Search Results

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

Page 42/64 | < Previous Page | 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • How do you educate your teammates without seeming condescending or superior?

    - by Dan Tao
    I work with three other guys; I'll call them Adam, Brian, and Chris. Adam and Brian are bright guys. Give them a problem; they will figure out a way to solve it. When it comes to OOP, though, they know very little about it and aren't particularly interested in learning. Pure procedural code is their MO. Chris, on the other hand, is an OOP guy all the way -- and a cocky, condescending one at that. He is constantly criticizing the work Adam and Brian do and talking to me as if I must share his disdain for the two of them. When I say that Adam and Brian aren't interested in learning about OOP, I suspect Chris is the primary reason. This hasn't bothered me too much for the most part, but there have been times when, looking at some code Adam or Brian wrote, it has pained me to think about how a problem could have been solved so simply using inheritance or some other OOP concept instead of the unmaintainable mess of 1,000 lines of code that ended up being written instead. And now that the company is starting a rather ambitious new project, with Adam assigned to the task of getting the core functionality in place, I fear the result. Really, I just want to help these guys out. But I know that if I come across as just another holier-than-thou developer like Chris, it's going to be massively counterproductive. I've considered: Team code reviews -- everybody reviews everybody's code. This way no one person is really in a position to look down on anyone else; besides, I know I could learn plenty from the other members on the team as well. But this would be time-consuming, and with such a small team, I have trouble picturing it gaining much traction as a team practice. Periodic e-mails to the team -- this would entail me sending out an e-mail every now and then discussing some concept that, based on my observation, at least one team member would benefit from learning about. The downside to this approach is I do think it could easily make me come across as a self-appointed expert. Keeping a blog -- I already do this, actually; but so far my blog has been more about esoteric little programming tidbits than straightforward practical advice. And anyway, I suspect it would get old pretty fast if I were constantly telling my coworkers, "Hey guys, remember to check out my new blog post!" This question doesn't need to be specifically about OOP or any particular programming paradigm or technology. I just want to know: how have you found success in teaching new concepts to your coworkers without seeming like a condescending know-it-all? It's pretty clear to me there isn't going to be a sure-fire answer, but any helpful advice (including methods that have worked as well as those that have proved ineffective or even backfired) would be greatly appreciated. UPDATE: I am not the Team Lead on this team. Chris is. UPDATE 2: Made community wiki to accord with the general sentiment of the community (fancy that).

    Read the article

  • Can parser combination be made efficient?

    - by Jon Harrop
    Around 6 years ago, I benchmarked my own parser combinators in OCaml and found that they were ~5× slower than the parser generators on offer at the time. I recently revisited this subject and benchmarked Haskell's Parsec vs a simple hand-rolled precedence climbing parser written in F# and was surprised to find the F# to be 25× faster than the Haskell. Here's the Haskell code I used to read a large mathematical expression from file, parse and evaluate it: import Control.Applicative import Text.Parsec hiding ((<|>)) expr = chainl1 term ((+) <$ char '+' <|> (-) <$ char '-') term = chainl1 fact ((*) <$ char '*' <|> div <$ char '/') fact = read <$> many1 digit <|> char '(' *> expr <* char ')' eval :: String -> Int eval = either (error . show) id . parse expr "" . filter (/= ' ') main :: IO () main = do file <- readFile "expr" putStr $ show $ eval file putStr "\n" and here's my self-contained precedence climbing parser in F#: let rec (|Expr|) (P(f, xs)) = Expr(loop (' ', f, xs)) and shift oop f op (P(g, xs)) = let h, xs = loop (op, g, xs) loop (oop, f h, xs) and loop = function | ' ' as oop, f, ('+' | '-' as op)::P(g, xs) | (' ' | '+' | '-' as oop), f, ('*' | '/' as op)::P(g, xs) | oop, f, ('^' as op)::P(g, xs) -> let h, xs = loop (op, g, xs) let op = match op with | '+' -> (+) | '-' -> (-) | '*' -> (*) | '/' -> (/) | '^' -> pown loop (oop, op f h, xs) | _, f, xs -> f, xs and (|P|) = function | '-'::P(f, xs) -> let f, xs = loop ('~', f, xs) P(-f, xs) | '('::Expr(f, ')'::xs) -> P(f, xs) | c::xs when '0' <= c && c <= '9' -> P(int(string c), xs) My impression is that even state-of-the-art parser combinators waste a lot of time back tracking. Is that correct? If so, is it possible to write parser combinators that generate state machines to obtain competitive performance or is it necessary to use code generation?

    Read the article

  • OOP beginner: classB extends classA. classA already object. method in classB needed.. etc.

    - by Yvo
    Hey guys, I'm learning myself to go from function based PHP coding to OOP. And this is the situation: ClassA holds many basic tool methods (functions). it's __construct makes a DB connection. ClassB holds specific methods based on a certain activity (extract widgets). ClassB extends ClassA because it uses some of the basic tools in there e.g. a database call. In a php file I create a $a_class = new ClassA object (thus a new DB connection). Now I need a method in ClassB. I do $b_class = new ClassB; and call a method, which uses a method from it's parent:: ClassA. In this example, i'm having ClassA 'used' twice. Onces as object, and onces via a parent:: call, so ClassA creates another DB connection (or not?). So what is the best setup for this basic classes parent, child (extend) situation? I only want to make one connection of course? I don't like to forward the object to ClassB like this $b_class = new ClassB($a_object); or is that the best way? Thanks for thinking with me, and helping :d

    Read the article

  • What Makes a Good Design Critic? CHI 2010 Panel Review

    - by jatin.thaker
    Author: Daniel Schwartz, Senior Interaction Designer, Oracle Applications User Experience Oracle Applications UX Chief Evangelist Patanjali Venkatacharya organized and moderated an innovative and stimulating panel discussion titled "What Makes a Good Design Critic? Food Design vs. Product Design Criticism" at CHI 2010, the annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. The panelists included Janice Rohn, VP of User Experience at Experian; Tami Hardeman, a food stylist; Ed Seiber, a restaurant architect and designer; John Kessler, a food critic and writer at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution; and Larry Powers, Chef de Cuisine at Shaun's restaurant in Atlanta, Georgia. Building off the momentum of his highly acclaimed panel at CHI 2009 on what interaction design can learn from food design (for which I was on the other side as a panelist), Venkatacharya brought together new people with different roles in the restaurant and software interaction design fields. The session was also quite delicious -- but more on that later. Criticism, as it applies to food and product or interaction design, was the tasty topic for this forum and showed that strong parallels exist between food and interaction design criticism. Figure 1. The panelists in discussion: (left to right) Janice Rohn, Ed Seiber, Tami Hardeman, and John Kessler. The panelists had great insights to share from their respective fields, and they enthusiastically discussed as if they were at a casual collegial dinner. John Kessler stated that he prefers to have one professional critic's opinion in general than a large sampling of customers, however, "Web sites like Yelp get users excited by the collective approach. People are attracted to things desired by so many." Janice Rohn added that this collective desire was especially true for users of consumer products. Ed Seiber remarked that while people looked to the popular view for their target tastes and product choices, "professional critics like John [Kessler] still hold a big weight on public opinion." Chef Powers indicated that chefs take in feedback from all sources, adding, "word of mouth is very powerful. We also look heavily at the sales of the dishes to see what's moving; what's selling and thus successful." Hearing this discussion validates our design work at Oracle in that we listen to our users (our diners) and industry feedback (our critics) to ensure an optimal user experience of our products. Rohn considers that restaurateur Danny Meyer's book, Setting the Table: The Transforming Power of Hospitality in Business, which is about creating successful restaurant experiences, has many applicable parallels to user experience design. Meyer actually argues that the customer is not always right, but that "they must always feel heard." Seiber agreed, but noted "customers are not designers," and while designers need to listen to customer feedback, it is the designer's job to synthesize it. Seiber feels it's the critic's job to point out when something is missing or not well-prioritized. In interaction design, our challenges are quite similar, if not parallel. Software tasks are like puzzles that are in search of a solution on how to be best completed. As a food stylist, Tami Hardeman has the demanding and challenging task of presenting food to be as delectable as can be. To present food in its best light requires a lot of creativity and insight into consumer tastes. It's no doubt then that this former fashion stylist came up with the ultimate catch phrase to capture the emotion that clients want to draw from their users: "craveability." The phrase was a hit with the audience and panelists alike. Sometime later in the discussion, Seiber remarked, "designers strive to apply craveability to products, and I do so for restaurants in my case." Craveabilty is also very applicable to interaction design. Creating straightforward and smooth workflows for users of Oracle Applications is a primary goal for my colleagues. We want our users to really enjoy working with our products where it makes them more efficient and better at their jobs. That's our "craveability." Patanjali Venkatacharya asked the panel, "if a design's "craveability" appeals to some cultures but not to others, then what is the impact to the food or product design process?" Rohn stated that "taste is part nature and part nurture" and that the design must take the full context of a product's usage into consideration. Kessler added, "good design is about understanding the context" that the experience necessitates. Seiber remarked how important seat comfort is for diners and how the quality of seating will add so much to the complete dining experience. Sometimes if these non-food factors are not well executed, they can also take away from an otherwise pleasant dining experience. Kessler recounted a time when he was dining at a restaurant that actually had very good food, but the photographs hanging on all the walls did not fit in with the overall décor and created a negative overall dining experience. While the tastiness of the food is critical to a restaurant's success, it is a captivating complete user experience, as in interaction design, which will keep customers coming back and ultimately making the restaurant a hit. Figure 2. Patanjali Venkatacharya enjoyed the Sardinian flatbread salad. As a surprise Chef Powers brought out a signature dish from Shaun's restaurant for all the panelists to sample and critique. The Sardinian flatbread dish showcased Atlanta's taste for fresh and local produce and cheese at its finest as a salad served on a crispy flavorful flat bread. Hardeman said it could be photographed from any angle, a high compliment coming from a food stylist. Seiber really enjoyed the colors that the dish brought together and thought it would be served very well in a casual restaurant on a summer's day. The panel really appreciated the taste and quality of the different components and how the rosemary brought all the flavors together. Seiber remarked that "a lot of effort goes into the appearance of simplicity." Rohn indicated that the same notion holds true with software user interface design. A tremendous amount of work goes into crafting straightforward interfaces, including user research, prototyping, design iterations, and usability studies. Design criticism for food and software interfaces clearly share many similarities. Both areas value expert opinions and user feedback. Both areas understand the importance of great design needing to work well in its context. Last but not least, both food and interaction design criticism value "craveability" and how having users excited about experiencing and enjoying the designs is an important goal. Now if we can just improve the taste of software user interfaces, people may choose to dine on their enterprise applications over a fresh organic salad.

    Read the article

  • What Makes a Good Design Critic? CHI 2010 Panel Review

    - by Applications User Experience
    Author: Daniel Schwartz, Senior Interaction Designer, Oracle Applications User Experience Oracle Applications UX Chief Evangelist Patanjali Venkatacharya organized and moderated an innovative and stimulating panel discussion titled "What Makes a Good Design Critic? Food Design vs. Product Design Criticism" at CHI 2010, the annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. The panelists included Janice Rohn, VP of User Experience at Experian; Tami Hardeman, a food stylist; Ed Seiber, a restaurant architect and designer; Jonathan Kessler, a food critic and writer at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution; and Larry Powers, Chef de Cuisine at Shaun's restaurant in Atlanta, Georgia. Building off the momentum of his highly acclaimed panel at CHI 2009 on what interaction design can learn from food design (for which I was on the other side as a panelist), Venkatacharya brought together new people with different roles in the restaurant and software interaction design fields. The session was also quite delicious -- but more on that later. Criticism, as it applies to food and product or interaction design, was the tasty topic for this forum and showed that strong parallels exist between food and interaction design criticism. Figure 1. The panelists in discussion: (left to right) Janice Rohn, Ed Seiber, Tami Hardeman, and Jonathan Kessler. The panelists had great insights to share from their respective fields, and they enthusiastically discussed as if they were at a casual collegial dinner. Jonathan Kessler stated that he prefers to have one professional critic's opinion in general than a large sampling of customers, however, "Web sites like Yelp get users excited by the collective approach. People are attracted to things desired by so many." Janice Rohn added that this collective desire was especially true for users of consumer products. Ed Seiber remarked that while people looked to the popular view for their target tastes and product choices, "professional critics like John [Kessler] still hold a big weight on public opinion." Chef Powers indicated that chefs take in feedback from all sources, adding, "word of mouth is very powerful. We also look heavily at the sales of the dishes to see what's moving; what's selling and thus successful." Hearing this discussion validates our design work at Oracle in that we listen to our users (our diners) and industry feedback (our critics) to ensure an optimal user experience of our products. Rohn considers that restaurateur Danny Meyer's book, Setting the Table: The Transforming Power of Hospitality in Business, which is about creating successful restaurant experiences, has many applicable parallels to user experience design. Meyer actually argues that the customer is not always right, but that "they must always feel heard." Seiber agreed, but noted "customers are not designers," and while designers need to listen to customer feedback, it is the designer's job to synthesize it. Seiber feels it's the critic's job to point out when something is missing or not well-prioritized. In interaction design, our challenges are quite similar, if not parallel. Software tasks are like puzzles that are in search of a solution on how to be best completed. As a food stylist, Tami Hardeman has the demanding and challenging task of presenting food to be as delectable as can be. To present food in its best light requires a lot of creativity and insight into consumer tastes. It's no doubt then that this former fashion stylist came up with the ultimate catch phrase to capture the emotion that clients want to draw from their users: "craveability." The phrase was a hit with the audience and panelists alike. Sometime later in the discussion, Seiber remarked, "designers strive to apply craveability to products, and I do so for restaurants in my case." Craveabilty is also very applicable to interaction design. Creating straightforward and smooth workflows for users of Oracle Applications is a primary goal for my colleagues. We want our users to really enjoy working with our products where it makes them more efficient and better at their jobs. That's our "craveability." Patanjali Venkatacharya asked the panel, "if a design's "craveability" appeals to some cultures but not to others, then what is the impact to the food or product design process?" Rohn stated that "taste is part nature and part nurture" and that the design must take the full context of a product's usage into consideration. Kessler added, "good design is about understanding the context" that the experience necessitates. Seiber remarked how important seat comfort is for diners and how the quality of seating will add so much to the complete dining experience. Sometimes if these non-food factors are not well executed, they can also take away from an otherwise pleasant dining experience. Kessler recounted a time when he was dining at a restaurant that actually had very good food, but the photographs hanging on all the walls did not fit in with the overall décor and created a negative overall dining experience. While the tastiness of the food is critical to a restaurant's success, it is a captivating complete user experience, as in interaction design, which will keep customers coming back and ultimately making the restaurant a hit. Figure 2. Patnajali Venkatacharya enjoyed the Sardian flatbread salad. As a surprise Chef Powers brought out a signature dish from Shaun's restaurant for all the panelists to sample and critique. The Sardinian flatbread dish showcased Atlanta's taste for fresh and local produce and cheese at its finest as a salad served on a crispy flavorful flat bread. Hardeman said it could be photographed from any angle, a high compliment coming from a food stylist. Seiber really enjoyed the colors that the dish brought together and thought it would be served very well in a casual restaurant on a summer's day. The panel really appreciated the taste and quality of the different components and how the rosemary brought all the flavors together. Seiber remarked that "a lot of effort goes into the appearance of simplicity." Rohn indicated that the same notion holds true with software user interface design. A tremendous amount of work goes into crafting straightforward interfaces, including user research, prototyping, design iterations, and usability studies. Design criticism for food and software interfaces clearly share many similarities. Both areas value expert opinions and user feedback. Both areas understand the importance of great design needing to work well in its context. Last but not least, both food and interaction design criticism value "craveability" and how having users excited about experiencing and enjoying the designs is an important goal. Now if we can just improve the taste of software user interfaces, people may choose to dine on their enterprise applications over a fresh organic salad.

    Read the article

  • Question about SDLC. How to answer this?

    - by pirzada
    I have seen this asked many times in job interviews but I am still not sure how to answer this. I am a web developer for quite some time but I still have problem with explaining OOP and SDLC (Familiar with system development life cycle) . How to prepare for above 2 topics for an interview point of view. Still I use both all the time during development. I am not clear on OOP SDLC Is there any simplest answer to both of these? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Paradigms fit for UI programming

    - by Inca
    This is a more specific question (or actually two, but they are related) coming from the comments of OOP technology death where someone stated that OOP is not the right paradigm for GUI programming. Reading the comments there and here I still have the feeling there are things to learn: which programming paradigms are considered good fits and why are they better than others (perhaps with examples to illustrate?) I removed the tk-example from the title and question

    Read the article

  • Advantages to Multiple Methods over Switch

    - by tandu
    I received a code review from a senior developer today asking "By the way, what is your objection to dispatching functions by way of a switch statement?" I have read in many places about how pumping an argument through switch to call methods is bad OOP, not as extensible, etc. However, I can't really come up with a definitive answer for him. I would like to settle this for myself once and for all. Here are our competing code suggestions (php used as an example, but can apply more universally): class Switch { public function go($arg) { switch ($arg) { case "one": echo "one\n"; break; case "two": echo "two\n"; break; case "three": echo "three\n"; break; default: throw new Exception("Unknown call: $arg"); break; } } } class Oop { public function go_one() { echo "one\n"; } public function go_two() { echo "two\n"; } public function go_three() { echo "three\n"; } public function __call($_, $__) { throw new Exception("Unknown call $_ with arguments: " . print_r($__, true)); } } Part of his argument was "It (switch method) has a much cleaner way of handling default cases than what you have in the generic __call() magic method." I disagree about the cleanliness and in fact prefer call, but I would like to hear what others have to say. Arguments I can come up with in support of Oop scheme: A bit cleaner in terms of the code you have to write (less, easier to read, less keywords to consider) Not all actions delegated to a single method. Not much difference in execution here, but at least the text is more compartmentalized. In the same vein, another method can be added anywhere in the class instead of a specific spot. Methods are namespaced, which is nice. Does not apply here, but consider a case where Switch::go() operated on a member rather than a parameter. You would have to change the member first, then call the method. For Oop you can call the methods independently at any time. Arguments I can come up with in support of Switch scheme: For the sake of argument, cleaner method of dealing with a default (unknown) request Seems less magical, which might make unfamiliar developers feel more comfortable Anyone have anything to add for either side? I'd like to have a good answer for him.

    Read the article

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