Search Results

Search found 18926 results on 758 pages for 'systems programming'.

Page 3/758 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • First languages with generic programming support

    - by oluies
    Which was the first language with generic programming support, and what was the first major staticly typed language (widely used) with generics support. Generics implement the concept of parameterized types to allow for multiple types. The term generic means "pertaining to or appropriate to large groups of classes." I have seen the following mentions of "first": First-order parametric polymorphism is now a standard element of statically typed programming languages. Starting with System F [20,42] and functional programming lan- guages, the constructs have found their way into mainstream languages such as Java and C#. In these languages, first-order parametric polymorphism is usually called generics. From "Generics of a Higher Kind", Adriaan Moors, Frank Piessens, and Martin Odersky Generic programming is a style of computer programming in which algorithms are written in terms of to-be-specified-later types that are then instantiated when needed for specific types provided as parameters. This approach, pioneered by Ada in 1983 From Wikipedia Generic Programming

    Read the article

  • Programming Language, Turing Completeness and Turing Machine

    - by Amumu
    A programming language is said to be Turing Completeness if it can successfully simulate a universal TM. Let's take functional programming language for example. In functional programming, function has highest priority over anything. You can pass functions around like any primitives or objects. This is called first class function. In functional programming, your function does not produce side effect i.e. output strings onto screen, change the state of variables outside of its scope. Each function has a copy of its own objects if the objects are passed from the outside, and the copied objects are returned once the function finishes its job. Each function written purely in functional style is completely independent to anything outside of it. Thus, the complexity of the overall system is reduced. This is referred as referential transparency. In functional programming, each function can have its local variables kept its values even after the function exits. This is done by the garbage collector. The value can be reused the next time the function is called again. This is called memoization. A function usually should solve only one thing. It should model only one algorithm to answer a problem. Do you think that a function in a functional language with above properties simulate a Turing Machines? Functions (= algorithms = Turing Machines) are able to be passed around as input and returned as output. TM also accepts and simulate other TMs Memoization models the set of states of a Turing Machine. The memorized variables can be used to determine states of a TM (i.e. which lines to execute, what behavior should it take in a give state ...). Also, you can use memoization to simulate your internal tape storage. In language like C/C++, when a function exits, you lose all of its internal data (unless you store it elsewhere outside of its scope). The set of symbols are the set of all strings in a programming language, which is the higher level and human-readable version of machine code (opcode) Start state is the beginning of the function. However, with memoization, start state can be determined by memoization or if you want, switch/if-else statement in imperative programming language. But then, you can't Final accepting state when the function returns a value, or rejects if an exception happens. Thus, the function (= algorithm = TM) is decidable. Otherwise, it's undecidable. I'm not sure about this. What do you think? Is my thinking true on all of this? The reason I bring function in functional programming because I think it's closer to the idea of TM. What experience with other programming languages do you have which make you feel the idea of TM and the ideas of Computer Science in general? Can you specify how you think?

    Read the article

  • First languages with generic programming support

    - by oluies
    Which was the first language with generic programming support, and what was the first major staticly typed language (widely used) with generics support. Generics implement the concept of parameterized types to allow for multiple types. The term generic means "pertaining to or appropriate to large groups of classes." I have seen the following mentions of "first": First-order parametric polymorphism is now a standard element of statically typed programming languages. Starting with System F [20,42] and functional programming lan- guages, the constructs have found their way into mainstream languages such as Java and C#. In these languages, first-order parametric polymorphism is usually called generics. From "Generics of a Higher Kind", Adriaan Moors, Frank Piessens, and Martin Odersky Generic programming is a style of computer programming in which algorithms are written in terms of to-be-specified-later types that are then instantiated when needed for specific types provided as parameters. This approach, pioneered by Ada in 1983 From Wikipedia Generic Programming

    Read the article

  • How to Avoid Your Next 12-Month Science Project

    - by constant
    While most customers immediately understand how the magic of Oracle's Hybrid Columnar Compression, intelligent storage servers and flash memory make Exadata uniquely powerful against home-grown database systems, some people think that Exalogic is nothing more than a bunch of x86 servers, a storage appliance and an InfiniBand (IB) network, built into a single rack. After all, isn't this exactly what the High Performance Computing (HPC) world has been doing for decades? On the surface, this may be true. And some people tried exactly that: They tried to put together their own version of Exalogic, but then they discover there's a lot more to building a system than buying hardware and assembling it together. IT is not Ikea. Why is that so? Could it be there's more going on behind the scenes than merely putting together a bunch of servers, a storage array and an InfiniBand network into a rack? Let's explore some of the special sauce that makes Exalogic unique and un-copyable, so you can save yourself from your next 6- to 12-month science project that distracts you from doing real work that adds value to your company. Engineering Systems is Hard Work! The backbone of Exalogic is its InfiniBand network: 4 times better bandwidth than even 10 Gigabit Ethernet, and only about a tenth of its latency. What a potential for increased scalability and throughput across the middleware and database layers! But InfiniBand is a beast that needs to be tamed: It is true that Exalogic uses a standard, open-source Open Fabrics Enterprise Distribution (OFED) InfiniBand driver stack. Unfortunately, this software has been developed by the HPC community with fastest speed in mind (which is good) but, despite the name, not many other enterprise-class requirements are included (which is less good). Here are some of the improvements that Oracle's InfiniBand development team had to add to the OFED stack to make it enterprise-ready, simply because typical HPC users didn't have the need to implement them: More than 100 bug fixes in the pieces that were not related to the Message Passing Interface Protocol (MPI), which is the protocol that HPC users use most of the time, but which is less useful in the enterprise. Performance optimizations and tuning across the whole IB stack: From Switches, Host Channel Adapters (HCAs) and drivers to low-level protocols, middleware and applications. Yes, even the standard HPC IB stack could be improved in terms of performance. Ethernet over IB (EoIB): Exalogic uses InfiniBand internally to reach high performance, but it needs to play nicely with datacenters around it. That's why Oracle added Ethernet over InfiniBand technology to it that allows for creating many virtual 10GBE adapters inside Exalogic's nodes that are aggregated and connected to Exalogic's IB gateway switches. While this is an open standard, it's up to the vendor to implement it. In this case, Oracle integrated the EoIB stack with Oracle's own IB to 10GBE gateway switches, and made it fully virtualized from the beginning. This means that Exalogic customers can completely rewire their server infrastructure inside the rack without having to physically pull or plug a single cable - a must-have for every cloud deployment. Anybody who wants to match this level of integration would need to add an InfiniBand switch development team to their project. Or just buy Oracle's gateway switches, which are conveniently shipped with a whole server infrastructure attached! IPv6 support for InfiniBand's Sockets Direct Protocol (SDP), Reliable Datagram Sockets (RDS), TCP/IP over IB (IPoIB) and EoIB protocols. Because no IPv6 = not very enterprise-class. HA capability for SDP. High Availability is not a big requirement for HPC, but for enterprise-class application servers it is. Every node in Exalogic's InfiniBand network is connected twice for redundancy. If any cable or port or HCA fails, there's always a replacement link ready to take over. This requires extra magic at the protocol level to work. So in addition to Weblogic's failover capabilities, Oracle implemented IB automatic path migration at the SDP level to avoid unnecessary failover operations at the middleware level. Security, for example spoof-protection. Another feature that is less important for traditional users of InfiniBand, but very important for enterprise customers. InfiniBand Partitioning and Quality-of-Service (QoS): One of the first questions we get from customers about Exalogic is: “How can we implement multi-tenancy?” The answer is to partition your IB network, which effectively creates many networks that work independently and that are protected at the lowest networking layer possible. In addition to that, QoS allows administrators to prioritize traffic flow in multi-tenancy environments so they can keep their service levels where it matters most. Resilient IB Fabric Management: InfiniBand is a self-managing network, so a lot of the magic lies in coming up with the right topology and in teaching the subnet manager how to properly discover and manage the network. Oracle's Infiniband switches come with pre-integrated, highly available fabric management with seamless integration into Oracle Enterprise Manager Ops Center. In short: Oracle elevated the OFED InfiniBand stack into an enterprise-class networking infrastructure. Many years and multiple teams of manpower went into the above improvements - this is something you can only get from Oracle, because no other InfiniBand vendor can give you these features across the whole stack! Exabus: Because it's not About the Size of Your Network, it's How You Use it! So let's assume that you somehow were able to get your hands on an enterprise-class IB driver stack. Or maybe you don't care and are just happy with the standard OFED one? Anyway, the next step is to actually leverage that InfiniBand performance. Here are the choices: Use traditional TCP/IP on top of the InfiniBand stack, Develop your own integration between your middleware and the lower-level (but faster) InfiniBand protocols. While more bandwidth is always a good thing, it's actually the low latency that enables superior performance for your applications when running on any networking infrastructure: The lower the latency, the faster the response travels through the network and the more transactions you can close per second. The reason why InfiniBand is such a low latency technology is that it gets rid of most if not all of your traditional networking protocol stack: Data is literally beamed from one region of RAM in one server into another region of RAM in another server with no kernel/drivers/UDP/TCP or other networking stack overhead involved! Which makes option 1 a no-go: Adding TCP/IP on top of InfiniBand is like adding training wheels to your racing bike. It may be ok in the beginning and for development, but it's not quite the performance IB was meant to deliver. Which only leaves option 2: Integrating your middleware with fast, low-level InfiniBand protocols. And this is what Exalogic's "Exabus" technology is all about. Here are a few Exabus features that help applications leverage the performance of InfiniBand in Exalogic: RDMA and SDP integration at the JDBC driver level (SDP), for Oracle Weblogic (SDP), Oracle Coherence (RDMA), Oracle Tuxedo (RDMA) and the new Oracle Traffic Director (RDMA) on Exalogic. Using these protocols, middleware can communicate a lot faster with each other and the Oracle database than by using standard networking protocols, Seamless Integration of Ethernet over InfiniBand from Exalogic's Gateway switches into the OS, Oracle Weblogic optimizations for handling massive amounts of parallel transactions. Because if you have an 8-lane Autobahn, you also need to improve your ramps so you can feed it with many cars in parallel. Integration of Weblogic with Oracle Exadata for faster performance, optimized session management and failover. As you see, “Exabus” is Oracle's word for describing all the InfiniBand enhancements Oracle put into Exalogic: OFED stack enhancements, protocols for faster IB access, and InfiniBand support and optimizations at the virtualization and middleware level. All working together to deliver the full potential of InfiniBand performance. Who else has 100% control over their middleware so they can develop their own low-level protocol integration with InfiniBand? Even if you take an open source approach, you're looking at years of development work to create, test and support a whole new networking technology in your middleware! The Extras: Less Hassle, More Productivity, Faster Time to Market And then there are the other advantages of Engineered Systems that are true for Exalogic the same as they are for every other Engineered System: One simple purchasing process: No headaches due to endless RFPs and no “Will X work with Y?” uncertainties. Everything has been engineered together: All kinds of bugs and problems have been already fixed at the design level that would have only manifested themselves after you have built the system from scratch. Everything is built, tested and integrated at the factory level . Less integration pain for you, faster time to market. Every Exalogic machine world-wide is identical to Oracle's own machines in the lab: Instant replication of any problems you may encounter, faster time to resolution. Simplified patching, management and operations. One throat to choke: Imagine finger-pointing hell for systems that have been put together using several different vendors. Oracle's Engineered Systems have a single phone number that customers can call to get their problems solved. For more business-centric values, read The Business Value of Engineered Systems. Conclusion: Buy Exalogic, or get ready for a 6-12 Month Science Project And here's the reason why it's not easy to "build your own Exalogic": There's a lot of work required to make such a system fly. In fact, anybody who is starting to "just put together a bunch of servers and an InfiniBand network" is really looking at a 6-12 month science project. And the outcome is likely to not be very enterprise-class. And it won't have Exalogic's performance either. Because building an Engineered System is literally rocket science: It takes a lot of time, effort, resources and many iterations of design/test/analyze/fix to build such a system. That's why InfiniBand has been reserved for HPC scientists for such a long time. And only Oracle can bring the power of InfiniBand in an enterprise-class, ready-to use, pre-integrated version to customers, without the develop/integrate/support pain. For more details, check the new Exalogic overview white paper which was updated only recently. P.S.: Thanks to my colleagues Ola, Paul, Don and Andy for helping me put together this article! var flattr_uid = '26528'; var flattr_tle = 'How to Avoid Your Next 12-Month Science Project'; var flattr_dsc = 'While most customers immediately understand how the magic of Oracle's Hybrid Columnar Compression, intelligent storage servers and flash memory make Exadata uniquely powerful against home-grown database systems, some people think that Exalogic is nothing more than a bunch of x86 servers, a storage appliance and an InfiniBand (IB) network, built into a single rack.After all, isn't this exactly what the High Performance Computing (HPC) world has been doing for decades?On the surface, this may be true. And some people tried exactly that: They tried to put together their own version of Exalogic, but then they discover there's a lot more to building a system than buying hardware and assembling it together. IT is not Ikea.Why is that so? Could it be there's more going on behind the scenes than merely putting together a bunch of servers, a storage array and an InfiniBand network into a rack? Let's explore some of the special sauce that makes Exalogic unique and un-copyable, so you can save yourself from your next 6- to 12-month science project that distracts you from doing real work that adds value to your company.'; var flattr_tag = 'Engineered Systems,Engineered Systems,Infiniband,Integration,latency,Oracle,performance'; var flattr_cat = 'text'; var flattr_url = 'http://constantin.glez.de/blog/2012/04/how-avoid-your-next-12-month-science-project'; var flattr_lng = 'en_GB'

    Read the article

  • Are there programming languages that allow you to do set arithmetic on types?

    - by Will Brown
    Out of curiosity, are there languages that allow you to do set arithmetic on types to create new types? Something like: interface A { void a(); void b(); } interface B { void b(); void c(); } interface C = A & B; // has b() interface D = A | B; // has a(), b() and c() interface E = (A & B) ^ B; // has c() I know that in some languages these ideas can be expressed (i.e., Java has List<Comparable & Serializable> for the union of the interfaces) but I've never heard of a language that supports type arithmetic. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Composing programs from small simple pieces: OOP vs Functional Programming

    - by Jay Godse
    I started programming when imperative programming languages such as C were virtually the only game in town for paid gigs. I'm not a computer scientist by training so I was only exposed to Assembler and Pascal in school, and not Lisp or Prolog. Over the 1990s, Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) became more popular because one of the marketing memes for OOP was that complex programs could be composed of loosely coupled but well-defined, well-tested, cohesive, and reusable classes and objects. And in many cases that is quite true. Once I learned object-oriented programming my C programs became better because I structured them more like classes and objects. In the last few years (2008-2014) I have programmed in Ruby, an OOP language. However, Ruby has many functional programming (FP) features such as lambdas and procs, which enable a different style of programming using recursion, currying, lazy evaluation and the like. (Through ignorance I am at a loss to explain why these techniques are so great). Very recently, I have written code to use methods from the Ruby Enumerable library, such as map(), reduce(), and select(). Apparently this is a functional style of programming. I have found that using these methods significantly reduce code volume, and make my code easier to debug. Upon reading more about FP, one of the marketing claims made by advocates is that FP enables developers to compose programs out of small well-defined, well-tested, and reusable functions, which leads to less buggy code, and low code volume. QUESTIONS: Is the composition of complex program by using FP techniques contradictory to or complementary to composition of a complex program by using OOP techniques? In which situations is OOP more effective, and when is FP more effective? Is it possible to use both techniques in the same complex program? Do the techniques overlap or contradict each other?

    Read the article

  • New book in the style of Advanced Programming Language Design by R. A. Finkel [closed]

    - by mfellner
    I am currently researching visual programming language design for a university paper and came across Advanced Programming Language Design by Raphael A. Finkel from 1996. Other, older discussions in the same vein on Stackoverflow have mentioned Language Implementation Patterns by Terence Parr and Programming Language Pragmatics* by Michael L. Scott. I was wondering if there is even more (and especially up-to-date) literature on the general topic of programming language design. *) http://www.cs.rochester.edu/~scott/pragmatics/

    Read the article

  • Game programming course materials: What should it include?

    - by Esa
    I am tasked to create the course materials for a game programming class, and I’d like your opinion on what aspects and areas of game programming, such as game state management, game object storing or simple AI, should I include in it? The course is intented to be the first step into game programming for students with novice skills in programming. There will be mathematics as well, but I found that there are multiple questions, with good answers, on that subject already.

    Read the article

  • Code Monster Helps Introduce Kids (and Curious Adults) to the Basics of Programming

    - by Jason Fitzpatrick
    If you’re looking for a fun way to introduce a kid to programming (or sate your own curiosity), Crunchzilla’s Code Monster is a real-time introduction to basic programming concepts. How does Code Monster work? Users are guided through the programming experience (using JavaScript) by a talkative blue monster that asks questions about the code and suggests courses of action. Play long enough and you travel from simple variables to more complex ideas like conditionals, expressions, and more. It’s not a comprehensive programming curriculum (nor does it claim to be) but it’s a great way to introduce people of all ages to programming. Hit up the link below to take it for a spin. Code Monster [via O'Reilly Radar] 8 Deadly Commands You Should Never Run on Linux 14 Special Google Searches That Show Instant Answers How To Create a Customized Windows 7 Installation Disc With Integrated Updates

    Read the article

  • From Imperative to Functional Programming

    - by user66569
    As an Electronic Engineer, my programming experience started with Assembly and continue with PL/M, C, C++, Delphi, Java, C# among others (imperative programming is in my blood). I'm interested in add to my previous knowledge, skills about functional programming, but all I've seen until now seems very obfuscated and esoteric. Can you please answer me these questions? 1) What is the mainstream functional programming language today (I don't want to get lost myself studying a plethora of FP languages, just because language X has the feature Y)? 2) What was the first FP language (the Fortran of functional programming if you want)? 3) Finally, when talking about pure vs. non pure FP what are the mainstream languages of each category? Thank you in advance

    Read the article

  • The most mind-bending programming language?

    - by Xepoch
    From a reasonably common programming language, which do you find to be the most mind-bending? I have been listening to a lot of programming podcasts and taking some time to learn some new languages that are being considered upcoming, and important. I'm not necessarily talking about BrainFuck, but which language would you consider to be one that challenges the common programming paradigms? For me, I did some functional and logic (ex. Prolog) programming in the 90s, so can't say that I find anything special there. I am far from being an expert in it, but even today the most mind-bending programming language for me is Perl. Not because "Hello World" is hard to implement but rather there is so much lexical flexibility that some of the hardest solutions can be decomposed so poetically that I have to walk outside away from my terminal to clear my head. I'm not saying I'd likely sell a commercial software implementation, just that there is a distinct reason Perl is so (in)famous. Just look at the basic list of books on it. So, what is your mind-bending language that promotes your better programming and practices?

    Read the article

  • The most mind-bending programming language? [closed]

    - by Xepoch
    From a reasonably common programming language, which do you find to be the most mind-bending? I have been listening to a lot of programming podcasts and taking some time to learn some new languages that are being considered upcoming, and important. I'm not necessarily talking about BrainFuck, but which language would you consider to be one that challenges the common programming paradigms? For me, I did some functional and logic (ex. Prolog) programming in the 90s, so can't say that I find anything special there. I am far from being an expert in it, but even today the most mind-bending programming language for me is Perl. Not because "Hello World" is hard to implement but rather there is so much lexical flexibility that some of the hardest solutions can be decomposed so poetically that I have to walk outside away from my terminal to clear my head. I'm not saying I'd likely sell a commercial software implementation, just that there is a distinct reason Perl is so (in)famous. Just look at the basic list of books on it. So, what is your mind-bending language that promotes your better programming and practices?

    Read the article

  • Operating systems theory -- using minimum number of semaphores

    - by stackuser
    This situation is prone to deadlock of processes in an operating system and I'd like to solve it with the minimum of semaphores. Basically there are three cooperating processes that all read data from the same input device. Each process, when it gets the input device, must read two consecutive data. I want to use mutual exclusion to do this. Semaphores should be used to synchronize: P1: P2: P3: input(a1,a2) input (b1,b2) input(c1,c2) Y=a1+c1 W=b2+c2 Z=a2+b1 Print (X) X=Z-Y+W The declaration and initialization that I think would work here are: semaphore s=1 sa1 = 0, sa2 = 0, sb1 = 0, sb2 = 0, sc1 = 0, sc2 = 0 I'm sure that any kernel programmers that happen on this can knock this out in a minute or 2. Diagram of cooperating Processes and one input device: It seems like P1 and P2 would start something like: wait(s) input (a1/b1, a2/b2) signal(s)

    Read the article

  • What are some good practices when trying to teach declarative programming to imperative programmers?

    - by ChaosPandion
    I offered to do a little bit training in F# at my company and they seemed to show some interest. They are generally VB6 and C# programmers who don't follow programming with too much passion. That being said I feel like it is easier to write correct code when you think in a functional matter so they should definitely get some benefit out of it. Can anyone offer up some advice on how I should approach this? Ideas Don't focus on the syntax, instead focus on how this language and the idioms it promotes can be used. Try and think of examples that are a pain to write in an imperative fashion but translates to elegant code when written in a declarative fashion.

    Read the article

  • Web application framework for embedded systems?

    - by datenwolf
    I'm currently developing the software for a measurement and control system. In addition to the usual SCPI interface I'd also give it a nice HTTP frontend. Now I don't want to reinvent the wheel all over again. I already have a simple HTTPD running, but I don't want to implement all the other stuff. So what I'm looking for is a web application toolkit targeted at embedded system development. In particular this has to run on a ARM Cortex-M4, and I have some 8k of RAM available for this. It must be written in C. Is there such a thing or do I have to implement this myself?

    Read the article

  • Operating systems -- using minimum number of semaphores

    - by stackuser
    The three cooperating processes all read data from the same input device. Each process, when it gets the input device, must read two consecutive data. I want to use mutual exclusion to do this. The declaration and initialization that I think would work here are: semaphore s=1 sa1 = 0, sa2 = 0, sb1 = 0, sb2 = 0, sc1 = 0, sc2 = 0 I'd like to use semaphores to synchronize the following processes: P1: P2: P3: input(a1,a2) input (b1,b2) input(c1,c2) Y=a1+c1 W=b2+c2 Z=a2+b1 Print (X) X=Z-Y+W I'm wondering how to use the minimum number of semaphores to solve this. Diagram of cooperating Processes and one input device: It seems like P1 and P2 would start something like: wait(s) input (a1/b1, a2/b2) signal(s)

    Read the article

  • Help migrating from VB style programming to OO programming [closed]

    - by Agent47DarkSoul
    Being a hobbyist Java developer, I quickly took on with OO programming and understood its advantages over procedural code from C, that I did in college. But I couldn't grasp VB event based code (weird, right?). Bottom-line is OOP came natural to me. Curently I work in a small development firm developing C# applications. My peers here are a bit attached to VB style programming. Most of the C# code written is VB6 event handling code in C#'s skin. I tried explaining to them OOP with its advantages but it wasn't clear to them, maybe because I have never been much of a VB programmer. So can anybody provide any resources: books, web articles on how to migrate from VB style to OO style programming ?

    Read the article

  • Is there a name for this functional programming construct/pattern?

    - by dietbuddha
    I wrote a function and I'd like to find out if it is an implementation of some functional programming pattern or construct. I'd like to find out the name of this pattern or construct (if it exists)? I have a function which takes a list of functions and does this to them: wrap(fn1, fn2, fn3, fn4) # returns partial(fn4, partial(fn3, partial(fn2, fn1))) There are strong similarities to compose, reduce, and other fp metaprogramming constructs, since the functions are being arranged together and returned as one function. It also has strong similarities to decorators and Python context managers since it provides a way to encapsulate pre and post execution behaviors in one function. Which was the impetus for writing this function. I wanted the ability that context managers provide, but I wanted to be able to have it defined in one function, and to be able to layer function after function on top.

    Read the article

  • Programming Language Choices for High Integrity Systems

    - by Finbarr
    What programming languages are a good choice for High Integrity Systems? An example of a bad choice is Java as there is a considerable amount of code that is inaccessible to the programmer. I am looking for examples of strongly typed, block structured languages where the programmer is responsible for 100% of the code, and there is as little interference from things like a JVM as possible. Compilers will obviously be an issue. Language must have a complete and unambiguous definition.

    Read the article

  • Have you ever bought a commercial implementation of a programming language for personal programming

    - by Nelson
    Commercial products are often a source of ideas and inspiration for open source projects. There are free and open source implementations of almost every programming language ever devised, and a lot of them are very good. For non-work related personal programming projects, have you ever bought an expensive commerical implementation of a programming language and found it well worth the investment? If so, which one and why?

    Read the article

  • Design for XML mapping scenarios between two different systems [on hold]

    - by deepak_prn
    Mapping XML fields between two systems is a mundane routine in integration scenarios. I am trying to make the design documents look better and provide clear understanding to the developers especially when we do not use XSLT or any other IDE such as jDeveloper or eclipse plugins. I want it to be a high level design but at the same time talk in developer's language. So that there is no requirements that slip under the crack. For example, one of the scenarios goes: the store cashier sells an item, the transaction data is sent to Data management system. Now, I am writing a functional design for the scenario which deals with mapping XML fields between our system and the data management system. Question : I was wondering if some one had to deal with mapping XML fields between two systems? (without XSLT being involved) and if you used a table to represent the fields mapping (example is below) or any other visualization tool which does not break the bank ? I am trying to find out if there is a better way to represent XML mapping in your design documents. The widely accepted and used method seems to be using a simple table such as in the picture to illustrate the mapping. I am wondering if there are alternate ways/ tools to represent such as in Altova:

    Read the article

  • What’s your favorite programming language? [closed]

    - by TheLQ
    As an opposite of Which programming language do you really hate?, whats your favorite programming language to work with? What is the one programming language that you get somewhat excited for if a new project comes up that uses it? Before you say "The best language for the task", thats not what I meant. We all like a language, this is simply asking for that. This is not about what task it would be used for I can't believe this hasn't been asked before

    Read the article

  • Non-English-based programming languages

    - by Jaime Soto
    The University of Antioquia in Colombia teaches its introductory programming courses in Lexico, a Spanish-based, object-oriented .NET language. The intent is to teach programming concepts in the students' native language before introducing English-based mainstream languages. There are many other Non-English-based programming languages and there is even a related question in Stack Overflow. I have several questions regarding these languages: Has anyone on this site learned to program using a non-English-based language? If so, how difficult was the transition to the first English-based language? Is there any research-based evidence that non-English speakers learn programming faster/better using languages with keywords in their native language instead of English-based languages?

    Read the article

  • Game window systems and internal frames

    - by 2080
    I don't know if this is a valid question, but: What kind of window manager do games use which have internal frames (Frames inside frames)? Does this differ between the programming languages (Are e.g. in Java the AWT/Swing libraries used to manage these and other graphical elements, such as buttons,or is this to restrictive (speed, graphical possibilities?)) A special example would be EVE Online, where the client can use the ingame windows like on a normal desktop.

    Read the article

  • How to get interest in programming especially in java and android [closed]

    - by aditi
    I am new in this community. I just completed my Btech in Computer science, I have interest towards programming especially java. I started studying java but i am little bit slow in logic and understanding the concepts. I have some good books of java but when doing the program i am losing my confidence because of the logic issues. I have some doubts How can i improve my logical and coding skills HOw to get more and more interest in programming (like i heard about some programmers who are geeks, i mean programming machines). Is there any shortcut for studying programming Please provide some suggestions as i knew this forum has lots of good programmers. Please share ur thoughts and how you people improving ur logics. Any help is appreciated

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >