl or Hudson). After analyzing it should produce an online accessible report which outlines any problems found in the code. Thank you,

    Read the article

  • Best practice - When to evaluate conditionals of function execution

    - by Tesserex
    If I have a function called from a few places, and it requires some condition to be met for anything it does to execute, where should that condition be checked? In my case, it's for drawing - if the mouse button is held down, then execute the drawing logic (this is being done in the mouse movement handler for when you drag.) Option one says put it in the function so that it's guaranteed to be checked. Abstracted, if you will. public function Foo() { DoThing(); } private function DoThing() { if (!condition) return; // do stuff } The problem I have with this is that when reading the code of Foo, which may be far away from DoThing, it looks like a bug. The first thought is that the condition isn't being checked. Option two, then, is to check before calling. public function Foo() { if (condition) DoThing(); } This reads better, but now you have to worry about checking from everywhere you call it. Option three is to rename the function to be more descriptive. public function Foo() { DoThingOnlyIfCondition(); } private function DoThingOnlyIfCondition() { if (!condition) return; // do stuff } Is this the "correct" solution? Or is this going a bit too far? I feel like if everything were like this function names would start to duplicate their code. About this being subjective: of course it is, and there may not be a right answer, but I think it's still perfectly at home here. Getting advice from better programmers than I is the second best way to learn. Subjective questions are exactly the kind of thing Google can't answer.

    Read the article

  • debugging scaffolding contingent upon degbugging boolean (java)

    - by David
    Recently i've found myself writing a lot of methods with what i can only think to call debugging scaffolding. Here's an example: public static void printArray (String[] array, boolean bug) { for (int i = 0; i<array.lenght; i++) { if (bug) System.out.print (i) ; //this line is what i'm calling the debugging scaffolding i guess. System.out.println(array[i]) ; } } in this method if i set bug to true, wherever its being called from maybe by some kind of user imput, then i get the special debugging text to let me know what index the string being printed as at just in case i needed to know for the sake of my debugging (pretend a state of affairs exists where its helpful). All of my questions more or less boil down to the question: is this a good idea? but with a tad bit more objectivity: Is this an effective way to test my methods and debug them? i mean effective in terms of efficiency and not messing up my code. Is it acceptable to leave the if (bug) stuff ; code in place after i've got my method up and working? (if a definition of "acceptability" is needed to make this question objective then use "is not a matter of programing controversy such as ommiting brackets in an if(boolean) with only one line after it, though if you've got something better go ahead and use your definition i won't mind) Is there a more effective way to accomplish the gole of making debugging easier than what i'm doing? Anything you know i mean to ask but that i have forgotten too (as much information as makes sense is appreciated).

    Read the article

  • Recommendations for 'C' Project architecture guidelines?

    - by SiegeX
    Now that I got my head wrapped around the 'C' language to a point where I feel proficient enough to write clean code, I'd like to focus my attention on project architecture guidelines. I'm looking for a good resource that coves the following topics: How to create an interface that promotes code maintainability and is extensible for future upgrades. Library creation guidelines. Example, when should I consider using static vs dynamic libraries. How to properly design an ABI to cope with either one. Header files: what to partition out and when. Examples on when to use 1:1 vs 1:many .h to .c Anything you feel I missed but is important when attempting to architect a new C project. Ideally, I'd like to see some example projects ranging from small to large and see how the architecture changes depending on project size, function or customer. What resource(s) would you recommend for such topics?

    Read the article

  • Return enum instead of bool from function for clarity ?

    - by Moe Sisko
    This is similar to : http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2908876/net-bool-vs-enum-as-a-method-parameter but concerns returning a bool from a function in some situations. e.g. Function which returns bool : public bool Poll() { bool isFinished = false; // do something, then determine if finished or not. return isFinished; } Used like this : while (!Poll()) { // do stuff during wait. } Its not obvious from the calling context what the bool returned from Poll() means. It might be clearer in some ways if the "Poll" function was renamed "IsFinished()", but the method does a bit of work, and (IMO) would not really reflect what the function actually does. Names like "IsFinished" also seem more appropriate for properties. Another option might be to rename it to something like : "PollAndReturnIsFinished" but this doesn't feel right either. So an option might be to return an enum. e.g : public enum Status { Running, Finished } public Status Poll() { Status status = Status.Running; // do something, then determine if finished or not. return status; } Called like this : while (Poll() == Status.Running) { // do stuff during wait. } But this feels like overkill. Any ideas ?

    Read the article

  • Checklist for Launching public beta

    - by Vinayak
    I am developing a web app that is about to be opened for public beta. Does anyone know of or has prepared a checklist of the various steps that one needs to take to ensure a smooth beta implementation? The web app is coded using Java, MySQL on the server side and HTML, Javascript on the client side with a little Flash in one or two screens. I know this question is very non-specific, but I am looking for best practices/guidelines here. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • "Verbose Dictionary" in C#, 'override new' this[] or implement IDictionary

    - by Benjol
    All I want is a dictionary which tells me which key it couldn't find, rather than just saying The given key was not present in the dictionary. I briefly considered doing a subclass with override new this[TKey key], but felt it was a bit hacky, so I've gone with implementing the IDictionary interface, and passing everything through directly to an inner Dictionary, with the only additional logic being in the indexer: public TValue this[TKey key] { get { ThrowIfKeyNotFound(key); return _dic[key]; } set { ThrowIfKeyNotFound(key); _dic[key] = value; } } private void ThrowIfKeyNotFound(TKey key) { if(!_dic.ContainsKey(key)) throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("Can't find key [" + key + "] in dictionary"); } Is this the right/only way to go? Would newing over the this[] really be that bad?

    Read the article

  • Why use infinite loops?

    - by Moishe
    Another poster asked about preferred syntax for infinite loops. A follow-up question: Why do you use infinite loops in your code? I typically see a construct like this: for (;;) { int scoped_variable = getSomeValue(); if (scoped_variable == some_value) { break; } } Which lets you get around not being able to see the value of scoped_variable in the for or while clause. What are some other uses for "infinite" loops?

    Read the article

  • What do you need to implement to provide a Content Set for an NSArrayController?

    - by whuuh
    Heys, I am writing something in Xcode. I use Core Data for persistency and link the view and the model together with Cocoa Bindings; pretty much your ordinary Core Data application. I have an array controller (NSArrayController) in my Xib. This has its managedObjectContext bound to the AppDelegate, as is convention, and tracks an entity. So far so good. Now, the "Content Set" biding of this NSArrayController limits its content set (as you'd expect), by a keyPath from the selection in another NSArrayController (otherAc.selection.detailsOfMaster). This is the usual way to implement a Master-Detail relationship. I want to variably change the key path at runtime, using other controls. This way, I sould return a content set that includes several other content sets, which is all advanced and beyond Interface Builder. To achieve this, I think I should bind the Content Set to my AppDelegate instead. I have tried to do this, but don't know what methods to implement. If I just create the KVC methods (objectSet, setObjectSet), then I can provide a Content Set for the Array Controller in the contentSet method. However, I don't think I'm binding this properly, because it doesn't "refresh". I'm new to binding; what do I need to implement to properly update the Content Set when other things, like the selection in the master NSArrayController, changes?

    Read the article

  • Which syntax is better for return value?

    - by Omar Kooheji
    I've been doing a massive code review and one pattern I notice all over the place is this: public bool MethodName() { bool returnValue = false; if (expression) { // do something returnValue = MethodCall(); } else { // do something else returnValue = Expression; } return returnValue; } This is not how I would have done this I would have just returned the value when I knew what it was. which of these two patterns is more correct? I stress that the logic always seems to be structured such that the return value is assigned in one plave only and no code is executed after it's assigned.

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35  | Next Page >