Search Results

Search found 1449 results on 58 pages for 'oop'.

Page 41/58 | < Previous Page | 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48  | Next Page >

  • What is a Windows scripting language that: does not rely on .NET and offers the most OOP support and

    - by jJack
    What is a Windows scripting language that: does not rely on .NET and offers the most OOP support and has simplest deployment? It doesn't necessarily need to be a scripting language; It can be in the form of a compiled executable, however it needs to be self contained--only ONE file, no DLL's and it cannot be declared to "include" other files. I cannot rely on the user having any .NET installed and it needs to be able to run on Windows 7 64 bit. By "most OOP support", I basically mean anything that has better OOP support than VBScript. A little context: Everything I have done thus far is in VBScript and writes a bunch of data into an .html file, which in the end is to be viewed by Internet Explorer. It also zips up a bunch of directories and files. It heavily relies on accessing the registry, file-system, and WMI (I can probably do without accessing WMI though, as long as I have good registry access). I can bring myself to code in any language so long as it meets me ridonkulous requirements stated above. I look forward to some good answers from those more experienced than I.

    Read the article

  • What is the difference between Java 6 and PHP 5.4? [closed]

    - by Mashael
    First of all, let me explain the matter. I'm in a class where we learn Java 6 OOP fundamentals. However, my goal is to learn PHP (the last version) next. So, my question: Is there a big difference between PHP and Java 6 in OOP concepts? Meaning that after I finish the OOP class in Java will I find a lot of things that need to be learned in PHP regarding OOP? Update: *My goal of learning PHP next is to build dynamic sites* (I'm not sure of other options) and to follow OOP.

    Read the article

  • Why is my class worse than the hierarchy of classes in the book (beginner OOP)?

    - by aditya menon
    I am reading this book. The author is trying to model a lesson in a college. The goal is to output the Lesson Type (Lecture or Seminar), and the Charges for the lesson depending on whether it is a hourly or fixed price lesson. So the output should be: lesson charge 20. Charge type: hourly rate. lesson type seminar. lesson charge 30. Charge type: fixed rate. lesson type lecture. When the input is as follows: $lessons[] = new Lesson('hourly rate', 4, 'seminar'); $lessons[] = new Lesson('fixed rate', null, 'lecture'); I wrote this: class Lesson { private $chargeType; private $duration; private $lessonType; public function __construct($chargeType, $duration, $lessonType) { $this->chargeType = $chargeType; $this->duration = $duration; $this->lessonType = $lessonType; } public function getChargeType() { return $this->getChargeType; } public function getLessonType() { return $this->getLessonType; } public function cost() { if($this->chargeType == 'fixed rate') { return "30"; } else { return $this->duration * 5; } } } $lessons[] = new Lesson('hourly rate', 4, 'seminar'); $lessons[] = new Lesson('fixed rate', null, 'lecture'); foreach($lessons as $lesson) { print "lesson charge {$lesson->cost()}."; print " Charge type: {$lesson->getChargeType()}."; print " lesson type {$lesson->getLessonType()}."; print "<br />"; } But according to the book, I am wrong (I am pretty sure I am, too). The author gave a large hierarchy of classes as the solution instead. In a previous chapter, the author stated the following 'four signposts' as the time when I should consider changing my class structure: Code Duplication The Class Who Knew Too Much About His Context The Jack of All Trades - Classes that try to do many things Conditional Statements The only problem I can see is Conditional Statements, and that too in a vague manner - so why refactor this? What problems do you think might arise in the future that I have not foreseen?

    Read the article

  • Should an image be able to resize itself in OOP?

    - by ChocoDeveloper
    I'm writing an app that will have an Image entity, and I'm already having trouble deciding whose responsibility each task should be. First I have the Image class. It has a path, width, and other attributes. Then I created an ImageRepository class, for retrieving images with a single and tested method, eg: findAllImagesWithoutThumbnail(). But now I also need to be able to createThumbnail(). Who should deal with that? I was thinking about having an ImageManager class, which would be an app-specific class (there would also be a third party image manipulation reusable component of choice, I'm not reinventing the wheel). Or maybe it would be 0K to let the Image resize itself? Or let the ImageRepository and ImageManager be the same class? What do you think?

    Read the article

  • Which language unifies OOP, both RPC call and Message passing a la Smalltalk, and more ...

    - by user310291
    I hate software editors who pretend to know better what you need and choose for you. Java and c# pretend multiple inheritance is dangerous. That I agree I often use Interface but in some cases I may need multiple inheritance : why not let me choose ? Also today you have to choose between RPC call à la Java and Message passing à la Objective C. Again can't I choose when one or the other is more practical ? So is there any language on earth which will free me from what I want to choose to use dependending on MY context and MY own judgement ?

    Read the article

  • Integrating with a payment provider; Proper and robust OOP approach

    - by ExternalUse
    History We are currently using a so called redirect model for our online payments (where you send the payer to a payment gateway, where he inputs his payment details - the gateway will then return him to a success/failure callback page). That's easy and straight-forward, but unfortunately quite inconvenient and at times confusing for our customers (leaving the site, changing their credit card details with an additional login on another site etc). Intention & Problem description We are now intending to switch to an integrated approach using an exchange of XML requests and responses. My problem is on how to cater with all (or rather most) of the things that may happen during processing - bearing in mind that normally simplicity is robust whereas complexity is fragile. Examples User abort: The user inputs Credit Card details and hits submit. An XML message to the provider's gateway is sent and waiting for response. The user hits "stop" in his browser or closes the window. ignore_user_abort() in PHP may be an option - but is that reliable? might it be better to redirect the user to a "please wait"-page, that in turn opens an AJAX or other request to the actual processor that does not rely on the connection? Database goes away sounds over-complicated, but with e.g. a webserver in the States and a DB in the UK, it has happened and will happen again: User clicks together his order, payment request has been sent to the provider but the response cannot be stored in the database. What approach could I use, using PHP to sort of start an SQL like "Transaction" that only at the very end gets committed or rolled back, depending on the individual steps? Should then neither commit or roll back have happened, I could sort of "lock" the user to prevent him from paying again or to improperly account for payments - but how? And what else do I need to consider technically? None of the integration examples of e.g. Worldpay, Realex or SagePay offer any insight, and neither Google or my search terms were good enough to find somebody else's thoughts on this. Thank you very much for any insight on how you would approach this!

    Read the article

  • Any tips/tricks/resources on actually TEACHING a class on OOP? [closed]

    - by Sempus
    I may slowly be getting into teaching an Object-Orientated Programming class at my school in a year or two. I just graduated and work at my school as an Application Programmer. I'd first start off as a TA/grader and then slowly move into the Professor role. The class would be in Java. I always see resources on this fine site about HOW to program, but does anyone know any tips/tricks/resources on how to TEACH a programming class? It would be full of all different skills levels(but still semi-technical) so it would have to be a little more understandable than if it was just CS kids.

    Read the article

  • Introducing functional programming constructs in non-functional programming languages

    - by Giorgio
    This question has been going through my mind quite a lot lately and since I haven't found a convincing answer to it I would like to know if other users of this site have thought about it as well. In the recent years, even though OOP is still the most popular programming paradigm, functional programming is getting a lot of attention. I have only used OOP languages for my work (C++ and Java) but I am trying to learn some FP in my free time because I find it very interesting. So, I started learning Haskell three years ago and Scala last summer. I plan to learn some SML and Caml as well, and to brush up my (little) knowledge of Scheme. Well, a lot of plans (too ambitious?) but I hope I will find the time to learn at least the basics of FP during the next few years. What is important for me is how functional programming works and how / whether I can use it for some real projects. I have already developed small tools in Haskell. In spite of my strong interest for FP, I find it difficult to understand why functional programming constructs are being added to languages like C#, Java, C++, and so on. As a developer interested in FP, I find it more natural to use, say, Scala or Haskell, instead of waiting for the next FP feature to be added to my favourite non-FP language. In other words, why would I want to have only some FP in my originally non-FP language instead of looking for a language that has a better support for FP? For example, why should I be interested to have lambdas in Java if I can switch to Scala where I have much more FP concepts and access all the Java libraries anyway? Similarly: why do some FP in C# instead of using F# (to my knowledge, C# and F# can work together)? Java was designed to be OO. Fine. I can do OOP in Java (and I would like to keep using Java in that way). Scala was designed to support OOP + FP. Fine: I can use a mix of OOP and FP in Scala. Haskell was designed for FP: I can do FP in Haskell. If I need to tune the performance of a particular module, I can interface Haskell with some external routines in C. But why would I want to do OOP with just some basic FP in Java? So, my main point is: why are non-functional programming languages being extended with some functional concept? Shouldn't it be more comfortable (interesting, exciting, productive) to program in a language that has been designed from the very beginning to be functional or multi-paradigm? Don't different programming paradigms integrate better in a language that was designed for it than in a language in which one paradigm was only added later? The first explanation I could think of is that, since FP is a new concept (it isn't new at all, but it is new for many developers), it needs to be introduced gradually. However, I remember my switch from imperative to OOP: when I started to program in C++ (coming from Pascal and C) I really had to rethink the way in which I was coding, and to do it pretty fast. It was not gradual. So, this does not seem to be a good explanation to me. Or can it be that many non-FP programmers are not really interested in understanding and using functional programming, but they find it practically convenient to adopt certain FP-idioms in their non-FP language? IMPORTANT NOTE Just in case (because I have seen several language wars on this site): I mentioned the languages I know better, this question is in no way meant to start comparisons between different programming languages to decide which is better / worse. Also, I am not interested in a comparison of OOP versus FP (pros and cons). The point I am interested in is to understand why FP is being introduced one bit at a time into existing languages that were not designed for it even though there exist languages that were / are specifically designed to support FP.

    Read the article

  • Functional programming constructs in non-functional programming languages

    - by Giorgio
    This question has been going through my mind quite a lot lately and since I haven't found a convincing answer to it I would like to know if other users of this site have thought about it as well. In the recent years, even though OOP is still the most popular programming paradigm, functional programming is getting a lot of attention. I have only used OOP languages for my work (C++ and Java) but I am trying to learn some FP in my free time because I find it very interesting. So, I started learning Haskell three years ago and Scala last summer. I plan to learn some SML and Caml as well, and to brush up my (little) knowledge of Scheme. Well, a lot of plans (too ambitious?) but I hope I will find the time to learn at least the basics of FP during the next few years. What is important for me is how functional programming works and how / whether I can use it for some real projects. I have already developed small tools in Haskell. In spite of my strong interest for FP, I find it difficult to understand why functional programming constructs are being added to languages like C#, Java, C++, and so on. As a developer interested in FP, I find it more natural to use, say, Scala or Haskell, instead of waiting for the next FP feature to be added to my favourite non-FP language. In other words, why would I want to have only some FP in my originally non-FP language instead of looking for a language that has a better support for FP? For example, why should I be interested to have lambdas in Java if I can switch to Scala where I have much more FP concepts and access all the Java libraries anyway? Similarly: why do some FP in C# instead of using F# (to my knowledge, C# and F# can work together)? Java was designed to be OO. Fine. I can do OOP in Java (and I would like to keep using Java in that way). Scala was designed to support OOP + FP. Fine: I can use a mix of OOP and FP in Scala. Haskell was designed for FP: I can do FP in Haskell. If I need to tune the performance of a particular module, I can interface Haskell with some external routines in C. But why would I want to do OOP with just some basic FP in Java? So, my main point is: why are non-functional programming languages being extended with some functional concept? Shouldn't it be more comfortable (interesting, exciting, productive) to program in a language that has been designed from the very beginning to be functional or multi-paradigm? Don't different programming paradigms integrate better in a language that was designed for it than in a language in which one paradigm was only added later? The first explanation I could think of is that, since FP is a new concept (it isn't new at all, but it is new for many developers), it needs to be introduced gradually. However, I remember my switch from imperative to OOP: when I started to program in C++ (coming from Pascal and C) I really had to rethink the way in which I was coding, and to do it pretty fast. It was not gradual. So, this does not seem to be a good explanation to me. Also, I asked myself if my impression is just plainly wrong due to lack of knowledge. E.g., do C# and C++11 support FP as extensively as, say, Scala or Caml do? In this case, my question would be simply non-existent. Or can it be that many non-FP programmers are not really interested in using functional programming, but they find it practically convenient to adopt certain FP-idioms in their non-FP language? IMPORTANT NOTE Just in case (because I have seen several language wars on this site): I mentioned the languages I know better, this question is in no way meant to start comparisons between different programming languages to decide which is better / worse. Also, I am not interested in a comparison of OOP versus FP (pros and cons). The point I am interested in is to understand why FP is being introduced one bit at a time into existing languages that were not designed for it even though there exist languages that were / are specifically designed to support FP.

    Read the article

  • How to apply Data Oriented Design with Object Oriented Programming?

    - by Pombal
    I've read lots of articles about Data Oriented Design (DOD) and I understand it but I can't design an Object Oriented Programming (OOP) system with DOD in mind, I think my OOP education is blocking me. How should I think to mix the two? The objective is to have a nice OOP interface while using DOD behind the scenes. I saw this too but didn't help much: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3872354/how-to-apply-dop-and-keep-a-nice-user-interface

    Read the article

  • Object-Oriented Operating System

    - by nmagerko
    As I thought about writing an operating system, I came across a point that I really couldn't figure out on my own: Can an operating system truly be written in an Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) Language? Being that these types of languages do not allow for direct accessing of memory, wouldn't this make it impossible for a developer to write an entire operating system using only an OOP Language? Take, for example, the Android Operating System that runs many phones and some tablets in use around the world. I believe that this operating system uses only Java, an Object-Oriented language. In Java, I have been unsuccessful in trying to point at and manipulate a specific memory address that the run-time environment (JRE) has not assigned to my program implicitly. In C, C++, and other non-OOP languages, I can do this in a few lines. So this makes me question whether or not an operating system can be written in an OOP, especially Java. Any counterexamples or other information is appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Any enlightenment for understanding Object Oriented Programming? [closed]

    - by ????
    I studied computer science near the end of 1980s, and wasn't taught OOP that formally. With Pascal or C, when I understand the top-down design of functions, and the idea of black box, then everything just seem to make sense, as if there is a "oh I get it!" -- some kind of totally getting it and enlightenment feeling. But with OOP, all I know was the mechanics: the class, instance, method, inheritance, polymorphism, encapsulation. It was like, I knew all the "this is how it is", but never had the feeling of "I totally get it", the enlightened feeling. Would somebody be able to describe it, or point to a chapter in some book or paper which talks about OOP so that the reader can feel: "I totally get it!" on OOP?

    Read the article

  • An ideal way to decode JSON documents in C?

    - by AzizAG
    Assuming I have an API to consume that uses JSON as a data transmission method, what is an ideal way to decode the JSON returned by each API resource? For example, in Java I'd create a class for each API resource then initiate an object of that class and consume data from it. for example: class UserJson extends JsonParser { public function UserJson(String document) { /*Initial document parsing goes here...*/ } //A bunch of getter methods . . . . } The probably do something like this: UserJson userJson = new UserJson(jsonString);//Initial parsing goes in the constructor String username = userJson.getName();//Parse JSON name property then return it as a String. Or when using a programming language with associative arrays(i.e., hash table) the decoding process doesn't require creating a class: (PHP) $userJson = json_decode($jsonString);//Decode JSON as key=>value $username = $userJson['name']; But, when I'm programming in procedural programming languages (C), I can't go with either method, since C is neither OOP nor supports associative arrays(by default, at least). What is the "correct" method of parsing pre-defined JSON strings(i.e., JSON documents specified by the API provider via examples or documentation)? The method I'm currently using is creating a file for each API resource to parse, the problem with this method is that it's basically a lousy version of the OOP method, as it looks exactly like the OOP method but doesn't provide any OOP benefits(e.g., can't pass an object of the parser, etc.). I've been thinking about encapsulating each API resource parser file in a publicly accessed structure(pointing all functions/publicly usable variables to the structure) then accessing the parser file code from within the structure(parser.parse(), parser.getName(), etc.). As this way looks a bit better than the my current method, it still just a rip off the OOP way, isn't it? Any suggestions for methods to parse JSON documents on procedural programming lanauges? Any comments on the methods I'm currently using(either 3 of them)?

    Read the article

  • OOP App Architecture: Which layer does a lazy loader sit in?

    - by JW
    I am planning the implemention an Inheritance Mapper pattern for an application component http://martinfowler.com/eaaCatalog/inheritanceMappers.html One feature it needs to have is for a domain object to reference a large list of aggreageted items (10,000 other domain objects) So I need some kind of lazy loading collection to be passed out of the aggregate root domain object to other domain objects. To keep my (php) model scripts organised i am storing them in two folders: MyComponent\ controllers\ models\ domain\ <- domain objects, DDD repository, DDD factory daccess\ <- PoEAA data mappers, SQL queries etc views\ But now I am racking my brains wondering where my lazy loading collection sits. Any suggestions / justifications for putting it in one place over another another? DDD = Domain Driven Design Patterns, Eric Evans - book PoEAA = Patterns of Application Architecture Patterns, Martin Fowler - book

    Read the article

  • Is it bad OOP practice to have objects reference each other?

    - by lala
    Pardon my noobness. I'm making a game in which several characters have relationships with each other and they need to be able to interact with each other and store some relationship data regarding how they feel about each other. I have an object for each character. Is it bad for each of those character objects to have an array of all the other character objects in order to perform these interactions? Is there a better way to do this?

    Read the article

  • C++ OOP: Which functions to put into the class?

    - by oh boy
    Assume I have a class a: class a { public: void load_data( ); private: void check_data( ); void work_data( ); void analyze_data( ); } Those functions all do something with the class or one of its members. However this function: bool validate_something( myType myData ) { if ( myData.blah > 0 && myData.blah < 100 ) { return true; } return false; } Is related to the class and will only be called by it, so it won't be needed anywhere else Doesn't do anything with the class or its members - just a small "utility" function Where to put validate_something? Inside or outside the class?

    Read the article

  • Mutating Programming Language?

    - by MattiasK
    For fun I was thinking about how one could build a programming language that differs from OOP and came up with this concept. I don't have a strong foundation in computer science so it might be common place without me knowing it (more likely it's just a stupid idea :) I apologize in advance for this somewhat rambling question :) Anyways here goes: In normal OOP methods and classes are variant only upon parameters, meaning if two different classes/methods call the same method they get the same output. My, perhaps crazy idea, is that the calling method and class could be an "invisible" part of it's signature and the response could vary depending on who call's an method. Say that we have a Window object with a Break() method, now anyone (who has access) could call this method on Window with the same result. Now say that we have two different objects, Hammer and SledgeHammer. If Break need to produce different results based on these we'd pass them as parameters Break(IBluntObject bluntObject) With a mutating programming language (mpl) the operating objects on the method would be visible to the Break Method without begin explicitly defined and it could adopt itself based on them). So if SledgeHammer calls Window.Break() it would generate vastly different results than if Hammer did so. If OOP classes are black boxes then MPL are black boxes that knows who's (trying) to push it's buttons and can adapt accordingly. You could also have different permission sets on methods depending who's calling them rather than having absolute permissions like public and private. Does this have any advantage over OOP? Or perhaps I should say, would it add anything to it since you should be able to simply add this aspect to methods (just give access to a CallingMethod and CallingClass variable in context) I'm not sure, might be to hard to wrap one's head around, it would be kinda interesting to have classes that adopted themselves to who uses them though. Still it's an interesting concept, what do you think, is it viable?

    Read the article

  • FP for simulation and modelling

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

    Read the article

  • How to improve programming skills?

    - by Mike
    I'm very new to programming. I started learning PHP about half a year ago, so I do know something. I can write small functions, I can export and import information from a database and I can make a website. I don't know OOP principles and I don't know about objects and classes. Should I move to OOP principles and learn about classes, methods and objects? If not, what should I do? Continue writing simple code? How can a programmer write his/her own API? Is OOP necessary to do this? So how can i improve my skills? I love programming. I spend my 24/7 on it, so any help will be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Which programming language to go for in order to learn Object Oriented Programming? [closed]

    - by Maxood
    If someone has a good grasp in logic and procedural programming then which language to start with for learning OOP. Also why C++ is mostly taught at schools whereas Java is a pure Object Oriented language(also language for making android apps)? Why not Objective C is being taught for making apps on the iPhone? I am seeking for the right answer keeping in view of these 2 factors: Background of the learner in procedural programming Economic or job market market demand of programming languages Here is a list of 10 programming languages, i would like to seek justifications for: Java C++ Objective C Scala C# PHP Python Java Javascript (not sure if it is a fully featured OOP language) 10.Ruby (not sure if it is a fully featured OOP language)

    Read the article

  • what is the Best way to learn object oriented principles

    - by Mike
    I am interesed in OOP principles and i found lots of documentations and books about it, for instance in C++, Java, .NET, PHP and so on, but if i only want to learn OOP principle, differences and not in language, what can i do? i want a good documentation, not just like a whole book about something except OOP :) specific answers, how it works, main features, pictures, or videos, or forum, or even stack... in every time I began studying i read a whole history of programming, computer science, software development and bla bla... i need specific answers, if it is possible i really need to learn, i need examples and exercises thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • Will taking a job that's web and database related limit my software development opportunities later on?

    - by someone
    I love programming, particularly OOP. My school experience was mostly in Java/OOP, and I had a job for a limited time in Java, Python, and other OOP kind of languages. However, a move necessitated a change in jobs, and what I've ended up with now is a web-development and database intensive job. I may possibly hold this job for several years. My question is, will this limit my choices later on? Will I be able to find another Java / software-development kind of job, or will I be rejected because my experience will be mostly in a different area?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48  | Next Page >