Search Results

Search found 29753 results on 1191 pages for 'best practices'.

Page 43/1191 | < Previous Page | 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50  | Next Page >

• Does your programming knowledge decrease if you don't practice?

  - by Codereview

  I'm a beginner programmer, I study languages such as C/C++/Python and Java (Mainly focused on C++). I'm What you'd call "Young and inexperienced" and I admit that because I can't claim otherwise. As a student I have many other problems besides programming.I practice programming as often as I can, and especially because my teacher gives me a lot more exercises than the rest of the class (It's a very low level), so oftentimes I spend weeks doing something else such as school projects or sports, or travelling, anything besides programming. Don't get me wrong though, I love programming, I love to build functional code, to watch as a program comes alive at the push of a button and to learn as much as I can - I simply don't have much time for it. Straight to the question, now: does your programming knowledge decrease as time passes and you don't practice? You may ask "How much time do you mean?". I don't mean a specific amount of time, but for reference you could take a month-two or even a year as an example. By knowledge I mean anything: From syntax to language functionality.

  Read the article

• Financial institutions build predictive models using Oracle R Enterprise to speed model deployment

  - by Mark Hornick

  See the Oracle press release, Financial Institutions Leverage Metadata Driven Modeling Capability Built on the Oracle R Enterprise Platform to Accelerate Model Deployment and Streamline Governance for a description where a "unified environment for analytics data management and model lifecycle management brings the power and flexibility of the open source R statistical platform, delivered via the in-database Oracle R Enterprise engine to support open standards compliance." Through its integration with Oracle R Enterprise, Oracle Financial Services Analytical Applications provides "productivity, management, and governance benefits to financial institutions, including the ability to: Centrally manage and control models in a single, enterprise model repository, allowing for consistent management and application of security and IT governance policies across enterprise assets Reuse models and rapidly integrate with applications by exposing models as services Accelerate development with seeded models and common modeling and statistical techniques available out-of-the-box Cut risk and speed model deployment by testing and tuning models with production data while working within a safe sandbox Support compliance with regulatory requirements by carrying out comprehensive stress testing, which captures the effects of adverse risk events that are not estimated by standard statistical and business models. This approach supplements the modeling process and supports compliance with the Pillar I and the Internal Capital Adequacy Assessment Process stress testing requirements of the Basel II Accord Improve performance by deploying and running models co-resident with data. Oracle R Enterprise engines run in database, virtually eliminating the need to move data to and from client machines, thereby reducing latency and improving security"

  Read the article

• How to become a good team player?

  - by Nick

  I've been programming (obsessively) since I was 12. I am fairly knowledgeable across the spectrum of languages out there, from assembly, to C++, to Javascript, to Haskell, Lisp, and Qi. But all of my projects have been by myself. I got my degree in chemical engineering, not CS or computer engineering, but for the first time this fall I'll be working on a large programming project with other people, and I have no clue how to prepare. I've been using Windows all of my life, but this project is going to be very unix-y, so I purchased a Mac recently in the hopes of familiarizing myself with the environment. I was fortunate to participate in a hackathon with some friends this past year -- both CS majors -- and excitingly enough, we won. But I realized as I worked with them that their workflow was very different from mine. They used Git for version control. I had never used it at the time, but I've since learned all that I can about it. They also used a lot of frameworks and libraries. I had to learn what Rails was pretty much overnight for the hackathon (on the other hand, they didn't know what lexical scoping or closures were). All of our code worked well, but they didn't understand mine, and I didn't understand theirs. I hear references to things that real programmers do on a daily basis -- unit testing, code reviews, but I only have the vaguest sense of what these are. I normally don't have many bugs in my little projects, so I have never needed a bug tracking system or tests for them. And the last thing is that it takes me a long time to understand other people's code. Variable naming conventions (that vary with each new language) are difficult (__mzkwpSomRidicAbbrev), and I find the loose coupling difficult. That's not to say I don't loosely couple things -- I think I'm quite good at it for my own work, but when I download something like the Linux kernel or the Chromium source code to look at it, I spend hours trying to figure out how all of these oddly named directories and files connect. It's a programming sin to reinvent the wheel, but I often find it's just quicker to write up the functionality myself than to spend hours dissecting some library. Obviously, people who do this for a living don't have these problems, and I'll need to get to that point myself. Question: What are some steps that I can take to begin "integrating" with everyone else? Thanks!

  Read the article

• BDD: Getting started

  - by thom

  I'm starting with BDD and this is my story: Feature: Months and days to days In order to see months and days as days As a date conversion fan I need a webpage where users can enter days and months and convert them to days. I have some doubts ... Should I write my scenarios before coding anything or should I first write a scenario and then write code, write a scenario again and then write code, and so on ... ? If I should write my scenarios before, can my steps be approved and production code still does not get done? When should I do refactoring on my code? After the feature is done or after each scenario implementation?

  Read the article

• Early Adopters of Oracle Enterprise Manager 12c Report Agility and Productivity Benefits

  - by Anand Akela

  Earlier this month at the Oracle Open World 2012, we celebrated the first anniversary of Oracle Enterprise Manager 12c . Early adopters of  Oracle Enterprise manager 12c have benefited from its federated self-service access to complete application stacks, automated provisioning, elastic scalability, metering, and charge-back capabilities. Crimson Consulting Group recently interviewed multiple early adopters of Oracle Enterprise Manager 12c and captured their finding in a white Paper "Real-World Benefits of Private Cloud: Early Adopters of Oracle Enterprise Manager 12c Report Agility and Productivity Gains".  Here is summary of the finding :- On October 25th at 10 AM pacific time, Kirk Bangstad from the Crimson Consulting group will join us in a live webcast and share what learnt from the early adopters of Oracle Enterprise Manager 12c. Don't miss this chance to hear how private clouds could impact your business and ask questions from our experts. Webcast: Real-World Benefits of Private Cloud Early Adopters of Oracle Enterprise Manager 12c Report Agility and Productivity Benefits Date: Thursday, October 25, 2012 Time: 10:00 AM PDT | 1:00 PM EDT Register Today All attendees will receive the White Paper: Real-World Benefits of Private Cloud: Early Adopters of Oracle Enterprise Manager 12c Report Agility and Productivity Gains. Stay Connected Twitter |  Face book |  You Tube |  Linked in |  Newsletter

  Read the article

• Methods of ordering function definitions in code

  - by xralf

  When I work on some programming project (usually command line application in Python with many switches), I'm usually creating about 30 and more functions. Most of the functions are in one file (except some helpers that I utilize in more projects). Some of the functions are called on particular switch (like -p or --print) but many functions do some helper computations, print operations or database operations because I don't want to main functions be too large. When I have an idea for a new functionality I often put new functions randomly to the file. Should I think more about it and place it to some particular place? Are there some methods for this?

  Read the article

• Stuff you learned in school, that you have never used again?

  - by Mercfh

  Obviously we learn plenty of things in our University/College/Whatever that probably don't apply to everyday use, but is there anything that stands out particularly? Maybe something that was concentrated ALOT on? For me it was def. 2 things: OO Concepts and Pointers I still use OO, but not nearly to the amount people made it out to be, i can see where it'd be useful but in my line of work we don't have huge amounts of classes, maybe a couple at most. And there certainly isn't much OO reuse (i finally figured out what that means lol) Pointers are another thing, again I can see where they'd be useful...however I barely barely ever touch them, nor do the others I work with. I guess language choice has alot to do with that but still. What about you guys? edit: For those who are asking I work for a Large Printer company, and most of the Applications we work on are Java+XML and Actionscript for "Printer Apps". But we are moving towards other languages (think like webkits and stuff). So the Code amounts per parts are quite small. I never say OO wasn't useful I just said I personally havent seen it used in my workplace much.

  Read the article

• Should one comment differently in functional languages

  - by Tom Squires

  I'm just getting started with functional programming and I'm wondering the correct way to comment my code. It seems a little redundant to comment a short function as the names and signature already should tell you everything you need to know. Commenting larger functions also seems a little redundant since they are generally comprised of smaller self-descriptive functions. What is the correct way to comment a functional program? Should I use the same approach as in iterative programming?

  Read the article

• Parallel Class/Interface Hierarchy with the Facade Design Pattern?

  - by Mike G

  About a third of my code is wrapped inside a Facade class. Note that this isn't a "God" class, but actually represents a single thing (called a Line). Naturally, it delegates responsibilities to the subsystem behind it. What ends up happening is that two of the subsystem classes (Output and Timeline) have all of their methods duplicated in the Line class, which effectively makes Line both an Output and a Timeline. It seems to make sense to make Output and Timeline interfaces, so that the Line class can implement them both. At the same time, I'm worried about creating parallel class and interface structures. You see, there are different types of lines AudioLine, VideoLine, which all use the same type of Timeline, but different types of Output (AudioOutput and VideoOutput, respectively). So that would mean that I'd have to create an AudioOutputInterface and VideoOutputInterface as well. So not only would I have to have parallel class hierarchy, but there would be a parallel interface hierarchy as well. Is there any solution to this design flaw? Here's an image of the basic structure (minus the Timeline class, though know that each Line has-a Timeline): NOTE: I just realized that the word 'line' in Timeline might make is sound like is does a similar function as the Line class. They don't, just to clarify.

  Read the article

• How to implement child-parent aggregation link in C++?

  - by Giorgio

  Suppose that I have three classes P, C1, C2, composition (strong aggregation) relations between P <>- C1 and P <>- C2, i.e. every instance of P contains an instance of C1 and an instance of C2, which are destroyed when the parent P instance is destroyed. an association relation between instances of C1 and C2 (not necessarily between children of the same P). To implement this, in C++ I normally define three classes P, C1, C2, define two member variables of P of type boost::shared_ptr<C1>, boost::shared_ptr<C2>, and initialize them with newly created objects in P's constructor, implement the relation between C1 and C2 using a boost::weak_ptr<C2> member variable in C1 and a boost::weak_ptr<C1> member variable in C2 that can be set later via appropriate methods, when the relation is established. Now, I also would like to have a link from each C1 and C2 object to its P parent object. What is a good way to implement this? My current idea is to use a simple constant raw pointer (P * const) that is set from the constructor of P (which, in turn, calls the constructors of C1 and C2), i.e. something like: class C1 { public: C1(P * const p, ...) : paren(p) { ... } private: P * const parent; ... }; class P { public: P(...) : childC1(new C1(this, ...)) ... { ... } private: boost::shared_ptr<C1> childC1; ... }; Honestly I see no risk in using a private constant raw pointer in this way but I know that raw pointers are often frowned upon in C++ so I was wondering if there is an alternative solution.

  Read the article

• Dealing with curly brace soup

  - by Cyborgx37

  I've programmed in both C# and VB.NET for years, but primarily in VB. I'm making a career shift toward C# and, overall, I like C# better. One issue I'm having, though, is curly brace soup. In VB, each structure keyword has a matching close keyword, for example: Namespace ... Class ... Function ... For ... Using ... If ... ... End If If ... ... End If End Using Next End Function End Class End Namespace The same code written in C# ends up very hard to read: namespace ... { class ... { function ... { for ... { using ... { if ... { ... } if ... { ... } } } // wait... what level is this? } } } Being so used to VB, I'm wondering if there's a technique employed by c-style programmers to improve readability and to ensure that your code ends up in the correct "block". The above example is relatively easy to read, but sometimes at the end of a piece of code I'll have 8 or more levels of curly braces, requiring me to scroll up several pages to figure out which brace ends the block I'm interested in.

  Read the article

• Which is a better practice - helper methods as instance or static?

  - by Ilian Pinzon

  This question is subjective but I was just curious how most programmers approach this. The sample below is in pseudo-C# but this should apply to Java, C++, and other OOP languages as well. Anyway, when writing helper methods in my classes, I tend to declare them as static and just pass the fields if the helper method needs them. For example, given the code below, I prefer to use Method Call #2. class Foo { Bar _bar; public void DoSomethingWithBar() { // Method Call #1. DoSomethingWithBarImpl(); // Method Call #2. DoSomethingWithBarImpl(_bar); } private void DoSomethingWithBarImpl() { _bar.DoSomething(); } private static void DoSomethingWithBarImpl(Bar bar) { bar.DoSomething(); } } My reason for doing this is that it makes it clear (to my eyes at least) that the helper method has a possible side-effect on other objects - even without reading its implementation. I find that I can quickly grok methods that use this practice and thus help me in debugging things. Which do you prefer to do in your own code and what are your reasons for doing so?

  Read the article

• Android: Layouts and views or a single full screen custom view?

  - by futlib

  I'm developing an Android game, and I'm making it so that it can run on low end devices without GPU, so I'm using the 2D API. I have so far tried to use Android's mechanisms such as layouts and activities where possible, but I'm beginning to wonder if it's not easier to just create a single custom view (or one per activity) and do all the work there. Here's an example of how I currently do things: I'm using a layout to display the game's background as an image view and the square game area, which is a custom view, centered in the middle. What would you say? Should I continue to use layouts where possible or is it more common/reasonable to just use a large custom view? I'm thinking that this would probably also make it easier to port my code to other platforms.

  Read the article

• Why should a class be anything other than "abstract" or "final/sealed"

  - by Nicolas Repiquet

  After 10+ years of java/c# programming, I find myself creating either: abstract classes: contract not meant to be instantiated as-is. final/sealed classes: implementation not meant to serve as base class to something else. I can't think of any situation where a simple "class" (i.e. neither abstract nor final/sealed) would be "wise programming". Why should a class be anything other than "abstract" or "final/sealed" ? EDIT This great article explains my concerns far better than I can.

  Read the article

• Everything has an Interface [closed]

  - by Shane

  Possible Duplicate: Do I need to use an interface when only one class will ever implement it? I am taking over a project where every single real class is implementing an Interface. The vast majority of these interfaces are implemented by a single class that share a similar name and the exact same methods (ex: MyCar and MyCarImpl). Almost no 2 classes in the project implement more than the interface that shares its name. I know the general recommendation is to code to an interface rather than an implementation, but isn't this taking it a bit too far? The system might be more flexible in that it is easier to add a new class that behaves very much like an existing class. However, it is significantly harder to parse through the code and method changes now require 2 edits instead of 1. Personally, I normally only create interfaces when there is a need for multiple classes to have the same behavior. I subscribe to YAGNI, so I don't create something unless I see a real need for it. Am I doing it all wrong or is this project going way overboard?

  Read the article

• What are your worst experiences with whitespace?

  - by CheeseConQueso

  What are some good examples of whitespace being the cause of any type of error and/or total disruption of scripts and/or markups? I am more interested in any accounts related to languages that are used commonly today, but I would like to hear about any cases in general. PS - This should be a wiki, but I don't know what happened to the "make this a wiki" check box. If someone comes across this with the rights to set it as a "wiki", please do so. If SO decided they wanted to keep away from wiki's altogether, please comment me about that. Thanks

  Read the article

• How to organize a Coding Dojo?

  - by Stephan

  Over on stack overflow it was asked how to organize a coding dojo (http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4338567/how-to-organize-a-coding-dojo-event). I believe that may have been the wrong forum... I wonder the same thing: how is a Codeing Dojo organized? What is the structure of a meeting? How would one pick Katas? What do you plan ahead of time? I am interested in any ideas on this as well as links to any resource that may be outlining this.

  Read the article

• Should I forward the a call to .Equals onto .Equals<T>?

  - by Jaimal Chohan

  So, I've got you bog standard c# object, overriding Equalsand implementing IEquatable public override int GetHashCode() { return _name.GetHashCode(); } public override bool Equals(object obj) { return Equals(obj as Tag) } #region IEquatable<Tag> Members public bool Equals(Tag other) { if (other == null) return false; else return _name == other._name; } #endregion Now, for some reason, I used to think that forwarding the calls from Equals into Equals was bad, no idea why, perhaps I read it a long time ago, anyway I'd write separate (but logically same) code for each method. Now I think forwarding Equals to Equals is okay, for obvious reasons, but for the life me I can't remember why I thought it wasn't before. Any thoughts?

  Read the article

• "Opportunity" to take over maintenance of a small internal website. What should I do?

  - by Dan

  I have been offered an "opportunity" to take over maintenance of a small internal website run by my group that provides information about schedules and photos of events the groups done. My manager sent me the link to the site and checked it out. The site looked clean and neat but loaded in ~5 seconds. I thought this was a little long considering the site really didn't contain a lot of content. This prompted me to take a look under the hood at the pages source code. To my horror it'd been totally hacked together using nested tables! I'm new so I really can't say no to this "opportunity" so what should I do with it? Every fiber of my being feels that the only correct thing to do is over hall the site using CSS, Div's, Span's and any other appropriate tags that a sane/good web developer would used to begin with instead of depending on the render incentive magic of tables. But I'd like to ask programmers with more experienced then me, who have been in this situation. What should I do? Is my only realistic option to leave the horror as is and only adjusting the content as requested? I'm really torn between good development and the corporate reality I'm part of. Is there some kind of middle ground where things can be made better even if they're not perfect? Thanks ahead of time.

  Read the article

• Legitimate use of the Windows "Documents" folder in programs.

  - by romkyns

  Anyone who likes their Documents folder to contain only things they place there knows that the standard Documents folder is completely unsuitable for this task. Every program seems to want to put its settings, data, or something equally irrelevant into the Documents folder, despite the fact that there are folders specifically for this job1. So that this doesn't sound empty, take my personal "Documents" folder as an example. I don't ever use it, in that I never, under any circumstances, save anything into this folder myself. And yet, it contains 46 folders and 3 files at the top level, for a total of 800 files in 500 folders. That's 190 MB of "documents" I didn't create. Obviously any actual documents would immediately get lost in this mess. My question is: can anything be done to improve the situation sufficiently to make "Documents" useful again, say over the next 5 years? Can programmers be somehow educated en-masse not to use it as a dumping ground? Could the OS start reporting some "fake" location hidden under AppData through the existing APIs, while only allowing Explorer and the various Open/Save dialogs to know where the "real" Documents folder resides? Or are any attempts completely futile or even unnecessary? 1For the record, here's a quick summary of the various standard directories that should be used instead of "Documents": RoamingAppData for user-specific data and settings. This is the directory to use for user-specific non-temporary data. Anything placed here will be available on any machine that a given user logs on to in networks where this is configured. Do not place large files here though, because they slow down login/logout in such environments. LocalAppData for user-and-machine-specific data and settings. This data differs for every user and every machine. This is also where very large user-specific data should be placed. ProgramData for machine-specific data and settings. These are the same regardless of which user is logged on, and will not roam to other machines in a network. GetTempPath for all files that may be wiped without loss of data when not in use. This is also the place for things like caches, because like temporary data, a cache does not need to be backed up. Place your huge cache here and you'll save your user some backup trouble. "Documents" itself should only ever be used if the user specified it manually by entering a path or selecting it in a Save dialog. That is the only time it is ever appropriate to save stuff in "Documents".

  Read the article

• Structure vs. programming

  - by ChristopherW

  Is it bad that I often find myself spending more time on program structure than actually writing code inside methods? Is this common? I feel I spend more time laying the foundation than actually building the house (metaphorically). While I understand that without a good foundation the house will cave in, but does it legitimately need to take half of the project to finalize code structure? I understand design patterns, and I know where to go if I need help on choosing one, but often I find myself doubting my own choices.

  Read the article

• Code to simulate a users actions, such as logging in

  - by Gortron

  I've recently begun working on a PHP application, replacing another developer. I believed the application was using an API to communicate with a remote service but when I looked through the code I found that it was using a set of functions to actually log in, fill out forms and submit them as a user might do in a browser. My intention is to replace this code, to use the services API instead. I've considered leaving the code as is and not replace it. It makes me wonder though is this a common practice in the software industry? To have a programme simulate a users actions in a browser to perform a set of actions? It feels to me that this is clever but poor programming, Have any other developers seen this?

  Read the article

• prism and multiple screens

  - by Avi

  OK - I am studying Prism a little because of a "free weekend" offer on Pluralsight. As this is proving too complex for me, I went to the Prism book and looked at the forward, and this is what it said: What comes after “Hello, World?” WPF and Silverlight developers are blessed with an abundance of excellent books... There’s no lack of tutorials on Model-View-ViewModel ... But they stop short of the guidance you need to deliver a non-trivial application in full. Your first screen goes well. You add a second screen and a third. Because you started your solution with the built-in “Navigation Application Template,” adding new screens feels like hanging shirts on a closet rod. You are on a roll. Until the harsh reality of real application requirements sets in. As it happens, your application has 30 screens not three. There’s no room on that closet rod for 30 screens. Some screens are modal pop-ups; you don’t navigate to a pop-up. Screens become interdependent such that user activity in one screen triggers changes that propagate throughout the UI. Some screens are optional; others are visible only to authorized users. Some screens are permanent, while other screens can be opened and closed at will. You discover that navigating back to a previously displayed screen creates a new instance. That’s not what you expected and, to your horror, the prior instance is gone along with the user’s unsaved changes. Now the issue is, I don't relate to this description. I've never been a UI programmer, but same as everyone else I'm using Windows apps such as MS-Office, and web sites such as Amazon, Facebook and StackExchange. And I look at these and I don't see many "so many screens" issues! Indeed, the only applications having many windows I can think of is Visual Studio. Maybe also Visio, a little. But take Word - You have a ribbon and a main window. Or take Facebook: You have those lists on the left (Favorites, Lists, Groups etc.), the status middle, the adds and then the Contacts sidebar. But it's only one page. Of course, I understand that in enterprise scenarios there are dashboad applications where multiple segments of the screen are updated from multiple non-related services. This I dig. But other scenarios? So - What am I missing? What is the "multiple screens" monster Pirsm is supposed to be the silver bullet solution for? Shoud I invest in studying Prism in addition to learning WPF or ASP.NET MVC?

  Read the article

• Should all, none, or some overriden methods call Super?

  - by JoJo

  When designing a class, how do you decide when all overridden methods should call super or when none of the overridden methods should call super? Also, is it considered bad practice if your code logic requires a mixture of supered and non-supered methods like the Javascript example below? ChildClass = new Class.create(ParentClass, { /** * @Override */ initialize: function($super) { $super(); this.foo = 99; }, /** * @Override */ methodOne: function($super) { $super(); this.foo++; }, /** * @Override */ methodTwo: function($super) { this.foo--; } }); After delving into the iPhone and Android SDKs, I noticed that super must be called on every overridden method, or else the program will crash because something wouldn't get initialized. When deriving from a template/delegate, none of the methods are supered (obviously). So what exactly are these "je ne sais quoi" qualities that determine whether a all, none, or some overriden methods should call super?

  Read the article

• More than one way to skin an Audit

  - by BuckWoody

  I get asked quite a bit about auditing in SQL Server. By "audit", people mean everything from tracking logins to finding out exactly who ran a particular SELECT statement. In the really early versions of SQL Server, we didn't have a great story for very granular audits, so lots of workarounds were suggested. As time progressed, more and more audit capabilities were added to the product, and in typical database platform fashion, as we added a feature we didn't often take the others away. So now, instead of not having an option to audit actions by users, you might face the opposite problem - too many ways to audit! You can read more about the options you have for tracking users here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc280526(v=SQL.100).aspx  In SQL Server 2008, we introduced SQL Server Audit, which uses Extended Events to really get a simple way to implement high-level or granular auditing. You can read more about that here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd392015.aspx  As with any feature, you should understand what your needs are first. Auditing isn't "free" in the performance sense, so you need to make sure you're only auditing what you need to. Share this post: email it! | bookmark it! | digg it! | reddit! | kick it! | live it!

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50  | Next Page >