Search Results

Search found 15300 results on 612 pages for 'programming languages'.

Page 114/612 | < Previous Page | 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121  | Next Page >

  • What is the value of a let expression

    - by Grzegorz Slawecki
    From what I understand, every code in f# is an expression, including let binding. Say we got the following code: let a = 5 printfn "%d" a I've read that this would be seen by the compiler as let a = 5 in ( printfn "%d" a ) And so the value of all this would be value of inner expression, which is value of printf. On the other hand, in f# interactive: > let a = 5;; val a : int = 5 Which clearly indicates that the value of let expression is the value bound to the identifier. Q: Can anyone explain what is the value of a let expression? Can it be different in compiled code than in F# interactive?

    Read the article

  • What are the benefits of Android way of "saving memory" - explicitly passing Context objects everywhere?

    - by Sarge Borsch
    Turned out, this question is not easy to formulate for me, but let's try. In Android, pretty much any UI object depends on a Context, and has defined lifetime. It also can destroy and recreate UI objects and even whole application process at any time, and so on. This makes coding asynchronous operations correctly not straightforward. (and sometimes very cumbersome) But I never have seen a real explanation, why it's done that way? There are other OSes, including mobile OSes (iOS, for example), that don't do such things. So, what are the wins of Android way (Activities & Contexts)? Does that allow Android applications to use much less RAM, or maybe there are other benefits?

    Read the article

  • How to stop gold-plating and just be content to release working developments

    - by Andy Bowskill
    The development team that I'm a member of has recently adapted to work according to Agile practices. This has personally highlighted the fact that I can't stop myself gold-plating code (and documentation) and I consequently exceed original estimates, when I could've delivered solutions that meet the requirements much earlier. I think my ethic is bordering on the obsessive in that I become too attached to my code and am rarely content to release before I've refactored and perfected it to the nth degree. I am happy that I have realised this but how can I change my attitude/mentality to be content with my progress and release on-time instead?

    Read the article

  • Where to start in creating a massive multiplayer 3D Java game [on hold]

    - by user1373771
    I am planning on creating a massive multiplayer world and I am wondering where to start. I am quite inexperienced in the field of Java but I have researched into it and learned that it is perhaps my best bet in creating this project is Java for the fact that it has a much easier learning curve than C++ to beginners and still capable of holding massive amounts of players at a time. My question is simple: Should I start the game by creating a single player prototype and introducing multiplayer later as I become more experienced or start with multiplayer before I am completely experienced in the field. Thanks for your help!

    Read the article

  • Immutable design with an ORM: How are sessions managed?

    - by Programmin Tool
    If I were to make a site with a mutable language like C# and use NHibernate, I would normally approach sessions with the idea of making them as create only when needed and dispose at request end. This has helped with keeping a session for multiple transactions by a user but keep it from staying open too long where the state might be corrupted. In an immutable system, like F#, I would think I shouldn't do this because it supposes that a single session could be updated constantly by any number of inserts/updates/deletes/ect... I'm not against the "using" solution since I would think that connecting pooling will help cut down on the cost of connecting every time, but I don't know if all database systems do connection pooling. It just seems like there should be a better way that doesn't compromise the immutability goal. Should I just do a simple "using" block per transaction or is there a better pattern for this?

    Read the article

  • A more concise example that illustrates that type inference can be very costly?

    - by mrrusof
    It was brought to my attention that the cost of type inference in a functional language like OCaml can be very high. The claim is that there is a sequence of expressions such that for each expression the length of the corresponding type is exponential on the length of the expression. I devised the sequence below. My question is: do you know of a sequence with more concise expressions that achieves the same types? # fun a -> a;; - : 'a -> 'a = <fun> # fun b a -> b a;; - : ('a -> 'b) -> 'a -> 'b = <fun> # fun c b a -> c b (b a);; - : (('a -> 'b) -> 'b -> 'c) -> ('a -> 'b) -> 'a -> 'c = <fun> # fun d c b a -> d c b (c b (b a));; - : ((('a -> 'b) -> 'b -> 'c) -> ('a -> 'b) -> 'c -> 'd) -> (('a -> 'b) -> 'b -> 'c) -> ('a -> 'b) -> 'a -> 'd = <fun> # fun e d c b a -> e d c b (d c b (c b (b a)));; - : (((('a -> 'b) -> 'b -> 'c) -> ('a -> 'b) -> 'c -> 'd) -> (('a -> 'b) -> 'b -> 'c) -> ('a -> 'b) -> 'd -> 'e) -> ((('a -> 'b) -> 'b -> 'c) -> ('a -> 'b) -> 'c -> 'd) -> (('a -> 'b) -> 'b -> 'c) -> ('a -> 'b) -> 'a -> 'e = <fun> # fun f e d c b a -> f e d c b (e d c b (d c b (c b (b a))));; - : ((((('a -> 'b) -> 'b -> 'c) -> ('a -> 'b) -> 'c -> 'd) -> (('a -> 'b) -> 'b -> 'c) -> ('a -> 'b) -> 'd -> 'e) -> ((('a -> 'b) -> 'b -> 'c) -> ('a -> 'b) -> 'c -> 'd) -> (('a -> 'b) -> 'b -> 'c) -> ('a -> 'b) -> 'e -> 'f) -> (((('a -> 'b) -> 'b -> 'c) -> ('a -> 'b) -> 'c -> 'd) -> (('a -> 'b) -> 'b -> 'c) -> ('a -> 'b) -> 'd -> 'e) -> ((('a -> 'b) -> 'b -> 'c) -> ('a -> 'b) -> 'c -> 'd) -> (('a -> 'b) -> 'b -> 'c) -> ('a -> 'b) -> 'a -> 'f = <fun>

    Read the article

  • Should Developers Perform All Tasks or Should They Specialize?

    - by Bob Horn
    Disclaimer: The intent of this question isn't to discern what is better for the individual developer, but for the system as a whole. I've worked in environments where small teams managed certain areas. For example, there would be a small team for every one of these functions: UI Framework code Business/application logic Database I've also worked on teams where the developers were responsible for all of these areas and more (QA, analsyt, etc...). My current environment promotes agile development (specifically scrum) and everyone has their hands in every area mentioned above. While there are pros and cons to each approach, I'd be curious to know if there are more pros and cons than I list below, and also what the generally feeling is about which approach is better. Devs Do It All Pros 1. Developers may be more well-rounded 2. Developers know more of the system Cons 1. Everyone has their hands in all areas, increasing the probability of creating less-than-optimal results in that area 2. It can take longer to do something with which you are unfamiliar (jack of all trades, master of none) Devs Specialize Pros 1. Developers can create policies and procedures for their area of expertise and more easily enforce them 2. Developers have more of a chance to become deeply knowledgeable about their specific area and make it the best it can be 3. Other developers don't cross boundaries and degrade another area Cons 1. As one colleague put it: "Why would you want to pigeon-hole yourself like that?" (Meaning some developers won't get a chance to work in certain areas.) It's easy to say how wonderful agile is, and that we should do it all, but I'm somewhat of a fan of having areas of expertise. Without that expertise, I've seen code degrade, database schemas become difficult to manage, hack UI code, etc... Let's face it, some people make careers out of doing just UI work, or just database work. It's not that easy to just fill in and do as good of a job as an expert in that area.

    Read the article

  • Develop in trunk and then branch off, or in release branch and then merge back?

    - by Torben Gundtofte-Bruun
    Say that we've decided on following a "release-based" branching strategy, so we'll have a branch for each release, and we can add maintenance updates as sub-branches from those. Does it matter whether we: develop and stabilize a new release in the trunk and then "save" that state in a new release branch; or first create that release branch and only merge into the trunk when the branch is stable? I find the former to be easier to deal with (less merging necessary), especially when we don't develop on multiple upcoming releases at the same time. Under normal circumstances we would all be working on the trunk, and only work on released branches if there are bugs to fix. What is the trunk actually used for in the latter approach? It seems to be almost obsolete, because I could create a future release branch based on the most recent released branch rather than from the trunk. Details based on comment below: Our product consists of a base platform and a number of modules on top; each is developed and even distributed separately from each other. Most team members work on several of these areas, so there's partial overlap between people. We generally work only on 1 future release and not at all on existing releases. One or two might work on a bugfix for an existing release for short periods of time. Our work isn't compiled and it's a mix of Unix shell scripts, XML configuration files, SQL packages, and more -- so there's no way to have push-button builds that can be tested. That's done manually, which is a bit laborious. A release cycle is typically half a year or more for the base platform; often 1 month for the modules.

    Read the article

  • Attributes of an Ethical Programmer?

    - by ahmed
    Software that we write has ramifications in the real world. If not, it wouldn't be very useful. Thus, it has the potential to sweep across the world faster than a deadly manmade virus or to affect society every bit as much as genetic manipulation. Maybe we can't see how right now, but in the future our code will have ever-greater potential for harm or good. Of course, there's the issue of hacking. That's clearly a crime. Or is it that clear? Isn't hacking acceptable for our government in the event of national security? What about for other governments? Cases of life-and-death emergency? Tracking down deadbeat parents? Screening the genetic profile of job candidates? Where is the line drawn? Who decides? Do programmers have responsibility for how their code is used? What if a programmer writes code to pry into confidential information or copy-protected material? Does he bear responsibility along with the person who used the program? What about a programmer who knowingly or unknowingly writes code to "fix the books?" Should he be liable?

    Read the article

  • Which parallel pattern to use?

    - by Wim Van Houts
    I need to write a server application that fetches mails from different mail servers/mailboxes and then needs to process/analyze these mails. Traditionally, I would do this multi-threaded, launching a thread for fetching mails (or maybe one per mailbox) and then process the mails. We are moving more and more to servers where we have 8+ cores, so I would like to make use of these cores as much as possible (and not use 1 at 100% and leave the seven others untouched). So conceptually, as an example, it would be nice that I could write the application in such a way that two cores are "continuously" fetching emails and four cores are "continuously" processing/analyzing the emails (since processing and analyzing mails is more CPU intensive than fetching mails). This seems like a good concept, but after studying some parallel patterns, I'm not really sure how this is best implemented. None of the patterns really fit. I'm working in VS2012, native C++, but I guess from a design point of view this does not really matter and just some pointers on how to organize this would be great!

    Read the article

  • What are the benefits vs costs of comment annotation in PHP?

    - by Patrick
    I have just started working with symfony2 and have run across comment annotations. Although comment annotation is not an inherent part of PHP, symfony2 adds support for this feature. My understanding of commenting is that it should make the code more intelligible to the human. The computer shouldn't care what is in comments. What benefits come from doing this type of annotation versus just putting a command in the normal PHP code? ie- /** * @Route("/{id}") * @Method("GET") * @ParamConverter("post", class="SensioBlogBundle:Post") * @Template("SensioBlogBundle:Annot:post.html.twig", vars={"post"}) * @Cache(smaxage="15") */ public function showAction(Post $post) { }

    Read the article

  • Storing a looong lookup table

    - by inquisitive
    Background The product i am working on has a very long lookup-table. the table contains static data and cannot be auto generated. there are about 500 rows and 10 columns. columns have mostly integers and strings. to complicate the matters, there are actually two such tables. every row in table-1 maps to zero-or-more rows in table-2. we use an SQLite database with two tables. the product installer places the SQLite file in the installation directory. the application is written in dot-net and we use ADO to load the data once on startup. now, the lookup table grows. in each release a month, we add about 10 new entries existing entries are adjusted. every release we fine tune existing entries. The problem a team of (10) developers work on the lookup table. Code goes in the SVN, but the little devil the SQLite does not. this prevents multiple developers to work on it. we do take regular backups of the file, but proper versioning is not possible. we never know who did the breaking change. the worse thing is we dont know if there is any change at all. diff'ing databases is tedious if not impossible. the tables are expected to grow quite large in years to come and we would need developers to work in parallel on it. the data is business critical. we need to be able to audit changes made to it. Question What would be a solution for the problems outlines above? one idea was to transform the whole thing to XML and treat it like just another source file. that way SVN can do the versioning and we can work in parallel. but the data shows relational behavior. with XML we loose the unique and foreign-key constraints. also we cant query it with sql like ease. any help here will be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Is there such a thing as having too many private functions/methods?

    - by shovonr
    I understand the importance of well documented code. But I also understand the importance of self-documenting code. The easier it is to visually read a particular function, the faster we can move on during software maintenance. With that said, I like to separate big functions into other smaller ones. But I do so to a point where a class can have upwards of five of them just to serve one public method. Now multiply five private methods by five public ones, and you get around twenty-five hidden methods that are probably going to be called only once by those public ones. Sure, it's now easier to read those public methods, but I can't help but think that having too many functions is bad practice.

    Read the article

  • Parsing an header with two different version [ID3] avoiding code duplication?

    - by user66141
    I really hope you could give me some interesting viewpoints for my situation, my ways to approach my issue are not to my liking . I am writing an mp3 parser , starting with an ID3v2 parser . Right now I`m working on the extended header parsing , my issue is that the optional header is defined differently in version 2.3 and 2.4 of the tag . The 2.3 version optional header is defined as follows : struct ID3_3_EXTENDED_HEADER{ DWORD dwExtHeaderSize; //Extended header size (either 6 or 8 bytes , excluded) WORD wExtFlags; //Extended header flags DWORD dwSizeOfPadding; //Size of padding (size of the tag excluding the frames and headers) }; While the 2.4 version is defined : struct ID3_4_EXTENDED_HEADER{ DWORD dwExtHeaderSize; //Extended header size (synchsafe int) BYTE bNumberOfFlagBytes; //Number of flag bytes BYTE bFlags; //Flags }; How could I parse the header while minimizing code duplication ? Using two different functions to parse each version sounds less great , using a single function with a different flow for each occasion is similar , any good practices for this kind of issues ? any tips for avoiding code duplication ? anything would be great .

    Read the article

  • Customizing Texmaker

    - by Gabriel Furstenheim
    I use LaTeX a lot but I find quite obnoxious all the crappy files it leaves behind when you compile: .aux, .log... Fortunately TeXMaker has the option "clean" that deletes all of these. However, I don't like having to remember to click on it every time I'm going to close a document, ie I'd like a button that both closes a document and cleans all that stuff. Any hint as how to do it? I suppose if I knew how to access the program code I'd be able to do it as I'd just have to put together two options that already exist. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Develop a small size software using C only for copying same data to multiple external drives simultaneously [on hold]

    - by VSP
    I want to develop a software that can copy the same data to multiple external drives, simultaneously. For example, consider a file Movie and I have 3 external drives to copy it to, and I want to copy Movie to all these 3 drives(these drives can be flash storage or external hard-disk or pen-drive etc. but have one thing in common, i.e. they are all external drives) at the same time, means when I right-click on Movie there has to be 1 option saying Copy to All Drives. It's a sort of mini-project and I want to use C language only. For starting I would like it to work only on Windows OS. What are the requirements of developing this software (not the system requirements but what will I need to develop such a software, like editor,compiler etc.)? I know this type of software must have already been developed but I want to use C language and C Language only. So, is it possible to develop such a software?

    Read the article

  • Dealing with technical debt

    - by Desolate Planet
    This is a question that I often ask myself when working with developers. I've worked at four companies so far, and I've noticed a lack of attention to keeping code clean and dealing with technical debt that hinders future progress in a software app. For example, the first company I worked for had written a database from scratch rather than take something like MySQL and that created hell for the team when refacoring or extending the app. I've always tried to be honest and clear with my manager when he discusses projections, but management doesn't seem interested in fixing what's already there and it's horrible to see the impact it has on team morale and in their attitude towards others. What are your thoughts on the best way to tackle this problem? What I've seen is people packing up and leaving and the company becomes a revolving door with developers coming and and out and making the code worse. How do you communicate this to management to get them interested in sorting out technical debt?

    Read the article

  • Is perfectionism a newbie's friend or enemy? [closed]

    - by Akromyk
    Possible Duplicate: Where do you draw the line for your perfectionism? I see that the development community is very focused on doing things the right way and personally I would like to do the same too, however, is it a good or bad idea for a newbie to focus on design principles, design patterns, and commenting code when getting started, or is it better to let creativity run wild and potentially write sloppy code. Where should a newbie draw the line?

    Read the article

  • Is this high coupling?

    - by Bono
    Question I'm currently working a on an assignment for school. The assignment is to create a puzzle/calculator program in which you learn how to work with different datastructures (such as Stacks). We have generate infix math strings suchs as "1 + 2 * 3 - 4" and then turn them in to postfix math strings such as "1 2 + 3 * 4 -". In my book the author creates a special class for converting the infix notation to postfix. I was planning on using this but whilst I was about to implement it I was wondering if the following is what you would call "high coupling". I have read something about this (nothing that is taught in the book or anything) and was wondering about the aspect (since I still have to grasp it). Problem I have created a PuzzleGenerator class which generates the infix notation of the puzzle (or math string, whatever you want to call it) when it's instantiated. I was going to make a method getAnswer() in which I would instantiate the InToPost class (the class from the book) to convert the infix to postfox notation and then calculate the answer. But whilst doing this I thought: "Is using the InToPost class inside this method a form a high coupling, and would it be better to place this in a different method?" (such as a "convertPostfixToInfix" method, inside the PuzzleGenerator class) Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Draw contour around object in Opengl

    - by Maciekp
    I need to draw contour around 2d objects in 3d space. I tried drawing lines around object(+points to fill the gap), but due to line width, some part of it(~50%) was covering object. I tried to use stencil buffer, to eliminate this problem, but I got sth like this(contour is green): http://goo.gl/OI5uc (sorry I can't post images, due to my reputation) You can see(where arrow points), that some parts of line are behind object, and some are above. This changes when I move camera, but always there is some part, that is covering it. Here is code, that I use for drawing object: glColorMask(1,1,1,1); std::list<CObjectOnScene*>::iterator objIter=ptr->objects.begin(),objEnd=ptr->objects.end(); int countStencilBit=1; while(objIter!=objEnd) { glColorMask(1,1,1,1); glStencilFunc(GL_ALWAYS,countStencilBit,countStencilBit); glStencilOp(GL_REPLACE,GL_KEEP,GL_REPLACE ); (*objIter)->DrawYourVertices(); glStencilFunc(GL_NOTEQUAL,countStencilBit,countStencilBit); glStencilOp(GL_KEEP,GL_KEEP,GL_REPLACE); (*objIter)->DrawYourBorder(); ++objIter; ++countStencilBit; } I've tried different settings of stencil buffer, but always I was getting sth like that. Here is question: 1.Am I setting stencil buffer wrong? 2. Are there any other simple ways to create contour on such objects? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • How Is there anyway to Compile Notepad++?

    - by user44179
    I really like using Notepad++ to write HTML and such. After I started using Ubuntu I looked around for an alternative to Notpad++. I found a thread which lead me to try Geany and a few others, but I really miss Notepad++. Is there anyway I could compile it from the source code to use on Ubuntu? I know its written in C++. Could I just open it in Code::Blocks and compile it? You can get the source here. I wouldn't mind hearing about other alternatives, but really want to know if compiling it is possible. Thanks

    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

  • OO Software Architecture - base class that everything inherits from. Bad/good idea?

    - by ale
    I am reviewing a proposed OO software architecture that looks like this: Base Foo Something Bar SomethingElse Where Base is a static class. My immediate thought was that every object in any class will inherit all the methods in Base which would create a large object. Could this cause problems for a large system? The whole architecture is hierarchical.. the 'tree' is much bigger than this really. Does this sort of architecture have a name (hierarchical?!). What are the known pros and cons?

    Read the article

  • Language Design: Are languages like phyton and coffescript really more comprehendable?

    - by kittensatplay
    the "Verbally Readable !== Quicker Comprehension" arguement on http://ryanflorence.com/2011/case-against-coffeescript/ is really potent and interesting. i and im sure other would be very interested in evidence arguing against this. there's clear evidence for this and i believe it. ppl naturally think in images, not words, so we should be designing languages dissimilar 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, very very wordy, and because wikipedia documents a ton of info, is not especially helpful when compared to much more helpful sites with more practical, useful, and relevant info. but languages like phyton and coffescript are "verbally readable" in that they are closer to the english language syntax, and programming firstly and mainly in python, im not so sure this is really a good thing. the second interesting argument is that coffeescript is an intermediator so thereby another step between to ends, which may increase chances of bugs. while coffeescript has other practical benefits, this question is focused specifically on evidence showing support for the counter-case of language "readability"

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121  | Next Page >