Search Results

Search found 1533 results on 62 pages for 'rdbms agnostic'.

Page 4/62 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• Alternative to Game State System?

  - by Ricket

  As far as I can tell, most games have some sort of "game state system" which switches between the different game states; these might be things like "Intro", "MainMenu", "CharacterSelect", "Loading", and "Game". On the one hand, it totally makes sense to separate these into a state system. After all, they are disparate and would otherwise need to be in a large switch statement, which is obviously messy; and they certainly are well represented by a state system. But at the same time, I look at the "Game" state and wonder if there's something wrong about this state system approach. Because it's like the elephant in the room; it's HUGE and obvious but nobody questions the game state system approach. It seems silly to me that "Game" is put on the same level as "Main Menu". Yet there isn't a way to break up the "Game" state. Is a game state system the best way to go? Is there some different, better technique to managing, well, the "game state"? Is it okay to have an intro state which draws a movie and listens for enter, and then a loading state which loops on the resource manager, and then the game state which does practically everything? Doesn't this seem sort of unbalanced to you, too? Am I missing something?

  Read the article

• Is there a better term than "smoothness" or "granularity" to describe this language feature?

  - by Chris Stevens

  One of the best things about programming is the abundance of different languages. There are general purpose languages like C++ and Java, as well as little languages like XSLT and AWK. When comparing languages, people often use things like speed, power, expressiveness, and portability as the important distinguishing features. There is one characteristic of languages I consider to be important that, so far, I haven't heard [or been able to come up with] a good term for: how well a language scales from writing tiny programs to writing huge programs. Some languages make it easy and painless to write programs that only require a few lines of code, e.g. task automation. But those languages often don't have enough power to solve large problems, e.g. GUI programming. Conversely, languages that are powerful enough for big problems often require far too much overhead for small problems. This characteristic is important because problems that look small at first frequently grow in scope in unexpected ways. If a programmer chooses a language appropriate only for small tasks, scope changes can require rewriting code from scratch in a new language. And if the programmer chooses a language with lots of overhead and friction to solve a problem that stays small, it will be harder for other people to use and understand than necessary. Rewriting code that works fine is the single most wasteful thing a programmer can do with their time, but using a bazooka to kill a mosquito instead of a flyswatter isn't good either. Here are some of the ways this characteristic presents itself. Can be used interactively - there is some environment where programmers can enter commands one by one Requires no more than one file - neither project files nor makefiles are required for running in batch mode Can easily split code across multiple files - files can refeence each other, or there is some support for modules Has good support for data structures - supports structures like arrays, lists, and especially classes Supports a wide variety of features - features like networking, serialization, XML, and database connectivity are supported by standard libraries Here's my take on how C#, Python, and shell scripting measure up. Python scores highest. Feature C# Python shell scripting --------------- --------- --------- --------------- Interactive poor strong strong One file poor strong strong Multiple files strong strong moderate Data structures strong strong poor Features strong strong strong Is there a term that captures this idea? If not, what term should I use? Here are some candidates. Scalability - already used to decribe language performance, so it's not a good idea to overload it in the context of language syntax Granularity - expresses the idea of being good just for big tasks versus being good for big and small tasks, but doesn't express anything about data structures Smoothness - expresses the idea of low friction, but doesn't express anything about strength of data structures or features Note: Some of these properties are more correctly described as belonging to a compiler or IDE than the language itself. Please consider these tools collectively as the language environment. My question is about how easy or difficult languages are to use, which depends on the environment as well as the language.

  Read the article

• Is there any functional difference between immutable value types and immutable reference types?

  - by Kendall Frey

  Value types are types which do not have an identity. When one variable is modified, other instances are not. Using Javascript syntax as an example, here is how a value type works. var foo = { a: 42 }; var bar = foo; bar.a = 0; // foo.a is still 42 Reference types are types which do have an identity. When one variable is modified, other instances are as well. Here is how a reference type works. var foo = { a: 42 }; var bar = foo; bar.a = 0; // foo.a is now 0 Note how the example uses mutatable objects to show the difference. If the objects were immutable, you couldn't do that, so that kind of testing for value/reference types doesn't work. Is there any functional difference between immutable value types and immutable reference types? Is there any algorithm that can tell the difference between a reference type and a value type if they are immutable? Reflection is cheating. I'm wondering this mostly out of curiosity.

  Read the article

• Game Components, Game Managers and Object Properties

  - by George Duckett

  I'm trying to get my head around component based entity design. My first step was to create various components that could be added to an object. For every component type i had a manager, which would call every component's update function, passing in things like keyboard state etc. as required. The next thing i did was remove the object, and just have each component with an Id. So an object is defined by components having the same Ids. Now, i'm thinking that i don't need a manager for all my components, for example i have a SizeComponent, which just has a Size property). As a result the SizeComponent doesn't have an update method, and the manager's update method does nothing. My first thought was to have an ObjectProperty class which components could query, instead of having them as properties of components. So an object would have a number of ObjectProperty and ObjectComponent. Components would have update logic that queries the object for properties. The manager would manage calling the component's update method. This seems like over-engineering to me, but i don't think i can get rid of the components, because i need a way for the managers to know what objects need what component logic to run (otherwise i'd just remove the component completely and push its update logic into the manager). Is this (having ObjectProperty, ObjectComponent and ComponentManager classes) over-engineering? What would be a good alternative?

  Read the article

• Do you think natively compiled languages have reached their EOL?

  - by Yuval A

  If we look at the major programming languages in use today it is pretty noticeable that the vast majority of them are, in fact, interpreted. Looking at the largest piece of the pie we have Java and C# which are both enterprise-ready, heavy-duty, serious programming languages which are basically compiled to byte-code only to be interpreted by their respective VMs (the JVM and the CLR). If we look at scripting languages, we have Perl, Python, Ruby and Lua which are all interpreted (either from code or from bytecode - and yes, it should be noted that they are absolutely not the same). Looking at compiled languages we have C which is nowadays used in embedded and low-level, real-time environments, and C++ which is still alive and kicking, when you want to get down to serious programming as close to the hardware as you can, but still have some nice abstractions to help you with day to day tasks. Basically, there is no real runner-up compiled language in the distance. Do you feel that languages which are natively compiled to executable, binary code are a thing of the past, taken over by interpreted languages which are much more portable and compatible? Does C++ mark an end of an era? Why don't we see any new compiled languages anymore? I think I should clarify: I do not want this to turn into a "which language is better" discussion, because that is not the issue at hand. The languages I gave as example are only examples. Please focus on the question I raised, and if you disagree with my statement that compiled languages are less frequent these days, that is totally fine, I am more than happy to be proved mistaken.

  Read the article

• Methods of learning / teaching programming

  - by Mark Avenius

  When I was in school, I had a difficult time getting into programming because of a catch-22 in the learning process: I didn't know how to write anything because I didn't know what keywords and commands meant. For example (as a student, I would think), "what does this using namespace std; thing do anyway? I didn't know what keywords and commands meant because I hadn't written anything. This basically led me to spending countless long night cursing the compiler as I made minor tweaks to my assignments until they would compile (and hopefully perform whatever operation they were supposed to). Is there a teaching/learning method that anyone uses that gets around this catch-22? I am trying to make this non-argumentative, which is why I don't want to know the 'best' method, but rather which methods exist.

  Read the article

• Data validation best practices: how can I better construct user feedback?

  - by Cory Larson

  Data validation, whether it be domain object, form, or any other type of input validation, could theoretically be part of any development effort, no matter its size or complexity. I sometimes find myself writing informational or error messages that might seem harsh or demanding to unsuspecting users, and frankly I feel like there must be a better way to describe the validation problem to the user. I know that this topic is subjective and argumentative. StackOverflow might not be the proper channel for diving into this subject, but like I've mentioned, we all run into this at some point or another. There are so many StackExchange sites now; if there is a better one, feel free to share! Basically, I'm looking for good resources on data validation and user feedback that results from it at a theoretical level. Topics and questions I'm interested in are: Content Should I be describing what the user did correctly or incorrectly, or simply what was expected? How much detail can the user read before they get annoyed? (e.g. Is "Username cannot exceed 20 characters." enough, or should it be described more fully, such as "The username cannot be empty, and must be at least 6 characters but cannot exceed 30 characters."?) Grammar How do I decide between phrases like "must not," "may not," or "cannot"? Delivery This can depend on the project, but how should the information be delivered to the user? Should it be obtrusive (e.g. JavaScript alerts) or friendly? Should they be displayed prominently? Immediately (i.e. without confirmation steps, etc.)? Logging Do you bother logging validation errors? Internationalization Some cultures prefer or better understand directness over subtlety and vice-versa (e.g. "Don't do that!" vs. "Please check what you've done."). How do I cater to the majority of users? I may edit this list as I think more about the topic, but I'm genuinely interest in proper user feedback techniques. I'm looking for things like research results, poll results, etc. I've developed and refined my own techniques over the years that users seem to be okay with, but I work in an environment where the users prefer to adapt to what you give them over speaking up about things they don't like. I'm interested in hearing your experiences in addition to any resources to which you may be able to point me.

  Read the article

• Why is it impossible to produce truly random numbers?

  - by Vinoth Kumar

  I was trying to solve a hobby problem that required generating a million random numbers. But I quickly realized, it is becoming difficult to make them unique. I picked up Algorithm Design Manual to read about random number generation. It has the following paragraph that I am fully not able to understand. Unfortunately, generating random numbers looks a lot easier than it really is. Indeed, it is fundamentally impossible to produce truly random numbers on any deterministic device. Von Neumann [Neu63] said it best: “Anyone who considers arithmetical methods of producing random digits is, of course, in a state of sin.” The best we can hope for are pseudo-random numbers, a stream of numbers that appear as if they were generated randomly. Why is it impossible to produce truly random numbers in any deterministic device? What does this sentence mean?

  Read the article

• Gathering all data in single iteration vs using functions for readable code

  - by user828584

  Say I have an array of runners with which I need to find the tallest runner, the fastest runner, and the lightest runner. It seems like the most readable solution would be: runners = getRunners(); tallestRunner = getTallestRunner(runners); fastestRunner = getFastestRunner(runners); lightestRunner = getLightestRunner(runners); ..where each function iterates over the runners and keeps track of the largest height, greatest speed, and lowest weight. Iterating over the array three times, however, doesn't seem like a very good idea. It would instead be better to do: int greatestHeght, greatestSpeed, leastWeight; Runner tallestRunner, fastestRunner, lightestRunner; for(runner in runners){ if(runner.height > greatestHeight) { greatestHeight = runner.height; tallestRunner = runner; } if(runner.speed > ... } While this isn't too unreadable, it can get messy when there is more logic for each piece of information being extracted in the iteration. What's the middle ground here? How can I use only a single iteration while still keeping the code divided into logical units?

  Read the article

• Beginner's guide to writing comments?

  - by Cameron

  Is there a definitive guide to writing code comments, aimed at budding developers? Ideally, it would cover when comments should (and should not) be used, and what comments should contain. This answer: Do not comment WHAT you are doing, but WHY you are doing it. The WHAT is taken care of by clean, readable and simple code with proper choice of variable names to support it. Comments show a higher level structure to the code that can't be (or is hard to) show by the code itself. comes close, but it's a little concise for inexperienced programmers (an expansion on that with several examples and corner cases would be excellent, I think).

  Read the article

• Which algorithms/data structures should I "recognize" and know by name?

  - by Earlz

  I'd like to consider myself a fairly experienced programmer. I've been programming for over 5 years now. My weak point though is terminology. I'm self-taught, so while I know how to program, I don't know some of the more formal aspects of computer science. So, what are practical algorithms/data structures that I could recognize and know by name? Note, I'm not asking for a book recommendation about implementing algorithms. I don't care about implementing them, I just want to be able to recognize when an algorithm/data structure would be a good solution to a problem. I'm asking more for a list of algorithms/data structures that I should "recognize". For instance, I know the solution to a problem like this: You manage a set of lockers labeled 0-999. People come to you to rent the locker and then come back to return the locker key. How would you build a piece of software to manage knowing which lockers are free and which are in used? The solution, would be a queue or stack. What I'm looking for are things like "in what situation should a B-Tree be used -- What search algorithm should be used here" etc. And maybe a quick introduction of how the more complex(but commonly used) data structures/algorithms work. I tried looking at Wikipedia's list of data structures and algorithms but I think that's a bit overkill. So I'm looking more for what are the essential things I should recognize?

  Read the article

• What defines code readability?

  - by zxcdw

  It is often said that readability is perhaps the most important quality-defining measure of a given piece of code for reasons concerning maintainability, ease of understanding and use. What defines the word readable in context of program source code? What kind of definitive aspects are there to code readability? I would be grateful with code examples of readable code, along with reasoning why it is readable.

  Read the article

• Time/duration handling in strategic game

  - by borg

  I'm considering developing a space opera game, having already done some game design. Technically, though, I'm coming from a business applications background. Hence I don't really know how I should handle time and duration. Let's state the matter clearly: what if something is bound to happen in 5 hours and on which other events depend. For example the arrival of some space ship in some system where some defense systems are present, hence a fight would start. Should I use some kind of scheduler (like Quartz in my java land) to trigger the corresponding event when due (I plan to use events for communication)? Something else?

  Read the article

• Is code that terminates on a random condition guaranteed to terminate?

  - by Simon Campbell

  If I had a code which terminated based on if a random number generator returned a result (as follows), would it be 100% certain that the code would terminate if it was allowed to run forever. while (random(MAX_NUMBER) != 0): // random returns a random number between 0 and MAX_NUMBER print('Hello World') I am also interested in any distinctions between purely random and the deterministic random that computers generally use. Assume the seed is not able to be known in the case of the deterministic random. Naively it could be suggested that the code will exit, after all every number has some possibility and all of time for that possibility to be exercised. On the other hand it could be argued that there is the random chance it may not ever meet the exit condition-- the generator could generate 1 'randomly' until infinity. (I suppose one would question the validity of the random number generator if it was a deterministic generator returning only 1's 'randomly' though)

  Read the article

• Is the slow performance of programming languages a bad thing?

  - by Emanuil

  Here's how I see it. There's machine code and it's all that the computers needs in order to run something. The computers don't care about programming languages. It doesn't matter to them if the machine code comes from Perl, Python or PHP. Programming languages exist to serve programmers. Some programming languages run slower than others but that's not necessarily because there is something wrong with them. In many cases it's just because they do more things that otherwise programmers would have to do and by doing these things, they do better what they are supposed to do - serve programmers. So is the slower performance (at runtime) of a programming language really a bad thing?

  Read the article

• Data migration - dangerous or essential?

  - by MRalwasser

  The software development department of my company is facing with the problem that data migrations are considered as potentially dangerous, especially for my managers. The background is that our customers are using a large amount of data with poor quality. The reasons for this is only partially related to our software quality, but rather to the history of the data: Most of them have been migrated from predecessor systems, some bugs caused (mostly business) inconsistencies in the data records or misentries by accident on the customer's side (which our software allowed by error). The most important counter-arguments from my managers are that faulty data may turn into even worse data, the data troubles may awake some managers at the customer and some processes on the customer's side may not work anymore because their processes somewhat adapted to our system. Personally, I consider data migrations as an integral part of the software development and that data migration can been seen to data what refactoring is to code. I think that data migration is an essential for creating software that evolves. Without it, we would have to create painful software which somewhat works around a bad data structure. I am asking you: What are your thoughts to data migration, especially for the real life cases and not only from a developer's perspecticve? Do you have any arguments against my managers opinions? How does your company deal with data migrations and the difficulties caused by them? Any other interesting thoughts which belongs to this topics?

  Read the article

• Is case after case in a switch efficient?

  - by RandomGuy

  Just a random question regarding switch case efficiency in case after case; is the following code (assume pseudo code): function bool isValid(String myString){ switch(myString){ case "stringA": case "stringB": case "stringC": return true; default: return false; } more efficient than this: function bool isValid(String myString){ switch(myString){ case "stringA": return true; case "stringB": return true; case "stringC": return true; default: return false; } Or is the performance equal? I'm not thinking in a specific language but if needed let's assume it's Java or C (for this case would be needed to use chars instead of strings).

  Read the article

• Strengthening code with possibly useless exception handling

  - by rdurand

  Is it a good practice to implement useless exception handling, just in case another part of the code is not coded correctly? Basic example A simple one, so I don't loose everybody :). Let's say I'm writing an app that will display a person's information (name, address, etc.), the data being extracted from a database. Let's say I'm the one coding the UI part, and someone else is writing the DB query code. Now imagine that the specifications of your app say that if the person's information is incomplete (let's say, the name is missing in the database), the person coding the query should handle this by returning "NA" for the missing field. What if the query is poorly coded and doesn't handle this case? What if the guy who wrote the query handles you an incomplete result, and when you try to display the informations, everything crashes, because your code isn't prepared to display empty stuff? This example is very basic. I believe most of you will say "it's not your problem, you're not responsible for this crash". But, it's still your part of the code which is crashing. Another example Let's say now I'm the one writing the query. The specifications don't say the same as above, but that the guy writing the "insert" query should make sure all the fields are complete when adding a person to the database to avoid inserting incomplete information. Should I protect my "select" query to make sure I give the UI guy complete informations? The questions What if the specifications don't explicitly say "this guy is the one in charge of handling this situation"? What if a third person implements another query (similar to the first one, but on another DB) and uses your UI code to display it, but doesn't handle this case in his code? Should I do what's necessary to prevent a possible crash, even if I'm not the one supposed to handle the bad case? I'm not looking for an answer like "(s)he's the one responsible for the crash", as I'm not solving a conflict here, I'd like to know, should I protect my code against situations it's not my responsibility to handle? Here, a simple "if empty do something" would suffice. In general, this question tackles redundant exception handling. I'm asking it because when I work alone on a project, I may code 2-3 times a similar exception handling in successive functions, "just in case" I did something wrong and let a bad case come through.

  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

• CodeGolf : Find the Unique Paths

  - by st0le

  Here's a pretty simple idea, in this pastebin I've posted some pair of numbers. These represent Nodes of a unidirected connected graph. The input to stdin will be of the form, (they'll be numbers, i'll be using an example here) c d q r a b d e p q so x y means x is connected to y (not viceversa) There are 2 paths in that example. a->b->c->d->e and p->q->r. You need to print all the unique paths from that graph The output should be of the format a->b->c->d->e p->q->r Notes You can assume the numbers are chosen such that one path doesn't intersect the other (one node belongs to one path) The pairs are in random order. They are more than 1 paths, they can be of different lengths. All numbers are less than 1000. If you need more details, please leave a comment. I'll amend as required. Shameless-Plug For those who enjoy Codegolf, please Commit at Area51 for its very own site:) (for those who don't enjoy it, please support it as well, so we'll stay out of your way...)

  Read the article

• Number crunching algo for learning multithreading?

  - by Austin Henley

  I have never really implemented anything dealing with threads; my only experience with them is reading about them in my undergrad. So I want to change that by writing a program that does some number crunching, but splits it up into several threads. My first ideas for this hopefully simple multithreaded program were: Beal's Conjecture brute force based on my SO question. Bailey-Borwein-Plouffe formula for calculating Pi. Prime number brute force search As you can see I have an interest in math and thought it would be fun to incorporate it into this, rather than coding something such as a server which wouldn't be nearly as fun! But the 3 ideas don't seem very appealing and I have already done some work on them in the past so I was curious if anyone had any ideas in the same spirit as these 3 that I could implement?

  Read the article

• Is there a better term than "smoothness" or "granularity" to describe this language feature?

  - by Chris

  One of the best things about programming is the abundance of different languages. There are general purpose languages like C++ and Java, as well as little languages like XSLT and AWK. When comparing languages, people often use things like speed, power, expressiveness, and portability as the important distinguishing features. There is one characteristic of languages I consider to be important that, so far, I haven't heard [or been able to come up with] a good term for: how well a language scales from writing tiny programs to writing huge programs. Some languages make it easy and painless to write programs that only require a few lines of code, e.g. task automation. But those languages often don't have enough power to solve large problems, e.g. GUI programming. Conversely, languages that are powerful enough for big problems often require far too much overhead for small problems. This characteristic is important because problems that look small at first frequently grow in scope in unexpected ways. If a programmer chooses a language appropriate only for small tasks, scope changes can require rewriting code from scratch in a new language. And if the programmer chooses a language with lots of overhead and friction to solve a problem that stays small, it will be harder for other people to use and understand than necessary. Rewriting code that works fine is the single most wasteful thing a programmer can do with their time, but using a bazooka to kill a mosquito instead of a flyswatter isn't good either. Here are some of the ways this characteristic presents itself. Can be used interactively - there is some environment where programmers can enter commands one by one Requires no more than one file - neither project files nor makefiles are required for running in batch mode Can easily split code across multiple files - files can refeence each other, or there is some support for modules Has good support for data structures - supports structures like arrays, lists, and especially classes Supports a wide variety of features - features like networking, serialization, XML, and database connectivity are supported by standard libraries Here's my take on how C#, Python, and shell scripting measure up. Python scores highest. Feature C# Python shell scripting --------------- --------- --------- --------------- Interactive poor strong strong One file poor strong strong Multiple files strong strong moderate Data structures strong strong poor Features strong strong strong Is there a term that captures this idea? If not, what term should I use? Here are some candidates. Scalability - already used to decribe language performance, so it's not a good idea to overload it in the context of language syntax Granularity - expresses the idea of being good just for big tasks versus being good for big and small tasks, but doesn't express anything about data structures Smoothness - expresses the idea of low friction, but doesn't express anything about strength of data structures or features Note: Some of these properties are more correctly described as belonging to a compiler or IDE than the language itself. Please consider these tools collectively as the language environment. My question is about how easy or difficult languages are to use, which depends on the environment as well as the language.

  Read the article

• Which statically typed languages support intersection types for function return values?

  - by stakx

  Initial note: This question got closed after several edits because I lacked the proper terminology to state accurately what I was looking for. Sam Tobin-Hochstadt then posted a comment which made me recognise exactly what that was: programming languages that support intersection types for function return values. Now that the question has been re-opened, I've decided to improve it by rewriting it in a (hopefully) more precise manner. Therefore, some answers and comments below might no longer make sense because they refer to previous edits. (Please see the question's edit history in such cases.) Are there any popular statically & strongly typed programming languages (such as Haskell, generic Java, C#, F#, etc.) that support intersection types for function return values? If so, which, and how? (If I'm honest, I would really love to see someone demonstrate a way how to express intersection types in a mainstream language such as C# or Java.) I'll give a quick example of what intersection types might look like, using some pseudocode similar to C#: interface IX { … } interface IY { … } interface IB { … } class A : IX, IY { … } class B : IX, IY, IB { … } T fn() where T : IX, IY { return … ? new A() : new B(); } That is, the function fn returns an instance of some type T, of which the caller knows only that it implements interfaces IX and IY. (That is, unlike with generics, the caller doesn't get to choose the concrete type of T — the function does. From this I would suppose that T is in fact not a universal type, but an existential type.) P.S.: I'm aware that one could simply define a interface IXY : IX, IY and change the return type of fn to IXY. However, that is not really the same thing, because often you cannot bolt on an additional interface IXY to a previously defined type A which only implements IX and IY separately. Footnote: Some resources about intersection types: Wikipedia article for "Type system" has a subsection about intersection types. Report by Benjamin C. Pierce (1991), "Programming With Intersection Types, Union Types, and Polymorphism" David P. Cunningham (2005), "Intersection types in practice", which contains a case study about the Forsythe language, which is mentioned in the Wikipedia article. A Stack Overflow question, "Union types and intersection types" which got several good answers, among them this one which gives a pseudocode example of intersection types similar to mine above.

  Read the article

• Should my program "be lenient" in what it accepts and "discard faulty input silently"?

  - by romkyns

  I was under the impression that by now everyone agrees this maxim was a mistake. But I recently saw this answer which has a "be lenient" comment upvoted 137 times (as of today). In my opinion, the leniency in what browsers accept was the direct cause of the utter mess that HTML and some other web standards were a few years ago, and have only recently begun to properly crystallize out of that mess. The way I see it, being lenient in what you accept will lead to this. The second part of the maxim is "discard faulty input silently, without returning an error message unless this is required by the specification", and this feels borderline offensive. Any programmer who has banged their head on the wall when something fails silently will know what I mean. So, am I completely wrong about this? Should my program be lenient in what it accepts and swallow errors silently? Or am I mis-interpreting what this is supposed to mean? Taken to the extreme, if Excel followed this maxim and I gave it an exe file to open, it would just show a blank spreadsheet without even mentioning that anything went wrong. Is this really a good principle to follow?

  Read the article

• The worst anti-patterns you have came across.

  - by ?????????

  What are the worst anti-patterns you have came across in your career as a programmer? I'm mostly involved in java, although it is probably language-independent. I think the worst of it is what I call the main anti-pattern. It means program consisting of single, extremely big class (sometimes accompanied with a pair of little classes) which contains all logic. Typically with a big loop in which all business logic is contained, sometimes having tens of thousands of lines of code.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >