Search Results

Search found 406 results on 17 pages for 'paradigm'.

Page 8/17 | < Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >

• Next generation of command shells?

  - by ignatius

  I am curious about if there is any project about a replacement for the current unix-shells (like bash, ash, rsh ...), at least adding some new ideas or paradigm in this area. I was searching but i found very few information, this project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_interactive_shell seems interesting, but not so diferent from the nowadays solutions. What do you think? Do you imagine a linux-distribution on 2020 that still having bash? How can be an evolution of this programs? Br To be clearer, about new ideas, i was talking of something like: control-Z functionality Colaboration features (like remote desktop) so you can invite someone to join and participate on your shell session Possibility to see the result of a command before to really apply it to your system (this is closely related with the 1st point ctl-Z) etc...

  Read the article

• agile as our first project management methodology [closed]

  - by Hasan Khan

  we are a small web development company that has till now been working on client projects. we employed little to no project management and that has cost us a lot. we've used only the barest of tools (wireframing, prototyping etc) but no formal project management process has been put into place. we've learnt from our mistakes and want to prevent them from happening in the future. also, we are looking to develop our own products and we understand that putting in a proper project management paradigm will help. after a lot of research, we've sort of settled on agile for a few reasons: agile seems to scale well with team size. our team is small right now and we hope to grow and agile seems to be a process that we can put in place now and grow with. agile will help us with customers who just can't seem to make up their minds and keep changing requirements. we'd appreciate the community's thoughts on this. is this a correct way to think? will agile be a good system to put into place, where there has been none till now? are there any resources that may help us in our position? pretty much all of the resources that we've found start by comparing agile to x (where x = any management methodology) and why its better than x and how agile can be implemented in place of x. we're looking for resources that can help us out in our particular situation. thanks for all your help!

  Read the article

• Podcast Show Notes: Public, Private, and Hybrid Clouds

  - by Bob Rhubart

  This week the OTN ArchBeat Podcast begins a four-part series featuring a panel of some of Oracle's top cloud experts in a conversation about the similarities and differences between, public, private, and hybrid clouds. The Panelists Dr. James Baty Vice President of Oracle’s Global Enterprise Architecture Program, and a frequent speaker at OTN Architect Days and other events. Mark T. Nelson Lead architect for Oracle Cloud and is responsible for designing the infrastructure for Oracle's public Software as a Service, and Platform as a Service offerings. Ajay Srivastava Vice President of Oracle’s On Demand Platform. William Vambenepe Architect for Oracle’s Middleware/Applications Management and Cloud Computing. The Conversation Listen to Part 1: The panel offers an overview of the various flavors of cloud computing. Listen to Part 2 (June 13): Cows in the cloud and the importance of standards. Listen to Part 3 (June 20): Why cloud computing is a paradigm shift -- and why it isn’t. Listen to Part 4 (June 27): Advice on what architects need to know to take advantage of the cloud. Coming Soon Highlights from the Roundtable Discussion at OTN Architect Day in Reston, VA. An expert panel discusses the role of the Cloud Architect. Stay tuned: RSS

  Read the article

• does my js replace view?

  - by Milla Well

  I am writing a web application which is based on Codeigniter and jQuery. I primarily use ajax to call my controller functions and it turned out, that there are just 4 view*.php files, because most of my contoller functions return JSON data, which is processed in my jQuery. So my actual code is divided in kind of MVCC model: Codeigniter model (db, computations) Codeigniter controller (filtering, xss-cleaning, checking permissions, call model functions) jQuery controller (callback functions) jQuery view (adding/removing classes, appending elements,... ) So I violate the paradigm of not using the echo function in my Codeiginter controller and simply call echo json_encode($result); because it doesn't make any sense to me to create a view*.php file for one loc. Especially because all the regular view*.php stuff is covered in my jQuery view. I was wondering if I am missing something out, or if there is a way to integrate this jQuery-controller in my Codeigniter. I found some words on this topic, but this seems pretty handmade. Are there some neat solutions? Does a MVCC model make sense?

  Read the article

• Executing Components in an Entity Component System

  - by John

  Ok so I am just starting to grasp the whole ECS paradigm right now and I need clarification on a few things. For the record, I am trying to develop a game using C++ and OpenGL and I'm relatively new to game programming. First of all, lets say I have an Entity class which may have several components such as a MeshRenderer,Collider etc. From what I have read, I understand that each "system" carries out a specific task such as calculating physics and rendering and may use more that one component if needed. So for example, I would have a MeshRendererSystem act on all entities with a MeshRenderer component. Looking at Unity, I see that each Gameobject has, by default, got components such as a renderer, camera, collider and rigidbody etc. From what I understand, an entity should start out as an empty "container" and should be filled with components to create a certain type of game object. So what I dont understand is how the "system" works in an entity component system. http://docs.unity3d.com/ScriptReference/GameObject.html So I have a GameObject(The Entity) class like class GameObject { public: GameObject(std::string objectName); ~GameObject(void); Component AddComponent(std::string name); Component AddComponent(Component componentType); }; So if I had a GameObject to model a warship and I wanted to add a MeshRenderer component, I would do the following: warship->AddComponent(new MeshRenderer()); In the MeshRenderers constructor, should I call on the MeshRendererSystem and "subscribe" the warship object to this system? In that case, the MeshRendererSystem should probably be a Singleton("shudder"). From looking at unity's GameObject, if each object potentially has a renderer or any of the components in the default GameObject class, then Unity would iterate over all objects available. To me, this seems kind of unnecessary since some objects might not need to be rendered for example. How, in practice, should these systems be implemented?

  Read the article

• Is there a process-oriented IDE ?

  - by Raveline

  My problem is simple : when I'm programming in an OO paradigm, I'm often having part of a main business process divided in many classes. Which means, if I want to examine the whole functional chain that leads to the output, for debugging or for optimization research, it can be a bit painful. So I was wondering : is there an IDE that let you put a "process tag" on functions coming from different objects, and give you a view of all those functions having the same tag ? edit : To give an example (that I'm making up completely, sorry if it doesn't sound very realistic). Let's say we have the following business process for a HR application : receive a holiday-request by an employee, check the validity of the request, then give an alert to his boss ("one of those lazy programmer wants another day off"); at the same time, let's say the boss will want to have a table of all employee's timetable during the time the employee wants his vacations; then handle the answer of the boss, send a nice little mail to the employee ("No way, lazy bones"). Even if we get rid of everything not purely business-related (mail sending process, db handling to get the useful info, GUI functionalities, and so on), we still have something that doesn't really fit in "one class". I'd like to have an IDE that would give me the opportunity to embrace quickly, at the very least : The function handling the validation of the request by the employee; The function preparing the "timetable" for the boss; The function handling the validation of the request by the boss; I wouldn't put all those functions in the same class (but perhaps that's my mistake ?). This is where my dreamed IDE could be helpful.

  Read the article

• Today's Links (6/22/2011)

  - by Bob Rhubart

  Presentations from the 4th International SOA Symposium + 3rd International Cloud Symposium Presentations from Thomas Erl, Anne Thomas Manes, Glauco Castro, Dr. Manas Deb, Juergen Kress, Paulo Mota, and many others. Experiencing the New Social Enterprise | Kellsey Ruppell Ruppell shares "some key points and takeaways from some of the keynotes yesterday at the Enterprise 2.0 Conference." Search-and-Rescue Technology Inspired by the Titanic | CIO.gov A look at the technology behind the US Coast Guard's Automated Mutual Assistance Vessel Rescue system. “He who does not understand history…" | The Open Group Blog "It’s down to us (IT folks and Enterprise Architects) to learn from history, to use methodologies intelligently, find ways to minimize the risk and get business buy-in". Observations in Migrating from JavaFX Script to JavaFX 2.0 | Jim Connors Connors' article "reflects on some of the observations encountered while porting source code over from JavaFX Script to the new JavaFX API paradigm." FY12 Partner Kickoff – Are you Ready? | Judson Althoff Blog What does Oracle have up its sleeve for FY12? Oracle executives reveal all in a live interactive event, June 28/29. Webcast: Walking the Talk: Oracle’s Use of Oracle VM for IaaS Event Date: 06/28/2011 9:00am PT / Noon ET. Speakers: Don Nalezyty (Dir. Enterprise Architecture, Oracle Global IT) and Adam Hawley (Senior Director, Virtualization, Product Management, Oracle).

  Read the article

• Why is a small fixed vocabulary seen as an advantage to RESTful services?

  - by Matt Esch

  So, a RESTful service has a fixed set of verbs in its vocabulary. A RESTful web service takes these from the HTTP methods. There are some supposed advantages to defining a fixed vocabulary, but I don't really grasp the point. Maybe someone can explain it. Why is a fixed vocabulary as outlined by REST better than dynamically defining a vocabulary for each state? For example, object oriented programming is a popular paradigm. RPC is described to define fixed interfaces, but I don't know why people assume that RPC is limited by these contraints. We could dynamically specify the interface just as a RESTful service dynamically describes its content structure. REST is supposed to be advantageous in that it can grow without extending the vocabulary. RESTful services grow dynamically by adding more resources. What's so wrong about extending a service by dynamically specifying a per-object vocabulary? Why don't we just use the methods that are defined on our objects as the vocabulary and have our services describe to the client what these methods are and whether or not they have side effects? Essentially I get the feeling that the description of a server side resource structure is equivalent to the definition of a vocabulary, but we are then forced to use the limited vocabulary in which to interact with these resources. Does a fixed vocabulary really decouple the concerns of the client from the concerns of the server? I surely have to be concerned with some configuration of the server, this is normally resource location in RESTful services. To complain at the use of a dynamic vocabulary seems unfair because we have to dynamically reason how to understand this configuration in some way anyway. A RESTful service describes the transitions you are able to make by identifying object structure through hypermedia. I just don't understand what makes a fixed vocabulary any better than any self-describing dynamic vocabulary, which could easily work very well in an RPC-like service. Is this just a poor reasoning for the limiting vocabulary of the HTTP protocol?

  Read the article

• Fixed-Function vs Shaders: Which for beginner?

  - by Rob Hays

  I'm currently going to college for computer science. Although I do plan on utilizing an existing engine at some point to create a small game, my aim right now is towards learning the fundamentals: namely, 3D programming. I've already done some research regarding the choice between DirectX and OpenGL, and the general sentiment that came out of that was that whether you choose OpenGL or DirectX as your training-wheels platform, a lot of the knowledge is transferrable to the other platform. Therefore, since OpenGL is supported by more systems (probably a silly reason to choose what to learn), I decided that I'm going to learn OpenGL first. After I made this decision to learn OpenGL, I did some more research and found out about a dichotomy that I was somewhere unaware of all this time: fixed-function OpenGL vs. modern programmable shader-based OpenGL. At first, I thought it was an obvious choice that I should choose to learn shader-based OpenGL since that's what's most commonly used in the industry today. However, I then stumbled upon the very popular Learning Modern 3D Graphics Programming by Jason L. McKesson, located here: http://www.arcsynthesis.org/gltut/ I read through the introductory bits, and in the "About This Book" section, the author states: "First, much of what is learned with this approach must be inevitably abandoned when the user encounters a graphics problem that must be solved with programmability. Programmability wipes out almost all of the fixed function pipeline, so the knowledge does not easily transfer." yet at the same time also makes the case that fixed-functionality provides an easier, more immediate learning curve for beginners by stating: "It is generally considered easiest to teach neophyte graphics programmers using the fixed function pipeline." Naturally, you can see why I might be conflicted about which paradigm to learn: Do I spend a lot of time learning (and then later unlearning) the ways of fixed-functionality, or do I choose to start out with shaders? My primary concern is that modern programmable shaders somehow require the programmer to already understand the fixed-function pipeline, but I doubt that's the case. TL;DR == As an aspiring game graphics programmer, is it in my best interest to learn 3D programming through fixed-functionality or modern shader-based programming?

  Read the article

• ArchBeat Link-o-Rama for December 14, 2012

  - by Bob Rhubart

  JMS Step 6 - How to Set Up an AQ JMS (Advanced Queueing JMS) for SOA Purposes | John-Brown Evans John Brown Evans' post continues the series of JMS articles that demonstrate how to use JMS queues in a SOA context. "This example leads you through the creation of an Oracle database Advanced Queue and the related WebLogic server objects in order to use AQ JMS in connection with a SOA composite," John explains. And if you missed the first 5 steps, don't worry – the post includes links. Cloud Deployment Models | B. R. Clouse Looking out for the cloud newbies... "As the cloud paradigm grows in depth and breadth, more readers are approaching the topic for the first time, or from a new perspective," says B. R. Clouse. "This blog is a basic review of cloud deployment models, to help orient newcomers and neophytes." Understanding the JSF Lifecycle and ADF Optimized Lifecycle | Steven Davelaar Would you call that a surprise ending? Oracle WebCenter & ADF Architecture Team (A-Team) member learned a lot more than he expected while creating a UKOUG presentation entitled "What you need to know about JSF to be succesful with ADF." Using Oracle Enterprise Manager Cloud Control 12c with Filer Snapshotting | Porus Homi Havewala This concise technical article includes a script for database backup using snapshots and cataloging in RMAN. Thought for the Day "A program which perfectly meets a lousy specification is a lousy program." — Cem Kaner Source: SoftwareQuotes.com

  Read the article

• Help me select a "Simpler" target to create a new language: .NET, LLVM, Go, Own VM

  - by mamcx

  Lets define "Simple". This is my first language. I have no previous experience I will not dedicate +4 years to learn it properly. I'm a professional software [developer], but as an amateur in this area, I want instant gratification. If the idea shows a future, I could rewrite it. I don't want to do everything from scratch. In fact, if there exists a way to get GO (for example), change its syntax, add some sugar, give some extra functions and leave intact everything else, that would be perfect! From the example of coffescript/scala I think is better to build on top of some rich runtime like .NET/GO so I don't need to rewrite everything. HOWEVER, if is better other way, no problem for the first try! I want it in a week. I need it in a week so it will really take a month. Then it truly takes 3 months. But I don't want to put more that 3 months on this. I could reduce the scope of my language, but I hope the tools will help me a lot... I want to build a new language. Similar to python, but typed. I wonder what to build it on top of. I like the idea of building on top of GO. To get their sane (IMHO) OO paradigm (I plan to do the same, using interfaces, not inheritance), get goroutines and some other stuff. In my naive thinking I imagine that spit another language could help me to debug it more easily. However, look like everyone is building on top of something like .NET (don't like Java), LLVM or make it own VM. I read http://createyourproglang.com/ (great!) and the part of the VM look "easy" to me. So, what I need is the proper criteria and question I need to know in advance to have a fair shot at make this.

  Read the article

• What triggered the popularity of lambda functions in modern mainstream programming languages?

  - by Giorgio

  In the last few years anonymous functions (AKA lambda functions) have become a very popular language construct and almost every major / mainstream programming language has introduced them or is planned to introduce them in an upcoming revision of the standard. Yet, anonymous functions are a very old and very well-known concept in Mathematics and Computer Science (invented by the mathematician Alonzo Church around 1936, and used by the Lisp programming language since 1958, see e.g. here). So why didn't today's mainstream programming languages (many of which originated 15 to 20 years ago) support lambda functions from the very beginning and only introduced them later? And what triggered the massive adoption of anonymous functions in the last few years? Is there some specific event, new requirement or programming technique that started this phenomenon? IMPORTANT NOTE The focus of this question is the introduction of anonymous functions in modern, main-stream (and therefore, maybe with a few exceptions, non functional) languages. Also, note that anonymous functions (blocks) are present in Smalltalk, which is not a functional language, and that normal named functions have been present even in procedural languages like C and Pascal for a long time. Please do not overgeneralize your answers by speaking about "the adoption of the functional paradigm and its benefits", because this is not the topic of the question.

  Read the article

• GUID Partition Table & Linux

  - by Zac

  (1) Is it true that the new GUID Partition Table scheme allows a user to partition a drive however he/she like, outside of the traditional MBR "4 primaries or 3 primaries + 1 extension" paradigm? If so, are there any limitations to the GPT? If my assumption is wrong, what are its advantages over the MBR model? (2) I'm getting a new laptop this week and will be installing Ubuntu (and, more generally, Linux) for the first time ever. Does Ubunutu come pre-configured with MBR as a default? If so, how do I get Ubuntu w/ GPT? If not, how do I specify GPT over MBR? Thanks!

  Read the article

• Get Started with JavaFX 2 and Scene Builder

  - by Janice J. Heiss

  Up on otn/java is a very useful article by Oracle Java/Middleware/Core Tech Engineer Mark Heckler, titled, “How to Get Started (FAST!) with JavaFX 2 and Scene Builder.”  Heckler, who has development experience in numerous environments, shows developers how to develop a JavaFX application using Scene Builder “in less time than it takes to drink a cup of coffee, while learning your way around in the process”. He begins with a warning and a reassurance: “JavaFX is a new paradigm and can seem a bit imposing when you first take a look at it. But remember, JavaFX is easy and fun. Let's give it a try.” Next, after showing readers how to download and install JDK/JavaFX and Scene Builder, he informs the reader that they will “create a simple JavaFX application, create and modify a window using Scene Builder, and successfully test it in under 15 minutes.” Then readers download some NetBeans files:“EasyJavaFX.java contains the main application class. We won't do anything with this class for our example, as its primary purpose in life is to load the window definition code contained in the FXML file and then show the main stage/scene. You'll keep the JavaFX terms straight with ease if you relate them to the theater: a platform holds a stage, which contains scenes. SampleController.java is our controller class that provides the ‘brains’ behind the graphical interface. If you open the SampleController, you'll see that it includes a property and a method tagged with @FXML. This tag enables the integration of the visual controls and elements you define using Scene Builder, which are stored in an FXML (FX Markup Language) file. Sample.fxml is the definition file for our sample window. You can right-click and Edit the filename in the tree to view the underlying FXML -- and you may need to do that if you change filenames or properties by hand - or you can double-click on it to open it (visually) in Scene Builder.” Then Scene Builder enters the picture and the task is soon done. Check out the article here.

  Read the article

• Scheme vs Haskell for an Introduction to Functional Programming?

  - by haziz

  I am comfortable with programming in C and C#, and will explore C++ in the future. I may be interested in exploring functional programming as a different programming paradigm. I am doing this for fun, my job does not involve computer programming, and am somewhat inspired by the use of functional programming, taught fairly early, in computer science courses in college. Lambda calculus is certainly beyond my mathematical abilities, but I think I can handle functional programming. Which of Haskell or Scheme would serve as a good intro to functional programming? I use emacs as my text editor and would like to be able to configure it more easily in the future which would entail learning Emacs Lisp. My understanding, however, is that Emacs Lisp is fairly different from Scheme and is also more procedural as opposed to functional. I would likely be using "The Little Schemer" book, which I have already bought, if I pursue Scheme (seems to me a little weird from my limited leafing through it). Or would use the "Learn You a Haskell for Great Good" if I pursue Haskell. I would also watch the Intro to Haskell videos by Dr Erik Meijer on Channel 9. Any suggestions, feedback or input appreciated. Thanks. P.S. BTW I also have access to F# since I have Visual Studio 2010 which I use for C# development, but I don't think that should be my main criteria for selecting a language.

  Read the article

• One Step-Ahead A-Star

  - by Jonathan Dickinson

  I am attempting to create a server-centric RTS (as opposed to usual parallel synchronised simulation route of most RTS games today) - however I am still leveraging the discreet N-turns-ahead paradigm discussed by one of the AOE developers on Gamasutra. I have [possibly questionably?] decided that the path finding should only ever find the next cell the entity needs to move to, and was wondering if anyone has any clever ideas on how to optimize the algorithm for this specific scenario - or any other ideas on how to keep the pathfinding as lean as possible on the server. I have investigated a few possible algorithms but could only come up with one appropriation: Tiered A-Star - Relatively large T1 tiles, work out (and cache) each cell as you enter it. Other than that: doing the full A-Star pass and caching the entire path, which might use too much memory if a large amount of units are present. I know about the existence of naive progressive pathfinding algorithms (if you hit a block, turn in the direction closer to your target etc.) but they suffer from infinite feedback loops - and very poor pathing even if visited blocks are memorised. Not an option. Many thanks.

  Read the article

• Learning OO for a C Programmer

  - by Holysmoke

  I've been programming professionally in C, and only C, for around 10 years in a variety of roles. As would be normal to expect, I understand the idioms of the language fairly well and beyond that also some of the design nuances - which APIs to make public, who calls what, who does what, what is supposed to reentrant and so on. I grew up reading 'Writing Solid Code', it's early C edition, not the one based on C++. However, I've never ever programmed in an OO language. Now, I want to migrate to writing applications for iPhone (maybe android), so want to learn to use Objective-C and use it with a degree of competence fitting a professional programmer. How do I wrap my head around the OO stuff? What would be your smallest reading list suggestion to me. Is there a book that carries some sort of relatively real world example OO design Objective-C? Besides, the reading what source code would you recommend me to go through. How to learn OO paradigm using Objective-C?

  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

• Learning curve webdevelopment

  - by refro

  At the moment our team has a huge challenge, we're being asked to deliver a new GUI for an embedded controller. De deadline is very tight and is set on april 2013. Our team is very diverse some people are on the level of functional programming (mostly C), others (including myself) also master object oriented programming (C++, C#). We build a prototype with android, although it has its quirks it is mostly just OO. For the future there is a wish to support multiple platforms (Windows, Android, iOS). In my opinion a HTML5 app with a native app shell is the way to go. When gathering more information on the frameworks to use etc it becomes obvious to me a paradigm shift is needed. None of us have a web background so we need to learn from the ground up. The shift from functional to oo took us about 6 months to become productive (and some of the early subsystems were rewritten because they were a total mess) . Can we expect the learning curve to be similar? Can this be pulled off with a webapp? (My feeling says it will already be hard to pull off as a native app which is at the edge of our comfort zone)

  Read the article

• Relationship between SOA and OOA

  - by TheSilverBullet

  Thomas Erl defines SOA as follows in his site: Service-oriented computing represents a new generation distributed computing platform. As such, it encompasses many things, including its own design paradigm and design principles, design pattern catalogs, pattern languages, a distinct architectural model, and related concepts, technologies, and frameworks. This definitely sounds like a whole new category which is parallel to object orientation. Almost one in which you would expect an entirely new language to exist for. Like procedural C and object oriented C#. Here is my understanding: In real life, we don't have entirely new language for SOA. And most application which have SOA architecture have an object oriented design underneath it. SOA is a "strategy" to make the entire application/service distributed and reliable. SOA needs OOPS working underneath it. Is this correct? Where does SOA (if at all it does) fit in with object oriented programming practices? Edit: I have learnt through answers that OOA and SOA work with each other and cannot be compared (in a "which is better" way). I have changed the title to "Relationship between SOA and OOA" rather than "comparison".

  Read the article

• How did we get saddled with the (hierarchical) filesystem as the basic data structure?

  - by user1936

  I'm self-taught and I don't have a CS degree. The more I've been learning about data structure, the more I wonder, in this day and age, how are we still saddled with the filesystem, with directories and files, as the basic data storage structure on the OS? I understand the simplicity of it, but it seems nowadays that there could be more options available natively. As far as I'm aware, the only project to improve the basic functionality of the filesystem was ReiserFS, where you could tell what line of a file was changed by whom, and when. For instance, if I could have native tagging for files, where I could tag images, diagrams, word-processing documents, an entire code repository, all as belonging to a single project, that would really be helpful to me. Since I'm stuck in the filesystem paradigm, I know that I could put all those into a single folder/directory, but what if they already exist in disparate directories, and they need to stay there? I know there are programs out there that can do this, but why aren't they on the filesystem? Something that would be nice to have is some kind of relational feature in the filesystem, like you get with RDBMSes. I understand that that was supposed to be part of Vista/7, but that fell off the feature list too. Sure, any program can store a binary file and have any data structure it wants in it, by why couldn't the OS offer more complex ways of storing data, beyond the simple heirarchy of the filesystem?

  Read the article

• FP for simulation and modelling

  - by heaptobesquare

  I'm about to start a simulation/modelling project. I already know that OOP is used for this kind of projects. However, studying Haskell made me consider using the FP paradigm for modelling a system of components. Let me elaborate: Let's say I have a component of type A, characterised by a set of data (a parameter like temperature or pressure,a PDE and some boundary conditions,etc.) and a component of type B, characterised by a different set of data(different or same parameter, different PDE and boundary conditions). Let's also assume that the functions/methods that are going to be applied on each component are the same (a Galerkin method for example). If I were to use an OOP approach, I would create two objects that would encapsulate each type's data, the methods for solving the PDE(inheritance would be used here for code reuse) and the solution to the PDE. On the other hand, if I were to use an FP approach, each component would be broken down to data parts and the functions that would act upon the data in order to get the solution for the PDE. This approach seems simpler to me assuming that linear operations on data would be trivial and that the parameters are constant. What if the parameters are not constant(for example, temperature increases suddenly and therefore cannot be immutable)? In OOP, the object's (mutable) state can be used. I know that Haskell has Monads for that. To conclude, would implementing the FP approach be actually simpler,less time consuming and easier to manage (add a different type of component or new method to solve the pde) compared to the OOP one? I come from a C++/Fortran background, plus I'm not a professional programmer, so correct me on anything that I've got wrong.

  Read the article

• Learning curve for web development

  - by refro

  At the moment our team has a huge challenge, we're being asked to deliver a new GUI for an embedded controller. The deadline is very tight and is set on April 2013. Our team is very diverse, some people are on the level of functional programming (mostly C), others (including myself) have mastered object oriented programming (C++, C#). We built a prototype for Android, although it has its quirks, it is mostly just OO. For the future there is a wish to support multiple platforms (Windows, Android, iOS). In my opinion a HTML5 app with a native app shell is the way to go. When gathering more information on the frameworks to use etc., it became obvious to me a paradigm shift is needed. None of us have a web background so we need to learn from the ground up. The shift from functional to OO took us about 6 months to become productive (and some of the early subsystems were rewritten because they were a total mess). Can we expect the learning curve to be similar? Can this be pulled off with a web app? (My feeling says it will already be hard to pull off as a native app which is at the edge of our comfort zone).

  Read the article

• Classes as a compilation unit

  - by Yannbane

  If "compilation unit" is unclear, please refer to this. However, what I mean by it will be clear from the context. Edit: my language allows for multiple inheritance, unlike Java. I've started designing+developing my own programming language for educational, recreational, and potentially useful purposes. At first, I've decided to base it off Java. This implied that I would have all the code be written inside classes, and that code compiles to classes, which are loaded by the VM. However, I've excluded features such as interfaces and abstract classes, because I found no need for them. They seemed to be enforcing a paradigm, and I'd like my language not to do that. I wanted to keep the classes as the compilation unit though, because it seemed convenient to implement, familiar, and I just liked the idea. Then I noticed that I'm basically left with a glorified module system, where classes could be used either as "namespaces", providing constants and functions using the static directive, or as templates for objects that need to be instantiated ("actual" purpose of classes in other languages). Now I'm left wondering: what are the benefits of having classes as compilation units? (Also, any general commentary on my design would be much appreciated.)

  Read the article

• Is there an alternative to the term "calling object"?

  - by ybakos

  Let's suppose you've got a class defined (in pseudocode): class Puppy { // ... string sound = "Rawr!"; void bark() { print(sound); } } And say, given a Puppy instance, you call it's bark() method: Puppy p; p.bark(); Notice how bark() uses the member variable sound. In many contexts, I've seen folks describe sound as the member variable of the "calling object." My question is, what's a better term to use than "calling object?" To me, the object is not doing any calling. We know that member functions are in a way just functions with an implicit this or self parameter. I've come up with "receiving object," or "message recipient," which makes sense if you're down with the "messaging" paradigm. Do any of you happy hackers have a term that you like to use? I feel it should mean "the object upon which a method is called" and TOUWAMIC just doesn't cut it.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >