Search Results

Search found 76 results on 4 pages for 'torn'.

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

• Impressions on jQuery Mobile

  - by Jeff

  For the uninitiated, jQuery Mobile is a sweet little client framework that turns regular HTML into something more touch and mobile friendly. It results in a user interface that has bigger targets, rounded corners and simple skinning capability. When it was announced that ASP.NET MVC 4 would include support for a mobile-sensitive view engine, offering up alternate views for clients that fit the mobile profile, I was all over that. Combined with jQuery Mobile, it brought a chance to do some experimentation. I blitzed through the views in POP Forums and converted them all to mobile views. (For the curious, this first pass can be found here on CodePlex, while a more recent update that uses RC 2 of jQuery Mobile v1.1.0 is running on the demo site.) Initially, it was kind of a mixed bag. The jQuery demo site also acts as documentation, and it’s reasonably complete. I had no problem getting up a lot of basic views quickly, splitting out portions of some pages as subpages that they quickly load in. The default behavior in the older version was to slide the pages in, which looked a little weird when you were using a back button. They’ve since changed it so the default transition is a fade in/out. Because you’re dealing with Web pages, I don’t think anyone is really under the illusion that you’re not using a native app, so I don’t know that this matters. I’ve tested extensively on iPad and Windows Phone, and to be honest, I’ve encountered a lot of issues. On Windows Phone, there is some kind of inconsistency that prevents the proper respect for the viewport settings. The text background on text fields (for labeling) doesn’t work, either. On both platforms, certain in-DOM page navigation links work only half of the time. Is this an issue of user error? Probably, but that’s what’s frustrating about it. Most of what you accomplish with this framework involves decorating various elements with CSS classes. There isn’t any design-time safety to speak of to make sure that you’re doing it right. I think the issues can be overcome, but there are some trade-offs to consider. The first is download size. Yes, the scripts and CSS do get cached, but that first hit will cost nearly 40k for the mobile parts. That’s still a lot when you’re on some crappy AT&T EDGE network, or hotel Wi-Fi. Then you have to ask yourself, do you really want your app to look like it’s native to iOS? I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, because consistent UI is good, but you will end up feeling a whole lot of sameness, and maybe you don’t want that. I did some experimentation to try and Metro-ize the jQuery Mobile theme, and it’s kind of a mixed bag. It mostly works, but you get some weirdness on badges and with buttons that I’m not crazy about. It probably just means you need to keep tweaking. At this point, I’m a little torn about whether or not I’ll use it for POP Forums or one of the sites I’m working on. The benefits are pretty strong, but figuring out where I’m doing it wrong is proving a little time consuming.

  Read the article

• Looking for Recommendations on Version Control System with Intuitive (.NET) API?

  - by John L.

  I'm working on a project which generates (composite) Microsoft Word documents which are comprised of one or more child documents. There are tens of thousands of permutations of the composite documents. Far too many for users to easily manage. Users will need to view/edit the child documents through the app which hides all of the nasty implementation details. A requirement of the system is that the child documents must be version controlled. That is what has been tripping me up. I've been torn between using an off-the-shelf solution or rolling my own. At a minimum, the system needs to support get latest, get specific version, add new, rename and possibly delete. I’ve whiteboarded it enough to realize it won’t be a trivial task to create my own. As far as commercial systems I have VSS and TFS at my disposal. I've played with the TFS API some, but it isn’t as intuitive or well documented as I had hoped. I'm not averse to an open source solution (e.g. SVN), but I have less familiarity with them. Which approach or tool would you recommend? Why? Do you have any links to API documentation you would recommend? Environment: C#, VS2008, SQL Server 2005/2008, low volume (a few hundred operations per day)

  Read the article

• Properties vs. Fields: Need help grasping the uses of Properties over Fields.

  - by pghtech

  First off, I have read through a list of postings on this topic and I don't feel I have grasped properties because of what I had come to understand about encapsulation and field modifiers (private, public..ect). One of the main aspects of C# that I have come to learn is the importance of data protection within your code by the use of encapsulation. I 'thought' I understood that to be because of the ability of the use of the modifiers (private, public, internal, protected). However, after learning about properties I am sort of torn in understanding not only properties uses, but the overall importance/ability of data protection (what I understood as encapsulation) within C#. To be more specific, everything I have read when I got to properties in C# is that you should try to use them in place of fields when you can because of: 1) they allow you to change the data type when you can't when directly accessing the field directly. 2) they add a level of protection to data access However, from what I 'thought' I had come to know about the use of field modifiers did #2, it seemed to me that properties just generated additional code unless you had some reason to change the type (#1) - because you are (more or less) creating hidden methods to access fields as opposed to directly. Then there is the whole modifiers being able to be added to Properties which further complicates my understanding for the need of properties to access data. I have read a number of chapters from different writers on "properties" and none have really explained a good understanding of properties vs. fields vs. encapsulation (and good programming methods). Can someone explain: 1) why I would want to use properties instead of fields (especially when it appears I am just adding additional code 2) any tips on recognizing the use of properties and not seeing them as simply methods (with the exception of the get;set being apparent) when tracing other peoples code? 3) Any general rules of thumb when it comes to good programming methods in relation to when to use what? Thanks and sorry for the long post - I didn't want to just ask a question that has been asked 100x without explaining why I am asking it again.

  Read the article

• Can a stateless WCF service benefit from built-in database connection pooling?

  - by vladimir

  I understand that a typical .NET application that accesses a(n SQL Server) database doesn't have to do anything in particular in order to benefit from the connection pooling. Even if an application repeatedly opens and closes database connections, they do get pooled by the framework (assuming that things such as credentials do not change from call to call). My usage scenario seems to be a bit different. When my service gets instantiated, it opens a database connection once, does some work, closes the connection and returns the result. Then it gets torn down by the WCF, and the next incoming call creates a new instance of the service. In other words, my service gets instantiated per client call, as in [ServiceBehavior(InstanceContextMode = InstanceContextMode.PerCall)]. The service accesses an SQL Server 2008 database. I'm using .NET framework 3.5 SP1. Does the connection pooling still work in this scenario, or I need to roll my own connection pool in form of a singleton or by some other means (IInstanceContextProvider?). I would rather avoid reinventing the wheel, if possible.

  Read the article

• OO vs Simplicity when it comes to user interaction

  - by Oetzi

  Firstly, sorry if this question is rather vague but it's something I'd really like an answer to. As a project over summer while I have some downtime from Uni I am going to build a monopoly game. This question is more about the general idea of the problem however, rather than the specific task I'm trying to carry out. I decided to build this with a bottom up approach, creating just movement around a forty space board and then moving on to interaction with spaces. I realised that I was quite unsure of the best way of proceeding with this and I am torn between two design ideas: Giving every space its own object, all sub-classes of a Space object so the interaction can be defined by the space object itself. I could do this by implementing different land() methods for each type of space. Only giving the Properties and Utilities (as each property has unique features) objects and creating methods for dealing with the buying/renting etc in the main class of the program (or Board as I'm calling it). Spaces like go and super tax could be implemented by a small set of conditionals checking to see if player is on a special space. Option 1 is obviously the OO (and I feel the correct) way of doing things but I'd like to only have to handle user interaction from the programs main class. In other words, I don't want the space objects to be interacting with the player. Why? Errr. A lot of the coding I've done thus far has had this simplicity but I'm not sure if this is a pipe dream or not for larger projects. Should I really be handling user interaction in an entirely separate class? As you can see I am quite confused about this situation. Is there some way round this? And, does anyone have any advice on practical OO design that could help in general?

  Read the article

• Maven - 'all' or 'parent' project for aggregation?

  - by disown

  For educational purposes I have set up a project layout like so (flat in order to suite eclipse better): -product | |-parent |-core |-opt |-all Parent contains an aggregate project with core, opt and all. Core implements the mandatory part of the application. Opt is an optional part. All is supposed to combine core with opt, and has these two modules listed as dependencies. I am now trying to make the following artifacts: product-core.jar product-core-src.jar product-core-with-dependencies.jar product-opt.jar product-opt-src.jar product-opt-with-dependencies.jar product-all.jar product-all-src.jar product-all-with-dependencies.jar Most of them are fairly straightforward to produce. I do have some problem with the aggregating artifacts though. I have managed to make the product-all-src.jar with a custom assembly descriptor in the 'all' module which downloads the sources for all non-transitive deps, and this works fine. This technique also allows me to make the product-all-with-dependencies.jar. I however recently found out that you can use the source:aggregate goal in the source plugin to aggregate sources of the entire aggregate project. This is also true for the javadoc plugin, which also aggregates through the usage of the parent project. So I am torn between my 'all' module approach and ditching the 'all' module and just use the 'parent' module for all aggregation. It feels unclean to have some aggregate artifacts produced in 'parent', and others produced in 'all'. Is there a way of making an 'product-all' jar in the parent project, or to aggregate javadoc in the 'all' project? Or should I just keep both? Thanks

  Read the article

• Design Philosophy Question - When to create new functions

  - by Eclyps19

  This is a general design question not relating to any language. I'm a bit torn between going for minimum code or optimum organization. I'll use my current project as an example. I have a bunch of tabs on a form that perform different functions. Lets say Tab 1 reads in a file with a specific layout, tab 2 exports a file to a specific location, etc. The problem I'm running into now is that I need these tabs to do something slightly different based on the contents of a variable. If it contains a 1 I may need to use Layout A and perform some extra concatenation, if it contains a 2 I may need to use Layout B and do no concatenation but add two integer fields, etc. There could be 10+ codes that I will be looking at. Is it more preferable to create an individual path for each code early on, or attempt to create a single path that branches out only when absolutely required. Creating an individual path for each code would allow my code to be extremely easy to follow at a glance, which in turn will help me out later on down the road when debugging or making changes. The downside to this is that I will increase the amount of code written by calling some of the same functions in multiple places (for example, steps 3, 5, and 9 for every single code may be exactly the same. Creating a single path that would branch out only when required will be a bit messier and more difficult to follow at a glance, but I would create less code by placing conditionals only at steps that are unique. I realize that this may be a case-by-case decision, but in general, if you were handed a previously built program to work on, which would you prefer?

  Read the article

• Support clicking a link, but sending a POST (vs GET) to the server, without Ajax?

  - by xyld

  I'm thinking this isn't exactly possible, but maybe I'm wrong. I'm simply torn between those who believe that only POST requests should modify data on the server and people that relax the rule and allow GET requests to modify data. Take this situation. Say you have a table, each row is a row in the database. I'd like to allow them to delete the row via a fancy "X" icon as the very last <td></td> element in the row. AFAIK, the only way to send a POST to the server is via a form. But do I really stuff an entire form into the last <td></td> element just to do a POST? Or should I cheat and use an <a href=...></a> tag that sends a GET request? You may be thinking "Do both! Send a POST AND use the <a ...></a> tag! Use fancy javascript + xhr!" And I'll say, oh? And how will that degrade in a zero javascript environment? Maybe we've reached a point when it doesn't make sense to worry about gracefully degrading? I'm not sure. You tell me? I'm new to web development, but I understand most of the concepts involved.

  Read the article

• Modeling Buyers & Sellers in a Rails Ecommerce App

  - by MikeH

  I'm building a Rails app that has Etsy.com style functionality. In other words, it's like a mall. There are many buyers and many sellers. I'm torn about how to model the sellers. Key facts: There won't be many sellers. Perhaps less than 20 sellers in total. There will be many buyers. Hopefully many thousands :) I already have a standard user model in place with account creation and roles. I've created a 'role' of 'seller', which the admin will manually apply to the proper users. Since we'll have very few sellers, this is not an issue. I'm considering two approaches: (1) Create a 'store' model, which will contain all the relevant store information. Products would :belong_to :store, rather than belonging to the seller. The relationship between the user and store models would be: user :has_one store. My main problem with this is that I've always found has_one associations to be a little funky, and I usually try to avoid them. The app is fairly complex, and I'm worried about running into a cascade of problems connected to the has_one association as I get further along into development. (2) Simply include the relevant 'store' information as part of the user model. But in this case, the store-related db columns would only apply to a very small percentage of users since very few users will also be sellers. I'm not sure if this is a valid concern or not. It's very possible that I'm thinking about this incorrectly. I appreciate any thoughts. Thanks.

  Read the article

• Object model design choice

  - by spinon

  I am currently working on a ASP.NET MVC reporting application using C#. This is a redesign from a PHP application that was just initially thrown together and is now starting to gain some more traction. SowWe are in the process of reworking the backend to have a more OO approach. One of the descisions I am currently wrestling with is how to structure the domain objects. Since 95% of the site is readonly I am not sure if the typical approaches are practical. Should I create domain objects for the primary pieces of the application (ticket, assignment, assignee) and then create static methods off of these areas to pull the reporting data? Or should I just skip that part and create the chart data classes and have some get method off of these classes? It's not a real big application and currenlty I am the only one developing on it. But I feel torn as to which approach. I feel that the first one is the better choice but maybe overkill given that the majority of uses is for aggregate reporting. Anybody have some good insight on why I should go one way or another?

  Read the article

• Cacti: "An internal Net-Snmp error condition detected in Cacti snmp_count"

  - by Recc

  There's the odd forum topic about an error similarly obscure as this, but I haven't seen any for snmp_count in particular. Also I don't see graphing problems, though I can't simply go and eyeball all graphs. However the poller does time out and has to be stopped by its internal process preventing overruns. If I filter out the flood of this error in the log I dont get anything else except the poller timeout: 06/12/2014 12:48:00 PM - POLLER: Poller[0] Maximum runtime of 58 seconds exceeded. Exiting. 06/12/2014 12:48:00 PM - SYSTEM STATS: Time:58.8566 Method:spine Processes:1 Threads:40 Hosts:1923 HostsPerProcess:1923 DataSources:61584 RRDsProcessed:0 06/12/2014 12:48:00 PM - SPINE: Poller[0] ERROR: Spine Timed Out While Processing Hosts Internal I saw in the running processes /usr/local/spine/spine 0 2053 that's always left behind. When I kill it the flooding of the error stops. Of course it's the same on the next poll run as it goes through the devices. 2053 is apparently the DB ID for a device. I deleted it completely to see if that stops it. It doesn't, instead 2052 is seen there. I suspect It'll be the same if I keep deleting devices which I will not do. This started happening midday when I wasn't doing anything to the cacti server. I have tried reducing Maximum Threads per Process to 1 and Number of PHP Script Servers to 1. I've been running it at 10 script servers / 40 threads for months with poll cycle time of about 20 sec. I just found out Running snmpwalk on any host would begin returning the values but then timeout halfway through. This doesn't happen from different servers on the network this Cacti is suggesting still that it's a problem with it locally. Any suggestions? For one polling cycle I changed to use cmd.php instead. then I started getting errors like CMDPHP: Poller[0] Host[45] DS[541] WARNING: Result from SNMP not valid. Partial Result: U Perhaps as expected. Looking closely I see that every snmpwalk I do is interrupted at the same place as if some byte limit is hit and the connection torn down.

  Read the article

• What router hardware or software should be used when multiple public IPs are routed into the same LAN?

  - by lcbrevard

  I am looking for recommendations to replace a set of consumer grade (Linksys, Netgear, Belkin) routers with something that can handle more traffic while routing more than one static public IP into the same LAN address space. We have a block of static public IPs, 5 usable, with Comcast Business. Currently four of them are in use for: General office access Web server Mail and DNS servers Download and backup web server for separate business All systems (a mixture of physical and virtual) are in the same LAN address space (10.x.y.0/24) to enable easy access between them inside the office. There are 30 or more systems in use depending on which virtual machines are currently active. We have a mixture of Windows, Linux, FreeBSD, and Solaris. Currently a separate consumer grade router is used for each of the four static addresses, with its WAN address set to the specific static address and a different gateway address for each: uses 10.x.y.1 - various ports are forwarded to various LAN IPs on systems with gateway 10.x.y.1 uses 10.x.y.254 - port 80 is forwarded to a server with gateway 10.x.y.254 uses 10.x.y.253 - ports for mail and dns are forwarded to a server with gateway 10.x.y.253 uses 10.x.y.252 - ports as needed are forwarded to server with gateway 10.x.y.252 Only router 1. is allowed to serve DHCP and address reservation based on the MAC is used for most of the internal "server" IP addresses so they are at fixed values. [Some are set static due to limitations in the address reservation capabilities of router 1.] And, yes, this really does work! But... I am looking for: better DHCP with more capable address reservation higher capacity so I don't have to periodically power cycle the routers One obvious improvement would be to have a real DHCP server and not use a consumer grade router for that purpose. I am torn between buying a "professional" router such as Cisco or Juniper or Sonic Wall verus learning to configure some spare hardware to perform this function. The price goes up extremely rapidly with capabilities for commercial routers! Worse, some routers require licensing based on the number of clients - a disaster in our environment with so many virtual machines. Sorry for such a long posting but I am getting tired of having to power cycle routers and deal with shifting IP addresses afterwards!

  Read the article

• Backpacks and Booth Paint: TechEd 2012

  - by The Un-T Guy

  Arriving in the parking lot of the Orange County Convention Center, I immediately knew I was in the right place. As far as the eye could see, the acres of asphalt were awash in backpacks, quirky (to be kind) outfits, and bad haircuts. This was the place. This was Microsoft Mecca v2012 for geeks and nerds, the Central Florida event of the year, a gathering of high tech professionals whose skills I both greatly respect and, frankly, fear a little. I was wholly and completely out of element, a dork in a vast sea of geek jumbo. It like was wearing dockers and a golf shirt walking into a RenFaire, but one with really crappy costumes and no turkey legs...save those attached to some of the attendees. Of course the corporate whores...errrr, vendors were in place, ready to parlay the convention's fre-nerd-ic energy into millions of dollars by convincing the big-brained and under-sexed in the crowd (i.e., virtually all of them...present company excluded, of course) that their product or service was the only thing standing between them and professional success, industry fame, and clear skin. "With KramTech 2012," they seemed to scream, "you will be THE ROCK STAR of your company's IT department!" As car shows and tattoo parlors learned long ago, Tech companies seem to believe that the best way to attract the attention of this crowd is through the hint of the promise of sex. They recruit and deploy an army of "sales reps" whose primary qualifications appear to be long hair, short skirts, high heels, and a vagina. Unlike their distant cousins in the car and body art industries, however, this sub-species of booth paint (semi-gloss decoration that adds nothing to the substance of the product) seems torn between committing to being all-out sex objects and recognition that they are in the presence of intelligent, discerning people. People who are smart enough to know exactly what these vendors are doing. Also unlike their distant car show and tattoo shop cousins, these young women (what…are there no gay tech professionals who could use some eye candy?) seem to realize that while IT remains a male-dominated field, there are ever-increasing numbers of intelligent, capable, strong professional women – women who’ve battled to make it in this field through hard work and work performance rather than a hard body and performing after work. This is not to say that all of the young female sales reps are there only because of their physical attributes. Many are competent, intelligent, and driven -- not to mention attractive. They're working hard on the front lines of delivering the next generation of technology. The distinction is pretty clear, however, between these young professionals and the booth paint. The former enthusiastically deliver credible information about the products they’re hawking. The latter are positioned in the aisles, uncomfortably avoiding eye contact as they struggle to operate the badge readers. Surprisingly, not all of the women in attendance seemed to object to the objectification of their younger sisters. One IT professional woman who came of age in the industry (mostly in IT marketing) said, “I have no problem with it. I was a ‘booth babe’ for years and it doesn’t bother me at all.” Others, however, weren’t quite so gracious. One woman I spoke with, an IT manager from Cheyenne, Wyoming, said it was demeaning and frankly, as more and more women grow into IT management positions, not a great marketing idea. “Using these young women is, to me, no different than vendors giving out t-shirts to attract attention. It’s sad because it’s still hard for a woman to be respected in the IT field and this just perpetuates the outdated notion that IT is a male-dominated field.” She went on to say that decisions by vendors to employ these young women in this “inappropriate way” could impact her purchasing decisions. “I might be swayed toward a vendor who has women on staff who are intelligent and dynamic rather than the vendors who use the ‘decoration’ girls.” So in many ways, the IT industry is no different than most other industries as it struggles to maximize performance by finding and developing talent – all of the talent, not just the 50% with a penis. Women in IT, like their brethren, struggle to find their niche in the field, to grow professionally, and reach for the brass ring, struggling to overcome obstacles as they climb the mountain of professional success in a never-ending cycle of economic uncertainty. But as (generally) well-educated and highly-trained professionals, they are probably better positioned than those in many other industries. Beside, they’ve got one other advantage over their non-IT counterparts as they attempt their ascent to the summit: They’ve already got the backpacks.

  Read the article

• C++ strongly typed typedef

  - by Kian

  I've been trying to think of a way of declaring strongly typed typedefs, to catch a certain class of bugs in the compilation stage. It's often the case that I'll typedef an int into several types of ids, or a vector to position or velocity: typedef int EntityID; typedef int ModelID; typedef Vector3 Position; typedef Vector3 Velocity; This can make the intent of code more clear, but after a long night of coding one might make silly mistakes like comparing different kinds of ids, or adding a position to a velocity perhaps. EntityID eID; ModelID mID; if ( eID == mID ) // <- Compiler sees nothing wrong { /*bug*/ } Position p; Velocity v; Position newP = p + v; // bug, meant p + v*s but compiler sees nothing wrong Unfortunately, suggestions I've found for strongly typed typedefs include using boost, which at least for me isn't a possibility (I do have c++11 at least). So after a bit of thinking, I came upon this idea, and wanted to run it by someone. First, you declare the base type as a template. The template parameter isn't used for anything in the definition, however: template < typename T > class IDType { unsigned int m_id; public: IDType( unsigned int const& i_id ): m_id {i_id} {}; friend bool operator==<T>( IDType<T> const& i_lhs, IDType<T> const& i_rhs ); }; Friend functions actually need to be forward declared before the class definition, which requires a forward declaration of the template class. We then define all the members for the base type, just remembering that it's a template class. Finally, when we want to use it, we typedef it as: class EntityT; typedef IDType<EntityT> EntityID; class ModelT; typedef IDType<ModelT> ModelID; The types are now entirely separate. Functions that take an EntityID will throw a compiler error if you try to feed them a ModelID instead, for example. Aside from having to declare the base types as templates, with the issues that entails, it's also fairly compact. I was hoping anyone had comments or critiques about this idea? One issue that came to mind while writing this, in the case of positions and velocities for example, would be that I can't convert between types as freely as before. Where before multiplying a vector by a scalar would give another vector, so I could do: typedef float Time; typedef Vector3 Position; typedef Vector3 Velocity; Time t = 1.0f; Position p = { 0.0f }; Velocity v = { 1.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f }; Position newP = p + v*t; With my strongly typed typedef I'd have to tell the compiler that multypling a Velocity by a Time results in a Position. class TimeT; typedef Float<TimeT> Time; class PositionT; typedef Vector3<PositionT> Position; class VelocityT; typedef Vector3<VelocityT> Velocity; Time t = 1.0f; Position p = { 0.0f }; Velocity v = { 1.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f }; Position newP = p + v*t; // Compiler error To solve this, I think I'd have to specialize every conversion explicitly, which can be kind of a bother. On the other hand, this limitation can help prevent other kinds of errors (say, multiplying a Velocity by a Distance, perhaps, which wouldn't make sense in this domain). So I'm torn, and wondering if people have any opinions on my original issue, or my approach to solving it.

  Read the article

• WCF using Spring.NET woes

  - by demius

  Hi everyone, I've torn out all but two hairs on my head trying to get my WCF services hosted in IIS 7.5. I'm using Spring.NET to create my service instances, but I'm having no luck getting it up and running. I encounter the following exception: Could not find a base address that matches scheme http for the endpoint with binding MetadataExchangeHttpBinding. Registered base address schemes are []. My WCF configuration is as follows: <system.serviceModel> <bindings> <wsHttpBinding> <binding name="secureBinding" allowCookies="false"> <security mode="Transport"> <transport clientCredentialType="None"> <extendedProtectionPolicy policyEnforcement="Never" /> </transport> </security> </binding> </wsHttpBinding> </bindings> <behaviors> <serviceBehaviors> <behavior> <serviceMetadata httpGetEnabled="true" httpsGetEnabled="true" /> <serviceDebug includeExceptionDetailInFaults="false" /> </behavior> </serviceBehaviors> </behaviors> <services> <service name="TestService"> <host> <baseAddresses> <add baseAddress="https://ws.local.com/TestService.svc"/> </baseAddresses> </host> <endpoint name="secureEndpoint" contract="Services.Interfaces.ITestService" binding="wsHttpBinding" bindingConfiguration="secureBinding" address="https://ws.local.com/TestService.svc" /> <endpoint address="mex" binding="mexHttpBinding" contract="IMetadataExchange" /> </service> </services> <serviceHostingEnvironment multipleSiteBindingsEnabled="true" /> What am I missing here?

  Read the article

• Why is it still so hard to write software?

  - by nornagon

  Writing software, I find, is composed of two parts: the Idea, and the Implementation. The Idea is about thinking: "I have this problem; how do I solve it?" and further, "how do I solve it elegantly?" The answers to these questions are obtainable by thinking about algorithms and architecture. The ideas come partially through analysis and partially through insight and intuition. The Idea is usually the easy part. You talk to your friends and co-workers and you nut it out in a meeting or over coffee. It takes an hour or two, plus revisions as you implement and find new problems. The Implementation phase of software development is so difficult that we joke about it. "Oh," we say, "the rest is a Simple Matter of Code." Because it should be simple, but it never is. We used to write our code on punch cards, and that was hard: mistakes were very difficult to spot, so we had to spend extra effort making sure every line was perfect. Then we had serial terminals: we could see all our code at once, search through it, organise it hierarchically and create things abstracted from raw machine code. First we had assemblers, one level up from machine code. Mnemonics freed us from remembering the machine code. Then we had compilers, which freed us from remembering the instructions. We had virtual machines, which let us step away from machine-specific details. And now we have advanced tools like Eclipse and Xcode that perform analysis on our code to help us write code faster and avoid common pitfalls. But writing code is still hard. Writing code is about understanding large, complex systems, and tools we have today simply don't go very far to help us with that. When I click "find all references" in Eclipse, I get a list of them at the bottom of the window. I click on one, and I'm torn away from what I was looking at, forced to context switch. Java architecture is usually several levels deep, so I have to switch and switch and switch until I find what I'm really looking for -- by which time I've forgotten where I came from. And I do that all day until I've understood a system. It's taxing mentally, and Eclipse doesn't do much that couldn't be done in 1985 with grep, except eat hundreds of megs of RAM. Writing code has barely changed since we were staring at amber on black. We have the theoretical groundwork for much more advanced tools, tools that actually work to help us comprehend and extend the complex systems we work with every day. So why is writing code still so hard?

  Read the article

• Need a fast programming language that can drive two printers

  - by Pete

  I have a rather unusual application that isn't working the way I need, and I hope someone here will have some suggestions or at least a direction to investigate. We have a museum exhibit that has a computer at the entrance driving two small receipt printers. There are two buttons on a console, wired to the left and right buttons of a disemboweled mouse. The two printers and associated buttons are for girls and boys, each button does a random selection from a database of names and prints a small ticket on the appropriate printer with a graphic image, a few words about the exhibit and the randomly chosen name. Conceptually all is well, but it hangs quite often. I got the project at the last minute, because the original designer got bogged down and couldn't deliver, so the exhibit's author asked me the day before opening, whether I could write something that would work. I did it in Word, since I am an experienced VBA programmer. Several other avenues I attempted first all lead to dead ends - one couldn't do graphics, another couldn't handle two printers, yet another couldn't change fonts and so on. The problem is that it simply isn't fast enough - Word can only drive one printer at a time and changing the active printer takes a long time. Not by office standards, where a second or two of delay before a printer starts working on your document is not an issue, but here I need more or less instant response. If kids press a button and nothing happens, they press it over and over until something does happen, resulting in maybe half a dozen commands being sent before the printer starts reacting. Sometimes it jams the program completely, since boys and girls will be pressing the two buttons simultaneously and Word locks up, and even when it doesn't jam, the printers then spit out a stream of tickets, making a mess. The kids start squabbling over which ticket is whose, pulling them out of the printers, snarling the paper tape, jamming the printer and generally making a mess of the whole affair, often necessitating the exhibit caretakers having to restart the computer and clear torn bits of paper out the printers. What I need is some sort of fast programming language that can drive two printers *-simultaneously-*, not the MSOffice claptrap of having to switch the active printer, that can react to both left and right mouse button click events, can print a small graphic image and can print in different font sizes and styles and. I don't need many, but it's not all in one typeface. Can anyone suggest what I might use for this? I don't even know if it's possible at all under Windows, whether the "single active printer" garbage is an Office artifact, or a Windows restriction. My little Commodore-64 twenty-five years ago had two printers attached to it and drove both simultaneously with no difficulties - it doesn't seem to me it should be such an impossible requirement today.

  Read the article

• Release management with a distributed version control system

  - by See Sharp Cheddar

  We're considering a switch from SVN to a distributed VCS at my workplace. I'm familiar with all the reasons for wanting to using a DVCS for day-to-day development: local version control, easier branching and merging, etc., but I haven't seen that much that's compelling in terms of managing software releases. Here's our release process: Discover what changes are available for merging. Run a query to find the defects/tickets associated with these changes. Filter out changes associated with "open" tickets. In our environment, tickets must be in a closed state in order to merged with a release branch. Filter out changes we don't want in the release branch. We are very conservative when it comes to merging changes. If a change isn't absolutely necessary, it doesn't get merged. Merge available changes, preferably in chronological order. We group changes together if they're associated with the same ticket. Block unwanted changes from the release branch (svnmerge block) so we don't have to deal with them again. Sometimes we can be juggling 3-5 different milestones at a time. Some milestones have very different constraints, and the block list can get quite long. I've been messing around with git, mercurial and plastic, and as far as I can tell none of them address this model very well. It seems like they would work very well when you have only one product you're releasing, but I can't imagine using them for juggling multiple, very different products from the same codebase. For example, cherry-picking seems to be an afterthought in mercurial. (You have to use the 'transplant' command). After you cherry-pick a change into a branch it still shows up as an available integration. Cherry-picking breaks the mercurial way of working. DVCS seems to be better suited for feature branches. There's no need for cherry-picking if you merge directly from a feature branch to trunk and the release branch. But who wants to do all that merging all the time? And how do you query for what's available to merge? And how do you make sure all the changes in a feature branch belong together? It sounds like total chaos. I'm torn because the coder in me wants DVCS for day-to-day work. I really want it. But I fear the day when I have to put the release manager hat and sort out what needs to be merged and what doesn't. I want to write code, I don't want to be a merge monkey.

  Read the article

• Hardware recommendations / parts list for a modern, quiet ZFS NAS box - 2011-Feb edition [closed]

  - by dandv

  I want to build some really reliable storage for my data, and it seems that ZFS is the only filesystem at the moment that does live checksumming. That rules out DroboPro, so I'm looking to building a quiet ZFS NAS that would start with 4 2TB or larger hard drives. I'd like this system to be very reliable and relatively future-proof for 2-3 years, so I'm willing to invest some $$$ and buy higher end components. I did see questions here and on other forums about low-cost servers, but I'm not looking for those. I'd be super happy to go for an off-the-shelf solution, but I haven't found one that's quiet. I started doing the research (summarized on my wiki), but I realized that it just gets too complicated for what I know as a software dude, and I'm entering the analysis paralysis area. At this point, I'm basically looking for a parts list for a configuration that will work (and is modern), and I know there are folks around here who are way more competent than me. I've built computers and am comfortable assembling one and messing with *nix; I can follow guides; I just want to end the decision process for the hardware and software configuration. What I've researched so far (not that these are very modern components): Case: I think I've settled on the Antec Twelve Hundred case because it cools well, is quiet, and simply has 12 bays that allow elastic mounting. The SilverStone Raven is its counter-candidate, but I find its construction quite odd. For the PSU, I'm torn between Antec CP-850 and Nexus RX-8500, but I did this research more than a year ago. The Nexus has a very uniform power profile, and I'd rather not have the Antec spin up and down based on load. On the other hand, I'm not sure how often my file server will draw more than 400W under use. For the hard drives, I've read that WD Black drives are actually WD RE3 with a software setting changed. I'd also like to buy different drive types, not just 4 WDs. Recommendations? Right now I have a 2TB Hitachi Deskstar 7K300. For the motherboard, CPU and RAM I have no idea, other than the RAM must be ECC. I already asked a question here about ECC RAM, but I was misguided and was looking for a motherboard that would support USB 3.0 as well. I've learned to go with eSATA, or worry about USB later. Then there's the (liquid) cooling, Wi-Fi card, and FreeBSD vs. OpenSolaris Express. Lastly, I'm wondering if I can make this PC into a media server by adding a Blu-ray drive and a good sound card. But support for Blu-Ray is spotty on Linux, and I don't know if Windows 7 on VirtualBox would get sufficient hardware access to output HDMI or SPDIFF signals. (Running OpenSolaris virtualized is not an option because of the reliability risk.) Then there are HDCP concerns. Suggestions on that would be appreciated as well, but I don't want us to get sidetracked. A specific shopping list on the core components would be great, so I can start ordering, and in the meantime educate myself with regards to the other issues. Finally, I think this could become a great FAQ for those technically inclined to build their own ZFS server, but confused by the dizzying array of options out there, and I promise to compile the results and share my experience building and benchmarking the server.

  Read the article

• Do hard drive enclosures fail/is it the HDD or enclosure?

  - by x0a

  I'm having a whole host of problems with an external hard drive that was working just fine a couple of hours ago. I've had this problem before once, and that was about 3 months ago, here's what I documented: So a couple of hours ago I turned off all my computers and shut off the power to all my devices in my room, then went and turned the power off at the main switch so I could change an outlet. A couple hours later, after I've already slowly turned everything back on, I go to my xbox to try and watch a movie and it can't seem to list any of the movies I've got. So I go to my desktop to find that my external hard drive isn't there.. even though it's on and connected. It's also stationary and hidden behind something so there's not a whole lot of tampering/physical wear to that external. I plug it into my laptop to try and see what's going on. It starts making this endless loud screeching noise. None of that clicking that's usually associated with hd damage. It's not listed in my computers, and it shows up in Disk Management as "uninitialized" asking me to choose between two different partition types. After carefully disconnecting it and connecting it back, it asks me to format it, which I cancel. I start googling about my issue, starting to accept the situation, torn as hell and helpless and just about ready to toss the thing. Suddenly the screeching stops, after almost 45 minutes of it going, and Disk Management lists the drive as "Online" and "Healthy". Explorer pops up with all my files! I'm still being really careful with it and weary and treating it as though it's in fragile shape. I've downloaded some S.M.A.R.T. software to read the values and everything is listed as "OK" . No reallocated sectors, no read errors, no seek errors. I also ran a quick self-test, which completed without error. Everything seems fine. It looks to be a perfectly healthy external hard drive. So what the hell was that about? Was it doing some sort of maintenance or self-test? How am I supposed to tell the difference? I would've undoubtedly killed the drive for sure if had it gone on a bit longer. I've got the same problem now, with one exception: it doesn't magically reappear after the screeching stops. Occasionally I manage to get some S.M.A.R.T. diagnostics information, which basically reads everything as fine. The only problem is that my HD isn't initializing (so I can't access anything in it). I'm able to successfully run a quick smart test but not an extended one (I've only tried it once but got conflicting indications as to whether it was actually making any progress or not (was stuck on Random read test). So, final question (if all else fails): Could the hard drive enclosure be failing rather than the HDD? Is this a likely possibility at all? How would I know?

  Read the article

• Source-control 'wet-work'?

  - by Phil Factor

  When a design or creative work is flawed beyond remedy, it is often best to destroy it and start again. The other day, I lost the code to a long and intricate SQL batch I was working on. I’d thought it was impossible, but it happened. With all the technology around that is designed to prevent this occurring, this sort of accident has become a rare event.  If it weren’t for a deranged laptop, and my distraction, the code wouldn’t have been lost this time.  As always, I sighed, had a soothing cup of tea, and typed it all in again.  The new code I hastily tapped in  was much better: I’d held in my head the essence of how the code should work rather than the details: I now knew for certain  the start point, the end, and how it should be achieved. Instantly the detritus of half-baked thoughts fell away and I was able to write logical code that performed better.  Because I could work so quickly, I was able to hold the details of all the columns and variables in my head, and the dynamics of the flow of data. It was, in fact, easier and quicker to start from scratch rather than tidy up and refactor the existing code with its inevitable fumbling and half-baked ideas. What a shame that technology is now so good that developers rarely experience the cleansing shock of losing one’s code and having to rewrite it from scratch.  If you’ve never accidentally lost  your code, then it is worth doing it deliberately once for the experience. Creative people have, until Technology mistakenly prevented it, torn up their drafts or sketches, threw them in the bin, and started again from scratch.  Leonardo’s obsessive reworking of the Mona Lisa was renowned because it was so unusual:  Most artists have been utterly ruthless in destroying work that didn’t quite make it. Authors are particularly keen on writing afresh, and the results are generally positive. Lawrence of Arabia actually lost the entire 250,000 word manuscript of ‘The Seven Pillars of Wisdom’ by accidentally leaving it on a train at Reading station, before rewriting a much better version.  Now, any writer or artist is seduced by technology into altering or refining their work rather than casting it dramatically in the bin or setting a light to it on a bonfire, and rewriting it from the blank page.  It is easy to pick away at a flawed work, but the real creative process is far more brutal. Once, many years ago whilst running a software house that supplied commercial software to local businesses, I’d been supervising an accounting system for a farming cooperative. No packaged system met their needs, and it was all hand-cut code.  For us, it represented a breakthrough as it was for a government organisation, and success would guarantee more contracts. As you’ve probably guessed, the code got mangled in a disk crash just a week before the deadline for delivery, and the many backups all proved to be entirely corrupted by a faulty tape drive.  There were some fragments left on individual machines, but they were all of different versions.  The developers were in despair.  Strangely, I managed to re-write the bulk of a three-month project in a manic and caffeine-soaked weekend.  Sure, that elegant universally-applicable input-form routine was‘nt quite so elegant, but it didn’t really need to be as we knew what forms it needed to support.  Yes, the code lacked architectural elegance and reusability. By dawn on Monday, the application passed its integration tests. The developers rose to the occasion after I’d collapsed, and tidied up what I’d done, though they were reproachful that some of the style and elegance had gone out of the application. By the delivery date, we were able to install it. It was a smaller, faster application than the beta they’d seen and the user-interface had a new, rather Spartan, appearance that we swore was done to conform to the latest in user-interface guidelines. (we switched to Helvetica font to look more ‘Bauhaus’ ). The client was so delighted that he forgave the new bugs that had crept in. I still have the disk that crashed, up in the attic. In IT, we have had mixed experiences from complete re-writes. Lotus 123 never really recovered from a complete rewrite from assembler into C, Borland made the mistake with Arago and Quattro Pro  and Netscape’s complete rewrite of their Navigator 4 browser was a white-knuckle ride. In all cases, the decision to rewrite was a result of extreme circumstances where no other course of action seemed possible.   The rewrite didn’t come out of the blue. I prefer to remember the rewrite of Minix by young Linus Torvalds, or the rewrite of Bitkeeper by a slightly older Linus.  The rewrite of CP/M didn’t do too badly either, did it? Come to think of it, the guy who decided to rewrite the windowing system of the Xerox Star never regretted the decision. I’ll agree that one should often resist calls for a rewrite. One of the worst habits of the more inexperienced programmer is to denigrate whatever code he or she inherits, and then call loudly for a complete rewrite. They are buoyed up by the mistaken belief that they can do better. This, however, is a different psychological phenomenon, more related to the idea of some motorcyclists that they are operating on infinite lives, or the occasional squaddies that if they charge the machine-guns determinedly enough all will be well. Grim experience brings out the humility in any experienced programmer.  I’m referring to quite different circumstances here. Where a team knows the requirements perfectly, are of one mind on methodology and coding standards, and they already have a solution, then what is wrong with considering  a complete rewrite? Rewrites are so painful in the early stages, until that point where one realises the payoff, that even I quail at the thought. One needs a natural disaster to push one over the edge. The trouble is that source-control systems, and disaster recovery systems, are just too good nowadays.   If I were to lose this draft of this very blog post, I know I’d rewrite it much better. However, if you read this, you’ll know I didn’t have the nerve to delete it and start again.  There was a time that one prayed that unreliable hardware would deliver you from an unmaintainable mess of a codebase, but now technology has made us almost entirely immune to such a merciful act of God. An old friend of mine with long experience in the software industry has long had the idea of the ‘source-control wet-work’,  where one hires a malicious hacker in some wild eastern country to hack into one’s own  source control system to destroy all trace of the source to an application. Alas, backup systems are just too good to make this any more than a pipedream. Somehow, it would be difficult to promote the idea. As an alternative, could one construct a source control system that, on doing all the code-quality metrics, would systematically destroy all trace of source code that failed the quality test? Alas, I can’t see many managers buying into the idea. In reading the full story of the near-loss of Toy Story 2, it set me thinking. It turned out that the lucky restoration of the code wasn’t the happy ending one first imagined it to be, because they eventually came to the conclusion that the plot was fundamentally flawed and it all had to be rewritten anyway.  Was this an early  case of the ‘source-control wet-job’?’ It is very hard nowadays to do a rapid U-turn in a development project because we are far too prone to cling to our existing source-code.

  Read the article

• Source-control 'wet-work'?

  - by Phil Factor

  When a design or creative work is flawed beyond remedy, it is often best to destroy it and start again. The other day, I lost the code to a long and intricate SQL batch I was working on. I’d thought it was impossible, but it happened. With all the technology around that is designed to prevent this occurring, this sort of accident has become a rare event.  If it weren’t for a deranged laptop, and my distraction, the code wouldn’t have been lost this time.  As always, I sighed, had a soothing cup of tea, and typed it all in again.  The new code I hastily tapped in  was much better: I’d held in my head the essence of how the code should work rather than the details: I now knew for certain  the start point, the end, and how it should be achieved. Instantly the detritus of half-baked thoughts fell away and I was able to write logical code that performed better.  Because I could work so quickly, I was able to hold the details of all the columns and variables in my head, and the dynamics of the flow of data. It was, in fact, easier and quicker to start from scratch rather than tidy up and refactor the existing code with its inevitable fumbling and half-baked ideas. What a shame that technology is now so good that developers rarely experience the cleansing shock of losing one’s code and having to rewrite it from scratch.  If you’ve never accidentally lost  your code, then it is worth doing it deliberately once for the experience. Creative people have, until Technology mistakenly prevented it, torn up their drafts or sketches, threw them in the bin, and started again from scratch.  Leonardo’s obsessive reworking of the Mona Lisa was renowned because it was so unusual:  Most artists have been utterly ruthless in destroying work that didn’t quite make it. Authors are particularly keen on writing afresh, and the results are generally positive. Lawrence of Arabia actually lost the entire 250,000 word manuscript of ‘The Seven Pillars of Wisdom’ by accidentally leaving it on a train at Reading station, before rewriting a much better version.  Now, any writer or artist is seduced by technology into altering or refining their work rather than casting it dramatically in the bin or setting a light to it on a bonfire, and rewriting it from the blank page.  It is easy to pick away at a flawed work, but the real creative process is far more brutal. Once, many years ago whilst running a software house that supplied commercial software to local businesses, I’d been supervising an accounting system for a farming cooperative. No packaged system met their needs, and it was all hand-cut code.  For us, it represented a breakthrough as it was for a government organisation, and success would guarantee more contracts. As you’ve probably guessed, the code got mangled in a disk crash just a week before the deadline for delivery, and the many backups all proved to be entirely corrupted by a faulty tape drive.  There were some fragments left on individual machines, but they were all of different versions.  The developers were in despair.  Strangely, I managed to re-write the bulk of a three-month project in a manic and caffeine-soaked weekend.  Sure, that elegant universally-applicable input-form routine was‘nt quite so elegant, but it didn’t really need to be as we knew what forms it needed to support.  Yes, the code lacked architectural elegance and reusability. By dawn on Monday, the application passed its integration tests. The developers rose to the occasion after I’d collapsed, and tidied up what I’d done, though they were reproachful that some of the style and elegance had gone out of the application. By the delivery date, we were able to install it. It was a smaller, faster application than the beta they’d seen and the user-interface had a new, rather Spartan, appearance that we swore was done to conform to the latest in user-interface guidelines. (we switched to Helvetica font to look more ‘Bauhaus’ ). The client was so delighted that he forgave the new bugs that had crept in. I still have the disk that crashed, up in the attic. In IT, we have had mixed experiences from complete re-writes. Lotus 123 never really recovered from a complete rewrite from assembler into C, Borland made the mistake with Arago and Quattro Pro  and Netscape’s complete rewrite of their Navigator 4 browser was a white-knuckle ride. In all cases, the decision to rewrite was a result of extreme circumstances where no other course of action seemed possible.   The rewrite didn’t come out of the blue. I prefer to remember the rewrite of Minix by young Linus Torvalds, or the rewrite of Bitkeeper by a slightly older Linus.  The rewrite of CP/M didn’t do too badly either, did it? Come to think of it, the guy who decided to rewrite the windowing system of the Xerox Star never regretted the decision. I’ll agree that one should often resist calls for a rewrite. One of the worst habits of the more inexperienced programmer is to denigrate whatever code he or she inherits, and then call loudly for a complete rewrite. They are buoyed up by the mistaken belief that they can do better. This, however, is a different psychological phenomenon, more related to the idea of some motorcyclists that they are operating on infinite lives, or the occasional squaddies that if they charge the machine-guns determinedly enough all will be well. Grim experience brings out the humility in any experienced programmer.  I’m referring to quite different circumstances here. Where a team knows the requirements perfectly, are of one mind on methodology and coding standards, and they already have a solution, then what is wrong with considering  a complete rewrite? Rewrites are so painful in the early stages, until that point where one realises the payoff, that even I quail at the thought. One needs a natural disaster to push one over the edge. The trouble is that source-control systems, and disaster recovery systems, are just too good nowadays.   If I were to lose this draft of this very blog post, I know I’d rewrite it much better. However, if you read this, you’ll know I didn’t have the nerve to delete it and start again.  There was a time that one prayed that unreliable hardware would deliver you from an unmaintainable mess of a codebase, but now technology has made us almost entirely immune to such a merciful act of God. An old friend of mine with long experience in the software industry has long had the idea of the ‘source-control wet-work’,  where one hires a malicious hacker in some wild eastern country to hack into one’s own  source control system to destroy all trace of the source to an application. Alas, backup systems are just too good to make this any more than a pipedream. Somehow, it would be difficult to promote the idea. As an alternative, could one construct a source control system that, on doing all the code-quality metrics, would systematically destroy all trace of source code that failed the quality test? Alas, I can’t see many managers buying into the idea. In reading the full story of the near-loss of Toy Story 2, it set me thinking. It turned out that the lucky restoration of the code wasn’t the happy ending one first imagined it to be, because they eventually came to the conclusion that the plot was fundamentally flawed and it all had to be rewritten anyway.  Was this an early  case of the ‘source-control wet-job’?’ It is very hard nowadays to do a rapid U-turn in a development project because we are far too prone to cling to our existing source-code.

  Read the article

• Random Complete System Unresponsiveness Running Mathematical Functions

  - by Computer Guru

  I have a program that loads a file (anywhere from 10MB to 5GB) a chunk at a time (ReadFile), and for each chunk performs a set of mathematical operations (basically calculates the hash). After calculating the hash, it stores info about the chunk in an STL map (basically <chunkID, hash>) and then writes the chunk itself to another file (WriteFile). That's all it does. This program will cause certain PCs to choke and die. The mouse begins to stutter, the task manager takes 2 min to show, ctrl+alt+del is unresponsive, running programs are slow.... the works. I've done literally everything I can think of to optimize the program, and have triple-checked all objects. What I've done: Tried different (less intensive) hashing algorithms. Switched all allocations to nedmalloc instead of the default new operator Switched from stl::map to unordered_set, found the performance to still be abysmal, so I switched again to Google's dense_hash_map. Converted all objects to store pointers to objects instead of the objects themselves. Caching all Read and Write operations. Instead of reading a 16k chunk of the file and performing the math on it, I read 4MB into a buffer and read 16k chunks from there instead. Same for all write operations - they are coalesced into 4MB blocks before being written to disk. Run extensive profiling with Visual Studio 2010, AMD Code Analyst, and perfmon. Set the thread priority to THREAD_MODE_BACKGROUND_BEGIN Set the thread priority to THREAD_PRIORITY_IDLE Added a Sleep(100) call after every loop. Even after all this, the application still results in a system-wide hang on certain machines under certain circumstances. Perfmon and Process Explorer show minimal CPU usage (with the sleep), no constant reads/writes from disk, few hard pagefaults (and only ~30k pagefaults in the lifetime of the application on a 5GB input file), little virtual memory (never more than 150MB), no leaked handles, no memory leaks. The machines I've tested it on run Windows XP - Windows 7, x86 and x64 versions included. None have less than 2GB RAM, though the problem is always exacerbated under lower memory conditions. I'm at a loss as to what to do next. I don't know what's causing it - I'm torn between CPU or Memory as the culprit. CPU because without the sleep and under different thread priorities the system performances changes noticeably. Memory because there's a huge difference in how often the issue occurs when using unordered_set vs Google's dense_hash_map. What's really weird? Obviously, the NT kernel design is supposed to prevent this sort of behavior from ever occurring (a user-mode application driving the system to this sort of extreme poor performance!?)..... but when I compile the code and run it on OS X or Linux (it's fairly standard C++ throughout) it performs excellently even on poor machines with little RAM and weaker CPUs. What am I supposed to do next? How do I know what the hell it is that Windows is doing behind the scenes that's killing system performance, when all the indicators are that the application itself isn't doing anything extreme? Any advice would be most welcome.

  Read the article

• The How-To Geek Holiday Gift Guide (Geeky Stuff We Like)

  - by The Geek

  Welcome to the very first How-To Geek Holiday Gift Guide, where we’ve put together a list of our absolute favorites to help you weed through all of the junk out there to pick the perfect gift for anybody. Though really, it’s just a list of the geeky stuff we want. We’ve got a whole range of items on the list, from cheaper gifts that most anybody can afford, to the really expensive stuff that we’re pretty sure nobody is giving us. Stocking Stuffers Here’s a couple of ideas for items that won’t break the bank. LED Keychain Micro-Light   Magcraft 1/8-Inch Rare Earth Cube Magnets Best little LED keychain light around. If they don’t need the penknife of the above item this is the perfect gift. I give them out by the handfuls and nobody ever says anything but good things about them. I’ve got ones that are years old and still running on the same battery.  Price: $8   Geeks cannot resist magnets. Jason bought this pack for his fridge because he was sick of big clunky magnets… these things are amazing. One tiny magnet, smaller than an Altoid mint, can practically hold a clipboard right to the fridge. Amazing. I spend more time playing with them on the counter than I do actually hanging stuff.  Price: $10 Lots of Geeky Mugs   Astronomy Powerful Green Laser Pointer There’s loads of fun, geeky mugs you can find on Amazon or anywhere else—and they are great choices for the geek who loves their coffee. You can get the Caffeine mug pictured here, or go with an Atari one, Canon Lens, or the Aperture mug based on Portal. Your choice. Price: $7   No, it’s not a light saber, but it’s nearly bright enough to be one—you can illuminate low flying clouds at night or just blind some aliens on your day off. All that for an extremely low price. Loads of fun. Price: $15       Geeky TV Shows and Books Sometimes you just want to relax and enjoy a some TV or a good book. Here’s a few choices. The IT Crowd Fourth Season   Doctor Who, Complete Fifth Series Ridiculous, funny show about nerds in the IT department, loved by almost all the geeks here at HTG. Justin even makes this required watching for new hires in his office so they’ll get his jokes. You can pre-order the fourth season, or pick up seasons one, two, or three for even cheaper. Price: $13   It doesn’t get any more nerdy than Eric’s pick, the fifth all-new series of Doctor Who, where the Daleks are hatching a new master plan from the heart of war-torn London. There’s also alien vampires, humanoid reptiles, and a lot more. Price: $52 Battlestar Galactica Complete Series   MAKE: Electronics: Learning Through Discovery Watch the epic fight to save the human race by finding the fabled planet Earth while being hunted by the robotic Cylons. You can grab the entire series on DVD or Blu-ray, or get the seasons individually. This isn’t your average sci-fi TV show. Price: $150 for Blu-ray.   Want to learn the fundamentals of electronics in a fun, hands-on way? The Make:Electronics book helps you build the circuits and learn how it all works—as if you had any more time between all that registry hacking and loading software on your new PC. Price: $21       Geeky Gadgets for the Gadget-Loving Geek Here’s a few of the items on our gadget list, though lets be honest: geeks are going to love almost any gadget, especially shiny new ones. Klipsch Image S4i Premium Noise-Isolating Headset with 3-Button Apple Control   GP2X Caanoo MAME/Console Emulator If you’re a real music geek looking for some serious quality in the headset for your iPhone or iPod, this is the pair that Alex recommends. They aren’t terribly cheap, but you can get the less expensive S3 earphones instead if you prefer. Price: $50-100   Eric says: “As an owner of an older version, I can say the GP2X is one of my favorite gadgets ever. Touted a “Retro Emulation Juggernaut,” GP2X runs Linux and may be the only open source software console available. Sounds too good to be true, but isn’t.” Price: $150 Roku XDS Streaming Player 1080p   Western Digital WD TV Live Plus HD Media Player If you do a lot of streaming over Netflix, Hulu Plus, Amazon’s Video on Demand, Pandora, and others, the Roku box is a great choice to get your content on your TV without paying a lot of money.  It’s also got Wireless-N built in, and it supports full 1080P HD. Price: $99   If you’ve got a home media collection sitting on a hard drive or a network server, the Western Digital box is probably the cheapest way to get that content on your TV, and it even supports Netflix streaming too. It’ll play loads of formats in full HD quality. Price: $99 Fujitsu ScanSnap S300 Color Mobile Scanner   Doxie, the amazing scanner for documents Trevor said: “This wonderful little scanner has become absolutely essential to me. My desk used to just be a gigantic pile of papers that I didn’t need at the moment, but couldn’t throw away ‘just in case.’ Now, every few weeks, I’ll run that paper pile through this and then happily shred the originals!” Price: $300   If you don’t scan quite as often and are looking for a budget scanner you can throw into your bag, or toss into a drawer in your desk, the Doxie scanner is a great alternative that I’ve been using for a while. It’s half the price, and while it’s not as full-featured as the Fujitsu, it might be a better choice for the very casual user. Price: $150       (Expensive) Gadgets Almost Anybody Will Love If you’re not sure that one of the more geeky presents is gonna work, here’s some gadgets that just about anybody is going to love, especially if they don’t have one already. Of course, some of these are a bit on the expensive side—but it’s a wish list, right? Amazon Kindle       The Kindle weighs less than a paperback book, the screen is amazing and easy on the eyes, and get ready for the kicker: the battery lasts at least a month. We aren’t kidding, either—it really lasts that long. If you don’t feel like spending money for books, you can use it to read PDFs, and if you want to get really geeky, you can hack it for custom screensavers. Price: $139 iPod Touch or iPad       You can’t go wrong with either of these presents—the iPod Touch can do almost everything the iPhone can do, including games, apps, and music, and it has the same Retina display as the iPhone, HD video recording, and a front-facing camera so you can use FaceTime. Price: $229+, depending on model. The iPad is a great tablet for playing games, browsing the web, or just using on your coffee table for guests. It’s well worth buying one—but if you’re buying for yourself, keep in mind that the iPad 2 is probably coming out in 3 months. Price: $500+ MacBook Air  The MacBook Air comes in 11” or 13” versions, and it’s an amazing little machine. It’s lightweight, the battery lasts nearly forever, and it resumes from sleep almost instantly. Since it uses an SSD drive instead of a hard drive, you’re barely going to notice any speed problems for general use. So if you’ve got a lot of money to blow, this is a killer gift. Price: $999 and up. Stuck with No Idea for a Present? Gift Cards! Yeah, you’re not going to win any “thoughtful present” awards with these, but you might just give somebody what they really want—the new Angry Birds HD for their iPad, Cut the Rope, or anything else they want. ITunes Gift Card   Amazon.com Gift Card Somebody in your circle getting a new iPod, iPhone, or iPad? You can get them an iTunes gift card, which they can use to buy music, games or apps. Yep, this way you can gift them a copy of Angry Birds if they don’t already have it. Or even Cut the Rope.   No clue what to get somebody on your list? Amazon gift cards let them buy pretty much anything they want, from organic weirdberries to big screen TVs. Yeah, it’s not as thoughtful as getting them a nice present, but look at the bright side: maybe they’ll get you an Amazon gift card and it’ll balance out. That’s the highlights from our lists—got anything else to add? Share your geeky gift ideas in the comments. Latest Features How-To Geek ETC The How-To Geek Holiday Gift Guide (Geeky Stuff We Like) LCD? LED? Plasma? The How-To Geek Guide to HDTV Technology The How-To Geek Guide to Learning Photoshop, Part 8: Filters Improve Digital Photography by Calibrating Your Monitor Our Favorite Tech: What We’re Thankful For at How-To Geek The How-To Geek Guide to Learning Photoshop, Part 7: Design and Typography Happy Snow Bears Theme for Chrome and Iron [Holiday] Download Full Command and Conquer: Tiberian Sun Game for Free Scorched Cometary Planet Wallpaper Quick Fix: Add the RSS Button Back to the Firefox Awesome Bar Dropbox Desktop Client 1.0.0 RC for Windows, Linux, and Mac Released Hang in There Scrat! – Ice Age Wallpaper

  Read the article

• Masters vs. PhD - long [closed]

  - by Sterling

  I'm 21 years old and a first year master's computer science student. Whether or not to continue with my PhD has been plaguing me for the past few months. I can't stop thinking about it and am extremely torn on the issue. I have read http://www.cs.unc.edu/~azuma/hitch4.html and many, many other masters vs phd articles on the web. Unfortunately, I have not yet come to a conclusion. I was hoping that I could post my ideas about the issue on here in hopes to 1) get some extra insight on the issue and 2) make sure that I am correct in my assumptions. Hopefully having people who have experience in the respective fields can tell me if I am wrong so I don't make my decision based on false ideas. Okay, to get this topic out of the way - money. Money isn't the most important thing to me, but it is still important. It's always been a goal of mine to make 6 figures, but I realize that will probably take me a long time with either path. According to most online salary calculating sites, the average starting salary for a software engineer is ~60-70k. The PhD program here is 5 years, so that's about 300k I am missing out on by not going into the workforce with a masters. I have only ever had ~1k at one time in my life so 300k is something I can't even really accurately imagine. I know that I wouldn't have at once obviously, but just to know I would be earning that is kinda crazy to me. I feel like I would be living quite comfortably by the time I'm 30 years old (but risk being too content too soon). I would definitely love to have at least a few years of my 20s to spend with that kind of money before I have a family to spend it all on. I haven't grown up very financially stable so it would be so nice to just spend some money…get a nice car, buy a new guitar or two, eat some good food, and just be financially comfortable. I have always felt like I deserved to make good money in my life, even as a kid growing up, and I just want to have it be a reality. I know that either path I take will make good money by the time I'm ~40-45 years old, but I guess I'm just sick of not making money and am getting impatient about it. However, a big idea pushing me towards a PhD is that I feel the masters path would give me a feeling of selling out if I have the capability to solve real questions in the computer science world. (pretty straight-forward - not much to elaborate on, but this is a big deal) Now onto other aspects of the decision. I originally got into computer science because of programming. I started in high school and knew very soon that it was what I wanted to do for a career. I feel like getting a masters and being a software engineer in the industry gives me much more time to program in my career. In research, I feel like I would spend more time reading, writing, trying to get grant money, etc than I would coding. A guy I work with in the lab just recently published a paper. He showed it to me and I was shocked by it. The first two pages was littered with equations and formulas. Then the next page or so was followed by more equations and formulas that he derived from the previous ones. That was his work - breaking down and creating all of these formulas for robotic arm movement. And whenever I read computer science papers, they all seem to follow this pattern. I always pictured myself coding all day long…not proving equations and things of that nature. I know that's only one part of computer science research, but that part bores me. A couple cons on each side - Phd - I don't really enjoy writing or feel like I'm that great at technical writing. Whenever I'm in groups to make something, I'm always the one who does the large majority of the work and then give it to my team members to write up a report. Presenting is different though - I don't mind presenting at all as long as I have a good grasp on what I am presenting. But writing papers seems like such a chore to me. And because of this, the "publish or perish" phrase really turns me off from research. Another bad thing - I feel like if I am doing research, most of it would be done alone. I work best in small groups. I like to have at least one person to bounce ideas off of when I am brainstorming. The idea of being a part of some small elite group to build things sounds ideal to me. So being able to work in small groups for the majority of my career is a definite plus. I don't feel like I can get this doing research. Masters - I read a lot online that most people come in as engineers and eventually move into management positions. As of now, I don't see myself wanting to be a part of management. Lets say my company wanted to make some new product or system - I would get much more pride, enjoyment, and overall satisfaction to say "I made this" rather than "I managed a group of people that made this." I want to be a big part of the development process. I want to make things. I think it would be great to be more specialized than other people. I would rather know everything about something than something about everything. I always have been that way - was a great pitcher during my baseball years, but not so good at everything else, great at certain classes in school, but not so good at others, etc. To think that my career would be the same way sounds okay to me. Getting a PhD would point me in this direction. It would be great to be some guy who is someone that people look towards and come to ask for help because of being such an important contributor to a very specific field, such as artificial neural networks or robotic haptic perception. From what I gather about the software industry, being specialized can be a very bad thing because of the speed of the new technology. I When it comes to being employed, I have pretty conservative views. I don't want to change companies every 5 years. Maybe this is something everyone wishes, but I would love to just be an important person in one company for 10+ (maybe 20-25+ if I'm lucky!) years if the working conditions were acceptable. I feel like that is more possible as a PhD though, being a professor or researcher. The more I read about people in the software industry, the more it seems like most software engineers bounce from company to company at rapid paces. Some even work like a hired gun from project to project which is NOT what I want AT ALL. But finding a place to make great and important software would be great if that actually happens in the real world. I'm a very competitive person. I thrive on competition. I don't really know why, but I have always been that way even as a kid growing up. Competition always gave me a reason to practice that little extra every night, always push my limits, etc. It seems to me like there is no competition in the research world. It seems like everyone is very relaxed as long as research is being conducted. The only competition is if someone is researching the same thing as you and its whoever can finish and publish first (but everyone seems to careful to check that circumstance). The only noticeable competition to me is just with yourself and your own discipline. I like the idea that in the industry, there is real competition between companies to put out the best product or be put out of business. I feel like this would constantly be pushing me to be better at what I do. One thing that is really pushing me towards a PhD is the lifetime of the things you make. I feel like if you make something truly innovative in the industry…just some really great new application or system…there is a shelf-life of about 5-10 years before someone just does it faster and more efficiently. But with research work, you could create an idea or algorithm that last decades. For instance, the A* search algorithm was described in 1968 and is still widely used today. That is amazing to me. In the words of Palahniuk, "The goal isn't to live forever, its to create something that will." Over anything, I just want to do something that matters. I want my work to help and progress society. Seriously, if I'm stuck programming GUIs for the next 40 years…I might shoot myself in the face. But then again, I hate the idea that less than 1% of the population will come into contact with my work and even less understand its importance. So if anything I have said is false then please inform me. If you think I come off as a masters or PhD, inform me. If you want to give me some extra insight or add on to any point I made, please do. Thank you so much to anyone for any help.

  Read the article

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