Search Results

Search found 134 results on 6 pages for 'discipline'.

Page 1/6 | 1 2 3 4 5 6  | Next Page >

  • Designing interfaces: predict methods needed, discipline yourself and deal with code that comes to m

    - by fireeyedboy
    Was: Design by contract: predict methods needed, discipline yourself and deal with code that comes to mind I like the idea of designing by contract a lot (at least, as far as I understand the principal). I believe it means you define intefaces first before you start implementing actual code, right? However, from my limited experience (3 OOP years now) I usually can't resist the urge to start coding pretty early, for several reasons: because my limited experience has shown me I am unable to predict what methods I will be needing in the interface, so I might as well start coding right away. or because I am simply too impatient to write out the whole interfaces first. or when I do try it, I still wind up implementing bits of code already, because I fear I might forget this or that imporant bit of code, that springs to mind when I am designing the interfaces. As you see, especially with the last two points, this leads to a very disorderly way of doing things. Tasks get mixed up. I should draw a clear line between designing interfaces and actual coding. If you, unlike me, are a good/disciplined planner, as intended above, how do you: ...know the majority of methods you will be needing up front so well? Especially if it's components that implement stuff you are not familiar with yet. ...resist the urge to start coding right away? ...deal with code that comes to mind when you are designing the interfaces? UPDATE: Thank you for the answers so far. Valuable insights! And... I stand corrected; it seems I misinterpreted the idea of Design By Contract. For clarity, what I actually meant was: "coming up with interface methods before implementing the actual components". An additional thing that came up in my mind is related to point 1): b) How do you know the majority of components you will be needing. How do you flesh out these things before you start actually coding? For arguments sake, let's say I'm a novice with the MVC pattern, and I wanted to implement such a component/architecture. A naive approach would be to think of: a front controller some abstract action controller some abstract view ... and be done with it, so to speak. But, being more familiar with the MVC pattern, I know now that it makes sense to also have: a request object a router a dispatcher a response object view helpers etc.. etc.. If you map this idea to some completely new component you want to develop, with which you have no experience yet; how do you come up with these sort of additional components without actually coding the thing, and stuble upon the ideas that way? How would you know up front how fine grained some components should be? Is this a matter of disciplining yourself to think it out thoroughly? Or is it a matter of being good at thinking in abstractions?

    Read the article

  • Design by contract: predict methods needed, discipline yourself and deal with code that comes to min

    - by fireeyedboy
    I like the idea of designing by contract a lot (at least, as far as I understand the principal). I believe it means you define intefaces first before you start implementing actual code, right? However, from my limited experience (3 OOP years now) I usually can't resist the urge to start coding pretty early, for several reasons: because my limited experience has shown me I am unable to predict what methods I will be needing in the interface, so I might as well start coding right away. or because I am simply too impatient to write out the whole interfaces first. or when I do try it, I still wind up implementing bits of code already, because I fear I might forget this or that imporant bit of code, that springs to mind when I am designing the interfaces. As you see, especially with the last two points, this leads to a very disorderly way of doing thing. Tasks get mixed up. I should draw a clear line between designing interfaces and actual coding. If you, unlike me, are a good/disciplined planner, as intended above, how do you: ...know the majority of methods you will be needing up front so well? Especially if it's components that implement stuff you are not familiar with yet. ...keep yourself from resisting the urge to start coding right away? ...deal with code that comes to mind when you are designing the intefaces?

    Read the article

  • What discipline does Computer Science belong to?

    - by Macneil
    Is Computer Science science, applied mathematics, engineering, art, philosophy? "Other"? To provide background, here is Steven Wartik's blog posting for Scientific American titled "I'm not a real scientist, and that's okay." The article covers some good topics for this question, but it leaves open more than it answers. If you can think of the discipline, how would computer science fit into its definition? Should the discipline for Computer Science be based on what programmers do, or what academics do? What kind of answers do you get from people who've seemed to think deeply about this? What reasons do they give?

    Read the article

  • Is software development an engineering discipline?

    - by Vaibhav Garg
    Can software development be considered engineering? If no, what are the things that it lacks in order to be qualified as an engineering discipline? Related to this is this question on Stack Overflow about the difference between a programmer and a software engineer. There is the Software Engineering Institute at Carnigie Mellon University that prescribes and maintains the CMMI standards. Is this something that will turn development into engineering?

    Read the article

  • Is Artificial Intelligence a mature discipline?

    - by Lynxiayel
    I'm designing some AI games recently. And this question that is AI a mature discipline suddenly came to my mind. My own view is that AI is not mature yet. But there're exact theory systems here in AI already, including the expert system or knowledge presenting and so on. So it becomes a problem for me that I can't convince myself about whether it's mature or not with fully demonstration. Anyone has idea about this question? Show me your proof please. Thanks a lot for your attention and help.

    Read the article

  • Signs to Quit Programming?

    - by acidzombie24
    I was hanging out with two people and one of them had a design book and the other was talking to me about programming and design. He said he had difficulties programming and wondered what are signs that you should not or should stop programming? He wanted to know if he should stick to design and i said i didnt know since i havent seen him do either. How does one know if he or she should quit programming and stick to another discipline? and what are some signs?

    Read the article

  • How to learn proper C++?

    - by Chris
    While reading a long series of really, really interesting threads, I've come to a realization: I don't think I really know C++. I know C, I know classes, I know inheritance, I know templates (& the STL) and I know exceptions. Not C++. To clarify, I've been writing "C++" for more than 5 years now. I know C, and I know that C and C++ share a common subset. What I've begun to realize, though, is that more times than not, I wind up treating C++ something vaguely like "C with classes," although I do practice RAII. I've never used Boost, and have only read up on TR1 and C++0x - I haven't used any of these features in practice. I don't use namespaces. I see a list of #defines, and I think - "Gracious, that's horrible! Very un-C++-like," only to go and mindlessly write class wrappers for the sake of it, and I wind up with large numbers (maybe a few per class) of static methods, and for some reason, that just doesn't seem right lately. The professional in me yells "just get the job done," the academic yells "you should write proper C++ when writing C++" and I feel like the point of balance is somewhere in between. I'd like to note that I don't want to program "pure" C++ just for the sake of it. I know several languages. I have a good feel for what "Pythonic" is. I know what clean and clear PHP is. Good C code I can read and write better than English. The issue is that I learned C by example, and picked up C++ as a "series of modifications" to C. And a lot of my early C++ work was creating class wrappers for C libraries. I feel like my own personal C-heavy background while learning C++ has sort of... clouded my acceptance of C++ in it's own right, as it's own language. Do the weathered C++ lags here have any advice for me? Good examples of clean, sharp C++ to learn from? What habits of C does my inner-C++ really need to break from? My goal here is not to go forth and trumpet "good" C++ paradigm from rooftops for the sake of it. C and C++ are two different languages, and I want to start treating them that way. How? Where to start? Thanks in advance! Cheers, -Chris

    Read the article

  • WCF REST Starter Kit not filling base class members on POST

    - by HJG
    I have a WCF REST Starter Kit service. The type handled by the service is a subclass of a base class. For POST requests, the base class members are not correctly populated. The class hierarchy looks like this: [DataContract] public class BaseTreeItem { [DataMember] public String Id { get; set; } [DataMember] public String Description { get; set; } } [DataContract] public class Discipline : BaseTreeItem { ... } The service definition looks like: [WebHelp(Comment = "Retrieve a Discipline")] [WebGet(UriTemplate = "discipline?id={id}")] [OperationContract] public Discipline getDiscipline(String id) { ... } [WebHelp(Comment = "Create/Update/Delete a Discipline")] [OperationContract] [WebInvoke(Method = "POST", UriTemplate = "discipline")] public WCF_Result DisciplineMaintenance(Discipline discipline) { ... } Problem: While the GET works fine (returns the base class Id and Description), the POST does not populate Id and Description even though the XML contains the fields. Sample XML: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> <Discipline xmlns="http://schemas.datacontract.org/2004/07/xxx.yyy.zzz"> <DeleteFlag>7</DeleteFlag> <Description>2</Description> <Id>5</Id> <DisciplineName>1</DisciplineName> <DisciplineOwnerId>4</DisciplineOwnerId> <DisciplineOwnerLoginName>3</DisciplineOwnerLoginName> </Discipline> Thanks for any assistance.

    Read the article

  • CDI SessionScoped Bean instance remains unchanged when login with different user

    - by Jason Yang
    I've been looking for the workaround of this problem for rather plenty of time and no result, so I ask question here. Simply speaking, I'm using a CDI SessionScoped Bean User in my project to manage user information and display them on jsf pages. Also container-managed j_security_check is used to resolve authentication issue. Everything is fine if first logout with session.invalidate() and then login in the same browser tab with a different user. But when I tried to directly login (through login.jsf) with a new user without logout beforehand, I found the user information remaining unchanged. I debugged and found the User bean, as well as the HttpSession instance, always remaining the same if login with different users in the same browser, as long as session.invalidate() not invoked. But oddly, the session id did modified, and I've both checked in Java code and Firebug. org.apache.catalina.session.StandardSessionFacade@5d7b4092 StandardSession[c69a71d19f369d08b5dddbea2ef0] attrName = org.jboss.weld.context.conversation.ConversationIdGenerator : attrValue=org.jboss.weld.context.conversation.ConversationIdGenerator@583c9dd8 attrName = org.jboss.weld.context.ConversationContext.conversations : attrValue = {} attrName = org.jboss.weld.context.http.HttpSessionContext#org.jboss.weld.bean-Discipline-ManagedBean-class com.netease.qa.discipline.profile.User : attrValue = Bean: Managed Bean [class com.netease.qa.discipline.profile.User] with qualifiers [@Any @Default @Named]; Instance: com.netease.qa.discipline.profile.User@c497c7c; CreationalContext: org.jboss.weld.context.CreationalContextImpl@739efd29 attrName = javax.faces.request.charset : attrValue = UTF-8 org.apache.catalina.session.StandardSessionFacade@5d7b4092 StandardSession[c6ab4b0c51ee0a649ef696faef75] attrName = org.jboss.weld.context.conversation.ConversationIdGenerator : attrValue = org.jboss.weld.context.conversation.ConversationIdGenerator@583c9dd8 attrName = com.sun.faces.renderkit.ServerSideStateHelper.LogicalViewMap : attrValue = {-4968076393130137442={-7694826198761889564=[Ljava.lang.Object;@43ff5d6c}} attrName = org.jboss.weld.context.ConversationContext.conversations : attrValue = {} attrName = org.jboss.weld.context.http.HttpSessionContext#org.jboss.weld.bean-Discipline-ManagedBean-class com.netease.qa.discipline.profile.User : attrValue = Bean: Managed Bean [class com.netease.qa.discipline.profile.User] with qualifiers [@Any @Default @Named]; Instance: com.netease.qa.discipline.profile.User@c497c7c; CreationalContext: org.jboss.weld.context.CreationalContextImpl@739efd29 attrName = javax.faces.request.charset : attrValue = UTF-8 Above block contains two successive logins and their Session info. We can see that the instance(1st row) the same while session id(2nd row) different. Seems that session object is reused to contain different session id and CDI framework manages session bean life cycle in accordance with the session object only(?). I'm wondering whether there could be only one server-side session object within the same browser unless invalidated? Since I'm adopting j_security_check I fancy intercepting it and invalidating old session is not so easy. So is it possible to accomplish the goal without altering the CDI+JSF+j_security_check design that one can relogin with different account in the same or different tab within the same browser? Really look forward for your response. More info: Glassfish v3.1 is my appserver.

    Read the article

  • what should a developer know/address to build commercial Android Apps ?

    - by giulio
    Android and mobile development is an exciting area of development. As it is a new discipline, what would be expected of an android developer to build commercially robust applications in terms of skills ? The problem that I and, i think, many other "noobs" into the technology would like to know are the areas of technical skills and the progression to the required advanced topics that goes beyond the the very basics provided by Google. There is a lot of information that's quite useful but its not organised into categories of discipline nor order.

    Read the article

  • Book Recommendations for Technical/Solutions Architecture [closed]

    - by giant_squid
    I wish to learn more about Technical and Solutions Architecture. Specifically, I'm concerned with designing HA, Fault-Tolerant Scalable web-based solutions (enough buzzwords ;-). Its a topic I'm familiar with on a technical level having worked as a sysadmin, but I don't know all the buzzwords Architects use and have to brush up on my UML and diagram techniques. I would like a book that describes what architecture is as a discipline and explores standard design patterns, and some do's and don'ts. Do you have any recommendations? I apologise if this sounds vague, its because I am still learning what Architecture is as a discipline having come from a sysadmin background. To be 100% clear I'm looking for books or websites that give broad overviews of what System Design patterns exist and how the discipline works. Thanks Instead of closing the question maybe you could comment on what exactly about it you don't like.

    Read the article

  • Anonymous Methods / Lambda's (Coding Standards)

    - by Mystagogue
    In Jeffrey Richter's "CLR via C#" (the .net 2.0 edtion page, 353) he says that as a self-discipline, he never makes anonymous functions longer than 3 lines of code in length. He cites mostly readability / understandability as his reasons. This suites me fine, because I already had a self-discipline of using no more than 5 lines for an anonymous method. But how does that "coding standard" advice stack against lambda's? At face value, I'd treat them the same - keeping a lambda equally as short. But how do others feel about this? In particular, when lambda's are being used where (arguably) they shine brightest - when used in LINQ statements - is there genuine cause to abandon that self-discipline / coding standard?

    Read the article

  • Introduction to Agile Development

    - by Grant Fritchey
    Even though my current job is a little weird, I still consider myself to be a DBA. I didn’t start that way in IT. I came through support and into development. I loved development. There was a constant struggle to attempt to improve your code, your understanding, and, most importantly, the process of development itself. Development can be slow and tedious. Left alone, developers can simply disappear to build a project and not come back for two years, at which time they deliver it. But, maybe that software isn’t what you wanted, or it’s no longer needed, or who knows what. So developers are constantly attempting to improve their processes in order to deliver more relavent software quicker (something DBAs could learn about). I really admire it. One of the many processes that has come out of that constant striving is known as Agile. As the name implies, Agile development attempts to come up with a quick, fast turning, business aware, well, for want of a word, agile, process that is more responsive to the needs of the business. There are tons and tons of books and blogs and videos on the subject that can get you going. But, Agile isn’t easy (note, Easy is not part of the name). Agile processes can be hard. I’ve worked on multiple agile teams, some successful, some not. The two principal differences between the teams were their discipline and their knowledge of the process. Discipline, that comes from within. But knowledge, ah, well there I can help. Red Gate is bringing a series of free instructional events to the United States in a few weeks time focused primarily on SQL Server (click here right now to register while there’s still space). We’re also offering some .NET instruction too. That’s a full day, free, with top experts in the business. But, the next day, there’s a full day session introducing Agile. You can go to this and learn how to do Agile. Develop that knowledge that will enable you to successfully use the Agile process. Go to this web site to check it out. No, this event is not free, but not everything can be. And it’s not just for developers. DBAs, you need to learn this stuff too. Management could also benefit from understanding these processes (because you guys can help to enforce discipline). It’s really for everyone involved in the development process.

    Read the article

  • Troubles Iterating Over A HashMap with JSF, MyFaces & Facelets

    - by Lee Theobald
    Hi all, I'm having some trouble looping over a HashMap to print out it's values to the screen. Could someone double check my code to see what I'm doing wrong. I can't seem to find anything wrong but there must be something. In a servlet, I am adding the following to the request: Map<String, String> facetValues = new HashMap<String, String>(); // Filling the map req.setAttribute(facetField.getName(), facetValues); In one case "facetField.getName()" evaluates to "discipline". So in my page I have the following: <ui:repeat value="${requestScope.discipline}" var="item"> <li>Item: <c:out value="${item}"/>, Key: <c:out value="${item.key}"/>, Value: <c:out value="${item.item}"/></li> </ui:repeat> The loop is ran once but all the outputs are blank?!? I would have at least expected something in item if it's gone over the loop once. Checking the debug popup for Facelets, discipline is there and on the loop. Printing it to the screen results in something that looks like a map to me (I've shortened the output) : {300=0, 1600=0, 200=0, ... , 2200=0} I've also tried with a c:forEach but I'm getting the same results. So does anyone have any ideas where I'm going wrong? Thanks for any input, Lee

    Read the article

  • Is aspect oriented programming a misnomer?

    - by glenviewjeff
    From everything I have learned about "Aspect Oriented Programming" or "Aspect Oriented Software Development," labeling it as a programming paradigm or methodology appears to be inaccurate. From what I can tell it is not a fundamental technique for programming. To nail down what is meant by "paradigm" and "methodology," please refer to the following definitions from the American Heritage Dictionary. Compare how well or poorly "Object-Oriented Programming" applies to each vs. how well AOP fits. Paradigm: A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline. Methodology: A body of practices, procedures, and rules used by those who work in a discipline or engage in an inquiry; a set of working methods. "Evidence-based medicine" satisfies the definition of paradigm, but "hysterectomy-based medicine" would be a misnomer because the problem space is too narrow. I am getting the impression that AOP may be misnamed because based on the "oriented-programming" suffix, AOP is alleging to be both a paradigm and a methodology in the same way "Object-Oriented Programming" is. Both of these terms (paradigm and methodology) indicate a fundamental technique, where what I understand about aspects is a technology for solving a narrow problem scope, maybe comparable in magnitude to the static variable feature of Java. If it's true that aspects solve a narrow set of problems, and AOP isn't a misnomer, then why shouldn't all programming techniques be given the "oriented-programming" suffix, such as "inheritance-oriented programming," "dependency-oriented programming," or "scope-oriented programming?"

    Read the article

  • OUM is Flexible and Scalable

    - by user535886
    Flexible and Scalable Traditionally, projects have been focused on satisfying the contents of a requirements document or rigorously conforming to an existing set of work products. Often, especially where iterative and incremental techniques have not been employed, these requirements may be inaccurate, the previous deliverables may be flawed, or the business needs may have changed since the start of the project. Fitness for business purpose, derived from the Dynamic Systems Development Method (DSDM) framework, refers to the focus of delivering necessary functionality within a required timebox. The solution can be more rigorously engineered later, if such an approach is acceptable. Our collective experience shows that applying fit-for-purpose criteria, rather than tight adherence to requirements specifications, results in an information system that more closely meets the needs of the business. In OUM, this principle is extended to refer to the execution of the method processes themselves. Project managers and practitioners are encouraged to scale OUM to be fit-for-purpose for a given situation. It is rarely appropriate to execute every activity within OUM. OUM provides guidance for determining the core set of activities to be executed, the level of detail targeted in those activities and their associated tasks, and the frequency and type of end user deliverables. The project workplan should be developed from this core. The plan should then be scaled up, rather than tailored down, to the level of discipline appropriate to the identified risks and requirements. Even at the task level, models and work products should be completed only to the level of detail required for them to be fit-for-purpose within the current iteration or, at the project level, to suit the business needs of the enterprise and to meet the contractual obligations that govern the project. OUM provides well defined templates for many of its tasks. Use of these templates is optional as determined by the context of the project. Work products can easily be a model in a repository, a prototype, a checklist, a set of application code, or, in situations where a high degree of agility is warranted, simply the tacit knowledge contained in the brain of an analyst or practitioner. For further reading on agility, see Balancing Agility and Discipline: A guide fro the Perplexed.

    Read the article

  • « BPMN2 : L'essentiel », un e-book pour découvrir les concepts clés du BPMN et modéliser ses processus métier, téléchargeable gratuitement

    « BPMN2 : L'essentiel », un e-book pour découvrir les concepts clés du BPMN et modéliser ses processus métier, téléchargeable gratuitementBPM (Business Process Management) est une discipline qui consiste à considérer la gestion des processus comme un moyen d'améliorer la performance opérationnelle. Les processus métier sont représentés sous forme de modèles graphiques grâce à l'ensemble des conventions graphiques BPMN (BPMN Business Process Model and Notation).BPMN est un standard permettant de...

    Read the article

  • Why is Software Engineering not the typical major for future software developers?

    - by FarmBoy
    While most agree that a certain level of Computer Science is essential to being a good programmer, it seems to me that the principles of good software development is even more important, though not as fundamental. Just like mechanical engineers take physics classes, but far more engineering classes, I would expect, now that software is over a half century old, that software development would begin to dominate the undergraduate curriculum. But I don't see much evidence of this. Is there a reason that Software Engineering hasn't taken hold as an academic discipline?

    Read the article

  • Building general programming skills?

    - by toleero
    Hello :) I currently am quite new to programming, I've had exposure to a few languages (C#, PHP, JavaScript, VB, and some others) and I'm quite new to OOP. I was just wondering what is the best way to build up general programming/problem solving skills without being language specific? I was thinking maybe of something like Project Euler but more geared towards newbies? Thanks! Edit: I am looking at getting into Game Scripting/Programming, I'm already in Games but in a different discipline :)

    Read the article

  • La programmation devrait-elle être connue par tous ? Linus Torvalds émet des réserves

    La programmation devrait-elle être connue par tous ? Linus Torvalds émet des réservesÀ l'ère du numérique, les débats sur la programmation pour tous font de plus en plus surfaces. Mais, la programmation est-elle faite pour tout le monde ?Plusieurs initiatives ont vu le jour pour faire de la programmation une discipline connue par tout le monde. C'est notamment le cas du projet code.org, qui bénéficie du soutien des grands noms du secteur technologique comme Bill Gates ou encore Mark Zuckerberg....

    Read the article

  • Building general programming skills?

    - by toleero
    I currently am quite new to programming, I've had exposure to a few languages (C#, PHP, JavaScript, VB, and some others) and I'm quite new to OOP. I was just wondering what is the best way to build up general programming/problem solving skills without being language specific? I was thinking maybe of something like Project Euler but more geared towards newbies? Thanks! Edit: I am looking at getting into Game Scripting/Programming, I'm already in Games but in a different discipline :)

    Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6  | Next Page >