Search Results

Search found 14639 results on 586 pages for 'coding environment'.

Page 31/586 | < Previous Page | 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38  | Next Page >

• Where does the "mm" come from in GTKmm, glibmm, etc

  - by Cole Johnson

  I understand that the "mm" suffix [in various GTK-associated C++ binding libraries] means "minus minus," but where exactly does it come from? I understand that there is a programming language called "C--," but if there were bindings (and I'm pretty sure I've seen some), they would be suffixed "--". TL;DR: Is there some page on gnu.org that explains the "mm" suffix in various C++ bindings or is it just a de facto standard adopted by the open source community with no reasoning behind it?

  Read the article

• Case Class naming convention

  - by KChaloux

  In my recent adventures in Scala, I've found case classes to be a really nice alternative to enums when I need to include a bit of logic or several values with them. I often find myself writing structures that look like this, however: object Foo{ case class Foo(name: String, value: Int, other: Double) val BAR = Foo("bar", 1, 1.0) val BAZ = Foo("baz", 2, 1.5) val QUUX = Foo("quux", 3, 1.75) } I'm primarily worried here about the naming of the object and the case class. Since they're the same thing, I end up with Foo.Foo to get to the inner class. Would it be wise to name the case class something along the lines of FooCase instead? I'm not sure if the potential ambiguity might mess with the type system if I have to do anything with subtypes or inheritance.

  Read the article

• Should I reuse variables?

  - by IAdapter

  Should I reuse variables? I know that many best practice say you should not do it, however later when different developer is debugging the code and have 3 variables that look a like and only difference is that they are created in different places in the code he might be confused. unit-testing is a great example of this. However I do know that best practice are most of the time against it. For example they say not to "overide" method parameters. Best practice are even are against nulling the previous variables (in Java there is Sonar that has warning when you assign null to variable that you don't need to do it to call garbage collector since Java6. you cant always control what warnings are turned off, most of the time the default is on)

  Read the article

• conventions for friend methods in Perl

  - by xenoterracide

  Perl doesn't support a friend relationship between objects, nor does it support private or protected methods. What is usually done for private methods is to prefix the name with an underscore. I occasionally have methods that I think of as friend methods. Meaning that I expect them to be used by a specific object, or an object with a specific responsibility, but I'm not sure if I should make that method public (meaning foo ) or private ( _foo ) or if there's a better convention? is there a convention for friend methods?

  Read the article

• Website where you can see how other programmers write their code

  - by CuiPengFei

  I remember seeing a website where people upload videos of themselves writing code. However, I can not find that site now. The purpose is to see how others code, to see how they refactor their code, to see how they use their paradigms, etc. Update: I remember that the video contains almost no audio, it's only one guy writing code, making mistakes, typos, fixing mistakes. If I read the final code, I can figure out how it works, but if I see how the code was wrote and what kind of mistakes were made along the way, then I can better understand it. I guess this is the main reason that they make this kind of video.

  Read the article

• Please help me give this principle a name

  - by Brent Arias

  As a designer, I like providing interfaces that cater to a power/simplicity balance. For example, I think the LINQ designers followed that principle because they offered both dot-notation and query-notation. The first is more powerful, but the second is easier to read and follow. If you disagree with my assessment of LINQ, please try to see my point anyway; LINQ was just an example, my post is not about LINQ. I call this principle "dial-able power". But I'd like to know what other people call it. Certainly some will say "KISS" is the common term. But I see KISS as a superset, or a "consumerism" practice. Using LINQ as my example again, in my view, a team of programmers who always try to use query notation over dot-notation are practicing KISS. Thus the LINQ designers practiced "dial-able power", whereas the LINQ consumers practice KISS. The two make beautiful music together. I'll give another example. Imagine a C# logging tool that has two signatures allowing two uses: void Write(string message); void Write(Func<string> messageCallback); The purpose of the two signatures is to fulfill these needs: //Every-day "simple" usage, nothing special. myLogger.Write("Something Happened" + error.ToString() ); //This is performance critical, do not call ToString() if logging is //disabled. myLogger.Write( () => { "Something Happened" + error.ToString() }); Having these overloads represents "dial-able power," because the consumer has the choice of a simple interface or a powerful interface. A KISS-loving consumer will use the simpler signature most of the time, and will allow the "busy" looking signature when the power is needed. This also helps self-documentation, because usage of the powerful signature tells the reader that the code is performance critical. If the logger had only the powerful signature, then there would be no "dial-able power." So this comes full-circle. I'm happy to keep my own "dial-able power" coinage if none yet exists, but I can't help think I'm missing an obvious designation for this practice. p.s. Another example that is related, but is not the same as "dial-able power", is Scott Meyer's principle "make interfaces easy to use correctly, and hard to use incorrectly."

  Read the article

• Why doesn't apache2 respect my envvars file?

  - by Avery Chan

  My envvar files has these lines in it: export APACHE_RUN_USER=www-data export APACHE_RUN_GROUP=www-data My apache2.conf has these lines in it: # These need to be set in /etc/apache2/envvars User ${APACHE_RUN_USER} Group ${APACHE_RUN_GROUP} But when I run apache2 -M I get this: apache2: bad user name ${APACHE_RUN_USER} A temporary fix is to hard-code www-data into it my apache2.conf file. There was some speculation here that this was because some configuration script didn't replace the env vars correctly in my apache2.conf file. Regardless how do I get apache2 to consult my envvars file? As another data point this site seems to indicate the envvars is generated at build, but read by apache2ctl at runtime, suggesting that this file isn't just poop leftover by the build process.

  Read the article

• Programming by dictation?

  - by Andrew M

  ie. you speak out the code, and someone else across the room types it in Anyone tried this? Obviously the person taking the dictation would need to be a coder too, so you didn't have to explain everything and go into tedious detail (not 'open bracket, new line...' but more like 'create a new class called myParser that takes three arguments, first one is...'). I thought of it because sometimes I'm too easily distracted at my computer. Surrounded by buttons, instant gratification a click away, the world at my fingertips. To get stuff done, I want to get away, write my code on paper. But that would mean losing access to necessary resources, and necessitate tedious typing-up later on. The solution? Dictate. Pros: no chance to check reddit, stackexchange, gmail, etc. code while you pace the room, lie down, play billiards, whatever train your brain to think more abstractedly (have to visualize things if you can't just see the screen) skip the tedious details (closing brackets etc.) the typist gets to shadow a more experienced programmer and learn how they work the typist can provide assistance/suggestions external pressure of typist expecting instructions, urging you to stay focussed Cons might be too hard might not work any better rather inefficient use of assisting programmer need to find/pay someone to do this

  Read the article

• B.S.in Computer Science, weak eyes => career change

  - by Prometheus

  So I am going to earn B.S. in Computer Science soon. I like computers. I like programming. The problem is that my eyes are very weak. Depending on their condition, I can only put in about 6 hours in front of computer a day. If I push myself, I have trouble even keeping my eyes open because of soreness/pain, consequently headaches. My eyes do not have medical conditions. I was just born with weak eyes. I tried many different approaches to work around this problem - better monitor, breaks every 10 minutes, supplements... I even memorized a lot of shortcuts to reduce my time on computers! But I am finally giving up. I do not think I can be a programmer for the rest of my life. I was the top of my class in high school because all works were paper-based, I did average in college due to the nature of my eyes and the difficulty of the material. So what do you recommend I do? Or, Is there a career that is similar to programming but requires interacting with computers less?

  Read the article

• Scientific evidence that supports using long variable names instead of abbreviations?

  - by Sebastian Dietz

  Is there any scientific evidence that the human brain can read and understand fully written variable names better/faster than abbreviated ones? Like PersistenceManager persistenceManager; in contrast to PersistenceManager pm; I have the impression that I get a better grasp of code that does not use abbreviations, even if the abbreviations would have been commonly used throughout the codebase. Can this individual feeling be backed up by any studies?

  Read the article

• Self Documenting Code Vs. Commented Code

  - by Phill

  I had a search but didn't find what I was looking for, please feel free to link me if this question has already being asked. Earlier this month this post was made: http://net.tutsplus.com/tutorials/php/why-youre-a-bad-php-programmer/ Basically to sum it up, you're a bad programmer if you don't write comments. My personal opinion is that code should be descriptive and mostly not require comment's unless the code cannot be self describing. In the example given // Get the extension off the image filename $pieces = explode('.', $image_name); $extension = array_pop($pieces); The author said this code should be given a comment, my personal opinion is the code should be a function call that is descriptive: $extension = GetFileExtension($image_filename); However in the comments someone actually made just that suggestion: http://net.tutsplus.com/tutorials/php/why-youre-a-bad-php-programmer/comment-page-2/#comment-357130 The author responded by saying the commenter was "one of those people", i.e, a bad programmer. What are everyone elses views on Self Describing Code vs Commenting Code?

  Read the article

• Are More Comments Better in High-Turnover Environments?

  - by joshin4colours

  I was talking with a colleague today. We work on code for two different projects. In my case, I'm the only person working on my code; in her case, multiple people work on the same codebase, including co-op students who come and go fairly regularly (between every 8-12 months). She said that she is liberal with her comments, putting them all over the place. Her reasoning is that it helps her remember where things are and what things do since much of the code wasn't written by her and could be changed by someone other than her. Meanwhile, I try to minimize the comments in my code, putting them in only in places with a unobvious workaround or bug. However, I have a better understanding of my code overall, and have more direct control over it. My opinion in that comments should be minimal and the code should tell most of the story, but her reasoning makes sense too. Are there any flaws in her reasoning? It may clutter the code but it ultimately could be quite helpful if there are many people working on it in the short- to medium-run.

  Read the article

• C/C++: Who uses the logical operator macros from iso646.h and why?

  - by Jaime Soto

  There has been some debate at work about using the merits of using the alternative spellings for C/C++ logical operators in iso646.h: and && and_eq &= bitand & bitor | compl ~ not ! not_eq != or || or_eq |= xor ^ xor_eq ^= According to Wikipedia, these macros facilitate typing logical operators in international (non-US English?) and non-QWERTY keyboards. All of our development team is in the same office in Orlando, FL, USA and from what I have seen we all use the US English QWERTY keyboard layout; even Dvorak provides all the necessary characters. Supporters of using the iso646.h macros claim we should them because they are part of the C and C++ standards. I think this argument is moot since digraphs and trigraphs are also part of these standards and they are not even supported by default in many compilers. My rationale for opposing these macros in our team is that we do not need them since: Everybody on our team uses the US English QWERTY keyboard layout; C and C++ programming books from the US barely mention iso646.h, if at all; and new developers may not be familiar with iso646.h (this is expected if they are from the US). /rant Finally, to my set of questions: Does anyone in this site use the iso646.h logical operator macros? Why? What is your opinion about using the iso646.h logical operator macros in code written and maintained on US English QWERTY keyboards? Is my digraph and trigraph analogy a valid argument against using iso646.h with US English QWERTY keyboard layouts? EDIT: I missed two similar questions in StackOverflow: Is anybody using the named boolean operators? Which C++ logical operators do you use: and, or, not and the ilk or C style operators? why?

  Read the article

• Style bits vs. Separate bool's

  - by peterchen

  My main platform (WinAPI) still heavily uses bits for control styles etc. (example). When introducing custom controls, I'm permanently wondering whether to follow that style or rather use individual bool's. Let's pit them against each other: enum EMyCtrlStyles { mcsUseFileIcon = 1, mcsTruncateFileName = 2, mcsUseShellContextMenu = 4, }; void SetStyle(DWORD mcsStyle); void ModifyStyle(DWORD mcsRemove, DWORD mcsAdd); DWORD GetStyle() const; ... ctrl.SetStyle(mcsUseFileIcon | mcsUseShellContextMenu); vs. CMyCtrl & SetUseFileIcon(bool enable = true); bool GetUseFileIcon() const; CMyCtrl & SetTruncteFileName(bool enable = true); bool GetTruncteFileName() const; CMyCtrl & SetUseShellContextMenu(bool enable = true); bool GetUseShellContextMenu() const; ctrl.SetUseFileIcon().SetUseShellContextMenu(); As I see it, Pro Style Bits Consistent with platform less library code (without gaining complexity), less places to modify for adding a new style less caller code (without losing notable readability) easier to use in some scenarios (e.g. remembering / transferring settings) Binary API remains stable if new style bits are introduced Now, the first and the last are minor in most cases. Pro Individual booleans Intellisense and refactoring tools reduce the "less typing" effort Single Purpose Entities more literate code (as in "flows more like a sentence") No change of paradim for non-bool properties These sound more modern, but also "soft" advantages. I must admit the "platform consistency" is much more enticing than I could justify, the less code without losing much quality is a nice bonus. 1. What do you prefer? Subjectively, for writing the library, or for writing client code? 2. Any (semi-) objective statements, studies, etc.?

  Read the article

• What stressors do programmers encounter on the job, and how do you deal with them? [closed]

  - by Matthew Rodatus

  Learning to manage stress is vital to staying healthy while working at any job. A necessary subtask is learning to recognize and limit the sources of stress. But, in the midst of the daily grind, it can be difficult to recognize sources of stress (especially for an intense, focused persona such as a programmer). What types of stressors should programmers look out for, and how can they be managed?

  Read the article

• Static classes and/or singletons -- How many does it take to become a code smell?

  - by Earlz

  In my projects I use quite a lot of static classes. These are usually classes that naturally seem to fit into a single-instance type of thing. Many times I use static classes and recently I've started using some singletons. How many of these does it take to become a code smell? For instance, in my recent project which has a lot of static classes is an Authentication library for ASP.Net. I use a static class for a helper class that fixes ASP.Net error codes so it can be used like CustomErrorsFixer.Fix(Context); Or my authentication class itself is a static class //in global.asax's begin_application Authentication.SomeState="blah"; Authentication.SomeOption=true; //etc //in global.asax's begin_request Authentication.Authenticate(); When are static or singleton classes bad to use? Am I doing it wrong, or am I just in a project that by definition has very little per-instance state associated with it? The only per-instance state I have is stored in HttpContext.Current.Items like so: /// <summary> /// The current user logged in for the HTTP request. If there is not a user logged in, this will be null. /// </summary> public static UserData CurrentUser{ get{ return HttpContext.Current.Items["fscauth_currentuser"] as UserData; //use HttpContext.Current as a little place to persist static data for this request } private set{ HttpContext.Current.Items["fscauth_currentuser"]=value; } }

  Read the article

• How to use multiple monitors effectivelly

  - by maaartinus

  I'm currently using a single monitor, since I see no value in something like this mentioned in this answer. It may be a good exercise for my neck, but besides of this I see no use therein at all. This amounts to 5760x1200 pixels, which is nearly 7M pixels, just fantastic, except for me not being a cyklop-han. The ratio of 24:5 is IMHO too bad for this to be usable. I don't even think that two 16:10 monitors side by side is a good idea. I never tried so I may be completely wrong, but I suppose that the 4:3 ratio would be much better for this. Or even 1:1, but no such thing is available (with some exceptions, either very expensive or very low resolution). Does anybody use two monitors arranged vertically (resulting in 16:20)? or two pivoted monitors side by side (resulting in 20:16)? or another such variant?

  Read the article

• Should I use title case in URLs?

  - by Amadiere

  We are currently deciding on a consistent naming convention across a site with multiple web applications. Historically, I've been an advocate of the 'lowercase all the letters!' when creating URLs: http://example.com/mysystem/account/view/1551 However, within the last year or two, specifically since I began using ASP.NET MVC & had more dealings with REST based URLs, I've become a fan of capitalizing the first letter of each section/word within the URL as it makes it easier to read (imho). http://example.com/MySystem/Account/View/1551 We're not in a situation where people need to read or be able to understand the URLs, so that's not a driver per se. The main thing we are after is a consistent approach that is rational and makes sense. Are there any standards that declare it good to do one way or another, or issues that we may run into on (at least realistically modern) setups that would choose a preference over another? What is the general consensus for this debate currently?

  Read the article

• Do programmers at non-software companies need the same things as at software companies?

  - by Michael

  There is a lot of evidence that things like offices, multiple screens, administration rights of your own computer, and being allowed whatever software you want is great for productivity while developing. However, the studies I've seen tend toward companies that sell software. Therefore, keeping the programmers productive is paramount to the company's profitability. However, at companies that produce software simply to support their primary function, programming is merely a support role. Do the same rules apply at a company that only uses the software they produce to support their business, and a lot of a programmer's work is maintainence?

  Read the article

• Calling methods on Objects

  - by Mashael

  Let's say we have a class called 'Automobile' and we have an instance of that class called 'myCar'. I would like to ask why do we need to put the values that our methods return in a variable for the object? Why just don't we call the method? For example: Why should we write: string message = myCar.SpeedMessage(); Console.WriteLine(message); instead of: Console.WriteLine(myCar.SpeedMessage());

  Read the article

• Simple vs Complex (but performance efficient) solution - which one to choose and when?

  - by ManojGumber

  I have been programming for a couple of years and have often found myself at a dilemma. There are two solutions - one is simple one i.e. simple approach, easier to understand and maintain. It involves some redundancy, some extra work (extra IO, extra processing) and therefore is not the most optimal solution. but other uses a complex approach,difficult to implement, often involving interaction between lot of modules and is a performance efficient solution. Which solution should I strive for when I do not have hard performance SLA to meet and even the simple solution can meet the performance SLA? I have felt disdain among my fellow developers for simple solution. Is it good practice to come up with most optimal complex solution if your performance SLA can be met by a simple solution?

  Read the article

• What type of career path / jobs for a developer to have best work life balance?

  - by programmx10

  I know some people may look down on a question like this but I've been thinking lately a lot about what direction I can take my career to have a good work life balance, since I have been working for a startup where hours tend to drag on, etc and I find it often drains the life out of me. I have been going to interviews and some other companies are also startups / new companies and seem to have a similar attitude about working long hours. Maybe its the technologies I use, the type of development, I don't know but I'm curious if anyone can offer advice on what a path is to be a programmer / developer but work for a company that respects a regular work week and would only rarely find the need to move past this. I realize this won't lead to being the highest paid in my field but I'm ok with that and feel the tradeoff would be worth it as it would also give me time for my own projects, etc. I know some people may say this is too general but I believe it is a programmer specific question because I believe there tends to be a higher than average rate of working overtime, etc and people working in "startup" venture situations than in many other fields and there is definitely a mindset among a lot of people in the field of working long hours that doesn't exist in every industry.

  Read the article

• Recommendations for adjustable sit-stand workstations?

  - by Chris Phillips

  Recently, I've been feeling the discomfort of sitting at my desk all day long. I'm fairly active, stretch, and take regular breaks, but some days it's still pretty uncomfortable to sit all day long, whether in a nice chair or on an exercise ball. I would really like able to stand at my computer for part of the day. My current setup is a large desk with two 26" lcds and a 17" laptop. I don't mind if the laptop isn't adjustable, as I don't use it as regularly as the monitors. I would like to be able to fairly easily switch from a sitting position to a standing position and back again as necessary. I've been looking into adjustable height desks and stands and found that they tend to be either really expensive, or don't quite meet my needs. (For example, the Ergotron WorkFit-S Dual LCD workstation looks like the ideal feature set at a reasonable price, but won't fit with my monitors.) Any suggestions or thoughts? Update: fixed a typo. Thanks @RDL!

  Read the article

• Good Laptop .NET Developer VM Setup

  - by Steve Brouillard

  I was torn between putting this question on this site or SuperUsers. I've tried to do a good bit of searching on this, and while I find plenty of info on why to go with a VM or not, there isn't much practical advise on HOW to best set things up. Here's what I currently HAVE: HP EliteBook 1540, quad-core, 8GB memory, 500GB 7200 RPM HD, eSATA port. Descent machine. Should work just fine. Windows 7 64-bit Host OS. This also acts as my day-to-day basic stuff (email, Word Docs, etc...) OS. VMWare Desktop Windows 7 64-bit Guest OS with all my .NET dev tools, frameworks, etc loaded on it. It's configured to use 2 cores and up to 6GB of memory. I figure that the dev env will need more than email, word, etc... So, this seemed like a good option to me, but I find with the VM running, things tend to slow down all around on both the host and guest OS. Memory and CPU utilization don't seem to be an issue, but I/O does. I tried running the VM on an external eSATA drive, figuring that the extra channel might pick up the slack. Things only got worse (could be my eSATA enclosure). So, for all of that I have basically two questions in one. Has anyone used this sort of setup and are there any gotchas either around the VMWare configuration or anything else I may have missed here that you can point me to? Is there another option that might work better? For example, I've considered trying a lighter weight Host OS and run both of my environments as VMs? I tried this with Server 2008 Hyper-V, but I lose too much laptop functionality going this route, so I never completed setup. I'm not averse to Linux as a host OS, though I'm no Linux expert. If I'm missing any critical info, feel free to ask. Thanks in advance for your help. Steve

  Read the article

• Is it bad idea to use flag variable to search MAX element in array?

  - by Boris Treukhov

  Over my programming career I formed a habit to introduce a flag variable that indicates that the first comparison has occured, just like Msft does in its linq Max() extension method implementation public static int Max(this IEnumerable<int> source) { if (source == null) { throw Error.ArgumentNull("source"); } int num = 0; bool flag = false; foreach (int num2 in source) { if (flag) { if (num2 > num) { num = num2; } } else { num = num2; flag = true; } } if (!flag) { throw Error.NoElements(); } return num; } However I have met some heretics lately, who implement this by just starting with the first element and assigning it to result, and oh no - it turned out that STL and Java authors have preferred the latter method. Java: public static <T extends Object & Comparable<? super T>> T max(Collection<? extends T> coll) { Iterator<? extends T> i = coll.iterator(); T candidate = i.next(); while (i.hasNext()) { T next = i.next(); if (next.compareTo(candidate) > 0) candidate = next; } return candidate; } STL: template<class _FwdIt> inline _FwdIt _Max_element(_FwdIt _First, _FwdIt _Last) { // find largest element, using operator< _FwdIt _Found = _First; if (_First != _Last) for (; ++_First != _Last; ) if (_DEBUG_LT(*_Found, *_First)) _Found = _First; return (_Found); } Are there any preferences between one method or another? Are there any historical reasons for this? Is one method more dangerous than another?

  Read the article

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