Search Results

Search found 525 results on 21 pages for 'readability'.

Page 11/21 | < Previous Page | 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18  | Next Page >

• Creating country specific twitter/facebook accounts

  - by user359650

  I see many companies that have an international presence trying to localize their social media presence by creating country or language specific accounts. However some seemed to have done so without following a consistent pattern, one example being the World Wildlife Fund when you look at their Twitter accounts: World_Wildlife : verified account with 200K followers WWF : main account with 800K followers www_uk : lower case with underscore between WWF and country indicator WWFCanada : upper case with country indicator attached to WWF ... I am planning to build a website which hopefully will grow global and would like to avoid this sort of inconsistencies. Also, I was comparing what Twitter and Facebook allow in their username and found out that they don't allow the same characters to be used (e.g. for instance that the former doesn't allow . whereas the latter does) making difficult to ensure consistency across social networks. Hence my questions: Are there known naming schemes for creating localized Twitter and Facebook accounts while maintaining a certain consistency between them (best effort)? Are there any researches out there that have proven whether some schemes were better than others in terms of readability and/or SEO?

  Read the article

• Am I wrong to disagree with A Gentle Introduction to symfony's template best practices?

  - by AndrewKS

  I am currently learning symfony and going through the book A Gentle Introduction to symfony and came across this section in "Chapter 4: The Basics of Page Creation" on creating templates (or views): "If you need to execute some PHP code in the template, you should avoid using the usual PHP syntax, as shown in Listing 4-4. Instead, write your templates using the PHP alternative syntax, as shown in Listing 4-5, to keep the code understandable for non-PHP programmers." Listing 4-4 - The Usual PHP Syntax, Good for Actions, But Bad for Templates <p>Hello, world!</p> <?php if ($test) { echo "<p>".time()."</p>"; } ?> (The ironic thing about this is that the echo statement would look even better if time was a variable declared in the controller because then you could just embed the variable in the string instead of concatenating) Listing 4-5 - The Alternative PHP Syntax, Good for Templates <p>Hello, world!</p> <?php if ($test): ?> <p><?php echo time(); ?> </p><?php endif; ?> I fail to see how listing 4-5 makes the code "understandable for non-PHP programmers", and its readability is shaky at best. 4-4 looks much more readable to me. Are there any programmers who are using symfony that write their templates like those in 4-4 rather than 4-5? Are there reasons I should use one over the other? There is the very slim chance that somewhere down the road someone less technical could be editing it the template, but how does 4-5 actually make it more understandable to them?

  Read the article

• Is micro-optimisation important when coding?

  - by BozKay

  I recently asked a question on stackoverflow.com to find out why isset() was faster than strlen() in php. This raised questions around the importance of readable code and whether performance improvements of micro-seconds in code were worth even considering. My father is a retired programmer, I showed him the responses and he was absolutely certain that if a coder does not consider performance in their code even at the micro level, they are not good programmers. I'm not so sure - perhaps the increase in computing power means we no longer have to consider these kind of micro-performance improvements? Perhaps this kind of considering is up to the people who write the actual language code? (of php in the above case). The environmental factors could be important - the internet consumes 10% of the worlds energy, I wonder how wasteful a few micro-seconds of code is when replicated trillions of times on millions of websites? I'd like to know answers preferably based on facts about programming. Is micro-optimisation important when coding? EDIT : My personal summary of 25 answers, thanks to all. Sometimes we need to really worry about micro-optimisations, but only in very rare circumstances. Reliability and readability are far more important in the majority of cases. However, considering micro-optimisation from time to time doesn't hurt. A basic understanding can help us not to make obvious bad choices when coding such as if (expensiveFunction() && counter < X) Should be if (counter < X && expensiveFunction()) (example from @zidarsk8) This could be an inexpensive function and therefore changing the code would be micro-optimisation. But, with a basic understanding, you would not have to because you would write it correctly in the first place.

  Read the article

• Dealing with curly brace soup

  - by Cyborgx37

  I've programmed in both C# and VB.NET for years, but primarily in VB. I'm making a career shift toward C# and, overall, I like C# better. One issue I'm having, though, is curly brace soup. In VB, each structure keyword has a matching close keyword, for example: Namespace ... Class ... Function ... For ... Using ... If ... ... End If If ... ... End If End Using Next End Function End Class End Namespace The same code written in C# ends up very hard to read: namespace ... { class ... { function ... { for ... { using ... { if ... { ... } if ... { ... } } } // wait... what level is this? } } } Being so used to VB, I'm wondering if there's a technique employed by c-style programmers to improve readability and to ensure that your code ends up in the correct "block". The above example is relatively easy to read, but sometimes at the end of a piece of code I'll have 8 or more levels of curly braces, requiring me to scroll up several pages to figure out which brace ends the block I'm interested in.

  Read the article

• Generic Repositories with DI & Data Intensive Controllers

  - by James

  Usually, I consider a large number of parameters as an alarm bell that there may be a design problem somewhere. I am using a Generic Repository for an ASP.NET application and have a Controller with a growing number of parameters. public class GenericRepository<T> : IRepository<T> where T : class { protected DbContext Context { get; set; } protected DbSet<T> DbSet { get; set; } public GenericRepository(DbContext context) { Context = context; DbSet = context.Set<T>(); } ...//methods excluded to keep the question readable } I am using a DI container to pass in the DbContext to the generic repository. So far, this has met my needs and there are no other concrete implmentations of IRepository<T>. However, I had to create a dashboard which uses data from many Entities. There was also a form containing a couple of dropdown lists. Now using the generic repository this makes the parameter requirments grow quickly. The Controller will end up being something like public HomeController(IRepository<EntityOne> entityOneRepository, IRepository<EntityTwo> entityTwoRepository, IRepository<EntityThree> entityThreeRepository, IRepository<EntityFour> entityFourRepository, ILogError logError, ICurrentUser currentUser) { } It has about 6 IRepositories plus a few others to include the required data and the dropdown list options. In my mind this is too many parameters. From a performance point of view, there is only 1 DBContext per request and the DI container will serve the same DbContext to all of the Repositories. From a code standards/readability point of view it's ugly. Is there a better way to handle this situation? Its a real world project with real world time constraints so I will not dwell on it too long, but from a learning perspective it would be good to see how such situations are handled by others.

  Read the article

• Can a candidate be judged by asking to write a complex program on "paper"?

  - by iammilind

  Sometime back in an interview, I was asked to write following program: In a keypad of a mobile phone, there is a mapping between number and characters. e.g. 0 & 1 corresponds to nothing; 2 corresponds to 'a','b','c'; 3 corresponds to 'd','e','f'; ...; 9 corresponds to 'w','x','y','z'. User should input any number (e.g. 23, 389423, 927348923747293) and I should store all the combinations of these character mapping into some data structure. For example, if user enters "23" then possible character combinations are: ad, ae, af, bd, be, bf, cd, ce, cf or if user enters, "4676972" then it can be, gmpmwpa, gmpmwpb, ..., hnroxrc, ..., iosozrc Interviewer told that people have written code for this within 20-30 mins!! Also he insisted I have to write on paper. If I am writing a code then my tendency is as of I am writing production code, even though it may not be expected from me. So, I always try to think all the aspects like, optimization, readability, maintainability, extensible and so on. Considering all these, I felt that I should be writing on PC and it needs decent 2 hours. Finally after 25 mins, I was able to come up with just the concept and some shattered pieces of code (not to mention of my rejection). My question is not the answer for the above program. I want to know that is this a right way to judge the caliber of a person ? Am I wrong / too slow in the estimates ? Am I too idealistic ?

  Read the article

• Is there a way to insert a formatted calculation into Excel 2010 without using an image?

  - by Ryan Taylor

  I am maintaining a list of database column names, notes, and their calculations in an Excel 2010 spreadsheet. The calculations are included so as to document how to derive the values for the various columns and not for calculations within the spreadsheet. I have been entering the calculations into the cells simply as unformatted text like so: 100 - ((FiscalYearRegionConsumption - BaselineRegionConsumption) / (GoalRegionConsumption - BaselineRegionConsumption)) * 100 However, for long and/or complex calculations this could become rather unreadable. To improve readability and comprehension I would like to "pretty" print the calculation in an Excel cell. This would result in formatting that would like like this: The only solution I have come up with is to: Write the calculation in another application such as Word Take a screenshot of said calculation Past the screenshot into Excel The primary concern with this approach is maintenance. Should the calculation change or need correction I have to update two different sources of information. Is there a better way included a formatted calculation into an Excel cell?

  Read the article

• Can too much abstraction be bad?

  - by m3th0dman

  As programmers I feel that our goal is to provide good abstractions on the given domain model and business logic. But where should this abstraction stop? How to make the trade-off between abstraction and all it's benefits (flexibility, ease of changing etc.) and ease of understanding the code and all it's benefits. I believe I tend to write code overly abstracted and I don't know how good is it; I often tend to write it like it is some kind of a micro-framework, which consists of two parts: Micro-Modules which are hooked up in the micro-framework: these modules are easy to be understood, developed and maintained as single units. This code basically represents the code that actually does the functional stuff, described in requirements. Connecting code; now here I believe stands the problem. This code tends to be complicated because it is sometimes very abstracted and is hard to be understood at the beginning; this arises due to the fact that it is only pure abstraction, the base in reality and business logic being performed in the code presented 1; from this reason this code is not expected to be changed once tested. Is this a good approach at programming? That it, having changing code very fragmented in many modules and very easy to be understood and non-changing code very complex from the abstraction POV? Should all the code be uniformly complex (that is code 1 more complex and interlinked and code 2 more simple) so that anybody looking through it can understand it in a reasonable amount of time but change is expensive or the solution presented above is good, where "changing code" is very easy to be understood, debugged, changed and "linking code" is kind of difficult. Note: this is not about code readability! Both code at 1 and 2 is readable, but code at 2 comes with more complex abstractions while code 1 comes with simple abstractions.

  Read the article

• Whether to separate out methods or not

  - by Skippy

  I am new to java and want to learn best coding practices and understand why one method is better than another, in terms of efficiency and as the coding becomes more complicated. This is just an example, but I can take the principles from here to apply elsewhere. I have need an option to display stuff, and have put the method stuff separately from the method to ask if the user wants to display the stuff, as stuff has a lot of lines of code. For readability I have done this: public static void displayStuff () { String input = getInput ("Display stuff? Y/N \n"); if (input..equalsIgnoreCase ("Y")) { stuff (); } else if (input.equalsIgnoreCase ("N")) { //quit program } else { //throw error System.out.print("Error! Enter Y or N: \n"); } } private static String stuff () { //to lots of things here return stuff (); } Or public static void displayStuff () { String input = getInput ("Display stuff? Y/N \n"); if (input..equalsIgnoreCase ("Y")) { //to lots of things here stuff; } else if (input.equalsIgnoreCase ("N")) { //quit program } else { //throw error System.out.print("Error! Enter Y or N: \n"); } } Is it better to keep them together and why? Also, should the second method be private or public, if I am asking for data within the class? I am not sure if this is on topic for here. please advise.

  Read the article

• Copying unicode symbols from Firefox address bar as is

  - by sindikat

  Let's say I open a webpage with some Unicode characters, say, Cyrillic, in the address like this: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/??????????????_?????????????? When I try to copy it from the address bar somewhere else, it becomes unreadable rubbish: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D1%83%D0%BD%D0%BA%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%BB%D1%91%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C I guess this is for compatibility. However for readability I want to copy it straight away with proper Unicode characters. What and how should I tweak to make that possible?

  Read the article

• Is there a canonical source supporting "all-surrogates"?

  - by user61852

  Background The "all-PK-must-be-surrogates" approach is not present in Codd's Relational Model or any SQL Standard (ANSI, ISO or other). Canonical books seems to elude this restrictions too. Oracle's own data dictionary scheme uses natural keys in some tables and surrogate keys in other tables. I mention this because these people must know a thing or two about RDBMS design. PPDM (Professional Petroleum Data Management Association) recommend the same canonical books do: Use surrogate keys as primary keys when: There are no natural or business keys Natural or business keys are bad ( change often ) The value of natural or business key is not known at the time of inserting record Multicolumn natural keys ( usually several FK ) exceed three columns, which makes joins too verbose. Also I have not found canonical source that says natural keys need to be immutable. All I find is that they need to be very estable, i.e need to be changed only in very rare ocassions, if ever. I mention PPDM because these people must know a thing or two about RDBMS design too. The origins of the "all-surrogates" approach seems to come from recommendations from some ORM frameworks. It's true that the approach allows for rapid database modeling by not having to do much business analysis, but at the expense of maintainability and readability of the SQL code. Much prevision is made for something that may or may not happen in the future ( the natural PK changed so we will have to use the RDBMS cascade update funtionality ) at the expense of day-to-day task like having to join more tables in every query and having to write code for importing data between databases, an otherwise very strightfoward procedure (due to the need to avoid PK colisions and having to create stage/equivalence tables beforehand ). Other argument is that indexes based on integers are faster, but that has to be supported with benchmarks. Obviously, long, varying varchars are not good for PK. But indexes based on short, fix-length varchar are almost as fast as integers. The questions - Is there any canonical source that supports the "all-PK-must-be-surrogates" approach ? - Has Codd's relational model been superceded by a newer relational model ?

  Read the article

• Modular Database Structures

  - by John D

  I have been examining the code base we use in work and I am worried about the size the packages have grown to. The actual code is modular, procedures have been broken down into small functional (and testable) parts. The issue I see is that we have 100 procedures in a single package - almost an entire domain model. I had thought of breaking these packages down - to create sub domains that are centered around the procedure relationships to other objects. Group a bunch of procedures that have 80% of their relationships to three tables etc. The end result would be a lot more packages, but the packages would be smaller and I feel the entire code base would be more readable - when procedures cross between two domain models it is less of a struggle to figure which package it belongs to. The problem I now have is what the actual benefit of all this would really be. I looked at the general advantages of modularity: 1. Re-usability 2. Asynchronous Development 3. Maintainability Yet when I consider our latest development, the procedures within the packages are already reusable. At this advanced stage we rarely require asynchronous development - and when it is required we simply ladder the stories across iterations. So I guess my question is if people know of reasons why you would break down classes rather than just the methods inside of classes? Right now I do believe there is an issue with these mega packages forming but the only benefit I can really pin down to break them down is readability - something that experience gained from working with them would solve.

  Read the article

• Dreaded SQLs

  - by lavanyadeepak

  Dreaded SQLs We used to think that a SQL statement without a where clause is only dangerous right since running that on a server TSQL is just going to impact the entire table like waving the magic wand. For that reason we should cultivate the habit first to write the statement as select and then to modify the select portion as update. Within the T-SQL Window, I would normally prefer the following first: select * from employee where empid in (4,5) and then once I am satisfied with the results, I would go ahead with the following change: --select * delete from employee where empid in (4,5) Today I just discovered another coding horror. This would typically be applicable in a stored procedure and with respect to variable nomenclature. It is always desirable to have a suitable nomenclature for parameters distinct from the column names and internal variables. This would help quicker debugging of the stored procedures besides enhancing the readability. Else in a quick bout of enthusiasm a statement like   if (@CustomerID = @CustomerID) [when the latter is intended to denote the column name and there is a superflous @ prepended], zeroing in on the problem would be little tricky. Had there been a still powerful nomenclature rules then debugging would have been more straight-forward and simpler right?

  Read the article

• CoffeeScript - inability to support progressive adoption

  - by Renso

  First if, what is CoffeeScript?Web definitionsCoffeeScript is a programming language that compiles statement-by-statement to JavaScript. The language adds syntactic sugar inspired by Ruby and Python to enhance JavaScript's brevity and readability, as well as adding more sophisticated features like array comprehension and pattern matching.The issue with CoffeeScript is that it eliminates any progressive adoption. It is a purist approach, kind of like the Amish, if you're not borne Amish, tough luck. So for folks with thousands of lines of JavaScript code will have a tough time to convert it to CoffeeScript. You can use the js2coffee API to convert the JavaScript file to CoffeeScript but in my experience that had trouble converting the files. It would convert the file to CoffeeScript without any complaints, but then when trying to generate the CoffeeScript file got errors with guess what: INDENTATION!Tried to convince the CoffeeScript community on github but got lots of push-back to progressive adoption with comments like "stupid", "crap", "child's comportment", "it's like Ruby, Python", "legacy code" etc. As a matter of interest one of the first comments were that the code needs to be re-designed before converted to CoffeeScript. Well I rest my case then :-)So far the community on github has been very reluctant to even consider introducing some way to define code-blocks, obviously curly braces is not an option as they use it for json object definitions. They also have no consideration for a progressive adoption where some, if not all, JavaScript syntax will be allowed which means all of us in the real world that have thousands of lines of JavaScript will have a real issue converting it over. Worst, I for one lack the confidence that tools like js2coffee will provide the correct indentation that will determine the flow of control in your code!!! Actually it is hard for me to find enough justification for using spaces or tabs to control the flow of code. It is no wonder that C#, C, C++, Java, all enterprise-scale frameworks still use curly braces. Have never seen an enterprise app built with Ruby or PhP.Let me know what your concerns are with CoffeeScript and how you dealt with large scale JavaScript conversions to CoffeeScript.

  Read the article

• Functions that only call other functions. Is this a good practice?

  - by Eric C.

  I'm currently working on a set of reports that have many different sections (all requiring different formatting), and I'm trying to figure out the best way to structure my code. Similar reports we've done in the past end up having very large (200+ line) functions that do all of the data manipulation and formatting for the report, such that the workflow looks something like this: DataTable reportTable = new DataTable(); void RunReport() { reportTable = DataClass.getReportData(); largeReportProcessingFunction(); outputReportToUser(); } I would like to be able to break these large functions up into smaller chunks, but I'm afraid that I'll just end up having dozens of non-reusable functions, and a similar "do everything here" function whose only job is to call all these smaller functions, like so: void largeReportProcessingFunction() { processSection1HeaderData(); calculateSection1HeaderAverages(); formatSection1HeaderDisplay(); processSection1SummaryTableData(); calculateSection1SummaryTableTotalRow(); formatSection1SummaryTableDisplay(); processSection1FooterData(); getSection1FooterSummaryTotals(); formatSection1FooterDisplay(); processSection2HeaderData(); calculateSection1HeaderAverages(); formatSection1HeaderDisplay(); calculateSection1HeaderAverages(); ... } Or, if we go one step further: void largeReportProcessingFunction() { callAllSection1Functions(); callAllSection2Functions(); callAllSection3Functions(); ... } Is this really a better solution? From an organizational point of view I suppose it is (i.e. everything is much more organized than it might otherwise be), but as far as code readability I'm not sure (potentially large chains of functions that only call other functions). Thoughts?

  Read the article

• Breaking up classes and methods into smaller units

  - by micahhoover

  During code reviews a couple devs have recommended I break up my methods into smaller methods. Their justification was (1) increased readability and (2) the back trace that comes back from production showing the method name is more specific to the line of code that failed. There may have also been some colorful words about functional programming. Additionally I think I may have failed an interview a while back because I didn't give an acceptable answer about when to break things up. My inclination is that when I see a bunch of methods in a class or across a bunch of files, it isn't clear to me how they flow together, and how many times each one gets called. I don't really have a good feel for the linearity of it as quickly just by eye-balling it. The other thing is a lot of people seem to place a premium of organization over content (e.g. 'Look at how organized my sock drawer is!' Me: 'Overall, I think I can get to my socks faster if you count the time it took to organize them'). Our business requirements are not very stable. I'm afraid that if the classes/methods are very granular it will take longer to refactor to requirement changes. I'm not sure how much of a factor this should be. Anyway, computer science is part art / part science, but I'm not sure how much this applies to this issue.

  Read the article

• What's so great about Clojure?

  - by marco-fiset

  I've been taking a look at Clojure lately and I stumbled upon this post on Stackoverflow that indicates some projects following best practices, and overall good Clojure code. I wanted to get my head around the language after reading some basic tutorials so I took a look at some "real-world" projects. After looking at ClojureScript and Compojure (two the the aforementioned "good" projects), I just feel like Clojure is a joke. I don't understand why someone would pick Clojure over say, Ruby or Python, two languages that I love and have such a clean syntax and are very easy to pick up whereas Clojure uses so much parenthesis and symbols everywhere that it ruins the readability for me. I think that Ruby and Python are beautiful, readable and elegant. They are easy to read even for someone who does not know the language inside out. However, Clojure is opaque to me and I feel like I must know every tiny detail about the language implementation in order to be able to understand any code. So please, enlighten me! What is so good about Clojure? What is the absolute minimum that I should know about the language in order to appreciate it?

  Read the article

• How to Structure a Trinary state in DB and Application

  - by ABMagil

  How should I structure, in the DB especially, but also in the application, a trinary state? For instance, I have user feedback records which need to be reviewed before they are presented to the general public. This means a feedback reviewer must see the unreviewed feedback, then approve or reject them. I can think of a couple ways to represent this: Two boolean flags: Seen/Unseen and Approved/Rejected. This is the simplest and probably the smallest database solution (presumably boolean fields are simple bits). The downside is that there are really only three states I care about (unseen/approved/rejected) and this creates four states, including one I don't care about (a record which is seen but not approved or rejected is essentially unseen). String column in the DB with constants/enum in application. Using Rating::APPROVED_STATE within the application and letting it equal whatever it wants in the DB. This is a larger column in the db and I'm concerned about doing string comparisons whenever I need these records. Perhaps mitigatable with an index? Single boolean column, but allow nulls. A true is approved, a false is rejected. A null is unseen. Not sure the pros/cons of this solution. What are the rules I should use to guide my choice? I'm already thinking in terms of DB size and the cost of finding records based on state, as well as the readability of code the ends up using this structure.

  Read the article

• Free tool to automatically deskew and crop PDF made up of scanned pages [closed]

  - by Pietro M.

  I have several PDFs made up of book pages' scans. The scans are made from two pages at a time and some of these scans are skewed, making text appear slightly tilted. I'm looking for a tool that could allow me to do an automatic optimization by deskewing the scans without losing readability. I've found the GPL software briss to crop the scans in order to have a 1:1 page ratio instead of 2:1, but I don't have any tool to deskew the pages. I stumbled upon unpaper, another open source tool that seems perfect for what I want to do, but that tool is Linux only and it doesn't work on PDF files directly. Any hint is appreciated. Thank you.

  Read the article

• rsync doesn't use delta transfer on first run

  - by ockzon

  I'm trying to synchronize a large local directory (with a batch file using rsync 3.0.7 on Cygwin, Windows 7 x64, 30k files, 200gb size) to a remote server (Debian x64 with kernel 2.6, rsyncd 3.0.7) over a slow internet connection (90kbyte/s upload). I know almost all files are identical and I verified that using md5sum locally and remotely. However when executing rsync from my local machine every file gets transferred completely for the first time. When I terminate the batch file after a few transfers and run it again then the already transferred files are skipped. But as soon as it gets to a file not yet transferred it uploads the file as a whole again instead of noticing that the checksum is the same locally and remotely. The batch file calling rsync looks like this (backslashes and line brakes added here for readability): c:\cygwin\bin\rsync.exe --verbose --human-readable --progress --stats \ --recursive --ignore-times --password-file pwd.txt \ /cygdrive/d/ftp/data/ \ rsync://[email protected]:33400/data/ | \ c:\cygwin\bin\tee.exe --append rsync.log I experimented using the following parameters in varying combinations but that didn't help either: --checksum --partial --partial-dir=/tmp/.rsync-partial --compress

  Read the article

• Language Design: Are languages like Python and CoffeeScript really more comprehensible?

  - by kittensatplay

  The "Verbally Readable !== Quicker Comprehension" argument on http://ryanflorence.com/2011/case-against-coffeescript/ is really potent and interesting. I and I'm sure others would be very interested in evidence arguing against this. There's clear evidence for this and I believe it. People naturally think in images, not words, so we should be designing languages that aren't similar to human language like English, French, whatever. Being "readable" is quicker comprehension. Most articles on Wikipedia are not readable as they are long, boring, dry, sluggish and very very wordy. Because Wikipedia documents a ton of info, it is not especially helpful when compared to sites with more practical, useful and relevant info. Languages like Python and CoffeScript are "verbally readable" in that they are closer to English syntax. Having programmed firstly and mainly in Python, I'm not so sure this is really a good thing. The second interesting argument is that CoffeeScript is an intermediator, a step between two ends, which may increase the chance of bugs. While CoffeeScript has other practical benefits, this question specifically requests evidence showing support for the counter-case of language "readability"

  Read the article

• @staticmethod vs module-level function

  - by darkfeline

  This is not about @staticmethod and @classmethod! I know how staticmethod works. What I want to know is the proper use cases for @staticmethod vs. a module-level function. I've googled this question, and it seems there's some general agreement that module-level functions are preferred over static methods because it's more pythonic. Static methods have the advantage of being bound to its class, which may make sense if only that class uses it. However, in Python functionality is usually organized by module not class, so usually making it a module function makes sense too. Static methods can also be overridden by subclasses, which is an advantage or disadvantage depending on how you look at it. Although, static methods are usually "functionally pure" so overriding it may not be smart, but it may be convenient sometimes (though this may be one of those "convenient, but NEVER DO IT" kind of things only experience can teach you). Are there any general rule-of-thumbs for using either staticmethod or module-level functions? What concrete advantages or disadvantages do they have (e.g. future extension, external extension, readability)? If possible, also provide a case example.

  Read the article

• When decomposing a large function, how can I avoid the complexity from the extra subfunctions?

  - by missingno

  Say I have a large function like the following: function do_lots_of_stuff(){ { //subpart 1 ... } ... { //subpart N ... } } a common pattern is to decompose it into subfunctions function do_lots_of_stuff(){ subpart_1(...) subpart_2(...) ... subpart_N(...) } I usually find that decomposition has two main advantages: The decomposed function becomes much smaller. This can help people read it without getting lost in the details. Parameters have to be explicitly passed to the underlying subfunctions, instead of being implicitly available by just being in scope. This can help readability and modularity in some situations. However, I also find that decomposition has some disadvantages: There are no guarantees that the subfunctions "belong" to do_lots_of_stuff so there is nothing stopping someone from accidentally calling them from a wrong place. A module's complexity grows quadratically with the number of functions we add to it. (There are more possible ways for things to call each other) Therefore: Are there useful convention or coding styles that help me balance the pros and cons of function decomposition or should I just use an editor with code folding and call it a day? EDIT: This problem also applies to functional code (although in a less pressing manner). For example, in a functional setting we would have the subparts be returning values that are combined in the end and the decomposition problem of having lots of subfunctions being able to use each other is still present. We can't always assume that the problem domain will be able to be modeled on just some small simple types with just a few highly orthogonal functions. There will always be complicated algorithms or long lists of business rules that we still want to correctly be able to deal with. function do_lots_of_stuff(){ p1 = subpart_1() p2 = subpart_2() pN = subpart_N() return assembleStuff(p1, p2, ..., pN) }

  Read the article

• Why are Full GCs not running on my gcInterval I set?

  - by Brad Wood

  ColdFusion 10 Update 10 Windows Server 2008 R2 Java 1.7.0_21 I am trying to figure Full GCs to run every 10 minutes. I have used the gcInterval JVM arg in the past on earlier versions of ColdFusion with success, but I have confirmed with verbose GC logs that Full GCs are still happening on the hour (Unless the Old Gen gets so full that it forces a full collection). Here are the full JVM args from ColdFusion10\cfusion\bin\jvm.config (line breaks added for readability) Is there something else I need to be doing to get this working on ColdFusion 10? java.args= -server -Xms4072m -Xmx4072m -XX:PermSize=512m -XX:MaxPermSize=512m -Dsun.rmi.dgc.client.gcInterval=600000 -Dsun.rmi.dgc.server.gcInterval=600000 -XX:+UseParallelGC -XX:+UseParallelOldGC -Xloggc:gc.log -verbose:gc -XX:+PrintGCDetails -XX:+PrintGCDateStamps -XX:+PrintGCTimeStamps -XX:+UseGCLogFileRotation -XX:NumberOfGCLogFiles=5 -XX:GCLogFileSize=1024K -Xbatch -Dcoldfusion.home={application.home} -Dcoldfusion.rootDir={application.home} -Dcoldfusion.libPath={application.home}/lib -Dorg.apache.coyote.USE_CUSTOM_STATUS_MSG_IN_HEADER=true -Dcoldfusion.jsafe.defaultalgo=FIPS186Random -Dcoldfusion.classPath={application.home}/lib/updates,{application.home}/lib,{application.home}/lib/axis2,{application.home}/gateway/lib/,{application.home}/wwwroot/WEB-INF/flex/jars,{application.home}/wwwroot/WEB-INF/cfform/jars

  Read the article

• Image annotation with Inkscape, Pointer and explanation for objects in picture

  - by None

  I need straight paths with end markers for associating text to parts of the image. For better readability, it needs to be high-contrast, i.e. a white line with black outline. Stroke to path will create a group of a box and a circle from the line with end marker. This makes placement of the markers more difficult, as with the node tool it is just a matter of dragging the end nodes of a line segment. I will try to place the markers as line for now and only finally converting them to an outline.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18  | Next Page >