Search Results

Search found 1591 results on 64 pages for 'oop criticism'.

Page 41/64 | < Previous Page | 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48  | Next Page >

  • Why is it possible to have an interface without a return type in PHP?

    - by streetparade
    Why is it possible to create an interface without specifying a return type? Why doesn't this make this interface unusable? This makes it more Clear: Interface run { public function getInteger(); } class MyString implements run { public function myNumber() { } public function getInteger() { return "Not a number"; } } In Java every Interface has a return type like Integer, String or Void I know that PHP is unfortunately a loosely typed Language but isn't there a Solution to that Problem? Is it possible to define an Interface with a return type like Integer?

    Read the article

  • What are advantages of using a one-to-one table relationship? (MySQL)

    - by byronh
    What are advantages of using a one-to-one table relationship as opposed to simply storing all the data in one table? I understand and make use of one-to-many, many-to-one, and many-to-many all the time, but implementing a one-to-one relationship seems like a tedious and unnecessary task, especially if you use naming conventions for relating (php) objects to database tables. I couldn't find anything on the net or on this site that could supply a good real-world example of a one-to-one relationship. At first I thought it might be logical to separate 'users', for example, into two tables, one containing public information like an 'about me' for profile pages and one containing private information such as login/password, etc. But why go through all the trouble of using unnecessary JOINS when you can just choose which fields to select from that table anyway? If I'm displaying the user's profile page, obviously I would only SELECT id,username,email,aboutme etc. and not the fields containing their private info. Anyone care to enlighten me with some real-world examples of one-to-one relationships?

    Read the article

  • Path Inclusion/Global variable not working?

    - by Dan LaManna
    Simply put, my config file includes my database class, and the config file has in it: global $db; $db = new database(DB_HOST, DB_NAME, DB_USER, DB_PASS); That file is root/config.php Moving on to root/functions/func.newpage.php doesn't have any includes/requires, and uses $db-classfunction since the file I'm working with: root/newpage.php - requires the config file, as well as func.newpage.php. However I still come up with: Undefined variable db. Anything you guys are seeing I'm not? Thanks! Let me know if more details are needed.

    Read the article

  • Are Interfaces "Object"?

    - by PrashantGupta
    package inheritance; class A{ public String display(){ return "This is A!"; } } interface Workable{ public String work(); } class B extends A implements Workable{ public String work(){ return "B is working!"; } } public class TestInterfaceObject{ public static void main(String... args){ B obj=new B(); Workable w=obj; //System.out.println(w.work()); //invoking work method on Workable type reference System.out.println(w.display()); //invoking display method on Workable type reference //System.out.println(w.hashCode()); // invoking Object's hashCode method on Workable type reference } } As we know that methods which can be invoked depend upon the type of the reference variable on which we are going to invoke. Here, in the code, work() method was invoked on "w" reference (which is Workable type) so method invoking will compile successfully. Then, display() method is invoked on "w" which yields a compilation error which says display method was not found, quite obvious as Workable doesn't know about it. Then we try to invoke the Object class's method i.e. hashCode() which yields a successful compilation and execution. How is it possible? Any logical explanation?

    Read the article

  • Why can a List(Of SomeObject) not be converted to an IEnumerable(Of ISomeInterface) while SomeObject

    - by ropstah
    Please see the last comment in GetListChildren() function. "Why can a List(Of Page) not be converted to an IEnumerable(Of IListHasChildren) ?" Interface IListHasChildren Function GetListChildren() as IEnumerable(Of IListHasChildren) End Interface Public Class Page : Implements IListHasChildren Public Function GetChildren() As List(Of Page) //'return List(Of Page) with children End Function Public Function GetListChildren() : Implements IListHasChildren.GetListChildren Return Me.GetChildren() //'This cannot be converted to IEnumerable(Of IListHasChildren) ?? End Function End Class

    Read the article

  • Accessing current class through $this-> from a function called statically. [PHP]

    - by MQA
    This feels a bit messy, but I'd like to be able to call a member function statically, yet have the rest of the class behave normally... Example: <?php class Email { private $username = 'user'; private $password = 'password'; private $from = '[email protected]'; public $to; public function SendMsg($to, $body) { if (isset($this)) $email &= $this; else $email = new Email(); $email->to = $to; // Rest of function... } } Email::SendMsg('[email protected]'); How best do I allow the static function call in this example? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How can I communicate with an Object created in another JFrame?

    - by user3093422
    so my program basically consists of two frames. As I click a button on Frame1, Frame2 pops up, and when I click a button on Frame2, and Object is created and the window closes. Now, I need to be able to use the methods of Object in my Frame1, how can this be achieved? I am kind of new to Object-Oriented Programming, sorry, but it's hard to me to explain the situation. Thanks! I will try to put a random code for pure example below. JFrame 1: public class JFrame1 extends JFrame{ variables.. public JFrame1(){ GUIcomponents.... } public static void main(String[] args) { JFrame1 aplicacion = new JFrame1(); aplicacion.setDefaultCloseOperation(JFrame.EXIT_ON_CLOSE); } private class ActList implements ActionListener { public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent event) { new JFrame2(); } } } JFrame 2: public class JFrame2 extends JFrame{ variables.. public JFrame2(){ GUIcomponents.... } private class ActList implements ActionListener { public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent event) { Object object = new Object(); setVisible(false); } } } Sorry if it's messy, I made it in the moment. So yeah, basically I want to JFrame1 to be able to use the getters and settes from Object, which was created in JFrame2. What should I do? Once again, thanks!

    Read the article

  • Use of .apply() with 'new' operator. Is this possible?

    - by Premasagar
    In JavaScript, I want to create an object instance (via the new operator), but pass an arbitrary number of arguments to the constructor. Is this possible? What I want to do is something like this (but the code below does not work): function Something(){ // init stuff } function createSomething(){ return new Something.apply(null, arguments); } var s = createSomething(a,b,c); // 's' is an instance of Something The Answer From the responses here, it became clear that there's no in-built way to call .apply() with the new operator. However, people suggested a number of really interesting solutions to the problem. My preferred solution was this one from Matthew Crumley (I've modified it to pass the arguments property): var createSomething = (function() { function F(args) { return Something.apply(this, args); } F.prototype = Something.prototype; return function() { return new F(arguments); } })();

    Read the article

  • Which one of the following is NOT a pitfall of inheritance?

    - by Difficult PEOPLE
    Which one of the following is NOT a pitfall of inheritance? Base-derive classes should be totally separate and do not have an is-a relationship. Base-derive classes should have been aggregate classes instead. Inheritance may be inverted, example: Truck<-Vehicle should be Vehicle<-Truck. Incompatible class hierarchies may be connected because of multiple inheritance. Aggregation should have been used instead. Functionality is transferred from a base class to a derived one. In my opinion, NOT a pitfall of inheritance meas can use inheritance. 1 seems do without inheritance 2 aggregate substitute Base-derive I don't know So, I think 5 is the answer.

    Read the article

  • What Functional features are worth a little OOP confusion for the benefits they bring?

    - by bonomo
    After learning functional programming in Haskell and F#, the OOP paradigm seems ass-backwards with classes, interfaces, objects. Which aspects of FP can I bring to work that my co-workers can understand? Are any FP styles worth talking to my boss about retraining my team so that we can use them? Possible aspects of FP: Immutability Partial Application and Currying First Class Functions (function pointers / Functional Objects / Strategy Pattern) Lazy Evaluation (and Monads) Pure Functions (no side effects) Expressions (vs. Statements - each line of code produces a value instead of, or in addition to causing side effects) Recursion Pattern Matching Is it a free-for-all where we can do whatever the programming language supports to the limit that language supports it? Or is there a better guideline?

    Read the article

  • Should I limit my type name suffix vocabulary when using OOP?

    - by Den
    My co-workers tend to think that it is better to limit non-domain type suffixes to a small fixed set of OOP-pattern inspired words, e.g.: *Service *Repository *Factory *Manager *Provider I believe there is no reason to not extend that set with more names, e.g. (some "translation" to the previous vocabulary is given in brackets): *Distributor (= *DistributionManager or *SendingService) *Generator *Browser (= *ReadonlyRepositoryService) *Processor *Manipulator (= *StateMachineManager) *Enricher (= *EnrichmentService) (*) denotes some domain word, e.g. "Order", "Student", "Item" etc. The domain is probably not complex enough to use specialized approaches such as DDD which could drive the naming.

    Read the article

  • Should a new programmer nowadays start with C/C++ or OOP language? [closed]

    - by deviDave
    I've been a programmer for 15+ years. In my time, we all started with C or C++ and then moved to C# or Java. At that time it was a usual practice. Now, my brother wants to follow my steps and I am not sure what advice to give him. So, I am asking the community for an opinion. Should nowadays new programmer with zero programming knowledge start with functional languages (C, C++, etc.) or he should start directly with OOP languages (Java, C#, etc.)? The reply should be considered in the context of my brother's future assignments. He will mainly work on Java mobile applications as well as ASP.NET web apps. He will have to touch with desktop apps, low level programming, drivers, etc. This is the reason I am not sure if he should ever need to learn functional languages.

    Read the article

  • Why is an anemic domain model considered bad in C#/OOP, but very important in F#/FP?

    - by Danny Tuppeny
    In a blog post on F# for fun and profit, it says: In a functional design, it is very important to separate behavior from data. The data types are simple and "dumb". And then separately, you have a number of functions that act on those data types. This is the exact opposite of an object-oriented design, where behavior and data are meant to be combined. After all, that's exactly what a class is. In a truly object-oriented design in fact, you should have nothing but behavior -- the data is private and can only be accessed via methods. In fact, in OOD, not having enough behavior around a data type is considered a Bad Thing, and even has a name: the "anemic domain model". Given that in C# we seem to keep borrowing from F#, and trying to write more functional-style code; how come we're not borrowing the idea of separating data/behavior, and even consider it bad? Is it simply that the definition doesn't with with OOP, or is there a concrete reason that it's bad in C# that for some reason doesn't apply in F# (and in fact, is reversed)? (Note: I'm specifically interested in the differences in C#/F# that could change the opinion of what is good/bad, rather than individuals that may disagree with either opinion in the blog post).

    Read the article

  • 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

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