Search Results

Search found 14626 results on 586 pages for 'hidden features'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 56/586 | < Previous Page | 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63  | Next Page >

  • List of Lua derived VMs and Languages

    - by Shane Holloway
    Is there a compendium of virtual machines and languages derived or inspired by Lua? By derived, I mean usage beyond embedding and extending with modules. I'm wanting to research the Lua technology tree, and am looking for our combined knowledge of what already exists. Current List: Bright - A C-like Lua Derivative http://bluedino.net/luapix/Bright.pdf Agena - An Algol68/SQL like Lua Derivative http://agena.sourceforge.net/ LuaJIT - A (very impressive) JIT for Lua http://luajit.org MetaLua - An ML-style language extension http://metalua.luaforge.net/

    Read the article

  • Is Java assert broken?

    - by BlairHippo
    While poking around the questions, I recently discovered the assert keyword in Java. At first, I was excited. Something useful I didn't already know! A more efficient way for me to check the validity of input parameters! Yay learning! But then I took a closer look, and my enthusiasm was not so much "tempered" as "snuffed-out completely" by one simple fact: you can turn assertions off.* This sounds like a nightmare. If I'm asserting that I don't want the code to keep going if the input listOfStuff is null, why on earth would I want that assertion ignored? It sounds like if I'm debugging a piece of production code and suspect that listOfStuff may have been erroneously passed a null but don't see any logfile evidence of that assertion being triggered, I can't trust that listOfStuff actually got sent a valid value; I also have to account for the possibility that assertions may have been turned off entirely. And this assumes that I'm the one debugging the code. Somebody unfamiliar with assertions might see that and assume (quite reasonably) that if the assertion message doesn't appear in the log, listOfStuff couldn't be the problem. If your first encounter with assert was in the wild, would it even occur to you that it could be turned-off entirely? It's not like there's a command-line option that lets you disable try/catch blocks, after all. All of which brings me to my question (and this is a question, not an excuse for a rant! I promise!): What am I missing? Is there some nuance that renders Java's implementation of assert far more useful than I'm giving it credit for? Is the ability to enable/disable it from the command line actually incredibly valuable in some contexts? Am I misconceptualizing it somehow when I envision using it in production code in lieu of statements like if (listOfStuff == null) barf();? I just feel like there's something important here that I'm not getting. *Okay, technically speaking, they're actually off by default; you have to go out of your way to turn them on. But still, you can knock them out entirely.

    Read the article

  • Is there a name for a language feature that allows assignment/creation?

    - by Alex Mcp
    This is a bit hard for me to articulate, but in PHP you can say something like: $myArray['someindex'] = "my string"; and if there is no index named that, it will create/assign the value, and if there IS an index, it will overwrite the existing value. Compare this to Javascript where today I had to do checks like so: if (!myObject[key]) myObject[key] = "value"; I know this may be a bit of a picky point, but is there a name for the ability of PHP (and many other languages) to do these checks on their own as opposed to the more verbose (read: PITA) method of Javascript?

    Read the article

  • java partial classes

    - by Dewfy
    Hello colleagues, Small preamble. I was good java developer on 1.4 jdk. After it I have switched to another platforms, but here I come with problem so question is strongly about jdk 1.6 (or higher :) ). I have 3 coupled class, the nature of coupling concerned with native methods. Bellow is example of this 3 class public interface A { public void method(); } final class AOperations { static native method(. . .); } public class AImpl implements A { @Override public void method(){ AOperations.method( . . . ); } } So there is interface A, that is implemented in native way by AOperations, and AImpl just delegates method call to native methods. These relations are auto-generated. Everything ok, but I have stand before problem. Sometime interface like A need expose iterator capability. I can affect interface, but cannot change implementation (AImpl). Saying in C# I could be able resolve problem by simple partial: (C# sample) partial class AImpl{ ... //here comes auto generated code } partial class AImpl{ ... //here comes MY implementation of ... //Iterator } So, has java analogue of partial or something like.

    Read the article

  • java vs python. In what way is Java Better?

    - by oxinabox.ucc.asn.au
    What are the advantages of Java over Python? What are the disadvantagesof Python, over Java? Why isn't Java more like Python? Like why don't java have an command line iterpretor? I beleive Java must have some advantages, but...I'm yet to see them. Logically all languages have an advantage afaict: I learnt java before python, - a 6 month unicourse. I spend a couple of weeks using python (writting a script to make a C source file). I hated it at first (as it was so differnt from C). I realised I had fallen in love it it, when I noticed that when I went to do a follow on Java Course at uni, I'ld stopped giving my variables types, and was tryign to multiply strings.

    Read the article

  • What languages have a while-else type control structure, and how does it work?

    - by Dan
    A long time ago, I thought I saw a proposal to add an else clause to for or while loops in C or C++... or something like that. I don't remember how it was supposed to work -- did the else clause run if the loop exited normally but not via a break statement? Anyway, this is tough to search for, so I thought maybe I could get some CW answers here for various languages. What languages support adding an else clause to something other than an if statement? What is the meaning of that clause? One language per answer please.

    Read the article

  • Cross-Platform Language + GUI Toolkit for Prototyping Multimedia Applications

    - by msutherl
    I'm looking for a language + GUI toolkit for rapidly prototyping utility applications for multimedia installations. I've been working with Max/MSP/Jitter for many years, but I'd like to add a text-based language to my 'arsenal' for tasks apart from 'content production'. (When it comes to actual media synthesis, my choices are clear [SuperCollider + MSP for audio, Jitter + Quartz + openFrameworks for video]). I'm looking for something that maintains some of the advantages of Max, but is lower-level, faster, more cross-platfrom (Linux support), and text-based. Integration with powerful sound/video libraries is not a requirement. Some requirements: Cross-platform (at least OSX and Linux, Windows is a plus) Fast and easy cross-platform GUIs with no platform-specific modification GUI code separated from backend code as much as possible Good for interfacing with external serial devices (micro-controllers) Good network support (UDP/TCP) Good libraries for multi-media (video, sound, OSC) are a plus Asynchronous synchronous UNIX integration is a plus The options that come to mind: AS3/Flex (not a fan of AS3 or the idea of running in the Flash Player) openFrameworks (C++ framework, perhaps a bit too low level [looking for fast development time] and biased toward video work) Java w/ Processing libraries (like openFrameworks, just slower) Python + Qt (is Qt appropriate for rapid prototyping?) Python + Another GUI toolkit SuperCollider + Swing (yucky GUI development) Java w/ SWT Any other options? What do you recommend?

    Read the article

  • Are there legitimate uses for JavaScript's "with" statement?

    - by Shog9
    Alan Storm's comments in response to my answer regarding the with statement got me thinking. I've seldom found a reason to use this particular language feature, and had never given much thought to how it might cause trouble. Now, I'm curious as to how I might make effective use of with, while avoiding its pitfalls... So my question is, where have you found the with statement useful?

    Read the article

  • Does this language feature already exists?

    - by Pindatjuh
    I'm currently developing a new language for programming in a continuous environment (compare it to electrical engineering), and I've got some ideas on a certain language construction. Let me explain the feature by explanation and then by definition; x = a | b; Where x is a variable and a and b are other variables (or static values). if(x == a) { // all references to "x" are essentially references to "a". } if(x == b) { // same but with "b" } if(x != a) { // ... } if(x == a | b) { // guaranteed that "x" is '"a" | "b"'; interacting with "x" // will interact with both "a" and "b". } // etc. In the above, all code-blocks are executed, but the "scope" changes in each block how x is interpreted. In the first block, x is guaranteed to be a: thus interacting with x inside that block will interact on a. The second and the third code-block are only equal in this situation (because not b only remains a). The last block guarantees that x is at least a or b. Further more; | is not the "bitwise or operator", but I've called it the "and/or"-operator. It's definition is: "|" = "and" | "or" (On my blog, http://cplang.wordpress.com/2009/12/19/binop-and-or/, is more (mathematical) background information on this operator. It's loosely based on sets.) I do not know if this construction already exists, so that's my question: does this language feature already exists?

    Read the article

  • C: 8x8 -> 16 bit multiply precision guaranteed by integer promotions?

    - by craig-blome
    I'm trying to figure out if the C Standard (C90, though I'm working off Derek Jones' annotated C99 book) guarantees that I will not lose precision multiplying two unsigned 8-bit values and storing to a 16-bit result. An example statement is as follows: unsigned char foo; unsigned int foo_u16 = foo * 10; Our Keil 8051 compiler (v7.50 at present) will generate a MUL AB instruction which stores the MSB in the B register and the LSB in the accumulator. If I cast foo to a unsigned int first: unsigned int foo_u16 = (unsigned int)foo * 10; then the compiler correctly decides I want a unsigned int there and generates an expensive call to a 16x16 bit integer multiply routine. I would like to argue beyond reasonable doubt that this defensive measure is not necessary. As I read the integer promotions described in 6.3.1.1, the effect of the first line shall be as if foo and 10 were promoted to unsigned int, the multiplication performed, and the result stored as unsigned int in foo_u16. If the compiler knows an instruction that does 8x8-16 bit multiplications without loss of precision, so much the better; but the precision is guaranteed. Am I reading this correctly? Best regards, Craig Blome

    Read the article

  • C# internal VS VBNET Friend

    - by Will Marcouiller
    To this SO question: What is the C# equivalent of friend?, I would personally have answered "internal", just like Ja did among the answers! However, Jon Skeet says that there is no direct equivalence of VB Friend in C#. If Jon Skeet says so, I won't be the one telling otherwise! ;P I'm wondering how can the keyword internal (C#) not be the equivalent of Friend (VBNET) when their respective definitions are: Friend VBNET The Friend (Visual Basic) keyword in the declaration statement specifies that the elements can be accessed from within the same assembly, but not from outside the assembly. [...] internal C# Internal: Access is limited to the current assembly. To my understanding, these definitions mean quite the same to me. Then, respectively, when I'm coding in VB.NET, I use the Friend keyword to specify that a class or a property shall be accessible only within the assembly where it is declared. The same in C#, I use the internal keyword to specify the same. Am I doing something or anything wrong from this perspective? What are the refinements I don't get? Might someone please explain how or in what Friend and internal are not direct equivalences? Thanks in advance for any of your answers!

    Read the article

  • Volatile fields in C#

    - by Danny Chen
    From the specification 10.5.3 Volatile fields: The type of a volatile field must be one of the following: A reference-type. The type byte, sbyte, short, ushort, int, uint, char, float, bool, System.IntPtr, or System.UIntPtr. An enum-type having an enum base type of byte, sbyte, short, ushort, int, or uint. First I want to confirm my understanding is correct: I guess the above types can be volatile because they are stored as a 4-bytes unit in memory(for reference types because of its address), which guarantees the read/write operation is atomic. A double/long/etc type can't be volatile because they are not atomic reading/writing since they are more than 4 bytes in memory. Is my understanding correct? And the second, if the first guess is correct, why a user defined struct with only one int field in it(or something similar, 4 bytes is ok) can't be volatile? Theoretically it's atomic right? Or it's not allowed simply because that all user defined structs(which is possibly more than 4 bytes) are not allowed to volatile by design?

    Read the article

  • Are Scala "continuations" just a funky syntax for defining and using Callback Functions?

    - by Alex R
    And I mean that in the same sense that a C/Java for is just a funky syntax for a while loop. I still remember when first learning about the for loop in C, the mental effort that had to go into understanding the execution sequence of the three control expressions relative to the loop statement. Seems to me the same sort of effort has to be applied to understand Continuations (in Scala and I guess probably other languages). And then there's the obvious follow-up question... if so, then what's the point? It seems like a lot of pain (language complexity, programmer errors, unreadable programs, etc) for no gain.

    Read the article

  • Understanding Ruby Enumerable#map (with more complex blocks)

    - by mstksg
    Let's say I have a function def odd_or_even n if n%2 == 0 return :even else return :odd end end And I had a simple enumerable array simple = [1,2,3,4,5] And I ran it through map, with my function, using a do-end block: simple.map do |n| odd_or_even(n) end # => [:odd,:even,:odd,:even,:odd] How could I do this without, say, defining the function in the first place? For example, # does not work simple.map do |n| if n%2 == 0 return :even else return :odd end end # Desired result: # => [:odd,:even,:odd,:even,:odd] is not valid ruby, and the compiler gets mad at me for even thinking about it. But how would I implement an equivalent sort of thing, that works?

    Read the article

  • Drupal : Notification of modification to translator of a content

    - by Brice Favre
    Hello, In Drupal, i want to know how to notify translator that the content they translated, was modified. What is the easiest way to do it? Is there a module for that? Maybe workflow can help but i think this needs too much adminsitration Bonus Question : Do you already work with the same language in several countries? Exemple : English US, Englis UK, English CA? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Do You Really Know Your Programming Languages?

    - by Kristopher Johnson
    I am often amazed at how little some of my colleagues know or care about their craft. Something that constantly frustrates me is that people don't want to learn any more than they need to about the programming languages they use every day. Many programmers seem content to learn some pidgin sub-dialect, and stick with that. If they see a keyword or construct that they aren't familiar with, they'll complain that the code is "tricky." What would you think of a civil engineer who shied away from calculus because it had "all those tricky math symbols?" I'm not suggesting that we all need to become "language lawyers." But if you make your living as a programmer, and claim to be a competent user of language X, then I think at a minimum you should know the following: Do you know the keywords of the language and what they do? What are the valid syntactic forms? How are memory, files, and other operating system resources managed? Where is the official language specification and library reference for the language? The last one is the one that really gets me. Many programmers seem to have no idea that there is a "specification" or "standard" for any particular language. I still talk to people who think that Microsoft invented C++, and that if a program doesn't compile under VC6, it's not a valid C++ program. Programmers these days have it easy when it comes to obtaining specs. Newer languages like C#, Java, Python, Ruby, etc. all have their documentation available for free from the vendors' web sites. Older languages and platforms often have standards controlled by standards bodies that demand payment for specs, but even that shouldn't be a deterrent: the C++ standard is available from ISO for $30 (and why am I the only person I know who has a copy?). Programming is hard enough even when you do know the language. If you don't, I don't see how you have a chance. What do the rest of you think? Am I right, or should we all be content with the typical level of programming language expertise? Update: Several great comments here. Thanks. A couple of people hit on something that I didn't think about: What really irks me is not the lack of knowledge, but the lack of curiosity and willingness to learn. It seems some people don't have any time to hone their craft, but they have plenty of time to write lots of bad code. And I don't expect people to be able to recite a list of keywords or EBNF expressions, but I do expect that when they see some code, they should have some inkling of what it does. Few people have complete knowledge of every dark corner of their language or platform, but everyone should at least know enough that when they see something unfamiliar, they will know how to get whatever additional information they need to understand it.

    Read the article

  • Looking for Programming Language that allows you to change true and false.

    - by Maushu
    For my curiosity sake I'm looking for a dynamic object oriented language that allows you to change true to false and vice versa. Something like this: true = false, false = true; This should also affect any conditional statements, therefore 42 == 42 should return False. Basically, with this premise, nothing in the language would be safe from the programmer. Is there any language like this?

    Read the article

  • what is your java 1.6 favorite feature

    - by ekeren
    what is your java 1.6 favorite feature? Java 6 has some nifty feature: SeriveLocator Support to Scripting language Acess to Compiler APT enhancement (Annotation) And more... What is the one you like the most, and found it very useful?

    Read the article

  • C++: calling non-member functions with the same syntax of member ones

    - by peoro
    One thing I'd like to do in C++ is to call non-member functions with the same syntax you call member functions: class A { }; void f( A & this ) { /* ... */ } // ... A a; a.f(); // this is the same as f(a); Of course this could only work as long as f is not virtual (since it cannot appear in A's virtual table. f doesn't need to access A's non-public members. f doesn't conflict with a function declared in A (A::f). I'd like such a syntax because in my opinion it would be quite comfortable and would push good habits: calling str.strip() on a std::string (where strip is a function defined by the user) would sound a lot better than calling strip( str );. most of the times (always?) classes provide some member functions which don't require to be member (ie: are not virtual and don't use non-public members). This breaks encapsulation, but is the most practical thing to do (due to point 1). My question here is: what do you think of such feature? Do you think it would be something nice, or something that would introduce more issues than the ones it aims to solve? Could it make sense to propose such a feature to the next standard (the one after C++0x)? Of course this is just a brief description of this idea; it is not complete; we'd probably need to explicitly mark a function with a special keyword to let it work like this and many other stuff.

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63  | Next Page >