Search Results

Search found 4687 results on 188 pages for 'whiteboard coding'.

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 29/188 | < Previous Page | 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Way to get VS 2008 to stop forcing indentation on namespaces?

    - by Earlz
    I've never really been a big fan of the way most editors handle namespaces. They always force you to add an extra pointless level of indentation. For instance, I have a lot of code in a page that I would much rather prefer formatted as namespace mycode{ class myclass{ void function(){ foo(); } void foo(){ bar(); } void bar(){ //code.. } } } and not something like namespace mycode{ class myclass{ void function(){ foo(); } void foo(){ bar(); } void bar(){ //code.. } } } Honestly, I don't really even like the class thing being indented most of the time because I usually only have 1 class per file. And it doesn't look as bad here, but when you get a ton of code and lot of scopes, you can easily have indentation that forces you off the screen, and plus here I just used 2-space tabs and not 4-space as is used by us. Anyway, is there some way to get Visual Studio to stop trying to indent namespaces for me like that?

    Read the article

  • 'AND' vs '&&' as operator

    - by ts
    Actually, i am facing a codebase where developpers decided to use 'AND' and 'OR' instead of '&&' and '||'. I know that there is difference in operators precedence (&& goes before 'and'), but with given framework (prestashop to be precise) is clearly not a reason. So, my question: which version are you using? Is 'and' more readable than '&&'? || there is ~ difference?

    Read the article

  • Observing an NSMutableArray for insertion/removal

    - by Adam Ernst
    A class has a property (and instance var) of type NSMutableArray with synthesized accessors (via @property). If you observe this array using: [myObj addObserver:self forKeyPath:@"theArray" options:0 context:NULL]; And then insert an object in the array like this: [[myObj theArray] addObject:[NSString string]]; An observeValueForKeyPath... notification is not sent. However, the following does send the proper notification: [[myObj mutableArrayValueForKey:@"theArray"] addObject:[NSString string]]; This is because mutableArrayValueForKey returns a proxy object that takes care of notifying observers. But shouldn't the synthesized accessors automatically return such a proxy object? What's the proper way to work around this--should I write a custom accessor that just invokes [super mutableArrayValueForKey...]?

    Read the article

  • special debugging lines (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

  • Good programming style when handling multiple objects

    - by Glitch
    I've been programming a software version of a board game. Thus far I have written the classes which will correspond to physical objects on the game board. I'm well into writing the program logic, however I've found that many of the logic classes require access to the same objects. At first I was passing the appropriate objects to methods as they were called, but this was getting very tedious, particularly when the methods required many objects to perform their tasks. To solve this, I created a class which initialises and stores all the objects I need. This allows me to access an object from any class by calling Assets.dice(), for example. But now that I've thought about it, this doesn't seem right. This is why I'm here, I fear that I've created some sort of god class. Is this fear unfounded, or have I created a recipe for disaster?

    Read the article

  • Use continue or Checked Exceptions when checking and processing objects

    - by Johan Pelgrim
    I'm processing, let's say a list of "Document" objects. Before I record the processing of the document successful I first want to check a couple of things. Let's say, the file referring to the document should be present and something in the document should be present. Just two simple checks for the example but think about 8 more checks before I have successfully processed my document. What would have your preference? for (Document document : List<Document> documents) { if (!fileIsPresent(document)) { doSomethingWithThisResult("File is not present"); continue; } if (!isSomethingInTheDocumentPresent(document)) { doSomethingWithThisResult("Something is not in the document"); continue; } doSomethingWithTheSucces(); } Or for (Document document : List<Document> documents) { try { fileIsPresent(document); isSomethingInTheDocumentPresent(document); doSomethingWithTheSucces(); } catch (ProcessingException e) { doSomethingWithTheExceptionalCase(e.getMessage()); } } public boolean fileIsPresent(Document document) throws ProcessingException { ... throw new ProcessingException("File is not present"); } public boolean isSomethingInTheDocumentPresent(Document document) throws ProcessingException { ... throw new ProcessingException("Something is not in the document"); } What is more readable. What is best? Is there even a better approach of doing this (maybe using a design pattern of some sort)? As far as readability goes my preference currently is the Exception variant... What is yours?

    Read the article

  • How do you assign a variable with the result of a if..else block?

    - by Pierre Olivier Martel
    I had an argument with a colleague about the best way to assign a variable in an if..else block. His orignal code was : @products = if params[:category] Category.find(params[:category]).products else Product.all end I rewrote it this way : if params[:category] @products = Category.find(params[:category]).products else @products = Product.all end This could also be rewritten with a one-liner using a ternery operator (? :) but let's pretend that product assignment was longer than a 100 character and couldn't fit in one line. Which of the two is clearer to you? The first solution takes a little less space but I thought that declaring a variable and assigning it three lines after can be more error prone. I also like to see my if and else aligned, makes it easier for my brain to parse it!

    Read the article

  • Check request type in Django

    - by Art
    While it is recommended to use the following construct to check whether request is POST, if request.method == 'POST': pass It is likely that people will find if request.POST: pass to be more elegant and concise. Are there any reasons not to use it, apart from personal preference?

    Read the article

  • PHP Serialize Function - Adding serialized data to mysql and then fetch and display

    - by Abhilash Shukla
    I want to know whether the PHP serialize function is 100% secure, also if we store serialized data into a database and want to do something after fetching it, will it be a nice way. For example:- I have a website with different user privileges, now i want to store the permissions settings for a particular privilege to my database (This data i want to store is to be done through php serialize function), now when a user logs in i want to fetch this data and set the privilege for the customer. Now i am ok to do this thing, what i want to know is, whether it is the best way to do or something more efficient can be done. Also, i was going through php manual and found this code, can anybody explain me a bit what's happening in this code:- [Specially why base64_encode is used?] <?php mySerialize( $obj ) { return base64_encode(gzcompress(serialize($obj))); } myUnserialize( $txt ) { return unserialize(gzuncompress(base64_decode($txt))); } ?> Also if somebody can provide me their own code to show me to do this thing in the most efficient manner. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Safest way to change variable names in a project

    - by kamziro
    So I've been working on a relatively large project by myself, and I've come to realise that some of the variable names earlier on were.. less than ideal. But how does one change variable names in a project easily? Is there such a tool that can go through a project directory, parse all the files, and then replace the variable names to the desired one? It has to be smart enough to understand the language I imagine. I was thinking of using regexp (sed/awk on linux?) tools to just replace the variable name, but there were many times where my particular variable is also included as a part of strings. There's also the issue about changing stuff on a c++ namespace, because there is actually two classes in my project that share the same name, but are in different namespaces. I remember visual stuio being able to do this, but what's the safest and most elegant way to do this on linux?

    Read the article

  • Python alignment of assignments (style)

    - by ikaros45
    I really like following style standards, as those specified in PEP 8. I have a linter that checks it automatically, and definitely my code is much better because of that. There is just one point in PEP 8, the E251 & E221 don't feel very good. Coming from a JavaScript background, I used to align the variable assignments as following: var var1 = 1234; var2 = 54; longer_name = 'hi'; var lol = { 'that' : 65, 'those' : 87, 'other_thing' : true }; And in my humble opinion, this improves readability dramatically. Problem is, this is dis-recommended by PEP 8. With dictionaries, is not that bad because spaces are allowed after the colon: dictionary = { 'something': 98, 'some_other_thing': False } I can "live" with variable assignments without alignment, but what I don't like at all is not to be able to pass named arguments in a function call, like this: some_func(length= 40, weight= 900, lol= 'troll', useless_var= True, intelligence=None) So, what I end up doing is using a dictionary, as following: specs = { 'length': 40, 'weight': 900, 'lol': 'troll', 'useless_var': True, 'intelligence': None } some_func(**specs) or just simply some_func(**{'length': 40, 'weight': 900, 'lol': 'troll', 'useless_var': True, 'intelligence': None}) But I have the feeling this work around is just worse than ignoring the PEP 8 E251 / E221. What is the best practice?

    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 | 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36  | Next Page >