Search Results

Search found 4607 results on 185 pages for 'me and coding'.

Page 31/185 | < Previous Page | 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38  | Next Page >

• Gracefully avoiding NullPointerException in Java

  - by Yuval A

  Consider this line: if (object.getAttribute("someAttr").equals("true")) { // .... Obviously this line is a potential bug, the attribute might be null and we will get a NullPointerException. So we need to refactor it to one of two choices: First option: if ("true".equals(object.getAttribute("someAttr"))) { // .... Second option: String attr = object.getAttribute("someAttr"); if (attr != null) { if (attr.equals("true")) { // .... The first option is awkward to read but more concise, while the second one is clear in intent, but verbose. Which option do you prefer in terms of readability?

  Read the article

• Better way to write this Java code?

  - by Macha

  public void handleParsedCommand(String[] commandArr) { if(commandArr[0].equalsIgnoreCase("message")) { int target = Integer.parseInt(commandArr[1]); String message = commandArr[2]; MachatServer.sendMessage(target, this.conId, message); } else if(commandArr[0].equalsIgnoreCase("quit")) { // Tell the server to disconnect us. MachatServer.disconnect(conId); } else if(commandArr[0].equalsIgnoreCase("confirmconnect")) { // Blah blah and so on for another 10 types of command } else { try { out.write("Unknown: " + commandArr[0] + "\n"); } catch (IOException e) { System.out.println("Failed output warning of unknown command."); } } } I have this part of my server code for handling the types of messages. Each message contains the type in commandArr[0] and the parameters in the rest of commandArr[]. However, this current code, while working seems very unelegant. Is there a better way to handle it? (To the best of my knowledge, String values can't be used in switch statements, and even then, a switch statement would only be a small improvement.

  Read the article

• How to name variables on the fly in R?

  - by Maiasaura

  Is it possible to create new variable names on the fly? I'd like to read data frames from a list into new variables with numbers at the end. Something like orca1, orca2, orca3... If I try something like paste("orca",i,sep="")=list_name[[i]] I get this error target of assignment expands to non-language object Is there another way around this?

  Read the article

• Elegant check for null and exit in C#

  - by aip.cd.aish

  What is an elegant way of writing this? if (lastSelection != null) { lastSelection.changeColor(); } else { MessageBox.Show("No Selection Made"); return; } changeColor() is a void function and the function that is running the above code is a void function as well.

  Read the article

• Why is there so much poorly indented code out there?

  - by dsimcha

  The more I browse the code to open source projects in languages that aren't Python, the more I realize that it seems a lot of programmers don't believe in proper indentation. (I won't mention any projects specifically to avoid having anyone take this question too personally.) Usually code is indented, but in a way just different enough from the standard style that it drives me crazy, especially in old/crufty code. I've noticed that when I write in C-like languages, I tend to indent correctly as religiously as when I'm writing in Python, with the exception of debugging code that I actually want to stick out like a sore thumb. Given how easy it is with a modern IDE to fix incorrect indentation, what are some rationales for not religiously keeping indentation in sync with braces?

  Read the article

• Is it bad to explicitly compare against boolean constants?

  - by polygenelubricants

  Is it bad to write: if (b == false) //... while (b != true) //... Is it always better to instead write if (!b) //... while (!b) //... Presumably there is no difference in performance (or is there?), but how do you weigh the explicitness, the conciseness, the clarity, the readability, etc between the two?

  Read the article

• Is it bad to explicitly compare against boolean constants e.g. if (b == false) in Java?

  - by polygenelubricants

  Is it bad to write: if (b == false) //... while (b != true) //... Is it always better to instead write: if (!b) //... while (!b) //... Presumably there is no difference in performance (or is there?), but how do you weigh the explicitness, the conciseness, the clarity, the readability, etc between the two? Note: the variable name b is just used as an example, ala foo and bar.

  Read the article

• How do you PEP 8-name a class whose name is an acronym?

  - by Arrieta

  I try to adhere to the style guide for Python code (also known as PEP 8). Accordingly, the preferred way to name a class is using CamelCase: Almost without exception, class names use the CapWords convention. Classes for internal use have a leading underscore in addition. How can I be consistent with PEP 8 if my class name is formed by two acronyms (which in proper English should be capitalized). For instance, if my class name was 'NASA JPL', what would you name it?: class NASAJPL(): # 1 class NASA_JPL(): # 2 class NasaJpl(): # 3 I am using #1, but it looks weird; #3 looks weird too, and #2 seems to violate PEP 8. Thoughts?

  Read the article

• Better Java method Syntax? Return early or late? [closed]

  - by Gandalf

  Duplicate: Should a function have only one return statement? and Single return or multiple return statements? Often times you might have a method that checks numerous conditions and returns a status (lets say boolean for now). Is it better to define a flag, set it during the method, and return it at the end : boolean validate(DomainObject o) { boolean valid = false; if (o.property == x) { valid = true; } else if (o.property2 == y) { valid = true; } ... return valid; } or is it better/more correct to simply return once you know the method's outcome? boolean validate(DomainObject o) { if (o.property == x) { return true; } else if (o.property2 == y) { return true; } ... return false; } Now obviously there could be try/catch blocks and all other kinds of conditions, but I think the concept is clear. Opinions?

  Read the article

• Should Python import statements always be at the top of a module?

  - by Adam J. Forster

  PEP 08 states: Imports are always put at the top of the file, just after any module comments and docstrings, and before module globals and constants. However if the class/method/function that I am importing is only used in rare cases, surely it is more efficient to do the import when it is needed? Isn't this: class SomeClass(object): def not_often_called(self) from datetime import datetime self.datetime = datetime.now() more efficient than this? from datetime import datetime class SomeClass(object): def not_often_called(self) self.datetime = datetime.now()

  Read the article

• C++ cast syntax styles

  - by palm3D

  A question related to Regular cast vs. static_cast vs. dynamic_cast: What cast syntax style do you prefer in C++? C-style cast syntax: (int)foo C++-style cast syntax: static_cast<int>(foo) constructor syntax: int(foo) They may not translate to exactly the same instructions (do they?) but their effect should be the same (right?). If you're just casting between the built-in numeric types, I find C++-style cast syntax too verbose. As a former Java coder I tend to use C-style cast syntax instead, but my local C++ guru insists on using constructor syntax. What do you think?

  Read the article

• Pro/con: Initializing a variable in a conditional statement

  - by steffenj

  In C++ you can initialize a variable in an if statement, like so: if (CThing* pThing = GetThing()) { } Why would one consider this bad or good style? What are the benefits and disadvantages? Personally i like this style because it limits the scope of the pThing variable, so it can never be used accidentally when it is NULL. However, i don't like that you can't do this: if (CThing* pThing = GetThing() && pThing->IsReallySomeThing()) { } If there's a way to make the above work, please post. But if that's just not possible, i'd still like to know why. Question borrowed from here, similar topic but PHP.

  Read the article

• Formatting associative array declaration

  - by Drew Stephens

  When declaring an associative array, how do you handle the indentation of the elements of the array? I've seen a number of different styles (PHP syntax, since that's what I've been in lately). This is a pretty picky and trivial thing, so move along if you're interested in more serious pursuits. 1) Indent elements one more level: $array = array( 'Foo' => 'Bar', 'Baz' => 'Qux' ); 2) Indent elements two levels: $array = array( 'Foo' => 'Bar', 'Baz' => 'Qux' ); 3) Indent elements beyond the array constructor, with closing brace aligned with the start of the constructor: $array = array( 'Foo' => 'Bar', 'Baz' => 'Qux' ); 4) Indent elements beyond the array construct, with closing brace aligned with opening brace: $array = array( 'Foo' => 'Bar', 'Baz' => 'Qux' ); Personally, I like #3—the broad indentation makes it clear that we're at a break point in the code (constructing the array), and having the closing brace floating a bit to the left of all of the array's data makes it clear that this declaration is done.

  Read the article

• Is there a particular naming convention for Java methods that throw exceptions?

  - by lyates

  I'm tempted to add a suffix like "Ex" to differentiate methods (with similar signatures) that throw Exceptions from those that don't. Is there such a convention?

  Read the article

• Style question: Writing "this." before instance variable and methods: good or bad idea?

  - by Uri

  One of my nasty (?) programming habits in C++ and Java is to always precede calls or accesses to members with a this. For example: this.process(this.event). A few of my students commented on this, and I'm wondering if I am teaching bad habits. My rationale is: 1) Makes code more readable — Easier to distinguish fields from local variables. 2) Makes it easier to distinguish standard calls from static calls (especially in Java) 3) Makes me remember that this call (unless the target is final) could end up on a different target, for example in an overriding version in a subclass. Obviously, this has zero impact on the compiled program, it's just readability. So am I making it more or less readable? Related Question Note: I turned it into a CW since there really isn't a correct answer.

  Read the article

• How to name variables wich are structs

  - by evilpie

  Hello, i often work on private projects using the WinApi, and as you might know, it has thousands of named and typedefed structs like MEMORY_BASIC_INFORMATION. I will stick to this one in my question, what still is preferred, or better when you want to name a variable of this type. Is there some kind of style guide for this case? For example if i need that variable for the VirtualQueryEx function. Some ideas: MEMORY_BASIC_INFORMATION memoryBasicInformation; MEMORY_BASIC_INFORMATION memory_basic_information; Just use the name of the struct non captialized and with or without the underlines. MEMORY_BASIC_INFORMATION basicInformation; MEMORY_BASIC_INFORMATION information; Short form? MEMORY_BASIC_INFORMATION mbi; I often see this style, using the abbreviation of the struct name. MEMORY_BASIC_INFORMATION buffer; VirtualQueryEx defines the third parameter lpBuffer (where you pass the pointer to the struct), so using this name might be an idea, too. Cheers

  Read the article

• Javascript clarity of purpose

  - by JesDaw

  Javascript usage has gotten remarkably more sophisticated and powerful in the past five years. One aspect of this sort of functional programming I struggle with, esp with Javascript’s peculiarities, is how to make clear either through comments or code just what is happening. Often this sort of code takes a while to decipher, even if you understand the prototypal, first-class functional Javascript way. Any thoughts or techniques for making perfectly clear what your code does and how in Javascript? I've asked this question elsewhere, but haven't gotten much response.

  Read the article

• Surprise for a programmer [closed]

  - by penelope

  help! my boyfriend's birthday is next month. since he is a programmer, I'd love to make him a cake with the code for "happy birthday" (and perhaps something awesome) written in icing on top. not being a programmer myself, i have no idea where to begin. any suggestions would be greatly appreciated!

  Read the article

• Python style: multiple-line conditions in IFs

  - by Eli Bendersky

  Hello, Sometimes I break long conditions in IFs to several lines. The most obvious way to do this is: if (cond1 == 'val1' and cond2 == 'val2' and cond3 == 'val3' and cond4 == 'val4'): do_something Isn't very very appealing visually, because the action blends with the conditions. However, it is the natural way using correct Python indentation of 4 spaces. Edit: By the way, for the moment I'm using: if ( cond1 == 'val1' and cond2 == 'val2' and cond3 == 'val3' and cond4 == 'val4'): do_something Not very pretty, I know :-) Can you recommend an alternative way ?

  Read the article

• Are regexes really maintainable?

  - by Rich Bradshaw

  Any code I've seen that uses Regexes tends to use them as a black box: Put in string Magic Regex Get out string This doesn't seem a particularly good idea to use in production code, as even a small change can often result in a completely different regex. Apart from cases where the standard is permanent and unchanging, are regexes the way to do things, or is it better to try different methods?

  Read the article

• Is there a standard literal constant that I can use instead of "utf-8" in C# (.Net 3.5)?

  - by Hamish Grubijan

  Hi, I would like to find a better way to do this: XmlNode nodeXML = xmlDoc.AppendChild( xmlDoc.CreateXmlDeclaration( "1.0", "utf-8", String.Empty) ); I do not want to think about "utf-8" vs "UTF-8" vs "UTF8" vs "utf8" as I type code. I would like to make my code less prone to typos. I am sure that some standard library has declatred "utf-8" as a const / readonly string. How can I find it? Also, what about "1.0"? I am assuming that major XML versions have been enumerated somewhere as well. Thanks!

  Read the article

• Idea of developing "Calendar" from scratch

  - by Ahmed Khalaf

  What's the broad math idea behind the calendar if you need to build one from scratch without depending on OS or other libraries ?

  Read the article

• What are the pros and cons of putting as much logic as possible in a minimum(one-liners) piece of co

  - by Jonas42

  Is it cool? IMO one-liners reduces the readability and makes debugging/understanding more difficult.

  Read the article

• Can I assign a object to a integer variable?

  - by AKN

  Let say I have a object. I'm assigning that to an integer. MyClass obj1 = 100;//Not valid Let's say, I have a parameterized constructor which accepts an integer. MyClass(int Num) { // .. do whatever.. } MyClass obj1 = 100;//Now, its valid Likewise on any circumstance, does the vice-versa becomes valid?!. eg) int Number = obj1;//Is it VALID or can be made valid by some tweeks

  Read the article

• Static vs Non Static constructors

  - by Neil N

  I can't think of any reasons why one is better than the other. Compare these two implementations: public class MyClass { public myClass(string fileName) { // some code... } } as opposed to: public class MyClass { private myClass(){} public static Create(string fileName) { // some code... } } There are some places in the .Net framework that use the static method to create instances. At first I was thinking, it registers it's instances to keep track of them, but regular constructors could do the same thing through the use of private static variables. What is the reasoning behind this style?

  Read the article

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