Search Results

Search found 230 results on 10 pages for 'philosophy'.

Page 2/10 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10  | Next Page >

  • using PHP for "Fluid" design(using viewport resolution)

    - by Jreeter
    I need some opinions on using PHP to make completely "scalable" websites.. For instance, using viewport resolution and resizing images, applying dynamic css styles..... In my mind doing this just add's to the complexity and should not be done, it should be fixed or fluid using strictly css and no server-side languages to generate layouts based on the device size.. I need some input and maybe some philosophy on why using this approach is not used at all..

    Read the article

  • What makes good software good?

    - by Jonta
    People probably have a lot of different answers here, like good...: scalability, speed, usability, stability, consistency, completeness, absence of bugs, accessibility, documentation, code-quality and so on. There are a lot of philosophies on development of software. Like the UNIX-philosophy. Often vague and not easy to understand. I am looking for statements such as the one cited below. Which you can ask about the software when it's in the design-stage, is ready to be coded, and has been coded and is ready for launch. The software I am talking about, is of course the software made for the end-user. Ken Rockwell wrote: "I expect that it will let me get more accomplished in less time." (Here one could ask "will this let me get more accomplished in less time?")

    Read the article

  • What is the philosophy/reasoning behind C#'s Pascal-casing method names?

    - by Nocturne
    I'm just starting to learn C#. Coming from a background in Java, C++ and Objective-C, I find C#'s Pascal-casing its method-names rather unique, and a tad difficult to get used to at first. What is the reasoning and philosophy behind this? I'm guessing it is because of C# properties. Unlike in Objective-C, where method names can be exactly the same as an instance variables, this is not the case with C#. I would guess one of the goals with properties (as it is with most of the languages that support it) is to make properties truly indistinguishable from variables and methods. So, one can have an "int x" in C#, and the corresponding property becomes X. To ensure that properties and methods are indistinguishable, all method names I'm guessing are also therefore expected to start with an uppercase letter. (This is just my hypothesis based on what I know of C# so far—I'm still learning). I'm very curious to know how this curious guideline came into being (given that it's not something one sees in most other languages where method names are expected to start with a lowercase letter) (EDIT: By Pascal-casing, I mean PascalCase (which is basically camelCase but starting with a capital letter). Method names typically start with a lowercase letter in most languages)

    Read the article

  • How to make efficient code emerge through unit testing

    - by Jean
    Hi, I participate in a TDD Coding Dojo, where we try to practice pure TDD on simple problems. It occured to me however that the code which emerges from the unit tests isn't the most efficient. Now this is fine most of the time, but what if the code usage grows so that efficiency becomes a problem. I love the way the code emerges from unit testing, but is it possible to make the efficiency property emerge through further tests ? Here is a trivial example in ruby: prime factorization. I followed a pure TDD approach making the tests pass one after the other validating my original acceptance test (commented at the bottom). What further steps could I take, if I wanted to make one of the generic prime factorization algorithms emerge ? To reduce the problem domain, let's say I want to get a quadratic sieve implementation ... Now in this precise case I know the "optimal algorithm, but in most cases, the client will simply add a requirement that the feature runs in less than "x" time for a given environment. require 'shoulda' require 'lib/prime' class MathTest < Test::Unit::TestCase context "The math module" do should "have a method to get primes" do assert Math.respond_to? 'primes' end end context "The primes method of Math" do should "return [] for 0" do assert_equal [], Math.primes(0) end should "return [1] for 1 " do assert_equal [1], Math.primes(1) end should "return [1,2] for 2" do assert_equal [1,2], Math.primes(2) end should "return [1,3] for 3" do assert_equal [1,3], Math.primes(3) end should "return [1,2] for 4" do assert_equal [1,2,2], Math.primes(4) end should "return [1,5] for 5" do assert_equal [1,5], Math.primes(5) end should "return [1,2,3] for 6" do assert_equal [1,2,3], Math.primes(6) end should "return [1,3] for 9" do assert_equal [1,3,3], Math.primes(9) end should "return [1,2,5] for 10" do assert_equal [1,2,5], Math.primes(10) end end # context "Functionnal Acceptance test 1" do # context "the prime factors of 14101980 are 1,2,2,3,5,61,3853"do # should "return [1,2,3,5,61,3853] for ${14101980*14101980}" do # assert_equal [1,2,2,3,5,61,3853], Math.primes(14101980*14101980) # end # end # end end and the naive algorithm I created by this approach module Math def self.primes(n) if n==0 return [] else primes=[1] for i in 2..n do if n%i==0 while(n%i==0) primes<<i n=n/i end end end primes end end end

    Read the article

  • Holiday Book Recommendation

    - by dalton
    I'm after a book to read whilst on holiday. Some criteria: The book has to be relatively short. < 500 pages. I'd prefer a book that changes your thinking, rather than reams of syntax to look at. So the last two years here have been my books: Last year, The Craftsman by Richard Sennet (Changed how I viewed career development, quality) Year before, Zen and The art of motorcycle maintenance (Makes you think about quality, maintenance)

    Read the article

  • What is "elegant" code?

    - by Breton
    I see a lot of lip service and talk about the most "elegant" way to do this or that. I think if you spend enough time programming you begin to obtain a sort of intuitive feel for what it is we call "elegance". But I'm curious. Even if we can look at a bit of code, and say instinctively "That's elegant", or "That's messy", I wonder if any of us really understands what that means. Is there a precise definition for this "elegance" we keep referring to? If there is, what is it? Now, what I mean by a precise definition, is a series of statements which can be used to derive questions about a peice of code, or a program as a whole, and determine objectively, or as objectively as possible, whether that code is "elegant" or not. May I assert, that perhaps no such definition exists, and it's all just personal preference. In this case, I ask you a slightly different question: Is there a better word for "elegance", or a better set of attributes to use for judging code quality that is perhaps more objective than merely appealing to individual intuition and taste? Perhaps code quality is a matter of taste, and the answer to both of my questions is "no". But I can't help but feel that we could be doing better than just expressing wishy washy feelings about our code quality. For example, user interface design is something that to a broad range of people looks for all the world like a field of study that oughtta be 100% subjective matter of taste. But this is shockingly and brutally not the case, and there are in fact many objective measures that can be applied to a user interface to determine its quality. A series of tests could be written to give a definitive and repeatable score to user interface quality. (See GOMS, for instance). Now, okay. is Elegance simply "code quality" or is it something more? Is it something that can be measured? Or is it a matter of taste? Does our profession have room for taste? Maybe I'm asking the wrong questions altogether. Help me out here. Bonus Round If there is such a thing as elegance in code, and that concept is useful, do you think that justifies classifying the field of programming as an "Art" capital A, or merely a "craft". Or is it just an engineering field populated by a bunch of wishful thinking humans? Consider this question in the light of your thoughts about the elegance question. Please note that there is a distinction between code which is considered "art" in itself, and code that was written merely in the service of creating an artful program. When I ask this question, I ask if the code itself justifies calling programming an art. Bounty Note I liked the answers to this question so much, I think I'd like to make a photographic essay book from it. Released as a free PDF, and published on some kind of on demand printing service of course, such as "zazz" or "tiggle" or "printley" or something . I'd like some more answers, please!

    Read the article

  • breakthrough programming .net era

    - by Andrew Florko
    I wonder what are .net technologies / c# language improvements you consider as breakthrough in .net era for the last 5-10 years. I mean technologies that shifted developers mind. For example direct-x made assembler nearly abandoned for game programming in the end of XX century and JQuery extremely simplified ajax web development as well as javascript code reusability. What kind of breakthrough .net technologies you expect in the future and what modern .net technologies are just a light evolution of well known approaches. Do you consider .net 4.0 parallel extensions and other improvements as breakthrough, or may be we have reached the point when nothing radical is expected in modern programming?

    Read the article

  • What does it mean that "Lisp can be written in itself?"

    - by Mason Wheeler
    Paul Graham wrote that "The unusual thing about Lisp-- in fact, the defining quality of Lisp-- is that it can be written in itself." But that doesn't seem the least bit unusual or definitive to me. ISTM that a programming language is defined by two things: Its compiler or interpreter, which defines the syntax and the semantics for the language by fiat, and its standard library, which defines to a large degree the idioms and techniques that skilled users will use when writing code in the language. With a few specific exceptions, (the non-C# members of the .NET family, for example,) most languages' standard libraries are written in that language for two very good reasons: because it will share the same set of syntactical definitions, function calling conventions, and the general "look and feel" of the language, and because the people who are likely to write a standard library for a programming language are its users, and particularly its designer(s). So there's nothing unique there; that's pretty standard. And again, there's nothing unique or unusual about a language's compiler being written in itself. C compilers are written in C. Pascal compilers are written in Pascal. Mono's C# compiler is written in C#. Heck, even some scripting languages have implementations "written in itself". So what does it mean that Lisp is unusual in being written in itself?

    Read the article

  • Do I need to auto-login after account activation?

    - by Art
    This is the standard scenario: User registers on the site User receives an account activation email, clicks link to activate Web site notifies the user that account is activated Now there are at least two pathways: User is taken to the login screen and asked to enter login details User is automatically logged in and taken to a welcome/profile/etc page While there are obvious benefits in (1) as far as the user's experience is concerned, there could be drawbacks as well. Option (2) offers improved security at cost of UX. Which of the scenarios is preferable and why? Any serious flaws in any of them?

    Read the article

  • What can a company possibly gain by making Android phones hard to root?

    - by Chinmay Kanchi
    As someone who recently got a HTC Hero, I had to jump through several hoops to get root access on the phone to install custom firmware. Now, Android is open-source and fairly easy to build and hack on an emulator. It seems to be against the spirit of open-source to lock down a phone so you can't hack the phone itself. Now, often, there are understandable (though not always justifiable) reasons for locking a device down. For example, it might have proprietary software on it or you might want to retain control of the platform. However, Android by its open-source nature makes such concerns moot. Everyone and their dog has access to the userland code, and HTC is forced by the GPL to release kernel sources for each of their devices. So, I fail to see any motivation for alienating the hackers, when there is no possible benefit (in my mind) to be had from doing this. Any idea why a company would want to do this? Is it just short-sightedness or am I missing possible commercial implications of this?

    Read the article

  • Programmers : Would it help us make better software if we treated our creations as our children?

    - by mcnemesis
    Sometime back, while working on some project, I found a lot of challenges in developing my ideas into a viable and really useful solution. But along the way, I developed more passion for seeing the system work - actually, I wrote in my eDiary "...I want to see this child of mine grow...". The work did mature indeed, and is now a successful system employed in analysis of academic progress in my client's schools. What am really wondering is whether it might help me more (or even other programmers) if this notion of approaching software development as if it were a task of raising one's child could help deliver better software and probably more lovable software :)

    Read the article

  • Nowaday C++ projects for Windows

    - by Andrew Florko
    Please, describe nowadays projects you took part in where C++ platform was preferred to .net where .net runtime could be installed. Some of my friends works in SCADA area. They have to program microcontrollers with Linux Embedded and so on. So my friends have nearly no choice in programming tools. But when you had, why did you prefer C++ ?

    Read the article

  • Your software-problem-solution approach

    - by Panoy
    Hi, I am unfamiliar with many software development philosophies/approaches such as these: DDD - Domain Driven Development Design TDD - Test Driven Development BDD - Behavior Driven Development Other 3-letter acronym that ends with "development" and many more My question is, when will you get to decide to choose what kind of philosophy/approach to follow? Espceially the top 3 approach in the list: What is TDD for? Why use DDD for this problem? Mainly your answer would be a case-to-case basis or maybe that there is no single universal philosophy/approach to consider. In that case, could you just tell me what type of project/scenario and why did you use that philosophy/approach.

    Read the article

  • Your software-problem-solution approach

    - by Panoy
    I am unfamiliar with many software development philosophies/approaches such as these: DDD - Domain Driven Development Design TDD - Test Driven Development BDD - Behavior Driven Development Other 3-letter acronym that ends with "development" and many more My question is, when will you get to decide to choose what kind of philosophy/approach to follow? Especially the top 3 approach in the list: What is TDD for? Why use DDD for this problem? Mainly your answer would be a case-to-case basis or maybe that there is no single universal philosophy/approach to consider. In that case, could you just tell me what type of project/scenario and why did you use that philosophy/approach.

    Read the article

  • What is the value in hiding the details through abstractions? Isn't there value in transparency?

    - by user606723
    Background I am not a big fan of abstraction. I will admit that one can benefit from adaptability, portability and re-usability of interfaces etc. There is real benefit there, and I don't wish to question that, so let's ignore it. There is the other major "benefit" of abstraction, which is to hide implementation logic and details from users of this abstraction. The argument is that you don't need to know the details, and that one should concentrate on their own logic at this point. Makes sense in theory. However, whenever I've been maintaining large enterprise applications, I always need to know more details. It becomes a huge hassle digging deeper and deeper into the abstraction at every turn just to find out exactly what something does; i.e. having to do "open declaration" about 12 times before finding the stored procedure used. This 'hide the details' mentality seems to just get in the way. I'm always wishing for more transparent interfaces and less abstraction. I can read high level source code and know what it does, but I'll never know how it does it, when how it does it, is what I really need to know. What's going on here? Has every system I've ever worked on just been badly designed (from this perspective at least)? My philosophy When I develop software, I feel like I try to follow a philosophy I feel is closely related to the ArchLinux philosophy: Arch Linux retains the inherent complexities of a GNU/Linux system, while keeping them well organized and transparent. Arch Linux developers and users believe that trying to hide the complexities of a system actually results in an even more complex system, and is therefore to be avoided. And therefore, I never try to hide complexity of my software behind abstraction layers. I try to abuse abstraction, not become a slave to it. Question at heart Is there real value in hiding the details? Aren't we sacrificing transparency? Isn't this transparency valuable?

    Read the article

  • Do We Indeed Have a Future? George Takei on Star Wars.

    - by Bil Simser
    George Takei (rhymes with Okay), probably best known for playing Hikaru Sulu on the original Star Trek, has always had deep concerns for the present and the future. Whether on Earth or among the stars, he has the welfare of humanity very much at heart. I was digging through my old copies of Famous Monsters of Filmland, a great publication on monster and films that I grew up with, and came across this. This was his reaction to STAR WARS from issue 139 of Famous Monsters of Filmland and was written June 6, 1977. It is reprinted here without permission but I hope since the message is still valid to this day and has never been reprinted anywhere, nobody will mind me sharing it. STAR WARS is the most pre-posterously diverting galactic escape and at the same time the most hideously credible portent of the future yet.While I thrilled to the exploits that reminded me of the heroics of Errol Flynn as Robin Hood, Burt Lancaster as the Crimson Pirate and Buster Crabbe as Flash Gordon, I was at the same time aghast at the phantasmagoric violence technology can place at our disposal. STAR WARS raised in my mind the question - do we indeed have a future?It seems to me what George Lucas has done is to masterfully guide us on a journey through space and time and bring us back face to face with today's reality. STAR WARS is more than science fiction, I think it is science fictitious reality.Just yesterday, June 7, 1977, I read that the United States will embark on the production of a neutron bomb - a bomb that will kill people on a gigantic scale but will not destroy buildings. A few days before that, I read that the Pentagon is fearful that the Soviets may have developed a warhead that could neutralize ours that have a capacity for that irrational concept overkill to the nth power. Already, it seems we have the technology to realize the awesome special effects simulations that we saw in the film.The political scene of STAR WARS is that of government by force and power, of revolutions based on some unfathomable grievance, survival through a combination of cunning and luck and success by the harnessing of technology -  a picture not very much at variance from the political headlines that we read today.And most of all, look at the people; both the heroes in the film and the reaction of the audience. First, the heroes; Luke Skywalker is a pretty but easily led youth. Without any real philosophy to guide him, he easily falls under the influence of a mystical old man believed previously to be an eccentric hermit. Recognize a 1960's hippie or a 1970's moonie? Han Solo has a philosophy coupled with courage and skill. His philosophy is money. His proficiency comes for a price - the highest. Solo is a thoroughly avaricious mercenary. And the Princess, a decisive, strong, self-confident and chilly woman. The audience cheered when she wielded a gun. In all three, I missed qualities that could be called humane - love, kindness, yes, I missed sensuality. I also missed a sense of ideals and faith. In this regard the machines seemed more human. They demonstrated real affection for each other and an occasional poutiness. They exhibited a sense of fidelity and constancy. The machines were humanized and the humans conversely seemed mechanical.As a member of the audience, I was swept up by the sheer romantic escapsim of it all. The deering-dos, the rope swing escape across the pit, the ray gun battles and especially the swash buckle with the ray swords. Great fun!But I just hope that we weren't too intoxicated by the escapism to be able to focus on the recognizable. I hope the beauty of the effects didn't narcotize our sensitivity to violence. I hope the people see through the fantastically well done futuristic mirrors to the disquieting reflection of our own society. I hope they enjoy STAR WARS without being "purely entertained".

    Read the article

  • Google Chrome Extensions: Launch Event (part 4)

    Google Chrome Extensions: Launch Event (part 4) Video Footage from the Google Chrome Extensions launch event on 12/09/09. Aaron Boodman and Erik Kay, technical leads for the Google Chrome extensions team discuss the UI surfaces of Google Chrome extensions and the team's content not chrome philosophy. They also highlight the smooth, frictionless install and uninstall process for Google Chrome's extensions system and present the team's initiatives in the space of security and performance. From: GoogleDevelopers Views: 2963 12 ratings Time: 15:44 More in Science & Technology

    Read the article

  • An introduction to Dart, the structured web programming platform

    An introduction to Dart, the structured web programming platform Learn more about Dart at www.dartlang.org Seth Ladd presents Dart, the open source web programming platform. In this video, Seth gives an overview of the philosophy and motivation of the language, reviews some of the interesting new language features like optional static types and isolates, and gives a demo of the editor. Special thanks to http for recording the video, and for the invitation. From: GoogleDevelopers Views: 2 0 ratings Time: 01:01:44 More in Science & Technology

    Read the article

  • How Orchard works

    - by Bertrand Le Roy
    I just finished writing a long documentation topic on the Orchard project wiki that aims at being a good starting point for developers who want to understand the architecture, structure and general philosophy behind the Orchard CMS. It is not required reading for anyone who only wants to write Orchard modules and themes but hopefully it will help people who want to evaluate the platform and start writing patches. Read it here: http://orchardproject.net/docs/How-Orchard-works.ashx

    Read the article

  • Google Chrome Extensions: Launch Event (part 4)

    Google Chrome Extensions: Launch Event (part 4) Video Footage from the Google Chrome Extensions launch event on 12/09/09. Aaron Boodman and Erik Kay, technical leads for the Google Chrome extensions team discuss the UI surfaces of Google Chrome extensions and the team's content not chrome philosophy. They also highlight the smooth, frictionless install and uninstall process for Google Chrome's extensions system and present the team's initiatives in the space of security and performance. From: GoogleDevelopers Views: 2968 12 ratings Time: 15:44 More in Science & Technology

    Read the article

  • How Orchard works

    - by Latest Microsoft Blogs
    I just finished writing a long documentation topic on the Orchard project wiki that aims at being a good starting point for developers who want to understand the architecture, structure and general philosophy behind the Orchard CMS. It is not required Read More......(read more)

    Read the article

  • Why do Windows Forms / Swing frameworks favour inheritance instead of Composition?

    - by devoured elysium
    Today a professor of mine commented that he found it odd that while SWT's philosophy is one of making your own controls by composition, Swing seems to favour inheritance. I have almost no contact with both frameworks, but from what I remember in C#'s Windows Forms one usually extends controls, just like Swing. Being that generally people tend to prefer composition over inheritance, why didn't Swing/Windows Forms folks favour composition instead of inheritance?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10  | Next Page >