Search Results

Search found 15316 results on 613 pages for 'coding style'.

Page 35/613 | < Previous Page | 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42  | Next Page >

• How to learn what the industry standards/expectations are, particularly with security?

  - by Aerovistae

  For instance, I was making my first mobile web-application about a year ago, and half-way through, someone pointed me to jQuery Mobile. Obviously this induced a total revolution in my app. Rewrote everything. Now, if you're in the field long enough, maybe that seems like common knowledge, but I was totally new to it. But this set me wondering: there are so many libraries and extensions and frameworks. This seems particularly crucial in the category of security. I'm afraid I'm going to find myself doing something in a professional setting eventually (I'm still a student) and someone's going to walk over and be like, My god, you're trying to secure user data that way? Don't you know about the Gordon-Wokker crypto-magic-hash-algorithms library? Without it you may as well go plaintext. How do you know what the best ways are to maximize security? Especially if you're trying to develop something on your own...

  Read the article

• if ('constant' == $variable) vs. if ($variable == 'constant')

  - by Tom Auger

  Lately, I've been working a lot in PHP and specifically within the WordPress framework. I'm noticing a lot of code in the form of: if ( 1 == $options['postlink'] ) Where I would have expected to see: if ( $options['postlink'] == 1 ) Is this a convention found in certain languages / frameworks? Is there any reason the former approach is preferable to the latter (from a processing perspective, or a parsing perspective or even a human perspective?) Or is it merely a matter of taste? I have always thought it better when performing a test, that the variable item being tested against some constant is on the left. It seems to map better to the way we would ask the question in natural language: "if the cake is chocolate" rather than "if chocolate is the cake".

  Read the article

• How to get feedback from the community on large chunks of code?

  - by MainMa

  Code Review.SE is great when you need feedback on a precise, short piece of code. But where to get similar feedback about the code itself when: you have thousands of LOC, don't have colleagues in your workplace ready or willing to review the code¹, don't have thousands of dollars to spend for a professional review by a third party developer?² Places like CodePlex are a good idea to get your project known³, but from what I've seen, the feedback you get on known projects are consumer feedback, i.e. concerns the bugs and feature requests, not the quality of the source code itself. What are the social way to get the community involved in the code review of the codebase of a certain size for an open source project which doesn't have the scale of Firefox or similar products? ¹ Which is the case for most personal and open source projects, or projects done in companies where the practice of regular and complete code review is nonexistent. ² Which is, again, the case for most personal and open source projects. ³ Even if too many projects published on CodePlex never get known, either because nobody cares or because they are presented not very well.

  Read the article

• Is writing comments inside methods not a good practice?

  - by Srini Kandula

  A friend told me that writing comments inside methods is not good. He said that we should have comments only for the method definitions(javadocs) but not inside the method body. It seems he read in a book that having comments inside the code means there is a problem in the code. I don't quite understand his reasoning. I think writing comments inside the method body is good and it helps other developers to understand it better and faster. Please provide your comments.

  Read the article

• "A", "an", and "the" in method and function names: What's your take?

  - by Mike Spross

  I'm sure many of us have seen method names like this at one point or another: UploadTheFileToTheServerPlease CreateATemporaryFile WriteTheRecordToTheDatabase ResetTheSystemClock That is, method names that are also grammatically-correct English sentences, and include extra words purely to make them read like prose. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of such "literal" method names, and prefer to be succint, while still being as clear as possible. To me, words like "a", "an", and "the" just look plain awkward in method names, and it makes method names needlessly long without really adding anything useful. I would prefer the following method names for the previous examples: UploadFileToServer CreateTemporaryFile WriteOutRecord ResetSystemClock In my experience, this is far more common than the other approach of writing out the lengthier names, but I have seen both styles and was curious to see what other people's thoughts were on these two approaches. So, are you in the "method names that read like prose" camp or the "method names that say what I mean but read out loud like a bad foreign-language-to-English translation" camp?

  Read the article

• When to use typedef?

  - by futlib

  I'm a bit confused about if and when I should use typedef in C++. I feel it's a balancing act between readability and clarity. Here's a code sample without any typedefs: int sum(std::vector<int>::const_iterator first, std::vector<int>::const_iterator last) { static std::map<std::tuple<std::vector<int>::const_iterator, std::vector<int>::const_iterator>, int> lookup_table; std::map<std::tuple<std::vector<int>::const_iterator, std::vector<int>::const_iterator>, int>::iterator lookup_it = lookup_table.find(lookup_key); if (lookup_it != lookup_table.end()) return lookup_it->second; ... } Pretty ugly IMO. So I'll add some typedefs within the function to make it look nicer: int sum(std::vector<int>::const_iterator first, std::vector<int>::const_iterator last) { typedef std::tuple<std::vector<int>::const_iterator, std::vector<int>::const_iterator> Lookup_key; typedef std::map<Lookup_key, int> Lookup_table; static Lookup_table lookup_table; Lookup_table::iterator lookup_it = lookup_table.find(lookup_key); if (lookup_it != lookup_table.end()) return lookup_it->second; ... } The code is still a bit clumsy, but I get rid of most nightmare material. But there's still the int vector iterators, this variant gets rid of those: typedef std::vector<int>::const_iterator Input_iterator; int sum(Input_iterator first, Input_iterator last) { typedef std::tuple<Input_iterator, Input_iterator> Lookup_key; typedef std::map<Lookup_key, int> Lookup_table; static Lookup_table lookup_table; Lookup_table::iterator lookup_it = lookup_table.find(lookup_key); if (lookup_it != lookup_table.end()) return lookup_it->second; ... } This looks clean, but is it still readable? When should I use a typedef? As soon as I have a nightmare type? As soon as it occurs more than once? Where should I put them? Should I use them in function signatures or keep them to the implementation?

  Read the article

• How to camel-case where consecutive words have numbers?

  - by Rob I

  Just wondering if anybody has a good convention to follow in this corner-corner-corner case. I really use Java but figured the C# folks might have some good insight too. Say I am trying to name a class where two consecutive words in the class name are numeric (note that the same question could asked about identifier names). Can't get a great example, but think of something like "IEEE 802 16 bit value". Combining consecutive acronyms is doable if you accept classnames such as HttpUrlConnection. But it seriously makes me throw up a little to think of naming the class IEEE80216BitValue. If I had to pick, I'd say that's even worse than IEEE802_16BitValue which looks like a bad mistake. For small numbers, I'd consider IEEE802SixteenBitValue but that doesn't scale that well. Anyone out there have a convention? Seems like Microsoft's naming guidelines are the only ones that describe acronym naming in enough detail to get the job done, but nobody has addressed numbers in classnames.

  Read the article

• Should I use parentheses in logical statements even where not necessary?

  - by Jeff Bridgman

  Let's say I have a boolean condition a AND b OR c AND d and I'm using a language where AND has a higher order of operation precedent than OR. I could write this line of code: If (a AND b) OR (c AND d) Then ... But really, that's equivalent to: If a AND b OR c AND d Then ... Are there any arguments in for or against including the extraneous parentheses? Does practical experience suggest that it is worth including them for readability? Or is it a sign that a developer needs to really sit down and become confident in the basics of their language?

  Read the article

• Is it a good idea to add robots "noindex" meta tags to deep low content pages, e.g. product model data

  - by Cognize

  I'm considering adding robots "noindex, follow" tags to the very numerous product data pages that are linked from the product style pages in our online store. For example, each product style has a page with full text content on the product: http://www.shop.example/Product/Category/Style/SOME-STYLE-CODE Then many data pages with technical data for each model code is linked from the product style page. http://www.shop.example/Product/Category/Style/SOME-STYLE-CODE-1 http://www.shop.example/Product/Category/Style/SOME-STYLE-CODE-2 http://www.shop.example/Product/Category/Style/SOME-STYLE-CODE-3 It is these technical data pages that I intend to add the no index code to, as I imagine that this might stop these pages from cannibalizing keyword authority for more important content rich pages on the site. Any advice appreciated.

  Read the article

• Use unnamed object to invoke method or not?

  - by Chen OT

  If I have a class with only only public method. When I use this class, is it good to use unnamed object to invoke its method? normal: TaxFileParser tax_parser(tax_file_name); auto content = tax_parser.get_content(); or unnamed object version: auto content = TaxFileParser(tax_file_name).get_content(); Because I've told that we should avoid temporary as possible. If tax_parser object is used only once, can I call it a temporary and try to eliminate it? Any suggestion will be helpful.

  Read the article

• Implementing Ads on any page in your Windows 8 XAML app–part 2

  - by nmarun

  In my previous article , you saw how you can start implementing ads on some of the page templates. In this one, we’ll see how we can add something called ‘interstitial ads’ – ads that appear as part of the content in your app. I have added a Grouped Items page to my project. My data model is set to show a few appliances. I have a BaseModel class and the ApplianceModel that inherits the BaseModel class has two properties to represent an appliance. The ProductHolder acts as a container for a list of...(read more)

  Read the article

• Functions that only call other functions. Is this a good practice?

  - by Eric C.

  I'm currently working on a set of reports that have many different sections (all requiring different formatting), and I'm trying to figure out the best way to structure my code. Similar reports we've done in the past end up having very large (200+ line) functions that do all of the data manipulation and formatting for the report, such that the workflow looks something like this: DataTable reportTable = new DataTable(); void RunReport() { reportTable = DataClass.getReportData(); largeReportProcessingFunction(); outputReportToUser(); } I would like to be able to break these large functions up into smaller chunks, but I'm afraid that I'll just end up having dozens of non-reusable functions, and a similar "do everything here" function whose only job is to call all these smaller functions, like so: void largeReportProcessingFunction() { processSection1HeaderData(); calculateSection1HeaderAverages(); formatSection1HeaderDisplay(); processSection1SummaryTableData(); calculateSection1SummaryTableTotalRow(); formatSection1SummaryTableDisplay(); processSection1FooterData(); getSection1FooterSummaryTotals(); formatSection1FooterDisplay(); processSection2HeaderData(); calculateSection1HeaderAverages(); formatSection1HeaderDisplay(); calculateSection1HeaderAverages(); ... } Or, if we go one step further: void largeReportProcessingFunction() { callAllSection1Functions(); callAllSection2Functions(); callAllSection3Functions(); ... } Is this really a better solution? From an organizational point of view I suppose it is (i.e. everything is much more organized than it might otherwise be), but as far as code readability I'm not sure (potentially large chains of functions that only call other functions). Thoughts?

  Read the article

• What is the worst programmer habit?

  - by 0x4a6f4672

  Many people get into programming because programming is fun. At least in the beginning. After some time doing it professionally, programming is no longer fun, often just hard work. Sometimes we develop bad habits along the way to make it fun again. Some bad habits of programmers are well known, for example the "I fix that in a second" habit, the "reinvent the wheel" practice or the "all code except mine is crap" attitude (which often leads to "I will re-write the entire program from scratch" syndrome). There are things which a programmer should never do. What is the worst programmer habit?

  Read the article

• Implementing Ads on any page in your Windows 8 XAML app–part 1

  - by nmarun

  Let’s look at how you can implements ads on any page in your win 8 app. Before you get to your application, you need to create Ad Units in the MS Pubcenter site. Once you have set up your account with payout and tax details, go to the Setup tab and you’ll see something like below. There are a few options for the sizes of the ad units as shown on the Pubcenter site. Remember that these screenshots are just to give you some reference. The actual positioning of the ads in your apps is decided by you...(read more)

  Read the article

• Where should I define constants in scripts?

  - by bshacklett

  When writing scripts using a modern scripting language, e.g. Powershell or JavaScript, where should I define constants? Should I make all constants global for readability and ease of use, or does it make sense to define constants as close to their scopes as possible (in a function, for instance, if it's not needed elsewhere)? I'm thinking mostly of error messages, error IDs, paths to resources or configuration options.

  Read the article

• Assignments in mock return values

  - by zerkms

  (I will show examples using php and phpunit but this may be applied to any programming language) The case: let's say we have a method A::foo that delegates some work to class M and returns the value as-is. Which of these solutions would you choose: $mock = $this->getMock('M'); $mock->expects($this->once()) ->method('bar') ->will($this->returnValue('baz')); $obj = new A($mock); $this->assertEquals('baz', $obj->foo()); or $mock = $this->getMock('M'); $mock->expects($this->once()) ->method('bar') ->will($this->returnValue($result = 'baz')); $obj = new A($mock); $this->assertEquals($result, $obj->foo()); or $result = 'baz'; $mock = $this->getMock('M'); $mock->expects($this->once()) ->method('bar') ->will($this->returnValue($result)); $obj = new A($mock); $this->assertEquals($result, $obj->foo()); Personally I always follow the 2nd solution, but just 10 minutes ago I had a conversation with couple of developers who said that it is "too tricky" and chose 3rd or 1st. So what would you usually do? And do you have any conventions to follow in such cases?

  Read the article

• My apps in the Windows 8 Store

  - by nmarun

  I have four apps in the Windows 8 store now. Logo Name Available since Description Knight’s Tour Nov 7 2012 Game – How many moves you can make with your Knight on a board alternatives To Oct 9 2012 App – Alternatives to a specified software on various platforms with different licenses Cows N Bulls Sept 7 2012 Game – Guess the four-letter word chosen by the computer Howzzat Book Aug 27 2012 App – Get ratings for a book from various sites all in one place...(read more)

  Read the article

• How do you avoid name similarities between your classes and the native ones?

  - by Oscar

  I just ran into an "interesting problem", which I would like your opinion about: I am developing a system and for many reasons (meaning: abstraction, technology independence, etc) we create our own types for exchanging information. For instance: if there is a method which is called SendEmail and is invoked by the business logic, it way have a parameter of type OurCompany.EMailMessage, which is an object which is completely technology independent and contains only "business relevant data" (for instance, no information abut head encoding). Inside the SendEmail function, we get this information from our EMailMEssage object and create a MailMessage (this one is technolgy specific) object so it can be sent over the network. As you can already notice, our class has a very similar name to the "native" language class. The problem is: this is exactly what they are, email messages, so it is hard to find another meaningful name for them. Do you have this problem often? How do you manage it? Edit: @mgkrebbs just commented about using fully qualified names. This is our current approach, but a little bit too verbose, IMHO. I would like something cleaner, if possible.

  Read the article

• Naming conventions for newtype deconstructors (destructors?)

  - by Petr Pudlák

  Looking into Haskell's standard library we can see: newtype StateT s m a = StateT { runStateT :: s -> m (a, s) } newtype WrappedMonad m a = WrapMonad { unwrapMonad :: m a } newtype Sum a = Sum { getSum :: a } Apparently, there (at least) 3 different prefixes used to unwrap a value inside a newtype: un-, run- and get-. (Moreover run- and get- capitalizes the next letter while un- doesn't.) This seems confusing. Are there any reasons for that, or is that just a historical thing? If I design my own newtype, what prefix should I use and why?

  Read the article

• What's wrong with circular references?

  - by dash-tom-bang

  I was involved in a programming discussion today where I made some statements that basically assumed axiomatically that circular references (between modules, classes, whatever) are generally bad. Once I got through with my pitch, my coworker asked, "what's wrong with circular references?" I've got strong feelings on this, but it's hard for me to verbalize concisely and concretely. Any explanation that I may come up with tends to rely on other items that I too consider axioms ("can't use in isolation, so can't test", "unknown/undefined behavior as state mutates in the participating objects", etc.), but I'd love to hear a concise reason for why circular references are bad that don't take the kinds of leaps of faith that my own brain does, having spent many hours over the years untangling them to understand, fix, and extend various bits of code. Edit: I am not asking about homogenous circular references, like those in a doubly-linked list or pointer-to-parent. This question is really asking about "larger scope" circular references, like libA calling libB which calls back to libA. Substitute 'module' for 'lib' if you like. Thanks for all of the answers so far!

  Read the article

• creative & complex vs simple and readable

  - by Shirish11

  Which is a better option? Its not always that when you have something creative your code is going to look ugly. But at times it does go a bit ugly. e.g. if ( (object1(0)==object2(0) && (object1(1)==object2(1) && (object1(2)==object2(2) && (object1(3)==object2(3)){ retval = true; else retval = false; is simple and readable bool retValue = (object1(0)==object2(0)) && (object1(1)==object2(1)) && (object1(2)==object2(2)) && (object1(3)==object2(3)); but having something like this will make some newbies scratch their heads. So what do I go for? including simple code everywhere might sometime hamper my performance. what I could think of was commenting wherever necessary but at times u get too curious to know what is actually happening. Any suggestions are welcome.

  Read the article

• Using 'new' in a projection?

  - by davenewza

  I wish to project a collection from one type (Something) to another type (SomethingElse). Yes, this is a very open-eneded question, but which of the two options below do you prefer? Creating a new instance using new: var result = query.Select(something => new SomethingElse(something)); Using a factory: var result = query.Select(something => SomethingElse.FromSomething(something)); When I think of a projection, I generally think of it as a conversion. Using new gives me this idea that I'm creating new objects during a conversion, which doesn't feel right. Semantically, SomethingElse.FromSomething() most definitely fits better. Although, the second option does require addition code to setup a factory, which could become unnecessarily compulsive.

  Read the article

• How do you proactively guard against errors of omission?

  - by Gabriel

  I'll preface this with I don't know if anyone else who's been programming as long as I have actually has this problem, but at the very least, the answer might help someone with less xp. I just stared at this code for 5 minutes, thinking I was losing my mind that it didn't work: var usedNames = new HashSet<string>(); Func<string, string> l = (s) => { for (int i = 0; ; i++) { var next = (s + i).TrimEnd('0'); if (!usedNames.Contains(next)) { return next; } } }; Finally I noticed I forgot to add the used name to the hash set. Similarly, I've spent minutes upon minutes over omitting context.SaveChanges(). I think I get so distracted by the details that I'm thinking about that some really small details become invisible to me - it's almost at the level of mental block. Are there tactics to prevent this? update: a side effect of asking this was fixing the error it would have for i 9 (Thanks!) var usedNames = new HashSet<string>(); Func<string, string> name = (s) => { string result = s; if(usedNames.Contains(s)) for (int i = 1; ; result = s + i++) if (!usedNames.Contains(result)) break; usedNames.Add(result); return result; };

  Read the article

• Commenting/In-Code Documentation Styles

  - by Maxpm

  This might be a stupid question, but it's been in the back of my head for a while and I can't find a decent answer anywhere else. I have a teacher who says we should explicitly list each parameter with a description, even if there's only one. This leads to a lot of repetition: double MyFunction(const int MyParam); // Function: MyFunction // Summary: Does stuff with MyParam. // Input: int MyParam - The number to do stuff with. // Output: MyParam with stuff done to it. When writing in-code documentation, how detailed are you?

  Read the article

• How to layout class definition when inheriting from multiple interfaces

  - by gabr

  Given two interface definitions ... IOmniWorkItem = interface ['{3CE2762F-B7A3-4490-BF22-2109C042EAD1}'] function GetData: TOmniValue; function GetResult: TOmniValue; function GetUniqueID: int64; procedure SetResult(const value: TOmniValue); // procedure Cancel; function DetachException: Exception; function FatalException: Exception; function IsCanceled: boolean; function IsExceptional: boolean; property Data: TOmniValue read GetData; property Result: TOmniValue read GetResult write SetResult; property UniqueID: int64 read GetUniqueID; end; IOmniWorkItemEx = interface ['{3B48D012-CF1C-4B47-A4A0-3072A9067A3E}'] function GetOnWorkItemDone: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate; function GetOnWorkItemDone_Asy: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate; procedure SetOnWorkItemDone(const Value: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate); procedure SetOnWorkItemDone_Asy(const Value: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate); // property OnWorkItemDone: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate read GetOnWorkItemDone write SetOnWorkItemDone; property OnWorkItemDone_Asy: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate read GetOnWorkItemDone_Asy write SetOnWorkItemDone_Asy; end; ... what are your ideas of laying out class declaration that inherits from both of them? My current idea (but I don't know if I'm happy with it): TOmniWorkItem = class(TInterfacedObject, IOmniWorkItem, IOmniWorkItemEx) strict private FData : TOmniValue; FOnWorkItemDone : TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate; FOnWorkItemDone_Asy: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate; FResult : TOmniValue; FUniqueID : int64; strict protected procedure FreeException; protected //IOmniWorkItem function GetData: TOmniValue; function GetResult: TOmniValue; function GetUniqueID: int64; procedure SetResult(const value: TOmniValue); protected //IOmniWorkItemEx function GetOnWorkItemDone: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate; function GetOnWorkItemDone_Asy: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate; procedure SetOnWorkItemDone(const Value: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate); procedure SetOnWorkItemDone_Asy(const Value: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate); public constructor Create(const data: TOmniValue; uniqueID: int64); destructor Destroy; override; public //IOmniWorkItem procedure Cancel; function DetachException: Exception; function FatalException: Exception; function IsCanceled: boolean; function IsExceptional: boolean; property Data: TOmniValue read GetData; property Result: TOmniValue read GetResult write SetResult; property UniqueID: int64 read GetUniqueID; public //IOmniWorkItemEx property OnWorkItemDone: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate read GetOnWorkItemDone write SetOnWorkItemDone; property OnWorkItemDone_Asy: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate read GetOnWorkItemDone_Asy write SetOnWorkItemDone_Asy; end; As noted in answers, composition is a good approach for this example but I'm not sure it applies in all cases. Sometimes I'm using multiple inheritance just to split read and write access to some property into public (typically read-only) and private (typically write-only) part. Does composition still apply here? I'm not really sure as I would have to move the property in question out from the main class and I'm not sure that's the correct way to do it. Example: // public part of the interface interface IOmniWorkItemConfig = interface function OnExecute(const aTask: TOmniBackgroundWorkerDelegate): IOmniWorkItemConfig; function OnRequestDone(const aTask: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate): IOmniWorkItemConfig; function OnRequestDone_Asy(const aTask: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate): IOmniWorkItemConfig; end; // private part of the interface IOmniWorkItemConfigEx = interface ['{42CEC5CB-404F-4868-AE81-6A13AD7E3C6B}'] function GetOnExecute: TOmniBackgroundWorkerDelegate; function GetOnRequestDone: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate; function GetOnRequestDone_Asy: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate; end; // implementing class TOmniWorkItemConfig = class(TInterfacedObject, IOmniWorkItemConfig, IOmniWorkItemConfigEx) strict private FOnExecute : TOmniBackgroundWorkerDelegate; FOnRequestDone : TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate; FOnRequestDone_Asy: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate; public constructor Create(defaults: IOmniWorkItemConfig = nil); public //IOmniWorkItemConfig function OnExecute(const aTask: TOmniBackgroundWorkerDelegate): IOmniWorkItemConfig; function OnRequestDone(const aTask: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate): IOmniWorkItemConfig; function OnRequestDone_Asy(const aTask: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate): IOmniWorkItemConfig; public //IOmniWorkItemConfigEx function GetOnExecute: TOmniBackgroundWorkerDelegate; function GetOnRequestDone: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate; function GetOnRequestDone_Asy: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate; end;

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42  | Next Page >