Search Results

Search found 37902 results on 1517 pages for 'object methods'.

Page 65/1517 | < Previous Page | 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72  | Next Page >

  • What is the difference between Java 6 and PHP 5.4? [closed]

    - by Mashael
    First of all, let me explain the matter. I'm in a class where we learn Java 6 OOP fundamentals. However, my goal is to learn PHP (the last version) next. So, my question: Is there a big difference between PHP and Java 6 in OOP concepts? Meaning that after I finish the OOP class in Java will I find a lot of things that need to be learned in PHP regarding OOP? Update: *My goal of learning PHP next is to build dynamic sites* (I'm not sure of other options) and to follow OOP.

    Read the article

  • what is message passing in OO?

    - by Tom
    I've been studying OO programming, primarily in C++, C# and Java. I thought I had a good grasp on it with my understanding of encapsulation, inheritance and polymorphism (as well as reading a lot of questions on this site). One thing that seems to popup up here and there is the concept of "message passing". Apparently, this is something that is not used whilst OO programming in today's mainstream languages, but is supported by Smalltalk. My questions are: What is message passing? (Can someone give a practical example?) Is there any support for this "message passing" in C++, C# or Java?

    Read the article

  • Why is my class worse than the hierarchy of classes in the book (beginner OOP)?

    - by aditya menon
    I am reading this book. The author is trying to model a lesson in a college. The goal is to output the Lesson Type (Lecture or Seminar), and the Charges for the lesson depending on whether it is a hourly or fixed price lesson. So the output should be: lesson charge 20. Charge type: hourly rate. lesson type seminar. lesson charge 30. Charge type: fixed rate. lesson type lecture. When the input is as follows: $lessons[] = new Lesson('hourly rate', 4, 'seminar'); $lessons[] = new Lesson('fixed rate', null, 'lecture'); I wrote this: class Lesson { private $chargeType; private $duration; private $lessonType; public function __construct($chargeType, $duration, $lessonType) { $this->chargeType = $chargeType; $this->duration = $duration; $this->lessonType = $lessonType; } public function getChargeType() { return $this->getChargeType; } public function getLessonType() { return $this->getLessonType; } public function cost() { if($this->chargeType == 'fixed rate') { return "30"; } else { return $this->duration * 5; } } } $lessons[] = new Lesson('hourly rate', 4, 'seminar'); $lessons[] = new Lesson('fixed rate', null, 'lecture'); foreach($lessons as $lesson) { print "lesson charge {$lesson->cost()}."; print " Charge type: {$lesson->getChargeType()}."; print " lesson type {$lesson->getLessonType()}."; print "<br />"; } But according to the book, I am wrong (I am pretty sure I am, too). The author gave a large hierarchy of classes as the solution instead. In a previous chapter, the author stated the following 'four signposts' as the time when I should consider changing my class structure: Code Duplication The Class Who Knew Too Much About His Context The Jack of All Trades - Classes that try to do many things Conditional Statements The only problem I can see is Conditional Statements, and that too in a vague manner - so why refactor this? What problems do you think might arise in the future that I have not foreseen?

    Read the article

  • Hadoop and Object Reuse, Why?

    - by Andrew White
    In Hadoop, objects passed to reducers are reused. This is extremely surprising and hard to track down if you're not expecting it. Furthermore, the original tracker for this "feature" doesn't offer any evidence that this change actually improved performance (unless I missed it). It would speed up the system substantially if we reused the keys and values [...] but I think it is worth doing. This seems completely counter to this very popular answer. Is there some credence to the Hadoop developer's claim? Is there something "special" about Hadoop that would invalidate the notion of object creation being cheap?

    Read the article

  • Nested Classes: A useful tool or an encapsulation violation?

    - by Bryan Harrington
    So I'm still on the fence as to whether or not I should be using these or not. I feel its an extreme violation of encapsulation, however I find that I am able to achieve some degree of encapsulation while gaining more flexibility in my code. Previous Java/Swing projects I had used nested classes to some degree, However now I have moved into other projects in C# and I am avoid their use. How do you feel about nested classes?

    Read the article

  • Functional programming readability

    - by Jimmy Hoffa
    I'm curious about this because I recall before learning any functional languages, I thought them all horribly, awfully, terribly unreadable. Now that I know Haskell and f#, I find it takes a little longer to read less code, but that little code does far more than an equivalent amount would in an imperative language, so it feels like a net gain and I'm not extremely practiced in functional. Here's my question, I constantly hear from OOP folks that functional style is terribly unreadable. I'm curious if this is the case and I'm deluding myself, or if they took the time to learn a functional language, the whole style would no longer be more unreadable than OOP? Has anybody seen any evidence or got any anecdotes where they saw this go one way or another with frequency enough to possibly say? If writing functionally really is of lower readability than I don't want to keep using it, but I really don't know if that's the case or not..

    Read the article

  • Code Smell: Inheritance Abuse

    - by dsimcha
    It's been generally accepted in the OO community that one should "favor composition over inheritance". On the other hand, inheritance does provide both polymorphism and a straightforward, terse way of delegating everything to a base class unless explicitly overridden and is therefore extremely convenient and useful. Delegation can often (though not always) be verbose and brittle. The most obvious and IMHO surest sign of inheritance abuse is violation of the Liskov Substitution Principle. What are some other signs that inheritance is The Wrong Tool for the Job even if it seems convenient?

    Read the article

  • Design pattern and best practices

    - by insane-36
    I am an iphone developer. I am quite confident on developing iphone application with some minimal feature. I would consider myself as a fair application developer but the code I write is not so much structured. I make vey little use of MVC because I dont seem to find places to impose MVC. Most of the time, I create application with viewcontrollers and very few models only. How could I improve the skill for making my code more reusable, standard, easy and maintainable. I have seen few books on design patterns and tried few chapters myself but I dont seem to skip my habit. I know few of them but I am not being able to apply those patterns into my app. What is the best way to learn the design patterns and coding habit. Any kind of suggestion is warmly welcomed.

    Read the article

  • Is ORM an Anti-Pattern?

    - by derphil
    I had a very stimulating and interessting discussion with a colleague about ORM and it's Pros and Cons. In my opinion, an ORM is useful only in the rarest cases. At least in my experience. But I don't want to list my own arguments at this time. So I ask you, what do you think about ORM? What are the Pros and the Cons? P.S. I've posted this "question" yesterday on Stackoverflow, but some of the user think, that this should better posted here.

    Read the article

  • Vertex Array Object (OpenGL)

    - by Shin
    I've just started out with OpenGL I still haven't really understood what Vertex Array Objects are and how they can be employed. If Vertex Buffer Object are used to store vertex data (such as their positions and texture coordinates) and the VAOs only contain status flags, where can they be used? What's their purpose? As far as I understood from the (very incomplete and unclear) GL Wiki, VAOs are used to set the flags/status for every vertex, following the order described in the Element Array Buffer, but the wiki was really ambiguous about it and I'm not really sure about what VAOs really do and how I could employ them.

    Read the article

  • How do we keep dependent data structures up to date?

    - by Geo
    Suppose you have a parse tree, an abstract syntax tree, and a control flow graph, each one logically derived from the one before. In principle it is easy to construct each graph given the parse tree, but how can we manage the complexity of updating the graphs when the parse tree is modified? We know exactly how the tree has been modified, but how can the change be propagated to the other trees in a way that doesn't become difficult to manage? Naturally the dependent graph can be updated by simply reconstructing it from scratch every time the first graph changes, but then there would be no way of knowing the details of the changes in the dependent graph. I currently have four ways to attempt to solve this problem, but each one has difficulties. Nodes of the dependent tree each observe the relevant nodes of the original tree, updating themselves and the observer lists of original tree nodes as necessary. The conceptual complexity of this can become daunting. Each node of the original tree has a list of the dependent tree nodes that specifically depend upon it, and when the node changes it sets a flag on the dependent nodes to mark them as dirty, including the parents of the dependent nodes all the way down to the root. After each change we run an algorithm that is much like the algorithm for constructing the dependent graph from scratch, but it skips over any clean node and reconstructs each dirty node, keeping track of whether the reconstructed node is actually different from the dirty node. This can also get tricky. We can represent the logical connection between the original graph and the dependent graph as a data structure, like a list of constraints, perhaps designed using a declarative language. When the original graph changes we need only scan the list to discover which constraints are violated and how the dependent tree needs to change to correct the violation, all encoded as data. We can reconstruct the dependent graph from scratch as though there were no existing dependent graph, and then compare the existing graph and the new graph to discover how it has changed. I'm sure this is the easiest way because I know there are algorithms available for detecting differences, but they are all quite computationally expensive and in principle it seems unnecessary so I'm deliberately avoiding this option. What is the right way to deal with these sorts of problems? Surely there must be a design pattern that makes this whole thing almost easy. It would be nice to have a good solution for every problem of this general description. Does this class of problem have a name?

    Read the article

  • Liskov principle: violation by type-hinting

    - by Elias Van Ootegem
    According to the Liskov principle, a construction like the one below is invalid, as it strengthens a pre-condition. I know the example is pointless/nonsense, but when I last asked a question like this, and used a more elaborate code sample, it seemed to distract people too much from the actual question. //Data models abstract class Argument { protected $value = null; public function getValue() { return $this->value; } abstract public function setValue($val); } class Numeric extends Argument { public function setValue($val) { $this->value = $val + 0;//coerce to number return $this; } } //used here: abstract class Output { public function printValue(Argument $arg) { echo $this->format($arg); return $this; } abstract public function format(Argument $arg); } class OutputNumeric extends Output { public function format(Numeric $arg)//<-- VIOLATION! { $format = is_float($arg->getValue()) ? '%.3f' : '%d'; return sprintf($format, $arg->getValue()); } } My question is this: Why would this kind of "violation" be considered harmful? So much so that some languages, like the one I used in this example (PHP), don't even allow this? I'm not allowed to strengthen the type-hint of an abstract method but, by overriding the printValue method, I am allowed to write: class OutputNumeric extends Output { final public function printValue(Numeric $arg) { echo $this->format($arg); } public function format(Argument $arg) { $format = is_float($arg->getValue()) ? '%.3f' : '%d'; return sprintf($format, $arg->getValue()); } } But this would imply repeating myself for each and every child of Output, and makes my objects harder to reuse. I understand why the Liskov principle exists, don't get me wrong, but I find it somewhat difficult to fathom why the signature of an abstract method in an abstract class has to be adhered to so much stricter than a non-abstract method. Could someone explain to me why I'm not allowed to hind at a child class, in a child class? The way I see it, the child class OutputNumeric is a specific use-case of Output, and thus might need a specific instance of Argument, namely Numeric. Is it really so wrong of me to write code like this?

    Read the article

  • Turning your code inside out (functional style) compared to a OO paradigm

    - by Acaz Souza
    I have find this article Turning Your Code Inside Out and I want to know how this approach described in article is for OO programmers/languages. Is this style of design used in OO programmers/languages? What's downsides and goodsides of this approach in a OO language? Update: OO objects have state and behavior, the design explained in article is stateless. Is not only Single Responsability Principle. (If I'm talking shit, please explain to me instead of only downside/close votes)

    Read the article

  • Very simple OOP question

    - by Mosty Mostacho
    I was creating and discussing a class diagram with a partner of mine. To simplify things, I've modify the real domain we're working on and made up the following diagram: Basically, a company works on constructions that are quite different one from each other but are still constructions. Note I've added one field for each class but there should be many more. Now, I thought this was the way to go but my partner told me that if in the future new construction classes appear we would have to modify the Company class, which is correct. So the new proposed class diagram would be this: Now I've been wondering: Should the fact that in no place of the application will there be mixed lists of planes and bridges affect the design in any way? When we have to list only planes for a company, how are we supposed to distinguish them from the other elements in the list without checking for their class names? Related to the previous question, is it correct to assume that this type of diagram should be high-level and this is something it shouldn't matter at this stage but rather be thought and decided at implementation time? Any comment will be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • How to decide whether to implement an operation as Entity operation vs Service operation in Domain Driven Design?

    - by Louis Rhys
    I am reading Evans's Domain Driven Design. The book says that there are entity and there are services. If I were to implement an operation, how to decide whether I should add it as a method on an entity or do it in a service class? e.g. myEntity.DoStuff() or myService.DoStuffOn(myEntity)? Does it depend on whether other entities are involved? If it involves other entities, implement as service operation? But entities can have associations and can traverse it from there too right? Does it depend on stateless or not? But service can also access entities' variable, right? Like in do stuff myService.DoStuffOn, it can have code like if(myEntity.IsX) doSomething(); Which means that it will depend on the state? Or does it depend on complexity? How do you define complex operations?

    Read the article

  • SharePoint Client Object Model: Step One

    - by PeterBrunone
    I almost didn't make it out alive.  I followed the instructions in every piece of sample code and every forum post by someone who had no idea why their client OM code wasn't working, and my code still wouldn't get past the page load.  I kept getting "'Type' is undefined" errors when sp.core.js tried to register the SP namespace.As it turns out, you need the help of the default master page (or one like it) to get the object model loaded.  Once I told my sample page to use the default master and modified everything accordingly, it hooked up and ran just fine.Now I can finally get some work done.

    Read the article

  • What is considered third party code?

    - by Songo
    Inspired by this question Using third-party libraries - always use a wrapper? I wanted to know what people actually consider as third-party libraries. Example from PHP: If I'm building an application using Zend framework, should I treat Zend framework libraries as third party code? Example from C#: If I'm building a desktop application, should I treat all .Net classes as third party code? Example from Java: Should I treat all libraries in the JDK as third party libraries? Some people say that if a library is stable and won't change often then one doesn't need to wrap it. However I fail to see how one would test a class that depends on a third party code without wrapping it.

    Read the article

  • Pattern for a class that does only one thing

    - by Heinzi
    Let's say I have a procedure that does stuff: void doStuff(initalParams) { ... } Now I discover that "doing stuff" is quite a compex operation. The procedure becomes large, I split it up into multiple smaller procedures and soon I realize that having some kind of state would be useful while doing stuff, so that I need to pass less parameters between the small procedures. So, I factor it out into its own class: class StuffDoer { private someInternalState; public Start(initalParams) { ... } // some private helper procedures here ... } And then I call it like this: new StuffDoer().Start(initialParams); or like this: new StuffDoer(initialParams).Start(); And this is what feels wrong. When using the .NET or Java API, I always never call new SomeApiClass().Start(...);, which makes me suspect that I'm doing it wrong. Sure, I could make StuffDoer's constructor private and add a static helper method: public static DoStuff(initalParams) { new StuffDoer().Start(initialParams); } But then I'd have a class whose external interface consists of only one static method, which also feels weird. Hence my question: Is there a well-established pattern for this type of classes that have only one entry point and have no "externally recognizable" state, i.e., instance state is only required during execution of that one entry point?

    Read the article

  • If immutable objects are good, why do people keep creating mutable objects?

    - by Vinoth Kumar
    If immutable objects are good,simple and offers benefits in concurrent programming why do programmers keep creating mutable objects? I have four years of experience in Java programming and as I see it, the first thing people do after creating a class is generate getters and setters in the IDE (thus making it mutable). Is there a lack of awareness or can we get away with using mutable objects in most scenarios?

    Read the article

  • Rails: Law of Demeter Confusion

    - by user2158382
    I am reading a book called Rails AntiPatterns and they talk about using delegation to to avoid breaking the Law of Demeter. Here is their prime example: They believe that calling something like this in the controller is bad (and I agree) @street = @invoice.customer.address.street Their proposed solution is to do the following: class Customer has_one :address belongs_to :invoice def street address.street end end class Invoice has_one :customer def customer_street customer.street end end @street = @invoice.customer_street They are stating that since you only use one dot, you are not breaking the Law of Demeter here. I think this is incorrect, because you are still going through customer to go through address to get the invoice's street. I primarily got this idea from a blog post I read: http://www.dan-manges.com/blog/37 In the blog post the prime example is class Wallet attr_accessor :cash end class Customer has_one :wallet # attribute delegation def cash @wallet.cash end end class Paperboy def collect_money(customer, due_amount) if customer.cash < due_ammount raise InsufficientFundsError else customer.cash -= due_amount @collected_amount += due_amount end end end The blog post states that although there is only one dot customer.cash instead of customer.wallet.cash, this code still violates the Law of Demeter. Now in the Paperboy collect_money method, we don't have two dots, we just have one in "customer.cash". Has this delegation solved our problem? Not at all. If we look at the behavior, a paperboy is still reaching directly into a customer's wallet to get cash out. EDIT I completely understand and agree that this is still a violation and I need to create a method in Wallet called withdraw that handles the payment for me and that I should call that method inside the Customer class. What I don't get is that according to this process, my first example still violates the Law of Demeter because Invoice is still reaching directly into Customer to get the street. Can somebody help me clear the confusion. I have been searching for the past 2 days trying to let this topic sink in, but it is still confusing.

    Read the article

  • A programming language that does not allow IO. Haskell is not a pure language

    - by TheIronKnuckle
    (I asked this on Stack Overflow and it got closed as off-topic, I was a bit confused until I read the FAQ, which discouraged subjective theoratical debate style questions. The FAQ here doesn't seem to have a problem with it and it sounds like this is a more appropriate place to post. If this gets closed again, forgive me, I'm not trying to troll) Are there any 100% pure languages (as I describe in the Stack Overflow post) out there already and if so, could they feasibly be used to actually do stuff? i.e. do they have an implementation? I'm not looking for raw maths on paper/Pure lambda calculus. However Pure lambda calculus with a compiler or a runtime system attached is something I'd be interested in hearing about.

    Read the article

  • Better solution then simple factory method when concrete implementations have different attributes

    - by danip
    abstract class Animal { function eat() {..} function sleep() {..} function isSmart() } class Dog extends Animal { public $blnCanBark; function isSmart() { return $this->blnCanBark; } } class Cat extends Animal { public $blnCanJumpHigh; function isSmart() { return $this->blnCanJumpHigh; } } .. and so on up to 10-20 animals. Now I created a factory using simple factory method and try to create instances like this: class AnimalFactory { public static function create($strName) { switch($strName) { case 'Dog': return new Dog(); case 'Cat': return new Cat(); default: break; } } } The problem is I can't set the specific attributes like blnCanBark, blnCanJumpHigh in an efficient way. I can send all of them as extra params to create but this will not scale to more then a few classes. Also I can't break the inheritance because a lot of the basic functionality is the same. Is there a better pattern to solve this?

    Read the article

  • Recommened design pattern to handle multiple compression algorithms for a class hierarchy

    - by sgorozco
    For all you OOD experts. What would be the recommended way to model the following scenario? I have a certain class hierarchy similar to the following one: class Base { ... } class Derived1 : Base { ... } class Derived2 : Base { ... } ... Next, I would like to implement different compression/decompression engines for this hierarchy. (I already have code for several strategies that best handle different cases, like file compression, network stream compression, legacy system compression, etc.) I would like the compression strategy to be pluggable and chosen at runtime, however I'm not sure how to handle the class hierarchy. Currently I have a tighly-coupled design that looks like this: interface ICompressor { byte[] Compress(Base instance); } class Strategy1Compressor : ICompressor { byte[] Compress(Base instance) { // Common compression guts for Base class ... // if( instance is Derived1 ) { // Compression guts for Derived1 class } if( instance is Derived2 ) { // Compression guts for Derived2 class } // Additional compression logic to handle other class derivations ... } } As it is, whenever I add a new derived class inheriting from Base, I would have to modify all compression strategies to take into account this new class. Is there a design pattern that allows me to decouple this, and allow me to easily introduce more classes to the Base hierarchy and/or additional compression strategies?

    Read the article

  • Help to understand the abstract factory pattern

    - by Chobeat
    I'm learning the 23 design patterns of the GoF. I think I've found a way to understand and simplify how the Abstract Factory works but I would like to know if this is a correct assumption or if I am wrong. What I want to know is if we can see the result of the Abstract Factory method as a matrix of possible products where there's a Product for every "Concrete Factory" x "AbstractProduct" where the Concrete Factory is a single implementation among the implementations of an AbstractFactory and an AbstractProduct is an interface among the interfaces to create Products. Is this correct or am I missing something?

    Read the article

  • Accelerating 2d object collision with other objects [on hold]

    - by Silent Cave
    Making my very first attempt at game programming with SDL/OpenGL. So I made an object Actor witch can move in all four sides with acceleration. And there are bunch of other rectangles to collide to. the image Movement and collision detection alghorythms work just fine by itself, but when combined to prevent the green rectangle from crossing black rectangles, it gives me a kind of funny resault. Let me show you the code first: from Actor.h class Actor{ public: SDL_Rect * dim; alphaColor * col; float speed; float xlGrav, xrGrav, yuGrav, ydGrav; float acceleration; bool left,right,up,down; Actor(SDL_Rect * dim,alphaColor * col, float speed, float acceleration); bool colides(const SDL_Rect & rect); bool check_for_collisions(const std::vector<SDL_Rect*> & gameObjects ); }; from actor.cpp bool Actor::colides(const SDL_Rect & rect){ if (dim->x + dim->w < rect.x) return false; if (dim->x > rect.x + rect.w) return false; if (dim->y + dim->h < rect.y) return false; if (dim->y > rect.y + rect.h) return false; return true; } movement logic from main.cpp if (actor->left){ if(actor->xlGrav < actor->speed){ actor->xlGrav += actor->speed*actor->acceleration; }else actor->xlGrav = actor->speed; actor->dim->x -= actor->xlGrav; if(actor->check_for_collisions(gameObjects)){ actor->dim->x += actor->xlGrav; actor->xlGrav = 0; } } if (!actor->left){ if(actor->xlGrav - actor->speed*actor->acceleration > 0){ actor->xlGrav -= actor->speed*actor->acceleration; }else actor->xlGrav = 0; actor->dim->x -= actor->xlGrav; if(actor->check_for_collisions(gameObjects)){ actor->dim->x += actor->xlGrav; actor->xlGrav = 0; } } if (actor->right){ if(actor->xrGrav < actor->speed){ actor->xrGrav += actor->speed*actor->acceleration; }else actor->xrGrav = actor->speed; actor->dim->x += actor->xrGrav; if(actor->check_for_collisions(gameObjects)){ actor->dim->x -= actor->xrGrav; actor->xrGrav = 0; } } if (!actor->right){ if(actor->xrGrav - actor->speed*actor->acceleration > 0){ actor->xrGrav -= actor->speed*actor->acceleration; }else actor->xrGrav = 0; actor->dim->x += actor->xrGrav; if(actor->check_for_collisions(gameObjects)){ actor->dim->x -= actor->xrGrav; actor->xrGrav = 0; } } if (actor->up){ if(actor->yuGrav < actor->speed){ actor->yuGrav += actor->speed*actor->acceleration; }else actor->yuGrav = actor->speed; actor->dim->y -= actor->yuGrav; if(actor->check_for_collisions(gameObjects)){ actor->dim->y += actor->yuGrav; actor->yuGrav = 0; } } if (!actor->up){ if(actor->yuGrav - actor->speed*actor->acceleration > 0){ actor->yuGrav -= actor->speed*actor->acceleration; }else actor->yuGrav = 0; actor->dim->y -= actor->yuGrav; if(actor->check_for_collisions(gameObjects)){ actor->dim->y += actor->yuGrav; actor->yuGrav = 0; } } if (actor->down){ if(actor->ydGrav < actor->speed){ actor->ydGrav += actor->speed*actor->acceleration; }else actor->ydGrav = actor->speed; actor->dim->y += actor->ydGrav; if(actor->check_for_collisions(gameObjects)){ actor->dim->y -= actor->ydGrav; actor->ydGrav = 0; } } if (!actor->down){ if(actor->ydGrav - actor->speed*actor->acceleration > 0){ actor->ydGrav -= actor->speed*actor->acceleration; }else actor->ydGrav = 0; actor->dim->y += actor->ydGrav; if(actor->check_for_collisions(gameObjects)){ actor->dim->y -= actor->ydGrav; actor->ydGrav = 0; } } So, if the green box approaches an obstacle from up or left, everything goes as planned - object stops, and it's acceleration drops to zero. But if it comes from bottom or right, it enters into obstacles inner space and starts strangely dance, I'd rather say move in inverted controls. What do I fail to see?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72  | Next Page >