Search Results

Search found 5511 results on 221 pages for 'coding noob'.

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 36/221 | < Previous Page | 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43  | Next Page >

  • typeof === "undefined" vs. != null

    - by Thor Thurn
    I often see JavaScript code which checks for undefined parameters etc. this way: if (typeof input !== "undefined") { // do stuff } This seems kind of wasteful, since it involves both a type lookup and a string comparison, not to mention its verbosity. It's needed because 'undefined' could be renamed, though. My question is: How is that code any better than this approach: if (input != null) { // do stuff } As far as I know, you can't redefine null, so it's not going to break unexpectedly. And, because of the type-coercion of the != operator, this checks for both undefined and null... which is often exactly what you want (e.g. for optional function parameters). Yet this form does not seem widespread, and it even causes JSLint to yell at you for using the evil != operator. Why is this considered bad style?

    Read the article

  • Resharper: how to force introducing new private fields at the bottom of the class?

    - by Igor Brejc
    Resharper offers a very useful introduce and initialize field xxx action when you specify a new parameter in a constructor like: Constructor (int parameter) The only (minor) nuisance is that it puts the new field at the beginning of the class - and I'm a fan of putting private parts as far away as possible from the prying eyes of strangers ;). If, however, you already have some private fields in the class, Resharper will put the new field "correctly" (note the quotes, I don't want to start a flame war over this issue) next to those, even if they are at the end of the class. Is there a way to force Resharper to always put new fields at the end of the class? UPDATE: OK, I forgot to mention I know about the "Type Members Layout in Options" feature, but some concrete help on how to modify the template to achieve fields placement would be nice.

    Read the article

  • What application you recommend to start peeking to learn Python style?

    - by voyager
    Do you know any application, the more interesting/useful the better, to introduce a new person to Python language and the Python code style, but not necessarily to OO programing, so as to learn the subtleties and idioms of the language and surrounding community? I'm thinking along the lines of people that has worked with JavaScript, Java or .NET, and already have a strong hold of OO concepts.

    Read the article

  • Is concatenating with an empty string to do a string conversion really that bad?

    - by polygenelubricants
    Let's say I have two char variables, and later on I want to concatenate them into a string. This is how I would do it: char c1, c2; // ... String s = "" + c1 + c2; I've seen people who say that the "" + "trick" is "ugly", etc, and that you should use String.valueOf or Character.toString instead. I prefer this construct because: I prefer using language feature instead of API call if possible In general, isn't the language usually more stable than the API? If language feature only hides API call, then even stronger reason to prefer it! More abstract! Hiding is good! I like that the c1 and c2 are visually on the same level String.valueOf(c1) + c2 suggests something is special about c1 It's shorter. Is there really a good argument why String.valueOf or Character.toString is preferrable to "" +? Trivia: in java.lang.AssertionError, the following line appears 7 times, each with a different type: this("" + detailMessage);

    Read the article

  • How can I configure Xcode to put '{' where I want it in generated files

    - by djhworld
    I know this is a fairly contentious issue amongst programmers, but when developing I like my IDE to position the opening curly bracket underneath the method/interface/control declaration, for illustrative purposes: - This is how Xcode automatically generates skeleton methods with the { at the end: - -(void) isTrue:(BOOL)input { if(input) { return YES; } else { return NO; } } This is how I like to lay out my code (which I believe is called the Allman style): - -(void) isTrue:(BOOL)input { if(input) { return YES; } else { return NO; } } I'm just wondering if there's any configuration switch in Xcode to enable this style of development? It's really annoying when typing out if/else statements as it tends to auto-complete the else clause with the { at the end of the line which just looks silly if you like developing with them underneath. Or am I being unreasonable? Is Objective-C supposed to adhere to a standard defined by Apple?

    Read the article

  • Python Etiquette: Importing Modules

    - by F3AR3DLEGEND
    Say I have two Python modules: module1.py: import module2 def myFunct(): print "called from module1" module2.py: def myFunct(): print "called from module2" def someFunct(): print "also called from module2" If I import module1, is it better etiquette to re-import module2, or just refer to it as module1.module2? For example (someotherfile.py): import module1 module1.myFunct() # prints "called from module1" module1.module2.myFunct() # prints "called from module2" I can also do this: module2 = module1.module2. Now, I can directly call module2.myFunct(). However, I can change module1.py to: from module2 import * def myFunct(): print "called from module1" Now, in someotherfile.py, I can do this: import module1 module1.myFunct() # prints "called from module1"; overrides module2 module1.someFunct() # prints "also called from module2" Also, by importing *, help('module1') shows all of the functions from module2. On the other hand, (assuming module1.py uses import module2), I can do: someotherfile.py: import module1, module2 module1.myFunct() # prints "called from module1" module2.myFunct() # prints "called from module2" Again, which is better etiquette and practice? To import module2 again, or to just refer to module1's importation?

    Read the article

  • Nice way to break a reply up into pieces in ruby

    - by ChaosR
    Hello, I'm writing an IRCd. For this topic it doesn't really matter if you know much about IRC. Its a simple code style problem. Quick overview of the problem: No message may be longer than 512 characters If the message is more, it must be broken into pieces The NAMES reply sends all the nicknames of users on a channel, and quickly grows beyond 512 characters. I currently concocted this marvelous piece of code, it works perfectly. However, its just not "ruby-like". This piece of code is more what you expect in some piece of C code. # 11 is the number of all fixed characters combined in the reply pre_length = 11 + servername.length + mynick.length + channel.name.length list = [""] i = 0 channel.nicks.each do |nick, client| list[i+=1] = "" if list[i].length + nick.length + pre_length > 500 list[i] << "#{channel.mode_char(client)}#{client.nick} " end list.each { |l| send_numeric(RPL_NAMREPLY, channel.name, l.strip) } send_numeric(RPL_ENDOFNAMES, channel.name) So my question is, any ideas to do this more nicely? PS. code has been slightly modified to make it easier to understand out-of-context

    Read the article

  • Where to Declare Structures, etc?

    - by cam
    Should all structs and classes be declared in the header file? If I declare a struct/class in a source file, what do I need to put in the header file so that it can be used in other files? Also, are there any resources that show some standard practices of C++ out there?

    Read the article

  • Using typedefs (or #defines) on built in types - any sensible reason?

    - by jb
    Well I'm doing some Java - C integration, and throught C library werid type mappings are used (theres more of them;)): #define CHAR char /* 8 bit signed int */ #define SHORT short /* 16 bit signed int */ #define INT int /* "natural" length signed int */ #define LONG long /* 32 bit signed int */ typedef unsigned char BYTE; /* 8 bit unsigned int */ typedef unsigned char UCHAR; /* 8 bit unsigned int */ typedef unsigned short USHORT; /* 16 bit unsigned int */ typedef unsigned int UINT; /* "natural" length unsigned int*/ Is there any legitimate reason not to use them? It's not like char is going to be redefined anytime soon. I can think of: Writing platform/compiler portable code (size of type is underspecified in C/C++) Saving space and time on embedded systems - if you loop over array shorter than 255 on 8bit microprocessor writing: for(uint8_t ii = 0; ii < len; ii++) will give meaureable speedup.

    Read the article

  • Is there a downside to adding an anonymous empty delegate on event declaration?

    - by serg10
    I have seen a few mentions of this idiom (including on SO): // Deliberately empty subscriber public event EventHandler AskQuestion = delegate {}; The upside is clear - it avoids the need to check for null before raising the event. However, I am keen to understand if there are any downsides. For example, is it something that is in widespread use and is transparent enough that it won't cause a maintenance headache? Is there any appreciable performance hit of the empty event subscriber call?

    Read the article

  • Python: When passing variables between methods, is it necessary to assign it a new name?

    - by Anthony
    I'm thinking that the answer is probably 'no' if the program is small and there are a lot of methods, but what about in a larger program? If I am going to be using one variable in multiple methods throughout the program, is it smarter to: Come up with a different phrasing for each method (to eliminate naming conflicts). Use the same name for each method (to eliminate confusion) Just use a global variable (to eliminate both) This is more of a stylistic question than anything else. What naming convention do YOU use when passing variables?

    Read the article

  • A good way to implement useable Callbacks in C++

    - by Marcel J.
    I have a custom Menu class written in C++. To seperate the code into easy-to-read functions I am using Callbacks. Since I don't want to use Singletons for the Host of the Menu I provide another parameter (target) which will be given to the callback as the first parameter (some kind of workaround for the missing "this" reference). Registration-Signature AddItem(string s, void(*callback)(void*,MenuItem*), void* target = NULL) Example of a Registration menu->AddItem(TRANSLATE, "translate", &MyApp::OnModeSelected); Example of a Handler /* static */ void MyApp::OnModeSelected(void* that, MenuItem* item) { MyApp *self = (MyApp*)that; self->activeMode = item->text; } Is there anything one could consider dirty with this approach? Are there maybe better ones?

    Read the article

  • Programming logic best practice - redundant checks

    - by eldblz
    I'm creating a large PHP project and I've a trivial doubt about how to proceed. Assume we got a class books, in this class I've the method ReturnInfo: function ReturnInfo($id) { if( is_numeric($id) ) { $query = "SELECT * FROM books WHERE id='" . $id . "' LIMIT 1;"; if( $row = $this->DBDrive->ExecuteQuery($query, $FetchResults=TRUE) ) { return $row; } else { return FALSE; } } else { throw new Exception('Books - ReturnInfo - id not valid.'); } } Then i have another method PrintInfo function PrintInfo($id) { print_r( $this->ReturnInfo($id) ); } Obviously the code sample are just for example and not actual production code. In the second method should I check (again) if id is numeric ? Or can I skip it because is already taken care in the first method and if it's not an exception will be thrown? Till now I always wrote code with redundant checks (no matter if already checked elsewhere i'll check it also here) Is there a best practice? Is just common sense? Thank you in advance for your kind replies.

    Read the article

  • Let and construct versus let in sequence

    - by Stringer
    Consider this OCaml code: let coupe_inter i j cases = let lcases = Array.length cases in let low,_,_ = cases.(i) and _,high,_ = cases.(j) in low,high, Array.sub cases i (j-i+1), case_append (Array.sub cases 0 i) (Array.sub cases (j+1) (lcases-(j+1))) Why the expression let ... and ... in is used in place of a let ... in let ... in sequence (like F# force you to do)? This construct seems quite frequent in OCaml code. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Pyjamas import statements

    - by Gordon Worley
    I'm starting to use Pyjamas and I'm running into some annoyances. I have to import a lot of stuff to make a script work well. For example, to make a button I need to first from pyjamas.ui.Button import Button and then I can use Button. Note that import pyjamas.ui.Button and then using Button.Button doesn't work (results in errors when you build to JavaScript, at least in 0.7pre1). Does anyone have a better example of a good way to do the import statements in Pyjamas than what the Pyjamas folks have on their site? Doing things their way is possible, but ugly and overly complicated from my perspective, especially when you want to use a dozen or more ui components.

    Read the article

  • Factory vs instance constructors

    - by Neil N
    I can't think of any reasons why one is better than the other. Compare these two implementations: public class MyClass { public myClass(string fileName) { // some code... } } as opposed to: public class MyClass { private myClass(){} public static Create(string fileName) { // some code... } } There are some places in the .Net framework that use the static method to create instances. At first I was thinking, it registers it's instances to keep track of them, but regular constructors could do the same thing through the use of private static variables. What is the reasoning behind this style?

    Read the article

  • please help me to find Bug in my Code (segmentation fault)

    - by Vikramaditya Battina
    i am tring to solve this http://www.spoj.com/problems/LEXISORT/ question it working fine in visual studio compiler and IDEone also but when i running in SPOJ compiler it is getting SEGSIGV error Here my code goes #include<stdio.h> #include<stdlib.h> #include<string.h> char *getString(); void lexisort(char **str,int num); void countsort(char **str,int i,int num); int main() { int num_test; int num_strings; char **str; int i,j; scanf("%d",&num_test); for(i=0;i<num_test;i++) { scanf("%d",&num_strings); str=(char **)malloc(sizeof(char *)*num_strings); for(j=0;j<num_strings;j++) { str[j]=(char *)malloc(sizeof(char)*11); scanf("%s",str[j]); } lexisort(str,num_strings); for(j=0;j<num_strings;j++) { printf("%s\n",str[j]); free(str[j]); } free(str); } return 0; } void lexisort(char **str,int num) { int i; for(i=9;i>=0;i--) { countsort(str,i,num); } } void countsort(char **str,int i,int num) { int buff[52]={0,0},k,x; char **temp=(char **)malloc(sizeof(char *)*num); for(k=0;k<52;k++) { buff[k]=0; } for(k=0;k<num;k++) { if(str[k][i]>='A' && str[k][i]<='Z') { buff[(str[k][i]-'A')]++; } else { buff[26+(str[k][i]-'a')]++; } } for(k=1;k<52;k++) { buff[k]=buff[k]+buff[k-1]; } for(k=num-1;k>=0;k--) { if(str[k][i]>='A' && str[k][i]<='Z') { x=buff[(str[k][i]-'A')]; temp[x-1]=str[k]; buff[(str[k][i]-'A')]--; } else { x=buff[26+(str[k][i]-'a')]; temp[x-1]=str[k]; buff[26+(str[k][i]-'a')]--; } } for(k=0;k<num;k++) { str[k]=temp[k]; } free(temp); }

    Read the article

  • Is GOTO really as evil as we are led to believe?

    - by RoboShop
    I'm a young programmer, so all my working life I've been told GOTO is evil, don't use it, if you do, your first born son will die. Recently, I've realized that GOTO actually still exists in .NET and I was wondering, is GOTO really as bad as they say, or is it just because everyone says you shouldn't use it, so that's why you don't. I know GOTO can be used badly, but are there any legit situations where you may possibly use it. The only thing I can think of is maybe to use GOTO to break out of a bunch of nested loops. I reckon that might be better then having to "break" out of each of them but because GOTO is supposedly always bad, I would never use it and it would probably never pass a peer review. What are your views? Is GOTO always bad? Can it sometimes be good? Has anyone here actually been gutsy enough to use GOTO for a real life system?

    Read the article

  • How to convince a colleague that code duplication is bad?

    - by vitaut
    A colleague of mine was implementing a new feature in a project we work on together and he did it by taking a file containing the implementation of a similar feature from the same project, creating a copy of it renaming all the global declarations and slightly modifying the implementation. So we ended up with two large files that are almost identical apart from renaming. I tried to explain that it makes our project more difficult to maintain but he doesn't want to change anything saying that it is easier for him to program in such way and that there is no reason to fix the code if it "ain't broke". How can I convince him that such code duplication is a bad thing? It is related to this questions, but I am more interested in the answers targeted to a technical person (another programmer), for example a reference to an authoritative source like a book would be great. I have already tried simple arguments and haven't succeeded.

    Read the article

  • Does any language have a while-else flow structure?

    - by dotancohen
    Consider this flow structure which I happen to use often: if ( hasPosts() ) { while ( hasPosts() ) { displayNextPost(); } } else { displayNoPostsContent(); } Are there any programming languages which have an optional else clause for while, which is to be run if the while loop is never entered? Thus, the code above would become: while ( hasPosts() ) { displayNextPost(); } else { displayNoPostsContent(); } I find it interesting that many languages have the do-while construct (run the while code once before checking the condition) yet I have never seen while-else addressed. There is precedent for running an N block of code based on what was run in N-1 block, such as the try-catch construct. I wasn't sure whether to post here or on programmers.SE. If this question is more appropriate there, then please move it. 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 | 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43  | Next Page >