Search Results

Search found 29753 results on 1191 pages for 'best practices'.

Page 42/1191 | < Previous Page | 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49  | Next Page >

• Could someone break this nasty habit of mine please?

  - by MimiEAM

  I recently graduated in cs and was mostly unsatisfied since I realized that I received only a basic theoretical approach in a wide range of subjects (which is what college is supposed to do but still...) . Anyway I took the habit of spending a lot of time looking for implementations of concepts and upon finding those I will used them as guides to writing my own implementation of those concepts just for fun. But now I feel like the only way I can fully understand a new concept is by trying to implement from scratch no matter how unoptimized the result may be. Anyway this behavior lead me to choose by default the hard way, that is time consuming instead of using a nicely written library until I hit my head again a huge wall and then try to find a library that works for my purpose.... Does anyone else do that and why? It seems so weird why would anyone (including me) do that ? Is it a bad practice ? and if so how can i stop doing that ?

  Read the article

• How often is seq used in Haskell production code?

  - by Giorgio

  I have some experience writing small tools in Haskell and I find it very intuitive to use, especially for writing filters (using interact) that process their standard input and pipe it to standard output. Recently I tried to use one such filter on a file that was about 10 times larger than usual and I got a Stack space overflow error. After doing some reading (e.g. here and here) I have identified two guidelines to save stack space (experienced Haskellers, please correct me if I write something that is not correct): Avoid recursive function calls that are not tail-recursive (this is valid for all functional languages that support tail-call optimization). Introduce seq to force early evaluation of sub-expressions so that expressions do not grow to large before they are reduced (this is specific to Haskell, or at least to languages using lazy evaluation). After introducing five or six seq calls in my code my tool runs smoothly again (also on the larger data). However, I find the original code was a bit more readable. Since I am not an experienced Haskell programmer I wanted to ask if introducing seq in this way is a common practice, and how often one will normally see seq in Haskell production code. Or are there any techniques that allow to avoid using seq too often and still use little stack space?

  Read the article

• Several domains using 302 redirect to our domain

  - by Yamaha32088

  I am wondering what implications we can run into if one of our dealers is redirecting several of their domains using a 302 to our domain. The reason they are doing this is because they want to have time to build on their current sites but still want some content on the domains they own. Currently our domain is under a Manual Penalty for back links that we are working on removing. I do not like the idea of them linking back to our site but I need logical reasons other than "because I don't want you to".

  Read the article

• How often is your "Go-To" language the same as your favorite??

  - by K-RAN

  I know that there's already a question asking for your favorite programming language here. I'm curious though, what's your go-to language? The two can be very different. For example, I love Haskell. I learned it this past semester and I fell in love with it's very concise solutions and awesome syntax (I love theoretical math so something like fib = 1 : 1 : [ f | f <- zipWith (+) fibSeq (tail fibSeq)] makes my inner mathematician and computer scientist jump with joy!). However, the majority of my projects for classes and jobs have been in C/C++ & Java. As a result, most of the time when I'm testing something like an algorithm or Data Structure I go straight to C++. What about you guys? What languages do you love and why? What about your go-to language? What language do you use most often to get things done for work or personal projects and why? How often does a language fall into both categories??

  Read the article

• Which is a better practice - helper methods as instance or static?

  - by Ilian Pinzon

  This question is subjective but I was just curious how most programmers approach this. The sample below is in pseudo-C# but this should apply to Java, C++, and other OOP languages as well. Anyway, when writing helper methods in my classes, I tend to declare them as static and just pass the fields if the helper method needs them. For example, given the code below, I prefer to use Method Call #2. class Foo { Bar _bar; public void DoSomethingWithBar() { // Method Call #1. DoSomethingWithBarImpl(); // Method Call #2. DoSomethingWithBarImpl(_bar); } private void DoSomethingWithBarImpl() { _bar.DoSomething(); } private static void DoSomethingWithBarImpl(Bar bar) { bar.DoSomething(); } } My reason for doing this is that it makes it clear (to my eyes at least) that the helper method has a possible side-effect on other objects - even without reading its implementation. I find that I can quickly grok methods that use this practice and thus help me in debugging things. Which do you prefer to do in your own code and what are your reasons for doing so?

  Read the article

• Is nesting types considered bad practice?

  - by Rob Z

  As noted by the title, is nesting types (e.g. enumerated types or structures in a class) considered bad practice or not? When you run Code Analysis in Visual Studio it returns the following message which implies it is: Warning 34 CA1034 : Microsoft.Design : Do not nest type 'ClassName.StructueName'. Alternatively, change its accessibility so that it is not externally visible. However, when I follow the recommendation of the Code Analysis I find that there tend to be a lot of structures and enumerated types floating around in the application that might only apply to a single class or would only be used with that class. As such, would it be appropriate to nest the type sin that case, or is there a better way of doing it?

  Read the article

• Inspiring the method of teaching. Example- C++ :)

  - by Ashwin

  A year ago I graduated with a degree in Computer Science and Engineering. Considering C++ as the first choice of programming language I have been in the process of learning C++ in many ways. At first - five years back - I had many conceptions, most of which were so abstract to me. It started when I knew almost everything about Structs in C and nothing about Classes in C++. I went through a great time experimenting them all and learning a lot. I had a hard time evaluating Procedural programming vs Object-Oriented Programming. Deciding when to choose Procedural or Object-Oriented Programming took a great deal of patience for me. I knew that I cannot underestimate any of these Programming styles... Though Procedural programming is often a better choice than simple sequential unstructured programming, when solving problems with procedural programming, we usually divide one problem into several steps in order regarded as functions. Then we call these functions one by one to get the result of the problem. When solving problems with Object Oriented Priciples we divide one problem into several classes and form the interaction between them. Evaluating these two at the beginning (as a learner) required a lot of inspiration and thoughts. Instructing to think step by step. Relative concepts to understand deeply. Intensive interests to contrast both solving in both POP and OOP. If you were ever a mentor: What ideas/methods would you teach to students in which it will Inspire them to learn a programming language (in general, computer sciences)?

  Read the article

• Refactor or Concentrate on Completing App

  - by Jiew Meng

  Would you refactor your app as you go or focus on completing app first? Refactoring will mean progress of app app will slow down. Completing app will mean you get a possibly very hard to maintain app later on? The app is a personal project. I don't really know how to answer "What drives the functionality and design", but I guess it's to solve inefficiencies in current software out there. I like minimal easy to use software too. So I am removing some features and add some that I feel will help.

  Read the article

• Is it bad practice to call a controller action from a view that was rendered by another controller?

  - by marco-fiset

  Let's say I have an OrderController which handles orders. The user adds products to it through the view, and then the final price gets calculated through an AJAX call to a controller action. The price calculation logic is implemented in a seperate class and used in a controller action. What happens is that I have many views from different controllers that need to use that particular action. I'd like to have some kind of a PriceController that I could call an action on. But then the view would have to know about that PriceController and call an action on it. Is it bad practice for a view to call an action on a different controller from which it was rendered?

  Read the article

• Struggling with the Single Responsibility Principle

  - by AngryBird

  Consider this example: I have a website. It allows users to make posts (can be anything) and add tags that describe the post. In the code, I have two classes that represent the post and tags. Lets call these classes Post and Tag. Post takes care of creating posts, deleting posts, updating posts, etc. Tag takes care of creating tags, deleting tags, updating tags, etc. There is one operation that is missing. The linking of tags to posts. I am struggling with who should do this operation. It could fit equally well in either class. On one hand, the Post class could have a function that takes a Tag as a parameter, and then stores it in a list of tags. On the other hand, the Tag class could have a function that takes a Post as a parameter and links the Tag to the Post. The above is just an example of my problem. I am actually running into this with multiple classes that are all similar. It could fit equally well in both. Short of actually putting the functionality in both classes, what conventions or design styles exist to help me solve this problem. I am assuming there has to be something short of just picking one? Maybe putting it in both classes is the correct answer?

  Read the article

• How to become a good team player?

  - by Nick

  I've been programming (obsessively) since I was 12. I am fairly knowledgeable across the spectrum of languages out there, from assembly, to C++, to Javascript, to Haskell, Lisp, and Qi. But all of my projects have been by myself. I got my degree in chemical engineering, not CS or computer engineering, but for the first time this fall I'll be working on a large programming project with other people, and I have no clue how to prepare. I've been using Windows all of my life, but this project is going to be very unix-y, so I purchased a Mac recently in the hopes of familiarizing myself with the environment. I was fortunate to participate in a hackathon with some friends this past year -- both CS majors -- and excitingly enough, we won. But I realized as I worked with them that their workflow was very different from mine. They used Git for version control. I had never used it at the time, but I've since learned all that I can about it. They also used a lot of frameworks and libraries. I had to learn what Rails was pretty much overnight for the hackathon (on the other hand, they didn't know what lexical scoping or closures were). All of our code worked well, but they didn't understand mine, and I didn't understand theirs. I hear references to things that real programmers do on a daily basis -- unit testing, code reviews, but I only have the vaguest sense of what these are. I normally don't have many bugs in my little projects, so I have never needed a bug tracking system or tests for them. And the last thing is that it takes me a long time to understand other people's code. Variable naming conventions (that vary with each new language) are difficult (__mzkwpSomRidicAbbrev), and I find the loose coupling difficult. That's not to say I don't loosely couple things -- I think I'm quite good at it for my own work, but when I download something like the Linux kernel or the Chromium source code to look at it, I spend hours trying to figure out how all of these oddly named directories and files connect. It's a programming sin to reinvent the wheel, but I often find it's just quicker to write up the functionality myself than to spend hours dissecting some library. Obviously, people who do this for a living don't have these problems, and I'll need to get to that point myself. Question: What are some steps that I can take to begin "integrating" with everyone else? Thanks!

  Read the article

• How to export 3D models that consist of several parts (eg. turret on a tank)?

  - by Will

  What are the standard alternatives for the mechanics of attaching turrets and such to 3D models for use in-game? I don't mean the logic, but rather the graphics aspects. My naive approach is to extend the MD2-like format that I'm using (blender-exported using a script) to include a new set of properties for a mesh that: is anchored in another 'parent' mesh. The anchor is a point and normal in the parent mesh and a point and normal in the child mesh; these will always be colinear, giving the child rotation but not translation relative to the parent point. has a normal that is aligned with a 'target'. Classically this target is the enemy that is being engaged, but it might be some other vector e.g. 'the wind' (for sails and flags (and smoke, which is a particle system but the same principle applies)) or 'upwards' (e.g. so bodies of riders bend properly when riding a horse up an incline etc). that the anchor and target alignments have maximum and minimum and a speed coeff. there is game logic for multiple turrets and on a model and deciding which engages which enemy. 'primary' and 'secondary' or 'target0' ... 'targetN' or some such annotation will be there. So to illustrate, a classic tank would be made from three meshes; a main body mesh, a turret mesh that is anchored to the top of the main body so it can spin only horizontally and a barrel mesh that is anchored to the front of the turret and can only move vertically within some bounds. And there might be a forth flag mesh on top of the turret that is aligned with 'wind' where wind is a function the engine solves that merges environment's wind angle with angle the vehicle is travelling in an velocity, or something fancy. This gives each mesh one degree of freedom relative to its parent. Things with multiple degrees of freedom can be modelled by zero-vertex connecting meshes perhaps? This is where I think the approach I outlined begins to feel inelegant, yet perhaps its still a workable system? This is why I want to know how it is done in professional games ;) Are there better approaches? Are there formats that already include this information? Is this routine?

  Read the article

• How can I optimize my development machines files/dirs?

  - by LuxuryMode

  Like any programmer, I've got a lot of stuff on my machine. Some of that stuff is projects of my own, some are projects I'm working on for my employer, others are open-source tools and projects, etc. Currently, I have my files organized as follows: /Code --/development (things I'm sort of hacking on plus maybe libraries used in other projects) --/scala (organized by language...why? I don't know!) --/android --/ruby --/employer_name -- /mobile --/android --/ios --/open-source (basically my forks that I'm pushing commits back upstream from) --/some-awesome-oss-project --/another-awesome-one --/tools random IDE settings sprinkled in here plus some other apps As you can see, things are kind of a mess here. How can I keep things organized in some sort of coherent fashion?

  Read the article

• Adding complexity by generalising: how far should you go?

  - by marcog

  Reference question: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4303813/help-with-interview-question The above question asked to solve a problem for an NxN matrix. While there was an easy solution, I gave a more general solution to solve the more general problem for an NxM matrix. A handful of people commented that this generalisation was bad because it made the solution more complex. One such comment is voted +8. Putting aside the hard-to-explain voting effects on SO, there are two types of complexity to be considered here: Runtime complexity, i.e. how fast does the code run Code complexity, i.e. how difficult is the code to read and understand The question of runtime complexity is something that requires a better understanding of the input data today and what it might look like in the future, taking the various growth factors into account where necessary. The question of code complexity is the one I'm interested in here. By generalising the solution, we avoid having to rewrite it in the event that the constraints change. However, at the same time it can often result in complicating the code. In the reference question, the code for NxN is easy to understand for any competent programmer, but the NxM case (unless documented well) could easily confuse someone coming across the code for the first time. So, my question is this: Where should you draw the line between generalising and keeping the code easy to understand?

  Read the article

• Parallel Class/Interface Hierarchy with the Facade Design Pattern?

  - by Mike G

  About a third of my code is wrapped inside a Facade class. Note that this isn't a "God" class, but actually represents a single thing (called a Line). Naturally, it delegates responsibilities to the subsystem behind it. What ends up happening is that two of the subsystem classes (Output and Timeline) have all of their methods duplicated in the Line class, which effectively makes Line both an Output and a Timeline. It seems to make sense to make Output and Timeline interfaces, so that the Line class can implement them both. At the same time, I'm worried about creating parallel class and interface structures. You see, there are different types of lines AudioLine, VideoLine, which all use the same type of Timeline, but different types of Output (AudioOutput and VideoOutput, respectively). So that would mean that I'd have to create an AudioOutputInterface and VideoOutputInterface as well. So not only would I have to have parallel class hierarchy, but there would be a parallel interface hierarchy as well. Is there any solution to this design flaw? Here's an image of the basic structure (minus the Timeline class, though know that each Line has-a Timeline): NOTE: I just realized that the word 'line' in Timeline might make is sound like is does a similar function as the Line class. They don't, just to clarify.

  Read the article

• Is implementing an interface defined in a subpackage an anti-pattern?

  - by Michael Kjörling

  Let's say I have the following: package me.my.pkg; public interface Something { /* ... couple of methods go here ... */ } and: package me.my; import me.my.pkg.Something; public class SomeClass implements Something { /* ... implementation of Something goes here ... */ /* ... some more method implementations go here too ... */ } That is, the class implementing an interface lives closer to the package hierarchy root than does the interface it implements but they both belong in the same package hierarchy. The reason for this in the particular case I have in mind is that there is a previously-existing package that groups functionality which the Something interface logically belongs to, and the logical (as in both "the one you'd expect" and "the one where it needs to go given the current architecture") implementation class exists previously and lives one level "up" from the logical placement of the interface. The implementing class does not logically belong anywhere under me.my.pkg. In my particular case, the class in question implements several interfaces, but that feels like it doesn't make any (or at least no significant) difference here. I can't decide if this is an acceptable pattern or not. Is it or is it not, and why?

  Read the article

• Should I forward the a call to .Equals onto .Equals<T>?

  - by Jaimal Chohan

  So, I've got you bog standard c# object, overriding Equalsand implementing IEquatable public override int GetHashCode() { return _name.GetHashCode(); } public override bool Equals(object obj) { return Equals(obj as Tag) } #region IEquatable<Tag> Members public bool Equals(Tag other) { if (other == null) return false; else return _name == other._name; } #endregion Now, for some reason, I used to think that forwarding the calls from Equals into Equals was bad, no idea why, perhaps I read it a long time ago, anyway I'd write separate (but logically same) code for each method. Now I think forwarding Equals to Equals is okay, for obvious reasons, but for the life me I can't remember why I thought it wasn't before. Any thoughts?

  Read the article

• Reinventing the Wheel, why should I?

  - by Mercfh

  So I have this problem, it may be my OCD (i have OCD it's not severe.....but It makes me very..lets say specific about certain things, programming being one of them) or it may be the fact that I graduated college and still feel "meh" at programming. Reading This made me think "OH thats me!" but thats not really my main problem. My big problem is....anytime im using a high level language/API/etc. I always think to myself that im not really "programming". I know I know...it sounds stupid. But Like I feel like....if i can't figure out how to do it at the lowest level then Im not really "understanding" it. I do this for just about every new technology I learn. I look at the lowest level and try to understand it. Sometimes I do.....most of the time I don't, I mean i've only really been programming for 4 years (at college, if you even call it programming.....our university's program was "meh"). For instance I do a little bit of embedded programming (with the Atmel AVR 8bits/Arduino stuff). And I can't bring myself to use the C compiler, even though it's 8 million times easier than using assembly......it's stupid I know... Anyone else feel like this, I think it's just my OCD that makes me feel this way....but has anyone else ever felt like they need to go down to the lowest level of the language to even be satisfied with using it? I apologize for the very very odd question, but I think it really hinders me in getting deep seeded into a programming language and making a real application of my own. (it's silly I know)

  Read the article

• Why do we keep using CSV?

  - by Stephen

  Why do we keep using CSV? I recently made a shift to working the health domain and despite the wonderful work in data transfer standards, all data transfer is in CSV, both for reporting to external organisations, and for data migrations when implementing new systems. Unfortunately the use of CSV is the cause of the endless repetition of the same stupid errors, with the same waste of developer time. (bad escaping, failing to handle null fields etc.) I know we can do better, and anything between JSON and XML (depending on the instance) would be fine. (Most of the time this is data going from one MS SQLserver 2005 to another!) I feel as if each time I see this happening I am literally watching one developer waste anothers time. So why do we keep shafting each other? When will we stop?

  Read the article

• Getting solutions off the internet. Bad or Good? [closed]

  - by Prometheus87

  I was looking on the internet for common interview questions. I came upon one that was about finding the occurrences of certain characters in an array. The solution written right below it was in my opinion very elegant. But then another thought came to my mind that, this solution is way better than what came to my mind. So even though I know the solution (that most probably someone with a better IQ had provided) my IQ was still the same. So that means that even though i may know the answer, it still wasn't mine. hence if that question was asked and i was hired upon my answer to that question i couldn't reproduce that same elegance in my other ventures within the organization My question is what do you guys think about such "borrowed intelligence"? Is it good? Do you feel that if solutions are found off the internet, it makes you think in that same more elegant way?

  Read the article

• I'm trying to understand hash tables - can someone explain it to me - clearly?

  - by Stevo

  I want to understand the correct use and implementation of hash tables in php (sorry). I read somewhere that an in-experienced programmer created a hash table and then iterated through it. Now, I understand why that is wrong but I haven't quite got the full knowledge to know if my understanding is correct (if you know what I mean). So could someone explain to me how to implement a hash table in php (presumably an associative array) and perhaps more importantly, how to access the values 'with a hash' and what that actually means?

  Read the article

• Programming Interview Question [duplicate]

  - by user136494

  This question already has an answer here: How to prepare yourself for programming interview questions? [duplicate] 6 answers I have an upcoming interview in a couple of days and had a question for you guys. I've heard that programming interviews have whiteboard problems where you solve a simple problem on a whiteboard. My question to you is? How many whiteboard problems do you have to solve? Is there more than 1? What are examples of whiteboard problems? Is FizzBuzz one of them? Where can I find practice problems for them? Anyone know of any good web sites?

  Read the article

• What are the problems with a relatively large common library?

  - by Sam Pearson

  As long as the code in the base library is as loosely coupled as splitting it up into separate libraries, what's the problem? In general, having a lot of assemblies composing a .NET solution is painful. Plus, when code in one solution needs to be shared, it can just be added to the common library, rather than deciding which common library it should be added to or creating yet another library. edit: the question comes to me after using Smalltalk for a bit, where all the code is available to use, all the time.

  Read the article

• Financial institutions build predictive models using Oracle R Enterprise to speed model deployment

  - by Mark Hornick

  See the Oracle press release, Financial Institutions Leverage Metadata Driven Modeling Capability Built on the Oracle R Enterprise Platform to Accelerate Model Deployment and Streamline Governance for a description where a "unified environment for analytics data management and model lifecycle management brings the power and flexibility of the open source R statistical platform, delivered via the in-database Oracle R Enterprise engine to support open standards compliance." Through its integration with Oracle R Enterprise, Oracle Financial Services Analytical Applications provides "productivity, management, and governance benefits to financial institutions, including the ability to: Centrally manage and control models in a single, enterprise model repository, allowing for consistent management and application of security and IT governance policies across enterprise assets Reuse models and rapidly integrate with applications by exposing models as services Accelerate development with seeded models and common modeling and statistical techniques available out-of-the-box Cut risk and speed model deployment by testing and tuning models with production data while working within a safe sandbox Support compliance with regulatory requirements by carrying out comprehensive stress testing, which captures the effects of adverse risk events that are not estimated by standard statistical and business models. This approach supplements the modeling process and supports compliance with the Pillar I and the Internal Capital Adequacy Assessment Process stress testing requirements of the Basel II Accord Improve performance by deploying and running models co-resident with data. Oracle R Enterprise engines run in database, virtually eliminating the need to move data to and from client machines, thereby reducing latency and improving security"

  Read the article

• Database Maintenance Scripting Done Right

  - by KKline

  I first wrote about useful database maintenance scripts on my SQLBlog account way back in 2008. Hmmm - now that I think about it, I first wrote about my own useful database maintenance scripts in a journal called SQL Server Professional back in the mid-1990's on SQL Server v6.5 or some such. But I digress... Anyway, I pointed out a couple useful sites where you could get some good scripts that would take care of preventative maintenance on your SQL Server, such as index defragmentation, updating...(read more)

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49  | Next Page >