Search Results

Search found 23556 results on 943 pages for 'programming style'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 168/943 | < Previous Page | 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175  | Next Page >

  • What is the advantage of the 'src/main/java'' convention?

    - by Chris
    I've noticed that a lot of projects have the following structure: Project-A bin lib src main java RootLevelPackageClass.java I currently use the following convention (as my projects are 100% java): Project-A bin lib src RootLevelPackageClass.java I'm not currently using Maven but am wondering if this is a Maven convention or not or if there is another reason. Can someone explain why the first version is so popular these days and if I should adopt this new convention or not? Chris

    Read the article

  • WPF datagrid template

    - by MadSeb
    Hi, I want to make a WPF datagrid look similar to the HTML grid in the following picture: http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/2563/saltoftheearth.jpg Does anyone know an easy way to do this ? Regards, S.

    Read the article

  • special debugging lines (java)

    - by David
    Recently i've found myself writing a lot of methods with what i can only think to call debugging scaffolding. Here's an example: public static void printArray (String[] array, boolean bug) { for (int i = 0; i<array.lenght; i++) { if (bug) System.out.print (i) ; //this line is what i'm calling the debugging scaffolding i guess. System.out.println(array[i]) ; } } in this method if i set bug to true, wherever its being called from maybe by some kind of user imput, then i get the special debugging text to let me know what index the string being printed as at just in case i needed to know for the sake of my debugging (pretend a state of affairs exists where its helpful). All of my questions more or less boil down to the question: is this a good idea? but with a tad bit more objectivity: Is this an effective way to test my methods and debug them? i mean effective in terms of efficiency and not messing up my code. Is it acceptable to leave the if (bug) stuff ; code in place after i've got my method up and working? (if a definition of "acceptability" is needed to make this question objective then use "is not a matter of programing controversy such as ommiting brackets in an if(boolean) with only one line after it, though if you've got something better go ahead and use your definition i won't mind) Is there a more effective way to accomplish the gole of making debugging easier than what i'm doing? Anything you know i mean to ask but that i have forgotten too (as much information as makes sense is appreciated).

    Read the article

  • Checkstyle for Python

    - by oneself
    Is there an application similar to Java's Checkstyle for Python? By which I mean, I tool that analyzes Python code, and can be run as part of continuous integration (e.g. CruiseControl or Hudson). After analyzing it should produce an online accessible report which outlines any problems found in the code. Thank you,

    Read the article

  • debugging scaffolding contingent upon degbugging boolean (java)

    - by David
    Recently i've found myself writing a lot of methods with what i can only think to call debugging scaffolding. Here's an example: public static void printArray (String[] array, boolean bug) { for (int i = 0; i<array.lenght; i++) { if (bug) System.out.print (i) ; //this line is what i'm calling the debugging scaffolding i guess. System.out.println(array[i]) ; } } in this method if i set bug to true, wherever its being called from maybe by some kind of user imput, then i get the special debugging text to let me know what index the string being printed as at just in case i needed to know for the sake of my debugging (pretend a state of affairs exists where its helpful). All of my questions more or less boil down to the question: is this a good idea? but with a tad bit more objectivity: Is this an effective way to test my methods and debug them? i mean effective in terms of efficiency and not messing up my code. Is it acceptable to leave the if (bug) stuff ; code in place after i've got my method up and working? (if a definition of "acceptability" is needed to make this question objective then use "is not a matter of programing controversy such as ommiting brackets in an if(boolean) with only one line after it, though if you've got something better go ahead and use your definition i won't mind) Is there a more effective way to accomplish the gole of making debugging easier than what i'm doing? Anything you know i mean to ask but that i have forgotten too (as much information as makes sense is appreciated).

    Read the article

  • In Java it seems Public constructors are always a bad coding practice

    - by Adam Gent
    This maybe a controversial question and may not be suited for this forum (so I will not be insulted if you choose to close this question). It seems given the current capabilities of Java there is no reason to make constructors public ... ever. Friendly, private, protected are OK but public no. It seems that its almost always a better idea to provide a public static method for creating objects. Every Java Bean serialization technology (JAXB, Jackson, Spring etc...) can call a protected or private no-arg constructor. My questions are: I have never seen this practice decreed or written down anywhere? Maybe Bloch mentions it but I don't own is book. Is there a use case other than perhaps not being super DRY that I missed? EDIT: I explain why static methods are better. .1. For one you get better type inference. For example See Guava's http://code.google.com/p/guava-libraries/wiki/CollectionUtilitiesExplained .2. As a designer of the class you can later change what is returned with a static method. .3. Dealing with constructor inheritance is painful especially if you have to pre-calculate something.

    Read the article

  • Are there any purely functional Schemes or Lisps?

    - by nickname
    Over the past few months, I've put a lot of effort into learning (or attempting to learn) several functional programming languages. I really like math, so they have been very natural for me to use. Simply to be more specific, I have tried Common Lisp, Scheme, Haskell, OCaml, and (a little bit of) Erlang. I did not like the syntax of OCaml and do not have enough Erlang knowledge to make a judgment on it yet. Because of its consistent and beautiful (non-)syntax, I really like Scheme. However, I really do appreciate the stateless nature of purely functional programming languages such as Haskell. Haskell looks very interesting, but the amount of inconsistent and non-extendable syntax really bothered me. In the interest of preventing a Lisp vs Haskell flame war, just pretend that I can't use Haskell for some other reason. Therefore, my question is: Are there any purely functional Schemes (or Lisps in general)?

    Read the article

  • Where does C# and the .NET Framework fail?

    - by Nate Bross
    In my non-programming life, I always attempt to use the approprite tool for the job, and I feel that I do the same in my programming life, but I find that I am choosing C# and .NET for almost everything. I'm finding it hard to come up with (realistic business) needs that cannot be met by .NET and C#. Obviously embedded systems might require something less bloated than the .NET Micro Framework, but I'm really looking for line of business type situations where .NET is not the best tool. I'm primarly a C# and .NET guy since its what I'm the most comfertable in, but I know a fair amount of C++, php, VB, powershell, batch files, and Java, as well as being versed in the web technologes (javascript, html/css). But I'm open minded about it my skill set and I'm looking for cases where C# and .NET are not the right tool for the job. The bottom line here, is that I feel that I'm choosing C# and .NET simply because I am very comfertable with it, so I'm looking for cases where you have chosen something other than .NET, even though you are primarly a .NET developer.

    Read the article

  • Should a connect method return a value?

    - by Matt S
    I was looking at some code I've inherited and I couldn't decided if I like a bit of code. Basically, there is a method that looks like the following: bool Connect(connection parameters){...} It returns true if it connects successfully, false otherwise. I've written code like that in the past, but now, when I see this method I don't like it for a number of reasons. Its easy to write code that just ignores the returned value, or not realize it returns a value. There is no way to return an error message. Checking the return of the method doesn't really look nice: if (!Connect(...)){....} I could rewrite code to throw an exception when it doesn't successfully connect, but I don't consider that an exceptional situation. Instead I'm thinking of refactoring the code as follows: void Connect(Connection Parameters, out bool successful, out string errorMessage){...} I like that other developers have to provide the success and error strings so they know the method has error conditions and I can know return a message Anyone have any thoughts on the matter? Thanks -Matt

    Read the article

  • Way to get VS 2008 to stop forcing indentation on namespaces?

    - by Earlz
    I've never really been a big fan of the way most editors handle namespaces. They always force you to add an extra pointless level of indentation. For instance, I have a lot of code in a page that I would much rather prefer formatted as namespace mycode{ class myclass{ void function(){ foo(); } void foo(){ bar(); } void bar(){ //code.. } } } and not something like namespace mycode{ class myclass{ void function(){ foo(); } void foo(){ bar(); } void bar(){ //code.. } } } Honestly, I don't really even like the class thing being indented most of the time because I usually only have 1 class per file. And it doesn't look as bad here, but when you get a ton of code and lot of scopes, you can easily have indentation that forces you off the screen, and plus here I just used 2-space tabs and not 4-space as is used by us. Anyway, is there some way to get Visual Studio to stop trying to indent namespaces for me like that?

    Read the article

  • Who likes #regions in Visual Studio?

    - by Nicholas
    Personally I can't stand region tags, but clearly they have wide spread appeal for organizing code, so I want to test the temperature of the water for other MS developer's take on this idea. My personal feeling is that any sort of silly trick to simplify code only acts to encourage terrible coding behavior, like lack of cohesion, unclear intention and poor or incomplete coding standards. One programmer told me that code regions helped encourage coding standards by making it clear where another programmer should put his or her contributions. But, to be blunt, this sounds like a load of horse manure to me. If you have a standard, it is the programmer's job to understand what that standard is... you should't need to define it in every single class file. And, nothing is more annoying than having all of your code collapsed when you open a file. I know that cntrl + M, L will open everything up, but then you have the hideous "hash region definition" open and closing lines to read. They're just irritating. My most stead fast coding philosophy is that all programmer should strive to create clear, concise and cohesive code. Region tags just serve to create noise and redundant intentions. Region tags would be moot in a well thought out and intentioned class. The only place they seem to make sense to me, is in automatically generated code, because you should never have to read that outside of personal curiosity.

    Read the article

  • Is there any valid reason radians are used as the inputs to trig function in many modern languages?

    - by johnmortal
    Is there any pressing reason trig functions should use radian inputs in modern programming languages? As far as I know radians are typically ugly to deal with except in three cases: (1) You want to compute an arc length and you know the angle of the arc and (2) You need to do symbolic calculus with trig functions (3) certain infinite series expansion look prettier if the input is in radians. None of these scenarios seem like a worthy justification for every programming language I am familiar with using radian inputs for Sin, Cos, Tangent, etc... The third one sounds good because it might mean one gets faster computations using radians (very slightly faster- the cost of one additional floating point multiplication ) , but I am dubious even of that because most commonly the developer had to take an extra step to put the angle in radians in the first place. The other two are ridiculous justifications for all the added obscurity.

    Read the article

  • Css attribute selector for input type="button" not working on IE7

    - by Cesar Lopez
    Hi all, I am working on a big form and it contains a lot of buttons all over the form, therefore I am trying to get working input[type="button"] in my main css file so it would catch all buttons with out having to add a class to every single one, for some reason this is not working on IE7, after checking on the web it says that IE7 should be supporting this. Also it has to be type="button" and not type="submit" as not all buttons will submit the form. Could anybody give a hint what am I doing wrong? input[type="button"]{ text-align:center; } I have also tried input[type=button] Any help would be very much apreciated.

    Read the article

  • What is more interesting or powerful: Curry/Mercury/Lambda-Prolog/your suggestion.

    - by Bubba88
    Hi! I would like to ask you about what formal system could be more interesting to implement from scratch/reverse engineer. I've looked through some existing and rather open (open in the sense of free/open-source) projects of logical/declarative programming systems. I've decided to make up something similar in my free time, or at least to catch the general idea of implementation. It would be great if some of these systems would provide most of the expressive power and conciseness of modern academic investigations in logic and it's relation with computational models. What would you recommend to study at least at the conceptual level? For example, Lambda-Prolog is interesting particularly because it allows for higher order relations, but AFAIK (I might really be mistaken :)) is based on intuitionist logic and therefore lack the excluded-middle principle; that's generally a disatvantage for me.. I would also welcome any suggestions about modern logical programming systems which are less popular but more expressive/powerful. I guess, this question will need refactoring, but thank you in advance! :)

    Read the article

  • Vim 80 column layout concerns

    - by cdleary
    I feel like the way I do 80-column indication in Vim is incorrect: set columns=80. At times I also set textwidth but I like to be able to see and anticipate line overflow with the set columns alternative. This has some unfortunate side effects -- I can't set number for fear of splitting between files that have different orders of line numbers; i.e. < 100 line files and = 100 line files will require two different set columns values because of the extra column used for the additional digit display. I also start new (g)Vim sessions instead of splitting windows vertically, which forces me to use the window manager's clipboard -- vsplits force me to do set columns every time I open or close a pane, so starting a new session is less hassle. How do you handle the 80-character indication when you want to set numbers, vertically split, etc.?

    Read the article

  • Which syntax is better for return value?

    - by Omar Kooheji
    I've been doing a massive code review and one pattern I notice all over the place is this: public bool MethodName() { bool returnValue = false; if (expression) { // do something returnValue = MethodCall(); } else { // do something else returnValue = Expression; } return returnValue; } This is not how I would have done this I would have just returned the value when I knew what it was. which of these two patterns is more correct? I stress that the logic always seems to be structured such that the return value is assigned in one plave only and no code is executed after it's assigned.

    Read the article

  • Check request type in Django

    - by Art
    While it is recommended to use the following construct to check whether request is POST, if request.method == 'POST': pass It is likely that people will find if request.POST: pass to be more elegant and concise. Are there any reasons not to use it, apart from personal preference?

    Read the article

  • Consistency vs Design Guidelines

    - by Adrian Faciu
    Lets say that you get involved in the development of a large project that is already in development for a long period ( more than one year ). The projects follows some of the current design guidelines, but also has a few different, that are currently discouraged ( mostly at naming guidelines ). Supposing that you can't/aren't allowed to change the whole project: What should be more important, consistency, follow the existing ones and defy current guidelines or the usage of the guidelines, creating differences between modules of the same project ? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Javascript: Inline function vs predefined functions

    - by glaz666
    Can any body throw me some arguments for using inline functions against passing predefined function name to some handler. I.e. which is better: (function(){ setTimeout(function(){ /*some code here*/ }, 5); })(); versus (function(){ function invokeMe() { /*code*/ } setTimeout(invokeMe, 5); })(); Strange question, but we are almost fighting in the team about this

    Read the article

  • Question about best practices and Macros from the book 'C++ Coding Standards'

    - by Victor T.
    From Herb Sutter and Andrei Alexandrescu's 'C++ Coding Standards', Item 16: Avoid Macros under Exceptions for this guideline they wrote: For conditional compilation (e.g., system-dependent parts), avoid littering your code with #ifdefs. Instead, prefer to organize code such that the use of macros drives alternative implementations of one common interface, and then use the interface throughout. I'm having trouble understanding exactly what they mean by this. How can you drive alternate implementations without the use of #ifdef conditional compile macro directives? Can someone provide an example to help illustrate what's being proposed by the above paragraph? Thanks

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175  | Next Page >