Search Results

Search found 8959 results on 359 pages for 'bad decisions'.

Page 31/359 | < Previous Page | 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38  | Next Page >

  • Meta tags again. Good or bad to use them as page content?

    - by Guandalino
    From a SEO point of view, is it wise to use exactly the same page title value and keyword/description meta tag values not only as meta information, but also as page content? An example illustrates what I mean. Thanks for any answer, best regards. <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd"> <html> <head> <title>Meta tags again. Good or bad to use them as page content?</title> <meta name="DESCRIPTION" content="Why it is wise to use (or not) page title, meta tags description and keyword values as page content."> <meta name="KEYWORDS" content="seo,meta,tags,cms,content"> </head> <body> <h1>Meta tags again. Good or bad to use them as page content?</h1> <h2>Why it is wise to use (or not) page title, meta tags description and keyword values as page content.</h2> <ul> <li><a href="http://webmasters.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/seo">seo</a> <li><a href="http://webmasters.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/meta">meta</a> <li><a href="http://webmasters.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/tags">tags</a> <li><a href="http://webmasters.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/cms">cms</a> <li><a href="http://webmasters.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/content">content</a> </ul> <p>Read the discussion on <a href="#">webmasters.stackexchange.com</a>. </body> </html>

    Read the article

  • Why do programmers seem to be such bad spellers?

    - by Joel Etherton
    Programming languages are very precise tools based on explicit grammars. They're very picky, and when being used they require an exacting amount of detail. C#, for instance, is case sensitive so even getting the case of an argument wrong will cause an error. Questions asked all over the StackExchange are replete with misspellings, grammatical errors, and other problems that seem to indicate a lack of attention to detail when it comes to the language itself. Now, I understand there are a lot of programmers out there whose native language is not English, and I am not directing this question (rant one might say) at them. I'm referring to the individuals who are clearly from an English speaking background who refuse to pay attention to these simple details. I am not perfect by any means, but I try to use the language correctly so that my meaning will be understood correctly. I find programmers misspelling variable names, classes, and all manner of words in any kind of technical documentation they might write. I have had to withstand code where I am repeatedly referring to the subit[sic] button or HttpWebResponse reponse. The general complaint about bad spelling is one thing, and it will always be there. I accept that. But my question/comment is about the proclivity of bad spelling within the programming community. I would think that people who deal with such exacting tools to be more naturally predisposed towards proper spelling. Yet this doesn't seem to be the case.

    Read the article

  • Meta tags again. Good or bad to use them as page content?

    - by Guandalino
    From a SEO point of view, is it wise to use exactly the same page title value and keyword/description meta tag values not only as meta information, but also as page content? An example illustrates what I mean. Thanks for any answer, best regards. <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd"> <html> <head> <title>Meta tags again. Good or bad to use them as page content?</title> <meta name="DESCRIPTION" content="Why it is wise to use (or not) page title, meta tags description and keyword values as page content."> <meta name="KEYWORDS" content="seo,meta,tags,cms,content"> </head> <body> <h1>Meta tags again. Good or bad to use them as page content?</h1> <h2>Why it is wise to use (or not) page title, meta tags description and keyword values as page content.</h2> <ul> <li><a href="http://webmasters.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/seo">seo</a> <li><a href="http://webmasters.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/meta">meta</a> <li><a href="http://webmasters.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/tags">tags</a> <li><a href="http://webmasters.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/cms">cms</a> <li><a href="http://webmasters.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/content">content</a> </ul> <p>Read the discussion on <a href="#">webmasters.stackexchange.com</a>. </body> </html>

    Read the article

  • Are very short or abbreviated method/function names that don't use full words bad practice or a matter of style.

    - by Alb
    Is there nowadays any case for brevity over clarity with method names? Tonight I came across the Python method repr() which seems like a bad name for a method to me. It's not an English word. It apparently is an abbreviation of 'representation' and even if you can deduce that, it still doesn't tell you what the method does. A good method name is subjective to a certain degree, but I had assumed that modern best practices agreed that names should be at least full words and descriptive enough to reveal enough about the method that you would easily find one when looking for it. Method names made from words help let your code read like English. repr() seems to have no advantages as a name other than being short and IDE auto-complete makes this a non-issue. An additional reason given in an answer is that python names are brief so that you can do many things on one line. Surely the better way is to just extract the many things to their own function, and repeat until lines are not too long. Are these just a hangover from the unix way of doing things? Commands with names like ls, rm, ps and du (if you could call those names) were hard to find and hard to remember. I know that the everyday usage of commands such as these is different than methods in code so the matter of whether those are bad names is a different matter.

    Read the article

  • SMART says disk failure is imminent due to bad blocks, what do I need to do?

    - by flix
    I have on my hard drive 2 OSes: Ubuntu 12.04 and Windows Vista (I keep it just because of school). Everything was OK on both OSes, but one day on Ubuntu I was getting awkward noises from my notebooks' hard drive and then everything stopped and I couldn't do anything. On Windows everything was OK. Every time I boot Ubuntu I can get 5 minutes normal run time, without problems. After that the hard drive sounds crazy and nothing works. I could run S.M.A.R.T tests from a older Ubuntu CD (10.04) from the GUI (Disk Utility, or something like that and from terminal). From the GUI, I got that the DISK FAILURE IS IMMINENT and I have ~700 bad blocks (or broken blocks, I had that test I while ago) on my HDD. From the terminal (I don't remember if it was fsck or a SMART test command) I got that the HDD will fail in under 24 hours. Since then it passed 2-3 weeks. I've tried "badblocks" but after 10 hours it was still running and I had to stop it. Now I have to use cygwin and other alternatives for my Linux apps on Windows. How can I separate the bad blocks from Ubuntu so it wouldn't use them? Please help.

    Read the article

  • Static DataTable or DataSet in a class - bad idea?

    - by Superbest
    I have several instances of a class. Each instance stores data in a common database. So, I thought "I'll make the DataTable table field static, that way every instance can just add/modify rows to its own table field, but all the data will actually be in one place!" However, apparently it's a bad idea to do use static fields, especially if it's databases: Don't Use "Static" in C#? Is this a bad idea? Will I run into problems later on if I use it? This is a small project so I can accept no testing as a compromise if that is the only drawback. The benefit of using a static database is that there can be many objects of type MyClass, but only one table they all talk to, so a static field seems to be an implementation of exactly this, while keeping syntax concise. I don't see why I shouldn't use a static field (although I wouldn't really know) but if I had to, the best alternative I can think of is creating one DataTable, and passing a reference to it when creating each instance of MyClass, perhaps as a constructor parameter. But is this really an improvement? It seems less intuitive than a static field.

    Read the article

  • Are short abbreviated method/function names that don't use full words bad practice or a matter of style?

    - by Alb
    Is there nowadays any case for brevity over clarity with method names? Tonight I came across the Python method repr() which seems like a bad name for a method to me. It's not an English word. It apparently is an abbreviation of 'representation' and even if you can deduce that, it still doesn't tell you what the method does. A good method name is subjective to a certain degree, but I had assumed that modern best practices agreed that names should be at least full words and descriptive enough to reveal enough about the method that you would easily find one when looking for it. Method names made from words help let your code read like English. repr() seems to have no advantages as a name other than being short and IDE auto-complete makes this a non-issue. An additional reason given in an answer is that python names are brief so that you can do many things on one line. Surely the better way is to just extract the many things to their own function, and repeat until lines are not too long. Are these just a hangover from the unix way of doing things? Commands with names like ls, rm, ps and du (if you could call those names) were hard to find and hard to remember. I know that the everyday usage of commands such as these is different than methods in code so the matter of whether those are bad names is a different matter.

    Read the article

  • How do you tell if advice from a senior developer is bad?

    - by learnjourney
    Recently, I started my first job as a junior developer and I have a more senior developer in charge of mentoring me in this small company. However, there are several times when he would give me advice on things that I just couldn't agree with (it goes against what I learned in several good books on the topic written by the experts, questions I asked on some Q&A sites also agree with me) and given our busy schedule, we probably have no time for long debates. So far, I have been trying to avoid the issue by listening to him, raising a counterpoint based on what I've learned as current good practices. He raises his original point again (most of the time he will say best practice, more maintainable but just didn't go further), I take a note (since he didn't raise a new point to counter my counterpoint), think about it and research at home, but don't make any changes (I'm still not convinced). But recently, he approached me yet again, saw my code and asked me why haven't I changed it to his suggestion. This is the 3rd time in 2--3 weeks. As a junior developer, I know that I should respect him, but at the same time I just can't agree with some of his advice. Yet I'm being pressured to make changes that I think will make the project worse. Of course as an inexperienced developer, I could be wrong and his way might be better, it may be 1 of those exception cases. My question is: what can I do to better judge if a senior developer's advice is good, bad or maybe it's (good but outdated in today context)? And if it is bad/outdated, what tactics can I use to not implement it his way despite his 'pressures' while maintaining the fact that I respect him as a senior?

    Read the article

  • Pirates, Treasure Chests and Architectural Mapping

    Pirate 1: Why do pirates create treasure maps? Pirate 2: I do not know.Pirate 1: So they can find their gold. Yes, that was a bad joke, but it does illustrate a point. Pirates are known for drawing treasure maps to their most prized possession. These documents detail the decisions pirates made in order to hide and find their chests of gold. The map allows them to trace the steps they took originally to hide their treasure so that they may return. As software engineers, programmers, and architects we need to treat software implementations much like our treasure chest. Why is software like a treasure chest? It cost money, time,  and resources to develop (Usually) It can make or save money, time, and resources (Hopefully) If we operate under the assumption that software is like a treasure chest then wouldn’t make sense to document the steps, rationale, concerns, and decisions about how it was designed? Pirates are notorious for documenting where they hide their treasure.  Shouldn’t we as creators of software do the same? By documenting our design decisions and rationale behind them will help others be able to understand and maintain implemented systems. This can only be done if the design decisions are correctly mapped to its corresponding implementation. This allows for architectural decisions to be traced from the conceptual model, architectural design and finally to the implementation. Mapping gives software professional a method to trace the reason why specific areas of code were developed verses other options. Just like the pirates we need to able to trace our steps from the start of a project to its implementation,  so that we will understand why specific choices were chosen. The traceability of a software implementation that actually maps back to its originating design decisions is invaluable for ensuring that architectural drifting and erosion does not take place. The drifting and erosion is prevented by allowing others to understand the rational of why an implementation was created in a specific manor or methodology The process of mapping distinct design concerns/decisions to the location of its implemented is called traceability. In this context traceability is defined as method for connecting distinctive software artifacts. This process allows architectural design models and decisions to be directly connected with its physical implementation. The process of mapping architectural design concerns to a software implementation can be very complex. However, most design decision can be placed in  a few generalized categories. Commonly Mapped Design Decisions Design Rationale Components and Connectors Interfaces Behaviors/Properties Design rational is one of the hardest categories to map directly to an implementation. Typically this rational is mapped or document in code via comments. These comments consist of general design decisions and reasoning because they do not directly refer to a specific part of an application. They typically focus more on the higher level concerns. Components and connectors can directly be mapped to architectural concerns. Typically concerns subdivide an application in to distinct functional areas. These functional areas then can map directly back to their originating concerns.Interfaces can be mapped back to design concerns in one of two ways. Interfaces that pertain to specific function definitions can be directly mapped back to its originating concern(s). However, more complicated interfaces require additional analysis to ensure that the proper mappings are created. Depending on the complexity some Behaviors\Properties can be translated directly into a generic implementation structure that is ready for business logic. In addition, some behaviors can be translated directly in to an actual implementation depending on the complexity and architectural tools used. Mapping design concerns to an implementation is a lot of work to maintain, but is doable. In order to ensure that concerns are mapped correctly and that an implementation correctly reflects its design concerns then one of two standard approaches are usually used. All Changes Come From ArchitectureBy forcing all application changes to come through the architectural model prior to implementation then the existing mappings will be used to locate where in the implementation changes need to occur. Allow Changes From Implementation Or Architecture By allowing changes to come from the implementation and/or the architecture then the other area must be kept in sync. This methodology is more complex compared to the previous approach.  One reason to justify the added complexity for an application is due to the fact that this approach tends to detect and prevent architectural drift and erosion. Additionally, this approach is usually maintained via software because of the complexity. Reference:Taylor, R. N., Medvidovic, N., & Dashofy, E. M. (2009). Software architecture: Foundations, theory, and practice Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons  

    Read the article

  • What poor management decisions have you had to deal with?

    - by tombull89
    As a junior technician I've had to deal with (or will have to deal with) some problems in the past and only being a junior technician I don't have the confidence or respect from management staff to speak up. For instance, we're having a entirely new system. From Windows Server 2003/XP going to Windows Server 2008 R2/Windows 7/VMWare/Digital Signage and the current amount of time dedicated to the training of the IT support department currently stands at 0. They seem to think that all IT systems are the same and are going to get a bit of shock when I can't help them. I think there;s some UK legislation saying a school/business have to put money and time aside for training, but I'm not sure. What have you had to deal with?

    Read the article

  • Is it a bad idea to list every function/method argument on a new line and why?

    - by dgnball
    I work with someone who, every time they call a function they put the arguments on a new line e.g. aFunction( byte1, short1, int1, int2, int3, int4, int5 ) ; I find this very annoying as it means the code isn't very compact, so I have to scan up and down more to actually make any sense of the logic. I'm interested to know whether this is actually bad practice and if so, how can I persuade them not to do it?

    Read the article

  • When defining Product Backlog items, is it s a bad idea to describe what will be part of the user experience?

    - by DDiVita
    First, I am using the TFS 2010 SCRUM template. I am wondering if this is a bad idea... I started defining a PBI for User Interface Elements. Basically, this will hold all the tasks that developers will be assigned when developing UI elements for a web application. Since this has to do with user interaction and usability I was thinking it may be OK, however my struggle is that it also can be considered functionality and may not fit as a PBI.

    Read the article

  • How bad does it look to have left a job soon after starting? [closed]

    - by unitedgremlin
    I have a job I would like to leave. On advice from friends and parents I have stayed. Their primary concern is that it would look bad on my resume if I left only after a few months of joining. My concerns with the job are as follows: When I started it was preferred I provide and use my own equipment. Could be out of business in a few months from lack of cash flow Poor code quality: memory leaks and lack of error handling. The same mistakes continue to be made even though I have raised the issue. It has become evident that co-workers do not understand memory management rules of the platform and are not interested in learning them. Yet, there is still surprise from them when strange bugs continue to crop up. As a result don't feel I will learn from co-workers. Plus, fixing the the lingering bugs and trying to keep up on new feature development is like a game of whack-o-mole that never ends. I don't believe in the companies vision or its ability to execute on the ideas anymore. My ideas and suggestions for very small tweaks are quickly dismissed. And so more than half or so have come back as bugs that we end up needing to address. I have been told to wait on fixing bugs in codes until we can talk to the original author. I don't feel I am allowed to take initiative to just fix/change things and do what I think is best. Everything needs consensus even for a bug fix before any work is done. I am adopting a shut-up and just do what I am told approach to save myself from ulcers. Lots of meetings (I am personally not involved in all of them which is good) but the sheer amount reminds me of days at a big corporation. Why is everyone around me always meeting? It's a small company. I can count everyone on my toes and fingers. I can say with certainty I have no interest in working with any of them again. This is the first time I have truly worked with a group of so called "B and C players". Ultimately, I think it is my fault for not doing a better job evaluating the team and company before joining. But I have generated a better set of questions when probing companies in the future. My questions are: How bad does it look to have left a job soon (few months) after starting? What would be the best way to explain my concerns and reasons for leaving without badmouthing the company? Should I stick it out to what I believe will be the soon end of the company?

    Read the article

  • Move old website with bad SEO to other domain: redirect or start from scratch?

    - by fox_mulder
    I have an old website with very bad SEO and PR, but still with some visitors per-day. Lately I've rebuilt the app and the concept of it and I'm going to deploy everything in a new domain. I would like to not lose those old visitors but I'm wondering if redirecting that old website to my new one is going to damage the SEO in the new website. Don't know also if it deserves to make the move in the Google Webmaster Tools and Bing or better start from scratch.

    Read the article

  • Should we persist with an employee still writing bad code after many years?

    - by user94986
    I've been assigned the task of managing developers for a well-established company. They have a single developer who specialises in all their C++ coding (since forever), but the quality of the work is abysmal. Code reviews and testing have revealed many problems, one of the worst being memory leaks. The developer has never tested his code for leaks, and I discovered that the applications could leak many MBs with only a minute of use. User's were reporting huge slowdowns, and his take was, "it's nothing to do with me - if they quit and restart, it's all good again." I've given him tools to detect and trace the leaks, and sat down with him for many hours to demonstrate how the tools are used, where the problems occur, and what to do to fix them. We're 6 months down the track, and I assigned him to write a new module. I reviewed it before it was integrated into our larger code base, and was dismayed to discover the same bad coding as before. The part that I find incomprehensible is that some of the coding is worse than amateurish. For example, he wanted a class (Foo) that could populate an object of another class (Bar). He decided that Foo would hold a reference to Bar, e.g.: class Foo { public: Foo(Bar& bar) : m_bar(bar) {} private: Bar& m_bar; }; But (for other reasons) he also needed a default constructor for Foo and, rather than question his initial design, he wrote this gem: Foo::Foo() : m_bar(*(new Bar)) {} So every time the default constructor is called, a Bar is leaked. To make matters worse, Foo allocates memory from the heap for 2 other objects, but he didn't write a destructor or copy constructor. So every allocation of Foo actually leaks 3 different objects, and you can imagine what happened when a Foo was copied. And - it only gets better - he repeated the same pattern on three other classes, so it isn't a one-off slip. The whole concept is wrong on so many levels. I would feel more understanding if this came from a total novice. But this guy has been doing this for many years and has had very focussed training and advice over the past few months. I realise he has been working without mentoring or peer reviews most of that time, but I'm beginning to feel he can't change. So my question is, would you persist with someone who is writing such obviously bad code?

    Read the article

  • Requring static class setter to be called before constructor, bad design?

    - by roverred
    I have a class, say Foo, and every instance of Foo will need and contain the same List object, myList. Since every class instance will share the same List Object, I thought it would be good to make myList static and use a static function to set myList before the constructor is called. I was wondering if this was bad, because this requires the setter to be called before the constructor? If the person doesn't, the program will crash. Alternative way would be passing myList every time.

    Read the article

  • Is it bad to put your computer in sleep mode every time? [closed]

    - by Ivo Flipse
    Possible Duplicate: What is the effect of always sleeping a laptop? Is it bad for batteries or something else? Often I have a lot of stuff open and don't feel like shutting down my laptop, so I just use sleep mode when I'm transferring it. But I have no idea if this might have any disadvantages. So my question is: is it bad to put your computer in sleep mode every time? Things I'm wondering: Should I turn off my computer every once in a while? Will continuous use of sleep mode slow down my system in any way? Are there any bad side effects (in the long term)? Any thoughts? FYI I'm using Windows 7 on a laptop

    Read the article

  • Is it normal for a SAS drive to have a few bad blocks, or should I replace my drive ASAP?

    - by Nate
    I have a drive—part of a RAID 1 mirror—that has two bad blocks. Adaptec Storage Manger e-mailed me when it detected the blocks. It shows 4 medium errors for that drive, but state is still “optimal”. This is my first time using Adaptec RAID controllers. I don’t know if an occasional bad block is normal, or if I should immediately replace that drive. Update: The drive failed later the same day! The disk subsystem is: Adaptec 6405 with ZMM (2) Seagate near-line SAS drives (ST31000424SS) The other drive hasn’t reported any bad blocks yet. I am running a consistency check.

    Read the article

  • HTG Explains: Just How Bad Are Android Tablet Apps?

    - by Chris Hoffman
    Apple loves to criticize the state of Android tablet apps when pushing its own iPad tablets. But just how bad is the Android tablet app situation? Should you avoid Android tablets like the Nexus 7 because of the apps? It’s clear that Apple’s iPad is way ahead when it comes to the sheer quantity of tablet-optimized apps. It’s also clear that some popular apps — particularly touch-optimized games — only show up on iPad. But that’s not the whole story. The Basics First, let’s get an idea of the basic stuff that will work well for you on Android. An excellent web browser. Chrome has struggled with performance on Android, but hits its stride on the Nexus 7 (2013). Great, tablet-optimized apps for all of Google’s services, from YouTube to Gmail and Google Maps. Everything you need for reading, from Amazon’s Kindle app for eBooks, Flipboard and Feedly for new articles from websites, and other services like the popular Pocket read-it-later service. Apps for most popular media services, from Netflix, Hulu, and YouTube for videos to Pandora, Spotify, and Rdio for music. A few things aren’t available — you won’t find Apple’s iTunes and Amazon still doesn’t offer an Amazon Instant Video app for Android, while they do for iPad and even their own Android-based Kindle Fire devices. Android has very good app coverage when it comes to consuming content, whether you’re reading websites and ebooks or watching videos and listening to music. You can play almost any Android smartphone game, too. For content consumption, Android is better than something like Windows 8, which lacks apps for Google services like YouTube and still doesn’t have apps for popular media services like Spotify and Rdio. How Android Scales Smartphone Apps Let’s look at how Android scales smartphone apps. Now, bear with us here — we know “scaling” is a dirty word considering how poorly Apple’s iPad scales iPhone apps, but it’s not as bad on Android. When an iPad runs an iPhone app, it simply doubles the pixels and effectively zooms in. For example, if you had  Twitter app with five tweets visible at once on an iPhone and ran the same app on an iPad, the iPad would simply “zoom in” and enlarge the same screen — you’d still see five tweets, but each tweet would appear larger. This is why developers create optimized iPad apps with their own interfaces. It’s especially important on Apple’s iOS. Android devices come in all shapes and sizes, so Android apps have a smarter, more intelligent way to adapt to different screen sizes. Let’s say you have a Twitter app designed for smartphones and it only shows five tweets at once when run on a phone. If you ran the same app on a tablet, you wouldn’t see the same five tweets — you’d see ten or more tweets. Rather than simply zooming in, the app can show more content at the same time on a tablet, even if it was never optimized for tablet-size screens. While apps designed for smartphones aren’t generally ideal, they adapt much better on Android than they do on an iPad. This is particularly true when it comes to games. You’re capable of playing almost any Android smartphone game on an Android tablet, and games generally adapt very well to the larger screen. This gives you access to a huge catalog of games. It’s a great option to have, especially when you look at Microsoft’s Window 8 and consider how much better the touch-based app and game selection would be if Microsoft allowed its users to run Windows Phone games on Windows 8. 7-inch vs 10-inch Tablets The Twitter example above wasn’t just an example. The official Twitter app for Android still doesn’t have a tablet-optimized interface, so this is the sort of situation you’d have to deal with on an Android tablet. On the popular Nexus 7, Twitter is an example of a smartphone app that actually works fairly well — in portrait mode, you can see many more tweets on screen at the same time and none of the space really feels all that wasted. This is important to consider — smartphone apps like Twitter often scale quite well to 7-inch screens because a 7-inch screen is much closer in form factor to a smartphone than a 10-inch screen is. When you begin to look at 10-inch Android tablets that are the same size as an iPad, the situation changes. While the Twitter app works well enough on a Nexus 7, it looks horrible on a Nexus 10 or other 10-inch tablet. Running many smartphone-designed apps — possible with the exception of games — on a 10-inch tablet is a frustrating, poor experience. There’s much more white, empty space in the interface. It feels like you’re using a smartphone app on a large screen, and what’s the point of that? A tablet-optimized Twitter app for Android is finally on its way, but this same situation will repeat with many other types of apps. For example, Facebook doesn’t offer a tablet-optimized interface, but it’s okay on a Nexus 7 anyway. On a 10-inch screen, it probably wouldn’t be anywhere near as nice an experience. It goes without saying that Facebook and Twitter both offer iPad apps with interfaces designed for a tablet-size screen. Here’s another problematic app — the official Yelp app for Android. Even just using it on a 7-inch Nexus 7 will be a poor experience, while it would be much worse on a larger 10-inch tablet app. Now, it’s true that many — maybe even most — of the popular apps you might want to run today are optimized for Android tablets. But, when you look at the situation when it comes to popular apps like Twitter, Facebook, and Yelp, it’s clear Android is still behind in a meaningful way. Price Let’s be honest. The thing that really makes Android tablets compelling — and the only reason Android tablets started seeing real traction after years of almost complete dominance by Apple’s iPads — is that Android tablets are available for so much cheaper than iPads. Google’s latest Nexus 7 (2013) is available for only $230. Apple’s non-retina iPad Mini is available at $300, which is already $70 more. In spite of that, the iPad Mini has much older, slower internals and a much lower resolution screen. It’s not as nice to look at when it comes to reading or watching movies, and the iPad Mini reportedly struggles to run Apple’s latest iOS 7. In contrast, the new Nexus 7 has a very high resolution screen, speedy internals, and runs Android very well with little-to-no lag in real use. We haven’t had any problems with it, unlike all the problems we unfortunately encountered with the first Nexus 7. For a really comparable experience to the current Nexus 7, you’d want to get one of Apple’s new retina iPad Minis. That would cost you $400, another $170 over the Nexus 7. In fact, it’s possible to regularly find sales on the Nexus 7, so if you waited you could get it for just $200 — half the price of the iPad mini with a comparable screen and internals. (In fairness, the iPad certainly has better hardware — but you won’t feel if it you’re just using your tablet to browse the web, watch videos, and do other typical tablet things.) This makes a tablet like the popular Nexus 7 a very good option for budget-conscious users who just want a high-quality device they can use to browse the web, watch videos, play games, and generally do light computing. There’s a reason we’re focusing on the Nexus 7 here. The combination of price and size brings it to a very good place. It’s awfully cheap for the high-quality experience you get, and the 7-inch screen means that even the non-tablet-optimized apps you may stumble across will often work fairly well. On the other hand, more expensive 10-inch Android tablets are still a tougher sell. For $400-$500, you’re getting awfully close to Apple’s full-size iPad price range and Android tablets don’t have as good an app ecosystem as an iPad. It’s hard to recommend an expensive, 10-inch Android tablet over a full-size iPad to average users. In summary, the Android app tablet app situation is nowhere near as bad as it was a few years ago. The success of the Nexus 7 proves that Android tablets can be compelling experiences, and there are a wide variety of strong apps. That said, more expensive 10-inch Android tablets that compete directly with the full-size iPad on price still don’t make much sense for most people.  Unless you have a specific reason for preferring an Android tablet, it’s tough not to recommend an iPad if you’re looking at spending $400+ on a 10-inch tablet. Image Credit: Christian Ghanime on Flickr, Christian Ghanime on Flickr     

    Read the article

  • Is it bad to have an "Obsessive Refactoring Disorder"?

    - by Rachel
    I was reading this question and realized that could almost be me. I am fairly OCD about refactoring someone else's code when I see that I can improve it. For example, if the code contains duplicate methods to do the same thing with nothing more than a single parameter changing, I feel I have to remove all the copy/paste methods and replace it with one generic one. Is this bad? Should I try and stop? I try not to refactor unless I can actually make improvements to the code performance or readability, or if the person who did the code isn't following our standard naming conventions (I hate expecting a variable to be local because of the naming standard, only to discover it is a global variable which has been incorrectly named)

    Read the article

  • Does Scrum turn active developers into passive developers?

    - by Saeed Neamati
    I'm a web developer working in a team of three developers and one designer. It's now about five months that we've implemented the agile scrum software development methodology. But I have a weird feeling I just wanted to share in this site. One important factor in human life is decision-making process. However, there is a big difference in decisions you make. Some decisions are just the outcome of an internal or external force, while other decisions are completely based on your free will, and some decisions are simply something in between. The more freedom you have in making decisions, the more self-driven your work would become. This seems to be a rule. Because we tend to shape our lives ourselves. There is a big difference between you deciding what to do, or being told what to do. Before scrum, I felt like having more freedom in making the decisions which were related to development, analysis, prioritizing implementation, etc. I had more feeling like I'm deciding what I'm doing. However, due to the scrum methodology, now many decisions simply come from the product owner. He prioritizes PBIs, he analyzes how the software should work, even sometimes how the UI and functionality should be implemented. I know that this is part of the scrum methodology, and I also know that this may result in better sales of product in future. However, I now feel like I'm always getting told to do something, instead of deciding to do something. This syndrome now has made me more passive towards the work. I tend to search less to find a better solution, approach, or technique I don't wake up in the morning expecting to get to an enjoyable work. Rather, I feel like being forced to work in order to live I have more hunger to work on my own hobby projects after work I won't push the team anymore to get to the higher technological levels I spend more time now on dinner, or tea-times and have less enthusiasm to get back to work I'm now willing more for the work to finish sooner, so that I can get home The big problem is, I see and diagnose this behavior in my colleagues too. Is it the outcome of scrum? Does scrum really makes the development team feel like they have no part in forming the overall software, thus making the passive to the project? How can I overcome this feeling?

    Read the article

  • Reflection: Is using reflection still "bad" or "slow"? What has changed with reflection since 2002?

    - by blesh
    I've noticed when dealing with Expressions or Expression Trees I'm using reflection a lot to set and get values in properties and what have you. It has occurred to me that the use of reflection seems to be getting more and more common. Things like DataAnotations for validation, Attribute heavy ORMs, etc. Have me wondering: What has changed since the days years and years ago when I used to be told to avoid reflection if at all possible? So what, if anything has changed? Is it just the speed of the machines? Have there been changes to the framework to speed up reflection? Or has nothing really changed? Is it still "bad" or "slow" to use reflection? EDIT: To clarify my question a little.

    Read the article

  • Is hiding content with JavaScript or "text-indent: -9999px" bad for SEO?

    - by Samuel
    So apparently hiding content using "display: none" is bad for SEO and seen by googlebot as being deceptive. This according to a lot of the posts I read online and questions even on this site. But what if I hide keyword rich text using javascript? A jquery example: $(function() { $('#keywordRichTextContainer').hide(); }); or using visibility hidden: $(function() { $('#keywordRichTextContainer').css({ visibility: 'hidden', position: 'absolute' }); }); Would any of these techniques cause my site to be penalized? If googlebot can't read javascript then if I'm hiding through js it shouldn't know right? What about using "text-indent: -9999px"?

    Read the article

  • Is is good or bad to have the email address of a domain's registrant on the same domain?

    - by Eric Nguyen
    Say I own domain abc.com. I think it's a bad idea to use [email protected] as the registrant's (myself) email address. This will cause problems when I need to transfer the domain to another registrar e.g. GoDaddy. The new registrar will then try to send email to [email protected] which is unlikely to function normally since the DNS settings are undergoing changes. So I believe it's best to use email address independent from the domains I own as the registrant's email address. (Isn't it the practice Google Apps is using?) Have I missed something here or am I right?

    Read the article

  • Does heavy library and snippet codes usage make you a bad programmer?

    - by Henrik P.
    Overall I'm in programming for about 8 years now and it seems to me that I'm relying more and more on open source libraries and snippets (damn you GitHub!) to "get the job done". I know that in time I could write me own implementation but I like to focus on the overall design. Is this normal (non cooperate environment)? Does it make you a bad programmer if "programming" is nothing more than cluing different libraries together. Feels like it. I know about "don't reinvent the wheel" but what happens when you don't invent a single wheel anymore. What's your take on this?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38  | Next Page >