Search Results

Search found 14169 results on 567 pages for 'parallel programming'.

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 66/567 | < Previous Page | 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73  | Next Page >

  • Game programming and quantity of timers

    - by andresjb
    I've made a simple 2D game engine using C# and DirectX and it's fully functional for the demo I made to test it. I have a Timer object that uses QueryPerformanceCounter and I don't know what's the better choice: use only one timer in the game loop to update everything in the game, or an independent timer in every object that needs one. My worry is that when I try to implement threads, what will happen with timers? What happens with the sync?

    Read the article

  • C++ game programming

    - by UnTraDe
    Until now I have been using C# with XNA for 2d and a little bit of 3d games, althought I dont remember that I finished any of them I want to start working with C++. I have a very very little exprience with C++ and my question is where to start? I plated a little bit with SFML and I encountered some problems with performance when I started to build a tile based game. I'm pretty sure that the problem is my code and not the library itself. Is there anything similiar to XNA for C++? I should keep try and work with SFML? Sorry for my bad english! Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Programming Data: .NET, SQL Server and You

    Welcome to the home page for my new book. Come back soon for a sample chapter....Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

    Read the article

  • C# WPF to Embedded programming transition

    - by Cheltoonjr
    I've been learning C# .NET Framework for around 4-6 months (still starting) using some books, and have currently made my way up to Collections and Generics. I'll probably spend the next two months covering the rest up to LINQ and/or Garbage Collections. The thing is, I started to get interested in embedded systems and found out that you can use C# to code it through .NET MF, which mean I wouldn't have to learn C or C++. So, I would like to know if the knowledge I'll have by that time (2 months) will be enough to start working on Embedded (using C# .NET Micro Framework and Netduino) or I should probably see more about plain C# like Multithreading, async and other advanced features ? I want use embedded just as a hobby, at least by now, as I'll still have a long way through university. Although, I'll probably pick it as a career then. Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • What should I do with my programming project?

    - by rambodash
    I've been working on a top secret project that has potential of becoming very popular. No one has done anything like it. The problem is I have no motivation to finish it, and its about 70% done. I also don't have the ability to sell & market the product. The documentation is a pain to write. I just want to finish the project , receive my reward and move on to other things. I know that if I were to release it as a product I'm going to have to do support, and do bug fixes. No thank you! I've thought of making it open source but I'm failing to see the benefits. My hard work is just going to be up for grabs isn't it? How can I abandon my project whilst getting rewarded for the work I've done so far?

    Read the article

  • How to solve programming problems using logic? [closed]

    - by md nth
    I know these principles: Define the constrains and operations,eg constrains are the rules that you cant pass and what you want determined by the end goal, operations are actions you can do, "choices" . Buy some time by solving easy and solvable piece. Halving the difficulty by dividing the project into small goals and blocks. The more blocks you create the more hinges you have. Analogies which means : using other code blocks, yours or from other programmers . which has problem similar to the current problem. Experiments not guessing by writing "predicted end" code, in other word creating a hypothesis, about what will happen if you do this or that. Use your tools first, don't begin with a unknown code first. By making small goals you ll not get frustrated. Start from smallest problem. Are there other principles?

    Read the article

  • C programming multiple storage backends

    - by ahjmorton
    I am starting a side project in C which requires multiple storage backends to be driven by a particular piece of logic. These storage backends would each be linked with the decision of which one to use specified at runtime. So for example if I invoke my program with one set of parameters it will perform the operations in memory but if I change the program configuration it would write to disk. The underlying idea is that each storage backend should implement the same protocol. In other words the logic for performing operations should need to know which backend it is operating on. Currently the way I have thought to provide this indirection is to have a struct of function pointers with the logic calling these function pointers. Essentially the struct would contain all the operations needed to implement the higher level logic E.g. struct Context { void (* doPartOfDoOp)(void) int (* getResult)(void); } //logic.h void doOp(Context * context) { //bunch of stuff context->doPartOfDoOp(); } int getResult(Context * context) { //bunch of stuff return context->getResult(); } My questions is if this way of solving the problem is one a C programmer would understand? I am a Java developer by trade but enjoy using C/++. Essentially the Context struct provides an interface like level of indirection. However I would like to know if there is a more idiomatic way of achieving this.

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • What can be done against language inertia?

    - by gerrit
    Often, projects use programming language X, but would use programming language Y if they were started from scratch. For example, big numerical models may be written entirely in Fortran. Whereas this might be a reasonable choice for the components that need to run fast (alternative would be C or C++), it might be a poor choice for components that either do not need to run fast (such as things dealing with human input or simple visualisations), or where runtime is not the limiting factor (such as I/O, particularly when from the network). Another example may be when a project is built using a propriety language (such as Matlab; no, FOSS clones are not good enough) and was started at a time when FOSS alternatives were not viable, but ten years later, they are; and it would be beneficial to migrate. However, due to language inertia, a migration does not happen. Code that works should not be touched, porting code is a time-consuming, expensive process, and programmers are familiar in language X but not necessarily in language Y. Still, in the long term, a migration would likely be beneficial. Can anything be done to mitigate the problems associated with language inertia? Are there any notable examples of big projects that have successfully overcome this problem? Or is a project bound to stick forever with the initial choices?

    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

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 | 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73  | Next Page >