Search Results

Search found 92 results on 4 pages for 'markpearl'.

Page 3/4 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4  | Next Page >

  • 5 ways to stop code thrashing&hellip;

    - by MarkPearl
    A few days ago I was programming on a personal project and hit a roadblock. I was applying the MVVM pattern and for some reason my view model was not updating the view when the state changed??? I had applied this pattern many times before and had never had this problem. It just didn’t make sense. So what did I do… I did what anyone would have done in my situation and looked to pass the blame to someone or something else. I tried to blame one of the inherited base classes, but it looked fine, then to Visual Studio, but it seemed to be fine and eventually to any random segment of code I came across. My elementary problem had now mushroomed into one that had lost any logical basis and I was in thrashing mode! So what to do when you begin to thrash? 1) Do a general code cleanup – Now there is a difference between cleaning code and changing code . When you thrash you change code and you want to avoid this. What you really want to do is things like rename variables to have better meaning and go over your comments. 2) Do a proof of concept – if cleaning code doesn’t help. The  you want to isolate the problem and identify the key concepts. When you isolate code you ideally want it to be in a totally separate project with as little complexity as possible. Make the building blocks and try and replicate the functionality that you are getting in your current application. 3) Phone a friend – I have found speaking to someone else about the problem generally helps me solve any thrashing issues I am having. Usually they don’t even have to say anything to solve the problem, just you talking them through the problem helps you get clarity of mind. 4) Let the dust settle – Sometimes time is the best solution. I have had a few problems that no matter who I discussed them with and no matter how much code cleaning I had done I just couldn’t seem to fix it. My brain just seemed to be going in circles. A good nights rest has always helped and often just the break away from the problem has helped me find a solution. 5) Stack overflow it – So similar to phone a friend. I am really surprised to see what a melting pot stack overflow has been and what a help it has been in solving technology specific problems. Just be considerate to those using the site and explain clearly exactly what problem you are having and the technologies you are using or else you will probably not get any useful help…

    Read the article

  • South African MVPs deserve their title.

    - by MarkPearl
    Recently I read a post by someone who felt the Microsoft MVP program had failed. My local experience with the MVP program would tend for me to disagree. On Saturday I attended a free Windows Phone 7 event organized by Robert MacLean and Rudi Grobler both of whom are local MVP’s. First of all, kudos to them for organizing the event which included a free lunch and flash stick and had some great content for a free event. Secondly, this is not the first time that either of these two MVP’s have organized events. They are active in the community, present at the majority of local events and are always approachable and give an “honest” opinion. For me, that is what an MVP stands for and at least in my region I feel that the MVP program is a real success.

    Read the article

  • The Gates Books&ndash;Finished

    - by MarkPearl
    Today I can finally say that I finished both of my Bill Gates books that had been lying on the shelf for several years. The books were… The Road Ahead (1995) Business @ the Speed of Thought (1999) I enjoyed “The Road Ahead”, purely because it was fun to read about someone looking into the future at technology, while I could read it looking at the past. In fact I was quite impressed with how much he got right and it was also nice to remember “The good old days”. Business @ the Speed of Thought was a harder read for me. The book still had some good insights, but was tough going at times (possibly because it was several hundred more pages than the first). All that being said, I can now finally place them back on the shelf knowing that they have been read.

    Read the article

  • Mutable Records in F#

    - by MarkPearl
    I’m loving my expert F# book – today I thought I would give a post on using mutable records as covered in Chapter 4 of Expert F#. So as they explain the simplest mutable data structures in F# are mutable records. The whole concept of things by default being immutable is a new one for me from my C# background. Anyhow… lets look at some C# code first. using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; using System.Text; namespace MutableRecords { public class DiscreteEventCounter { public int Total { get; set; } public int Positive { get; set; } public string Name { get; private set; } public DiscreteEventCounter(string name) { Name = name; } } class Program { private static void recordEvent(DiscreteEventCounter s, bool isPositive) { s.Total += 1; if (isPositive) s.Positive += 1; } private static void reportStatus (DiscreteEventCounter s) { Console.WriteLine("We have {0} {1} out of {2}", s.Positive, s.Name, s.Total); } static void Main(string[] args) { var longCounter = new DiscreteEventCounter("My Discrete Counter"); recordEvent(longCounter, true); recordEvent(longCounter, true); reportStatus(longCounter); Console.ReadLine(); } } } Quite simple, we have a class that has a few values. We instantiate an instance of the class and perform increments etc on the instance. Now lets look at an equivalent F# sample. namespace EncapsulationNS module Module1 = open System type DiscreteEventCounter = { mutable Total : int mutable Positive : int Name : string } let recordEvent (s: DiscreteEventCounter) isPositive = s.Total <- s.Total+1 if isPositive then s.Positive <- s.Positive+1 let reportStatus (s: DiscreteEventCounter) = printfn "We have %d %s out of %d" s.Positive s.Name s.Total let newCounter nm = { Total = 0; Positive = 0; Name = nm } // // Using it... // let longCounter = newCounter "My Discrete Counter" recordEvent longCounter (true) recordEvent longCounter (true) reportStatus longCounter System.Console.ReadLine() Notice in the type declaration of the DiscreteEventCounter we had to explicitly declare that the total and positive value holders were mutable. And that’s it – a very simple example of mutable types.

    Read the article

  • Minimum team development sizes

    - by MarkPearl
    Disclaimer - these are observations that I have had, I am not sure if this follows the philosophy of scrum, agile or whatever, but most of these insights were gained while implementing a scrum scenario. Two is a partnership, three starts a team For a while I thought that a team was anything more than one and that scrum could be effective methodology with even two people. I have recently adjusted my thinking to a scrum team being a minimum of three, so what happened to two and what do you call it? For me I consider a group of two people working together a partnership - there is value in having a partnership, but some of the dynamics and value that you get from having a team is lost with a partnership. Avoidance of a one on one confrontation The first dynamic I see missing in a partnership is the team motivation to do better and how this is delivered to individuals that are not performing. Take two highly motivated individuals and put them together and you will typically see them continue to perform. Now take a situation where you have two individuals, one performing and one not and the behaviour is totally different compared to a team of three or more individuals. With two people, if one feels the other is not performing it becomes a one on one confrontation. Most people avoid confrontations and so nothing changes. Compare this to a situation where you have three people in a team, 2 performing and 1 not the dynamic is totally different, it is no longer a personal one on one confrontation but a team concern and people seem more willing to encourage the individual not performing and express their dissatisfaction as a team if they do not improve. Avoiding the effects of Tuckman’s Group Development Theory If you are not familiar with Tuckman’s group development theory give it a read (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuckman's_stages_of_group_development) In a nutshell with Tuckman’s theory teams go through these stages of Forming, Storming, Norming & Performing. You want your team to reach and remain in the Performing stage for as long as possible - this is where you get the most value. When you have a partnership of two and you change the individuals in the partnership you basically do a hard reset on the partnership and go back to the beginning of Tuckman’s model each time. This has a major effect on the performance of a team and what they can deliver. What I have seen is that you reduce the effects of Tuckman's theory the more individuals you have in the team (until you hit the maximum team size in which other problems kick in). While you will still experience Tuckman's theory with a team of three, the impact will be greatly reduced compared to two where it is guaranteed every time a change occurs. It's not just in the numbers, it's in the people One final comment - while the actual numbers of a team do play a role, the individuals in the team are even more important - ideally you want to keep individuals working together for an extended period. That doesn't mean that you never change the individuals in a team, or that once someone joins a team they are stuck there - there is value in an individual moving from team to team and getting cross pollination, but the period of time that an individual moves should be in month's or years, not days or weeks. Why? So why is it important to know this? Why is it important to know how a team works and what motivates them? I have been asking myself this question for a while and where I am at right now is this… the aim is to achieve the stage where the sum of the total (team) is greater than the sum of the parts (team members). This is why we form teams and why understanding how they work is a challenge and also extremely stimulating.

    Read the article

  • Organization &amp; Architecture UNISA Studies &ndash; Chap 4

    - by MarkPearl
    Learning Outcomes Explain the characteristics of memory systems Describe the memory hierarchy Discuss cache memory principles Discuss issues relevant to cache design Describe the cache organization of the Pentium Computer Memory Systems There are key characteristics of memory… Location – internal or external Capacity – expressed in terms of bytes Unit of Transfer – the number of bits read out of or written into memory at a time Access Method – sequential, direct, random or associative From a users perspective the two most important characteristics of memory are… Capacity Performance – access time, memory cycle time, transfer rate The trade off for memory happens along three axis… Faster access time, greater cost per bit Greater capacity, smaller cost per bit Greater capacity, slower access time This leads to people using a tiered approach in their use of memory   As one goes down the hierarchy, the following occurs… Decreasing cost per bit Increasing capacity Increasing access time Decreasing frequency of access of the memory by the processor The use of two levels of memory to reduce average access time works in principle, but only if conditions 1 to 4 apply. A variety of technologies exist that allow us to accomplish this. Thus it is possible to organize data across the hierarchy such that the percentage of accesses to each successively lower level is substantially less than that of the level above. A portion of main memory can be used as a buffer to hold data temporarily that is to be read out to disk. This is sometimes referred to as a disk cache and improves performance in two ways… Disk writes are clustered. Instead of many small transfers of data, we have a few large transfers of data. This improves disk performance and minimizes processor involvement. Some data designed for write-out may be referenced by a program before the next dump to disk. In that case the data is retrieved rapidly from the software cache rather than slowly from disk. Cache Memory Principles Cache memory is substantially faster than main memory. A caching system works as follows.. When a processor attempts to read a word of memory, a check is made to see if this in in cache memory… If it is, the data is supplied, If it is not in the cache, a block of main memory, consisting of a fixed number of words is loaded to the cache. Because of the phenomenon of locality of references, when a block of data is fetched into the cache, it is likely that there will be future references to that same memory location or to other words in the block. Elements of Cache Design While there are a large number of cache implementations, there are a few basic design elements that serve to classify and differentiate cache architectures… Cache Addresses Cache Size Mapping Function Replacement Algorithm Write Policy Line Size Number of Caches Cache Addresses Almost all non-embedded processors support virtual memory. Virtual memory in essence allows a program to address memory from a logical point of view without needing to worry about the amount of physical memory available. When virtual addresses are used the designer may choose to place the cache between the MMU (memory management unit) and the processor or between the MMU and main memory. The disadvantage of virtual memory is that most virtual memory systems supply each application with the same virtual memory address space (each application sees virtual memory starting at memory address 0), which means the cache memory must be completely flushed with each application context switch or extra bits must be added to each line of the cache to identify which virtual address space the address refers to. Cache Size We would like the size of the cache to be small enough so that the overall average cost per bit is close to that of main memory alone and large enough so that the overall average access time is close to that of the cache alone. Also, larger caches are slightly slower than smaller ones. Mapping Function Because there are fewer cache lines than main memory blocks, an algorithm is needed for mapping main memory blocks into cache lines. The choice of mapping function dictates how the cache is organized. Three techniques can be used… Direct – simplest technique, maps each block of main memory into only one possible cache line Associative – Each main memory block to be loaded into any line of the cache Set Associative – exhibits the strengths of both the direct and associative approaches while reducing their disadvantages For detailed explanations of each approach – read the text book (page 148 – 154) Replacement Algorithm For associative and set associating mapping a replacement algorithm is needed to determine which of the existing blocks in the cache must be replaced by a new block. There are four common approaches… LRU (Least recently used) FIFO (First in first out) LFU (Least frequently used) Random selection Write Policy When a block resident in the cache is to be replaced, there are two cases to consider If no writes to that block have happened in the cache – discard it If a write has occurred, a process needs to be initiated where the changes in the cache are propagated back to the main memory. There are several approaches to achieve this including… Write Through – all writes to the cache are done to the main memory as well at the point of the change Write Back – when a block is replaced, all dirty bits are written back to main memory The problem is complicated when we have multiple caches, there are techniques to accommodate for this but I have not summarized them. Line Size When a block of data is retrieved and placed in the cache, not only the desired word but also some number of adjacent words are retrieved. As the block size increases from very small to larger sizes, the hit ratio will at first increase because of the principle of locality, which states that the data in the vicinity of a referenced word are likely to be referenced in the near future. As the block size increases, more useful data are brought into cache. The hit ratio will begin to decrease as the block becomes even bigger and the probability of using the newly fetched information becomes less than the probability of using the newly fetched information that has to be replaced. Two specific effects come into play… Larger blocks reduce the number of blocks that fit into a cache. Because each block fetch overwrites older cache contents, a small number of blocks results in data being overwritten shortly after they are fetched. As a block becomes larger, each additional word is farther from the requested word and therefore less likely to be needed in the near future. The relationship between block size and hit ratio is complex, and no set approach is judged to be the best in all circumstances.   Pentium 4 and ARM cache organizations The processor core consists of four major components: Fetch/decode unit – fetches program instruction in order from the L2 cache, decodes these into a series of micro-operations, and stores the results in the L2 instruction cache Out-of-order execution logic – Schedules execution of the micro-operations subject to data dependencies and resource availability – thus micro-operations may be scheduled for execution in a different order than they were fetched from the instruction stream. As time permits, this unit schedules speculative execution of micro-operations that may be required in the future Execution units – These units execute micro-operations, fetching the required data from the L1 data cache and temporarily storing results in registers Memory subsystem – This unit includes the L2 and L3 caches and the system bus, which is used to access main memory when the L1 and L2 caches have a cache miss and to access the system I/O resources

    Read the article

  • The cost of Programmer Team Clustering

    - by MarkPearl
    I recently was involved in a conversation about the productivity of programmers and the seemingly wide range in abilities that different programmers have in this industry. Some of the comments made were reiterated a few days later when I came across a chapter in Code Complete (v2) where it says "In programming specifically, many studies have shown order-of-magnitude differences in the quality of the programs written, the sizes of the programs written, and the productivity of programmers". In line with this is another comment presented by Code Complete when discussing teams - "Good programmers tend to cluster, as do bad programmers". This is something I can personally relate to. I have come across some really good and bad programmers and 99% of the time it turns out the team they work in is the same - really good or really bad. When I have found a mismatch, it hasn't stayed that way for long - the person has moved on, or the team has ejected the individual. Keeping this in mind I would like to comment on the risks an organization faces when forcing teams to remain together regardless of the mix. When you have the situation where someone is not willing to be part of the team but still wants to get a pay check at the end of each month, it presents some interesting challenges and hard decisions to make. First of all, when this occurs you need to give them an opportunity to change - for someone to change, they need to know what the problem is and what is expected. It is unreasonable to expect someone to change but have not indicated what they need to change and the consequences of not changing. If after a reasonable time of an individual being aware of the problem and not making an effort to improve you need to do two things... Follow through with the consequences of not changing. Consider the impact that this behaviour will have on the rest of the team. What is the cost of not following through with the consequences? If there is no follow through, it is often an indication to the individual that they can continue their behaviour. Why should they change if you don't care enough to keep your end of the agreement? In many ways I think it is very similar to the "Broken Windows" principles – if you allow the windows to break and don’t fix them, more will get broken. What is the cost of keeping them on? When keeping a disruptive influence in a team you risk loosing the good in the team. As Code Complete says, good and bad programmers tend to cluster - they have a tendency to keep this balance - if you are not going to help keep the balance they will. The cost of not removing a disruptive influence is that the good in the team will eventually help you maintain the clustering themselves by leaving.

    Read the article

  • No Thank You &ndash; Yours Truly &ndash; F#

    - by MarkPearl
    I am plodding along with my F# book. I have reached the part where I know enough about the syntax of the language to understand something if I read it – but not enough about the language to be productive and write something useful. A bit of a frustrating place to be. Needless to say when you are in this state of mind – you end up paging mindlessly through chapters of my F# book with no real incentive to learn anything until you hit “Exceptions”. Raising an exception explicitly So lets look at raising an exception explicitly – in C# we would throw the exception, F# is a lot more polite instead of throwing the exception it raises it, … (raise (System.InvalidOperationException("no thank you"))) quite simple… Catching an Exception So I would expect to be able to catch an exception as well – lets look at some C# code first… try { Console.WriteLine("Raise Exception"); throw new InvalidOperationException("no thank you"); } catch { Console.WriteLine("Catch Exception and Carry on.."); } Console.WriteLine("Carry on..."); Console.ReadLine();   The F# equivalent would go as follows… open System; try Console.WriteLine("Raise Exception") raise (System.InvalidOperationException("no thank you")) with | _ -> Console.WriteLine("Catch Exception and Carry on..") Console.WriteLine("Carry on...") Console.ReadLine();   In F# there is a “try, with” and a “try finally” Finally… In F# there is a finally block however the “with” and “finally” can’t be combined. open System; try Console.WriteLine("Raise Exception") raise (System.InvalidOperationException("no thank you")) finally Console.WriteLine("Finally carry on...") Console.ReadLine()

    Read the article

  • Lessons learnt in implementing Scrum in a Large Organization that has traditional values

    - by MarkPearl
    I recently had the experience of being involved in a “test” scrum implementation in a large organization that was used to a traditional project management approach. Here are some lessons that I learnt from it. Don’t let the Project Manager be the Product Owner First lesson learnt is to identify the correct product owner – in this instance the product manager assumed the role of the product owner which was a mistake. The product owner is the one who has the most to loose if the project fails. With a methodology that advocates removing the role of the project manager from the process then it is not in the interests of the person who is employed as a project manager to be the product owner – in fact they have the most to gain should the project fail. Know the time commitments of team members to the Project Second lesson learnt is to get a firm time commitment of the members on a team for the sprint and to hold them to it. In this project instance many of the issues we faced were with team members having to double up on supporting existing projects/systems and the scrum project. In many situations they just didn’t get round to doing any work on the scrum project for several days while they tried to meet other commitments. Initially this was not made transparent to the team – in stand up team members would say that had done some work but would be very vague on how much time they had actually spent using the blackhole of their other legacy projects as an excuse – putting up a time burn down chart made time allocations transparent and easy to hold the team to. In addition, how can you plan for a sprint without knowing the actual time available of the members – when I mean actual time, the exercise of getting them to go through all their appointments and lunch times and breaks and removing them from their time commitment helps get you to a realistic time that they can dedicate. Make sure you meet your minimum team sizes In a recent post I wrote about the difference between a partnership and a team. If you are going to do scrum in a large organization make sure you have a minimum team size of at least 3 developers. My experience with larger organizations is that people have a tendency to be sick more, take more leave and generally not be around – if you have a team size of two it is so easy to loose momentum on the project – the more people you have in the team (up to about 9) the more the momentum the project will have when people are not around. Swapping from one methodology to another can seem as waste to the customer It sounds bad, but most customers don’t care what methodology you use. Often they have bought into the “big plan upfront”. If you can, avoid taking a project on midstream from a traditional approach unless the customer has not bought into the process – with this particular project they had a detailed upfront planning breakaway with the customer using the traditional approach and then before the project started we moved onto a scrum implementation – this seemed as waste to the customer. We should have managed the customers expectation properly. Don’t play the role of the scrum master if you can’t be the scrum master With this particular implementation I was the “scrum master”. But all I did was go through the process of the formal meetings of scrum – I attended stand up, retrospectives and planning – but I was not hands on the ground. I was not performing the most important role of removing blockages – and by the end of the project there were a number of blockages “cropping up”. What could have been a better approach was to take someone on the team and train them to be the scrum master and be present to coach them. Alternatively actually be on the team on a fulltime basis and be the scrum master. By just going through the meetings of scrum didn’t mean we were doing scrum. So we failed with this one, if you fail look at it from an agile perspective As this particular project drew to a close and it became more and more apparent that it was not going to succeed the failure of it became depressing. Emotions were expressed by various people on the team that we not encouraging and enforced the failure. Embracing the failure and looking at it for what it is instead of taking it as the end of the world can change how you grow from the experience. Acknowledging that it failed and then focussing on learning from why and how to avoid the failure in the future can change how you feel emotionally about the team, the project and the organization.

    Read the article

  • WF4 &ndash; Guess the number game!

    - by MarkPearl
    I posted yesterday how really good WF4 was looking. Today I thought I would show some real basics that I was able to figure out. This will be a simple example, I am going to make a flowchart workflow – which will prompt the user to guess the number until they guess the right number. Lets begin… Make a new project and make it a Workflow console Application. Then select the Workflow file and drag a FlowChart (2) to point 3. This will now show a green start circle in the designer form. We are going to work with primitives to start with. We are now going to drag a few objects onto the Workflow, We drag the WriteLine, Assign & Decision items onto the designer. Once they are dragged onto the designer we will want to link them up. The order that they are linked is critical since this will determine the order of the solution. In this case, we want the system to first ask “Guess a number”, then to wait for the user to input some code, and then to display “You got it” if they got it right, and “Try again” if they got it wrong. So we now link the arrows to the objects. This is done by moving the mouse pointer over the start objects and clicking on one of the toggles and then dragging it to the next object and releasing the button over one of the toggles. This will place an arrow from the source object to the target object. Okay… pretty simple stuff – now we just need these primitive objects to do stuff. Lets start with the WriteLine primitive. We place the text in inverted commas in the Text field. Because this field accepts any valid VB expression we could have put variables etc. in there if we wanted to. The next thing we want to do is allow the user to input a number. This brings up an interesting problem, if a user were to type in a number, there would need to be someway to declare a variable to hold that value for the life of the workflow. We can achieve this by declaring a variable. To declare a variable, move your cursor over the variables tab at the bottom of the workflow, and then type the name of the new variable in the “Create Variable” field and set it as shown in the image above. Now that we have a variable, we want to call the Console.Readline method and assign the inputted value from the Console to that variable. The code that cannot be seen is actually this – Convert.ToInt32(Console.ReadLine()) We now have a workflow that first prompts the user for a number, then allows the user to type in a number. We are almost done, we just need to make the system react to the value inputted. There are a few ways we could do this, I am going to use the Decision item. So select the Decision object on the designer and then view its properties (F4 for me), and in the condition field place a condition. For simplicity sake I have decided that if the user guesses 10, they will have guessed the number. This is now the completed workflow. Its really easy to understand and shows some really powerful principles for Business applications. You can run the application and see what it does. Imagine writing business solutions that do not worry about the exact flow of objects, but simply allows a business analyst or someone to configure the solution to work exactly as the business rules would dictate. And if the rules changed six months later all they would need to do is re-drag some of the flows. Now I do not know if WF4 will allow for this, but it feels like it is a step in the right direct.

    Read the article

  • Recursion in F#

    - by MarkPearl
    Things are slowly coming together – I was able to look at a bit of F# code and intuitively know what it was going to do (yay)… So today I saw a blog post by Bob Palmer on Fibonacci numbers in F# which inspired me to look at bit into recursion. First the C# example… class Program { public static void CountDown(int n) { switch (n) { case 0: Console.WriteLine("End of Count"); break; default: Console.WriteLine(n); CountDown(n-1); break; } } static void Main(string[] args) { CountDown(10); Console.ReadLine(); } }   In F#, the equivalent would look something like this… open System let rec CountDown n = match n with | 0 -> Console.WriteLine("End of Count"); | n -> Console.WriteLine(n); CountDown (n-1); CountDown 10 Console.ReadLine()   Pretty simple stuff. With F# you when making recursive calls you need to explicitly declare that the function is recursive with the “rec” keyword. Otherwise the code is pretty easy to read and self explanatory.

    Read the article

  • C# Preprocessor Directives

    - by MarkPearl
    Going back to my old c++ days at university where we had all our code littered with preprocessor directives - I thought it made the code ugly and could never understand why it was useful. Today though I found a use in my C# application. The scenario – I had made various security levels in my application and tied my XAML to the levels by set by static accessors in code. An example of my XAML code for a Combobox to be enabled would be as follows… <ComboBox IsEnabled="{x:Static security:Security.SecurityCanEditDebtor}" />   And then I would have a static method like this… public static bool SecurityCanEditDebtorPostalAddress { get { if (SecurityCanEditDebtorPostalAddress) { return true; } else { return false; } } } My only problem was that my XAML did not like the if statement – which meant that while my code worked during runtime, during design time in VS2010 it gave some horrible error like… NullReferenceException was thrown on “StatiucExtension”: Exception has been thrown by the target of an invocation… If however my C# method was changed to something like this… public static bool SecurityCanEditDebtorPostalAddress { get { return true; } }   My XAML viewer would be happy. But of course this would bypass my security… <Drum Roll> Welcome preprocessor directives… what I wanted was during my design experience to totally remove the “if” code so that my accessor would return true and not have any if statements, but when I release my project to the big open world, I want the code to have the is statement. With a bit of searching I found the relevant MSDN sample and my code now looks like this… public static bool SecurityCanEditDebtorPostalAddress { get { #if DEBUG return true; #else if (Settings.GetInstance().CurrentUser.SecurityCanEditDebtorPostalAddress) { return true; } else { return false; } #endif } }   Not the prettiest beast, but it works. Basically what is being said here is that during my debug mode compile my code with just the code between the #if … #else block, but what I can now do is if I want to universally switch everything to the “if else” statement, I just go to my project properties –> Build and change the “Debug” flag as illustrated in the picture below. Also note that you can define your own conditional compilation symbols, and if you even wanted to you could skip the whole properties page and define them in code using the #define & #undef directives. So while I don’t like the way the code works and would like to look more into AOP and compare it to this method, it works for now.

    Read the article

  • Legacy Code Retreat Questions

    - by MarkPearl
    I recently heard of the concept of a Legacy Code Retreat. Since I have attended and helped facilitate some normal Code Retreats I thought it might be interesting in trying a Legacy Code Retreat, but I have a few questions on how a legacy CR differs from a normal one. If anyone has attended a Legacy CR and has some suggestions on how best to host these event’s please leave a comment on what has worked for you in the past or if you have any answers to my questions below… Should you restrict the languages that people can do the sessions in? In the normal CR’s I have been involved in the past we have had people attend and code in their programming language of choice. A normal CR lends itself to  this because each session starts with no code. With a legacy CR each session seems to start with an existing code base. Is there some sort of limitation on the languages that people can work in during the sessions? If not, how do you give them a base to start from? What happens as the beginning of each session? In the normal CR that I have attended each session would have a constraint set on it – i.e. no if statements used, no primitives, etc. With a legacy CR it seems more like patterns for refactoring are learned. Does the facilitator explain the pattern used before the session starts or are they just given a code base to start from and an objective to achieve

    Read the article

  • Centralizing a resource file among multiple projects in one solution (C#/WPF)

    - by MarkPearl
    One of the challenges one faces when doing multi language support in WPF is when one has several projects in one solution (i.e. a business layer & ui layer) and you want multi language support. Typically each solution would have a resource file – meaning if you have 3 projects in a solution you will have 3 resource files.   For me this isn’t an ideal solution, as you normally want to send the resource files to a translator and the more resource files you have, the more fragmented the dictionary will be and the more complicated it will be for the translator. This can easily be overcome by creating a single project that just holds your translation resources and then exposing it to the other projects as a reference as explained in the following steps. Step 1 Step 1 -  Add a class library to your solution that will contain just the resource files. Your solution will now have an additional project as illustrated below. Step 2 Reference this project to the other projects. Step 3 Move all the resources from the other resource files to the translation projects resource file. Step 4 Set the translations projects resource files access modifier to public. Step 5 Reference all other projects to use the translation resource file instead of their local resource file. To do this in xaml you would need to expose the project as a namespace at the top of the xaml file… note that the example below is for a project called MaxCutLanguages – you need to put the correct project name in its place.   xmlns:MaxCutLanguages="clr-namespace:MaxCutLanguages;assembly=MaxCutLanguages"   And then in the actual xaml you need to replace any text with a reference to the resource file. <TextBlock Text="{x:Static MaxCutLanguages:Properties.Resources.HelloWorld}"/> End Result You can now delete all the resource files in the other projects as you now have one centralized resource file.

    Read the article

  • F# Project Euler Problem 1

    - by MarkPearl
    Every now and then I give project Euler a quick browse. Since I have been playing with F# I have found it a great way to learn the basics of the language. Today I thought I would give problem 1 an attempt… Problem 1 If we list all the natural numbers below 10 that are multiples of 3 or 5, we get 3, 5, 6 and 9. The sum of these multiples is 23. Find the sum of all the multiples of 3 or 5 below 1000. My F# Solution I broke this problem into two functions… 1) be able to generate a collection of numbers that are multiples of a number but but are smaller than another number. let GenerateMultiplesOfXbelowY X Y = X |> Seq.unfold (fun i -> if (i<Y) then Some(i, i+X) else None) I then needed something that generated collections for multiples of 3 & 5 and then removed any duplicates. Once this was done I would need to sum these all together to get a result. I found the Seq object to be extremely useful to achieve this… let Multiples = Seq.append (GenerateMultiplesOfXbelowY 3 1000) (GenerateMultiplesOfXbelowY 5 1000) |> Seq.distinct |> Seq.fold(fun acc a -> acc + a) 0 |> Console.WriteLine |> Console.ReadLine My complete solution was … open System let GenerateMultiplesOfXbelowY X Y = X |> Seq.unfold (fun i -> if (i<Y) then Some(i, i+X) else None) let Multiples = Seq.append (GenerateMultiplesOfXbelowY 3 1000) (GenerateMultiplesOfXbelowY 5 1000) |> Seq.distinct |> Seq.fold(fun acc a -> acc + a) 0 |> Console.WriteLine |> Console.ReadLine   Which seemed to generate the correct result in a relatively short period of time although I am sure I will get some comments from the experts who know of some intrinsic method to achieve all of this in one method call.

    Read the article

  • WF4 &ndash; It has suddenly got interesting

    - by MarkPearl
    I was at Teched two years ago when one of the Microsoft leads said there were three new area’s that we needed to pay attention to for development, namely: WPF WCF WF At the time I was just getting back into development work and had a look at WPF and immediately was sold on the approach. While I haven’t been to involved with WCF directly, I know that some of the guys in my dev team have been and that it too was a success. So what happened to WF? It seemed clunky, and all the demo’s that I saw of it left me scratching my head wondering how if it was going to be useful. Fast forward two years later and while I have had a brief look at WF4, I can immediately see areas where we can use the technology. Does that mean that I think WF4 is the bees knees? I don’t know enough about it yet to really have a solid opinion, but I do think that it is finally going in the right direction. A good introduction to WF4 can be found here.

    Read the article

  • Where have I been for the last month?

    - by MarkPearl
    So, I have been pretty quiet for the last month or so. True, it has been holiday time and I went to Cape Town for a stunning week of sunshine and blue skies, but the second I got back home I spent the remainder of my holiday on my pc viewing tutorials on www.tekpub.com Craig Shoemaker, who I got in contact with because of his podcast, sent me a 1 month free subscription to the site and it has been really appreciated. I have done a lot of WPF programming in the past, but not any asp.net stuff and so I used the time to get a peek at asp.net mvc2 as well as a bunch of other technologies. I just wished I had more spare time to do the rest of the videos. While I didn’t understand all of what was being shown on the asp.net stuff (it required previous asp.net expertise), the site was a really good jump start to someone wanting to learn a new technology and broaden the horizons and I would highly recommend it, My only gripe is that in South Africa we have limited bandwidth and bandwidth speeds and so I spent a lot of my monthly bandwidth on the site and had to top up with my ISP several times because of the high quality video captures that the site did. I would have preferred to download the video’s, but apparently that is only available to people who have the yearly subscription fee. Other than that, great site and thanks a ton Craig!

    Read the article

  • Incentivizing Work with Development Teams

    - by MarkPearl
    Recently I saw someone on twitter asking about incentives and if anyone had past experience with incentivizing work. I promised to respond with some of the experiences I have had in the past so here goes... **Disclaimer** - these are my experiences with incentives, generally in software development - in some other industries this may not be applicable – this is also my thinking at this point in time, with more experience my opinion may change. Incentivize at the level that you want people to group at If you are wanting to promote a team mentality, incentivize teams. If you want to promote an individual mentality, incentivize individuals. There is nothing worse than mixing this up. Some organizations put a lot of effort in establishing teams and team mentalities but reward individuals. This has a counter effect on the resources they have put towards establishing a team mentality. In the software projects that I work with we want promote cross functional teams that collaborate. Personally, if I was on a team and knew that there was an opportunity to work on a critical component of the system, and that by doing so I would get a bigger bonus, then I would be hesitant to include other people in solving that problem. Thus, I would hinder the teams efforts in being cross functional and reduce collaboration levels. Does that mean everyone in the team should get an even share of an incentive? In most situations I would say yes - even though this may feel counter-intuitive. I have heard arguments put forward that if “person x contributed more than person Y then they should be rewarded more” – This may sound controversial but I would rather treat people how would you like them to perform, not where they currently are at. To add to this approach, if someone is free loading, you bet your bottom dollar that the team is going to make this a lot more transparent if they feel that individual is going to be rewarded at the same level that everyone else is. Bad incentives promote destructive work If you are going to incentivize people, pick you incentives very carefully. I had an experience once with a sales person who was told they would get a bonus provided that they met an ordering target with a particular supplier. What did this person do? They sold everything at cost for the next month or so. They reached the goal, but the company didn't gain anything from it. It was a bad incentive. Expect the same with development teams, if you incentivize zero bug levels, you will get zero code committed to the solution. If you incentivize lines of code, you will get many many lines of bad code. Is there such a thing as a good incentives? Monetary wise, I am not sure there is. I would much rather encourage organizations to pay their people what they are worth upfront. I would also advise against paying money to teams as an incentive or even a bonus or reward for reaching a milestone. Rather have a breakaway for the team that promotes team building as a reward if they reach a milestone than pay them more money. I would also advise against making the incentive the reason for them to reach the milestone. If this becomes the norm it promotes people to begin to only do their job if there is an incentive at the end of the line. This is not a behaviour one wants to encourage. If the team or individual is in the right mind-set, they should not work any harder than they are right now with normal pay.

    Read the article

  • F# &ndash; Converting your C# brain to the F# way

    - by MarkPearl
    My brain still thinks in C#!!! I have been looking at F# and trying to figure out the basics of it, but all the time in the back of my mind I am going – what is the C# equivalent to this or that… It’s frustrating because I almost want a F# to C# dictionary the whole time – and simply translate my C# code to F# – which would negate the main motivation for learning F# – as I want learn functional programming - if I was simply doing C# code in a F# syntax I would be gaining nothing! So I am experiencing pain while my brain forms some new neural networks… but luckily I live in a country where we have 11 official spoken languages, and plenty more unofficial languages so I have gone through the pain of learning how to speak a new language before – and I am finding the process is almost identical in learning a programming language that promotes a different way of looking at problems (from Object Orientated to Functional). That beings said… the first thing to learn is the basic syntax… I have searched the web for appropriate places to get a translation – and have been quite disappointed with what is out there for F#. Luckily, OCaml came to the rescue. There are some really good tutorials on getting started with OCaml syntax, one in particular that stood out was the OCamal-Tutorial. What I particularly like about it is that it is doing comparisons between C based languages and OCaml. Give it a read sometime – it’s well worth it and has definitely helped me understand F# a little better.

    Read the article

  • The sign of a true manager is delegation (C# style)

    - by MarkPearl
    Today I thought I would write a bit about delegates in C#. Up till recently I have managed to side step any real understanding of what delegates do and why they are useful – I mean, I know roughly what they do and have used them a lot, but I have never really got down dirty with them and mucked about. Recently however with my renewed interest in Silverlight delegates came up again as a possible solution to a particular problem, and suddenly I found myself opening a bland little console application to just see exactly how far I could take delegates with my limited knowledge. So, let’s first look at the MSDN definition of delegates… A delegate declaration defines a reference type that can be used to encapsulate a method with a specific signature. A delegate instance encapsulates a static or an instance method. Delegates are roughly similar to function pointers in C++; however, delegates are type-safe and secure. Well, don’t you love MSDN for such a useful definition. I must give it credit though… later on it really explains it a bit better by saying “A delegate lets you pass a function as a parameter. The type safety of delegates requires the function you pass as a delegate to have the same signature as the delegate declaration.” A little more reading up on delegates mentions that delegates are similar to interfaces in that they enable the separation of specification and implementation. A delegate declares a single method, while an interface declares a group of methods. So enough reading - lets look at some code and see a basic example of a delegate… Let’s assume we have a console application with a simple delegate declared called AdjustValue like below… class Program { private delegate int AdjustValue(int val); static void Main(string[] args) { } } In a sense, all we have said is that we will be creating one or more methods that follow the same pattern as AdjustValue – i.e. they will take one input value of type int and return an integer. We could then expand our code to have various methods that match the structure of our delegate AdjustValue (remember the structure is int xxx (int xxx)) class Program { private delegate int AdjustValue(int val); private static int Dbl(int val) { return val * 2; } private static int AlwaysOne(int val) { return 1; } static void Main(string[] args) { } }  Above I have expanded my project to have two methods, one called Dbl and the other AlwaysOne. Dbl always returns double the input val and AlwaysOne always returns 1. I could now declare a variable and assign it to be one of those functions, like the following… class Program { private delegate int AdjustValue(int val); private static int Dbl(int val) { return val * 2; } private static int AlwaysOne(int val) { return 1; } static void Main(string[] args) { AdjustValue myDelegate; myDelegate = Dbl; Console.WriteLine(myDelegate(1).ToString()); Console.ReadLine(); } } In this instance I have declared an instance of the AdjustValue delegate called myDelegate; I have then told myDelegate to point to the method Dbl, and then called myDelegate(1). What would the result be? Yes, in this instance it would be exactly the same as me calling the following code… static void Main(string[] args) { Console.WriteLine(Dbl(1).ToString()); Console.ReadLine(); }   So why all the extra work for delegates when we could just do what we did above and call the method directly? Well… that separation of specification to implementation comes to mind. So, this all seems pretty simple. Let’s take a slightly more complicated variation to the console application. Assume that my project is the same as the one previously except that my main method is adjusted as follows… static void Main(string[] args) { AdjustValue myDelegate; myDelegate = Dbl; myDelegate = AlwaysOne; Console.WriteLine(myDelegate(1).ToString()); Console.ReadLine(); } What would happen in this scenario? Quite simply “1” would be written to the console, the reason being that myDelegate was last pointing to the AlwaysOne method before it was called. Make sense? In a way, the myDelegate is a variable method that can be swapped and changed when needed. Let’s make the code a little more confusing by using a delegate in the declaration of another delegate as shown below… class Program { private delegate int AdjustValue(InputValue val); private delegate int InputValue(); private static int Dbl(InputValue val) { return val()*2; } private static int GetInputVal() { Console.WriteLine("Enter a whole number : "); return Convert.ToInt32(Console.ReadLine()); } static void Main(string[] args) { AdjustValue myDelegate; myDelegate = Dbl; Console.WriteLine(myDelegate(GetInputVal).ToString()); Console.ReadLine(); } }   Now it gets really interesting because it looks like we have passed a method into a function in the main method by declaring… Console.WriteLine(myDelegate(GetInputVal).ToString()); So, what it the output? Well, try take a guess on what will happen – then copy the code and see if you got it right. Well that brings me to the end of this short explanation of Delegates. Hopefully it made sense!

    Read the article

  • Dependency Injection Introduction

    - by MarkPearl
    I recently was going over a great book called “Dependency Injection in .Net” by Mark Seeman. So far I have really enjoyed the book and would recommend anyone looking to get into DI to give it a read. Today I thought I would blog about the first example Mark gives in his book to illustrate some of the benefits that DI provides. The ones he lists are Late binding Extensibility Parallel Development Maintainability Testability To illustrate some of these benefits he gives a HelloWorld example using DI that illustrates some of the basic principles. It goes something like this… class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { var writer = new ConsoleMessageWriter(); var salutation = new Salutation(writer); salutation.Exclaim(); Console.ReadLine(); } } public interface IMessageWriter { void Write(string message); } public class ConsoleMessageWriter : IMessageWriter { public void Write(string message) { Console.WriteLine(message); } } public class Salutation { private readonly IMessageWriter _writer; public Salutation(IMessageWriter writer) { _writer = writer; } public void Exclaim() { _writer.Write("Hello World"); } }   If you had asked me a few years ago if I had thought this was a good approach to solving the HelloWorld problem I would have resounded “No”. How could the above be better than the following…. class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { Console.WriteLine("Hello World"); Console.ReadLine(); } }  Today, my mind-set has changed because of the pain of past programs. So often we can look at a small snippet of code and make judgements when we need to keep in mind that we will most probably be implementing these patterns in projects with hundreds of thousands of lines of code and in projects that we have tests that we don’t want to break and that’s where the first solution outshines the latter. Let’s see if the first example achieves some of the outcomes that were listed as benefits of DI. Could I test the first solution easily? Yes… We could write something like the following using NUnit and RhinoMocks… [TestFixture] public class SalutationTests { [Test] public void ExclaimWillWriteCorrectMessageToMessageWriter() { var writerMock = MockRepository.GenerateMock<IMessageWriter>(); var sut = new Salutation(writerMock); sut.Exclaim(); writerMock.AssertWasCalled(x => x.Write("Hello World")); } }   This would test the existing code fine. Let’s say we then wanted to extend the original solution so that we had a secure message writer. We could write a class like the following… public class SecureMessageWriter : IMessageWriter { private readonly IMessageWriter _writer; private readonly string _secretPassword; public SecureMessageWriter(IMessageWriter writer, string secretPassword) { _writer = writer; _secretPassword = secretPassword; } public void Write(string message) { if (_secretPassword == "Mark") { _writer.Write(message); } else { _writer.Write("Unauthenticated"); } } }   And then extend our implementation of the program as follows… class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { var writer = new SecureMessageWriter(new ConsoleMessageWriter(), "Mark"); var salutation = new Salutation(writer); salutation.Exclaim(); Console.ReadLine(); } }   Our application has now been successfully extended and yet we did very little code change. In addition, our existing tests did not break and we would just need add tests for the extended functionality. Would this approach allow parallel development? Well, I am in two camps on parallel development but with some planning ahead of time it would allow for it as you would simply need to decide on the interface signature and could then have teams develop different sections programming to that interface. So,this was really just a quick intro to some of the basic concepts of DI that Mark introduces very successfully in his book. I am hoping to blog about this further as I continue through the book to list some of the more complex implementations of containers.

    Read the article

  • Nails vs Screws (C# List vs Dictionary)

    - by MarkPearl
    General This may sound like a typical noob statement, but I’m finding out in a very real way that just because you have a solution to a problem, doesn’t necessarily mean it is the best solution. This was reiterated to me when a friend of mine suggested I look at using Dictionaries instead of Lists for a particular problem – he was right, I have always just assumed that because lists solved my problem I did not need to look elsewhere. So my new manifesto to counter this ageless problem is as follows… Look for a solution that will logically work Once you have a solution look for possible alternatives Decide why your current solution is the best approach compared to the alternatives If it is.. use it till something better comes along, if it isnt…. change What’s the difference between Lists & Dictionaries Both lists and dictionaries are used to store collections of data. Assume we had the following declarations… var dic = new Dictionary<string, long>(); var lst = new List<long>(); long data;   With a list, you simply add the item to the list and it will add the item to the end of the list. lst.Add(data); With a dictionary, you need to specify some sort of key and the data you want to add so that it can be uniquely identified. dic.Add(uniquekey, data);   Because with a dictionary you now have unique identifier, in the background they provide all sort’s of optimized algorithms to find your associated data. What this means is that if you are wanting to access your data it is a lot faster than a List. So when is it appropriate to use either class? For me, if I can guarantee that each item in my collection will have a unique identifier, then I will use Dictionaries instead of Lists as there is a considerable performance benefit when accessing each data item. If I cannot make this sort of guarantee, then by default I will use a list. I know this is all really basic, and I hope I haven’t missed some fundamental principle… If anyone would like to add their 2 cents, please feel free to do so…

    Read the article

  • Project Euler Problem 14

    - by MarkPearl
    The Problem The following iterative sequence is defined for the set of positive integers: n n/2 (n is even) n 3n + 1 (n is odd) Using the rule above and starting with 13, we generate the following sequence: 13 40 20 10 5 16 8 4 2 1 It can be seen that this sequence (starting at 13 and finishing at 1) contains 10 terms. Although it has not been proved yet (Collatz Problem), it is thought that all starting numbers finish at 1. Which starting number, under one million, produces the longest chain? NOTE: Once the chain starts the terms are allowed to go above one million. The Solution   public static long NextResultOdd(long n) { return (3 * n) + 1; } public static long NextResultEven(long n) { return n / 2; } public static long TraverseSequence(long n) { long x = n; long count = 1; while (x > 1) { if (x % 2 == 0) x = NextResultEven(x); else x = NextResultOdd(x); count++; } return count; } static void Main(string[] args) { long largest = 0; long pos = 0; for (long i = 1000000; i > 1; i--) { long temp = TraverseSequence(i); if (temp > largest) { largest = temp; pos = i; } } Console.WriteLine("{0} - {1}", pos, largest); Console.ReadLine(); }

    Read the article

  • F# Application Entry Point

    - by MarkPearl
    Up to now I have been looking at F# for modular solutions, but have never considered writing an end to end application. Today I was wondering how one would even start to write an end to end application and realized that I didn’t even know where the entry point is for an F# application. After browsing MSDN a bit I got a basic example of a F# application with an entry point [<EntryPoint>] let main args = printfn "Arguments passed to function : %A" args // Return 0. This indicates success. 0 Pretty simple stuff… but what happens when you have a few modules in a program – so I created a F# project with two modules and a main module as illustrated in the image below… When I try to compile my program I get a build error… A function labeled with the 'EntryPointAttribute' attribute must be the last declaration in the last file in the compilation sequence, and can only be used when compiling to a .exe… What does this mean? After some more reading I discovered that the Program.fs needs to be the last file in the F# application – the order of the files in a F# solution are important. How do I move a source file up or down? I tried dragging the Program.fs file below ModuleB.fs but it wouldn’t allow me to. Then I thought to right click on a source file and got the following menu.   Wala… to move the source file to the bottom of the solution you can select the “Move Up” or “Move Down” option. Now that I got this right I decided to put some code in ModuleA & ModuleB and I have the start of a basic application structure. ModuleA Code namespace MyApp module ModuleA = let PrintModuleA = printf "hello a \n" ()   ModuleB Code namespace MyApp module ModuleB = let PrintModuleB = printf "hello b \n" ()   Program Code // Learn more about F# at http://fsharp.net #light namespace MyApp module Main = open System [<EntryPoint>] let main args = ModuleA.PrintModuleA let endofapp = Console.ReadKey() 0

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4  | Next Page >