Search Results

Search found 525 results on 21 pages for 'readability'.

Page 5/21 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • C#: String Concatenation vs Format vs StringBuilder

    - by James Michael Hare
    I was looking through my groups’ C# coding standards the other day and there were a couple of legacy items in there that caught my eye.  They had been passed down from committee to committee so many times that no one even thought to second guess and try them for a long time.  It’s yet another example of how micro-optimizations can often get the best of us and cause us to write code that is not as maintainable as it could be for the sake of squeezing an extra ounce of performance out of our software. So the two standards in question were these, in paraphrase: Prefer StringBuilder or string.Format() to string concatenation. Prefer string.Equals() with case-insensitive option to string.ToUpper().Equals(). Now some of you may already know what my results are going to show, as these items have been compared before on many blogs, but I think it’s always worth repeating and trying these yourself.  So let’s dig in. The first test was a pretty standard one.  When concattenating strings, what is the best choice: StringBuilder, string concattenation, or string.Format()? So before we being I read in a number of iterations from the console and a length of each string to generate.  Then I generate that many random strings of the given length and an array to hold the results.  Why am I so keen to keep the results?  Because I want to be able to snapshot the memory and don’t want garbage collection to collect the strings, hence the array to keep hold of them.  I also didn’t want the random strings to be part of the allocation, so I pre-allocate them and the array up front before the snapshot.  So in the code snippets below: num – Number of iterations. strings – Array of randomly generated strings. results – Array to hold the results of the concatenation tests. timer – A System.Diagnostics.Stopwatch() instance to time code execution. start – Beginning memory size. stop – Ending memory size. after – Memory size after final GC. So first, let’s look at the concatenation loop: 1: // build num strings using concattenation. 2: for (int i = 0; i < num; i++) 3: { 4: results[i] = "This is test #" + i + " with a result of " + strings[i]; 5: } Pretty standard, right?  Next for string.Format(): 1: // build strings using string.Format() 2: for (int i = 0; i < num; i++) 3: { 4: results[i] = string.Format("This is test #{0} with a result of {1}", i, strings[i]); 5: }   Finally, StringBuilder: 1: // build strings using StringBuilder 2: for (int i = 0; i < num; i++) 3: { 4: var builder = new StringBuilder(); 5: builder.Append("This is test #"); 6: builder.Append(i); 7: builder.Append(" with a result of "); 8: builder.Append(strings[i]); 9: results[i] = builder.ToString(); 10: } So I take each of these loops, and time them by using a block like this: 1: // get the total amount of memory used, true tells it to run GC first. 2: start = System.GC.GetTotalMemory(true); 3:  4: // restart the timer 5: timer.Reset(); 6: timer.Start(); 7:  8: // *** code to time and measure goes here. *** 9:  10: // get the current amount of memory, stop the timer, then get memory after GC. 11: stop = System.GC.GetTotalMemory(false); 12: timer.Stop(); 13: other = System.GC.GetTotalMemory(true); So let’s look at what happens when I run each of these blocks through the timer and memory check at 500,000 iterations: 1: Operator + - Time: 547, Memory: 56104540/55595960 - 500000 2: string.Format() - Time: 749, Memory: 57295812/55595960 - 500000 3: StringBuilder - Time: 608, Memory: 55312888/55595960 – 500000   Egad!  string.Format brings up the rear and + triumphs, well, at least in terms of speed.  The concat burns more memory than StringBuilder but less than string.Format().  This shows two main things: StringBuilder is not always the panacea many think it is. The difference between any of the three is miniscule! The second point is extremely important!  You will often here people who will grasp at results and say, “look, operator + is 10% faster than StringBuilder so always use StringBuilder.”  Statements like this are a disservice and often misleading.  For example, if I had a good guess at what the size of the string would be, I could have preallocated my StringBuffer like so:   1: for (int i = 0; i < num; i++) 2: { 3: // pre-declare StringBuilder to have 100 char buffer. 4: var builder = new StringBuilder(100); 5: builder.Append("This is test #"); 6: builder.Append(i); 7: builder.Append(" with a result of "); 8: builder.Append(strings[i]); 9: results[i] = builder.ToString(); 10: }   Now let’s look at the times: 1: Operator + - Time: 551, Memory: 56104412/55595960 - 500000 2: string.Format() - Time: 753, Memory: 57296484/55595960 - 500000 3: StringBuilder - Time: 525, Memory: 59779156/55595960 - 500000   Whoa!  All of the sudden StringBuilder is back on top again!  But notice, it takes more memory now.  This makes perfect sense if you examine the IL behind the scenes.  Whenever you do a string concat (+) in your code, it examines the lengths of the arguments and creates a StringBuilder behind the scenes of the appropriate size for you. But even IF we know the approximate size of our StringBuilder, look how much less readable it is!  That’s why I feel you should always take into account both readability and performance.  After all, consider all these timings are over 500,000 iterations.   That’s at best  0.0004 ms difference per call which is neglidgable at best.  The key is to pick the best tool for the job.  What do I mean?  Consider these awesome words of wisdom: Concatenate (+) is best at concatenating.  StringBuilder is best when you need to building. Format is best at formatting. Totally Earth-shattering, right!  But if you consider it carefully, it actually has a lot of beauty in it’s simplicity.  Remember, there is no magic bullet.  If one of these always beat the others we’d only have one and not three choices. The fact is, the concattenation operator (+) has been optimized for speed and looks the cleanest for joining together a known set of strings in the simplest manner possible. StringBuilder, on the other hand, excels when you need to build a string of inderterminant length.  Use it in those times when you are looping till you hit a stop condition and building a result and it won’t steer you wrong. String.Format seems to be the looser from the stats, but consider which of these is more readable.  Yes, ignore the fact that you could do this with ToString() on a DateTime.  1: // build a date via concatenation 2: var date1 = (month < 10 ? string.Empty : "0") + month + '/' 3: + (day < 10 ? string.Empty : "0") + '/' + year; 4:  5: // build a date via string builder 6: var builder = new StringBuilder(10); 7: if (month < 10) builder.Append('0'); 8: builder.Append(month); 9: builder.Append('/'); 10: if (day < 10) builder.Append('0'); 11: builder.Append(day); 12: builder.Append('/'); 13: builder.Append(year); 14: var date2 = builder.ToString(); 15:  16: // build a date via string.Format 17: var date3 = string.Format("{0:00}/{1:00}/{2:0000}", month, day, year); 18:  So the strength in string.Format is that it makes constructing a formatted string easy to read.  Yes, it’s slower, but look at how much more elegant it is to do zero-padding and anything else string.Format does. So my lesson is, don’t look for the silver bullet!  Choose the best tool.  Micro-optimization almost always bites you in the end because you’re sacrificing readability for performance, which is almost exactly the wrong choice 90% of the time. I love the rules of optimization.  They’ve been stated before in many forms, but here’s how I always remember them: For Beginners: Do not optimize. For Experts: Do not optimize yet. It’s so true.  Most of the time on today’s modern hardware, a micro-second optimization at the sake of readability will net you nothing because it won’t be your bottleneck.  Code for readability, choose the best tool for the job which will usually be the most readable and maintainable as well.  Then, and only then, if you need that extra performance boost after profiling your code and exhausting all other options… then you can start to think about optimizing.

    Read the article

  • Are there any font rendering libraries for games development that support hinting?

    - by Richard Fabian
    I've used angel code's bitmap font generator quite a bit and though it's very good, I wondered if there would be a way of using the hinting information to provide a better readable result by using hinting to provide differing thickness based on size/pixel coverage. I imagine any solution would have to use the distance field tech presented in the valve paper on smoothing fonts while maintaining or reducing asset size. (http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=494612) but I haven't found any demos of it being used with hinting information turned on or included in the field gradients in any way. Another way of looking at this is whether there are any font bitmap generators that will output mipmaps that still maintain their readability in the face of pixel size. I think the lower mip levels would try to guarantee fill and space where it is necessary to maintain readability/topology over maintaining style/form (the point of hinting). In response to "Is there a reason you can't just render the size you want", the problem lies in the fact that font rasterisers currently don't render in 3D, and hinting information would be important in different amounts due to the pixel density being different along different axes, even differing in importance along the length of a string due to the size reducing over distance. For example, I only want horizontal hinting in a texture that is viewed from the side, and only really want vertical hinting in a font that is viewed from below or above. This isn't meant to be a renderer that tries to render a perfect outline as accurately as possible, as hinting distorts the reality of the font, instead this is meant to be a rendering solution for quite static scenes, but scenes that have 3D transformed and warped text layout. In this case the legibility is important, more important than the accuracy of representation of the polygon shape.

    Read the article

  • Writing generic code when your target is a C compiler

    - by enobayram
    I need to write some algorithms for a PIC micro controller. AFAIK, the official tools support either assembler or a subset of C. My goal is to write the algorithms in a generic and reusable way without losing any runtime or memory performance. And if possible, I would like to do this without increasing the development time much and compromising the readability and maintainability much either. What I mean by generic and reusable is that I don't want to commit to types, array sizes, number of bits in a bit field etc. All these specifications, IMHO, point to C++ templates, but there's no compiler for it for my target. C macro metaprogramming is another option, but, again my opinion, that greatly reduces readability and increases development time. I believe what I'm looking for is a decent C++ to C translator, but I'd like to hear anything else that satisfies the above requirements. Maybe a translator from another high-level language to C that produces very efficient code, maybe something else. Please note that I have nothing against C, I just wish templates were available in it.

    Read the article

  • C#/.NET Little Wonders: Static Char Methods

    - by James Michael Hare
    Once again, in this series of posts I look at the parts of the .NET Framework that may seem trivial, but can help improve your code by making it easier to write and maintain. The index of all my past little wonders posts can be found here. Often times in our code we deal with the bigger classes and types in the BCL, and occasionally forgot that there are some nice methods on the primitive types as well.  Today we will discuss some of the handy static methods that exist on the char (the C# alias of System.Char) type. The Background I was examining a piece of code this week where I saw the following: 1: // need to get the 5th (offset 4) character in upper case 2: var type = symbol.Substring(4, 1).ToUpper(); 3:  4: // test to see if the type is P 5: if (type == "P") 6: { 7: // ... do something with P type... 8: } Is there really any error in this code?  No, but it still struck me wrong because it is allocating two very short-lived throw-away strings, just to store and manipulate a single char: The call to Substring() generates a new string of length 1 The call to ToUpper() generates a new upper-case version of the string from Step 1. In my mind this is similar to using ToUpper() to do a case-insensitive compare: it isn’t wrong, it’s just much heavier than it needs to be (for more info on case-insensitive compares, see #2 in 5 More Little Wonders). One of my favorite books is the C++ Coding Standards: 101 Rules, Guidelines, and Best Practices by Sutter and Alexandrescu.  True, it’s about C++ standards, but there’s also some great general programming advice in there, including two rules I love:         8. Don’t Optimize Prematurely         9. Don’t Pessimize Prematurely We all know what #8 means: don’t optimize when there is no immediate need, especially at the expense of readability and maintainability.  I firmly believe this and in the axiom: it’s easier to make correct code fast than to make fast code correct.  Optimizing code to the point that it becomes difficult to maintain often gains little and often gives you little bang for the buck. But what about #9?  Well, for that they state: “All other things being equal, notably code complexity and readability, certain efficient design patterns and coding idioms should just flow naturally from your fingertips and are no harder to write then the pessimized alternatives. This is not premature optimization; it is avoiding gratuitous pessimization.” Or, if I may paraphrase: “where it doesn’t increase the code complexity and readability, prefer the more efficient option”. The example code above was one of those times I feel where we are violating a tacit C# coding idiom: avoid creating unnecessary temporary strings.  The code creates temporary strings to hold one char, which is just unnecessary.  I think the original coder thought he had to do this because ToUpper() is an instance method on string but not on char.  What he didn’t know, however, is that ToUpper() does exist on char, it’s just a static method instead (though you could write an extension method to make it look instance-ish). This leads me (in a long-winded way) to my Little Wonders for the day… Static Methods of System.Char So let’s look at some of these handy, and often overlooked, static methods on the char type: IsDigit(), IsLetter(), IsLetterOrDigit(), IsPunctuation(), IsWhiteSpace() Methods to tell you whether a char (or position in a string) belongs to a category of characters. IsLower(), IsUpper() Methods that check if a char (or position in a string) is lower or upper case ToLower(), ToUpper() Methods that convert a single char to the lower or upper equivalent. For example, if you wanted to see if a string contained any lower case characters, you could do the following: 1: if (symbol.Any(c => char.IsLower(c))) 2: { 3: // ... 4: } Which, incidentally, we could use a method group to shorten the expression to: 1: if (symbol.Any(char.IsLower)) 2: { 3: // ... 4: } Or, if you wanted to verify that all of the characters in a string are digits: 1: if (symbol.All(char.IsDigit)) 2: { 3: // ... 4: } Also, for the IsXxx() methods, there are overloads that take either a char, or a string and an index, this means that these two calls are logically identical: 1: // check given a character 2: if (char.IsUpper(symbol[0])) { ... } 3:  4: // check given a string and index 5: if (char.IsUpper(symbol, 0)) { ... } Obviously, if you just have a char, then you’d just use the first form.  But if you have a string you can use either form equally well. As a side note, care should be taken when examining all the available static methods on the System.Char type, as some seem to be redundant but actually have very different purposes.  For example, there are IsDigit() and IsNumeric() methods, which sound the same on the surface, but give you different results. IsDigit() returns true if it is a base-10 digit character (‘0’, ‘1’, … ‘9’) where IsNumeric() returns true if it’s any numeric character including the characters for ½, ¼, etc. Summary To come full circle back to our opening example, I would have preferred the code be written like this: 1: // grab 5th char and take upper case version of it 2: var type = char.ToUpper(symbol[4]); 3:  4: if (type == 'P') 5: { 6: // ... do something with P type... 7: } Not only is it just as readable (if not more so), but it performs over 3x faster on my machine:    1,000,000 iterations of char method took: 30 ms, 0.000050 ms/item.    1,000,000 iterations of string method took: 101 ms, 0.000101 ms/item. It’s not only immediately faster because we don’t allocate temporary strings, but as an added bonus there less garbage to collect later as well.  To me this qualifies as a case where we are using a common C# performance idiom (don’t create unnecessary temporary strings) to make our code better. Technorati Tags: C#,CSharp,.NET,Little Wonders,char,string

    Read the article

  • What is technically more advanced: Brainf*ck or Assembler?

    - by el ka es
    I wondered which of these languages is more powerful. With powerful I don't mean the readability, assembler would be naturally the winner here, but something resulting from, for example, the following factors: Which of them is more high-level? (Both aren't really but one has to be more) Who would be the possibly fastest in compiled state? (There is no BF compiler out there as far as I know but it wouldn't be hard writing one I suppose) Which of the both has the better code length/code action ratio? What I mean is If you get to distracted by the, compared to Brainf*ck, improved readability of assembler, just think of writing plain binary/machine code as what assembler assembles to. Both languages are so basic that it should be possible to answer the question(s) in a rather objective view, I hope.

    Read the article

  • What is technically more advanced: Python or Assembler? [closed]

    - by el ka es
    I wondered which of these languages is more powerful. With powerful I don't mean the readability, assembler would be naturally the winner here, but something resulting from, for example, the following factors: Which of them is more high-level? (Both aren't really but one has to be more) Who would be the possibly fastest in compiled state? (There is no Python compiler out there as far as I know but it wouldn't be hard writing one I suppose) Which of the both has the better code length/code action ratio? What I mean is If you get to distracted by the, compared to Python, improved readability of assembler, just think of writing plain binary/machine code as what assembler assembles to. Both languages are so basic that it should be possible to answer the question(s) in a rather objective view, I hope.

    Read the article

  • Following PHP coding of Wisdom

    - by justjoe
    i read some wisdom like this : Programmers are encouraged to be careful when using by-reference variables since they can negatively affect the readability and maintainability of the code. i make my own solution, such as give suffix such as _ref in every by-reference variables. so, if i have a variable named as $files_in_root, then i will add suffix and changes it name into $files_in_root_ref. As far my knowledge goes, this is a good solution. So, here come the question Is there any best-practice on choosing suffix for by-reference variable in PHP coder world ? Or do you have any ? In general, how do we sustain readability and maintainability on PHP project with more then 3000 line of code ? I hope PHP coder world has unwritten aggrement for first question, cause it will help spot a pattern on any source code.

    Read the article

  • Phusion Passenger on Ubuntu not seeing plugin in vendors directory

    - by armyofgnomes
    Phusion Passenger, running on Ubuntu Hardy Heron, is bombing on a require 'lingua/en/readability'. The plugin is installed in the plugins directory and works fine with script/server, just not Passenger. Error Message: source file that the application requires, is missing. * It is possible that you didn't upload your application files correctly. Please check whether all your application files are uploaded. * A required library may not installed. Please install all libraries that this application requires. Further information about the error may have been written to the application's log file. Please check it in order to analyse the problem. Error message: no such file to load -- lingua/en/readability (MissingSourceFile)

    Read the article

  • Increased kerning on website text

    - by Bradley Herman
    We're developing a site for a client right now and my boss (designer only) is once again making me increase letter-spacing on the text so that it looks 'prettier'. I am of the firm belief that this often causes eye-strain and hinders readability in body copy, but being the boss, she is of course always 'right' until I can provide her with examples showing why she's wrong (generally pretty easy). In this case, however, I can't find any articles talking about eye-strain and kerning, so I figured I'd ask what you guys think about the issue of increased letter-spacing in web text. Take a look at http://sparktoignite.com/allograft/process.php and tell me how you feel about the body copy. We're using font-embedding, so you'll only see the proper font in FF, Safari, and Chrome. Let me know what you guys think about the readability and eye-strain caused by the font. My boss currently thinks it's 100% perfect (she wanted the kerning increased further, but I talked her down luckily).

    Read the article

  • Is it kEatSpeed or kSpeedEat?

    - by bobobobo
    I have a bunch of related constants that are not identical. What's the better way to name them? way #1 kWalkSpeed kRunSpeed kEatSpeed kDrinkSpeed Or, way #2 kSpeedWalk kSpeedRun kSpeedEat kSpeedDrink If we evaluate these based on readability understandability not bug prone with subtle errors due to using wrong variable name I think way #1 wins readability, they tie for understandability, and way #2 wins for not bug prone. I'm not sure how often it happens to others, but when variable names like this get long, then its easy to write kSpeedEatingWhenInAHurry when you really meant kSpeedEatingWhenInHome, especially when using autocomplete. Any perspectives?

    Read the article

  • How to explain to a developer that adding extra if - else if conditions is not a good way to "improv

    - by Lilit
    Recently I've bumped into the following C++ code: if (a) { f(); } else if (b) { f(); } else if (c) { f(); } Where a, b and c are all different conditions, and they are not very short. I tried to change the code to: if (a || b || c) { f(); } But the author opposed saying that my change will decrease readability of the code. I had two arguments: 1) You should not increase readability by replacing one branching statement with three (though I really doubt that it's possible to make code more readable by using else if instead of ||). 2) It's not the fastest code, and no compiler will optimize this. But my arguments did not convince him. What would you tell a programmer writing such a code? Do you think complex condition is an excuse for using else if instead of OR?

    Read the article

  • How can a code editor effectively hint at code nesting level - without using indentation?

    - by pgfearo
    I've written an XML text editor that provides 2 view options for the same XML text, one indented (virtually), the other left-justified. The motivation for the left-justified view is to help users 'see' the whitespace characters they're using for indentation of plain-text or XPath code without interference from indentation that is an automated side-effect of the XML context. I want to provide visual clues (in the non-editable part of the editor) for the left-justified mode that will help the user, but without getting too elaborate. I tried just using connecting lines, but that seemed too busy. The best I've come up with so far is shown in a mocked up screenshot of the editor below, but I'm seeking better/simpler alternatives (that don't require too much code). [Edit] Taking the heatmap idea (from: @jimp) I get this and 3 alternatives - labelled a, b and c: The following section describes the accepted answer as a proposal, bringing together ideas from a number of other answers and comments. As this question is now community wiki, please feel free to update this. NestView The name for this idea which provides a visual method to improve the readability of nested code without using indentation. Contour Lines The name for the differently shaded lines within the NestView The image above shows the NestView used to help visualise an XML snippet. Though XML is used for this illustration, any other code syntax that uses nesting could have been used for this illustration. An Overview: The contour lines are shaded (as in a heatmap) to convey nesting level The contour lines are angled to show when a nesting level is being either opened or closed. A contour line links the start of a nesting level to the corresponding end. The combined width of contour lines give a visual impression of nesting level, in addition to the heatmap. The width of the NestView may be manually resizable, but should not change as the code changes. Contour lines can either be compressed or truncated to keep acheive this. Blank lines are sometimes used code to break up text into more digestable chunks. Such lines could trigger special behaviour in the NestView. For example the heatmap could be reset or a background color contour line used, or both. One or more contour lines associated with the currently selected code can be highlighted. The contour line associated with the selected code level would be emphasized the most, but other contour lines could also 'light up' in addition to help highlight the containing nested group Different behaviors (such as code folding or code selection) can be associated with clicking/double-clicking on a Contour Line. Different parts of a contour line (leading, middle or trailing edge) may have different dynamic behaviors associated. Tooltips can be shown on a mouse hover event over a contour line The NestView is updated continously as the code is edited. Where nesting is not well-balanced assumptions can be made where the nesting level should end, but the associated temporary contour lines must be highlighted in some way as a warning. Drag and drop behaviors of Contour Lines can be supported. Behaviour may vary according to the part of the contour line being dragged. Features commonly found in the left margin such as line numbering and colour highlighting for errors and change state could overlay the NestView. Additional Functionality The proposal addresses a range of additional issues - many are outside the scope of the original question, but a useful side-effect. Visually linking the start and end of a nested region The contour lines connect the start and end of each nested level Highlighting the context of the currently selected line As code is selected, the associated nest-level in the NestView can be highlighted Differentiating between code regions at the same nesting level In the case of XML different hues could be used for different namespaces. Programming languages (such as c#) support named regions that could be used in a similar way. Dividing areas within a nesting area into different visual blocks Extra lines are often inserted into code to aid readability. Such empty lines could be used to reset the saturation level of the NestView's contour lines. Multi-Column Code View Code without indentation makes the use of a multi-column view more effective because word-wrap or horizontal scrolling is less likely to be required. In this view, once code has reach the bottom of one column, it flows into the next one: Usage beyond merely providing a visual aid As proposed in the overview, the NestView could provide a range of editing and selection features which would be broadly in line with what is expected from a TreeView control. The key difference is that a typical TreeView node has 2 parts: an expander and the node icon. A NestView contour line can have as many as 3 parts: an opener (sloping), a connector (vertical) and a close (sloping). On Indentation The NestView presented alongside non-indented code complements, but is unlikely to replace, the conventional indented code view. It's likely that any solutions adopting a NestView, will provide a method to switch seamlessly between indented and non-indented code views without affecting any of the code text itself - including whitespace characters. One technique for the indented view would be 'Virtual Formatting' - where a dynamic left-margin is used in lieu of tab or space characters. The same nesting-level data used to dynamically render the NestView could also used for the more conventional-looking indented view. Printing Indentation will be important for the readability of printed code. Here, the absence of tab/space characters and a dynamic left-margin means that the text can wrap at the right-margin and still maintain the integrity of the indented view. Line numbers can be used as visual markers that indicate where code is word-wrapped and also the exact position of indentation: Screen Real-Estate: Flat Vs Indented Addressing the question of whether the NestView uses up valuable screen real-estate: Contour lines work well with a width the same as the code editor's character width. A NestView width of 12 character widths can therefore accommodate 12 levels of nesting before contour lines are truncated/compressed. If an indented view uses 3 character-widths for each nesting level then space is saved until nesting reaches 4 levels of nesting, after this nesting level the flat view has a space-saving advantage that increases with each nesting level. Note: A minimum indentation of 4 character widths is often recommended for code, however XML often manages with less. Also, Virtual Formatting permits less indentation to be used because there's no risk of alignment issues A comparison of the 2 views is shown below: Based on the above, its probably fair to conclude that view style choice will be based on factors other than screen real-estate. The one exception is where screen space is at a premium, for example on a Netbook/Tablet or when multiple code windows are open. In these cases, the resizable NestView would seem to be a clear winner. Use Cases Examples of real-world examples where NestView may be a useful option: Where screen real-estate is at a premium a. On devices such as tablets, notepads and smartphones b. When showing code on websites c. When multiple code windows need to be visible on the desktop simultaneously Where consistent whitespace indentation of text within code is a priority For reviewing deeply nested code. For example where sub-languages (e.g. Linq in C# or XPath in XSLT) might cause high levels of nesting. Accessibility Resizing and color options must be provided to aid those with visual impairments, and also to suit environmental conditions and personal preferences: Compatability of edited code with other systems A solution incorporating a NestView option should ideally be capable of stripping leading tab and space characters (identified as only having a formatting role) from imported code. Then, once stripped, the code could be rendered neatly in both the left-justified and indented views without change. For many users relying on systems such as merging and diff tools that are not whitespace-aware this will be a major concern (if not a complete show-stopper). Other Works: Visualisation of Overlapping Markup Published research by Wendell Piez, dated from 2004, addresses the issue of the visualisation of overlapping markup, specifically LMNL. This includes SVG graphics with significant similarities to the NestView proposal, as such, they are acknowledged here. The visual differences are clear in the images (below), the key functional distinction is that NestView is intended only for well-nested XML or code, whereas Wendell Piez's graphics are designed to represent overlapped nesting. The graphics above were reproduced - with kind permission - from http://www.piez.org Sources: Towards Hermenutic Markup Half-steps toward LMNL

    Read the article

  • Python Forgiveness vs. Permission and Duck Typing

    - by darkfeline
    In Python, I often hear that it is better to "beg forgiveness" (exception catching) instead of "ask permission" (type/condition checking). In regards to enforcing duck typing in Python, is this try: x = foo.bar except AttributeError: pass else: do(x) better or worse than if hasattr(foo, "bar"): do(foo.bar) else: pass in terms of performance, readability, "pythonic", or some other important factor?

    Read the article

  • Does syntax really matter in a programming language?

    - by Saif al Harthi
    One of my professors says "the Syntax is the UI of a programming language", languages like ruby have great readability & its growing but we see alot of programmers productive with C\C++, so as programmers does it really matter that the syntax should be acceptable? I would love to know your opinion on that. Disclaimer: I'm not trying to start an argument I thought this is a good topic of discussion. Update : this turns out to be a good topic i'm glad you are all participating it , there will be more good questions to come

    Read the article

  • LINQ: Enhancing Distinct With The SelectorEqualityComparer

    - by Paulo Morgado
    On my last post, I introduced the PredicateEqualityComparer and a Distinct extension method that receives a predicate to internally create a PredicateEqualityComparer to filter elements. Using the predicate, greatly improves readability, conciseness and expressiveness of the queries, but it can be even better. Most of the times, we don’t want to provide a comparison method but just to extract the comaprison key for the elements. So, I developed a SelectorEqualityComparer that takes a method that extracts the key value for each element. Something like this: public class SelectorEqualityComparer<TSource, Tkey> : EqualityComparer<TSource> where Tkey : IEquatable<Tkey> { private Func<TSource, Tkey> selector; public SelectorEqualityComparer(Func<TSource, Tkey> selector) : base() { this.selector = selector; } public override bool Equals(TSource x, TSource y) { Tkey xKey = this.GetKey(x); Tkey yKey = this.GetKey(y); if (xKey != null) { return ((yKey != null) && xKey.Equals(yKey)); } return (yKey == null); } public override int GetHashCode(TSource obj) { Tkey key = this.GetKey(obj); return (key == null) ? 0 : key.GetHashCode(); } public override bool Equals(object obj) { SelectorEqualityComparer<TSource, Tkey> comparer = obj as SelectorEqualityComparer<TSource, Tkey>; return (comparer != null); } public override int GetHashCode() { return base.GetType().Name.GetHashCode(); } private Tkey GetKey(TSource obj) { return (obj == null) ? (Tkey)(object)null : this.selector(obj); } } Now I can write code like this: .Distinct(new SelectorEqualityComparer<Source, Key>(x => x.Field)) And, for improved readability, conciseness and expressiveness and support for anonymous types the corresponding Distinct extension method: public static IEnumerable<TSource> Distinct<TSource, TKey>(this IEnumerable<TSource> source, Func<TSource, TKey> selector) where TKey : IEquatable<TKey> { return source.Distinct(new SelectorEqualityComparer<TSource, TKey>(selector)); } And the query is now written like this: .Distinct(x => x.Field) For most usages, it’s simpler than using a predicate.

    Read the article

  • Are factors such as Intellisense support and strong typing enough to justify the use of an 'Anaemic Domain Model'?

    - by David Osborne
    It's easy to accept that objects should be used in all layers except a layer nominated as a data layer. However, it's just as easy to end-up with an 'anaemic domain model' that is just an object representation of data with no real functionality ( http://martinfowler.com/bliki/AnemicDomainModel.html ). However, using objects in this fashion brings the benefit of factors such as Intellisense support, strong typing, readability, discoverability, etc. Are these factors strong arguments for an otherwise, anaemic domain model?

    Read the article

  • Is there an appropriate coding style for implementing an algorithm during an interview?

    - by GlenPeterson
    I failed an interview question in C years ago about converting hex to decimal by not exploiting the ASCII table if (inputDigitByte > 9) hex = inputDigitByte - 'a'. The rise of Unicode has made this question pretty silly, but the point was that the interviewer valued raw execution speed above readability and error handling. They tell you to review algorithms textbooks to prepare for these interviews, yet these same textbooks tend to favor the implementation with the fewest lines of code, even if it has to rely on magic numbers (like "infinity") and a slower, more memory-intensive implementation (like a linked list instead of an array) to do that. I don't know what is right. Coding an algorithm within the space of an interview has at least 3 constraints: time to code, elegance/readability, and efficiency of execution. What trade-offs are appropriate for interview code? How much do you follow the textbook definition of an algorithm? Is it better to eliminate recursion, unroll loops, and use arrays for efficiency? Or is it better to use recursion and special values like "infinity" or Integer.MAX_VALUE to reduce the number of lines of code needed to write the algorithm? Interface: Make a very self-contained, bullet-proof interface, or sloppy and fast? On the one extreme, the array to be sorted might be a public static variable. On the other extreme, it might need to be passed to each method, allowing methods to be called individually from different threads for different purposes. Is it appropriate to use a linked-list data structure for items that are traversed in one direction vs. using arrays and doubling the size when the array is full? Implementing a singly-linked list during the interview is often much faster to code and easier remember for recursive algorithms like MergeSort. Thread safety - just document that it's unsafe, or say so verbally? How much should the interviewee be looking for opportunities for parallel processing? Is bit shifting appropriate? x / 2 or x >> 1 Polymorphism, type safety, and generics? Comments? Variable and method names: qs(a, p, q, r) vs: quickSort(theArray, minIdx, partIdx, maxIdx) How much should you use existing APIs? Obviously you can't use a java.util.HashMap to implement a hash-table, but what about using a java.util.List to accumulate your sorted results? Are there any guiding principals that would answer these and other questions, or is the guiding principal to ask the interviewer? Or maybe this should be the basis of a discussion while writing the code? If an interviewer can't or won't answer one of these questions, are there any tips for coaxing the information out of them?

    Read the article

  • Book Review: Microsoft SQL Server 2008 Analysis Services Unleashed

    - by Greg Low
    Yet another book that I started re-reading last week (but haven't finished again yet as it's so large) is Microsoft SQL Server 2008 Analysis Services Unleashed by Irina Gorbach, Alexander Berger and Edward Melomed. This book has always left me with mixed feelings. The authors clearly offer expert level knowledge on the topics (as they were part of the development team for the product) but I struggle with the "readability" of this book. As an example, each time a concept is introduced, it is done...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Refactoring Part 1 : Intuitive Investments

    - by Wes McClure
    Fear, it’s what turns maintaining applications into a nightmare.  Technology moves on, teams move on, someone is left to operate the application, what was green is now perceived brown.  Eventually the business will evolve and changes will need to be made.  The approach to those changes often dictates the long term viability of the application.  Fear of change, lack of passion and a lack of interest in understanding the domain often leads to a paranoia to do anything that doesn’t involve duct tape and bailing twine.  Don’t get me wrong, those have a place in the short term viability of a project but they don’t have a place in the long term.  Add to it “us versus them” in regards to the original team and those that maintain it, internal politics and other factors and you have a recipe for disaster.  This results in code that quickly becomes unmanageable.  Even the most clever of designs will eventually become sub optimal and debt will amount that exponentially makes changes difficult.  This is where refactoring comes in, and it’s something I’m very passionate about.  Refactoring is about improving the process whereby we make change, it’s an exponential investment in the process of change. Without it we will incur exponential complexity that halts productivity. Investments, especially in the long term, require intuition and reflection.  How can we tackle new development effectively via evolving the original design and paying off debt that has been incurred? The longer we wait to ask and answer this question, the more it will cost us.  Small requests don’t warrant big changes, but realizing when changes now will pay off in the long term, and especially in the short term, is valuable. I have done my fair share of maintaining applications and continuously refactoring as needed, but recently I’ve begun work on a project that hasn’t had much debt, if any, paid down in years.  This is the first in a series of blog posts to try to capture the process which is largely driven by intuition of smaller refactorings from other projects. Signs that refactoring could help: Testability How can decreasing test time not pay dividends? One of the first things I found was that a very important piece often takes 30+ minutes to test.  I can only imagine how much time this has cost historically, but more importantly the time it might cost in the coming weeks: I estimate at least 10-20 hours per person!  This is simply unacceptable for almost any situation.  As it turns out, about 6 hours of working with this part of the application and I was able to cut the time down to under 30 seconds!  In less than the lost time of one week, I was able to fix the problem for all future weeks! If we can’t test fast then we can’t change fast, nor with confidence. Code is used by end users and it’s also used by developers, consider your own needs in terms of the code base.  Adding logic to enable/disable features during testing can help decouple parts of an application and lead to massive improvements.  What exactly is so wrong about test code in real code?  Often, these become features for operators and sometimes end users.  If you cannot run an integration test within a test runner in your IDE, it’s time to refactor. Readability Are variables named meaningfully via a ubiquitous language? Is the code segmented functionally or behaviorally so as to minimize the complexity of any one area? Are aspects properly segmented to avoid confusion (security, logging, transactions, translations, dependency management etc) Is the code declarative (what) or imperative (how)?  What matters, not how.  LINQ is a great abstraction of the what, not how, of collection manipulation.  The Reactive framework is a great example of the what, not how, of managing streams of data. Are constants abstracted and named, or are they just inline? Do people constantly bitch about the code/design? If the code is hard to understand, it will be hard to change with confidence.  It’s a large undertaking if the original designers didn’t pay much attention to readability and as such will never be done to “completion.”  Make sure not to go over board, instead use this as you change an application, not in lieu of changes (like with testability). Complexity Simplicity will never be achieved, it’s highly subjective.  That said, a lot of code can be significantly simplified, tidy it up as you go.  Refactoring will often converge upon a simplification step after enough time, keep an eye out for this. Understandability In the process of changing code, one often gains a better understanding of it.  Refactoring code is a good way to learn how it works.  However, it’s usually best in combination with other reasons, in effect killing two birds with one stone.  Often this is done when readability is poor, in which case understandability is usually poor as well.  In the large undertaking we are making with this legacy application, we will be replacing it.  Therefore, understanding all of its features is important and this refactoring technique will come in very handy. Unused code How can deleting things not help? This is a freebie in refactoring, it’s very easy to detect with modern tools, especially in statically typed languages.  We have VCS for a reason, if in doubt, delete it out (ok that was cheesy)! If you don’t know where to start when refactoring, this is an excellent starting point! Duplication Do not pray and sacrifice to the anti-duplication gods, there are excellent examples where consolidated code is a horrible idea, usually with divergent domains.  That said, mediocre developers live by copy/paste.  Other times features converge and aren’t combined.  Tools for finding similar code are great in the example of copy/paste problems.  Knowledge of the domain helps identify convergent concepts that often lead to convergent solutions and will give intuition for where to look for conceptual repetition. 80/20 and the Boy Scouts It’s often said that 80% of the time 20% of the application is used most.  These tend to be the parts that are changed.  There are also parts of the code where 80% of the time is spent changing 20% (probably for all the refactoring smells above).  I focus on these areas any time I make a change and follow the philosophy of the Boy Scout in cleaning up more than I messed up.  If I spend 2 hours changing an application, in the 20%, I’ll always spend at least 15 minutes cleaning it or nearby areas. This gives a huge productivity edge on developers that don’t. Ironically after a short period of time the 20% shrinks enough that we don’t have to spend 80% of our time there and can move on to other areas.   Refactoring is highly subjective, never attempt to refactor to completion!  Learn to be comfortable with leaving one part of the application in a better state than others.  It’s an evolution, not a revolution.  These are some simple areas to look into when making changes and can help get one started in the process.  I’ve often found that refactoring is a convergent process towards simplicity that sometimes spans a few hours but often can lead to massive simplifications over the timespan of weeks and months of regular development.

    Read the article

  • Advice for a getting a job in algorithmic trading - writing faster code

    - by Alex
    I am currently an intermediate Java developer working in the financial industry. I am considering trying to get into an algorithmic trading developer position. I am looking for any advice/resources that may help me obtain such a job. My naive initial thoughts are to concentrate on learning how to write faster, more memory efficient code whilst maintaining readability. Can anyone point me in the right direction of some useful resources for what I am aiming to achieve?

    Read the article

  • What algorithms can I use to detect if articles or posts are duplicates?

    - by michael
    I'm trying to detect if an article or forum post is a duplicate entry within the database. I've given this some thought, coming to the conclusion that someone who duplicate content will do so using one of the three (in descending difficult to detect): simple copy paste the whole text copy and paste parts of text merging it with their own copy an article from an external site and masquerade as their own Prepping Text For Analysis Basically any anomalies; the goal is to make the text as "pure" as possible. For more accurate results, the text is "standardized" by: Stripping duplicate white spaces and trimming leading and trailing. Newlines are standardized to \n. HTML tags are removed. Using a RegEx called Daring Fireball URLs are stripped. I use BB code in my application so that goes to. (ä)ccented and foreign (besides Enlgish) are converted to their non foreign form. I store information about each article in (1) statistics table and in (2) keywords table. (1) Statistics Table The following statistics are stored about the textual content (much like this post) text length letter count word count sentence count average words per sentence automated readability index gunning fog score For European languages Coleman-Liau and Automated Readability Index should be used as they do not use syllable counting, so should produce a reasonably accurate score. (2) Keywords Table The keywords are generated by excluding a huge list of stop words (common words), e.g., 'the', 'a', 'of', 'to', etc, etc. Sample Data text_length, 3963 letter_count, 3052 word_count, 684 sentence_count, 33 word_per_sentence, 21 gunning_fog, 11.5 auto_read_index, 9.9 keyword 1, killed keyword 2, officers keyword 3, police It should be noted that once an article gets updated all of the above statistics are regenerated and could be completely different values. How could I use the above information to detect if an article that's being published for the first time, is already existing within the database? I'm aware anything I'll design will not be perfect, the biggest risk being (1) Content that is not a duplicate will be flagged as duplicate (2) The system allows the duplicate content through. So the algorithm should generate a risk assessment number from 0 being no duplicate risk 5 being possible duplicate and 10 being duplicate. Anything above 5 then there's a good possibility that the content is duplicate. In this case the content could be flagged and linked to the article's that are possible duplicates and a human could decide whether to delete or allow. As I said before I'm storing keywords for the whole article, however I wonder if I could do the same on paragraph basis; this would also mean further separating my data in the DB but it would also make it easier for detecting (2) in my initial post. I'm thinking weighted average between the statistics, but in what order and what would be the consequences...

    Read the article

  • VB multiline string as XML Literals

    - by Mike Koerner
    Probably known by most programmers, but I want to document it so I can find it myself later.An easy way to create a multiline VB string is to create a xml literal and use the valueDim myTest = <string>Here is a multiline string that I want to use insome other code.  Ithelps the readability andcut and paste functionality.Even if this is a poor example</string>Dim strInside as string = myTest.value

    Read the article

  • Where should I define constants in scripts?

    - by bshacklett
    When writing scripts using a modern scripting language, e.g. Powershell or JavaScript, where should I define constants? Should I make all constants global for readability and ease of use, or does it make sense to define constants as close to their scopes as possible (in a function, for instance, if it's not needed elsewhere)? I'm thinking mostly of error messages, error IDs, paths to resources or configuration options.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >