Search Results

Search found 12750 results on 510 pages for 'imperative programming'.

Page 74/510 | < Previous Page | 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81  | Next Page >

• Beat detection, weird detection

  - by Quincy

  I made this soundanalyzer class to detect beats in songs : // put it on pastebin for the big size, will put it here if people rather want that. pastebin.com/8PdgZPP3 but for some reason its only detecting beats from 637 sec to around 641(sec) and I have no idea why. I know the beats are being inserted from multiple bands since I am finding duplicates and it seems as its assigning a beat to each instant energy value in between those values. Its modeled after this : http://www.flipcode.com/misc/BeatDetectionAlgorithms.pdf So why won't the beats properly register ?

  Read the article

• How to wire finite state machine into component-based architecture?

  - by Pup

  State machines seem to cause harmful dependencies in component-based architectures. How, specifically, is communication handled between a state machine and the components that carry out state-related behavior? Where I'm at: I'm new to component-based architectures. I'm making a fighting game, although I don't think that should matter. I envision my state machine being used to toggle states like "crouching", "dashing", "blocking", etc. I've found this state-management technique to be the most natural system for a component-based architecture, but it conflicts with techniques I've read about: Dynamic Game Object Component System for Mutable Behavior Characters It suggests that all components activate/deactivate themselves by continually checking a condition for activation. I think that actions like "running" or "walking" make sense as states, which is in disagreement with the accepted response here: finite state machine used in mario like platform game I've found this useful, but ambiguous: How to implement behavior in a component-based game architecture? It suggests having a separate component that contains nothing but a state machine. But, this necessitates some kind of coupling between the state machine component and nearly all the other components. I don't understand how this coupling should be handled. These are some guesses: A. Components depend on state machine: Components receive reference to state machine component's getState(), which returns an enumeration constant. Components update themselves regularly and check this as needed. B. State machine depends on components: The state machine component receives references to all the components it's monitoring. It queries their getState() methods to see where they're at. C. Some abstraction between them Use an event hub? Command pattern? D. Separate state objects that reference components State Pattern is used. Separate state objects are created, which activate/deactivate a set of components. State machine switches between state objects. I'm looking at components as implementations of aspects. They do everything that's needed internally to make that aspect happen. It seems like components should function on their own, without relying on other components. I know some dependencies are necessary, but state machines seem to want to control all of my components.

  Read the article

• How could RDBMSes be considered a fad?

  - by StuperUser

  Completing my Computing A-level in 2003 and getting a degree in Computing in 2007, and learning my trade in a company with a lot of SQL usage, I was brought up on the idea of Relational Databases being used for storage. So, despite being relatively new to development, I was taken-aback to read a comment (on Is LinqPad site quote "Tired of querying in antiquated SQL?" accurate? ) that said: [Some devs] despise [SQL] and think that it and RDBMS are a fad Obviously, a competent dev will use the right tool for the right job and won't create a relational database when e.g. flat file or another solution for storage is appropriate, but RDBMs are useful in a massive number of circumstances, so how could they be considered a fad?

  Read the article

• Reflections on GiveCamp

  - by Reed

  I participated in the Seattle GiveCamp over the weekend, and am entirely impressed.  GiveCamp is a great event – I especially like how rewarding it is for everybody involved.  I strongly encourage any and all developers to watch for future GiveCamp events, and consider participating, for many reasons… GiveCamp provides real value to organizations that truly need help.  The Seattle event alone succeeded in helping sixteen non-profit organizations in many different ways.  The projects involved varied dramatically, including website redesigns, SEO, reworking data management workflows, and even game development.  Many non-profits have a strong need for good, quality technical help.  However, nearly every non-profit organization has an incredibly limited budget.  GiveCamp is a way to really give back, and provide incredibly valuable help to organizations that truly benefit. My experience has shown many developers to be incredibly generous – this is a chance to dedicate your energy to helping others in a way that really takes advantage of your expertise.  Your time as a developer is incredibly valuable, and this puts something of incredible value directly into the hands of places its needed. First, and foremost, GiveCamp is about providing technical help to non-profit organizations in need. GiveCamp can make you a better developer.  This is a fantastic opportunity for us, as developers, to work with new people, in a new setting.  The incredibly short time frame (one weekend for a deliverable project) and intense motivation to succeed provides a huge opportunity for learning from peers.  I’d personally like to thank off the developers with whom I worked – I learned something from each and every one of you.  I hope to see and work with all of you again someday. GiveCamp provides an opportunity for you to work outside of your comfort zone. While it’s always nice to be an expert, it’s also valuable to work on a project where you have little or no direct experience.  My team focused on a complete reworking of our organizations message and a complete new website redesign and deployment using WordPress.  While I’d used WordPress for my blog, and had some experience, this is completely unrelated to my professional work.  In fact, nobody on our team normally worked directly with the technologies involved – yet together we managed to succeed in delivering our goals.  As developers, it’s easy to want to stay abreast of new technology surrounding our expertise, but its rare that we get a chance to sit down and work on something practical that is completely outside of our normal realm of work.  I’m a desktop developer by trade, and spent much of the weekend working with CSS and Photoshop.  Many of the projects organizations need don’t match perfectly with the skill set in the room – yet all of the software professionals rose to the occasion and delivered practical, usable applications. GiveCamp is a short term, known commitment. While this seems obvious, I think it’s an important aspect to remember.  This is a huge part of what makes it successful – you can work, completely focused, on a project, then walk away completely when you’re done.  There is no expectation of continued involvement.  While many of the professionals I’ve talked to are willing to contribute some amount of their time beyond the camp, this is not expected. The freedom this provides is immense.  In addition, the motivation this brings is incredibly valuable.  Every developer in the room was very focused on delivering in time – you have one shot to get it as good as possible, and leave it with the organization in a way that can be maintained by them.  This is a rare experience – and excellent practice at time management for everyone involved. GiveCamp provides a great way to meet and network with your peers. Not only do you get to network with other software professionals in your area – you get to network with amazing people.  Every single person in the room is there to try to help people.  The balance of altruism, intelligence, and expertise in the room is something I’ve never before experienced. During the presentations of what was accomplished, I felt blessed to participate.  I know many people in the room were incredibly touched by the level of dedication and accomplishment over the weekend. GiveCamp is fun. At the end of the experience, I would have signed up again, even if it was a painful, tedious weekend – merely due to the amazing accomplishments achieved throughout the event.  However, the event is fun.  Everybody I talked to, the entire weekend, was having a good time.  While there were many faces focused into a near grimace at times (including mine, I’ll admit), this was always in response to a particularly challenging problem or task.  The challenges just added to the overall enjoyment of the weekend – part of why I became a developer in the first place is my love for challenge and puzzles, and a short deadline using unfamiliar technology provided plenty of opportunity for puzzles.  As soon as people would stand up, it was another smile.   If you’re a developer, I’d recommend looking at GiveCamp more closely.  Watch for an event in your area.  If there isn’t one, consider building a team and organizing an event.  The experience is worth the commitment. 

  Read the article

• Is Oberon really "a better Pascal"?

  - by Maksee

  Reading Niklaus Wirth, one can notice that despite some popularity of Pascal, he is not glad that Oberon (as a "polished" successor of Pascal and Modula) didn't get much popularity. I never did anything in Oberon, but reading the page Oberon For Pascal Developers I really did not like many of the changes as a Delphi/pascal developer, for example forcing the reserved words to be always uppercase making the language case-sensitive getting rid of enumeration types What do you think about Oberon, is it really "a better Pascal" from your point of view?

  Read the article

• optimizing graphics for iOS flash game

  - by 1GR3

  Friend of mine and me are working on a flash developed iOS (and later Android) puzzle board game. He's a programmer and I'm a designer/developer so (no surprise) we have a different points of view. anyway, he's method: make small tiles (100x100px) in photoshop join them into the board and then in flash apply effects to the board to avoid repetition (80's not in the good way) my method: precompose the whole board (960x640px+bleed) in photoshop and than mask active and inactive areas in flash what do you think? thank you in advance!

  Read the article

• What determines when an application requires mvvm?

  - by loyalpenguin

  I'm developing mobile applications for Windows Phone 7. This application calls some web services and occasionally sends responses out via web services. I recently started looking into MVVM and noticed that, although it is suggested when developing applications in WP7, alot of developers say only to use it if its necessary. Along with that they said that if the application is "small" enough or "simple" enough then it probably isn't worth the time. Hence my question. When should we use MVVM? Is it possible to build larger scale applications without it?

  Read the article

• Selling your services when you use uncommon technologies

  - by speeder

  I took a look in Stackoverflow most popular profiles, and then I did the same in several other sites, and then I took a look in job postings in several boards, mostly out of curiosity, because I noticed this: If you work with Java, .NET or other managed languages, or you work with stuff that is popular for web development (Ruby, JavaScript, etc...) you can get lots of points on Stackoverflow, find lots of jobs and clients, find forums, friends, colleagues, etc... But how a programmer of uncommon languages (Lua, pure C, Lisp, D, ADA, Haskell, etc...) find information, sell his services, and so on? EDIT: This also applies to fields: You work with web, corporate software, database, etc... it is great... You dislike those previous 3, noone ever will hire your services...

  Read the article

• What are the major challenges in creating a platform such as StackOverflow?

  - by gablin

  Let us assume you were to create a platform such as StackOverflow. It needs to be functional, fast and scalable, just like SO, in order to be successful. What are the major challenges you would face in such a task? I'm looking for technical challenges rather than problems such as how to advertise it and stuff like that. (I'm not looking for ways of creating a new site to challenge SO; I'm just interested in how difficult it would be to create it if it didn't already exist.)

  Read the article

• Separating physics and game logic from UI code

  - by futlib

  I'm working on a simple block-based puzzle game. The game play consists pretty much of moving blocks around in the game area, so it's a trivial physics simulation. My implementation, however, is in my opinion far from ideal and I'm wondering if you can give me any pointers on how to do it better. I've split the code up into two areas: Game logic and UI, as I did with a lot of puzzle games: The game logic is responsible for the general rules of the game (e.g. the formal rule system in chess) The UI displays the game area and pieces (e.g. chess board and pieces) and is responsible for animations (e.g. animated movement of chess pieces) The game logic represents the game state as a logical grid, where each unit is one cell's width/height on the grid. So for a grid of width 6, you can move a block of width 2 four times until it collides with the boundary. The UI takes this grid, and draws it by converting logical sizes into pixel sizes (that is, multiplies it by a constant). However, since the game has hardly any game logic, my game logic layer [1] doesn't have much to do except collision detection. Here's how it works: Player starts to drag a piece UI asks game logic for the legal movement area of that piece and lets the player drag it within that area Player lets go of a piece UI snaps the piece to the grid (so that it is at a valid logical position) UI tells game logic the new logical position (via mutator methods, which I'd rather avoid) I'm not quite happy with that: I'm writing unit tests for my game logic layer, but not the UI, and it turned out all the tricky code is in the UI: Stopping the piece from colliding with others or the boundary and snapping it to the grid. I don't like the fact that the UI tells the game logic about the new state, I would rather have it call a movePieceLeft() method or something like that, as in my other games, but I didn't get far with that approach, because the game logic knows nothing about the dragging and snapping that's possible in the UI. I think the best thing to do would be to get rid of my game logic layer and implement a physics layer instead. I've got a few questions regarding that: Is such a physics layer common, or is it more typical to have the game logic layer do this? Would the snapping to grid and piece dragging code belong to the UI or the physics layer? Would such a physics layer typically work with pixel sizes or with some kind of logical unit, like my game logic layer? I've seen event-based collision detection in a game's code base once, that is, the player would just drag the piece, the UI would render that obediently and notify the physics system, and the physics system would call a onCollision() method on the piece once a collision is detected. What is more common? This approach or asking for the legal movement area first? [1] layer is probably not the right word for what I mean, but subsystem sounds overblown and class is misguiding, because each layer can consist of several classes.

  Read the article

• Suggestions for implementing a dynamic 2D level

  - by Wouter

  I am working on a game that needs a level that is completely generated. Currently my approach is to draw textures for the levels pixel by pixel during the game (in XNA with SpriteBatch). This is too intensive unfortunately. The game has frame drops even when I only draw 1 level texture each draw cycle. Here is an example of the current prototype. It is a simple sidescroller with the avatar swimming through a cave. The shape of this cave will alter throughout the level (textures and physics collision shapes). You can clearly see the boundaries of the level tiles in the screenshot below. These are generated just before they move into camera view. For inspiration I looked at PixelJunk Shooter 2. These levels are obviously not generated, but some of the levels have movement. How do you guys think they implemented it? My guess is that the level and other objects in the game are actually flat 3d models, but I am not sure..

  Read the article

• Logging library for (c++) games

  - by Klaim

  I know a lot of logging libraries but didn't test a lot of them. (GoogleLog, Pantheios, the coming boost::log library...) In games, especially in remote multiplayer and multithreaded games, logging is vital to debugging, even if you remove all logs in the end. Let's say I'm making a PC game (not console) that needs logs (multiplayer and multithreaded and/or multiprocess) and I have good reasons for looking for a library for logging (like, I don't have time or I'm not confident in my ability to write one correctly for my case). Assuming that I need : performance ease of use (allow streaming or formating or something like that) reliable (don't leak or crash!) cross-platform (at least Windows, MacOSX, Linux/Ubuntu) Wich logging library would you recommand? Currently, I think that boost::log is the most flexible one (you can even log to remotely!), but have not good performance update: is for high performance, but isn't released yet. Pantheios is often cited but I don't have comparison points on performance and usage. I've used my own lib for a long time but I know it don't manage multithreading so it's a big problem, even if it's fast enough. Google Log seems interesting, I just need to test it but if you already have compared those libs and more, your advice might be of good use. Games are often performance demanding while complex to debug so it would be good to know logging libraries that, in our specific case, have clear advantages.

  Read the article

• Correct For Loop Design

  - by Yttrill

  What is the correct design for a for loop? Felix currently uses if len a > 0 do for var i in 0 upto len a - 1 do println a.[i]; done done which is inclusive of the upper bound. This is necessary to support the full range of values of a typical integer type. However the for loop shown does not support zero length arrays, hence the special test, nor will the subtraction of 1 work convincingly if the length of the array is equal to the number of integers. (I say convincingly because it may be that 0 - 1 = maxval: this is true in C for unsigned int, but are you sure it is true for unsigned char without thinking carefully about integral promotions?) The actual implementation of the for loop by my compiler does correctly handle 0 but this requires two tests to implement the loop: continue: if not (i <= bound) goto break body if i == bound goto break ++i goto continue break: Throw in the hand coded zero check in the array example and three tests are needed. If the loop were exclusive it would handle zero properly, avoiding the special test, but there'd be no way to express the upper bound of an array with maximum size. Note the C way of doing this: for(i=0; predicate(i); increment(i)) has the same problem. The predicate is tested after the increment, but the terminating increment is not universally valid! There is a general argument that a simple exclusive loop is enough: promote the index to a large type to prevent overflow, and assume no one will ever loop to the maximum value of this type.. but I'm not entirely convinced: if you promoted to C's size_t and looped from the second largest value to the largest you'd get an infinite loop!

  Read the article

• Networking gampeplay - Sending controller inputs vs. sending game actions

  - by liortal

  I'm reading about techniques for implementing game networking. Some of the resources i've read state that it is a common practice (at least for some games) to send the actual controller input across the network, to be fed into the remote game's loop for processing. This seems a bit odd to me and i'd like to know what are the benefits of using such a method? To me, it seems that controller input is merely a way to gather data to be fed into the game, which in turn determines how to translate these into specific game actions. Why would i want to send the control data and not the game actions themselves?

  Read the article

• Is there a language where collections can be used as objects without altering the behavior?

  - by Dokkat

  Is there a language where collections can be used as objects without altering the behavior? As an example, first, imagine those functions work: function capitalize(str) //suppose this *modifies* a string object capitalizing it function greet(person): print("Hello, " + person) capitalize("pedro") >> "Pedro" greet("Pedro") >> "Hello, Pedro" Now, suppose we define a standard collection with some strings: people = ["ed","steve","john"] Then, this will call toUpper() on each object on that list people.toUpper() >> ["Ed","Steve","John"] And this will call greet once for EACH people on the list, instead of sending the list as argument greet(people) >> "Hello, Ed" >> "Hello, Steve" >> "Hello, John"

  Read the article

• What is the advantage of currying?

  - by Mad Scientist

  I just learned about currying, and while I think I understand the concept, I'm not seeing any big advantage in using it. As a trivial example I use a function that adds two values (written in ML). The version without currying would be fun add(x, y) = x + y and would be called as add(3, 5) while the curried version is fun add x y = x + y (* short for val add = fn x => fn y=> x + y *) and would be called as add 3 5 It seems to me to be just syntactic sugar that removes one set of parentheses from defining and calling the function. I've seen currying listed as one of the important features of a functional languages, and I'm a bit underwhelmed by it at the moment. The concept of creating a chain of functions that consume each a single parameter, instead of a function that takes a tuple seems rather complicated to use for a simple change of syntax. Is the slightly simpler syntax the only motivation for currying, or am I missing some other advantages that are not obvious in my very simple example? Is currying just syntactic sugar?

  Read the article

• Does TDD really work for complex projects?

  - by Amir Rezaei

  I’m asking this question regarding problems I have experienced during TDD projects. I have noticed the following challenges when creating unit tests. Generating and maintaining mock data It’s hard and unrealistic to maintain large mock data. It’s is even harder when database structure undergoes changes. Testing GUI Even with MVVM and ability to test GUI, it takes a lot of code to reproduce the GUI scenario. Testing the business I have experience that TDD works well if you limit it to simple business logic. However complex business logic is hard to test since the number of combinations of tests (test space) is very large. Contradiction in requirements In reality it’s hard to capture all requirements under analysis and design. Many times one note requirements lead to contradiction because the project is complex. The contradiction is found late under implementation phase. TDD requires that requirements are 100% correct. In such cases one could expect that conflicting requirements would be captured during creating of tests. But the problem is that this isn’t the case in complex scenarios. I have read this question: Why does TDD work? Does TDD really work for complex enterprise projects, or is it practically limit to project type?

  Read the article

• Standard way of allowing general XML data

  - by Greg Jackson

  I'm writing a data gathering and reporting application that takes XML files as input, which will then be read, processed, and stored in a strongly-typed database. For example, an XML file for a "Job" might look like this: <Data type="Job"> <ID>12345</ID> <JobName>MyJob</JobName> <StartDate>04/07/2012 10:45:00 AM</StartDate> <Files> <File name="a.jpeg" path="images\" /> <File name="b.mp3" path="music\mp3\" /> </Files> </Data> I'd like to use a schema to have a standard format for these input files (depending on what type of data is being used, for example "Job", "User", "View"), but I'd also like to not fail validation if there is extra data provided. For example, perhaps a Job has additional properties such as "IsAutomated", "Requester", "EndDate", and so on. I don't particularly care about these extra properties. If they are included in the XML, I'll simply ignore them when I'm processing the XML file, and I'd like validation to do the same, without having to include in the schema every single possible property that a customer might provide me with. Is there a standard way of providing such a schema, or of allowing such a general XML file that can still be validated without resorting to something as naïve (and potentially difficult to deal with) as the below? <Data type="Job"> <Data name="ID">12345</Data> . . . <Data name="Files"> <Data name="File"> <Data name="Filename">a.jpeg</Data> <Data name="path">images</Data> . . . </Data> </Data>

  Read the article

• Low coupling processing big quantities of data

  - by vitalik

  Usually I achieve low coupling by creating classes that exchange lists, sets, and maps between them. Now I am developing a batch application and I can't put all the data inside a data structure because there isn't enough memory. I have to read and process one chunk of data and then going to the next one. So having low coupling is much more difficult because I have to check somewhere if there is still data to read, etc. What I am using now is: Source - Process - Persist The classes that process have to ask to the Source classes if there are more rows to read. What are the best practices and or useful patterns in such situations? I hope I am explaining myself, if not tell me.

  Read the article

• A deque based on binary trees

  - by Greg Ros

  This is a simple immutable deque based on binary trees. What do you think about it? Does this kind of data structure, or possibly an improvement thereof, seem useful? How could I improve it, preferably without getting rid of its strengths? (Not in the sense of more operations, in the sense of different design) Does this sort of thing have a name? Red nodes are newly instantiated; blue ones are reused. Nodes aren't actually red or anything, it's just for emphasis.

  Read the article

• How To Attach Visual Studio 2010 To IIS Process Running On Windows 7

  - by Gopinath

  Debugging ASP.NET application hosted on IIS 7 running of Windows 7 using Visual Studio 2010 is a bit different from debugging applications hosted on IIS running on Windows XP. The key differences are Visual Studio 2010 demands for administrator mode and IIS runs under the process name w3wp.exe instead of aspnet_wp.exe. Here are the detailed steps to attach Visual Studio 2010 debugger to IIS 7 on Windows 7. 1. Launch Visual Studio 2010 in Administrator mode(right click on Visual Studio Icon and choose the option Run as Administrator) 2. Open source code the site you want to debug 3. Go to Tools -> Attach to Process.; Opens up Attach to Process.  4.  In Attach to Process dialog box, check the option Show process in all sessions. 5. Search for the process w3wp.exe, and click on Attach button. 6. Accept the warning messages. That’s is you are done. Visual Studio is now attached with IIS for debugging. Happy coding. This article titled,How To Attach Visual Studio 2010 To IIS Process Running On Windows 7, was originally published at Tech Dreams. Grab our rss feed or fan us on Facebook to get updates from us.

  Read the article

• How and when to use UNIT testing properly

  - by Zebs

  I am an iOS developer. I have read about unit testing and how it is used to test specific pieces of your code. A very quick example has to do with processing JSON data onto a database. The unit test reads a file from the project bundle and executes the method that is in charge of processing JSON data. But I dont get how this is different from actually running the app and testing with the server. So my question might be a bit general, but I honestly dont understand the proper use of unit testing, or even how it is useful; I hope the experienced programmers that surf around StackOverflow can help me. Any help is very much appreciated!

  Read the article

• How to concentrate on one project at a time. Divide and Conquer doesn't work for me [closed]

  - by refhat

  Possible Duplicate: Tips for staying focused and motivated on a project I have serious issues on concentrating on one project at a time. I cant even follow the Divide and Conquer Approach. Once I start a project, I try to get the things done as neatly as possible but very soon I end up messing so many components of it. I try to do divide and conquer, but my approach doesn't work smoothly, and then I then wonder here and there in other projects. Sometimes I try spending so many hours for some trivial issues, which in-fact are not even issues. How do I avoid this jargon and be a smooth developer and have a nice workflow around my projects. I tend to loose my concentration on the current project and wonder in another project.

  Read the article

• Returning a mock object from a mock object

  - by Songo

  I'm trying to return an object when mocking a parser class. This is the test code using PHPUnit 3.7 //set up the result object that I want to be returned from the call to parse method $parserResult= new ParserResult(); $parserResult->setSegment('some string'); //set up the stub Parser object $stubParser=$this->getMock('Parser'); $stubParser->expects($this->any()) ->method('parse') ->will($this->returnValue($parserResult)); //injecting the stub to my client class $fileHeaderParser= new FileWriter($stubParser); $output=$fileParser->writeStringToFile(); Inside my writeStringToFile() method I'm using $parserResult like this: writeStringToFile(){ //Some code... $parserResult=$parser->parse(); $segment=$parserResult->getSegment();//that's why I set the segment in the test. } Should I mock ParserResult in the first place, so that the mock returns a mock? Is it good design for mocks to return mocks? Is there a better approach to do this all?!

  Read the article

• How are Programing Language Designed?

  - by Anteater7171

  After doing a bit of programing, I've become quite curious on language design itself. I'm still a novice (I've been doing it for about a year), so the majority of my code pertains to only two fields (GUI design in Python and basic algorithms in C/C++). I have become intrigued with how the actual languages themselves are written. I mean this in both senses. Such as how it was literally written (ie, what language the language was written in). As well as various features like white spacing (Python) or object orientation (C++ and Python). Where would one start learning how to write a language? What are some of the fundamentals of language design, things that would make it a "complete" language?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81  | Next Page >