Search Results

Search found 1261 results on 51 pages for 'trivial'.

Page 7/51 | < Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >

  • Comparing Checksums

    - by Sean Feldman
    This is something trivial, yet got me to think for a little. I had two checksums, one received from a client invoking a service, another one calculated once data sent into service is received. Checksums are plain arrays of bytes. I wanted to have comparison to be expressed as simple as possible. Quick google search brought me to a post that dealt with the same issue. But linq expression was too chatty and I think the solution was a bit muddy. So I looked a bit more into linq options presented in the post, and this is what ended up using: var matching = original_checksum.SequenceEqual(new_checksum); Sometimes things are so simple, we tend to overcomplicate them.

    Read the article

  • Why don't we use dynamic (server-side generated) CSS?

    - by ern0
    As server-side generated HTML is trivial (and it was the only way to make dynamic webpages before AJAX), server-side generated CSS is not. Actually, I've never seen it. There are CSS compilers, but they generate CSS files which can be used as static. Technically, it requires no special libraries, the HTML style tag should reference to the PHP(/ASP/whatever) templater script instead of the static CSS file, and the script should send out CSS content-type header - that's all. Does it have cache problems? I don't think so. The script should send out no-cache etc. headers. Is it problem for designers? No, they should edit the CSS template (as they edit the HTML template). Why we don't use dynamic CSS generators? Or if there's any, please let me know.

    Read the article

  • Informed TDD &ndash; Kata &ldquo;To Roman Numerals&rdquo;

    - by Ralf Westphal
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/theArchitectsNapkin/archive/2014/05/28/informed-tdd-ndash-kata-ldquoto-roman-numeralsrdquo.aspxIn a comment on my article on what I call Informed TDD (ITDD) reader gustav asked how this approach would apply to the kata “To Roman Numerals”. And whether ITDD wasn´t a violation of TDD´s principle of leaving out “advanced topics like mocks”. I like to respond with this article to his questions. There´s more to say than fits into a commentary. Mocks and TDD I don´t see in how far TDD is avoiding or opposed to mocks. TDD and mocks are orthogonal. TDD is about pocess, mocks are about structure and costs. Maybe by moving forward in tiny red+green+refactor steps less need arises for mocks. But then… if the functionality you need to implement requires “expensive” resource access you can´t avoid using mocks. Because you don´t want to constantly run all your tests against the real resource. True, in ITDD mocks seem to be in almost inflationary use. That´s not what you usually see in TDD demonstrations. However, there´s a reason for that as I tried to explain. I don´t use mocks as proxies for “expensive” resource. Rather they are stand-ins for functionality not yet implemented. They allow me to get a test green on a high level of abstraction. That way I can move forward in a top-down fashion. But if you think of mocks as “advanced” or if you don´t want to use a tool like JustMock, then you don´t need to use mocks. You just need to stand the sight of red tests for a little longer ;-) Let me show you what I mean by that by doing a kata. ITDD for “To Roman Numerals” gustav asked for the kata “To Roman Numerals”. I won´t explain the requirements again. You can find descriptions and TDD demonstrations all over the internet, like this one from Corey Haines. Now here is, how I would do this kata differently. 1. Analyse A demonstration of TDD should never skip the analysis phase. It should be made explicit. The requirements should be formalized and acceptance test cases should be compiled. “Formalization” in this case to me means describing the API of the required functionality. “[D]esign a program to work with Roman numerals” like written in this “requirement document” is not enough to start software development. Coding should only begin, if the interface between the “system under development” and its context is clear. If this interface is not readily recognizable from the requirements, it has to be developed first. Exploration of interface alternatives might be in order. It might be necessary to show several interface mock-ups to the customer – even if that´s you fellow developer. Designing the interface is a task of it´s own. It should not be mixed with implementing the required functionality behind the interface. Unfortunately, though, this happens quite often in TDD demonstrations. TDD is used to explore the API and implement it at the same time. To me that´s a violation of the Single Responsibility Principle (SRP) which not only should hold for software functional units but also for tasks or activities. In the case of this kata the API fortunately is obvious. Just one function is needed: string ToRoman(int arabic). And it lives in a class ArabicRomanConversions. Now what about acceptance test cases? There are hardly any stated in the kata descriptions. Roman numerals are explained, but no specific test cases from the point of view of a customer. So I just “invent” some acceptance test cases by picking roman numerals from a wikipedia article. They are supposed to be just “typical examples” without special meaning. Given the acceptance test cases I then try to develop an understanding of the problem domain. I´ll spare you that. The domain is trivial and is explain in almost all kata descriptions. How roman numerals are built is not difficult to understand. What´s more difficult, though, might be to find an efficient solution to convert into them automatically. 2. Solve The usual TDD demonstration skips a solution finding phase. Like the interface exploration it´s mixed in with the implementation. But I don´t think this is how it should be done. I even think this is not how it really works for the people demonstrating TDD. They´re simplifying their true software development process because they want to show a streamlined TDD process. I doubt this is helping anybody. Before you code you better have a plan what to code. This does not mean you have to do “Big Design Up-Front”. It just means: Have a clear picture of the logical solution in your head before you start to build a physical solution (code). Evidently such a solution can only be as good as your understanding of the problem. If that´s limited your solution will be limited, too. Fortunately, in the case of this kata your understanding does not need to be limited. Thus the logical solution does not need to be limited or preliminary or tentative. That does not mean you need to know every line of code in advance. It just means you know the rough structure of your implementation beforehand. Because it should mirror the process described by the logical or conceptual solution. Here´s my solution approach: The arabic “encoding” of numbers represents them as an ordered set of powers of 10. Each digit is a factor to multiply a power of ten with. The “encoding” 123 is the short form for a set like this: {1*10^2, 2*10^1, 3*10^0}. And the number is the sum of the set members. The roman “encoding” is different. There is no base (like 10 for arabic numbers), there are just digits of different value, and they have to be written in descending order. The “encoding” XVI is short for [10, 5, 1]. And the number is still the sum of the members of this list. The roman “encoding” thus is simpler than the arabic. Each “digit” can be taken at face value. No multiplication with a base required. But what about IV which looks like a contradiction to the above rule? It is not – if you accept roman “digits” not to be limited to be single characters only. Usually I, V, X, L, C, D, M are viewed as “digits”, and IV, IX etc. are viewed as nuisances preventing a simple solution. All looks different, though, once IV, IX etc. are taken as “digits”. Then MCMLIV is just a sum: M+CM+L+IV which is 1000+900+50+4. Whereas before it would have been understood as M-C+M+L-I+V – which is more difficult because here some “digits” get subtracted. Here´s the list of roman “digits” with their values: {1, I}, {4, IV}, {5, V}, {9, IX}, {10, X}, {40, XL}, {50, L}, {90, XC}, {100, C}, {400, CD}, {500, D}, {900, CM}, {1000, M} Since I take IV, IX etc. as “digits” translating an arabic number becomes trivial. I just need to find the values of the roman “digits” making up the number, e.g. 1954 is made up of 1000, 900, 50, and 4. I call those “digits” factors. If I move from the highest factor (M=1000) to the lowest (I=1) then translation is a two phase process: Find all the factors Translate the factors found Compile the roman representation Translation is just a look-up. Finding, though, needs some calculation: Find the highest remaining factor fitting in the value Remember and subtract it from the value Repeat with remaining value and remaining factors Please note: This is just an algorithm. It´s not code, even though it might be close. Being so close to code in my solution approach is due to the triviality of the problem. In more realistic examples the conceptual solution would be on a higher level of abstraction. With this solution in hand I finally can do what TDD advocates: find and prioritize test cases. As I can see from the small process description above, there are two aspects to test: Test the translation Test the compilation Test finding the factors Testing the translation primarily means to check if the map of factors and digits is comprehensive. That´s simple, even though it might be tedious. Testing the compilation is trivial. Testing factor finding, though, is a tad more complicated. I can think of several steps: First check, if an arabic number equal to a factor is processed correctly (e.g. 1000=M). Then check if an arabic number consisting of two consecutive factors (e.g. 1900=[M,CM]) is processed correctly. Then check, if a number consisting of the same factor twice is processed correctly (e.g. 2000=[M,M]). Finally check, if an arabic number consisting of non-consecutive factors (e.g. 1400=[M,CD]) is processed correctly. I feel I can start an implementation now. If something becomes more complicated than expected I can slow down and repeat this process. 3. Implement First I write a test for the acceptance test cases. It´s red because there´s no implementation even of the API. That´s in conformance with “TDD lore”, I´d say: Next I implement the API: The acceptance test now is formally correct, but still red of course. This will not change even now that I zoom in. Because my goal is not to most quickly satisfy these tests, but to implement my solution in a stepwise manner. That I do by “faking” it: I just “assume” three functions to represent the transformation process of my solution: My hypothesis is that those three functions in conjunction produce correct results on the API-level. I just have to implement them correctly. That´s what I´m trying now – one by one. I start with a simple “detail function”: Translate(). And I start with all the test cases in the obvious equivalence partition: As you can see I dare to test a private method. Yes. That´s a white box test. But as you´ll see it won´t make my tests brittle. It serves a purpose right here and now: it lets me focus on getting one aspect of my solution right. Here´s the implementation to satisfy the test: It´s as simple as possible. Right how TDD wants me to do it: KISS. Now for the second equivalence partition: translating multiple factors. (It´a pattern: if you need to do something repeatedly separate the tests for doing it once and doing it multiple times.) In this partition I just need a single test case, I guess. Stepping up from a single translation to multiple translations is no rocket science: Usually I would have implemented the final code right away. Splitting it in two steps is just for “educational purposes” here. How small your implementation steps are is a matter of your programming competency. Some “see” the final code right away before their mental eye – others need to work their way towards it. Having two tests I find more important. Now for the next low hanging fruit: compilation. It´s even simpler than translation. A single test is enough, I guess. And normally I would not even have bothered to write that one, because the implementation is so simple. I don´t need to test .NET framework functionality. But again: if it serves the educational purpose… Finally the most complicated part of the solution: finding the factors. There are several equivalence partitions. But still I decide to write just a single test, since the structure of the test data is the same for all partitions: Again, I´m faking the implementation first: I focus on just the first test case. No looping yet. Faking lets me stay on a high level of abstraction. I can write down the implementation of the solution without bothering myself with details of how to actually accomplish the feat. That´s left for a drill down with a test of the fake function: There are two main equivalence partitions, I guess: either the first factor is appropriate or some next. The implementation seems easy. Both test cases are green. (Of course this only works on the premise that there´s always a matching factor. Which is the case since the smallest factor is 1.) And the first of the equivalence partitions on the higher level also is satisfied: Great, I can move on. Now for more than a single factor: Interestingly not just one test becomes green now, but all of them. Great! You might say, then I must have done not the simplest thing possible. And I would reply: I don´t care. I did the most obvious thing. But I also find this loop very simple. Even simpler than a recursion of which I had thought briefly during the problem solving phase. And by the way: Also the acceptance tests went green: Mission accomplished. At least functionality wise. Now I´ve to tidy up things a bit. TDD calls for refactoring. Not uch refactoring is needed, because I wrote the code in top-down fashion. I faked it until I made it. I endured red tests on higher levels while lower levels weren´t perfected yet. But this way I saved myself from refactoring tediousness. At the end, though, some refactoring is required. But maybe in a different way than you would expect. That´s why I rather call it “cleanup”. First I remove duplication. There are two places where factors are defined: in Translate() and in Find_factors(). So I factor the map out into a class constant. Which leads to a small conversion in Find_factors(): And now for the big cleanup: I remove all tests of private methods. They are scaffolding tests to me. They only have temporary value. They are brittle. Only acceptance tests need to remain. However, I carry over the single “digit” tests from Translate() to the acceptance test. I find them valuable to keep, since the other acceptance tests only exercise a subset of all roman “digits”. This then is my final test class: And this is the final production code: Test coverage as reported by NCrunch is 100%: Reflexion Is this the smallest possible code base for this kata? Sure not. You´ll find more concise solutions on the internet. But LOC are of relatively little concern – as long as I can understand the code quickly. So called “elegant” code, however, often is not easy to understand. The same goes for KISS code – especially if left unrefactored, as it is often the case. That´s why I progressed from requirements to final code the way I did. I first understood and solved the problem on a conceptual level. Then I implemented it top down according to my design. I also could have implemented it bottom-up, since I knew some bottom of the solution. That´s the leaves of the functional decomposition tree. Where things became fuzzy, since the design did not cover any more details as with Find_factors(), I repeated the process in the small, so to speak: fake some top level, endure red high level tests, while first solving a simpler problem. Using scaffolding tests (to be thrown away at the end) brought two advantages: Encapsulation of the implementation details was not compromised. Naturally private methods could stay private. I did not need to make them internal or public just to be able to test them. I was able to write focused tests for small aspects of the solution. No need to test everything through the solution root, the API. The bottom line thus for me is: Informed TDD produces cleaner code in a systematic way. It conforms to core principles of programming: Single Responsibility Principle and/or Separation of Concerns. Distinct roles in development – being a researcher, being an engineer, being a craftsman – are represented as different phases. First find what, what there is. Then devise a solution. Then code the solution, manifest the solution in code. Writing tests first is a good practice. But it should not be taken dogmatic. And above all it should not be overloaded with purposes. And finally: moving from top to bottom through a design produces refactored code right away. Clean code thus almost is inevitable – and not left to a refactoring step at the end which is skipped often for different reasons.   PS: Yes, I have done this kata several times. But that has only an impact on the time needed for phases 1 and 2. I won´t skip them because of that. And there are no shortcuts during implementation because of that.

    Read the article

  • Does it ever make sense to license source code as a learning resource under GPL?

    - by Earlz
    I recently came across a series of articles walking through how to make a scheme interpreter. I was browsing through the code when I realized that it was AGPL. For the most part, the code itself is the teaching tool. Basically, the code as-is is what I need, however, I did want to understand how it all fits together as well. I realized though that if I copy and paste a single line of code, my project would become AGPL. Possibly by even more trivial actions? Anyway, is this a standard practice at all? Am I just being over-paranoid? Also, what benefits are there to this licensing scheme?

    Read the article

  • Server Side Developer Prerequisites

    - by Jking
    I am new to server side development and am currently learning node.js. What sort of networking information should I be familiar with to allow for a smooth learning curve with server side development. Could anyone provide resources pertaining to the information required to get into server programming? To give you a better idea of my standpoint: I do not know how a server interacts with a database [Q: How does a NoSQL database, or database in general, communicate with a server?] I am unsure of how a web stack works [Q: I have heard of LAMP but do not know how Apache, MySQL, and PHP interact. Hopefully this applies to other stacks as well. How do the components of a stack work together? Also, is a MEAN stack an alternative, or is it completely irrelevant to this] I have trivial knowledge of internet protocol [however extremely inefficient][Q: What resources are beneficial when learning about networking, and how much/what knowledge should I acquire to program on the server side] I am unsure of what I am unsure of concerning networking information necessary to start development Information on how the client-server model works would be greatly appreciated

    Read the article

  • Thoughts about MVC

    - by ayyash
    so i figured this one out, as a newcomer to the web development scene from the telecom biz, where we dealt with low level hardware API's, and a C++ fanboy, i tend to be bothered by automagical code, yes i appreciate the effort that went into it, and i certainly appreciate the luxury it provides to get more things done, but i just don't get it. so i decided to change that, and start investigating the new MVC based web apps, and at first it was like hitting a brick wall, i knew MVC from MFC days, so i'm familiar with the pattern, but i just couldn't get my head around the web version of it, till i came to realize the routing, is actually a separate feature to be inspected, much like understanding how LINQ works by better understanding anonymous objects. and so this article serve as an introduction to the following blogs where i share my views of how asp.net routing works, and then leverage that to the MVC level, and play around that field for a bit. as with most of my shared knowladge that may seem trivial to some, but i guess a newcomer's point of view can be useful for some folks out there.

    Read the article

  • How many SQL Server DBAs does an organization need?

    - by RickHeiges
    "How many SQL Server DBAs do we need?" - This is a question that often comes up in conversations with customers. Essentially, customers want to know if they have enough DBAs or too many. This is not a trivial question. If you do some research online via your favorite search engine, you will most likely come across numbers such as 40-65 DBs per DBA (for SQL Server). I remember finding another number relating to storage space instead of the number of DBs; the range was 3-5TB per DBA. I have had custoemrs...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Clint Edmonson Talks Season of Launch | AJI Report #11

    - by Jeff Julian
    We are back in the office for another installment of AJI Report where we talk with Clint Edmonson of Microsoft about their Season of Launch events. We get into Windows Azure, Windows 8, and Visual Studio 2012 and how developers and decision makers can learn more about the new products. Clint is an amazing resource for the Central Region and is very responsive if you have questions about products or integration. Clint makes a great offer to help you with your applications during the Hackathon events coming up. Listen to the Show Site: Not So Trivial Twitter: @ClintEd

    Read the article

  • Should companies require developers to credit code they didn't write?

    - by sunpech
    In academia, it's considered cheating if a student copies code/work from someone/somewhere else without giving credit, and tries to pass it off as his/her own. Should companies make it a requirement for developers to properly credit all non-trivial code and work that they did not produce themselves? Is it useful to do so, or is it simply overkill? I understand there are various free licenses out there, but if I find stuff I like and actually use, I really feel compelled to give credit via comment in code even if it's not required by the license (or lack thereof one).

    Read the article

  • What happens if you're unable to solve a problem?

    - by gablin
    I'm a year away from graduating from university, and I'm really looking forward to solving practical problems. Especially non-trivial ones which require a bit of research and a lot of thinking. But at the same time, that is also my greatest fear - being faced with a problem that I'm unable to solve, no matter how hard I try. And with pressure to deliver code on impending deadlines just around the corner, it does look a bit scary when viewing it from the safe playgrounds on uni (where the worst thing that can happen is that you have to redo a course or exam). So for those who have been in industry for any longer length of time, what would happen if you were told to solve a problem that you couldn't? Has it happened, and if so, what did happen? Did they just drop it and said "Oh well, guess we can make do with something else"? Were there consequences? Were you reprimanded, or even fired?

    Read the article

  • How to refactor an OO program into a functional one?

    - by Asik
    I'm having difficulty finding resources on how to write programs in a functional style. The most advanced topic I could find discussed online was using structural typing to cut down on class hierarchies; most just deal with how to use map/fold/reduce/etc to replace imperative loops. What I would really like to find is an in-depth discussion of an OOP implementation of a non-trivial program, its limitations, and how to refactor it in a functional style. Not just an algorithm or a data structure, but something with several different roles and aspects - a video game perhaps. By the way I did read Real-World Functional Programming by Tomas Petricek, but I'm left wanting more.

    Read the article

  • How is game development different from other software development?

    - by Davy8
    For a solid general purpose software developer, what specifically is different about game development, either fundamentally or just differences in degree? I've done toy games like Tic-tac-toe, Tetris, and a brute-force sudoku solver (with UI) and I'm now embarking on a mid-sized project (mid-sized for being a single developer and not having done many games) and one thing I've found with this particular project is that separation of concerns is a lot harder since everything affects state, and every object can interact with every other object in a myriad of ways. So far I've managed to keep the code reasonably clean for my satisfaction but I find that keeping clean code in non-trivial games is a lot harder than it is for my day job. The game I'm working on is turn-based and the graphics are going to be fairly simple (web-based, mostly through DOM manipulation) so real time and 3d work aren't really applicable to me, but I'd still be interested in answers regarding those if they're interesting. Mostly interested in general game logic though. P.S. Feel free to retag this, I'm not really sure what tags are applicable.

    Read the article

  • Opening images sorted by modification date/size/type/etc

    - by menino bolinho
    Suppose I have a folder with pictures in them. If I sort them by name once I open one with Image Viewer and navigate to the others the order is respected. But if I sort my files by modification date, for example, I can't do that. Basically, the default Image Viewer only lets you navigate images by name. According to this post on the ubuntuforums this has been an issue since 2007! Is there a good/easy way to fix it? Seems like such a trivial thing to me.

    Read the article

  • systems/software engineering design process

    - by adam kim
    I just developed my first non-trivial android app. It was a complete nightmare. I came up with an idea, build the app, changed my idea, and implemented a lot of input from others on new features. All in all my app took 10 times longer than I think that it should have, it is almost impossible to look the source code and tell what's going on with the classes, and may or may not have unused methods that I'll never be able to find... So I would like an opinion from those of you with experience on how to plan out my designs for the future. I created a flow chart (pencil drawn) of a plan: I would like constructive criticism.

    Read the article

  • How to implement a safe password history

    - by Lorenzo
    Passwords shouldn't be stored in plain text for obvious security reasons: you have to store hashes, and you should also generate the hash carefully to avoid rainbow table attacks. However, usually you have the requirement to store the last n passwords and to enforce minimal complexity and minimal change between the different passwords (to prevent the user from using a sequence like Password_1, Password_2, ..., Password_n). This would be trivial with plain text passwords, but how can you do that by storing only hashes? In other words: how it is possible to implement a safe password history mechanism?

    Read the article

  • Where do service implementations fit into the Microsoft Application Architecture guidelines?

    - by tuespetre
    The guidelines discuss the service layer with its service interfaces and data/message/fault contracts. They also discuss the business layer with its logic/workflow components and entities as well as the 'optional' application facade. What is unclear still to me after studying this guide is where the implementations of the service interfaces belong. Does the application facade in the business layer implement these interfaces, or does a separate 'service facade' exist to make calls to the business layer and it's facade/raw components? (With the former, there would be less seemingly trivial calls to yet another layer, though with the latter I could see how the service layer could remove the concerns of translating business entities to data contracts from the business layer.)

    Read the article

  • Smartassembly 5: it lives! Early Access builds now available

    - by Bart Read
    I'm pleased to announce that, late last week, we put out the first early access build for Smartassembly 5, Red Gate's fantastic code protection and error reporting tool, which we acquired last September. You can download it via: http://www.red-gate.com/messageboard/viewforum.php?f=116 It's obviously pretty early days, so please do not try to use this to protect a production application, but we've already done a lot of work in some key areas: We're simplifying and streamlining the licensing model (you won't see this yet, but a lot of the work on this has already been done). We've improved usability of the product, with a better menu, reordering of project settings, and better defaults. We've also fixed a load of bugs, which I'll let Alex blog about in more detail. On a slightly more trivial level, the curly braces are also no more. Over the coming weeks, we'll be adding more improvements, and starting usability tests. If you're interested in getting involved in the latter, please drop an email to [email protected].

    Read the article

  • Circular motion on low powered hardware

    - by Akroy
    I was thinking about platforms and enemies moving in circles in old 2D games, and I was wondering how that was done. I understand parametric equations, and it's trivial to use sin and cos to do it, but could an NES or SNES make real time trig calls? I admit heavy ignorance, but I thought those were expensive operations. Is there some clever way to calculate that motion more cheaply? I've been working on deriving an algorithm from trig sum identities that would only use precalculated trig, but that seems convoluted.

    Read the article

  • How do I grok NHibernate's QueryOver API?

    - by Brant Bobby
    I've run into the limits of what NHibernate 3.0's LINQ provider is capable of and decided it's time to learn about one of the more powerful (or at least feature-complete) options: the QueryOver API. The problem is, I have zero experience with ICriteria, and all of the tutorials I've been able to find online either: Assume I'm an ICriteria expert and simply show me how to convert ICriteria code to the new fluent interface, or Are trivial "here's how you do an inner join" examples that don't really help me understand more complex concepts like projections, subqueries, requirements, or whatever other magic the API is capable of. What should I read to really learn about QueryOver, and how to make full use of it?

    Read the article

  • How to have operations with character/items in binary with concrete operations?

    - by Piperoman
    I have the next problem. A item can have a lot of states: NORMAL = 0000000 DRY = 0000001 HOT = 0000010 BURNING = 0000100 WET = 0001000 COLD = 0010000 FROZEN = 0100000 POISONED= 1000000 A item can have some states at same time but not all of them Is impossible to be dry and wet at same time. If you COLD a WET item, it turns into FROZEN. If you HOT a WET item, it turns into NORMAL A item can be BURNING and POISON Etc. I have tried to set binary flags to states, and use AND to combine different states, checking before if it is possible or not to do it, or change to another status. Does there exist a concrete approach to solve this problem efficiently without having an interminable switch that checks every state with every new state? It is relatively easy to check 2 different states, but if there exists a third state it is not trivial to do.

    Read the article

  • How to write a network game? [closed]

    - by Tom Wijsman
    Based on Why is so hard to develop a MMO?: Networked game development is not trivial; there are large obstacles to overcome in not only latency, but cheat prevention, state management and load balancing. If you're not experienced with writing a networked game, this is going to be a difficult learning exercise. I know the theory about sockets, servers, clients, protocols, connections and such things. Now I wonder how one can learn to write a network game: How to balance load problems? How to manage the game state? How to keep things synchronized? How to protect the communication and client from reverse engineering? How to work around latency problems? Which things should be computed local and which things on the server? ... Are there any good books, tutorials, sites, interesting articles or other questions regarding this? I'm looking for broad answers, but specific ones are fine too to learn the difference.

    Read the article

  • What are the downsides of leaving automation tags in production code?

    - by joshin4colours
    I've been setting up debug tags for automated testing of a GWT-based web application. This involves turning on custom debug id tags/attributes for elements in the source of the app. It's a non-trivial task, particularly for larger, more complex web applications. Recently there's been some discussion of whether enabling such debug ids is a good idea to do across the board. Currently the debug ids are only turned on in development and testing servers, not in production. There have been points raised that enabling debug ids does cause performance to take a hit, and that debug ids in production may lead to security issues. What are benefits of doing this? Are there any significant risks for turning on debug tags in production code?

    Read the article

  • What sort of phone numbers are allowed as the WHOIS contact?

    - by billpg
    I'm getting a non-trivial amount of scam phone calls to the phone number contact listed in WHOIS. Could I change it to a premium rate line? If the scammers want to talk to me so much, make them pay for the privilege! Seriously though, are there any restrictions on the type of phone number I can give as my WHOIS contact? Notwithstanding that it is a phone number which can be used to contact the domain holder. In the UK, cell phones are more expensive for the caller to call than land-lines, so I suspect a significant number of people are already listing a "premium rate" phone number.

    Read the article

  • I studied electrical engineering. Can I work as a developer? [closed]

    - by FailedDev
    A while ago I finished my Msc in Electrical Engineering and started working as an engineering consultant where I mostly do development work. I am good at picking up languages/technologies tools. I have fiddled with C/C++/C#/perl/ant/bash/html/css etc. Although I have never had a complain for my work, rather the contrary, I just feel that some day, someone will ask me a real hard task which would maybe seem rather trivial for a computer scientist but hard for me. Should I read/do something to become a better developer. Should I pick up a book about design patterns or algorithms for example? Is this normal that I have this kind of "fear"? Sorry if this is the wrong place to post this question. Please notify me so I can close it if this is the case.

    Read the article

  • When to decide to introduce interfaces (pure abstract base classes) in C++?

    - by Honza Brabec
    Assume that you are developing a functionality and are 90% sure that the implementation class will stay alone. If I was in this position in Java I would probably not use the interface right now to keep the things simple. In Java it is easy to refactor the code and extract the interface later. In C++ the refactoring is not always so easy. It may require replacing values with smart pointers (because of the introduction of polymorphism) and other non-trivial tasks. On the other hand I don't much like the idea of introducing virtual calls when I am 90% sure they won't be needed. After all speed is one of the reasons to prefer C++ over simpler languages.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >