Search Results

Search found 1504 results on 61 pages for 'pros and cons'.

Page 40/61 | < Previous Page | 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47  | Next Page >

• Can it be a good idea to lease a house rather than a standard office-space for a software development shop? [closed]

  - by hamlin11

  Our lease is up on our US-based office-space in July, so it's back on my radar to evaluate our office-space situation. Two of our partners rather like the idea of leasing a house rather than standard office-space. We have 4 partners and one employee. I'm against the idea at this moment in time. Pros, as I see them Easier to get a good location (minimize commutes) All partners/employees have dogs. Easier to work longer hours without dog-duties pulling people back home More comfortable bathroom situation Residential Internet Rate Control of the thermostat Clients don't come to our office, so this would not change our image The additional comfort-level should facilitate a significantly higher-percentage of time "in the zone" for programmers and artists. Cons, as I see them Additional bills to pay (house-cleaning, yard, util, gas, electric) Additional time-overhead in dealing with bills (house-cleaning, yard, util, gas, electric) Additional overhead required to deal with issues that maintenance would have dealt with in a standard office-space Residential neighbors to contend with The equation starts to look a little nasty when factoring in potential time-overhead, especially on issues that a maintenance crew would deal with at a standard office complex. Can this be a good thing for a software development shop?

  Read the article

• Reporting Solution in PHP / CodeIgniter - Server side logic vs client side

  - by dot

  I'm building a report for an end user. They would like to see a list of all widgets... but then also like to see widgets with missing attributes, like missing names, or missing size. So i was thinking of creating one method that returns json data containing all widgets... and then using javascript to let them filter the data for missing data, instead of requerying the database. Ultimately, they need to be able to save all "reports" (filtered versions of data) inside a csv file. These are the two options I'm mulling over: Design 1 Create 3 separate methods in my controller/model like: get_all_data() get_records_with_missing_names() get_records_with_missing_size() And then when these methods are called, I would display the data on screen and give them a button to save to csv file. Design 2 Create one method called get_all_data() and then somehow, give them tools in the view to filter the json data using tables etc... and then letting them save subsets of the data. The reality is, in order to display all data, I still need to massage the data, and therefore, I know which records are missing attributes. So i'd rather not create separate methods by each filter. I'm not sure how I would do that just yet but at this point, i would like to know some pros/cons of each method. Thanks.

  Read the article

• Pair Programming, for or against? [on hold]

  - by user1037729

  I believe it has many advantages over individual programming: Pros By pairing senior with relatively junior staff, the more junior can get up to speed with both project and computing experience, and the senior will re-think the problem in order to communicate with the junior, thus re-checking his own thinking (rubber duck principle!). At least 2 people will know about any single piece of work, if one person is away the other can cover, or if some one leaves a project knowledge transfer is easier. Two brains on a complex task is more effective, communication keeps the work free flowing and provides redundancy in decision making. Code is effectively reviewed as its being written, no need for a separate reviewing phase which requires a context switch as someone who has not been working on the piece in question would be required to understand and review the related code. Reviewing code on your own which you haven't written or architected is not fun, hence counter productive. Cons Less bandwith for performing tasks, lets say we have 4 devs, pair programming requires 2 devs per task, so we would be doing 2 tasks concurrently as a posed to 4. I believe this "Con" does not stand up as the pair programmed task would complete sooner and comes with a review built in for free! Ie the pair programming task would be more efficient and thus free up resources earlier. Less flexibility to chop and change tasks as two developers are tied into a task, when flexibility is required this could be a problem.

  Read the article

• To Virtual or Not to Virtual

  - by Kevin Shyr

  I recently made a comment "I hate everything virtual" while responding to a SQL server performance question.  I then promptly fired up my Hyper-V development environment to do my proof of concept stuff, and realized that I made the cardinal sin of making a generalized comment about something, instead of saying "It depends". The bottom line is if the virtual environment gives the throughput that the server needs, then it is not that big of a deal.  I just have seen so many environment set up with SQL server sitting in virtual environment sitting in a SAN, so on top of having to plan for loss data, I now have to plan for my virtual environment failing for so many different reasons, thought SQL 2012 High Availability Group should make that easier.  To me, a virtual environment makes sense for a stateless application with big scalibility requirement, but doesn't give much benefit to an application where performance and data integrity are both important.  If security is not a concern, I would just build servers with multiple instances on them to balance the workload. Maybe this is also too generalized a comment, and I'll confess that I'm not a DBA by trade.  I'd love to hear the pros and cons of virtualizing a SQL server, or other examples where virtualization makes total sense (not just money, but recovery, rollback, etc.)

  Read the article

• The balance between client and server functionality

  - by Eugen Martynov

  I want to bring the discussion that started in our teams and get your opinion about it. Assume we have an user account which could have different credentials for authentication and associated email to recover. An user has possibility to do signup with an email or use his social profile to complete signup process. As an Rest API from the backend to client looks like: Create account Authorise Update user data Link social account Register email Verify email In addition our BE is distributed and divided between several services/servers/clusters. So different calls are related to different end points. In case of the social sign up some of steps should be skipped or simplified. For example, with Facebook signup we could already skip email registration and verification step (we ask email permission form user), linking the social account and pre-fill user displayed name. So we proposed to have another end point which will hide/combine different calls on BE and return whole process result to the clients. The pros for this approach: No more duplication of functionality between clients Speed up the networking and user experience The cons for this approach: Additional work for backend Probably most complex scenarios in future updates I would like to get your opinion or experience with this situation. Especially if you already experienced point #2 from against reasons.

  Read the article

• Cry Engine 3 vs UDK

  - by Daniele Riccardelli

  I'm new here and I hope that other people may find this question interesting. Me and a bunch of guys from my University are thinking about getting started in game development, but, even though the game design is kind of ready, we are stucked at the point "which Engine should we choose". At first, we were thinking about Unity3D Free, in particular because we are pretty familiar with C# and, even better, it's completely free, but on the other hand there are some cons like no dynamic shadowing that make the realization of our game kinda hard. So, we are thinking about moving either to UDK or Cry Engine, since they are not as expensive as Unity3D Pro (at least before the game deployment) . The thing we are worried the most, though, is that we are kind of scared about the support for team work(i mean, that we might find it hard to coordinate our efforts without software support), since in Unity3D the team features are part of purchasable content, and we are not interested in paying that much for a project we are not even sure we can complete. So, finally, I hope one of you knows the mentioned engines enough to give us a tip telling which one offers better team features and is advisable for guys that have barely worked before on videogames but have good object oriented programming skills. Probably might be helpful for your suggestion, if i say that our game is an exploration game. Thanks to anybody who's going to answer.

  Read the article

• vim + Ruby on Rails: how do you bounce among those 4-5 files you're currently working on?

  - by glitch

  I'm just starting to get familiar with vim, and I'd like to use it as my primary Rails development tool. As a Visual Studio and RubyMine user, I find a lot of stuff to be missing from the barebones vim installation, and therefore I went ahead and attempted to soup it up with plugins such as: rails.vim tcomment ruby-vim NERDtree and a couple of others. The issue is that I still don't quite get the average work-flow of using vim as one's Rails IDE. In RubyMine (again, similarly to Visual Studio) I have a series of tabs always open, containing the main files I'm switching among, and I additionally use NERDtree to open files from the folder structure. I tried opening them as new tabs, but the tab system in vim is just a lot more awkward than that in real IDEs. (I haven't seen vim pros in action, but I imagine that they'd not be relying on tabs, but using numerous splits instead, keeping at least a couple of files per split and switching between them with CTRL + ^. Is that the case?) So, at the end of the day, how do I really squeeze the most from vim if I want to be able to quickly access several files at once? Thank you!

  Read the article

• Two components offering the same functionality, required by different dependencies

  - by kander

  I'm building an application in PHP, using Zend Framework 1 and Doctrine2 as the ORM layer. All is going well. Now, I happened to notice that both ZF1 and Doctrine2 come with, and rely on, their own caching implementation. I've evaluated both, and while each has its own pro's and cons, neither of them stand out as superior to the other for my simple needs. Both libraries also seem to be written against their respective interfaces, not their implementations. Reasons why I feel this is an issue is that during the bootstrapping of my application, I have to configure two caching drivers - each with its own syntax. A mismatch is easily created this way, and it feels inefficient to set up two connections to the caching backend because of this. I'm trying to determine what the best way forward is, and would welcome any insights you may be able to offer. What I've thought up so far are four options: Do nothing, accept that two classes offering caching functionality are present. Create a Facade class to stick Zend's interface onto Doctrine's caching implementation. Option 2, the other way around - create a Facade to map Doctrine's interface on a Zend Framework backend. Use multiple-interface-inheritance to create one interface to rule them all, and pray that there aren't any overlaps (ie: if both have a "save" method, they'll need to accept params in the same order due to PHP's lack of proper polymorphism). What option is best, or is there a "None of the above" variant that I'm not aware of?

  Read the article

• Visits-PageViews-Bounce Rate-New Visitors-Visit Duration (Google Analytics), which one is top priority for seo?

  - by HOY

  This is the case: My site is getting a lot of trafic from an image (a company logo image) because this image is ranked 1.st in google search results for a company's title. (I have no idea how that happened) This image is must for my website, but it is not relevant with site content so irrelevant people search for the image and finds out about my site, so that I get interesting statistics: http://postimage.org/image/3oyvrjoz9/ Pros: Total Visits & Avg. New Visits Cons: Avg. Page/Visit, Avg. Visit Duration, Bounce Rate In summary I am confused if this image is helpful to my website ? Because I don't know the balance between those 5 statistics P.S: My website is 2 months old, and we are working on seo at the moment Another P.S: Kindly ask you to not provide assumtions, because I also have assumptions, I need real knowledge. Edit: Search Keyword is: arcelik logo Search Site: google.com.tr Search URL: https://www.google.com.tr/search?hl=en&q=arcelik+logo&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.41524429,d.Yms&biw=1366&bih=667&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=oZIDUfutAseVswa9zYHwCw

  Read the article

• Which platform to choose from .Net or Java [closed]

  - by SahilMahajanMj

  I know that there is a lot healthy discussion about this topic. but my case is entirely different from these discussions. I have just passed out my graduation. During the graduation period, i had done C#.net and java as well. Now i am working as Android programmer in a company. In the recent times, i have heard a lot about pros and cons of these platforms. What our seniors used to suggest that, ASP.net is a lot better than JSP for website developement. .net provides us lot of in built tools and API's for building powerfull applications. Java's platform independancy has always been issue among them. Security fetures are more in java. .Net has more powerfull IDE's. Now i am a bit confused on which platform to choose from these. I found java better from two, so did i prefer to choose android. Also, the discussion always ends with an issue that java has no scope for job as far has .net does. I would like to hear suggestions on this topic, but it would be better, if you consider indian IT market for this discussion.

  Read the article

• How to define implementation details?

  - by woni

  In our project, an assembly combines logic for the IoC-Container, the project internals and the communication layer. The current version evolved to have only internal classes in addin assemblies. My main problem with this approach is, that the entry point is only available over the IoC-Container. It is not possible to use anything else than reflection to initialize the assembly. Everything behind the IoC-Interface is defined as implementation detail and therefore not intended for usages outside. It is well known that you should not test implementation detail (such as private and internal methods), because they should be tested through the public interface. It is also well known, that your tests should not use the IoC-Container to setup the SUTs, because that would result in too much dependencies. So we are using the InternalsVisibleTo-Attribute to make internals visible to our test assemblies and test the so called implementation details. I recognized that one problem could be the mixup between different concerns in that assembly, changing this would make this discussion useless, because classes have to be defined public. Ignoring my concerns with this, isn't the need to test a class enough reason to make it public, the usages of InternalsVisibleTo seems unintended, and a little bit "hacky". The approach to test only against the publicly available IoC-Container is too costly and would result in integration style tests. The pros of using internals are, that the usages are well known and do not have to be implemented like a public method would have to be (documentation, completeness, versioning,...). Is there a solution, to not test against internals, but keep their advantages over public classes, or do we have to redefine what an implementation detail is.

  Read the article

• Software solution from the 2000's, should I attempt to patch or remake the whole thing?

  - by ShadowScripter

  I was sent out to discuss a system that a certain company is currently using and what should be done with it. The company manufactures various carton displays. This system was developed to keep track of clients, orders and prices. Lots have happened since the system was created and the system is now, as the manager described it, "locked up" and "problematic", which I translate as "not dynamic" and "unstable". Some info about the system It was developed around the year 2000 Fairly small system, 2-5 users, 6 forms, ~8 tables with average quantities of data Built on early Visual Basic, forms created with the drag and drop design. Interface is basically just a window with a menu and some forms Uses MSSQL database (SQL2005 server) to store data and ODBC driver to query, data was migrated from excel before this system, and before excel it was handled, calculated and written by hand and paper Users work in Microsoft XP environment (and up) Their main problem is that they can't adjust and calculate prices, can't add new carton types etc, correctly anymore because they can't (or rather, they don't know how to) touch the data on the server. I suggested 3 possible solutions Attempt to patch the current system Create a fresh new interface (preferably similar environment, VB.net or VB based) Bring it back to an Excel solution, considering it is such a small system There might be more options, but these are the ones I could think of. My questions are What should I recommend and why? What is or could be the pros and cons of these alternatives? Are there other (possibly better) alternatives?

  Read the article

• Interfaces on an abstract class

  - by insta

  My coworker and I have different opinions on the relationship between base classes and interfaces. I'm of the belief that a class should not implement an interface unless that class can be used when an implementation of the interface is required. In other words, I like to see code like this: interface IFooWorker { void Work(); } abstract class BaseWorker { ... base class behaviors ... public abstract void Work() { } protected string CleanData(string data) { ... } } class DbWorker : BaseWorker, IFooWorker { public void Work() { Repository.AddCleanData(base.CleanData(UI.GetDirtyData())); } } The DbWorker is what gets the IFooWorker interface, because it is an instantiatable implementation of the interface. It completely fulfills the contract. My coworker prefers the nearly identical: interface IFooWorker { void Work(); } abstract class BaseWorker : IFooWorker { ... base class behaviors ... public abstract void Work() { } protected string CleanData(string data) { ... } } class DbWorker : BaseWorker { public void Work() { Repository.AddCleanData(base.CleanData(UI.GetDirtyData())); } } Where the base class gets the interface, and by virtue of this all inheritors of the base class are of that interface as well. This bugs me but I can't come up with concrete reasons why, outside of "the base class cannot stand on its own as an implementation of the interface". What are the pros & cons of his method vs. mine, and why should one be used over another?

  Read the article

• Best practice to collect information from child objects

  - by Markus

  I'm regularly seeing the following pattern: public abstract class BaseItem { BaseItem[] children; // ... public void DoSomethingWithStuff() { StuffCollection collection = new StuffCollection(); foreach(child c : children) c.AddRequiredStuff(collection); // do something with the collection ... } public abstract void AddRequiredStuff(StuffCollection collection); } public class ConcreteItem : BaseItem { // ... public override void AddRequiredStuff(StuffCollection collection) { Stuff stuff; // ... collection.Add(stuff); } } Where I would use something like this, for better information hiding: public abstract class BaseItem { BaseItem[] children; // ... public void DoSomethingWithStuff() { StuffCollection collection = new StuffCollection(); foreach(child c : children) collection.AddRange(c.RequiredStuff()); // do something with the collection ... } public abstract StuffCollection RequiredStuff(); } public class ConcreteItem : BaseItem { // ... public override StuffCollection RequiredStuff() { StuffCollection stuffCollection; Stuff stuff; // ... stuffCollection.Add(stuff); return stuffCollection; } } What are pros and cons of each solution? For me, giving the implementation access to parent's information is some how disconcerting. On the other hand, initializing a new list, just to collect the items is a useless overhead ... What is the better design? How would it change, if DoSomethingWithStuff wouldn't be part of BaseItem but a third class? PS: there might be missing semicolons, or typos; sorry for that! The above code is not meant to be executed, but just for illustration.

  Read the article

• Case studies for successful service (project) based software development businesses without constant overtime from its employees [closed]

  - by Ryan Taylor

  I work for an IT company that is primarily services (project) based rather than product based. All software engineers are salaried. The company has set new expectations that everyone should work 48 hours per week instead of 40. Note, this isn't occasional overtime due to crunches. This is the new 40. The reasoning is that this enables the company to provide benefits to its employees such as monetary incentives and training because the company is more profitable. more hours worked = more billable hours = larger profit I understand the need for profitability and the occasional crunch time and have put in the extra hours when it was needed and beneficial to the project. However, I am also very sensitive to work life balance and have raised my concerns about the the new expectation. My employer is open to other methods to increase profitability so I hold hope that we can turn things around before it becomes a horrible place to work. How does a services based company become more profitable without increasing the number of hours expected from it's salaried employees? Are there any case studies showing the pros and cons of consistent overtime? Are there any case studies for a successful service based business model (for software development companies) that does not require consistent overtime from its employees?

  Read the article

• When decomposing a large function, how can I avoid the complexity from the extra subfunctions?

  - by missingno

  Say I have a large function like the following: function do_lots_of_stuff(){ { //subpart 1 ... } ... { //subpart N ... } } a common pattern is to decompose it into subfunctions function do_lots_of_stuff(){ subpart_1(...) subpart_2(...) ... subpart_N(...) } I usually find that decomposition has two main advantages: The decomposed function becomes much smaller. This can help people read it without getting lost in the details. Parameters have to be explicitly passed to the underlying subfunctions, instead of being implicitly available by just being in scope. This can help readability and modularity in some situations. However, I also find that decomposition has some disadvantages: There are no guarantees that the subfunctions "belong" to do_lots_of_stuff so there is nothing stopping someone from accidentally calling them from a wrong place. A module's complexity grows quadratically with the number of functions we add to it. (There are more possible ways for things to call each other) Therefore: Are there useful convention or coding styles that help me balance the pros and cons of function decomposition or should I just use an editor with code folding and call it a day? EDIT: This problem also applies to functional code (although in a less pressing manner). For example, in a functional setting we would have the subparts be returning values that are combined in the end and the decomposition problem of having lots of subfunctions being able to use each other is still present. We can't always assume that the problem domain will be able to be modeled on just some small simple types with just a few highly orthogonal functions. There will always be complicated algorithms or long lists of business rules that we still want to correctly be able to deal with. function do_lots_of_stuff(){ p1 = subpart_1() p2 = subpart_2() pN = subpart_N() return assembleStuff(p1, p2, ..., pN) }

  Read the article

• Been doing .NET for several years and am thinking about a platform change. Where do people suggest I go?

  - by rsteckly

  Hi, I've been programming in .NET for several years now and am thinking maybe its time to do a platform switch. Any suggestions about which platform would be the best to learn? I've been thinking about going back to C++ development or just focusing on T-SQL within the Microsoft stack. I'm thinking of switching because: a) I feel that the .NET platform is increasingly becoming commodified--meaning that its more about learning a GUI and certain things to click around than really understanding programming. I'm concerned that this will lend itself to making developers on that stack increasingly paid less. b) It's very frustrating to spend your entire day essentially debugging something that should work but doesn't. Usually, Microsoft releases something that suggests anyone can just click here and there and poof there's your application. Most of the time it doesn't work and winds up sucking so much more time than it was supposed to save. c) I recently led a team in a small startup to build a WPF application. We were really hit hard with people complaining about having to download the runtime. Our code was also not portable to any other platform. Added to which, the ram usage and slowness to load of the app was remarkable for its size. I researched it and we could not find a way to optimize it. d) I'm a little concerned about being wedded to the Windows platform. What are the pros and cons of adding another platform and which platform do people suggest? Thanks!

  Read the article

• Do you use your personal laptop for work? [closed]

  - by davekaro

  We're trying to get our company to let us use our own personal laptops for client work. We've agreed that any code/data will be encrypted using something like TrueCrypt, in case a laptop is stolen or lost. However, the company is still skeptical and not sure they want to allow us to use our personal machines for development. They would rather buy us laptops... but we want to use MacBook Pros and they don't want to pay for them. Even if they did buy us laptops, we would stil have the issue of needing to encrypt the code/data in case of theft/loss. Do you use your own laptop for work? What are the arguments for/against this? UPDATE: Thanks for all the responses, its given us a lot to think about. This was originally brought up because we were asking for a "personal loan" to buy new laptops for ourselves, and then we threw in there that we would use these laptops for work too - since right now we use our personal laptops occasionally, e.g. at client site or weekend support.

  Read the article

• REST API wrapper - class design for 'lite' object responses

  - by sasfrog

  I am writing a class library to serve as a managed .NET wrapper over a REST API. I'm very new to OOP, and this task is an ideal opportunity for me to learn some OOP concepts in a real-life situation that makes sense to me. Some of the key resources/objects that the API returns are returned with different levels of detail depending on whether the request is for a single instance, a list, or part of a "search all resources" response. This is obviously a good design for the REST API itself, so that full objects aren't returned (thus increasing the size of the response and therefore the time taken to respond) unless they're needed. So, to be clear: .../car/1234.json returns the full Car object for 1234, all its properties like colour, make, model, year, engine_size, etc. Let's call this full. .../cars.json returns a list of Car objects, but only with a subset of the properties returned by .../car/1234.json. Let's call this lite. ...search.json returns, among other things, a list of car objects, but with minimal properties (only ID, make and model). Let's call this lite-lite. I want to know what the pros and cons of each of the following possible designs are, and whether there is a better design that I haven't covered: Create a Car class that models the lite-lite properties, and then have each of the more detailed responses inherit and extend this class. Create separate CarFull, CarLite and CarLiteLite classes corresponding to each of the responses. Create a single Car class that contains (nullable?) properties for the full response, and create constructors for each of the responses which populate it to the extent possible (and maybe include a property that returns the response type from which the instance was created). I expect among other things there will be use cases for consumers of the wrapper where they will want to iterate through lists of Cars, regardless of which response type they were created from, such that the three response types can contribute to the same list. Happy to be pointed to good resources on this sort of thing, and/or even told the name of the concept I'm describing so I can better target my research.

  Read the article

• Artificial Intelligence ... how to make an object roam freely/avoid other objects, and model consciousness? [on hold]

  - by help bonafide pigeons

  Say a simple free roam battle scene in which a player runs around freely and engages in battle with other enemies/objects, as shown below: The dragon/dinosaur (or whatever that thing I drew appears to be) will, by some measure, try and avoid attacks so it is modeled to appear to have a conscious desire to avoid pain. My question is ... since this is very complex, many possible strategies for solving this, algorithms, etc., what is the basic idea behind how this would be accomplished in any sort? Like, we can assume the enemy in the picture is not just going to aimlessly hop around and avoid, but freely be modeled to behave as if it were really exploring/fighting. For the best example I can give, witness the behavior of the enemies in Final Fantasy 12 in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mO0TkmhiQ6w How do the pros, or how would anyone attempt solve/implement this? PS: I have tried several times to give an image the "illusion" that is has a conciousness, but aside from emulating a real animal's consciousness in complete, I fall short and get choppy moving images that follow predictable patterns, error-prone movements, and the worst imaginable scenario of a battle engagement.

  Read the article

• Is it a good idea to dynamically position and size controls on a form or statically set them?

  - by CrystalBlue

  I've worked mostly with interface building tools such as xCode's Interface Builder and Visual Studio's environment to place forms and position them on screens. But I'm finding that with my latest project, placing controls on the form through a graphical interface is not going to work. This more has to do with the number of custom controls I have to create that I can't visually see before hand. When I first tackled this, I began to position all of my controls relative to the last ones that I created. Doing this had its own pros and cons. On the one hand, this gave me the opportunity to set one number (a margin for example) and when I changed the margin, the controls all sized correctly to one another (such as shortening controls in the center while keeping controls next to the margin the same). But this started to become a spiders-web of code that I knew wouldn't go very far before getting dangerous. Change one number and everything re sizes, but remove one control and you've created many more errors and size problems for all the other controls. It became more surgery then small changes to controls and layout. Is there a good way or maybe a preferred way to determine when I should be using relative or absolute positioning in forms?

  Read the article

• A Myriad of Options

  - by Mark Hesse

  I am currently working with a customer that is close to outgrowing their Exadata X2-2 half rack in both compute and storage capacity.  The platform is used for one of their larger data warehouse applications and the move to Exadata almost two years ago has been a resounding success, forcing them to grow the platform sooner than anticipated. At a recent planning meeting, we started looking at the options for expansion and have developed five alternatives, all of which meet or exceed their growth requirements, yet have different pros and cons in terms of the impact to their production and test environments. The options include an in-rack upgrade to a full rack of Exadata using the recently released X3-2 platform (an option that even applies to an older V2 rack), multi-rack cabling the existing X2-2 to another full rack or half rack X2-2 (and utilizing both compute and storage capacity in the other rack), or simply adding a new X3-2 half rack (and taking advantage of the added compute and flash performance in the X3-2). While the decision is yet to be made, it had me thinking that one of the benefits of Exadata over a traditional database deployment is that when the time comes to expand the platform, there are a myriad of options.

  Read the article

• Should if statments be in inner or outer method?

  - by mjcopple

  Which of these designs is better? What are the pros and cons of each? Which one would you use? Any other suggestions of how to deal with methods like is are appreciated. It is reasonable to assume that Draw() is the only place that the other draw methods are called from. This needs to expand to many more Draw* methods and Show* properties, not just the three shown here. public void Draw() { if (ShowAxis) { DrawAxis(); } if (ShowLegend) { DrawLegend(); } if (ShowPoints && Points.Count > 0) { DrawPoints(); } } private void DrawAxis() { // Draw things. } private void DrawLegend() { // Draw things. } private void DrawPoints() { // Draw things. } Or public void Draw() { DrawAxis(); DrawLegend(); DrawPoints(); } private void DrawAxis() { if (!ShowAxis) { return; } // Draw things. } private void DrawLegend() { if (!ShowLegend) { return; } // Draw things. } private void DrawPoints() { if (!ShowPoints || Points.Count <= 0)) { return; } // Draw things. }

  Read the article

• High-level strategy for distinguishing a regular string from invalid JSON (ie. JSON-like string detection)

  - by Jonline

  Disclaimer On Absence of Code: I have no code to post because I haven't started writing; was looking for more theoretical guidance as I doubt I'll have trouble coding it but am pretty befuddled on what approach(es) would yield best results. I'm not seeking any code, either, though; just direction. Dilemma I'm toying with adding a "magic method"-style feature to a UI I'm building for a client, and it would require intelligently detecting whether or not a string was meant to be JSON as against a simple string. I had considered these general ideas: Look for a sort of arbitrarily-determined acceptable ratio of the frequency of JSON-like syntax (ie. regex to find strings separated by colons; look for colons between curly-braces, etc.) to the number of quote-encapsulated strings + nulls, bools and ints/floats. But the smaller the data set, the more fickle this would get look for key identifiers like opening and closing curly braces... not sure if there even are more easy identifiers, and this doesn't appeal anyway because it's so prescriptive about the kinds of mistakes it could find try incrementally parsing chunks, as those between curly braces, and seeing what proportion of these fractional statements turn out to be valid JSON; this seems like it would suffer less than (1) from smaller datasets, but would probably be much more processing-intensive, and very susceptible to a missing or inverted brace Just curious if the computational folks or algorithm pros out there had any approaches in mind that my semantics-oriented brain might have missed. PS: It occurs to me that natural language processing, about which I am totally ignorant, might be a cool approach; but, if NLP is a good strategy here, it sort of doesn't matter because I have zero experience with it and don't have time to learn & then implement/ this feature isn't worth it to the client.

  Read the article

• Implementing Explosions

  - by Xkynar

  I want to add explosions to my 2D game, but im having a hard time with the architecture. Several game elements might be responsible for explosions, like, lets say, explosive barrels and bullets (and there might be chain reactions with close barrels). The only options i can come up with are: 1 - Having an array of explosions and treat them as a game element as important as any other Pros: Having a single array which is updated and drawn with all the other game element arrays makes it more organized and simple to update, and the explosive barrels at a first glance would be easy to create, simply by passing the explosion array as a pointer to each explosive barrel constructor Cons: It might be hard for the bullets to add an explosion to the vector, since bullets are shot by a Weapon class which is located in every mob, so lets say, if i create a new enemy and add it to the enemy array, that enemy will have a weapon and functions to be able to use it, and if i want the weapon (rocket launcher in this case) to have access to the explosions array to be able to add a new one, id have to pass the explosion array as a pointer to the enemy, which would then pass it to the weapon, which would pass it to the bullets (ugly chain). Another problem I can think of is a little more weird: If im checking the collisions between explosions and barrels (so i create a chain reaction) and i detect an explosion colliding with a barrel, if i add a new explosion while im iterating the explosions java will trow an exception. So this is kinda annoying, i cant iterate through the explosions and add a new explosion, i must do it in another way... The other way which isnt really well thought yet is to just add an explosive component to every element that might explode so that when it dies, it explodes or something, but i dont have good ways on implementing this theory either Honestly i dont like either the solutions so id like to know how is it usually done by actual game developers, sorry if my problem seems trivial and dumb.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47  | Next Page >