Search Results

Search found 106 results on 5 pages for 'idioms'.

Page 4/5 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5  | Next Page >

  • A good F# codebase to learn from

    - by Lucas
    Hi all, I've been teaching myself F# for a while now. I've read Programming F# by Chris Smith (great book) and I've written a few small scripts for getting the job done here and there. But IMO the best way to learn a new programming language—and more importantly, the idioms that come with it—is to read a good open source codebase written in that language. Naturally, writing code in that language is crucial, but in the beginning, you're basically struggling with your own ignorance about how things should be done. You could perform certain tasks one way or the other, but it takes experience to realize the flaws and virtues of each. Even after you've gotten a firm grasp of how things work, reading the code of people who have an even firmer one helps a great deal. Most would agree that the most insightful parts of any learn-a-programming-language book are the code examples, and reading a well-written open source codebase is the next level of that. So are there any out there for F#?

    Read the article

  • Porting library from Java to Python

    - by Mike Griffith
    I'm about to port a smallish library from Java to Python and wanted some advice (smallish ~ a few thousand lines of code). I've studied the Java code a little, and noticed some design patterns that are common in both languages. However, there were definitely some Java-only idioms (singletons, etc) present that are generally not-well-received in Python-world. I know at least one tool (j2py) exists that will turn a .java file into a .py file by walking the AST. Some initial experimentation yielded less than favorable results. Should I even be considering using an automated tool to generate some code, or are the languages different enough that any tool would create enough re-work to have justified writing from scratch? If tools aren't the devil, are there any besides j2py that can at least handle same-project import management? I don't expect any tool to match 3rd party libraries from one language to a substitute in another.

    Read the article

  • C# similar technologies and books in Java

    - by MigNix
    Hi, I know this can look like dublicate of other discussions and I have already reviewed them, but they are different. I want to learn Java and I want to know are there any books similar to those that I have seen for C#. Here is the list: C# 4.0 in a Nutshell: The Definitive Reference Probably Java in a Nutshell :) Professional C# 4.0 and .NET 4 Pro C# 2010 and the .NET 4 Platform Accelerated C# 2010 Programming WCF Services Essential Windows Communication Foundation (WCF): For .NET Framework 3.5 C# in Depth: What you need to master C# 2 and 3 CLR via C# Professional ADO.NET 3.5 with LINQ and the Entity Framework Professional Enterprise .NET Framework Design Guidelines: Conventions, Idioms, and Patterns for Reusable .NET Libraries Mainly I am interested in Java 6 and want to know about JVM , Cuncurency, Data access and distributed application technologies. I have seen there are some books on JVM like Inside the Java 2 Virtual Machine also some free books on official web site. Also I found concurrent programming in Java. But may be you can suggest any others. Thank you

    Read the article

  • A Plea for Plain English

    - by Tony Davis
    The English language has, within a lifetime, emerged as the ubiquitous 'international language' of scientific, political and technical communication. On the one hand, learning a single, common language, International English, has made it much easier to participate in and adopt new technologies; on the other hand it must be exasperating to have to use English at international conferences, or on community sites, when your own language has a long tradition of scientific and technical usage. It is also hard to master the subtleties of using a foreign language to explain advanced ideas. This requires English speakers to be more considerate in their writing. Even if you’re used to speaking English, you may be brought up short by this sort of verbiage… "Business Intelligence delivering actionable insights is becoming more critical in the enterprise, and these insights require large data volumes for trending and forecasting" It takes some imagination to appreciate the added hassle in working out what it means, when English is a language you only use at work. Try, just to get a vague feel for it, using Google Translate to translate it from English to Chinese and back again. "Providing actionable business intelligence point of view is becoming more and more and more business critical, and requires that these insights and projected trends in large amounts of data" Not easy eh? If you normally use a different language, you will need to pause for thought before finally working out that it really means … "Every Business Intelligence solution must be able to help companies to make decisions. In order to detect current trends, and accurately predict future ones, we need to analyze large volumes of data" Surely, it is simple politeness for English speakers to stop peppering their writing with a twisted vocabulary that renders it inaccessible to everyone else. It isn’t just the problem of writers who use long words to give added dignity to their prose. It is the use of Colloquial English. This changes and evolves at a dizzying rate, adding new terms and idioms almost daily; it is almost a new and separate language. By contrast, ‘International English', is gradually evolving separately, at its own, more sedate, pace. As such, all native English speakers need to make an effort to learn, and use it, switching from casual colloquial patter into a simpler form of communication that can be widely understood by different cultures, even if it gives you less credibility on the street. Simple-Talk is based, at least in part, on the idea that technical articles can be written simply and clearly in a form of English that can be easily understood internationally, and that they can be written, with a little editorial help, by anyone, and read by anyone, regardless of their native language. Cheers, Tony.

    Read the article

  • Are there deprecated practices for multithread and multiprocessor programming that I should no longer use?

    - by DeveloperDon
    In the early days of FORTRAN and BASIC, essentially all programs were written with GOTO statements. The result was spaghetti code and the solution was structured programming. Similarly, pointers can have difficult to control characteristics in our programs. C++ started with plenty of pointers, but use of references are recommended. Libraries like STL can reduce some of our dependency. There are also idioms to create smart pointers that have better characteristics, and some version of C++ permit references and managed code. Programming practices like inheritance and polymorphism use a lot of pointers behind the scenes (just as for, while, do structured programming generates code filled with branch instructions). Languages like Java eliminate pointers and use garbage collection to manage dynamically allocated data instead of depending on programmers to match all their new and delete statements. In my reading, I have seen examples of multi-process and multi-thread programming that don't seem to use semaphores. Do they use the same thing with different names or do they have new ways of structuring protection of resources from concurrent use? For example, a specific example of a system for multithread programming with multicore processors is OpenMP. It represents a critical region as follows, without the use of semaphores, which seem not to be included in the environment. th_id = omp_get_thread_num(); #pragma omp critical { cout << "Hello World from thread " << th_id << '\n'; } This example is an excerpt from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenMP Alternatively, similar protection of threads from each other using semaphores with functions wait() and signal() might look like this: wait(sem); th_id = get_thread_num(); cout << "Hello World from thread " << th_id << '\n'; signal(sem); In this example, things are pretty simple, and just a simple review is enough to show the wait() and signal() calls are matched and even with a lot of concurrency, thread safety is provided. But other algorithms are more complicated and use multiple semaphores (both binary and counting) spread across multiple functions with complex conditions that can be called by many threads. The consequences of creating deadlock or failing to make things thread safe can be hard to manage. Do these systems like OpenMP eliminate the problems with semaphores? Do they move the problem somewhere else? How do I transform my favorite semaphore using algorithm to not use semaphores anymore?

    Read the article

  • The Buzz at the JavaOne Bookstore

    - by Janice J. Heiss
    I found my way to the JavaOne bookstore, a hub of activity. Who says brick and mortar bookstores are dead? I asked what was hot and got two answers: Hadoop in Practice by Alex Holmes was doing well. And Scala for the Impatient by noted Java Champion Cay Horstmann also seemed to be a fast seller. Hadoop in PracticeHadoop is a framework that organizes large clusters of computers around a problem. It is touted as especially effective for large amounts of data, and is use such companies as  Facebook, Yahoo, Apple, eBay and LinkedIn. Hadoop in Practice collects nearly 100 Hadoop examples and presents them in a problem/solution format with step by step explanations of solutions and designs. It’s very much a participatory book intended to make developers more at home with Hadoop.The author, Alex Holmes, is a senior software engineer with more than 15 years of experience developing large-scale distributed Java systems. For the last four years, he has gained expertise in Hadoop solving Big Data problems across a number of projects. He has presented at JavaOne and Jazoon and is currently a technical lead at VeriSign.At this year’s JavaOne, he is presenting a session with VeriSign colleague, Karthik Shyamsunder called “Java: A Perfect Platform for Data Science” where they will explain how the Java platform has emerged as a perfect platform for practicing data science, and also talk about such technologies as Hadoop, Hive, Pig, HBase, Cassandra, and Mahout. Scala for the ImpatientSan Jose State University computer science professor and Java Champion Cay Horstmann is the principal author of the highly regarded Core Java. Scala for the Impatient is a basic, practical introduction to Scala for experienced programmers. Horstmann has a presentation summarizing the themes of his book on at his website. On the final page he offers an enticing summary of his conclusions:* Widespread dissatisfaction with Java + XML + IDEs               --Don't make me eat Elephant again * A separate language for every problem domain is not efficient               --It takes time to master the idioms* ”JavaScript Everywhere” isn't going to scale* Trend is towards languages with more expressive power, less boilerplate* Will Scala be the “one ring to rule them”?* Maybe              --If it succeeds in industry             --If student-friendly subsets and tools are created The popularity of both books echoed comments by IBM Distinguished Engineer Jason McGee who closed his part of the Sunday JavaOne keynote by pointing out that the use of Java in complex applications is increasingly being augmented by a host of other languages with strong communities around them – JavaScript, JRuby, Scala, Python and so forth. Java developers increasingly must know the strengths and weaknesses of such languages going forward.

    Read the article

  • Introducing functional programming constructs in non-functional programming languages

    - by Giorgio
    This question has been going through my mind quite a lot lately and since I haven't found a convincing answer to it I would like to know if other users of this site have thought about it as well. In the recent years, even though OOP is still the most popular programming paradigm, functional programming is getting a lot of attention. I have only used OOP languages for my work (C++ and Java) but I am trying to learn some FP in my free time because I find it very interesting. So, I started learning Haskell three years ago and Scala last summer. I plan to learn some SML and Caml as well, and to brush up my (little) knowledge of Scheme. Well, a lot of plans (too ambitious?) but I hope I will find the time to learn at least the basics of FP during the next few years. What is important for me is how functional programming works and how / whether I can use it for some real projects. I have already developed small tools in Haskell. In spite of my strong interest for FP, I find it difficult to understand why functional programming constructs are being added to languages like C#, Java, C++, and so on. As a developer interested in FP, I find it more natural to use, say, Scala or Haskell, instead of waiting for the next FP feature to be added to my favourite non-FP language. In other words, why would I want to have only some FP in my originally non-FP language instead of looking for a language that has a better support for FP? For example, why should I be interested to have lambdas in Java if I can switch to Scala where I have much more FP concepts and access all the Java libraries anyway? Similarly: why do some FP in C# instead of using F# (to my knowledge, C# and F# can work together)? Java was designed to be OO. Fine. I can do OOP in Java (and I would like to keep using Java in that way). Scala was designed to support OOP + FP. Fine: I can use a mix of OOP and FP in Scala. Haskell was designed for FP: I can do FP in Haskell. If I need to tune the performance of a particular module, I can interface Haskell with some external routines in C. But why would I want to do OOP with just some basic FP in Java? So, my main point is: why are non-functional programming languages being extended with some functional concept? Shouldn't it be more comfortable (interesting, exciting, productive) to program in a language that has been designed from the very beginning to be functional or multi-paradigm? Don't different programming paradigms integrate better in a language that was designed for it than in a language in which one paradigm was only added later? The first explanation I could think of is that, since FP is a new concept (it isn't new at all, but it is new for many developers), it needs to be introduced gradually. However, I remember my switch from imperative to OOP: when I started to program in C++ (coming from Pascal and C) I really had to rethink the way in which I was coding, and to do it pretty fast. It was not gradual. So, this does not seem to be a good explanation to me. Or can it be that many non-FP programmers are not really interested in understanding and using functional programming, but they find it practically convenient to adopt certain FP-idioms in their non-FP language? IMPORTANT NOTE Just in case (because I have seen several language wars on this site): I mentioned the languages I know better, this question is in no way meant to start comparisons between different programming languages to decide which is better / worse. Also, I am not interested in a comparison of OOP versus FP (pros and cons). The point I am interested in is to understand why FP is being introduced one bit at a time into existing languages that were not designed for it even though there exist languages that were / are specifically designed to support FP.

    Read the article

  • Functional programming constructs in non-functional programming languages

    - by Giorgio
    This question has been going through my mind quite a lot lately and since I haven't found a convincing answer to it I would like to know if other users of this site have thought about it as well. In the recent years, even though OOP is still the most popular programming paradigm, functional programming is getting a lot of attention. I have only used OOP languages for my work (C++ and Java) but I am trying to learn some FP in my free time because I find it very interesting. So, I started learning Haskell three years ago and Scala last summer. I plan to learn some SML and Caml as well, and to brush up my (little) knowledge of Scheme. Well, a lot of plans (too ambitious?) but I hope I will find the time to learn at least the basics of FP during the next few years. What is important for me is how functional programming works and how / whether I can use it for some real projects. I have already developed small tools in Haskell. In spite of my strong interest for FP, I find it difficult to understand why functional programming constructs are being added to languages like C#, Java, C++, and so on. As a developer interested in FP, I find it more natural to use, say, Scala or Haskell, instead of waiting for the next FP feature to be added to my favourite non-FP language. In other words, why would I want to have only some FP in my originally non-FP language instead of looking for a language that has a better support for FP? For example, why should I be interested to have lambdas in Java if I can switch to Scala where I have much more FP concepts and access all the Java libraries anyway? Similarly: why do some FP in C# instead of using F# (to my knowledge, C# and F# can work together)? Java was designed to be OO. Fine. I can do OOP in Java (and I would like to keep using Java in that way). Scala was designed to support OOP + FP. Fine: I can use a mix of OOP and FP in Scala. Haskell was designed for FP: I can do FP in Haskell. If I need to tune the performance of a particular module, I can interface Haskell with some external routines in C. But why would I want to do OOP with just some basic FP in Java? So, my main point is: why are non-functional programming languages being extended with some functional concept? Shouldn't it be more comfortable (interesting, exciting, productive) to program in a language that has been designed from the very beginning to be functional or multi-paradigm? Don't different programming paradigms integrate better in a language that was designed for it than in a language in which one paradigm was only added later? The first explanation I could think of is that, since FP is a new concept (it isn't new at all, but it is new for many developers), it needs to be introduced gradually. However, I remember my switch from imperative to OOP: when I started to program in C++ (coming from Pascal and C) I really had to rethink the way in which I was coding, and to do it pretty fast. It was not gradual. So, this does not seem to be a good explanation to me. Also, I asked myself if my impression is just plainly wrong due to lack of knowledge. E.g., do C# and C++11 support FP as extensively as, say, Scala or Caml do? In this case, my question would be simply non-existent. Or can it be that many non-FP programmers are not really interested in using functional programming, but they find it practically convenient to adopt certain FP-idioms in their non-FP language? IMPORTANT NOTE Just in case (because I have seen several language wars on this site): I mentioned the languages I know better, this question is in no way meant to start comparisons between different programming languages to decide which is better / worse. Also, I am not interested in a comparison of OOP versus FP (pros and cons). The point I am interested in is to understand why FP is being introduced one bit at a time into existing languages that were not designed for it even though there exist languages that were / are specifically designed to support FP.

    Read the article

  • The Definitive C++ Book Guide and List

    - by grepsedawk
    After more than a few questions about deciding on C++ books I thought we could make a better community wiki version. Providing QUALITY books and an approximate skill level. Maybe we can add a short blurb/description about each book that you have personally read / benefited from. Feel free to debate quality, headings, etc. Note: There is a similar post for C: The Definitive C Book Guide and List Reference Style - All Levels The C++ Programming Language - Bjarne Stroustrup C++ Standard Library Tutorial and Reference - Nicolai Josuttis Beginner Introductory: C++ Primer - Stanley Lippman / Josée Lajoie / Barbara E. Moo Accelerated C++ - Andrew Koenig / Barbara Moo Thinking in C++ - Bruce Eckel (2 volumes, 2nd is more about standard library, but still very good) Best practices: Effective C++ - Scott Meyers Effective STL - Scott Meyers Intermediate More Effective C++ - Scott Meyers Exceptional C++ - Herb Sutter More Exceptional C++ - Herb Sutter C++ Coding Standards: 101 Rules, Guidelines, and Best Practices - Herb Sutter / Andrei Alexandrescu C++ Templates The Complete Guide - David Vandevoorde / Nicolai M. Josuttis Large Scale C++ Software Design - John Lakos Above Intermediate Modern C++ Design - Andrei Alexandrescu C++ Template Metaprogramming - David Abrahams and Aleksey Gurtovoy Inside the C++ Object Model - Stanley Lippman Classics / Older Note: Some information contained within these books may not be up to date and no longer considered best practice. The Design and Evolution of C++ - Bjarne Stroustrup Ruminations on C++ Andrew Koenig / Barbara Moo Advanced C++ Programming Styles and Idioms - James Coplien

    Read the article

  • What is best practice as far as using perl-isms (idiomatic expressions) in Perl?

    - by DVK
    A couple of years back I participated in writing the best practices/coding style for our (fairly large and often Perl-using) company. It was done by a committee of "senior" Perl developers. As anything done by consensus, it had parts which everyone disagreed with. Duh. The part that rubbed wrong the most was a strong recommendation to NOT use many Perlisms (loosely defined as code idioms not present in, say C++ or Java), such as "Avoid using '... unless X;' constructs". The main rationale posited for such rules as this one was that non-Perl developers would have much harder time with the Perl code base otherwise. The assumption here I guess is that Perl code jockeys are rarer breed overall - and among new hires to the company - than non-Perlers. I was wondering whether SO has any good arguments to support or reject this logic... it is mostly academic curiosity at this point as the company's Perl coding standard is ossified and will never be revised again as far as I'm aware. P.S. Just to be clear, the question is in the context I noted - the answer for an all-Perl smaller development shop is obviously a resounding "use Perl to its maximum capability".

    Read the article

  • rails + compass: advantages vs using haml + blueprint directly

    - by egarcia
    I've got some experience using haml (+sass) on rails projects. I recently started using them with blueprintcss - the only thing I did was transform blueprint.css into a sass file, and started coding from there. I even have a rails generator that includes all this by default. It seems that Compass does what I do, and other things. I'm trying to understand what those other things are - but the documentation/tutorials weren't very clear. These are my conclusions: Compass comes with built-in sass mixins that implement common CSS idioms, such as links with icons or horizontal lists. My solution doesn't provide anything like that. (1 point for Compass). Compass has several command-line options: you can create a rails project, but you can also "install" it on an existing rails project. A rails generator could be personalized to do the same thing, I guess. (Tie). Compass has two modes of working with blueprint: "basic" and "semantic" usage. I'm not clear about the differences between those. With my rails generator I only have one mode, but it seems enough. (Tie) Apparently, Compass is prepared to use other frameworks, besides blueprint (e.g. YUI). I could not find much documentation about this, and I'm not interested on it anyway - blueprint is ok for me (Tie). Compass' learning curve seems a bit stiff and the documentation seems sparse. Learning could be a bit difficult. On the other hand, I know the ins and outs of my own system and can use it right away. (1 point for my system). With this analysis, I'm hesitant to give Compass a try. Is my analysis correct? Are Am I missing any key points, or have I evaluated any of these points wrongly?

    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

  • Writing catch block with cleanup operations in Java ...

    - by kedarmhaswade
    I was not able to find any advise on catch blocks in Java that involve some cleanup operations which themselves could throw exceptions. The classic example is that of stream.close() which we usually call in the finally clause and if that throws an exception, we either ignore it by calling it in a try-catch block or declare it to be rethrown. But in general, how do I handle cases like: public void doIt() throws ApiException { //ApiException is my "higher level" exception try { doLower(); } catch(Exception le) { doCleanup(); //this throws exception too which I can't communicate to caller throw new ApiException(le); } } I could do: catch(Exception le) { try { doCleanup(); } catch(Exception e) { //ignore? //log? } throw new ApiException(le); //I must throw le } But that means I will have to do some log analysis to understand why cleanup failed. If I did: catch(Exception le) { try { doCleanup(); } catch(Exception e) { throw new ApiException(e); } It results in losing the le that got me here in the catch block in the fist place. What are some of the idioms people use here? Declare the lower level exceptions in throws clause? Ignore the exceptions during cleanup operation?

    Read the article

  • Does a CS PhD Help for Software Engineering Career?

    - by SiLent SoNG
    I would like to seek advice on whether or not to take a PhD offer from a good university. My only concern is the PhD will take at least 4 year's commitment. During the period I won't have good monetary income. I am also concerned whether the PhD will help my future career development. My career goal is software engineering only. Some of the PhD info: The PhD is CS related. The research area is Information Retrieval, Machine Learning, and Nature Language Processing. More specifically, the research topic is Deep Web search. Some of backgrounds: I worked in Oracle for 3 years in database development after obtained a CS degree from some good university. In last year I received an email telling an interesting project from a professor and thereafter I was lured into his research team. The team consists of 4 PhD students; those students have little or no industry experiences and their coding skills are really really bad. By saying bad I mean they do not know some common patterns and they do not know pitfalls of the programming languages as well as idioms for doing things right. I guess a at least 4 year commitment is worth of serious consideration. I am 27 at this moment. If I take the offer, that implies I will be 31+ upon graduation. Wah... becoming.. what to say, no longer young. Hence, here I am seeking advice on whether it is good or not to take the PhD offer, and whether a CS PhD is good for my future career growth as a software engineer? I do not intent to go for academia.

    Read the article

  • Ruby : UTF-8 IO

    - by subtenante
    I use ruby 1.8.7. I try to parse some text files containing greek sentences, encoded in UTF-8. (I can't much paste here sample files, because they are subject to copyright. Really just some greek text encoded in UTF-8.) I want, for each file, to parse the file, extract all the words, and make a list of each new word found in this file. All that saved to one big index file. Here is my code : #!/usr/bin/ruby -KU def prepare_line(l) l.gsub(/^\s*[ST]\d+\s*:\s*|\s+$|\(\d+\)\s*/u, "") end def tokenize(l) l.split /['·.;!:\s]+/u end $dict = {} $cpt = 0 $out = File.new 'out.txt', 'w' def lesson(file) $cpt = $cpt + 1 file.readlines.each do |l| $out.puts l l = prepare_line l tokenize(l).each do |t| unless $dict[t] $dict[t] = $cpt $out.puts " #{t}\n" end end end end Dir.new('etc/').each do |filename| f = File.new("etc/#{filename}") unless File.directory? f lesson f end end Here is part of my output : ?@???†?†?????????? ?...[snip very long hangul/hanzi mishmash]... ????????†? ???N2 : ?e?te?? (2) µ???µa (Note that the puts l part seems to work fine, at the end of the given output line.) Any idea what is wrong with my code ? (General comments about ruby idioms I could use are very welcome, I'm really a beginner.)

    Read the article

  • How to convert many thousands of lines of VBScript to C#?

    - by Ross Patterson
    I have a collection of about 10,000 small VBScript programs (50-100 lines each) and a small collection of larger ones, and I'm looking for a way to convert them to C# without resorting to by-hand transliteration. The programs are automated test cases for a web application, written for HP/Mercury's QuickTest Pro, and I'm trying to turn them into test cases for Selenium. Luckily, the tests appear to be well-written, using a library of building blocks and idioms (the larger programs), so the test cases actually resemble a domain-specific language more than they do VBScript, and the QTP-ness is well-buried inside the libraries. Ideally, what I'm searching for is a tool that can do the syntactic transformation from VBScript to C# for both the dsl-ish test cases and also the more complicated building-block libraries. That would leave me with a manual cleanup of the libraries, and probably very little work on the test cases. If I could find a VBScript-to-VB.NET translator, I'd take that also, as I suspect I could compile the VB.NET and then de-compile to C# using .NET Relector or something similar. Plan B is to write a translator of my own for the test cases, since they're in a very straight-line style, but it wouldn't help with the libraries. Any suyggestions? I haven't written a compiler in at least 15 years, and while I haven't forgotten how, I'm not looking forward to it - least of all for VBScript!

    Read the article

  • Pairs from single list

    - by Apalala
    Often enough, I've found the need to process a list by pairs. I was wondering which would be the pythonic and efficient way to do it, and found this on Google: pairs = zip(t[::2], t[1::2]) I thought that was pythonic enough, but after a recent discussion involving idioms versus efficiency, I decided to do some tests: import time from itertools import islice, izip def pairs_1(t): return zip(t[::2], t[1::2]) def pairs_2(t): return izip(t[::2], t[1::2]) def pairs_3(t): return izip(islice(t,None,None,2), islice(t,1,None,2)) A = range(10000) B = xrange(len(A)) def pairs_4(t): # ignore value of t! t = B return izip(islice(t,None,None,2), islice(t,1,None,2)) for f in pairs_1, pairs_2, pairs_3, pairs_4: # time the pairing s = time.time() for i in range(1000): p = f(A) t1 = time.time() - s # time using the pairs s = time.time() for i in range(1000): p = f(A) for a, b in p: pass t2 = time.time() - s print t1, t2, t2-t1 These were the results on my computer: 1.48668909073 2.63187503815 1.14518594742 0.105381965637 1.35109519958 1.24571323395 0.00257992744446 1.46182489395 1.45924496651 0.00251388549805 1.70076990128 1.69825601578 If I'm interpreting them correctly, that should mean that the implementation of lists, list indexing, and list slicing in Python is very efficient. It's a result both comforting and unexpected. Is there another, "better" way of traversing a list in pairs? Note that if the list has an odd number of elements then the last one will not be in any of the pairs. Which would be the right way to ensure that all elements are included? I added these two suggestions from the answers to the tests: def pairwise(t): it = iter(t) return izip(it, it) def chunkwise(t, size=2): it = iter(t) return izip(*[it]*size) These are the results: 0.00159502029419 1.25745987892 1.25586485863 0.00222492218018 1.23795199394 1.23572707176 Results so far Most pythonic and very efficient: pairs = izip(t[::2], t[1::2]) Most efficient and very pythonic: pairs = izip(*[iter(t)]*2) It took me a moment to grok that the first answer uses two iterators while the second uses a single one. To deal with sequences with an odd number of elements, the suggestion has been to augment the original sequence adding one element (None) that gets paired with the previous last element, something that can be achieved with itertools.izip_longest().

    Read the article

  • How might I wrap the FindXFile-style APIs to the STL-style Iterator Pattern in C++?

    - by BillyONeal
    Hello everyone :) I'm working on wrapping up the ugly innards of the FindFirstFile/FindNextFile loop (though my question applies to other similar APIs, such as RegEnumKeyEx or RegEnumValue, etc.) inside iterators that work in a manner similar to the Standard Template Library's istream_iterators. I have two problems here. The first is with the termination condition of most "foreach" style loops. STL style iterators typically use operator!= inside the exit condition of the for, i.e. std::vector<int> test; for(std::vector<int>::iterator it = test.begin(); it != test.end(); it++) { //Do stuff } My problem is I'm unsure how to implement operator!= with such a directory enumeration, because I do not know when the enumeration is complete until I've actually finished with it. I have sort of a hack together solution in place now that enumerates the entire directory at once, where each iterator simply tracks a reference counted vector, but this seems like a kludge which can be done a better way. The second problem I have is that there are multiple pieces of data returned by the FindXFile APIs. For that reason, there's no obvious way to overload operator* as required for iterator semantics. When I overload that item, do I return the file name? The size? The modified date? How might I convey the multiple pieces of data to which such an iterator must refer to later in an ideomatic way? I've tried ripping off the C# style MoveNext design but I'm concerned about not following the standard idioms here. class SomeIterator { public: bool next(); //Advances the iterator and returns true if successful, false if the iterator is at the end. std::wstring fileName() const; //other kinds of data.... }; EDIT: And the caller would look like: SomeIterator x = ??; //Construct somehow while(x.next()) { //Do stuff } Thanks! Billy3

    Read the article

  • How to handle 'this' pointer in constructor?

    - by Kyle
    I have objects which create other child objects within their constructors, passing 'this' so the child can save a pointer back to its parent. I use boost::shared_ptr extensively in my programming as a safer alternative to std::auto_ptr or raw pointers. So the child would have code such as shared_ptr<Parent>, and boost provides the shared_from_this() method which the parent can give to the child. My problem is that shared_from_this() cannot be used in a constructor, which isn't really a crime because 'this' should not be used in a constructor anyways unless you know what you're doing and don't mind the limitations. Google's C++ Style Guide states that constructors should merely set member variables to their initial values. Any complex initialization should go in an explicit Init() method. This solves the 'this-in-constructor' problem as well as a few others as well. What bothers me is that people using your code now must remember to call Init() every time they construct one of your objects. The only way I can think of to enforce this is by having an assertion that Init() has already been called at the top of every member function, but this is tedious to write and cumbersome to execute. Are there any idioms out there that solve this problem at any step along the way?

    Read the article

  • Efficiency of manually written loops vs operator overloads (C++)

    - by Sagekilla
    Hi all, in the program I'm working on I have 3-element arrays, which I use as mathematical vectors for all intents and purposes. Through the course of writing my code, I was tempted to just roll my own Vector class with simple +, -, *, /, etc overloads so I can simplify statements like: for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++) r[i] = r1[i] - r2[i]; // becomes: r = r1 - r2; Which should be more or less identical in generated code. But when it comes to more complicated things, could this really impact my performance heavily? One example that I have in my code is this: Manually written version: for (int j = 0; j < 3; j++) { p.vel[j] = p.oldVel[j] + (p.oldAcc[j] + p.acc[j]) * dt2 + (p.oldJerk[j] - p.jerk[j]) * dt12; p.pos[j] = p.oldPos[j] + (p.oldVel[j] + p.vel[j]) * dt2 + (p.oldAcc[j] - p.acc[j]) * dt12; } Using a Vector class with operator overloads: p.vel = p.oldVel + (p.oldAcc + p.acc) * dt2 + (p.oldJerk - p.jerk) * dt12; p.pos = p.oldPos + (p.oldVel + p.vel) * dt2 + (p.oldAcc - p.acc) * dt12; I am compiling my code for maximum possible speed, as it's extremely important that this code runs quickly and calculates accurately. So will me relying on my Vector's for these sorts of things really affect me? For those curious, this is part of some numerical integration code which is not trivial to run in my program. Any insight would be appreciated, as would any idioms or tricks I'm unaware of.

    Read the article

  • [c++] accessing the hidden 'this' pointer

    - by Kyle
    I have a GUI architecture wherein elements fire events like so: guiManager->fireEvent(BUTTON_CLICKED, this); Every single event fired passes 'this' as the caller of the event. There is never a time I dont want to pass 'this', and further, no pointer except for 'this' should ever be passed. This brings me to a problem: How can I assert that fireEvent is never given a pointer other than 'this', and how can I simplify (and homogenize) calls to fireEvent to just: guiManager->fireEvent(BUTTON_CLICKED); At this point, I'm reminded of a fairly common compiler error when you write something like this: class A { public: void foo() {} }; class B { void oops() { const A* a = new A; a->foo(); } }; int main() { return 0; } Compiling this will give you ../src/sandbox.cpp: In member function ‘void B::oops()’: ../src/sandbox.cpp:7: error: passing ‘const A’ as ‘this’ argument of ‘void A::foo()’ discards qualifiers because member functions pass 'this' as a hidden parameter. "Aha!" I say. This (no pun intended) is exactly what I want. If I could somehow access the hidden 'this' pointer, it would solve both issues I mentioned earlier. The problem is, as far as I know you can't (can you?) and if you could, there would be outcries of "but it would break encapsulation!" Except I'm already passing 'this' every time, so what more could it break. So, is there a way to access the hidden 'this', and if not are there any idioms or alternative approaches that are more elegant than passing 'this' every time?

    Read the article

  • Goto for the Java Programming Language

    - by darcy
    Work on JDK 8 is well-underway, but we thought this late-breaking JEP for another language change for the platform couldn't wait another day before being published. Title: Goto for the Java Programming Language Author: Joseph D. Darcy Organization: Oracle. Created: 2012/04/01 Type: Feature State: Funded Exposure: Open Component: core/lang Scope: SE JSR: 901 MR Discussion: compiler dash dev at openjdk dot java dot net Start: 2012/Q2 Effort: XS Duration: S Template: 1.0 Reviewed-by: Duke Endorsed-by: Edsger Dijkstra Funded-by: Blue Sun Corporation Summary Provide the benefits of the time-testing goto control structure to Java programs. The Java language has a history of adding new control structures over time, the assert statement in 1.4, the enhanced for-loop in 1.5,and try-with-resources in 7. Having support for goto is long-overdue and simple to implement since the JVM already has goto instructions. Success Metrics The goto statement will allow inefficient and verbose recursive algorithms and explicit loops to be replaced with more compact code. The effort will be a success if at least twenty five percent of the JDK's explicit loops are replaced with goto's. Coordination with IDE vendors is expected to help facilitate this goal. Motivation The goto construct offers numerous benefits to the Java platform, from increased expressiveness, to more compact code, to providing new programming paradigms to appeal to a broader demographic. In JDK 8, there is a renewed focus on using the Java platform on embedded devices with more modest resources than desktop or server environments. In such contexts, static and dynamic memory footprint is a concern. One significant component of footprint is the code attribute of class files and certain classes of important algorithms can be expressed more compactly using goto than using other constructs, saving footprint. For example, to implement state machines recursively, some parties have asked for the JVM to support tail calls, that is, to perform a complex transformation with security implications to turn a method call into a goto. Such complicated machinery should not be assumed for an embedded context. A better solution is just to expose to the programmer the desired functionality, goto. The web has familiarized users with a model of traversing links among different HTML pages in a free-form fashion with some state being maintained on the side, such as login credentials, to effect behavior. This is exactly the programming model of goto and code. While in the past this has been derided as leading to "spaghetti code," spaghetti is a tasty and nutritious meal for programmers, unlike quiche. The invokedynamic instruction added by JSR 292 exposes the JVM's linkage operation to programmers. This is a low-level operation that can be leveraged by sophisticated programmers. Likewise, goto is a also a low-level operation that should not be hidden from programmers who can use more efficient idioms. Some may object that goto was consciously excluded from the original design of Java as one of the removed feature from C and C++. However, the designers of the Java programming languages have revisited these removals before. The enum construct was also left out only to be added in JDK 5 and multiple inheritance was left out, only to be added back by the virtual extension method methods of Project Lambda. As a living language, the needs of the growing Java community today should be used to judge what features are needed in the platform tomorrow; the language should not be forever bound by the decisions of the past. Description From its initial version, the JVM has had two instructions for unconditional transfer of control within a method, goto (0xa7) and goto_w (0xc8). The goto_w instruction is used for larger jumps. All versions of the Java language have supported labeled statements; however, only the break and continue statements were able to specify a particular label as a target with the onerous restriction that the label must be lexically enclosing. The grammar addition for the goto statement is: GotoStatement: goto Identifier ; The new goto statement similar to break except that the target label can be anywhere inside the method and the identifier is mandatory. The compiler simply translates the goto statement into one of the JVM goto instructions targeting the right offset in the method. Therefore, adding the goto statement to the platform is only a small effort since existing compiler and JVM functionality is reused. Other language changes to support goto include obvious updates to definite assignment analysis, reachability analysis, and exception analysis. Possible future extensions include a computed goto as found in gcc, which would replace the identifier in the goto statement with an expression having the type of a label. Testing Since goto will be implemented using largely existing facilities, only light levels of testing are needed. Impact Compatibility: Since goto is already a keyword, there are no source compatibility implications. Performance/scalability: Performance will improve with more compact code. JVMs already need to handle irreducible flow graphs since goto is a VM instruction.

    Read the article

  • Polite busy-waiting with WRPAUSE on SPARC

    - by Dave
    Unbounded busy-waiting is an poor idea for user-space code, so we typically use spin-then-block strategies when, say, waiting for a lock to be released or some other event. If we're going to spin, even briefly, then we'd prefer to do so in a manner that minimizes performance degradation for other sibling logical processors ("strands") that share compute resources. We want to spin politely and refrain from impeding the progress and performance of other threads — ostensibly doing useful work and making progress — that run on the same core. On a SPARC T4, for instance, 8 strands will share a core, and that core has its own L1 cache and 2 pipelines. On x86 we have the PAUSE instruction, which, naively, can be thought of as a hardware "yield" operator which temporarily surrenders compute resources to threads on sibling strands. Of course this helps avoid intra-core performance interference. On the SPARC T2 our preferred busy-waiting idiom was "RD %CCR,%G0" which is a high-latency no-nop. The T4 provides a dedicated and extremely useful WRPAUSE instruction. The processor architecture manuals are the authoritative source, but briefly, WRPAUSE writes a cycle count into the the PAUSE register, which is ASR27. Barring interrupts, the processor then delays for the requested period. There's no need for the operating system to save the PAUSE register over context switches as it always resets to 0 on traps. Digressing briefly, if you use unbounded spinning then ultimately the kernel will preempt and deschedule your thread if there are other ready threads than are starving. But by using a spin-then-block strategy we can allow other ready threads to run without resorting to involuntary time-slicing, which operates on a long-ish time scale. Generally, that makes your application more responsive. In addition, by blocking voluntarily we give the operating system far more latitude regarding power management. Finally, I should note that while we have OS-level facilities like sched_yield() at our disposal, yielding almost never does what you'd want or naively expect. Returning to WRPAUSE, it's natural to ask how well it works. To help answer that question I wrote a very simple C/pthreads benchmark that launches 8 concurrent threads and binds those threads to processors 0..7. The processors are numbered geographically on the T4, so those threads will all be running on just one core. Unlike the SPARC T2, where logical CPUs 0,1,2 and 3 were assigned to the first pipeline, and CPUs 4,5,6 and 7 were assigned to the 2nd, there's no fixed mapping between CPUs and pipelines in the T4. And in some circumstances when the other 7 logical processors are idling quietly, it's possible for the remaining logical processor to leverage both pipelines. Some number T of the threads will iterate in a tight loop advancing a simple Marsaglia xor-shift pseudo-random number generator. T is a command-line argument. The main thread loops, reporting the aggregate number of PRNG steps performed collectively by those T threads in the last 10 second measurement interval. The other threads (there are 8-T of these) run in a loop busy-waiting concurrently with the T threads. We vary T between 1 and 8 threads, and report on various busy-waiting idioms. The values in the table are the aggregate number of PRNG steps completed by the set of T threads. The unit is millions of iterations per 10 seconds. For the "PRNG step" busy-waiting mode, the busy-waiting threads execute exactly the same code as the T worker threads. We can easily compute the average rate of progress for individual worker threads by dividing the aggregate score by the number of worker threads T. I should note that the PRNG steps are extremely cycle-heavy and access almost no memory, so arguably this microbenchmark is not as representative of "normal" code as it could be. And for the purposes of comparison I included a row in the table that reflects a waiting policy where the waiting threads call poll(NULL,0,1000) and block in the kernel. Obviously this isn't busy-waiting, but the data is interesting for reference. _table { border:2px black dotted; margin: auto; width: auto; } _tr { border: 2px red dashed; } _td { border: 1px green solid; } _table { border:2px black dotted; margin: auto; width: auto; } _tr { border: 2px red dashed; } td { background-color : #E0E0E0 ; text-align : right ; } th { text-align : left ; } td { background-color : #E0E0E0 ; text-align : right ; } th { text-align : left ; } Aggregate progress T = #worker threads Wait Mechanism for 8-T threadsT=1T=2T=3T=4T=5T=6T=7T=8 Park thread in poll() 32653347334833483348334833483348 no-op 415 831 124316482060249729303349 RD %ccr,%g0 "pause" 14262429269228623013316232553349 PRNG step 412 829 124616702092251029303348 WRPause(8000) 32443361333133483349334833483348 WRPause(4000) 32153308331533223347334833473348 WRPause(1000) 30853199322432513310334833483348 WRPause(500) 29173070315032223270330933483348 WRPause(250) 26942864294930773205338833483348 WRPause(100) 21552469262227902911321433303348

    Read the article

  • C#/.NET Little Wonders: Static Char Methods

    - by James Michael Hare
    Once again, in this series of posts I look at the parts of the .NET Framework that may seem trivial, but can help improve your code by making it easier to write and maintain. The index of all my past little wonders posts can be found here. Often times in our code we deal with the bigger classes and types in the BCL, and occasionally forgot that there are some nice methods on the primitive types as well.  Today we will discuss some of the handy static methods that exist on the char (the C# alias of System.Char) type. The Background I was examining a piece of code this week where I saw the following: 1: // need to get the 5th (offset 4) character in upper case 2: var type = symbol.Substring(4, 1).ToUpper(); 3:  4: // test to see if the type is P 5: if (type == "P") 6: { 7: // ... do something with P type... 8: } Is there really any error in this code?  No, but it still struck me wrong because it is allocating two very short-lived throw-away strings, just to store and manipulate a single char: The call to Substring() generates a new string of length 1 The call to ToUpper() generates a new upper-case version of the string from Step 1. In my mind this is similar to using ToUpper() to do a case-insensitive compare: it isn’t wrong, it’s just much heavier than it needs to be (for more info on case-insensitive compares, see #2 in 5 More Little Wonders). One of my favorite books is the C++ Coding Standards: 101 Rules, Guidelines, and Best Practices by Sutter and Alexandrescu.  True, it’s about C++ standards, but there’s also some great general programming advice in there, including two rules I love:         8. Don’t Optimize Prematurely         9. Don’t Pessimize Prematurely We all know what #8 means: don’t optimize when there is no immediate need, especially at the expense of readability and maintainability.  I firmly believe this and in the axiom: it’s easier to make correct code fast than to make fast code correct.  Optimizing code to the point that it becomes difficult to maintain often gains little and often gives you little bang for the buck. But what about #9?  Well, for that they state: “All other things being equal, notably code complexity and readability, certain efficient design patterns and coding idioms should just flow naturally from your fingertips and are no harder to write then the pessimized alternatives. This is not premature optimization; it is avoiding gratuitous pessimization.” Or, if I may paraphrase: “where it doesn’t increase the code complexity and readability, prefer the more efficient option”. The example code above was one of those times I feel where we are violating a tacit C# coding idiom: avoid creating unnecessary temporary strings.  The code creates temporary strings to hold one char, which is just unnecessary.  I think the original coder thought he had to do this because ToUpper() is an instance method on string but not on char.  What he didn’t know, however, is that ToUpper() does exist on char, it’s just a static method instead (though you could write an extension method to make it look instance-ish). This leads me (in a long-winded way) to my Little Wonders for the day… Static Methods of System.Char So let’s look at some of these handy, and often overlooked, static methods on the char type: IsDigit(), IsLetter(), IsLetterOrDigit(), IsPunctuation(), IsWhiteSpace() Methods to tell you whether a char (or position in a string) belongs to a category of characters. IsLower(), IsUpper() Methods that check if a char (or position in a string) is lower or upper case ToLower(), ToUpper() Methods that convert a single char to the lower or upper equivalent. For example, if you wanted to see if a string contained any lower case characters, you could do the following: 1: if (symbol.Any(c => char.IsLower(c))) 2: { 3: // ... 4: } Which, incidentally, we could use a method group to shorten the expression to: 1: if (symbol.Any(char.IsLower)) 2: { 3: // ... 4: } Or, if you wanted to verify that all of the characters in a string are digits: 1: if (symbol.All(char.IsDigit)) 2: { 3: // ... 4: } Also, for the IsXxx() methods, there are overloads that take either a char, or a string and an index, this means that these two calls are logically identical: 1: // check given a character 2: if (char.IsUpper(symbol[0])) { ... } 3:  4: // check given a string and index 5: if (char.IsUpper(symbol, 0)) { ... } Obviously, if you just have a char, then you’d just use the first form.  But if you have a string you can use either form equally well. As a side note, care should be taken when examining all the available static methods on the System.Char type, as some seem to be redundant but actually have very different purposes.  For example, there are IsDigit() and IsNumeric() methods, which sound the same on the surface, but give you different results. IsDigit() returns true if it is a base-10 digit character (‘0’, ‘1’, … ‘9’) where IsNumeric() returns true if it’s any numeric character including the characters for ½, ¼, etc. Summary To come full circle back to our opening example, I would have preferred the code be written like this: 1: // grab 5th char and take upper case version of it 2: var type = char.ToUpper(symbol[4]); 3:  4: if (type == 'P') 5: { 6: // ... do something with P type... 7: } Not only is it just as readable (if not more so), but it performs over 3x faster on my machine:    1,000,000 iterations of char method took: 30 ms, 0.000050 ms/item.    1,000,000 iterations of string method took: 101 ms, 0.000101 ms/item. It’s not only immediately faster because we don’t allocate temporary strings, but as an added bonus there less garbage to collect later as well.  To me this qualifies as a case where we are using a common C# performance idiom (don’t create unnecessary temporary strings) to make our code better. Technorati Tags: C#,CSharp,.NET,Little Wonders,char,string

    Read the article

  • Java - is this an idiom or pattern, behavior classes with no state

    - by Berlin Brown
    I am trying to incorporate more functional programming idioms into my java development. One pattern that I like the most and avoids side effects is building classes that have behavior but they don't necessarily have any state. The behavior is locked into the methods but they only act on the parameters passed in. The code below is code I am trying to avoid: public class BadObject { private Map<String, String> data = new HashMap<String, String>(); public BadObject() { data.put("data", "data"); } /** * Act on the data class. But this is bad because we can't * rely on the integrity of the object's state. */ public void execute() { data.get("data").toString(); } } The code below is nothing special but I am acting on the parameters and state is contained within that class. We still may run into issues with this class but that is an issue with the method and the state of the data, we can address issues in the routine as opposed to not trusting the entire object. Is this some form of idiom? Is this similar to any pattern that you use? public class SemiStatefulOOP { /** * Private class implies that I can access the members of the <code>Data</code> class * within the <code>SemiStatefulOOP</code> class and I can also access * the getData method from some other class. * * @see Test1 * */ class Data { protected int counter = 0; public int getData() { return counter; } public String toString() { return Integer.toString(counter); } } /** * Act on the data class. */ public void execute(final Data data) { data.counter++; } /** * Act on the data class. */ public void updateStateWithCallToService(final Data data) { data.counter++; } /** * Similar to CLOS (Common Lisp Object System) make instance. */ public Data makeInstance() { return new Data(); } } // End of Class // Issues with the code above: I wanted to declare the Data class private, but then I can't really reference it outside of the class: I can't override the SemiStateful class and access the private members. Usage: final SemiStatefulOOP someObject = new SemiStatefulOOP(); final SemiStatefulOOP.Data data = someObject.makeInstance(); someObject.execute(data); someObject.updateStateWithCallToService(data);

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5  | Next Page >