Search Results

Search found 30234 results on 1210 pages for 'object oriented'.

Page 32/1210 | < Previous Page | 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39  | Next Page >

• Many ui panels needs interaction with same object

  - by user877329

  I am developing a tool for simulating systems like the Gray-Scott model (That is systems where spatial distribution depends on time). The actual model is loaded from a DLL or shared object and the simulation is performed by a Simulation object. There are at least two situations when the simulation needs to be destroyed: The user loads a new model The user changes the size of the domain To make sure nothing goes wrong, the current Model, Simulation, and rendering Thread are all managed by an ApplicationState object. But the two cases above are initiated from two different UI objects. Is it then ok to distribute a reference to the ApplicationState object to all panels that need to access at least one method on the ApplicationState object? Another solution would be to use aggregation so that the panel from which the user chooses model knows the simulation parameter panel. Also, the ApplicationState class seems somewhat clumsy, so I would like to have something else

  Read the article

• Where should I put a method that returns a list of active entries of a table?

  - by darga33

  I have a class named GuestbookEntry that maps to the properties that are in the database table named "guestbook". Very simple! Originally, I had a static method named getActiveEntries() that retrieved an array of all GuestbookEntry objects. Each row in the guestbook table was an object that was added to that array. Then while learning how to properly design PHP classes, I learned some things: Static methods are not desirable. Separation of Concerns Single Responsibility Principle If the GuestbookEntry class should only be responsible for managing single guestbook entries then where should this getActiveEntries() method most properly go? Update: I am looking for an answer that complies with the SOLID acronym principles and allows for test-ability. That's why I want to stay away from static calls/standard functions. DAO, repository, ...? Please explain as though your explanation will be part of "Where to Locate FOR DUMMIES"... :-)

  Read the article

• using static methods and classes

  - by vedant1811

  I know that static methods/variables are associated with the class and not the objects of the class and are useful in situations when we need to keep count of, say the number of objects of the class that were created. Non-static members on the other hand may need to work on the specific object (i.e. to use the variables initialized by the constructor) My question what should we do when we need neither of the functionalities? Say I just need a utility function that accepts value(s) and returns a value besed solely on the values passed. I want to know whether such methods should be static or not. How is programming efficiency affected and which is a better coding practice/convention and why. PS: I don't want to spark off a debate, I just want a subjective answer and/or references.

  Read the article

• How to access functions in extended classes efficiently?

  - by nischayn22

  In PHP I have classes as below class Animal { //some vars public function printname(){ echo $this->name; } } class AnimalMySql extends Animal { static public function getTableFields(){ return array(); } } class AnimalPostgreSql extends Animal { static public function getTableFields(){ return array(); } } Now I have an object $lion = new Animal(); and I want to do if($store == mysql) //getTableFields from class AnimalMySql else //getTableFields form class AnimalPostgreSql I am new to OOP and not sure what is the best way to call the method from the specific class P.S. Please leave a note with the answer to explain the efficiency of the approach

  Read the article

• How should I define my Java Objects?

  - by HonorGod

  I have a data grid where I sort of show the following information - All Guests Total Adults = 22 Total Children = 27 Confirmed Total Adults = 9 Total Children = 13 Country = Germany Total Adults = 5 Total Childres = 6 Friends Adults = 2 Children = 2 Relatives Adults = 3 Children = 4 Country = USA Total Adults = 4 Total Childres = 7 Friends Adults = 2 Children = 5 Relatives Adults = 2 Children = 2 Tentative Total Adults = 13 Total Children - 14 Country = Australia Total Adults = 7 Total Childres = 8 Friends Adults = 2 Children = 3 Relatives Adults = 5 Children = 5 Country = China Total Adults = 6 Total Childres = 6 Friends Adults = 2 Children = 4 Relatives Adults = 4 Children = 2 And in the database what I have is data at the lowest level which is Friends / Relatives and the corresponding countries set as a look-up value which in indirectly connected to another look-up that can tell me if they fall under confirmed or tentative. I guess my question is how do I layout my Java Object and perform the aggregations and give it back to the client. I am not sure if I am clear with my question, but feel free to comment so I can update the question accordingly.

  Read the article

• Where would a senior PHP developer locate the method getActiveEntries()?

  - by darga33

  I have a class named GuestbookEntry that maps to the properties that are in the database table named "guestbook". Very simple! Originally, I had a static method named getActiveEntries() that retrieved an array of all GuestbookEntry objects. Each row in the guestbook table was an object that was added to that array. Then while learning how to properly design PHP classes, I learned some things: Static methods are not desirable. Separation of Concerns Single Responsibility Principle If the GuestbookEntry class should only be responsible for managing single guestbook entries then where should this getActiveEntries() method most properly go? Update: I am looking for an answer that complies with the SOLID acronym principles and allows for test-ability. That's why I want to stay away from static calls/standard functions. DAO, repository, ...? Please explain as though your explanation will be part of "Where to Locate FOR DUMMIES"... :-)

  Read the article

• How to separate and maintain customer specific code

  - by WYSIWYG

  I am implementing customer specific code and currently following simple approach like if (cusomterId == 23) do it. I want to separate out all the customer related code in separate place. But I have following problems. In code is in 1. Stored procs 2. Plain old classes. 3. Controllers 4. Views I came up with two solutions. First is to create table CustomerFunctionlity with columns CustomerId, FunctionalityName, method/Proc, inputs/outputs With this table I can simply check if exists, execute given function. Another way is creating a factory which returns customer related object for an interface. I am writting small end to end customer specific functionalities. How can I write maintenable code. Thanks

  Read the article

• Name for this antipattern? Fields as local variables

  - by JSB????

  In some code I'm reviewing, I'm seeing stuff that's the moral equivalent of the following: public class Foo { private Bar bar; public MethodA() { bar = new Bar(); bar.A(); bar = null; } public MethodB() { bar = new Bar(); bar.B(); bar = null; } } The field bar here is logically a local variable, as its value is never intended to persist across method calls. However, since many of the methods in Foo need an object of type Bar, the original code author has just made a field of type Bar. This is obviously bad, right? Is there a name for this antipattern?

  Read the article

• Storing user info in Session using an Object vs. normal variables

  - by justinl

  I'm in the process of implementing a user authentication system for my website. I'm using an open source library that maintains user information by creating a User object and storing that object inside my php SESSION variable. Is this the best way to store and access that information? I find it a bit of a hassle to access the user variables because I have to create an object to access them first: $userObj = $_SESSION['userObject']; $userObj->userId; instead of just accessing the user id like this how I would usually store the user ID: $_SESSION['userId']; Is there an advantage to storing a bunch of user data as an object instead of just storing them as individual SESSION variables? ps - The library also seems to store a handful of variables inside the user object (id, username, date joined, email, last user db query) but I really don't care to have all that information stored in my session. I only really want to keep the user id and username.

  Read the article

• What is the best solution to do Reporting on Object data for .NET ?

  - by Peter Fox

  Hi, Our projects are using objects as the data source to reports. Our business layer is returning single objects or IEnumerable. Our reports (quite complex) need to display value-type properties of the object, and its related objects. Typical case would be, from a List, display a master report with category data, then a subreport with data for each Product inside each Category, then a subreport for each Part of each Product, and so on. Reporting from the database is not an option for us. We have tried so far - Reporting Services : works but have to mess around with the XML definition of the report to define the datasource classes, very hard to work with if you use an object datasource, architecturally not too clean - Telerik Reports : quite nice (esp., nice architecture) but seems to have problems with complex reports (master/sub), does not give great paging control, rumored to have performance/crash problems (immature product). Does anyone know a good reporting solution that can be integrated in an ASP.NET application and works well with objects as datasources ?

  Read the article

• What's an easy way to set up object communication in Obj-C?

  - by seaworthy

  I am trying to send a slider value from a controller object to a method of a model object. The later is implemented in the separate file and I have appropriate headers. I think the problem is that I am not sure how to instantiate the receiver in order to produce a working method for the controller. Here is the controller's method. -(IBAction)setValue:(id)slider {[Model setValue:[slider floatValue]];} @implementation Model -(void)setValue:(float)n{ printf("%f",n); } @end What I get is 'Model' may not respond to '+setValue' warning and no output in my console. Any insight is appreciated.

  Read the article

• Why implement DB connection pointer object as a reference counting pointer? (C++)

  - by DVK

  At our company one of the core C++ classes (Database connection pointer) is implemented as a reference counting pointer. To be clear, the objects are NOT DB connections themselves, but pointers to a DB connection object. The library is very old, and nobody who designed is around anymore. So far, nether I, nor any C++ experts in the company that I asked have come up with a good reason for why this particular design was chosen. Any ideas? It is introducing some problems (partially due to awful reference pointer implementation used), and I'm trying to understand if this design actually has some deep underlying reasons? The usage pattern these days seems to be that the DB connection pointer object is returned by a DB connection manager class, and it's somewhat unclear whether DB connection pointers were designed to be able to be used independently of DB connection manager.

  Read the article

• How can I duplicate, or copy a Core Data Managed Object?

  - by 106480833665852483906

  I have a managed object ("A") that contains various attributes and types of relationships, and its relationships also have their own attributes & relationships. What I would like to do is to "copy" or "duplicate" the entire object graph rooted at object "A", and thus creating a new object "B" that is very similar to "A". To be more specific, none of the relationships contained by "B" (or its children) should point to objects related to "A". There should be an entirely new object graph with similar relationships intact, and all objects having the same attributes, but of course different id's. There is the obvious manual way to do this, but I was hoping to learn of a simpler means of doing so which was not totally apparent from the Core Data documentation. TIA!

  Read the article

• Consistency of an object

  - by Stefano Borini

  I tend to keep my objects consistent during their lifetime. In some cases, setting up an object requires multiple calls to different routines. For example, a connection object may operate in this way: Connection c = new Connection(); c.setHost("http://whatever") c.setPort(8080) c.connect() please note this is just a stupid example to let you understand the point. In between calls to setHost and setPort the object is inconsistent, because the Port has not been specified yet, so this code would crash Connection c = new Connection(); c.setHost("http://whatever") c.connect() Meaning that it's a requisite for connect() to have previous calls to both setHost and setPort, otherwise it won't be able to operate as its state is inconsistent. You may fix the issue with a default value, but there may be cases where no sensible default may be devised. We assume in the later example that there's no default for the port, and therefore a call to c.connect() without first calling both setHost and setPort will be an inconsistent state of the object. This, to me, points at an incorrect interface design, but I may be wrong, so I want to hear your opinion. Do you organize your interface so that the object is always in a consistent (i.e. workable) state both before and after the call ? Edit: Please don't try to solve the problem I gave above. I know how to solve that. My question is much broader in sense. I am looking for a design principle, officially or informally stated, regarding consistency of object state between calls.

  Read the article

• Manager/Container class vs static class methods

  - by Ben

  Suppose I a have a Widget class that is part of a framework used independently by many applications. I create Widget instances in many situations and their lifetimes vary. In addition to Widget's instance specified methods, I would like to be able to perform the follow class wide operations: Find a single Widget instance based on a unique id Iterate over the list of all Widgets Remove a widget from the set of all widgets In order support these operations, I have been considering two approaches: Container class - Create some container or manager class, WidgetContainer, which holds a list of all Widget instances, support iteration and provides methods for Widget addition, removal and lookup. For example in C#: public class WidgetContainer : IEnumerable<Widget { public void AddWidget(Widget); public Widget GetWidget(WidgetId id); public void RemoveWidget(WidgetId id); } Static class methods - Add static class methods to Widget. For example: public class Widget { public Widget(WidgetId id); public static Widget GetWidget(WidgetId id); public static void RemoveWidget(WidgetId id); public static IEnumerable<Widget AllWidgets(); } Using a container class has the added problem of how to access the container class. Make it a singleton?..yuck! Create some World object that provides access to all such container classes? I have seen many frameworks that use the container class approach, so what is the general consensus?

  Read the article

• Architectural Composition Languages

  - by C. Lawrence Wenham

  Recently stumbled upon this paper (PDF) talking about ACLs, or Architectural Composition Languages. They're a fusion of two earlier lines of research: Architectural Definition Languages (such as UML) and Object Composition Languages (such as XAML, WWF, or scripting languages). The goal of an ACL is to have a high-level description of a program's architecture which can also be compiled into a runnable program. The high-level description assists automated analysis, while the 'executability' means changes can be tested immediately. You would still author the components of the program in a conventional programming language (C, Java, Python, etc), but they would be composed into a complete program by the ACL. One of the expected benefits is that a program can be ported to a different platform by swapping in "similar but different" components. I've been hankering for something like this for a long time (see this answer I gave on a StackOverflow question a few years ago). The paper mentions that the researchers were working on a language called ACL/1 that initially targeted Java, but would be ported to support .Net as well. However, I can't find any more mention of ACL/1 anywhere. Has there been any more work done on this? Are there any other implementations of the ACL concept that are available for use or experimentation?

  Read the article

• How to drastically improve code coverage?

  - by Peter Kofler

  I'm tasked with getting a legacy application under unit test. First some background about the application: It's a 600k LOC Java RCP code base with these major problems massive code duplication no encapsulation, most private data is accessible from outside, some of the business data also made singletons so it's not just changeable from outside but also from everywhere. no business model, business data is stored in Object[] and double[][], so no OO. There is a good regression test suite and an efficient QA team is testing and finding bugs. I know the techniques how to get it under test from classic books, e.g. Michael Feathers, but that's too slow. As there is a working regression test system I'm not afraid to aggressively refactor the system to allow unit tests to be written. How should I start to attack the problem to get some coverage quickly, so I'm able to show progress to management (and in fact to start earning from safety net of JUnit tests)? I do not want to employ tools to generate regression test suites, e.g. AgitarOne, because these tests do not test if something is correct.

  Read the article

• Solved: Operation is not valid due to the current state of the object

  - by ChrisD

  We use public static methods decorated with [WebMethod] to support our Ajax Postbacks.   Recently, I received an error from a UI developing stating he was receiving the following error when attempting his post back: {   "Message": "Operation is not valid due to the current state of the object.",   "StackTrace": "   at System.Web.Script.Serialization.ObjectConverter.ConvertDictionaryToObject(IDictionary`2 dictionary, Type type, JavaScriptSerializer serializer, Boolean throwOnError, Object& convertedObject)\r\n   at System.Web.Script.Serialization.ObjectConverter.ConvertObjectToTypeInternal(Object o, Type type, JavaScriptSerializer serializer, Boolean throwOnError, Object& convertedObject)\r\n   at System.Web.Script.Serialization.ObjectConverter.ConvertObjectToTypeMain(Object o, Type type, JavaScriptSerializer serializer, Boolean throwOnError, Object& convertedObject)\r\n   at System.Web.Script.Serialization.JavaScriptObjectDeserializer.DeserializeInternal(Int32 depth)\r\n   at System.Web.Script.Serialization.JavaScriptObjectDeserializer.DeserializeDictionary(Int32 depth)\r\n   at System.Web.Script.Serialization.JavaScriptObjectDeserializer.DeserializeInternal(Int32 depth)\r\n   at System.Web.Script.Serialization.JavaScriptObjectDeserializer.DeserializeDictionary(Int32 depth)\r\n   at System.Web.Script.Serialization.JavaScriptObjectDeserializer.DeserializeInternal(Int32 depth)\r\n   at System.Web.Script.Serialization.JavaScriptObjectDeserializer.BasicDeserialize(String input, Int32 depthLimit, JavaScriptSerializer serializer)\r\n   at System.Web.Script.Serialization.JavaScriptSerializer.Deserialize(JavaScriptSerializer serializer, String input, Type type, Int32 depthLimit)\r\n   at System.Web.Script.Serialization.JavaScriptSerializer.Deserialize[T](String input)\r\n   at System.Web.Script.Services.RestHandler.GetRawParamsFromPostRequest(HttpContext context, JavaScriptSerializer serializer)\r\n   at System.Web.Script.Services.RestHandler.GetRawParams(WebServiceMethodData methodData, HttpContext context)\r\n   at System.Web.Script.Services.RestHandler.ExecuteWebServiceCall(HttpContext context, WebServiceMethodData methodData)",   "ExceptionType": "System.InvalidOperationException" }   Goggling this error brought me little support.  All the results talked about increasing the aspnet:MaxJsonDeserializerMembers value to handle larger payloads.  Since 1) I’m not using the asp.net ajax model and 2) the payload is very small, this clearly was not the cause of my issue. Here’s the payload the UI developer was sending to the endpoint: {   "FundingSource": {     "__type": "XX.YY.Engine.Contract.Funding.EvidenceBasedFundingSource,  XX.YY.Engine.Contract",     "MeansType": 13,     "FundingMethodName": "LegalTender",   },   "AddToProfile": false,   "ProfileNickName": "",   "FundingAmount": 0 } By tweaking the JSON I’ve found the culprit. Apparently the default JSS Serializer used doesn’t like the assembly name in the __type value.  Removing the assembly portion of the type name resolved my issue. { "FundingSource": { "__type": "XX.YY.Engine.Contract.Funding.EvidenceBasedFundingSource", "MeansType": 13, "FundingMethodName": "LegalTender", }, "AddToProfile": false, "ProfileNickName": "", "FundingAmount": 0 }

  Read the article

• Inheritance vs composition in this example

  - by Gerenuk

  I'm wondering about the differences between inheritance and composition examined with concrete code relevant arguments. In particular my example was Inheritance: class Do: def do(self): self.doA() self.doB() def doA(self): pass def doB(self): pass class MyDo(Do): def doA(self): print("A") def doB(self): print("B") x=MyDo() vs Composition: class Do: def __init__(self, a, b): self.a=a self.b=b def do(self): self.a.do() self.b.do() x=Do(DoA(), DoB()) (Note for composition I'm missing code so it's not actually shorter) Can you name particular advantages of one or the other? I'm think of: composition is useful if you plan to reuse DoA() in another context inheritance seems easier; no additional references/variables/initialization method doA can access internal variable (be it a good or bad thing :) ) inheritance groups logic A and B together; even though you could equally introduce a grouped delegate object inheritance provides a preset class for the users; with composition you'd have to encapsule the initialization in a factory so that the user does have to assemble the logic and the skeleton ... Basically I'd like to examine the implications of inheritance vs composition. I heard often composition is prefered, but I'd like to understand that by example. Of course I can always start with one and refactor later to the other.

  Read the article

• Do you leverage the benefits of the open-closed principle?

  - by Kaleb Pederson

  The open-closed principle (OCP) states that an object should be open for extension but closed for modification. I believe I understand it and use it in conjunction with SRP to create classes that do only one thing. And, I try to create many small methods that make it possible to extract out all the behavior controls into methods that may be extended or overridden in some subclass. Thus, I end up with classes that have many extension points, be it through: dependency injection and composition, events, delegation, etc. Consider the following a simple, extendable class: class PaycheckCalculator { // ... protected decimal GetOvertimeFactor() { return 2.0M; } } Now say, for example, that the OvertimeFactor changes to 1.5. Since the above class was designed to be extended, I can easily subclass and return a different OvertimeFactor. But... despite the class being designed for extension and adhering to OCP, I'll modify the single method in question, rather than subclassing and overridding the method in question and then re-wiring my objects in my IoC container. As a result I've violated part of what OCP attempts to accomplish. It feels like I'm just being lazy because the above is a bit easier. Am I misunderstanding OCP? Should I really be doing something different? Do you leverage the benefits of OCP differently? Update: based on the answers it looks like this contrived example is a poor one for a number of different reasons. The main intent of the example was to demonstrate that the class was designed to be extended by providing methods that when overridden would alter the behavior of public methods without the need for changing internal or private code. Still, I definitely misunderstood OCP.

  Read the article

• What type of pattern would be used in this case

  - by Admiral Kunkka

  I want to know how to tackle this type of scenario. We are building a person's background, from scratch, and I want to know, conceptually, how to proceed with a secure object pattern in both design and execution... I've been reading on Factory patterns, Model-View-Controller types, Dependency injection, Singleton approaches... and I can't seem to grasp or 'fit' these types of designs decisions into what I'm trying to do.. First and foremost, I started with having a big jack-of-all-trades class, then I read some more, and some tips were to make sure your classes only have a single purpose.. which makes sense and I started breaking down certain things into other classes. Okay, cool. Now I'm looking at dependency injection and kind of didn't really know what's going on. Example/insight of what kind of heirarchy I need to accomplish... class Person needs to access and build from a multitude of different classes. class Culture needs to access a sub-class for culture benefits class Social needs to access class Culture, and other sub-classes class Birth needs to access Social, Culture, and other sub-classes class Childhood/Adolescence/Adulthood need to access everything. Also, depending on different rolls, this class heirarchy needs to create multiple people as well, such as Family, and their backgrounds using some, if not all, of these same classes. Think of it as a people generator, all random, with backgrounds and things that happen to them. Ageing, death of loved ones, military careers, e.t.c. Most of the generation is done randomly, making calls to a mt_rand function to pick from most of the selections inside the classes, guaranteeing the data to be absolutely random. I have most of the bulk-data down, and was looking for some insight from fellow programmers, what do you think?

  Read the article

• Do objects maintain identity under all non-cloning conditions in PHP?

  - by Buttle Butkus

  PHP 5.5 I'm doing a bunch of passing around of objects with the assumption that they will all maintain their identities - that any changes made to their states from inside other objects' methods will continue to hold true afterwards. Am I assuming correctly? I will give my basic structure here. class builder { protected $foo_ids = array(); // set in construct protected $foo_collection; protected $bar_ids = array(); // set in construct protected $bar_collection; protected function initFoos() { $this->foo_collection = new FooCollection(); foreach($this->food_ids as $id) { $this->foo_collection->addFoo(new foo($id)); } } protected function initBars() { // same idea as initFoos } protected function wireFoosAndBars(fooCollection $foos, barCollection $bars) { // arguments are passed in using $this->foo_collection and $this->bar_collection foreach($foos as $foo_obj) { // (foo_collection implements IteratorAggregate) $bar_ids = $foo_obj->getAssociatedBarIds(); if(!empty($bar_ids) ) { $bar_collection = new barCollection(); // sub-collection to be a component of each foo foreach($bar_ids as $bar_id) { $bar_collection->addBar(new bar($bar_id)); } $foo_obj->addBarCollection($bar_collection); // now each foo_obj has a collection of bar objects, each of which is also in the main collection. Are they the same objects? } } } } What has me worried is that foreach supposedly works on a copy of its arrays. I want all the $foo and $bar objects to maintain their identities no matter which $collection object they become of a part of. Does that make sense?

  Read the article

• How to store a list of Objects that might change in future?

  - by Amogh Talpallikar

  I have set of Objects of the same class which have different values of their attributes. and I need to find the best match from a function under given scenarios out of these objects. In future these objects might increase as well. Quite similar to the way we have Color class in awt. we have some static color objects in the class with diff rgb values. But in my case say, I need to chose the suitable color out of these static ones based on certain criteria. So should I keep them in an arrayList or enum or keep them as static vars as in case of Colors. because I will need to parse through all of them and decide upon the best match. so I need them in some sort of collection. But in future if I need to add another type I will have to modify the class and add another list.add(object) call for this one and then it will violate the open-close principle. How should I go about it ?

  Read the article

• Are there design patterns or generalised approaches for particle simulations?

  - by romeovs

  I'm working on a project (for college) in C++. The goal is to write a program that can more or less simulate a beam of particles flying trough the LHC synchrotron. Not wanting to rush into things, me and my team are thinking about how to implement this and I was wondering if there are general design patterns that are used to solve this kind of problem. The general approach we came up with so far is the following: there is a World that holds all objects you can add objects to this world such as Particle, Dipole and Quadrupole time is cut up into discrete steps, and at each point in time, for each Particle the magnetic and electric forces that each object in the World generates are calculated and summed up (luckily electro-magnetism is linear). each Particle moves accordingly (using a simple estimation approach to solve the differential movement equations) save the Particle positions repeat This seems a good approach but, for instance, it is hard to take into account symmetries that might be present (such as the magnetic field of each Quadrupole) and is this thus suboptimal. To take into account such symmetries as that of the Quadrupole field, it would be much easier to (also) make space discrete and somehow store form of the Quadrupole field somewhere. (Since 2532 or so Quadrupoles are stored this should lead to a massive gain of performance, not having to recalculate each Quadrupole field) So, are there any design patterns? Is the World-approach feasible or is it old-fashioned, bad programming? What about symmetry, how is that generally taken into acount?

  Read the article

• FP for simulation and modelling

  - by heaptobesquare

  I'm about to start a simulation/modelling project. I already know that OOP is used for this kind of projects. However, studying Haskell made me consider using the FP paradigm for modelling a system of components. Let me elaborate: Let's say I have a component of type A, characterised by a set of data (a parameter like temperature or pressure,a PDE and some boundary conditions,etc.) and a component of type B, characterised by a different set of data(different or same parameter, different PDE and boundary conditions). Let's also assume that the functions/methods that are going to be applied on each component are the same (a Galerkin method for example). If I were to use an OOP approach, I would create two objects that would encapsulate each type's data, the methods for solving the PDE(inheritance would be used here for code reuse) and the solution to the PDE. On the other hand, if I were to use an FP approach, each component would be broken down to data parts and the functions that would act upon the data in order to get the solution for the PDE. This approach seems simpler to me assuming that linear operations on data would be trivial and that the parameters are constant. What if the parameters are not constant(for example, temperature increases suddenly and therefore cannot be immutable)? In OOP, the object's (mutable) state can be used. I know that Haskell has Monads for that. To conclude, would implementing the FP approach be actually simpler,less time consuming and easier to manage (add a different type of component or new method to solve the pde) compared to the OOP one? I come from a C++/Fortran background, plus I'm not a professional programmer, so correct me on anything that I've got wrong.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39  | Next Page >