Search Results

Search found 4960 results on 199 pages for 'onion architecture'.

Page 44/199 | < Previous Page | 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51  | Next Page >

  • Are separate business objects needed when persistent data can be stored in a usable format?

    - by Kylotan
    I have a system where data is stored in a persistent store and read by a server application. Some of this data is only ever seen by the server, but some of it is passed through unaltered to clients. So, there is a big temptation to persist data - whether whole rows/documents or individual fields/sub-documents - in the exact form that the client can use (eg. JSON), as this removes various layers of boilerplate, whether in the form of procedural SQL, an ORM, or any proxy structure which exists just to hold the values before having to re-encode them into a client-suitable form. This form can usually be used on the server too, though business logic may have to live outside of the object, On the other hand, this approach ends up leaking implementation details everywhere. 9 times out of 10 I'm happy just to read a JSON structure out of the DB and send it to the client, but 1 in every 10 times I have to know the details of that implicit structure (and be able to refactor access to it if the stored data ever changes). And this makes me think that maybe I should be pulling this data into separate business objects, so that business logic doesn't have to change when the data schema does. (Though you could argue this just moves the problem rather than solves it.) There is a complicating factor in that our data schema is constantly changing rapidly, to the point where we dropped our previous ORM/RDBMS system in favour of MongoDB and an implicit schema which was much easier to work with. So far I've not decided whether the rapid schema changes make me wish for separate business objects (so that server-side calculations need less refactoring, since all changes are restricted to the persistence layer) or for no separate business objects (because every change to the schema requires the business objects to change to stay in sync, even if the new sub-object or field is never used on the server except to pass verbatim to a client). So my question is whether it is sensible to store objects in the form they are usually going to be used, or if it's better to copy them into intermediate business objects to insulate both sides from each other (even when that isn't strictly necessary)? And I'd like to hear from anybody else who has had experience of a similar situation, perhaps choosing to persist XML or JSON instead of having an explicit schema which has to be assembled into a client format each time.

    Read the article

  • What are the benefits of NoSQL?

    - by geekbrit
    I'm struggling to see how NoSQL brings any advantages to a system, so I'm interested in hearing from people who have chosen to use it, both the reasons they chose NoSQL, and positive and negative experiences in implementation and use. My first impressions are that NoSQL is a product of the availability of very large, very cheap storage; it seems that a million record database could easily have a 100MByte overhead in field labels embedded in the records. This goes against one of my software design instincts - remove redundancy in code and data whenever practical. However, NoSQL is being used with success in large high-traffic systems, so I must be missing something, looking forward to your responses.

    Read the article

  • How far do I take Composition?

    - by whiterook6
    (Although I'm sure this is a common problem I really don't know what to search for. Composition is the only thing I could come up with.) I've read over and over that multiple inheritance and subclassing is really, really bad, especially for game entities. If I have three types of motions, five types of guns, and three types of armoring, I don't want to have to make 45 different classes to get all the possible combinations; I'm going to add a motion behavior, gun behavior, and armor behavior to a single generic object. That makes sense. But how far do I take this? I can have as many different types of behaviors as I can imagine: DamageBehavior, MotionBehavior, TargetableBehavior, etc. If I add a new class of behaviors then I need to update all the other classes that use them. But what happens when I have functionality that doesn't really fit into one class of behaviors? For example, my armor needs to be damageable but also updateable. And should I be able to have use more than one type of behavior on an entity at a time, such as two motion behaviors? Can anyone offer any wisdom or point me in the direction of some useful articles? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • What's the right/standard way of achieving separation of concerns?

    - by Ghanima
    Some background: I want to start developing games, and taking some of the advice given in this site, I've started with something simple and familiar, such as pong, tetris, etc. I want to take as much time as needed to make sure that I have the basics right before moving on to something bigger. I have medium programming experience but I realize making games is a different thing. I find myself wondering many things like should this be in a separate class? Should this module handle this stuff or is it better to let other modules have that kind of functionality? For example, the bouncing of a ball in pong, right now is handled in the ball module, but maybe it's better that some other module did it. Right now I have different modules: one for the graphics, one for the game logic, and others for the objects (depending on the kind of movement required, not all the objects are alike). I know I am asking a lot, any tips you have will be very much appreciated. Short question: What's the right or standard way of separating the modules? What have you found most effective? Is it enough to just keep the drawing (graphics) and the logic separate? Is it necessary to have a lot of classes? (for example for the objects in the game, to handle the movement, etc)

    Read the article

  • What do you do when one think the code isn't complicated enough?

    - by Chris
    After six months of development on a project, our stakeholders have had a "gut check" and have decided that the path that we've been walking (a custom designed application framework and data access layer) is holding us (the developers) back from quickly developing the features they would like to see. After several days of debate management and the development team have decided to scrap the current incarnation and start over using ASP.net MVC, with Entity Framework as the bases of the a 'quick and dirty', lets just get it done project. In days following, our senior developer who has never worked with MVC or Entity Framework has finally gotten into a sample project and done some work. His take on ASP.net MVC, "this is not software engineering". So my question is this; what do you do, when one doesn't think the code is complicated enough?

    Read the article

  • Where can I find good (well organized) examples of game code?

    - by smasher
    Where can I find good (well organized) examples of game code? I'm hoping that I can pick up some organizational tips. Most examples in books are too short and leave out lots of detail for the sake of brevity. I'm particularly interested on how to group your variables and methods so that another programmer would know where to look in the code. For example initializers at the top, then methods that take input, then methods that update views. I don't care about a particular language, as long as its OOP. I looked at the Quake 2 and 3 sources, but they're straight C and not much help for getting tips on organizing your objects. So, have you seen some good source? Any pointers to code that makes you say "wow, that's well organized" would be great.

    Read the article

  • Learning how to design knowledge and data flow [closed]

    - by max
    In designing software, I spend a lot of time deciding how the knowledge (algorithms / business logic) and data should be allocated between different entities; that is, which object should know what. I am asking for advice about books, articles, presentations, classes, or other resources that would help me learn how to do it better. I code primarily in Python, but my question is not really language-specific; even if some of the insights I learn don't work in Python, that's fine. I'll give a couple examples to clarify what I mean. Example 1 I want to perform some computation. As a user, I will need to provide parameters to do the computation. I can have all those parameters sent to the "main" object, which then uses them to create other objects as needed. Or I can create one "main" object, as well as several additional objects; the additional objects would then be sent to the "main" object as parameters. What factors should I consider to make this choice? Example 2 Let's say I have a few objects of type A that can perform a certain computation. The main computation often involves using an object of type B that performs some interim computation. I can either "teach" A instances what exact parameters to pass to B instances (i.e., make B "dumb"); or I can "teach" B instances to figure out what needs to be done when looking at an A instance (i.e., make B "smart"). What should I think about when I'm making this choice?

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • Service Layer - how broad should it be, and should it also be used from the local application?

    - by BornToCode
    The background: I need to build a desktop application with some operations (CRUD and more) (=winforms), I need to make another application which will re-use some of the functions of the main application (=webforms). I'm using service layer for reusing my functions. The service is calling the functions on the BL layer (correct me if I'm doing this wrong). so my desktop has 4 projects - DAL, BL, UI, WEBSERVICES. The dilemma (simple but I still need some more experienced opinions): In my main winform UI - should I call the functions from the BL - bl.getcustomers(), or do it similar to how I call it in the webform, and call the functions from the service - webservices.getcustomers? Should I create a service for every single function on the BL even if I need some of the functions only in one UI? for example - should I create services for all the CRUD operations, even though I need to re-use only update operation in the webform? YOUR HELP IS MUCH APPRECIATED

    Read the article

  • SDL - Getting a single keypress event instead of a keystate?

    - by MrKatSwordfish
    Right now I'm working on a simple SDL project, but I've hit an issue when trying to get a single keypress event to skip past a splash screen. Right now, there are 4 start-up splash screens that I would like to be able to skip with a single keypress (of any key). My issue is that, as of now, if I hold down a key, it skips through each splash screen to the very last one immediately. The splash screens are stored as an array of SDL surfaces which are all loaded at the initialization of the state. I have an variable called currentSplashImage that controls which element of the array is being rendered on the screen. I've set it up so that whenever there's a SDL_KEYDOWN event, it triggers a single incrementation of the currentSplashImage variable. So, I'm really not sure why my code isn't working correctly. For some reason, when I hold down a button, it seems to be treating the held button as a new key press event every time it ticks through the code. Does anyone know how I can go about fixing this issue? [Here's a snippet of code that I've been using...] void SplashScreenState::handleEvents() { SDL_PollEvent( &localEvent ); if ( localEvent.type == SDL_KEYDOWN ) { if ( currentSplashImage < 3 && currentSplashImage >= 0) { currentSplashImage++; } } else if ( localEvent.type == SDL_QUIT ) { smgaEngine.setRunning(false); } } I should also mention that the SDL_Event 'localEvent' is part of the GameState parent class, while this event handling code is part of a SplashScreenState subclass. If anyone knows why this is happening, or if there is any way to improve my code, It'd be helpful to me! :D I'm still a very new programmer, trying to learn. UPDATE: I added a std::cout line to that the code runs multiple times with a single KEYDOWN event. I also tried disabling SDL_EnableKeyRepeat, but it didn't fix the issue. void SplashScreenState::handleEvents() { SDL_PollEvent( &localEvent ); if ( localEvent.type == SDL_KEYDOWN ) { if ( currentSplashImage < 3 && currentSplashImage >= 0) { currentSplashImage++; std::cout << "KEYDOWN.."; //<---- test cout line } } else if ( localEvent.type == SDL_QUIT ) { smgaEngine.setRunning(false); } } This prints out "KEYDOWN..KEYDOWN..KEYDOWN.." in the cout stream when a button is held.

    Read the article

  • Could I be going crazy with Event Handlers? Am I going the "wrong way" with my design?

    - by sensae
    I guess I've decided that I really like event handlers. I may be suffering a bit from analysis paralysis, but I'm concerned about making my design unwieldy or running into some other unforeseen consequence to my design decisions. My game engine currently does basic sprite-based rendering with a panning overhead camera. My design looks a bit like this: SceneHandler Contains a list of classes that implement the SceneListener interface (currently only Sprites). Calls render() once per tick, and sends onCameraUpdate(); messages to SceneListeners. InputHandler Polls the input once per tick, and sends a simple "onKeyPressed" message to InputListeners. I have a Camera InputListener which holds a SceneHandler instance and triggers updateCamera(); events based on what the input is. AgentHandler Calls default actions on any Agents (AI) once per tick, and will check a stack for any new events that are registered, dispatching them to specific Agents as needed. So I have basic sprite objects that can move around a scene and use rudimentary steering behaviors to travel. I've gotten onto collision detection, and this is where I'm not sure the direction my design is going is good. Is it a good practice to have many, small event handlers? I imagine going the way I am that I'd have to implement some kind of CollisionHandler. Would I be better off with a more consolidated EntityHandler which handles AI, collision updates, and other entity interactions in one class? Or will I be fine just implementing many different event handling subsystems which pass messages to each other based on what kind of event it is? Should I write an EntityHandler which is simply responsible for coordinating all these sub event handlers? I realize in some cases, such as my InputHandler and SceneHandler, those are very specific types of events. A large portion of my game code won't care about input, and a large portion won't care about updates that happen purely in the rendering of the scene. Thus I feel my isolation of those systems is justified. However, I'm asking this question specifically approaching game logic type events.

    Read the article

  • Inventory Consignment Flow

    - by ipohfly
    Not sure whether this is the right place to ask this question, but here goes.. Currently I have requirement to add support for consignment transaction in our inventory module. I have a very limited understanding of what consignment means in inventory, i.e. Customer get stocks/products from Seller without actually buying them, the product just resides in the Customer's inventory and it's still owned by the Seller. Only when the Customer actually buy the stocks then only will the ownership of the stock is transferred. The issue is i can't imagine how the data will be presented to both the Customer and the Seller. What i know is that i would need to deduct the stock from the Seller's inventory when the Customer raise a request to get the stock through consignment, but what about the 'ownership' of the stocks/products? Does that mean i would need to create another column in my table to state that for each inventory it is owned by who? Anywhere i can get information on how i should work out an inventory module like this? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Layers - Logical seperation vs physical

    - by P.Brian.Mackey
    Some programmers recommend logical seperation of layers over physical. For example, given a DL, this means we create a DL namespace not a DL assembly. Benefits include: faster compilation time simpler deployment Faster startup time for your program Less assemblies to reference Im on a small team of 5 devs. We have over 50 assemblies to maintain. IMO this ratio is far from ideal. I prefer an extreme programming approach. Where if 100 assemblies are easier to maintain than 10,000...then 1 assembly must be easier than 100. Given technical limits, we should strive for < 5 assemblies. New assemblies are created out of technical need not layer requirements. Developers are worried for a few reasons. A. People like to work in their own environment so they dont step on eachothers toes. B. Microsoft tends to create new assemblies. E.G. Asp.net has its own DLL, so does winforms. Etc. C. Devs view this drive for a common assembly as a threat. Some team members Have a tendency to change the common layer without regard for how it will impact dependencies. My personal view: I view A. as silos, aka cowboy programming and suggest we implement branching to create isolation. C. First, that is a human problem and we shouldnt create technical work arounds for human behavior. Second, my goal is not to put everything in common. Rather, I want partitions to be made in namespaces not assemblies. Having a shared assembly doesnt make everything common. I want the community to chime in and tell me if Ive gone off my rocker. Is a drive for a single assembly or my viewpoint illogical or otherwise a bad idea?

    Read the article

  • What do you do when the code isn't complicated enough?

    - by Chris
    After six months of development on a project, our stakeholders have had a "gut check" and have decided that the path that we've been walking (a custom designed application framework and data access layer) is holding us (the developers) back from quickly developing the features they would like to see. After several days of debate management and the development team have decided to scrap the current incarnation and start over using ASP.net MVC, with Entity Framework as the bases of the a 'quick and dirty', lets just get it done project. In days following, our senior developer who has never worked with MVC or Entity Framework has finally gotten into a sample project and done some work. His take on ASP.net MVC, "this is not software engineering". So my question is this; what do you do, when one doesn't think the code is complicated enough?

    Read the article

  • non-volatile virtual memory for C++ containers

    - by arieberman
    Is there a virtual memory management process that would allow a program to use the standard container structures and classes, but retain these structures and their data when the program is not running (or being used), for use by the program at a later time? This should be possible, but can it be done without changing the source code and its (container) declarations? Is there a standard way of doing this?

    Read the article

  • PHP - Internal APIs/Libraries - What makes sense?

    - by Mark Locker
    I've been having a discussion lately with some colleagues about the best way to approach a new project, and thought it'd be interesting to get some external thoughts thrown into the mix. Basically, we're redeveloping a fairly large site (written in PHP) and have differing opinions on how the platform should be setup. Requirements: The platform will need to support multiple internal websites, as well as external (non-PHP) projects which at the moment consist of a mobile app and a toolbar. We have no plans/need in the foreseeable future to open up an API externally (for use in products other than our own). My opinion: We should have a library of well documented native model classes which can be shared between projects. These models will represent everything in our database and can take advantage of object orientated features such as inheritance, traits, magic methods, etc. etc. As well as employing ORM. We can then add an API layer on top of these models which can basically accept requests and route them to the appropriate methods, translating the response so that it can be used platform independently. This routing for each method can be setup as and when it's required. Their opinion: We should have a single HTTP API which is used by all projects (internal PHP ones or otherwise). My thoughts: To me, there are a number of issues with using the sole HTTP API approach: It will be very expensive performance wise. One page request will result in several additional http requests (which although local, are still ones that Apache will need to handle). You'll lose all of the best features PHP has for OO development. From simple inheritance, to employing the likes of ORM which can save you writing a lot of code. For internal projects, the actual process makes me cringe. To get a users name, for example, a request would go out of our box, over the LAN, back in, then run through a script which calls a method, JSON encodes the output and feeds that back. That would then need to be JSON decoded, and be presented as an array ready to use. Working with arrays, as appose to objects, makes me sad in a modern PHP framework. Their thoughts (and my responses): Having one method of doing thing keeps things simple. - You'd only do things differently if you were using a different language anyway. It will become robust. - Seeing as the API will run off the library of models, I think my option would be just as robust. What do you think? I'd be really interested to hear the thoughts of others on this, especially as opinions on both sides are not founded on any past experience.

    Read the article

  • How do I implement input and movement with characters that get into vehicles?

    - by Xkynar
    I'm making a game similar to GTA2. When the player enters the vehicle, what happens in terms of logic? Does the player becomes the vehicle? Does the vehicle override the player movement? The main question is how should it look at a vehicle? I want to understand if the player becomes the car or if the player has a "motion state" like "driving, walking, flying" depending on what he is doing in a moment, I know there are tons of ways to implement vehicles in a game.

    Read the article

  • Custom .NET apps and clustering

    - by Ahmed ilyas
    So for a clustered environment - how would this work with your apps? what about your own custom .NET apps? Would there be a special way to develop them? I know that you can say create a simple Hello world app, and cluster that but they wouldnt be something you could see interms of the UI or anything, so they would effectively need to be developed as a Windows Service perhaps or even as a standard Console app which runs and not wait for user input but you wouldnt see any output from it (unless you redirect output to somewhere else) What im getting at here is... for those who have experience or developed a cluster application in .NET, how did you do it and what are the things to be aware of? For example we have the cloud service - fundamentally its built on clustering - if there is an outage, another node takes place and service is resumed as normal but we dont really see much of that downtime.

    Read the article

  • Entity communication: Message queue vs Publish/Subscribe vs Signal/Slots

    - by deft_code
    How do game engine entities communicate? Two use cases: How would entity_A send a take-damage message to entity_B? How would entity_A query entity_B's HP? Here's what I've encountered so far: Message queue entity_A creates a take-damage message and posts it to entity_B's message queue. entity_A creates a query-hp message and posts it to entity_B. entity_B in return creates an response-hp message and posts it to entity_A. Publish/Subscribe entity_B subscribes to take-damage messages (possibly with some preemptive filtering so only relevant message are delivered). entity_A produces take-damage message that references entity_B. entity_A subscribes to update-hp messages (possibly filtered). Every frame entity_B broadcasts update-hp messages. Signal/Slots ??? entity_A connects an update-hp slot to entity_B's update-hp signal. Something better? Do I have a correct understanding of how these communication schemes would tie into a game engine's entity system? How do entities in commercial game engines communicate?

    Read the article

  • Complex event system for DungeonKeeper like game

    - by paul424
    I am working on opensource GPL3 game. http://opendungeons.sourceforge.net/ , new coders would be welcome. Now there's design question regarding Event System: We want to improve the game logic, that is program a new event system. I will just repost what's settled up already on http://forum.freegamedev.net/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=3033. From the discussion came the idea of the Publisher / Subscriber pattern + "domains": My current idea is to use the subscirbers / publishers model. Its similar to Observable pattern, but instead one subscribes to Events types, not Object's Events. For each Event would like to have both static and dynamic type. Static that is its's type would be resolved by belonging to the proper inherited class from Event. That is from Event we would have EventTile, EventCreature, EvenMapLoader, EventGameMap etc. From that there are of course subtypes like EventCreature would be EventKobold, EventKnight, EventTentacle etc. The listeners would collect the event from publishers, and send them subcribers , each of them would be a global singleton. The Listeners type hierachy would exactly mirror the type hierarchy of Events. In each constructor of Event type, the created instance would notify the proper listeners. That is when calling EventKnight the proper ctor would notify the Listeners : EventListener, CreatureLisener and KnightListener. The default action for an listner would be to notify all subscribers, but there would be some exceptions , like EventAttack would notify AttackListener which would dispatch event by the dynamic part ( that is the Creature pointer or hash). Any comments ? #include <vector> class Subscriber; class SubscriberAttack; class Event{ private: int foo; int bar; protected: // static std::vector<Publisher*> publishersList; static std::vector<Subscriber*> subscribersList; static std::vector<Event*> eventQueue; public: Event(){ eventQueue.push_back(this); } static int subscribe(Subscriber* ss); static int unsubscribe(Subscriber* ss); //static int reg_publisher(Publisher* pp); //static int unreg_publisher(Publisher* pp); }; // class Publisher{ // }; class Subscriber{ public: int (*newEvent) (Event* ee); Subscriber( ){ Event::subscribe(this); } Subscriber( int (*fp) (Event* ee) ):newEvent(fp){ Subscriber(); } ~Subscriber(){ Event::unsubscribe(this); } }; class EventAttack: Event{ private: int foo; int bar; protected: // static std::vector<Publisher*> publishersList; static std::vector<SubscriberAttack*> subscribersList; static std::vector<EventAttack*> eventQueue; public: EventAttack(){ eventQueue.push_back(this); } static int subscribe(SubscriberAttack* ss); static int unsubscribe(SubscriberAttack* ss); //static int reg_publisher(Publisher* pp); //static int unreg_publisher(Publisher* pp); }; class AttackSubscriber :Subscriber{ public: int (*newEvent) (EventAttack* ee); AttackSubscriber( ){ EventAttack::subscribe(this); } AttackSubscriber( int (*fp) (EventAttack* ee) ):newEventAttack(fp){ AttackSubscriber(); } ~AttackSubscriber(){ EventAttack::unsubscribe(this); } }; From that point, others wanted the Subject-Observer pattern, that is one would subscribe to all event types produced by particular object. That way it came out to add the domain system : Huh, to meet the ability to listen to particular game's object events, I though of introducing entity domains . Domains are trees, which nodes are labeled by unique names for each level. ( like the www addresses ). Each Entity wanting to participate in our event system ( that is be able to publish / produce events ) should at least now its domain name. That would end up in Player1/Room/Treasury/#24 or Player1/Creature/Kobold/#3 producing events. The subscriber picks some part of a tree. For example by specifiing subtree with the root in one of the nodes like Player1/Room/* ,would subscribe us to all Players1's room's event, and Player1/Creature/Kobold/#3 would subscribe to Players' third kobold's event. Does such event system make sense to you ? I have many implementation details to ask as well, but first let's start some general discussion. Note1: Notice that in the case of a fight between two creatues fight , the creature being attacked would have to throw an event, becuase it is HE/SHE/IT who have its domain address. So that would be BeingAttackedEvent() etc. I will edit that post if some other reflections on this would come out. Note2: the existing class hierarchy might be used to get the domains addresses being build in constructor . In a ctor you would just add + ."className" to domain address. If you are in a class'es hierarchy leaf constructor one might use nextID , hash or any other charactteristic, just to make the addresses distinguishable . Note3:subscribing to all entity's Events would require knowledge of all possible events produced by this entity . This could be done in one function call, but information on E produced would have to be handled for every Entity. SmartNote4 : Finding proper subscribers in a tree would be easy. One would start in particular Leaf for example Player1/Creature/Kobold/#3 and go up one parent a time , notifiying each Subscriber in a Node ie. : Player1/Creature/Kobold/* , Player1/Creature/* , Player1/* etc, , up to a root that is /* .<<<< Note5: The Event system was needed to have some way of incorporating Angelscript code into application. So the Event dispatcher was to be a gate to A-script functions. But it came out to this one.

    Read the article

  • Several classes need to access the same data, where should the data be declared?

    - by Juicy
    I have a basic 2D tower defense game in C++. Each map is a separate class which inherits from GameState. The map delegates the logic and drawing code to each object in the game and sets data such as the map path. In pseudo-code the logic section might look something like this: update(): for each creep in creeps: creep.update() for each tower in towers: tower.update() for each missile in missiles: missile.update() The objects (creeps, towers and missiles) are stored in vector-of-pointers. The towers must have access to the vector-of-creeps and the vector-of-missiles to create new missiles and identify targets. The question is: where do I declare the vectors? Should they be members of the Map class, and passed as arguments to the tower.update() function? Or declared globally? Or are there other solutions I'm missing entirely?

    Read the article

  • Getting into the details of game engine programming

    - by Darkslash
    I am interested in learning game programming, but I really have an interest in the lower level engineering in games. I have OpenGL experience, and I am really interested in learning more about implementing AI, Physics, etc. I have a computer science degree, so I really like getting into technical stuff. Many times when I ask about this sort of thing, I get a lot of "Use an engine", "Use Unity3d", "Why waste your time writing code that already exists", etc, etc. My idea was to use simpler libraries such as SFML or XNA so that I could learn how to implement the more complex systems. The thing is, although I do want to write games, I want to learn things that using something like Unity simply doesn't teach you. My goal is not to make a current generation quality 3D game to sell, I just want to make some cool smaller games and learn all I can about the programming side of game development. Is this something that people just do not do anymore? It seems like everywhere I turn people are using Unity or UDK or GameMaker. I fully understand why you would use a tool like these, but I cant see how they would suit my purposes. So where does someone like myself turn? Am I trying to learn something that people just do not bother doing anymore? Is the innovation in this area gone and just all about gameplay now? I'm sorry if this question seems silly, but I am genuinely interested in knowing more about this and meeting more people who are interested in this sort of thing.

    Read the article

  • How is it possible to write the compiler of a programming language with that language itself [closed]

    - by tugberk
    Possible Duplicate: How could the first C++ compiler be written in C++? You probably heard that Microsoft released a new language called TypeScript which is a the typed superset of JavaScript. The most interesting thing that makes me wonder is the fact that its compiler writen in TypeScript itself. Call me ignorant but I really couldn't figure out in my head how that is possible. This is just like chicken and egg problem in my head because there is no compiler to compile TypeScript's compiler in the first place. How is it possible to write a compiler of the compiler of a programming language with that language?

    Read the article

  • Users can benefit from Session Tracking

    I use to work for a large Dental Plan marketing website a few years ago and they had a large customer-driven website that sold Dental Plans to consumers. Their website started tracking users as soon as they hit their web servers, and then they logged everything they could about the user. There are a lot of benefits for using session tracking for both the user and the website. Users can benefit from session tracking due to the fact that a website can retain pertaining information for the user so that they do not have to re-enter the same information repeatedly. In addition, websites can hold specific items in a cart for each user so that they can pay for all of their  items at once when they are ready to complete their purchases. Websites can also benefit from session tracking because they can determine where a specific user came from and which advertising partner gave them a sale. This information is very useful when deciding on where to spend an advertising budget. There is only one real disadvantage when it comes to session tracking, Users can not really control what is actually tracked by a website. Yes, they can disable cookies and this will help, but that means that no tracking can be done at all. Most sites require users to have cookies enabled in order for users to make purchases or login to their accounts.

    Read the article

  • Is there such thing like a "refactoring/maintainability group" role in software companies?

    - by dukeofgaming
    So, I work in a company that does embedded software development, other groups focus in the core development of different products' software and my department (which is in another geographical location) which is located at the factory has to deal with software development as well, but across all products, so that we can also fix things quicker when the lines go down due to software problems with the product. In other words, we are generalists while other groups specialize on each product. Thing is, it is kind of hard to get involved in core development when you are distributed geographically (well, I know it really isn't that hard, but there might be unintended cultural/political barriers when it comes to the discipline of collaborating remotely). So I figured that, since we are currently just putting fires out and somewhat being idle/sub-utilized (even though we are a new department, or maybe that is the reason), I thought that a good role for us could be detecting areas of opportunity of refactoring and rearchitecting code and all other implementations that might have to do with stewarding maintainability and modularity. Other groups aren't focused on this because they don't have the time and they have aggressive deadlines, which damage the quality of the code (eternal story of software projects) The thing is that I want my group/department to be recognized by management and other groups with this role officially, and I'm having trouble to come up with a good definition/identity of our group for this matter. So my question is: is this role something that already exists?, or am I the first one to make something like this up?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51  | Next Page >