Search Results

Search found 177198 results on 7088 pages for 'not programming'.

Page 62/7088 | < Previous Page | 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69  | Next Page >

  • The hidden cost of interrupting knowledge workers

    - by Piet
    The November issue of pragpub has an interesting article on interruptions. The article is written by Brian Tarbox, who also mentions the article on his blog. I like the subtitle: ‘Simple Strategies for Avoiding Dumping Your Mental Stack’. Brian talks about the effective cost of interrupting a ‘knowledge worker’, often with trivial questions or distractions. In the eyes of the interruptor, the interruption only costs the time the interrupted had to listen to the question and give an answer. However, depending on what the interrupted was doing at the time, getting fully immersed in their task again might take up to 15-20 minutes. Enough interruptions might even cause a knowledge worker to mentally call it a day. According to this article interruptions can consume about 28% of a knowledge worker’s time, translating in a $588 billion loss for US companies each year. Looking for a new developer to join your team? Ever thought about optimizing your team’s environment and the way they work instead? Making non knowledge workers aware You can’t. Well, I haven’t succeeded yet. And believe me: I’ve tried. When you’ve got a simple way to really increase your productivity (’give me 2 hours of uninterrupted time a day’) it wouldn’t be right not to tell your boss or team-leader about it. The problem is: only productive knowledge workers seem to understand this. People who don’t fall into this category just seem to think you’re joking, being arrogant or anti-social when you tell them the interruptions can really have an impact on your productivity. Also, knowledge workers often work in a very concentrated mental state which is described here as: It is the same mindfulness as ecstatic lovemaking, the merging of two into a fluidly harmonious one. The hallmark of flow is a feeling of spontaneous joy, even rapture, while performing a task. Yes, coding can be addictive and if you’re interrupting a programmer at the wrong moment, you’re effectively bringing down a junkie from his high in just a few seconds. This can result in seemingly arrogant, almost aggressive reactions. How to make people aware of the production-cost they’re inflicting: I’ve been often pondering that question myself. The article suggests that solutions based on that question never seem to work. To be honest: I’ve never even been able to find a half decent solution for this question. People who are not in this situations just don’t understand the issue, no matter how you try to explain it. Fun (?) thing I’ve noticed: Programmers or IT people in general who don’t get this are often the kind of people who just don’t get anything done. Interrupt handling (interruption management?) IRL Have non-urgent questions handled in a non-interruptive way It helps a bit to educate people into using non-interruptive ways to ask questions: “duh, I have no idea, but I’m a bit busy here now could you put it in an email so I don’t forget?”. Eventually, a considerable amount of people will skip interrupting you and just send an email right away. Some stubborn-headed people however will continue to just interrupt you, saying “you’re 10 meters from my desk, why can’t we just talk?”. Just remember to disable your email notifications, it can be hard to resist opening your email client when you know a new email just arrived. Use Do Not Disturb signals When working in a group of programmers, often the unofficial sign you can only be interrupted for something important is to put on headphones. And when the environment is quiet enough, often people aren’t even listening to music. Otherwise music can help to block the indirect distractions (someone else talking on the phone or tapping their feet). You might get a “they’re all just surfing and listening to music”-reaction from outsiders though. Peopleware talks about a team where the no-interruption sign was placing a shawl on the desk. If I remember correctly, I am unable to locate my copy of this really excellent must-read book. If you have all standardized on the same IM tool, maybe that tool has a ‘do not disturb’ setting. Also some phone-systems have a ‘DND’ (do not disturb) setting. Hide Brian offers a number of good suggestions, some obvious like: hide away somewhere they can’t find you. Not sure how long it’ll be till someone thinks you’re just taking a nap somewhere though. Also, this often isn’t possible or your boss might not understand this. And if you really get caught taking a nap, make sure to explain that your were powernapping. Counter-act interruptions Another suggestion he offers is when you’re being interrupted to just hold up your hand, blocking the interruption, and at least giving you time to finish your sentence or your block/line of code. The last suggestion works more as a way to make it obvious to the interruptor that they really are interrupting your work and to offload some of the cost on the interruptor. In practice, this can also helps you cool down a bit so you don’t start saying nasty things to the interruptor. Unfortunately I’ve sometimes been confronted with people who just ignore this signal and keep talking, as if they’re sure that whatever they’ve got to say is really worth listening to and without a doubt more important than anything you might be doing. This behaviour usually leaves me speechless (not good when someone just asked a question). I’ve noticed that these people are usually also the first to complain when being interrupted themselves. They’re generally not very liked as colleagues, so try not to imitate their behaviour. TDD as a way to minimize recovery time I don’t like Test Driven Development. Mainly for only one reason: It interrupts flow. At least, that’s what it does for me, but maybe I’m just not grown used to TDD yet. BUT a positive effect TDD has on me when I have to work in an interruptive environment and can’t really get into the ‘flow’ (also supposedly called ‘the zone’ by software developers, although I’ve never heard it 1st hand), TDD helps me to concentrate on the tasks at hand and helps me to get back at work after an interruption. I feel when using TDD, I can get by without the need for being totally ‘in’ the project and I can be reasonably productive without obtaining ‘flow’. Do you have a suggestion on how to make people aware of the concept of ‘flow’ and the cost of interruptions? (without looking like an arrogant ass or a weirdo)

    Read the article

  • autorelease object not confirming protocol does not give any warning

    - by Sahil Wasan
    I have a class "ABC" and its method which returns non autoreleases object of that class. @interface ABC:NSObject +(ABC *)aClassMethodReturnsObjectWhichNotAutoreleased; @end @implementation ABC +(ABC *)aClassMethodReturnsObjectWhichNotAutoreleased{ ABC *a = [[ABC alloc]init]; return a; } @end If I have a protocol Foo. @Protocol Foo @required -(void)abc; @end My ABC class is "not" confirming Foo protocols. 1st call id<Foo> obj = [ABC aClassMethodReturnsObjectWhichNotAutoreleased]; //show warning It shows warning "Non Compatible pointers.." thats good.Abc did not confirm protocol Foo BUT 2nd call id<Foo> obj = [NSArray arrayWithObjects:@"abc",@"def",nil]; // It will "not" show warning as it will return autorelease object.NSArray don't confirm protocol Foo In first call compiler gives warning and in second call compiler is not giving any warning.I think that is because i am not returning autorelease object. Why is compiler not giving warning in 2nd call as NSArray is also not confirming FOO Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • Can I use POSIX signals in my Perl program to create event-driven programming?

    - by Shiftbit
    Is there any POSIX signals that I could utilize in my Perl program to create event-driven programming? Currently, I have multi-process program that is able to cross communicate but my parent thread is only able to listen to listen at one child at a time. foreach (@proc) { sysread(${$_}{'read'}, my $line, 100); #problem here chomp($line); print "Parent hears: $line\n"; } The problem is that the parent sits in a continual wait state until it receives it a signal from the first child before it can continue on. I am relying on 'pipe' for my intercommunication. My current solution is very similar to: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2558098/how-can-i-use-pipe-to-facilitate-interprocess-communication-in-perl If possible I would like to rely on a $SIG{...} event or any non-CPAN solution. Update: As Jonathan Leffler mentioned, kill can be used to send a signal: kill USR1 = $$; # send myself a SIGUSR1 My solution will be to send a USR1 signal to my child process. This event tells the parent to listen to the particular child. child: kill USR1 => $parentPID if($customEvent); syswrite($parentPipe, $msg, $buffer); #select $parentPipe; print $parentPipe $msg; parent: $SIG{USR1} = { #get child pid? sysread($array[$pid]{'childPipe'}, $msg, $buffer); }; But how do I get my the source/child pid that signaled the parent? Have the child Identify itself in its message. What happens if two children signal USR1 at the same time?

    Read the article

  • Concurrent Programming:Should I write a sequential program first, then add thread safety?

    - by evthim
    I'm working on a project where we have to create a number of threads(actual number will be inputted in by testers (TA's)). I'm having trouble not only with the programming but also with the design, I can't wrap my head around all of the threads that will be invoked and where I might cause errors. The project is due soon so I don't want to waste time on this if it'll actually set me back, but I was wondering if I should write the program like only one thread will be running and everything should be sequential and then later go back and try to add the thread safety parts of the code? Would that take twice the original amount of time? Project Description: Note:I'm going to be as vague as possible so I don't violate any honor codes, sorry :( your program should accept n number of objectA threads, m number of objectB threads, and r number of objectC objectB threads interact with code in objectA. objectA threads interact with code in objectB and objectC objectB and objectC don't directly interact, but do so indirectly through objectA -ex: objectB needs something from objectA. objectA gets the result for that something by calling objectC my confusion stems mostly from the fact that all of this interactions will be done by m+n threads and there are various restrictions throughout the descriptions, like objectB can request something from objectA, and objectA has to wait for objectC to finish that something before returning it to objectB. Also each objectA thread can only work on one instruction from objectB at a time, etc. etc. I just want to know if I write the code so that there is only 1 objectA, 1 objectB and 1 object C, can I go back and easily modify it so that those 1's can be changed to m, n and r? Sorry again, if my description is a little bit confusing.

    Read the article

  • To OpenID or not to OpenID? Is it worth it?

    - by Eloff
    Does OpenID improve the user experience? Edit Not to detract from the other comments, but I got one really good reply below that outlined 3 advantages of OpenID in a rational bottom line kind of way. I've also heard some whisperings in other comments that you can get access to some details on the user through OpenID (name? email? what?) and that using that it might even be able to simplify the registration process by not needing to gather as much information. Things that definitely need to be gathered in a checkout process: Full name Email (I'm pretty sure I'll have to ask for these myself) Billing address Shipping address Credit card info There may be a few other things that are interesting from a marketing point of view, but I wouldn't ask the user to manually enter anything not absolutely required during the checkout process. So what's possible in this regard? /Edit (You may have noticed stackoverflow uses OpenID) It seems to me it is easier and faster for the user to simply enter a username and password in a signup form they have to go through anyway. I mean you don't avoid entering a username and password either with OpenID. But you avoid the confusion of choosing a OpenID provider, and the trip out to and back from and external site. With Microsoft making Live ID an OpenID provider (More Info), bringing on several hundred million additional accounts to those provided by Google, Yahoo, and others, this question is more important than ever. I have to require new customers to sign up during the checkout process, and it is absolutely critical that the experience be as easy and smooth as possible, every little bit harder it becomes translates into lost sales. No geek factor outweighs cold hard cash at the end of the day :) OpenID seems like a nice idea, but the implementation is of questionable value. What are the advantages of OpenID and is it really worth it in my scenario described above?

    Read the article

  • Should I learn two (or more) programming languages in parallel?

    - by c_maker
    I found entries on this site about learning a new programming language, however, I have not come across anything that talks about the advantages and disadvantages of learning two languages at the same time. Let's say my goal is to learn two new languages in a year. I understand that the definition of learning a new language is different for everyone and you can probably never know everything about a language. I believe in most cases the following things are enough to include the language in your resume and say that you are proficient in it (list is not in any particular order): Know its syntax so you can write a simple program in it Compare its underlying concepts with concepts of other languages Know best practices Know what libraries are available Know in what situations to use it Understand the flow of a more complex program At least know most of what you do not know I would probably look for a good book and pick an open source project for both of these languages to start with. My questions: Is it best to spend 5 months learning language#1 then 5 months learning language#2, or should you mix the two. Mixing them I mean you work on them in parallel. Should you pick two languages that are similar or different? Are there any advantages/disadvantages of let's say learning Lisp in tandem with Ruby? Is it a good idea to pick two languages with similar syntax or would it be too confusing? Please tell me what your experiences are regarding this. Does it make a difference if you are a beginner or a senior programmer?

    Read the article

  • Can anyone give me a sample java socket programming for doing a peer to peer for 3 systems?

    - by Sadesh Kumar N
    I am doing an university project. I need some sample programs on peer to peer programs in java socket programming. Every where people are telling to add a server socket in the client program. I am in a confusion. Can a single program having server socket and client socket will do or i have to create two programs of one initiating a system and another peer program running thrice to solve the problem. or i need to create three programs for three peer systems. I am not clear on the architecture of building peer to peer programs using java sockets. Can some one help me giving a simple program on how to create a peer to peer connection between three systems. I know how to do a socket program for client server model and clear on the concept. But creating a peer to peer architecture sounds complex for me to understand. I also referred this thread. developing peer to peer in java The person commented second says" To make peer2peer app each client opens server socket too. When client A wishes to connect to client B it just connects to its socket. " Need some more sample and an explanation on how peer to peer java socket program works I dont want any external api like jxta to do this task. I need a clear picture on how it works alone with an example.

    Read the article

  • How are events in games handled?

    - by Alex
    In may games that I have played, I have seen events being triggered, such as when you walk into a certain land area while holding a specific object, it will trigger a special creature to spawn. I was wondering, how do games deal with events such as this? Not in a specific game, but in general among games. The first thought I had was that each place has a hard-coded set of events that it will call when something happens there. However, that would be too inefficient to maintain, as when something new is added, that would require modification of every part of the game that would potentially cause the event to be called. Next up, I had the idea of maybe how GUI programming works. In all of the GUI programming I've done, you create a component and a callback function, or a listener. Then, when the user interacts when the button, the callback function is called, allowing you to do something with it. So, I was thinking that in terms of a game, when a land area gets loaded the game loops over a list of all events, creating instances of them and calling public methods to bind them to the current scene. The events themselves then handle what scene it is, and if it is a scene that pertains to the event, will call the public method of the scene to bind the event to an action. Then, when the action takes place, the scene would call all events that are bound to that action. However, I'm sure that's not how games would operate either, as that would require a lot of creating of events all the time. So how to video games handle events, are either of those methods correct, or is it something completely different?

    Read the article

  • Why do programmers seem to be such bad spellers?

    - by Joel Etherton
    Programming languages are very precise tools based on explicit grammars. They're very picky, and when being used they require an exacting amount of detail. C#, for instance, is case sensitive so even getting the case of an argument wrong will cause an error. Questions asked all over the StackExchange are replete with misspellings, grammatical errors, and other problems that seem to indicate a lack of attention to detail when it comes to the language itself. Now, I understand there are a lot of programmers out there whose native language is not English, and I am not directing this question (rant one might say) at them. I'm referring to the individuals who are clearly from an English speaking background who refuse to pay attention to these simple details. I am not perfect by any means, but I try to use the language correctly so that my meaning will be understood correctly. I find programmers misspelling variable names, classes, and all manner of words in any kind of technical documentation they might write. I have had to withstand code where I am repeatedly referring to the subit[sic] button or HttpWebResponse reponse. The general complaint about bad spelling is one thing, and it will always be there. I accept that. But my question/comment is about the proclivity of bad spelling within the programming community. I would think that people who deal with such exacting tools to be more naturally predisposed towards proper spelling. Yet this doesn't seem to be the case.

    Read the article

  • Learning to be a good developer: what parts can you skip over?

    - by Andrew M
    I have set myself the goal of becoming a decent developer by this time next year. By this I mean full experience of the development 'lifecycle,' a few good apps/sites/webapps under my belt, and most importantly being able to work at a steady pace without getting sidelined for hours by some should-know-this-already technique. I'm not starting from scratch. I've written a lot of html/css, SQL, javascript, python and VB.net, and studied other languages like C and Java. I know about things like OOP, design patterns, TDD, complexity, computational linguistics, pointers/references, functional programming, and other academic/theoretical matters. It's just I can't say I've really done these things yet. So I want to get up to speed, and I want to know what things I can leave till a later date. For instance, studying algorithms and the maths behind them is interesting and all, but so far I've hardly needed to write anything but the most basic nested loops. Investigating Assembly to have a clearer picture of low-level operations would be cool... but I imagine rarely infringes on daily work. On the other hand, looking at a functional programming language might help me write programs that are more comprehensible and less prone to hidden failures (at the moment I'm finding the biggest difficulty is when the complexity of the app exceeds my capacity to understand it - for instance passing data around was fine... until I had to start doing it with AJAX, which was a painful step up). I could spend time working through case studies of design patterns, but I'm not sure how many of them get used in 'real life.' I'm a programmer with basic abilities - what skills should I focus on developing? (also my Unix skills are very weak, and also knowledge of Windows configuration... not sure how much time I should spend on that)

    Read the article

  • Are programmers getting lazier and less competent

    - by Skeith
    I started programming in C++ at uni and loved it. In the next term we changed to VB6 and I hated it. I could not tell what was going on, you drag a button to a form and the ide writes the code for you. While I hated the way VB functioned I cannot argue that it was faster and easier than doing the same thing in C++ so i can see why it is a popular language. Now I am not calling VB developers lazy in just saying it easier than C++ and I have noticed that a lot of newer languages are following this trend such a C#. This leads me to think that as more business want quick results more people will program like this and sooner or later there will be no such thing as what we call programming now. Future programmers will tell the computer what they want and the compiler will write the program for them like in star trek. Is this just an under informed opinion of a junior programmer or are programmers getting lazier and less competent in general? EDIT: A lot of answers say why re invent the wheel and I agree with this but when there are wheels available people are not bothering to learn how to make the wheel. I can google how to do pretty much anything in any language and half the languages do so much for you when it come to debugging they have no idea what there code does of how to fix the error. That's how I cam up with the theory that programmers are becoming lazier and less competent as no one cares how stuff works just that it does until it does not.

    Read the article

  • What are the pros and cons about developing under MAC OS? [closed]

    - by user827992
    Sometimes i get the chance to program under MAC OS, i knew about this OS since Apple shipped its computers with a PowerPC by Motorola ( since Panther, more or less ), these days they are all X86 and i see no particular advantages about adopting this platform, also i see only downsides for the main part, i do not want to cause flames, please reply if you have a good answer or you can contribute in some constructive way. I'm trying to write a list of the natively supported languages, or the languages that comes only under MAC OS with some particular technology, my list is this: Objective C with Cocoa/Carbon I'm not considering personal preferences here, if a person X likes to code under Xcode it's probably ok to have a MAC, if a person Y likes to code under Visual Studio it's probably ok to not having a MAC, my purpose is to clarify what MAC OS is good for. I also do not get why people glorify the MAC for historical reasons, I mean a language like Java just comes for MAC only in the 7th edition of its JDK, things like GCC are just a porting and many technologies are out of the question like C# ( I'm sorry, i do not consider MonoDevelop like a serious alternative ) , .Net, ASP, DirectX, and many others are just, again, porting or free software, like PHP, MySQL, Javascript, XML, CSS, OpenGL, etc etc. My question is: what is so special about being a programmer under MAC OS? There is something that I have not seen? I also noticed that a significant portion of MAC users end up using their MAC like a normal Windows PC with Parallels or something like that. I can afford to buy a MAC, show me why this machine is so unique.

    Read the article

  • Software development process for a part time University project for 1 developer?

    - by Pricey
    I will be doing a part time University project soon and the time frame for it is around 8 months with approximately 10-15 hours a week spent working on it, with a review by a tutor each quarter. My question is what software development process would you recommend using when the course requires you to work on your own in order to manage yourself as well as the project? I wanted to use a weekly or bi-weekly iterative approach to my work but a lot of the processes seem tailored to teams of people. I am looking at XP (Extreme Programming) OR Scrum as something that is less than the norm for University work but again Scrum I don't know a lot about yet, and a question I have is; can you say you are doing XP without pair-programming? because my tutor seems to think that I have to stick to all the practices otherwise I can't do it (nevermind if I am working alone). We can have external user input as well but due to the small timescales with part time work it may be more beneficial for myself to be the user as well, which is not what I prefer considering how I can get lost in the design.

    Read the article

  • Grading an algorithm: Readability vs. Compactness

    - by amiregelz
    Consider the following question in a test \ interview: Implement the strcpy() function in C: void strcpy(char *destination, char *source); The strcpy function copies the C string pointed by source into the array pointed by destination, including the terminating null character. Assume that the size of the array pointed by destination is long enough to contain the same C string as source, and does not overlap in memory with source. Say you were the tester, how would you grade the following answers to this question? 1) void strcpy(char *destination, char *source) { while (*source != '\0') { *destination = *source; source++; destionation++; } *destionation = *source; } 2) void strcpy(char *destination, char *source) { while (*(destination++) = *(source++)) ; } The first implementation is straightforward - it is readable and programmer-friendly. The second implementation is shorter (one line of code) but less programmer-friendly; it's not so easy to understand the way this code is working, and if you're not familiar with the priorities in this code then it's a problem. I'm wondering if the first answer would show more complexity and more advanced thinking, in the tester's eyes, even though both algorithms behave the same, and although code readability is considered to be more important than code compactness. It seems to me that since making an algorithm this compact is more difficult to implement, it will show a higher level of thinking as an answer in a test. However, it is also possible that a tester would consider the first answer not good because it's not readable. I would also like to mention that this is not specific to this example, but general for code readability vs. compactness when implementing an algorithm, specifically in tests \ interviews.

    Read the article

  • Is there a language more general than Lisp?

    - by Jon Purdy
    I've been programming for a long time, and writing in Lisp (well, mostly Scheme) for a little less. My experience in these languages (and other functional languages) has informed my ability to write clean code even with less powerful tools. Lisp-family languages have lovely facilities for implementing every abstraction in common use: S-expressions generalise structure. Macros generalise syntax. Continuations generalise flow control. But I'm dissatisfied. Somehow, I want more. Is there a language that's more general? More powerful? As great as Lisp is, I find it hard to believe no one has come up with anything (dare I say) better. I'm well aware that ordinarily a question like this ought to be closed for its argumentative nature. But there seems to be a broad consensus that Lisp represents the theoretical pinnacle of programming language design. I simply refuse to accept that without some kind of proof. Which I guess amounts to questioning whether the lambda calculus is in fact the ideal abstraction of computation.

    Read the article

  • Is the separation of program logic and presentation layer going too far?

    - by Timwi
    In a Drupal programming guide, I noticed this sentence: The theme hook receives the total number of votes and the number of votes for just that item, but the template wants to display a percentage. That kind of work shouldn't be done in a template; instead, the math is performed here. The math necessary to calculate a percentage from a total and a number is (number/total)*100. Is this application of two basic arithmetic operators within a presentation layer already too much? Is the maintenance of the entire system severely compromised by this amount of mathematics? The WPF (Windows Presentation Framework) and its UI mark-up language, XAML, seem to go to similar extremes. If you try to so much as add two numbers in the View (the presentation layer), you have committed a cardinal sin. Consequently, XAML has no operators for any arithmetic whatsoever. Is this ultra-strict separation really the holy grail of programming? What are the significant gains to be had from taking the separation to such extremes?

    Read the article

  • Generalist Languages: Dying or Alive and Well?

    - by dsimcha
    Around here, it seems like there's somewhat of a consensus that generalist programming languages (that try to be good at everything, support multiple paradigms, support both very high- and very low-level programming), etc. are a bad idea, and that it's better to pick the right tool for the job and use lots of different languages. I see three major areas where this is flawed: Interfacing multiple languages is always at least a source of friction and is sometimes practically impossible. How severe a problem this is depends on how fine-grained the interfacing is. Near the boundary between the two languages, though, you're basically limited to the intersection of their features, and you have to care about things like binary interfaces that you usually wouldn't. Passing complex data structures (i.e. not just primitives and arrays of primitives) between languages is almost always a hassle. Furthermore, shifting between different syntaxes, different conventions, etc. can be confusing and annoying, though this is a fairly minor complaint. Requirements are never set in stone. I hate picking a language thinking it's the right tool for the job, then realizing that, when some new requirement surfaces, it's actually a terrible choice for that requirement. This has happened to me several times before, usually when working with languages that are very slow, very domain specific and/or has very poor concurrency/parallelism support. When you program in a language for a while, you start to build up a personal toolbox of small utility functions/classes/programs. The value of these goes drastically down if you're forced to use a different language than the one you've accumulated all this code in. What am I missing here? Why shouldn't more focus be placed on generalist languages? Are generalist languages as a category dying or alive and well?

    Read the article

  • What's the proper term for a function inverse to a constructor? Deconstructor, destructor, or something else?

    - by Petr Pudlák
    Edit: I'm rephrasing the question a bit. Apparently I caused some confusion because I didn't realize that the term destructor is used in OOP for something quite different - it's a function invoked when an object is being destroyed. In functional programming we (try to) avoid mutable state so there is no such equivalent to it. (I added the proper tag to the question.) Instead, I've seen that the record field for unwrapping a value (especially for single-valued data types such as newtypes) is sometimes called destructor or perhaps deconstructor. For example, let's have (in Haskell): newtype Wrap = Wrap { unwrap :: Int } Here Wrap is the constructor and unwrap is what? I've seen both, for example: ... Most often, one supplies smart constructors and destructors for these to ease working with them. ... at Haskell wiki, or ... The general theme here is to fuse constructor - deconstructor pairs like ... at Haskell wikibook (here it's probably meant in a bit more general sense). The questions are: How do we call unwrap in functional programming? Deconstructor? Destructor? Or by some other term? And to clarify, is this terminology applicable to other functional languages, or is it used just in the Has

    Read the article

  • Benefits of classic OOP over Go-like language

    - by tylerl
    I've been thinking a lot about language design and what elements would be necessary for an "ideal" programming language, and studying Google's Go has led me to question a lot of otherwise common knowledge. Specifically, Go seems to have all of the interesting benefits from object oriented programming without actually having any of the structure of an object oriented language. There are no classes, only structures; there is no class/structure inheritance -- only structure embedding. There aren't any hierarchies, no parent classes, no explicit interface implementations. Instead, type casting rules are based on a loose system similar to duck-typing, such that if a struct implements the necessary elements of a "Reader" or a "Request" or an "Encoding", then you can cast it and use it as one. Does such a system obsolete the concept of OOP? Or is there something about OOP as implemented in C++ and Java and C# that is inherently more capable, more maintainable, somehow more powerful that you have to give up when moving to a language like Go? What benefit do you have to give up to gain the simplicity that this new paradigm represents?

    Read the article

  • Where to Start?

    - by freemann098
    my name is Chase. I've been programming for over 3 years now and I've made very little progress towards game development. I blame myself for it due to reasons. I have experience in many languages such as C++, C#, and Java. I have a little bit of knowledge in JavaScript/HTML and Python. My question is where to start on actually understanding jumping into game development. Whenever I watch game development tutorials it mostly makes sense until points of things like OpenGL or advanced topics that make no sense at all. An example is something like glOrhho Matrix or whatever. Videos either don't explain things like this or they're not explained very well. Do I not know enough basics? I find myself always copying code from a video but understanding very little of it. It's like i'm memorizing things I don't understand which makes it hard to program at all. If I were to want to get to the point where I could write my own game engine or just a game by myself in general in C++ using at the most documentation how would I start at mastering to that level. Should I learn C first, or get really good at basics in general with C++. I know there is a similar posted question on this site but it's not the same due to the fact the person asking the question has a well knowledge level in programming. I'm stuck in a loop of learning the same things but if I go farther I don't understand. I'm stuck in the same spot and need to make progress.

    Read the article

  • Uses of persistent data structures in non-functional languages

    - by Ray Toal
    Languages that are purely functional or near-purely functional benefit from persistent data structures because they are immutable and fit well with the stateless style of functional programming. But from time to time we see libraries of persistent data structures for (state-based, OOP) languages like Java. A claim often heard in favor of persistent data structures is that because they are immutable, they are thread-safe. However, the reason that persistent data structures are thread-safe is that if one thread were to "add" an element to a persistent collection, the operation returns a new collection like the original but with the element added. Other threads therefore see the original collection. The two collections share a lot of internal state, of course -- that's why these persistent structures are efficient. But since different threads see different states of data, it would seem that persistent data structures are not in themselves sufficient to handle scenarios where one thread makes a change that is visible to other threads. For this, it seems we must use devices such as atoms, references, software transactional memory, or even classic locks and synchronization mechanisms. Why then, is the immutability of PDSs touted as something beneficial for "thread safety"? Are there any real examples where PDSs help in synchronization, or solving concurrency problems? Or are PDSs simply a way to provide a stateless interface to an object in support of a functional programming style?

    Read the article

  • What's the proper term for a function inverse to a constructor - to unwrap a value from a data type?

    - by Petr Pudlák
    Edit: I'm rephrasing the question a bit. Apparently I caused some confusion because I didn't realize that the term destructor is used in OOP for something quite different - it's a function invoked when an object is being destroyed. In functional programming we (try to) avoid mutable state so there is no such equivalent to it. (I added the proper tag to the question.) Instead, I've seen that the record field for unwrapping a value (especially for single-valued data types such as newtypes) is sometimes called destructor or perhaps deconstructor. For example, let's have (in Haskell): newtype Wrap = Wrap { unwrap :: Int } Here Wrap is the constructor and unwrap is what? The questions are: How do we call unwrap in functional programming? Deconstructor? Destructor? Or by some other term? And to clarify, is this/other terminology applicable to other functional languages, or is it used just in the Haskell? Perhaps also, is there any terminology for this in general, in non-functional languages? I've seen both terms, for example: ... Most often, one supplies smart constructors and destructors for these to ease working with them. ... at Haskell wiki, or ... The general theme here is to fuse constructor - deconstructor pairs like ... at Haskell wikibook (here it's probably meant in a bit more general sense), or newtype DList a = DL { unDL :: [a] -> [a] } The unDL function is our deconstructor, which removes the DL constructor. ... in The Real World Haskell.

    Read the article

  • what's the difference between Routed Events and Attached Events?

    - by vverma01
    I tried to find through various sources but still unable to understand difference between routed events and attached events in WPF. Most of the places of reference for attached event following example is used: <StackPanel Button.Click="StackPanel_Click"> <Button Content="Click Me!" Height="35" Width="150" Margin="5" /> </StackPanel> Explained as: stack panel do not contain Click event and hence Button.Click event is attached to Stack Panel. Where as msdn says: You can also name any event from any object that is accessible through the default namespace by using a typename.event partially qualified name; this syntax supports attaching handlers for routed events where the handler is intended to handle events routing from child elements, but the parent element does not also have that event in its members table. This syntax resembles an attached event syntax, but the event here is not a true attached event. Instead, you are referencing an event with a qualified name. According to MSDN information as pasted above, the above example of Buttons and StackPanel is actually a routed event example and not true attached event example. In case if above example is truly about usage of attached event (Button.Click="StackPanel_Click") then it's in contradiction to the information as provided at MSDN which says Another syntax usage that resembles typename.eventname attached event syntax but is not strictly speaking an attached event usage is when you attach handlers for routed events that are raised by child elements. You attach the handlers to a common parent, to take advantage of event routing, even though the common parent might not have the relevant routed event as a member. A similar question was raised in this Stack Overflow post, but unfortunately this question was closed before it could collect any response. Please help me to understand how attached events are different from routed events and also clarify the ambiguity as pointed above.

    Read the article

  • When can you call yourself good at language X?

    - by SoulBeaver
    This goes back to a conversation I've had with my girlfriend. I tried to tell her that I simply don't feel adequate enough in my programming language (C++) to call myself good. She then asked me, "Well, when do you consider yourself good enough?" That's an interesting question. I didn't know what to tell her. So I'm asking you. For any programming language, framework or the like, when do you reach a point were you sit back, look at what you've done and say, "Hey, I'm actually pretty good at this."? How do you define "good" so that you can tell others, honestly, "Yeah, I'm good at X". Additionally, do you reach these conclusions by comparing what others can do? Additional Info I have read the canonical paper on how it takes ten-thousand hours before you are an expert on the field. (Props to anybody that knows what this paper is called again) I have also read various articles from Coding Horror about interviewing people. Some people, it was said, "Cannot function outside of a framework." So they may be "good" for that framework, but not otherwise in the language. Is this true?

    Read the article

  • What are some ways to separate game logic from animations and the draw loop?

    - by TMV
    I have only previously made flash games, using MovieClips and such to separate out my animations from my game logic. Now I am getting into trying my hand at making a game for Android, but the game programming theory around separating these things still confuses me. I come from a background of developing non game web applications so I am versed in more MVC like patterns and am stuck in that mindset as I approach game programming. I want to do things like abstract my game by having, for example, a game board class that contains the data for a grid of tiles with instances of a tile class that each contain properties. I can give my draw loop access to this and have it draw the game board based on the properties of each tile on the game board, but I don't understand where exactly animation should go. As far as I can tell, animation sort of sits between the abstracted game logic (model) and the draw loop (view). With my MVC mindset, it's frustrating trying to decide where animation is actually supposed to go. It would have quite a bit of data associated with it like a model, but seemingly needs to be very closely coupled with the draw loop in order to have things like frame independent animation. How can I break out of this mindset and start thinking about patterns that make more sense for games?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69  | Next Page >