Search Results

Search found 341 results on 14 pages for 'debate'.

Page 8/14 | < Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >

• Using Mercurial repository inside a Git one: Feasible? Sane?

  - by Portablejim

  I am thinking on creating a Mercurial repository under a Git repository. e.g. ..../git-repository/directory/hg-repo/ The 2 repositories Is it possible to manage (keeping your sanity)? How similiar is it to this? I am a computer science student at University. I manage my work in Git, mainly as a distribution mechanism (after realizing that rsync fails when you have changes in more than one place) between my desktop and usb drive. I try use of Git as a VCS as I do work. I have finished a semester where I did a small group project to prepare for a larger group project next year. We had to use Subversion, and experienced the joys of a centralised VCS (including downtime). I tried to keep the subversion repository separate to my Git repository for the subject**, however it was annoying that it was seperate (not in the place where I store assignments). I therefore moved to using an Subversion repository inside my Git repository. As I think ahead (maybe I am thinking too far ahead) I realise that I will have to try and convince people to use a DVCS and Mercurial will probably be the one that is preferred (Windows and Mac GUI support, closer to Subversion). Having done some research into the whole Git vs Mercurial debate (however not used Mercurial at all) I still prefer Git. Can I have a Mercurial repository inside a Git one without going mad (or it ruining something)? Or is it something that I should not consider at all? (Or is it a bad question that should be deleted?) ** I think outside of Australia it is called a course

  Read the article

• What's the best practice to do SOA exception handling?

  - by sun1991

  Here's some interesting debate going on between me and my colleague when coming to handle SOA exceptions: On one side, I support what Juval Lowy said in Programming WCF Services 3rd Edition: As stated at the beginning of this chapter, it is a common illusion that clients care about errors or have anything meaningful to do when they occur. Any attempt to bake such capabilities into the client creates an inordinate degree of coupling between the client and the object, raising serious design questions. How could the client possibly know more about the error than the service, unless it is tightly coupled to it? What if the error originated several layers below the service—should the client be coupled to those lowlevel layers? Should the client try the call again? How often and how frequently? Should the client inform the user of the error? Is there a user? By having all service exceptions be indistinguishable from one another, WCF decouples the client from the service. The less the client knows about what happened on the service side, the more decoupled the interaction will be. On the other side, here's what my colleague suggest: I believe it’s simply incorrect, as it does not align with best practices in building a service oriented architecture and it ignores the general idea that there are problems that users are able to recover from, such as not keying a value correctly. If we considered only systems exceptions, perhaps this idea holds, but systems exceptions are only part of the exception domain. User recoverable exceptions are the other part of the domain and are likely to happen on a regular basis. I believe the correct way to build a service oriented architecture is to map user recoverable situations to checked exceptions, then to marshall each checked exception back to the client as a unique exception that client application programmers are able to handle appropriately. Marshall all runtime exceptions back to the client as a system exception, along with the stack trace so that it is easy to troubleshoot the root cause. I'd like to know what you think about this? Thank you.

  Read the article

• When must I turn my business idea into a formal Company? [closed]

  - by Sony Santos

  I'm a programmer, I have an idea, I know how to implement it, it will be a website, and that site will be my business. My question is very basic: where in timeline must I register my business as an official Company (ie, according Government laws)? Here there are some options to debate or to help answer me: Now - or as soon as I have the idea; When looking for investors (e.g., when a prototype or business plan is ready); When implementing the website; At site's launch; I must launch the website as a personal informal business and, when the business gets success and turns into a more solid and self-running one, only then I must formalize it; It doesn't matter; I can create the company when I want. Nobody talks about that. If I just have an idea, must I run into an office to create a Company? I don't think so. When I'll look for investors, the Company must to pre-exist? Or will the Company be formed with the investor? I'm looking for a generic, country-independent answer, but may the answer for your country can be useful to me. I'm Brazilian, and I believe that the country doesn't matter to this question. (Sorry if this is off-topic, but I coudn't find a batter stackexchange site to ask this.)

  Read the article

• Thoughts on type aliases/synonyms?

  - by Rei Miyasaka

  I'm going to try my best to frame this question in a way that doesn't result in a language war or list, because I think there could be a good, technical answer to this question. Different languages support type aliases to varying degrees. C# allows type aliases to be declared at the beginning of each code file, and they're valid only throughout that file. Languages like ML/Haskell use type aliases probably as much as they use type definitions. C/C++ are sort of a Wild West, with typedef and #define often being used seemingly interchangeably to alias types. The upsides of type aliasing don't invoke too much dispute: It makes it convenient to define composite types that are described naturally by the language, e.g. type Coordinate = float * float or type String = [Char]. Long names can be shortened: using DSBA = System.Diagnostics.DebuggerStepBoundaryAttribute. In languages like ML or Haskell, where function parameters often don't have names, type aliases provide a semblance of self-documentation. The downside is a bit more iffy: aliases can proliferate, making it difficult to read and understand code or to learn a platform. The Win32 API is a good example, with its DWORD = int and its HINSTANCE = HANDLE = void* and its LPHANDLE = HANDLE FAR* and such. In all of these cases it hardly makes any sense to distinguish between a HANDLE and a void pointer or a DWORD and an integer etc.. Setting aside the philosophical debate of whether a king should give complete freedom to their subjects and let them be responsible for themselves or whether they should have all of their questionable actions intervened, could there be a happy medium that would allow the benefits of type aliasing while mitigating the risk of its abuse? As an example, the issue of long names can be solved by good autocomplete features. Visual Studio 2010 for instance will alllow you to type DSBA in order to refer Intellisense to System.Diagnostics.DebuggerStepBoundaryAttribute. Could there be other features that would provide the other benefits of type aliasing more safely?

  Read the article

• Can DVCSs enforce a specific workflow?

  - by dukeofgaming

  So, I have this little debate at work where some of my colleagues (which are actually in charge of administrating our Perforce instance) say that workflows are strictly a process thing, and that the tools that we use (in this case, the version control system) have no take on it. In otherwords, the point that they make is that workflows (and their execution) are tool-agnostic. My take on this is that DVCSs are better at encouraging people in more flexible and well-defined ways, because of the inherent branching occurring in the background (anonymous branches), and that you can enforce workflows through the deployment model you establish (e.g. pull requests through repository management, dictator/liutenant roles with their machines setup as servers, etc.) I think in CVCSs you have to enforce workflows through policies and policing, because there is only one way to share the code, while in DVCSs you just go with the flow based on the infrastructure/permissions that were setup for you. Even when I have provided the earlier arguments, I'm still unable to fully convince them. Am I saying something the wrong way?, if not, what other arguments or examples do you think would be useful to convince them? Edit: The main workflow we have been focusing on, because it makes sense to both sides is the Dictator/Lieutenants workflow: My argument for this particular workflow is that there is no pipeline in a CVCS (because there is just sharing work in a centralized way), whereas there is an actual pipeline in DVCSs depending on how you deploy read/write permissions. Their argument is that this workflow can be done through branching, and while they do this in some projects (due to policy/policing) in other projects they forbid developers from creating branches.

  Read the article

• Do you tend to write your own name or your company name in your code?

  - by Connell Watkins

  I've been working on various projects at home and at work, and over the years I've developed two main APIs that I use in almost all AJAX based websites. I've compiled both of these into DLLs and called the namespaces Connell.Database and Connell.Json. My boss recently saw these namespaces in a software documentation for a project for the company and said I shouldn't be using my own name in the code. (But it's my code!) One thing to bear in mind is that we're not a software company. We're an IT support company, and I'm the only full-time software developer here, so there's not really any procedures on how we should write software in the company. Another thing to bear in mind is that I do intend on one day releasing these DLLs as open-source projects. How do other developers group their namespaces within their company? Does anyone use the same class libraries in personal and in work projects? Also does this work the other way round? If I write a class library entirely at work, who owns that code? If I've seen the library through from start to finish, designed it and programmed it. Can I use that for another project at home? Thanks, Update I've spoken to my boss about this issue and he agrees that they're my objects and he's fine for me to open-source them. Before this conversation I started changing the objects anyway, which was actually quite productive and the code now suits this specific project more-so than it did previously. But thank you to everyone involved for a very interesting debate. I hope all this text isn't wasted and someone learns from it. I certainly did. Cheers,

  Read the article

• Silverlight, JavaScript and HTML 5 - Who wins?

  - by Sahil Malik

  SharePoint 2010 Training: more information   Disclaimer: These are just opinions. In the past I have expressed opinions about the future of technology, and have been ridiculously accurate. I have no idea if this will be accurate or not, but that is what it’s all about. Its opinions, predicting the future.   This topic has been boiling inside me for a while, and I have discussed it in private gettogethers with fellow minded techies. But I thought it would be a good idea to put this together as a blogpost. There is some debate about the future of Silverlight, especially in light of technologies such as newer faster browsers, and HTML 5. As a .NET developer, where do I invest my time and skills – remember you have limited time and skills, and not everything that comes out of Microsoft is a smashing success. So it is very very wise for you to consider the facts, macro trends, and allocate what you have limited amounts of – “time”. Read full article ....

  Read the article

• decent use-case for goto in c?

  - by Robz

  I really hesitate to ask this, because I don't want to "solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion" but I'm new to C and want to gain more insight into common patterns used in the language. I recently heard some distaste for the goto command, but I've also recently found a decent use-case for it. Code like this: error = function_that_could_fail_1(); if (!error) { error = function_that_could_fail_2(); if (!error) { error = function_that_could_fail_3(); ...to the n-th tab level! } else { // deal with error, clean up, and return error code } } else { // deal with error, clean up, and return error code } If the clean-up part is all very similar, could be written a little prettier (my opinion?) like this: error = function_that_could_fail_1(); if(error) { goto cleanup; } error = function_that_could_fail_2(); if(error) { goto cleanup; } error = function_that_could_fail_3(); if(error) { goto cleanup; } ... cleanup: // deal with error if it exists, clean up // return error code Is this a common or acceptable use-case of goto in C? Is there a different/better way to do this?

  Read the article

• Best Practices PHP mvc routing

  - by dukeofweatherby

  I have a custom MVC framework that is in a constant state of evolution. There's a long standing debate with a co-worker how the routing should work. Considering the following directory structure: /core/Router.php /mvc/Controllers/{Public controllers} /mvc/Controllers/Private/{Controllers requiring valid user} /mvc/Controllers/CMS/{Controllers requiring valid user and specific roles} The question is: "Where should the current User's authentication be established: in the Router, when choosing which controller/directory to load, or in each Controller?" My argument is that when authenticating in the Router, an Error Controller is created instead of the requested Controller, informing you of your mishap; And the directory structure clearly indicates the authentication required. His argument is that a router should do routing and only routing. Leave it to the Controller to handle it on a case by case basis. This is more modular and allows more flexibility should changes need to be made by the router. PHP MVC - Custom Routing Mechanism alluded to it, but the topic was of a different nature. Alternative suggestions would be welcomed as well.

  Read the article

• Is this a decent use-case for goto in C?

  - by Robz

  I really hesitate to ask this, because I don't want to "solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion" but I'm new to C and want to gain more insight into common patterns used in the language. I recently heard some distaste for the goto command, but I've also recently found a decent use-case for it. Code like this: error = function_that_could_fail_1(); if (!error) { error = function_that_could_fail_2(); if (!error) { error = function_that_could_fail_3(); ...to the n-th tab level! } else { // deal with error, clean up, and return error code } } else { // deal with error, clean up, and return error code } If the clean-up part is all very similar, could be written a little prettier (my opinion?) like this: error = function_that_could_fail_1(); if(error) { goto cleanup; } error = function_that_could_fail_2(); if(error) { goto cleanup; } error = function_that_could_fail_3(); if(error) { goto cleanup; } ... cleanup: // deal with error if it exists, clean up // return error code Is this a common or acceptable use-case of goto in C? Is there a different/better way to do this?

  Read the article

• I can't see how a mature agile team requires any *management*?

  - by ashy_32bit

  After a recent heated debate over Scrum, I realized my problem is that I think of management as a quite unnecessary and redundant activity in a fully agile team. I believe a mature Agile team does not require management or any non-technical decision making process of whatsoever. To my (apparently erring) eyes it is more than obvious that the only one suitable and capable of managing a mature development team is their coach (and that being the most technically competent colleague with proper communication skills). I can't imagine how a Scrum master can contribute to such a team. I am having a great difficulty realizing and understanding the value of such things as Scrum and manager as someone who is not a veteran developer but is well skilled in planning the production cycles when a coach exists in the team. What does that even mean? How on earth someone with no edge-skills of development can manage a highly technical team? Perhaps management here means something else? I see management as a total waste of time and a by-product of immaturity. In my understanding a mature team is fully self-managing. Apparently I'm mistaken since many great people say the contrary but I can't convince myself.

  Read the article

• The best programmer is N times more effective than the worst? Who Cares?

  - by StevenWilkins

  There is a latent belief in programming that the best programmer is N times more effective than the worst. Where N is usually between 10 and 100. Here are some examples: http://www.devtopics.com/programmer-productivity-the-tenfinity-factor/ http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/HighNotes.html http://haacked.com/archive/2007/06/25/understanding-productivity-differences-between-developers.aspx There is some debate as to whether or not it's been proven: http://morendil.github.com/folklore.html I'm confident in the accuracy of these statements: The best salesmen in the world are probably 10-100 times better than the worst The best drivers in the world are probably 10-100 times better than the worst The best soccer players in the world are probably 10-100 times better than the worst The best CEOs in the world are probably 10-100 times better than the worst In some cases, I'm sure the difference is greater. In fact, you could probably say that The best [insert any skilled profession here] in the world are probably 10-100 times better than the worst We don't know what N is for the rest of these professions, so why concern ourselves with what the actual number is for programming? Can we not just say that the number is large enough so that it's very important to hire the best people and move on already?

  Read the article

• Is LINQ to SQL deprecated?

  - by Mayo

  Back in late 2008 there was alot of debate about the future of LINQ to SQL. Many suggested that Microsoft's investments in the Entity Framework in .NET 4.0 were a sign that LINQ to SQL had no future. I figured I'd wait before making my own decision since folks were not in agreement. Fast-forward 18 months and I've got vendors providing solutions that rely on LINQ to SQL and I have personally given it a try and really enjoyed working with it. I figured it was here to stay. But I'm reading a new book (C# 4.0 How-To by Ben Watson) and in chapter 21 (LINQ), he suggests that it "has been more or less deprecated by Microsoft" and suggests using LINQ to Entity Framework. My question to you is whether or not LINQ to SQL is officially deprecated and/or if authoritative entities (Microsoft, Scott Gu, etc.) officially suggest using LINQ to Entities instead of LINQ to SQL.

  Read the article

• Java: where should I put anonymous listener logic code?

  - by tulskiy

  Hi, we had a debate at work about what is the best practice for using listeners in java: whether listener logic should stay in the anonymous class, or it should be in a separate method, for example: button.addActionListener(new ActionListener() { public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent e) { // code here } }); or button.addActionListener(new ActionListener() { public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent e) { buttonPressed(); } }); private void buttonPressed() { // code here } which is the recommended way in terms of readability and maintainability? I prefer to keep the code inside the listener and only if gets too large, make it an inner class. Here I assume that the code is not duplicated anywhere else. Thank you.

  Read the article

• How can HTML5 "replace" Flash?

  - by Kassini

  A topic of debate that's seen a resurgence since the unveiling of the iPad is the issue of Flash versus HTML5. There are those that suggest that HTML5 will one day supplant/replace Adobe Flash. I do not develop software that runs in a browser, so my (limited) understanding is: HTML is a pure-text markup language that is delivered over HTTP to a client browser. The client browser interprets the markup and renders (with varying degrees of success) the page according to an standard specification. Adobe Flash is a propriety framework for working with audio, video, sound and raster/vector graphics. It requires special authoring tools (a compiler perhaps?) and a custom player that's available as a plug-in to most common browsers. Could someone please explain (to this C/C++ developer) how it is possible from a technical/coding point-of-view that a text-based markup language (HTML5) could be considered a replacement to a multimedia framework (Flash)? Please no opinionated arguments - just technical facts.

  Read the article

• VSTS Test Edition or HP's LoadRunner?

  - by Edward Leno

  I have had this debate with some peers off and on for a while. I am certified in the HP tools, but have been spending more and more time with VSTS Test Edition 2008. I am looking for opinions on what people think of the future of both products and how they compete. LoadRunner's strengths include its vast array of protocols supported. Unfortunately since HP took over from Mercury, they are beginning to lag behind, especially in the new internet spaces. VSTS Test, once very limited, is now quite impressive, especially in 2010. I don't know if it makes business sense, but I would love for VSTS Test to take on some additional protocols. Many of my clients would like to move away from HP and their licensing costs. Finally, I am looking for good resources for VSTS Test. I have been playing with it, but would like to see some dedicated courses/material, instead of just a part of the larger VSTS. Thanks!

  Read the article

• Defend zero-based arrays

  - by DrJokepu

  A question asked here recently reminded me of a debate I had not long ago with a fellow programmer. Basically he argued that zero-based arrays should be replaced by one-based arrays since arrays being zero based is an implementation detail that originates from the way arrays and pointers and computer hardware work, but these sort of stuff should not be reflected in higher level languages. Now I am not really good at debating so I couldn't really offer any good reasons to stick with zero-based arrays other than they sort of feel like more appropriate. I am really interested in the opinions of other developers, so I sort of challenge you to come up with reasons to stick with zero-based arrays!

  Read the article

• When should I use String.Format or String.Concat instead of the concatenation operator?

  - by Kramii

  In C# it is possible to concatenate strings in several different ways: Using the concatenation operator: var newString = "The answer is '" + value + "'."; Using String.Format: var newString = String.Format("The answer is '{0}'.", value); Using String.Concat: var newString = String.Concat("The answer is '", value, "'."); What are the advantages / disadvantages of each of these methods? When should I prefer one over the others? The question arises because of a debate between developers. One never uses String.Format for concatenation - he argues that this is for formatting strings, not for concatenation, and that is is always unreadable because the items in the string are expressed in the wrong order. The other frequently uses String.Format for concatenation, because he thinks it makes the code easier to read, especially where there are several sets of quotes involved. Both these developers also use the concatenation operator and String.Builder, too.

  Read the article

• Looking for a .NET 3.5 / J2EE architecture concept comparison article/chart

  - by Edward Tanguay

  We are thinking about combining .NET technology with Java technology (WCF, JBoss/ESB, MOM, WPF, WF) and I need to have a high-level idea of what are the apples and oranges in the .NET 3.5 and Java worlds. Does anyone know of a good, clear article or better yet a simple chart which answers questions such as: WCF in the Java world is __ the equivalent of WPF in the Java world is _ the closes thing to JBoss in the .NET world is _ the JVM and CLR are essentially the same except for these differences: .... in the Java world you don't have the concept of WF/WCF/WPF, instead you have .... there is no "LINQ" in the Java world yet, but you can use ___ the closest you get to ADO.NET Data Services in the Java world is .... I'm not looking to debate this so I'm not looking for "fighting points", I just need a neutral what-is-what chart comparing the two worlds.

  Read the article

• Does C99 guarantee that arrays are contiguous ?

  - by kriss

  Following an hot comment thread in another question, I came to debate of what is and what is not defined in C99 standard about C arrays. Basically when I define a 2D array like int a[5][5], does the standard C99 garantee or not that it will be a contiguous block of ints, can I cast it to (int *)a and be sure I will have a valid 1D array of 25 ints. As I understand the standard the above property is implicit in the sizeof definition and in pointer arithmetic, but others seems to disagree and says casting to (int*) the above structure give an undefined behavior (even if they agree that all existing implementations actually allocate contiguous values). More specifically, if we think an implementation that would instrument arrays to check array boundaries for all dimensions and return some kind of error when accessing 1D array, or does not give correct access to elements above 1st row. Could such implementation be standard compilant ? And in this case what parts of the C99 standard are relevant.

  Read the article

• Should I use Drupal or Kohana-type framework for a web "application"

  - by Andres

  The debate is that I need a PHP Framework/Drupal with the flexibility to add custom features to a potentially large application (web and with an api). However, with a framework, like Kohana, I see myself tackling and re-inventing the wheel with the simple stuff like account management and cms stuff. Account management and quick data collection, like fast form creation, are tedious in Kohana but appear incredible simple in Drupal. On the other hand, based on my limited Drupal experience, I doubt building rapid custom "features" and allowing users to create "groups" and to manage their own roles within those groups is something Drupal can easily accomplish. To simplify, is Drupal capable of true Web Applications; where the application is a service and provides custom results to each user? Can it provide a dashboard-like interface for users to change their settings or preferences? Can it aggregate data from particular users to provide better results/info to others? If so, please point me to some knowledge :-)

  Read the article

• Database Modelling - Conceptually different entities but with near identical fields

  - by Andrew Shepherd

  Suppose you have two sets of conceptual entities: MarketPriceDataSet which has multiple ForwardPriceEntries PoolPriceForecastDataSet which has multiple PoolPriceForecastEntry Both different child objects have near identical fields: ForwardPriceEntry has MarketPriceDataSetId (foreign key to parent table) StartDate EndDate SimulationItemId ForwardPrice PoolPriceForecastEntry has PoolPriceForecastDataSetId (foreign key to parent table) StartDate EndDate SimulationItemId ForecastPoolPrice If I modelled them as separate tables, the only difference would be the foreign key, and the name of the price field. There has been a debate as to whether the two near identical tables should be merged into one. Options I've thought of to model this is: Just keep them as two independent, separate tables Have both sets in the one table with an additional "type" field, and a parent_id equalling a foreign key to either parent table. This would sacrifice referential integrity checks. Have both sets in the one table with an additional "type" field, and create a complicated sequence of joining tables to maintain referential integrity. What do you think I should do, and why?

  Read the article

• Database Modelling - Conceptually different entities with near identical fields

  - by Andrew Shepherd

  Suppose you have two sets of conceptual entities: MarketPriceDataSet which has multiple ForwardPriceEntries PoolPriceForecastDataSet which has multiple PoolPriceForecastEntry Both different child objects have near identical fields: ForwardPriceEntry has StartDate EndDate SimulationItemId ForwardPrice MarketPriceDataSetId (foreign key to parent table) PoolPriceForecastEntry has StartDate EndDate SimulationItemId ForecastPoolPrice PoolPriceForecastDataSetId (foreign key to parent table) If I modelled them as separate tables, the only difference would be the foreign key, and the name of the price field. There has been a debate as to whether the two near identical tables should be merged into one. Options I've thought of to model this is: Just keep them as two independent, separate tables Have both sets in the one table with an additional "type" field, and a parent_id equalling a foreign key to either parent table. This would sacrifice referential integrity checks. Have both sets in the one table with an additional "type" field, and create a complicated sequence of joining tables to maintain referential integrity. What do you think I should do, and why?

  Read the article

• Does any faster centralized version control than SVN exists?

  - by Savageman

  Hello, I've been using SVN since a long time and now we're trying on Git. I'm not talking on the centralized / decentralized debate here. My only concern is speed. The latter tool is much faster. But sometimes, I NEED to work with a centralized approach, which is much more simple and less complex than the decentralized one. The learning curve is really fast, which saves a lot of time (while digging into decentralized would lead to a waste of time, given the learning curve is much longer and we encounter more problem when working with it). However, SVN is really slow compared to GIT, and I don't think it has anything to do with the centralized argument. Decentralized systems also have to deal with server connections and file transfert. So I can easilly imagine a faster implementation of centralized version control could exists. Does someone has any clue on this?

  Read the article

• What is the fastest way to validate that a field has no more than n words?

  - by James A. Rosen

  I have a Ruby-on-Rails model: class Candidate < ActiveRecord::Base validates_presence_of :application_essay validate :validate_length_of_application_essay protected def validate_length_of_application_essay return if application_essay.blank? # don't add a second error message if they didn't fill it out errors.add(:application_essay, :too_long), unless ... end end Without dropping into C, what is the fastest way to check that the application_essay contains no more than 500 words? You can assume that most essays will be at least 200 words, are unlikely to be more than 5000 words, and are in English (or the pseudo-English sometimes called "business-ese"). You can also classify anything you want as a "word" as long as your classification would be immediately obvious to a typical user. (NB: this is not the place to debate what a "typical user" is :) )

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >