Search Results

Search found 12674 results on 507 pages for 'programming competitions'.

Page 80/507 | < Previous Page | 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87  | Next Page >

  • Collision Resolution

    - by ultifinitus
    Hey all, I'm making a simple side-scrolling game, and I would appreciate some input! My collision detection system is a simple bounding box detection, so it's really easy to implement. However my collision resolution is ridiculous! Currently I have a little formula like this: if (colliding(firstObject,secondObject)) firstObject.resolve_collision(yAxisOffset); if (colliding(firstObject,secondObject)) firstObject.resolve_collision(xAxisOffset); where yAxisOffset is only set if the first object's previous y position was outside the second object's collision frame, respectively xAxisOffset as well. Now this is working great, in general. However there is a single problem. When I have a stack of objects and I push the first object against that stack, the first object get's "stuck," on the stack. What's I think is happening is the object's collision system checks and resolves for collisions based on creation time, so If I check one axis, then the other, the object will "sink" object directly along the checking axis. This sinking action causes the collision detection routine to think there's a gap between our position and the other object's position, and when I finally check the object that I've already sunk into, my object's position is resolved to it's original position... All this is great, and I'm sure if I bang my head against a wall long enough i'll come up with a working algorithm, but I'd rather not =). So what in the heck do you think I should do? How could I change my collision resolution system to fix this? Here's the program (temporary link, not sure how long it'll last) (notes: arrow keys to navigate, click to drop block, x to jump) I'd appreciate any help you can offer!

    Read the article

  • Audio Panning using RtAudio

    - by user1801724
    I use Rtaudio library. I would like to implement an audio program where I can control the panning (e.g. shifting the sound from the left channel to the right channel). In my specific case, I use a duplex mode (you can find an example here: duplex mode). It means that I link the microphone input to the speaker output. I seek on the web, but I did not find anything useful. Should I apply a filter on the output buffer? What kind of filter? Can anyone help me? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Is Linq having a mind-numbing effect on .NET programmers?

    - by Aaronaught
    A lot of us started seeing this phenomenon with jQuery about a year ago when people started asking how to do absolutely insane things like retrieve the query string with jQuery. The difference between the library (jQuery) and the language (JavaScript) is apparently lost on many programmers, and results in a lot of inappropriate, convoluted code being written where it is not necessary. Maybe it's just my imagination, but I swear I'm starting to see an uptick in the number of questions where people are asking to do similarly insane things with Linq, like find ranges in a sorted array. I can't get over how thoroughly inappropriate the Linq extensions are for solving that problem, but more importantly the fact that the author just assumed that the ideal solution would involve Linq without actually thinking about it (as far as I can tell). It seems that we are repeating history, breeding a new generation of .NET programmers who can't tell the difference between the language (C#/VB.NET) and the library (Linq). What is responsible for this phenomenon? Is it just hype? Magpie tendencies? Has Linq picked up a reputation as a form of magic, where instead of actually writing code you just have to utter the right incantation? I'm hardly satisfied with those explanations but I can't really think of anything else. More importantly, is it really a problem, and if so, what's the best way to help enlighten these people?

    Read the article

  • Why Adobe Air is so underrated for building mobile apps?

    - by Marcelo de Assis
    I worked with Adobe Flash related technologies for the last 5 years, although not being a big fan of Adobe. I see some little bugs happening in some apps, but I cannot imagine why a lot of big companies do not even think to use use Adobe Air as a good technology for their mobile apps. I see a lot of mobile developer positions asking for experts in Android or iOS , but very much less positions asking for Adobe Air, even when Adobe Air apps have the advantage of being multi-plataform, with the same app working in Blackberry, iOS and Android. Is so much easier to develop a game using Flash, than using Android SDK, for example. It really have flaws (that I never saw) or it is just some kind of mass prejudgement? I also would like to hear what a project manager or a indie developer takes when choosing a plataform for building apps.

    Read the article

  • Multiplayer mobile games and coping with high latency

    - by liortal
    I'm currently researching regarding a design for an online (realtime) mobile multiplayer game. As such, i'm taking into consideration that latencies (lag) is going to be high (perhaps higher than PC/consoles). I'd like to know if there are ways to overcome this or minimize the issues of high latency? The model i'll be using is peer-to-peer (using Photon cloud to broadcast messages to all other players). How do i deal with a scenario where a message about a local object's state at time t will only get to other players at *t + HUGE_LAG* ?

    Read the article

  • Someone tell me why people writing GNU code use { like that?

    - by Deus Deceit
    I saw the rules on how to type code for UNITY project or GNU software in general. Why do they write code in such an ugly form? Is there a particular reason why they don't put brackets the way (from what I know) most people do? Why like this: for (i = 0; i < 5; i++) { //do something } and not like this: for (i = 0; i < 5; i++) { //Do something } or this: for(i = 0; i < 5l i++) { //Do Something } ???

    Read the article

  • developers-designers-testers interaction [closed]

    - by user29124
    Sorry for my bad English, and also you may not read this and waste your time, because it is just a lament of layman developer... Seems no one want to learn anything at my workplace. We have Mantis bug tracker, but our testers use google-docs for reports and only developers and team lead report bugs in Mantis. We have SVN for version control and use Smarty as template system, but our designers give us pure HTML (sometimes it's ugly for programmers, but mostly it's OK) in archives, and changes to design made by programmers go nowhere (I mean designers use their own obsolete HTML and CSS most of the time). We have a testing environment but designers don't have access with restricted accounts to it. So we can only ask them where to look for the problem and then investigate the problem by ourselves (and made changes to CSS by ourselves (that go nowhere most of the time...)). I will not mention legacy code without documentation, tests, or any requirements, just an absence of real interaction in triangle programmers-designers-testers. I'm not talking about using HAML, SASS, continuous integration, or something else, just about using basic tools by all participants of the development process. Maybe the absence of communication is not a problem in short-time projects, which will finish up in 2 months time but rather on the types of projects that lasts for years. Any comments please...

    Read the article

  • Languages on embedded systems in aeronautic and spatial sector

    - by Niels
    I know that my question is very broad but a general answer would be nice. I would like to know which are the main languages used in aeronautic and spatial sector. I know that the OS which run on embedded systems are RTOS (Real time OS) and I think that, this languages must be checked correctly by different methods (formal methods, unit tests) and must permit a sure verification of whole process of a program.

    Read the article

  • Exploring your database schema with SQL

    In the second part of Phil's series of articles on finding stuff (such as objects, scripts, entities, metadata) in SQL Server, he offers some scripts that should be handy for the developer faced with tracking down problem areas and potential weaknesses in a database.

    Read the article

  • What does "context-free" mean in the term "context-free grammar"?

    - by rick
    Given the amount of material that tries to explain what a context-free grammar (CFG) is, I found it surprising that very few (in my sample, less than 1 in 20) give an explanation on why such grammars are called "context-free". And, to my mind, none succeeds in doing so. My question is, why are context-free grammars called context-free? What is "the context"? I had an intuition that the context could be other language constructs surrounding the currently analyzed construct, but that seems not to be the case. Could anyone provide a precise explanation?

    Read the article

  • What's a nice explanation for pointers?

    - by Macneil
    In your own studies (on your own, or for a class) did you have an "ah ha" moment when you finally, really understood pointers? Do you have an explanation you use for beginner programmers that seems particularly effective? For example, when beginners first encounter pointers in C, they might just add &s and *s until it compiles (as I myself once did). Maybe it was a picture, or a really well motivated example, that made pointers "click" for you or your student. What was it, and what did you try before that didn't seem to work? Were any topics prerequisites (e.g. structs, or arrays)? In other words, what was necessary to understand the meaning of &s and *, when you could use them with confidence? Learning the syntax and terminology or the use cases isn't enough, at some point the idea needs to be internalized. Update: I really like the answers so far; please keep them coming. There are a lot of great perspectives here, but I think many are good explanations/slogans for ourselves after we've internalized the concept. I'm looking for the detailed contexts and circumstances when it dawned on you. For example: I only somewhat understood pointers syntactically in C. I heard two of my friends explaining pointers to another friend, who asked why a struct was passed with a pointer. The first friend talked about how it needed to be referenced and modified, but it was just a short comment from the other friend where it hit me: "It's also more efficient." Passing 4 bytes instead of 16 bytes was the final conceptual shift I needed.

    Read the article

  • Triangle Strips and Tangent Space Normal Mapping

    - by Koarl
    Short: Do triangle strips and Tangent Space Normal mapping go together? According to quite a lot of tutorials on bump mapping, it seems common practice to derive tangent space matrices in a vertex program and transform the light direction vector(s) to tangent space and then pass them on to a fragment program. However, if one was using triangle strips or index buffers, it is a given that the vertex buffer contains vertices that sit at border edges and would thus require more than one normal to derive tangent space matrices to interpolate between in fragment programs. Is there any reasonable way to not have duplicate vertices in your buffer and still use tangent space normal mapping? Which one do you think is better: Having normal and tangent encoded in the assets and just optimize the geometry handling to alleviate the cost of duplicate vertices or using triangle strips and computing normals/tangents completely at run time? Thinking about it, the more reasonable answer seems to be the first one, but why might my professor still be fussing about triangle strips when it seems so obvious?

    Read the article

  • if/else statements or exceptions

    - by Thaven
    I don't know, that this question fit better on this board, or stackoverflow, but because my question is connected rather to practices, that some specified problem. So, consider an object that does something. And this something can (but should not!) can go wrong. So, this situation can be resolved in two way: first, with exceptions: DoSomethingClass exampleObject = new DoSomethingClass(); try { exampleObject.DoSomething(); } catch (ThisCanGoWrongException ex) { [...] } And second, with if statement: DoSomethingClass exampleObject = new DoSomethingClass(); if(!exampleObject.DoSomething()) { [...] } Second case in more sophisticated way: DoSomethingClass exampleObject = new DoSomethingClass(); ErrorHandler error = exampleObject.DoSomething(); if (error.HasError) { if(error.ErrorType == ErrorType.DivideByPotato) { [...] } } which way is better? In one hand, I heard that exception should be used only for real unexpected situations, and if programist know, that something may happen, he should used if/else. In second hand, Robert C. Martin in his book Clean Code Wrote, that exception are far more object oriented, and more simple to keep clean.

    Read the article

  • How do I implement a score database in Android?

    - by Michael Seun Araromi
    I making a 2D game for Android using OpenGL-ES technology. It is a space shooting game where the player shoots enemy ships. I want to keep a track of score for the amount of enemy ships destroyed and a record of a local highscore. The score should be incremented whenever an enemy is destroyed. I also want a way of displaying both the current score and highscore on the game screen. I am not familiar with databases at all and I will appreciate a clear answer or a link to a good tutorial for my cause. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Appropriate level of granularity for component-based architecture

    - by Jon Purdy
    I'm working on a game with a component-based architecture. An Entity owns a set of Component instances, each of which has a set of Slot instances with which to store, send, and receive values. Factory functions such as Player produce entities with the required components and slot connections. I'm trying to determine the best level of granularity for components. For example, right now Position, Velocity, and Acceleration are all separate components, connected in series. Velocity and Acceleration could easily be rewritten into a uniform Delta component, or Position, Velocity, and Acceleration could be combined alongside such components as Friction and Gravity into a monolithic Physics component. Should a component have the smallest responsibility possible (at the cost of lots of interconnectivity) or should related components be combined into monolithic ones (at the cost of flexibility)? I'm leaning toward the former, but I could use a second opinion.

    Read the article

  • Why should I use List<T> over IEnumerable<T>?

    - by Rowan Freeman
    In my ASP.net MVC4 web application I use IEnumerables, trying to follow the mantra to program to the interface, not the implementation. Return IEnumerable(Of Student) vs Return New List(Of Student) People are telling me to use List and not IEnumerable, because lists force the query to be executed and IEumerable does not. Is this really best practice? Is there any alternative? I feel strange using concrete objects where an interface could be used. Is my strange feeling justified?

    Read the article

  • Creating an expandable, cross-platform compatible program "core".

    - by Thomas Clayson
    Hi there. Basically the brief is relatively simple. We need to create a program core. An engine that will power all sorts of programs with a large number of distinct potential applications and deployments. The core will be an analytics and algorithmic processor which will essentially take user-specific input and output scenarios based on the information it gets, whilst recording this information for reporting. It needs to be cross platform compatible. Something that can have platform specific layers put on top which can interface with the core. It also needs to be able to be expandable, for instance, modular with developers being able to write "add-ons" or "extensions" which can alter the function of the end program and can use the core to its full extent. (For instance, a good example of what I'm looking to create is a browser. It has its main core, the web-kit engine, for instance, and then on top of this is has a platform-specific GUI and can also have add-ons and extensions which can change the behavior of the program.) Our problem is that the extensions need to interface directly with the main core and expand/alter that functionality rather than the platform specific "layer". So, given that I have no experience in this whatsoever (I have a PHP background and recently objective-c), where should I start, and is there any knowledge/wisdom you can impart on me please? Thanks for all the help and advice you can give me. :) If you need any more explanation just ask. At the moment its in the very early stages of development, so we're just researching all possible routes of development. Thanks a lot

    Read the article

  • Why do some people hate Dart? [closed]

    - by Hassan
    First, I'd like to note that this question is not intended to compare two languages or technologies, but is only asking about criticisms aimed at a language. I've always thought it a good idea to somehow get rid of Javascript. It works, but it's just so messy. I think many will agree with me there. And that's how I interpreted Google's release of Dart. It seems to me like a very good alternative to Javascript. Now, it looks like some are not very happy that Google has released this new language. Take a look at this Wikipedia page to see what I'm talking about. If you don't feel like reading it, I'll tell you now that some seem to think that Dart is similar to Microsoft's VBScript, in that it only works on Microsoft's browsers. This goes against the web's openness. But it's my understanding that Dart can be compiled to Javascript, which will allow it to be run on any modern browser (as the Wikipedia article also states). So my question is: are these criticisms valid? Is there a real fear that Google is trying to control the web's front-end to be more compatible with its browser?

    Read the article

  • Would you use UML if it kept stakeholders from requesting changes frequently?

    - by Huperniketes
    As much as programmers hate to document their code/system and draw UML (especially, Sequencing, Activity and State machine diagrams) or other diagramming notation, would you agree to do it if it kept managers from requesting a "minor change" every couple of weeks? IOW, would you put together visual models to document the system if it helped you demonstrate to managers what the effect of changes are and why it takes so long to implement them? (Edited to help programmers understand what type of answer I'm looking for.) 2nd edit: Restating my question again, "Would you be willing to use some diagramming notation, against your better nature as a programmer, if it helped you manage change requests?" This question isn't asking if there might be something wrong with the process. It's a given that there's something wrong with the process. Would you be willing to do more work to improve it?

    Read the article

  • Is reference to bug/issue in commit message considered good practice?

    - by Christian P
    I'm working on a project where we have the source control set up to automatically write notes in the bug tracker. We simply write the bug issue ID in the commit message and the commit message is added as a note to the bug tracker. I can see only a few downsides for this practice. If sometime in the future the source code gets separated from the bug tracking software (or the reported bugs/issues are somehow lost). Or when someone is looking in the history of commits but doesn't have access to our bug tracker. My question is if having a bug/issue reference in the commit message is considered good practice? Are there some other downsides?

    Read the article

  • How to have a maintainable and manageable Javascript code base

    - by dade
    I am starting a new job soon as a frontend developer. The App I would be working on is 100% Javascript on the client side. all the server returns is an index page that loads all the Javascript files needed by the app. Now here is the problem: The whole of the application is built around having functions wrapped to different namespaces. And from what I see, a simple function like rendering the HTML of a page can be accomplished by having a call to 2 or more functions across different namespace... My initial thought was "this does not feel like the perfect solution" and I can just envisage a lot of issues with maintaining the code and extending it down the line. Now I would soon start working on taking the project forward and would like to have suggestions on good case practices when it comes to writing and managing a relatively large amount of javascript code.

    Read the article

  • Basis of definitions

    - by Yttrill
    Let us suppose we have a set of functions which characterise something: in the OO world methods characterising a type. In mathematics these are propositions and we have two kinds: axioms and lemmas. Axioms are assumptions, lemmas are easily derived from them. In C++ axioms are pure virtual functions. Here's the problem: there's more than one way to axiomatise a system. Given a set of propositions or methods, a subset of the propositions which is necessary and sufficient to derive all the others is called a basis. So too, for methods or functions, we have a desired set which must be defined, and typically every one has one or more definitions in terms of the others, and we require the programmer to provide instance definitions which are sufficient to allow all the others to be defined, and, if there is an overspecification, then it is consistent. Let me give an example (in Felix, Haskell code would be similar): class Eq[t] { virtual fun ==(x:t,y:t):bool => eq(x,y); virtual fun eq(x:t, y:t)=> x == y; virtual fun != (x:t,y:t):bool => not (x == y); axiom reflex(x:t): x == x; axiom sym(x:t, y:t): (x == y) == (y == x); axiom trans(x:t, y:t, z:t): implies(x == y and y == z, x == z); } Here it is clear: the programmer must define either == or eq or both. If both are defined, the definitions must be equivalent. Failing to define one doesn't cause a compiler error, it causes an infinite loop at run time. Defining both inequivalently doesn't cause an error either, it is just inconsistent. Note the axioms specified constrain the semantics of any definition. Given a definition of == either directly or via a definition of eq, then != is defined automatically, although the programmer might replace the default with something more efficient, clearly such an overspecification has to be consistent. Please note, == could also be defined in terms of !=, but we didn't do that. A characterisation of a partial or total order is more complex. It is much more demanding since there is a combinatorial explosion of possible bases. There is an reason to desire overspecification: performance. There also another reason: choice and convenience. So here, there are several questions: one is how to check semantics are obeyed and I am not looking for an answer here (way too hard!). The other question is: How can we specify, and check, that an instance provides at least a basis? And a much harder question: how can we provide several default definitions which depend on the basis chosen?

    Read the article

  • Does 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 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 (who is 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 great difficulty realizing and understanding the value of such things in Scrum and the 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 can someone with no edge-skills of development 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

  • How to begin in Game Development? [closed]

    - by Bladimir Ruiz
    It's been a while since I decide to get into game dev, but, there are so many ways to make a game, that i dont know where to begin, I got unity 3d license for PC/Android/Ios for free, but i Also got XNA dev tool, ALSO have CoronaSDK.. But I dont Know wich one to use. Till' now all i want is to make a Sidecroller lime Super Mario Bros, Just for start later on, i will like to make diferent games. In the future i would like to work in the game industry which tools will be the best to Start in that "Dream"?

    Read the article

  • Overloading interface buttons, what are the best practices?

    - by XMLforDummies
    Imagine you'll have always a button labeled "Continue" in the same position in your app's GUI. Would you rather make a single button instance that takes different actions depending on the current state? private State currentState = State.Step1; private ContinueButton_Click() { switch(currentState) { case State.Step1: DoThis(); currentState = State.Step2; break; case State.Step2: DoThat(); break; } } Or would you rather have something like this? public Form() { this.ContinueStep2Button.Visible = false; } private ContinueStep1Button_Click() { DoThis(); this.ContinueStep1Button.Visible = false; this.ContinueStep2Button.Visible = true; } private ContinueStep2Button_Click() { DoThat(); }

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87  | Next Page >