Search Results

Search found 175 results on 7 pages for 'paradigms'.

Page 3/7 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  | Next Page >

  • Flow Based Programming

    - by Software Monkey
    I have been doing a little reading on Flow Based Programming over the last few days. There is a wiki which provides further detail. And wikipedia has a good overview on it too. My first thought was, "Great another proponent of lego-land pretend programming" - a concept harking back to the late 80's. But, as I read more, I must admit I have become intrigued. Have you used FBP for a real project? What is your opinion of FBP? Does FBP have a future? In some senses, it seems like the holy grail of reuse that our industry has pursued since the advent of procedural languages.

    Read the article

  • In which layer should I join 2 entities together?

    - by William
    I use Spring MVC and a regular JDBC. I've just learned that I should separate business process into layers which are presentation layer, controller layer, service layer, and repository/DAO layer. Now suppose that I have an Entity called Person that can have multiple Jobs. Job itself is another entity which have its own properties. From what I gathered, the repository layer only manages one entity. Now I have one entity that contains another entity. Where do I "join" them? The service layer? Suppose I want to get a person whose job isn't known yet (lazy loading). But the system might ask what the job of that particular person is later on. What is the role of each layer in this case? Please let me know if I need to add any detail into this question.

    Read the article

  • Getting started with C++ ( the paradigm shift from Python )

    - by orokusaki
    I want to learn C++ so that i can develop C++ Python modules for server-related stuff. I'm a purely dynamic languages developer (Python, PHP, Ruby, etc). I want to learn a fast language, and if I'm going to do this, I'd rather learn a really fast language like C++. Before I even get started though, I understand that suddenly working with static types, a different syntax, and compiling code will be quite the paradigm shift. Is there any advice that a C++ dev who also has dynamic languages experience can give me to me to help me make that shift faster?

    Read the article

  • Tools and environments supporting Domain Driven Design (DDD)

    - by anthares
    Hi everyone, I'm doing a kind of research on the topic "Domain Driven Design". My question is what tools (or maybe environments) do you use, that support this paradigm? I know that I can google it, but I wonder which of them actually work and are useful, since I have no experience with neither of them. I'm interesting mainly in the .NET Framework, but any other opinions are also welcome! Thanks !

    Read the article

  • What's the deal with all of the abstract stuff?

    - by JustVenting
    I see a lot of talk about MVVM, MVC, Design Patterns etc... You know, some guy has a blog, and he spent the last six months learning about one these things and desiging a program centered around that concept and then he goes on and on about it like its better than sliced bread. I read all of this crap and I wonder, whatever happened to simple logical programming? Not self-absorbed huge frameworks of design patterns and mvc and whatever else you can think of... just simple linear programming, perhaps a few classes to encapsulate things here and there.

    Read the article

  • What things didn't you know you needed but are now very glad you have?

    - by DrStalker
    Take a programmer that has never used source control, show them what it does, and their eyes light up... the benefits are obvious but until they actually see it most people had never considered the existence of such a tool. What other such things exist? Tools or approaches or techniques that aren't obvious before you encounter them, but once seen have obvious value. Things that are likely so ingrained in the way you work that it's hard to think of working without them, things almost embarrassing to bring up because you expect the other person to say "duh, that's obvious!" No matter how petty something seems there is a chance that other people don't know about it yet; I'd like to get an idea on what things I'm missing simply because I never thought of them.

    Read the article

  • Which programming paradigm or language open most your mind?

    - by Dom De Felice
    It is often said that some programming languages exist that once grasped can open your mind and change the way you write software. A sort of "software design enlightenment", we can say. I heard this about Lisp, Smalltalk, Haskell, pure functional programming in general.. What are your experiences about this? I know that the right language to use depends on your needs, but I would like to know the one that better improve your programming skills in general. What do you think would be the best language/paradigm to learn to end up being a better programmer in the long run?

    Read the article

  • How can Domain driven design be combined with aspect oriented programming?

    - by anthares
    I'm doing research and one point I want to cover is "What is the relationship between Domain-driven Design and Aspect oriented programming?" I know that a main principle in DDD is separation of concerns and I understand that. What I'm not really certain is, whether aspects in AOP acts like "sub domains" in our domain in DDD. Are these two concepts, basically the same thing. I mean, If I develop an application following AOP and DDD, at the end of the day will it be true that "a sub domain" == "an aspect". I will also appreciate any other opinions what is the common between AOP and DDD.

    Read the article

  • Publish/Subscribe paradigm: Why must message classes not know about their subscribers?

    - by carleeto
    From Wikipedia: "Publish/subscribe (or pub/sub) is a messaging paradigm where senders (publishers) of messages are not programmed to send their messages to specific receivers (subscribers). Rather, published messages are characterized into classes, without knowledge of what (if any) subscribers there may be" I can understand why a sender must not be programmed to send its message to a specific receiver. But why must published messages be classes that do not have knowledge of their subscribers? It would seem that once the messaging system itself is in place, what typically changes as software evolves is the messages sent, the publishers and the receivers. Keeping the messages separate from the subscribers seems to imply that the subscription model might also change. Is this the reason? Also, does this occur in the real world? I realize this may be a basic question, but I'm trying to understand this paradigm and your replies are very much appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Why did object-oriented paradigms take so long to go mainstream?

    - by Earlz
    I read this question and it got me thinking about another fairly recent thing. Object oriented languages. I'm not sure when the first one was created, but why did it take so long before they became mainstream? C became vastly popular, but didn't become the object-oriented C++ for years(decades?) later No mainstream language before the 90s was object oriented Object oriented really seemed to take off with Java and C++ around the same time Now, my question, why did this take so long? Why wasn't C originally conceived as an object-oriented language? Taking a very small subset of C++ wouldn't have affected the core language a whole lot, so why was this idea not popular until the 90s?

    Read the article

  • New or not so well-known paradigms, syntax features and behaviours of programming languages?

    - by George B
    I've designed some educational programming languages and interpreters for them, but my problem always was that they ended up "normal" and "boring", mostly similar to some kind of existing language (ASM and BASIC). I find it really hard to come up with new ideas for syntax features, "neat things" and new or very modified programming paradigms for it. I always thought that it was hard to come up with good new things not fun/useless new things for this case. I wondered if you could help me out with your creativity: What features in terms of language syntax and built-in functions as well as maybe even new paradigms can I work into my language to keep it useless but more fun, enjoyable, interesting and/or different to program in?

    Read the article

  • Ideal programming language learning sequence?

    - by Gulshan
    What do you think? What is the ideal programming language learning sequence which will cover most of the heavily used languages and paradigms today as well as help to grasp common programming basics, ideas and practices? You can even suggest learning sequence for paradigms rather than languages. N.B. : This is port of the question I asked in stackoverflow and was closed for being subjective and argumentative.

    Read the article

  • Ideal programming language learning sequence? [closed]

    - by Gulshan
    What do you think? What is the ideal programming language learning sequence which will cover most of the heavily used languages and paradigms today as well as help to grasp common programming basics, ideas and practices? You can even suggest learning sequence for paradigms rather than languages. N.B. : This is port of the question I asked in stackoverflow and was closed for being subjective and argumentative.

    Read the article

  • Game-oriented programming language features/objectives/paradigm?

    - by Klaim
    What are the features and language objectives (general problems to solves) or paradigms that a fictive programming language targetted at games (any kind of game) would require? For example, obviously we would have at least Performance (in speed and memory) (because a lot of games simply require that), but it have a price in the languages we currently use. Expressivity might be a common feature that is required for all languages. I guess some concepts from not-usually-used-for-games paradigms, like actor-based languages, or language-based message passing, might be useful too. So I ask you what would be ideal for games. (maybe one day someone will take those answers and build a language over it? :D ) Please set 1 feature/objective/paradigm per answer. Note: maybe that question don't make sense to you. In this case please explain why in an answer. It's a good thing to have answers to this question that might pop in your head sometimes.

    Read the article

  • what is programming paradigm in haskell

    - by Pradeep
    im preparing for my exam. i got this question and i read several articles about this. but still i cant get a proper idea about this question what Paradigm means is that different programming styles ( as far as i think) in the question they ask explain it by taking two paradigms so this explanation should be done using two styles of programming "List Comprehnsions or Primitive Recursion, Higher order functions " is these styles are programming paradigms?? please help me

    Read the article

  • Akka react vs receive

    - by Will I Am
    I am reading my way through Akka tutorials, but I'd like to get my feet wet with a real-life scenario. I'd like to write both a connectionless UDP server (an echo/ping-pong service) and a TCP server (also an echo service, but it keeps the connection open after it replies). My first question is, is this a good experimental use case for Akka, or am I better served with more common paradigms like IOCP? Would you do something like this with Akka in production? Although I understand conceptually the difference between react() and receive(), I struggle to choose one or the other for the two models. In the UDP model, there is no concept of who the sender is on the server, once the pong is sent, so should I use receive()? In the TCP model, the connection is maintained on the server after the pong, so should I use react()? If someone could give me some guidance, and maybe an opinion on how you'd design these two use cases, it would take me a long way. I have found a number of examples, but they didn't have explanations as to why they chose the paradigms they did.

    Read the article

  • Performance of concurrent software on multicore processors

    - by Giorgio
    Recently I have often read that, since the trend is to build processors with multiple cores, it will be increasingly important to have programming languages that support concurrent programming in order to better exploit the parallelism offered by these processors. In this respect, certain programming paradigms or models are considered well-suited for writing robust concurrent software: Functional programming languages, e.g. Haskell, Scala, etc. The actor model: Erlang, but also available for Scala / Java (Akka), C++ (Theron, Casablanca, ...), and other programming languages. My questions: What is the state of the art regarding the development of concurrent applications (e.g. using multi-threading) using the above languages / models? Is this area still being explored or are there well-established practices already? Will it be more complex to program applications with a higher level of concurrency, or is it just a matter of learning new paradigms and practices? How does the performance of highly concurrent software compare to the performance of more traditional software when executed on multiple core processors? For example, has anyone implemented a desktop application using C++ / Theron, or Java / Akka? Was there a boost in performance on a multiple core processor due to higher parallelism?

    Read the article

  • Web 2.0 Extension for ASP.NET

    - by Visual WebGui
    ASP.NET is now much extended to support line of business and data centric applications, providing Web 2.0 rich user interfaces within a native web environment. New capabilities allowed by the Visual WebGui extension turn Visual Studio into a rapid development tool for the web, leveraging the wide set of ASP.NET web infrastructures runtime and extending its paradigms to support highly interactive applications. Taking advantage of the ASP.NET infrastructures Using the native ASP.NET ISAPI filter: aspnet_isapi...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Should universities put more emphasis on teaching their students about design patterns?

    - by gablin
    While I've heard about design patterns being mentioned in a few courses at uni, I know of only a single course which actually teaches design patterns. In almost all other areas (algorithms, parallelism, architecture, dynamic languages, paradigms, etc), there are several, often a basic course and an advanced course. Should universities put more emphasis about teaching their students about design patterns and provide more courses in design patters? Are lack of knowledge about design patterns common in just-graduated junior developers?

    Read the article

  • MS SQL Server 2008 Developer Training Kit Released

    - by Aamir Hasan
    The SQL Server 2008 Developer Training Kit will help you understand how to build web applications which deeply exploit the rich data types, programming models and new development paradigms in SQL Server 2008.  http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=E9C68E1B-1E0E-4299-B498-6AB3CA72A6D7&displaylang=en

    Read the article

  • OTN's Virtual Developer Day: Deep dive on WebLogic and Java EE 6

    - by ruma.sanyal
    Come join us and learn how Oracle WebLogic Server enables a whole new level of productivity for enterprise developers. Also hear the latest on Java EE 6 and the programming tenets that have made it a true platform breakthrough, with new programming paradigms, persistence strategies, and more: Convention over configuration - minimal XML Leaner and meaner API - and one that is an open standard POJO model - managed beans for testable components Annotation-based programming model - decorate and inject Reduce or eliminate need for deployment descriptors Traditional API for advanced users How to participate: register online, and we'll email you the details.

    Read the article

  • Why is multithreading often preferred for improving performance?

    - by user1849534
    I have a question, it's about why programmers seems to love concurrency and multi-threaded programs in general. I'm considering 2 main approaches here: an async approach basically based on signals, or just an async approach as called by many papers and languages like the new C# 5.0 for example, and a "companion thread" that manages the policy of your pipeline a concurrent approach or multi-threading approach I will just say that I'm thinking about the hardware here and the worst case scenario, and I have tested this 2 paradigms myself, the async paradigm is a winner at the point that I don't get why people 90% of the time talk about multi-threading when they want to speed up things or make a good use of their resources. I have tested multi-threaded programs and async program on an old machine with an Intel quad-core that doesn't offer a memory controller inside the CPU, the memory is managed entirely by the motherboard, well in this case performances are horrible with a multi-threaded application, even a relatively low number of threads like 3-4-5 can be a problem, the application is unresponsive and is just slow and unpleasant. A good async approach is, on the other hand, probably not faster but it's not worst either, my application just waits for the result and doesn't hangs, it's responsive and there is a much better scaling going on. I have also discovered that a context change in the threading world it's not that cheap in real world scenario, it's in fact quite expensive especially when you have more than 2 threads that need to cycle and swap among each other to be computed. On modern CPUs the situation it's not really that different, the memory controller it's integrated but my point is that an x86 CPUs is basically a serial machine and the memory controller works the same way as with the old machine with an external memory controller on the motherboard. The context switch is still a relevant cost in my application and the fact that the memory controller it's integrated or that the newer CPU have more than 2 core it's not bargain for me. For what i have experienced the concurrent approach is good in theory but not that good in practice, with the memory model imposed by the hardware, it's hard to make a good use of this paradigm, also it introduces a lot of issues ranging from the use of my data structures to the join of multiple threads. Also both paradigms do not offer any security abut when the task or the job will be done in a certain point in time, making them really similar from a functional point of view. According to the X86 memory model, why the majority of people suggest to use concurrency with C++ and not just an async approach ? Also why not considering the worst case scenario of a computer where the context switch is probably more expensive than the computation itself ?

    Read the article

  • Why C++ people loves multithreading when it comes to performances?

    - by user1849534
    I have a question, it's about why programmers seems to love concurrency and multi-threaded programs in general. I'm considering 2 main approach here: an async approach basically based on signals, or just an async approach as called by many papers and languages like the new C# 5.0 for example, and a "companion thread" that maanges the policy of your pipeline a concurrent approach or multi-threading approach I will just say that I'm thinking about the hardware here and the worst case scenario, and I have tested this 2 paradigms myself, the async paradigm is a winner at the point that I don't get why people 90% of the time talk about concurrency when they wont to speed up things or make a good use of their resources. I have tested multi-threaded programs and async program on an old machine with an Intel quad-core that doesn't offer a memory controller inside the CPU, the memory is managed entirely by the motherboard, well in this case performances are horrible with a multi-threaded application, even a relatively low number of threads like 3-4-5 can be a problem, the application is unresponsive and is just slow and unpleasant. A good async approach is, on the other hand, probably not faster but it's not worst either, my application just waits for the result and doesn't hangs, it's responsive and there is a much better scaling going on. I have also discovered that a context change in the threading world it's not that cheap in real world scenario, it's infact quite expensive especially when you have more than 2 threads that need to cycle and swap among each other to be computed. On modern CPUs the situation it's not really that different, the memory controller it's integrated but my point is that an x86 CPUs is basically a serial machine and the memory controller works the same way as with the old machine with an external memory controller on the motherboard. The context switch is still a relevant cost in my application and the fact that the memory controller it's integrated or that the newer CPU have more than 2 core it's not bargain for me. For what i have experienced the concurrent approach is good in theory but not that good in practice, with the memory model imposed by the hardware, it's hard to make a good use of this paradigm, also it introduces a lot of issues ranging from the use of my data structures to the join of multiple threads. Also both paradigms do not offer any security abut when the task or the job will be done in a certain point in time, making them really similar from a functional point of view. According to the X86 memory model, why the majority of people suggest to use concurrency with C++ and not just an async aproach ? Also why not considering the worst case scenario of a computer where the context switch is probably more expensive than the computation itself ?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  | Next Page >