Search Results

Search found 25584 results on 1024 pages for 'visual style renderer'.

Page 143/1024 | < Previous Page | 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150  | Next Page >

  • Is it good practice to use functions just to centralize common code?

    - by EpsilonVector
    I run across this problem a lot. For example, I currently write a read function and a write function, and they both check if buf is a NULL pointer and that the mode variable is within certain boundaries. This is code duplication. This can be solved by moving it into its own function. But should I? This will be a pretty anemic function (doesn't do much), rather localized (so not general purpose), and doesn't stand well on its own (can't figure out what you need it for unless you see where it is used). Another option is to use a macro, but I want to talk about functions in this post. So, should you use a function for something like this? What are the pros and cons?

    Read the article

  • How does a "Variables introduce state"?

    - by kunj2aan
    I was reading the "C++ Coding Standards" and this line was there: Variables introduce state, and you should have to deal with as little state as possible, with lifetimes as short as possible. Doesn't anything that mutates eventually manipulate state? What does "you should have to deal with little state as possible" mean? In an impure language such as C++, isn't state management really what you are doing? And what are other ways to "deal with as little state as possible" other than limiting variable lifetime?

    Read the article

  • Switch or a Dictionary when assigning to new object

    - by KChaloux
    Recently, I've come to prefer mapping 1-1 relationships using Dictionaries instead of Switch statements. I find it to be a little faster to write and easier to mentally process. Unfortunately, when mapping to a new instance of an object, I don't want to define it like this: var fooDict = new Dictionary<int, IBigObject>() { { 0, new Foo() }, // Creates an instance of Foo { 1, new Bar() }, // Creates an instance of Bar { 2, new Baz() } // Creates an instance of Baz } var quux = fooDict[0]; // quux references Foo Given that construct, I've wasted CPU cycles and memory creating 3 objects, doing whatever their constructors might contain, and only ended up using one of them. I also believe that mapping other objects to fooDict[0] in this case will cause them to reference the same thing, rather than creating a new instance of Foo as intended. A solution would be to use a lambda instead: var fooDict = new Dictionary<int, Func<IBigObject>>() { { 0, () => new Foo() }, // Returns a new instance of Foo when invoked { 1, () => new Bar() }, // Ditto Bar { 2, () => new Baz() } // Ditto Baz } var quux = fooDict[0](); // equivalent to saying 'var quux = new Foo();' Is this getting to a point where it's too confusing? It's easy to miss that () on the end. Or is mapping to a function/expression a fairly common practice? The alternative would be to use a switch: IBigObject quux; switch(someInt) { case 0: quux = new Foo(); break; case 1: quux = new Bar(); break; case 2: quux = new Baz(); break; } Which invocation is more acceptable? Dictionary, for faster lookups and fewer keywords (case and break) Switch: More commonly found in code, doesn't require the use of a Func< object for indirection.

    Read the article

  • How to handle interruptions in developer work without losing concentration? [closed]

    - by tomaszs
    I work as a developer for some years now. Mainly the issue why it's antisocial work is because you need to spend much time programming. I've been always the kind of developer who likes to cut off from any sources of distraction and spend several hours on project because in this way i (as i hope) do it faster. There are also other kinds of developers, more social that can chat, read, watch movies while development and they are ok with this and don't hesitate to be interrupted in their work in any time and come back to the project without any problem. For me any distraction is source of frustration because i need to spend substantial time to load my mind with all info about the project and to concentrate back on the tasks. I always thought it's better to do this that way because project is completed faster. But it makes some things difficult: it's hard to chat with someone who needs to have some important info: because you are a bit frustrated when you know you loose your Zen. And sometimes its more important to chat with someone than to loose Zen. Well.. mostly in any other kind of work the ability to be "multitask" is very important. But as a developer and as a person it's also very important to stay social. And i see now that the problem of concentration makes it difficult to make the right chose: the cost of maintaining concentration is just sometimes so damn high! So is it only me that i have so little concentration skills so any interruption is for me a big deal? Maybe it's just i have so bad memory so that i dont remember all issues of a project so long? Or maybe i develop the project in a fashion that requires me to store so much info on my mind only to be able to start working with code? Or should i just accept that being more social will make me finish project slower and in the fashion that i personally consider non 100% productive? And it's just normal thing and i should just accept it and start to live like any other person who has many works and don't assume that programming is in any case other than any other work and i just do fuzz about the whole concentration thing? This is question for mid-pro developers. I think you was having the same dillema in your life. I would be glad if you could help me take the right road here because it's just driving me and i suppose people i work with crazy for years.

    Read the article

  • Anonymous function vs. separate named function for initialization in jquery

    - by Martin N.
    We just had some controversial discussion and I would like to see your opinions on the issue: Let's say we have some code that is used to initialize things when a page is loaded and it looks like this: function initStuff() { ...} ... $(document).ready(initStuff); The initStuff function is only called from the third line of the snippet. Never again. Now I would say: Usually people put this into an anonymous callback like that: $(document).ready(function() { //Body of initStuff }); because having the function in a dedicated location in the code is not really helping with readability, because with the call on ready() makes it obvious, that this code is initialization stuff. Would you agree or disagree with that decision? And why? Thank you very much for your opinion!

    Read the article

  • Struggling with the Single Responsibility Principle

    - by AngryBird
    Consider this example: I have a website. It allows users to make posts (can be anything) and add tags that describe the post. In the code, I have two classes that represent the post and tags. Lets call these classes Post and Tag. Post takes care of creating posts, deleting posts, updating posts, etc. Tag takes care of creating tags, deleting tags, updating tags, etc. There is one operation that is missing. The linking of tags to posts. I am struggling with who should do this operation. It could fit equally well in either class. On one hand, the Post class could have a function that takes a Tag as a parameter, and then stores it in a list of tags. On the other hand, the Tag class could have a function that takes a Post as a parameter and links the Tag to the Post. The above is just an example of my problem. I am actually running into this with multiple classes that are all similar. It could fit equally well in both. Short of actually putting the functionality in both classes, what conventions or design styles exist to help me solve this problem. I am assuming there has to be something short of just picking one? Maybe putting it in both classes is the correct answer?

    Read the article

  • Named arguments (parameters) as a readability aid

    - by Damian Mehers
    A long time ago I programmed a lot in ADA, and it was normal to name arguments when invoking a function - SomeObject.DoSomething(SomeParameterName = someValue); Now that C# supports named arguments, I'm thinking about reverting to this habit in situations where it might not be obvious what an argument means. You might argue that it should always be obvious what an argument means, but if you have a boolean argument, and callers are passing in "true" or "false" then qualifying the value with the name makes the call site more readable. contentFetcher.DownloadNote(note, manual : true); I guess I could create Enums instead of using true or false (Manual, Automatic in this case). What do you think about occasionally using named arguments to make code easier to read?

    Read the article

  • What are your programming idiosyncrasies?

    - by EpsilonVector
    I noticed that I have a peculiar habit of finishing every line with a space. It carries over from my prose writing where a paragraph can have multiple sentences and so it is very common to follow a period with a space, and I end up doing that automatically for every period (or when it comes to programming- semicolon). It started out as something automatic, but I'm so used to this by now that if I miss the space it actually bothers me and I end up returning to that line to input it. What are some of your programming idiosyncrasies?

    Read the article

  • What happened this type of naming convention?

    - by Smith
    I have read so many docs about naming conventions, most recommending both Pascal and Camel naming conventions. Well, I agree to this, its ok. This might not be pleasing to some, but I am just trying to get you opinion why you name you objects and classes in a certain way. What happened to this type of naming conventions, or why are they bad? I want to name a struct, and i prefix it with struct. My reason, so that in IntelliSense, I see all the struct in one place, and anywhere I see the struct prefix, I know it's a struct: structPerson structPosition anothe example is the enum, although I may not prefix it with "enum", but maybe with "enm": enmFruits enmSex again my reason is so that in IntelliSense, I see all my enums in one place. Because, .NET has so many built in data structures, I think this helps me do less searching. Please I used .NET in this example, but I welcome language agnostic answers.

    Read the article

  • VS 11 vs VS 2012 [closed]

    - by Alex
    I'm using Visual Studio 11 Beta at home, mainly for learning purposes. But now it's possible to download VS 2012 RC. Does it make sense to install it instead? Does it have many changes comparing with VS 11? I know that VS 11 doesn't work with Azure, was it fixed in VS 2012? EDIT: Actually I found this: What’s new in the RC since Beta, which describes changes in RC and if I decide to install it, I don't need to uninstall previous version: We’ve enabled upgrade from beta to RC, so if you’re using the same product edition (e.g. Professional, Ultimate, etc.), you do not need to uninstall the beta first. Simply run the Visual Studio 2012 RC installer, which will uninstall the right Beta bits and lay down the RC bits, all at once.

    Read the article

  • How to get rid of the background gradient of the inline GtkToolbar?

    - by Dima
    When you run the below code, it will show an inline toolbar in a window. Notice how the inline toolbar has a stand-out backbround. Is there a way to apply CSS to get rid of it and make blend with regular window color? #!/usr/bin/python3 from gi.repository import Gtk button_names = [Gtk.STOCK_ABOUT, Gtk.STOCK_ADD, Gtk.STOCK_REMOVE, Gtk.STOCK_QUIT] buttons = [Gtk.ToolButton.new_from_stock(name) for name in button_names] toolbar = Gtk.Toolbar() toolbar.set_show_arrow(False) for button in buttons: toolbar.insert(button, -1) style_context = toolbar.get_style_context() style_context.add_class(Gtk.STYLE_CLASS_INLINE_TOOLBAR) grid = Gtk.Grid() grid.add(toolbar) label = Gtk.Label() grid.add(label) window = Gtk.Window() window.set_size_request(200, 50) window.add(grid) window.connect('delete-event', Gtk.main_quit) window.show_all() Gtk.main()

    Read the article

  • Is there an excuse for excessively short variable names?

    - by KChaloux
    This has become a large frustration with the codebase I'm currently working in; many of our variable names are short and undescriptive. I'm the only developer left on the project, and there isn't documentation as to what most of them do, so I have to spend extra time tracking down what they represent. For example, I was reading over some code that updates the definition of an optical surface. The variables set at the start were as follows: double dR, dCV, dK, dDin, dDout, dRin, dRout dR = Convert.ToDouble(_tblAsphere.Rows[0].ItemArray.GetValue(1)); dCV = convert.ToDouble(_tblAsphere.Rows[1].ItemArray.GetValue(1)); ... and so on Maybe it's just me, but it told me essentially nothing about what they represented, which made understanding the code further down difficult. All I knew was that it was a variable parsed out specific row from a specific table, somewhere. After some searching, I found out what they meant: dR = radius dCV = curvature dK = conic constant dDin = inner aperture dDout = outer aperture dRin = inner radius dRout = outer radius I renamed them to essentially what I have up there. It lengthens some lines, but I feel like that's a fair trade off. This kind of naming scheme is used throughout a lot of the code however. I'm not sure if it's an artifact from developers who learned by working with older systems, or if there's a deeper reason behind it. Is there a good reason to name variables this way, or am I justified in updating them to more descriptive names as I come across them?

    Read the article

  • Should you create a class within a method?

    - by Amndeep7
    I have made a program using Java that is an implementation of this project: http://nifty.stanford.edu/2009/stone-random-art/sml/index.html. Essentially, you create a mathematical expression and, using the pixel coordinate as input, make a picture. After I initially implemented this in serial, I then implemented it in parallel due to the fact that if the picture size is too large or if the mathematical expression is too complex (especially considering the fact that I made the expression recursively), it takes a really long time. During this process, I realized that I needed two classes which implemented the Runnable interface as I had to put in parameters for the run method, which you aren't allowed to do directly. One of these classes ended up being a medium sized static inner class (not large enough to make an independent class file for it though). The other though, just needed a few parameters to determine some indexes and the size of the for loop that I was making run in parallel - here it is: class DataConversionRunnable implements Runnable { int jj, kk, w; DataConversionRunnable(int column, int matrix, int wid) { jj = column; kk = matrix; w = wid; } public void run() { for(int i = 0; i < w; i++) colorvals[kk][jj][i] = (int) ((raw[kk][jj][i] + 1.0) * 255 / 2.0); increaseCounter(); } } My question is should I make it a static inner class or can I just create it in a method? What is the general programming convention followed in this case?

    Read the article

  • Elegant ways to handle if(if else) else

    - by Benjol
    This is a minor niggle, but every time I have to code something like this, the repetition bothers me, but I'm not sure that any of the solutions aren't worse. if(FileExists(file)) { contents = OpenFile(file); // <-- prevents inclusion in if if(SomeTest(contents)) { DoSomething(contents); } else { DefaultAction(); } } else { DefaultAction(); } Is there a name for this kind of logic? Am I a tad too OCD? I'm open to evil code suggestions, if only for curiosity's sake...

    Read the article

  • organization of DLL linked functions

    - by m25
    So this is a code organization question. I got my basic code working but when I expand it will be terrible. I have a DLL that I don't have a .lib for. Therefore I have to use the whole loadLibrary()/getprocaddress() combo. it works great. But this DLL that i'm referencing at 100+ functions. my current process is (1) typedef a type for the function. or typedef short(_stdcall *type1)(void); then (2) assign a function name that I want to use such as type1 function_1, then (3) I do the whole LoadLibrary, then do something like function_1 = (type1)GetProcAddress(hinstLib, "_mangled_funcName@5"); normally I would like to do all of my function definitions in a header file but because I have to do use the load library function, its not that easy. the code will be a mess. Right now i'm doing (1) and (2) in a header file and was considering making a function in another .cpp file to do the load library and dump all of the (3)'s in there. I considered using a namespace for the functions so I can use them in the main function and not have to pass over to the other function. Any other tips on how to organize this code to where it is readable and organized? My goals are to be able to use function_1 as a regular function in the main code. if I have to a ref::function_1 that would be okay but I would prefer to avoid it. this code for all practical purposes is just plane C at the moment. thanks in advance for any advice!

    Read the article

  • "A", "an", and "the" in method and function names: What's your take?

    - by Mike Spross
    I'm sure many of us have seen method names like this at one point or another: UploadTheFileToTheServerPlease CreateATemporaryFile WriteTheRecordToTheDatabase ResetTheSystemClock That is, method names that are also grammatically-correct English sentences, and include extra words purely to make them read like prose. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of such "literal" method names, and prefer to be succint, while still being as clear as possible. To me, words like "a", "an", and "the" just look plain awkward in method names, and it makes method names needlessly long without really adding anything useful. I would prefer the following method names for the previous examples: UploadFileToServer CreateTemporaryFile WriteOutRecord ResetSystemClock In my experience, this is far more common than the other approach of writing out the lengthier names, but I have seen both styles and was curious to see what other people's thoughts were on these two approaches. So, are you in the "method names that read like prose" camp or the "method names that say what I mean but read out loud like a bad foreign-language-to-English translation" camp?

    Read the article

  • How do I organize a GUI application for passing around events and for setting up reads from a shared resource

    - by Savanni D'Gerinel
    My tools involved here are GTK and Haskell. My questions are probably pretty trivial for anyone who has done significant GUI work, but I've been off in the equivalent of CGI applications for my whole career. I'm building an application that displays tabular data, displays the same data in a graph form, and has an edit field for both entering new data and for editing existing data. After asking about sharing resources, I decided that all of the data involved will be stored in an MVar so that every component can just read the current state from the MVar. All of that works, but now it is time for me to rearrange the application so that it can be interactive. With that in mind, I have three widgets: a TextView (for editing), a TreeView (for displaying the data), and a DrawingArea (for displaying the data as a graph). I THINK I need to do two things, and the core of my question is, are these the right things, or is there a better way. Thing the first: All event handlers, those functions that will be called any time a redisplay is needed, need to be written at a high level and then passed into the function that actually constructs the widget to begin with. For instance: drawStatData :: DrawingArea -> MVar Core.ST -> (Core.ST -> SetRepWorkout.WorkoutStore) -> IO () createStatView :: (DrawingArea -> IO ()) -> IO VBox createUI :: MVar Core.ST -> (Core.ST -> SetRepWorkout.WorkoutStore) -> IO HBox createUI storeMVar field = do graphs <- createStatView (\area -> drawStatData area storeMVar field) hbox <- hBoxNew False 10 boxPackStart hbox graphs PackNatural 0 return hbox In this case, createStatView builds up a VBox that contains a DrawingArea to graph the data and potentially other widgets. It attaches drawStatData to the realize and exposeEvent events for the DrawingArea. I would do something similar for the TreeView, but I am not completely sure what since I have not yet done it and what I am thinking of would involve replacing the TreeModel every time the TreeView needs to be updated. My alternative to the above would be... drawStatData :: DrawingArea -> MVar Core.ST -> (Core.ST -> SetRepWorkout.WorkoutStore) -> IO () createStatView :: IO (VBox, DrawingArea) ... but in this case, I would arrange createUI like so: createUI :: MVar Core.ST -> (Core.ST -> SetRepWorkout.WorkoutStore) -> IO HBox createUI storeMVar field = do (graphbox, graph) <- createStatView (\area -> drawStatData area storeMVar field) hbox <- hBoxNew False 10 boxPackStart hbox graphs PackNatural 0 on graph realize (drawStatData graph storeMVar field) on graph exposeEvent (do liftIO $ drawStatData graph storeMVar field return ()) return hbox I'm not sure which is better, but that does lead me to... Thing the second: it will be necessary for me to rig up an event system so that various events can send signals all the way to my widgets. I'm going to need a mediator of some kind to pass events around and to translate application-semantic events to the actual events that my widgets respond to. Is it better for me to pass my addressable widgets up the call stack to the level where the mediator lives, or to pass the mediator down the call stack and have the widgets register directly with it? So, in summary, my two questions: 1) pass widgets up the call stack to a global mediator, or pass the global mediator down and have the widgets register themselves to it? 2) pass my redraw functions to the builders and have the builders attach the redraw functions to the constructed widgets, or pass the constructed widgets back and have a higher level attach the redraw functions (and potentially link some widgets together)? Okay, and... 3) Books or wikis about GUI application architecture, preferably coherent architectures where people aren't arguing about minute details? The application in its current form (displays data but does not write data or allow for much interaction) is available at https://bitbucket.org/savannidgerinel/fitness . You can run the application by going to the root directory and typing runhaskell -isrc src/Main.hs data/ or... cabal build dist/build/fitness/fitness data/ You may need to install libraries, but cabal should tell you which ones.

    Read the article

  • Should I return iterators or more sophisticated objects?

    - by Erik
    Say I have a function that creates a list of objects. If I want to return an iterator, I'll have to return iter(a_list). Should I do this, or just return the list as it is? My motivation for returning an iterator is that this would keep the interface smaller -- what kind of container I create to collect the objects is essentially an implementation detail On the other hand, it would be wasteful if the user of my function may have to recreate the same container from the iterator which would be bad for performance.

    Read the article

  • Should comments say WHY the program is doing what it is doing? (opinion on a dictum by the inventor of Forth)

    - by AKE
    The often provocative Chuck Moore (inventor of the Forth language) gave the following advice (paraphrasing): "Use comments sparingly. Programs are self-documenting, with a modicum of help from mnemonics. Comments should say WHAT the program is doing, not HOW." My question: Should comments say WHY the program is doing what it is doing? Update: In addition to the answers below, these two provide additional insight. Beginner's guide to writing comments? http://programmers.stackexchange.com/a/98609/62203

    Read the article

  • Deciding between obj->func() and func(obj)

    - by GSto
    I was thinking about this when I was starting to set up some code for a new project: are there any rules of thumb for when a method should be part of an object, and when it should be a stand alone function that takes an object as a parameter? EDIT: as pointed out in a comment, this can depend on language. I was working in C++ when it came to mind, though I'm this is an issue across a number of languages (and would still love to see answers that pertain to them).

    Read the article

  • Should I use parentheses in logical statements even where not necessary?

    - by Jeff Bridgman
    Let's say I have a boolean condition a AND b OR c AND d and I'm using a language where AND has a higher order of operation precedent than OR. I could write this line of code: If (a AND b) OR (c AND d) Then ... But really, that's equivalent to: If a AND b OR c AND d Then ... Are there any arguments in for or against including the extraneous parentheses? Does practical experience suggest that it is worth including them for readability? Or is it a sign that a developer needs to really sit down and become confident in the basics of their language?

    Read the article

  • Simplicity-efficiency tradeoff

    - by sarepta
    The CTO called to inform me of a new project and in the process told me that my code is weird. He explained that my colleagues find it difficult to understand due to the overly complex, often new concepts and technologies used, which they are not familiar with. He asked me to maintain a simple code base and to think of the others that will inherit my changes. I've put considerable time into mastering LINQ and thread-safe coding. However, others don't seem to care nor are impressed by anything other than their paycheck. Do I have to keep it simple (stupid), just because others are not familiar with best practices and efficient coding? Or should I continue to do what I find best and write code my way?

    Read the article

  • is there any elegant way to analyze an engineer's process?

    - by NewAlexandria
    Plenty of sentiment exists that measuring commits is inappropriate. Has any study been done that tries to draw in more sources than commits - such as: browsing patterns IDE work (pre-commit) idle time multitasking I can't think of an easy way to do these measures, but I wonder if any study has been done. On a personal note, I do believe that reflection on one's own 'metrics' could be valuable regardless of (or in the absence of) using these for performance eval. I.E. an un-biased way to reflect on your habits. But this is a discussion matter beyond Q&A.

    Read the article

  • How to get feedback from the community on large chunks of code?

    - by MainMa
    Code Review.SE is great when you need feedback on a precise, short piece of code. But where to get similar feedback about the code itself when: you have thousands of LOC, don't have colleagues in your workplace ready or willing to review the code¹, don't have thousands of dollars to spend for a professional review by a third party developer?² Places like CodePlex are a good idea to get your project known³, but from what I've seen, the feedback you get on known projects are consumer feedback, i.e. concerns the bugs and feature requests, not the quality of the source code itself. What are the social way to get the community involved in the code review of the codebase of a certain size for an open source project which doesn't have the scale of Firefox or similar products? ¹ Which is the case for most personal and open source projects, or projects done in companies where the practice of regular and complete code review is nonexistent. ² Which is, again, the case for most personal and open source projects. ³ Even if too many projects published on CodePlex never get known, either because nobody cares or because they are presented not very well.

    Read the article

  • How to camel-case where consecutive words have numbers?

    - by Rob I
    Just wondering if anybody has a good convention to follow in this corner-corner-corner case. I really use Java but figured the C# folks might have some good insight too. Say I am trying to name a class where two consecutive words in the class name are numeric (note that the same question could asked about identifier names). Can't get a great example, but think of something like "IEEE 802 16 bit value". Combining consecutive acronyms is doable if you accept classnames such as HttpUrlConnection. But it seriously makes me throw up a little to think of naming the class IEEE80216BitValue. If I had to pick, I'd say that's even worse than IEEE802_16BitValue which looks like a bad mistake. For small numbers, I'd consider IEEE802SixteenBitValue but that doesn't scale that well. Anyone out there have a convention? Seems like Microsoft's naming guidelines are the only ones that describe acronym naming in enough detail to get the job done, but nobody has addressed numbers in classnames.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150  | Next Page >