Search Results

Search found 1604 results on 65 pages for 'standards'.

Page 9/65 | < Previous Page | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  | Next Page >

• ISO 12207: Verification of integration and Unit test validation

  - by user970696

  I have received comments from the supervisor reviewing my thesis. He asked two questions I cannot answer right now: If ISO 12207 says under "Integration verification" that it "checks that components are correctly and completely integrated into a system", how this can be verified without testing, if all testing is validation? How without testing can I know that system is integrated correctly and fully? If unit testing is validation, how does it match the ISO definiton of validation "that requirements for intended use were fulfilled" if its so low level?

  Read the article

• Maintainability of Boolean logic - Is nesting if statements needed?

  - by Vaccano

  Which of these is better for maintainability? if (byteArrayVariable != null) if (byteArrayVariable .Length != 0) //Do something with byteArrayVariable OR if ((byteArrayVariable != null) && (byteArrayVariable.Length != 0)) //Do something with byteArrayVariable I prefer reading and writing the second, but I recall reading in code complete that doing things like that is bad for maintainability. This is because you are relying on the language to not evaluate the second part of the if if the first part is false and not all languages do that. (The second part will throw an exception if evaluated with a null byteArrayVariable.) I don't know if that is really something to worry about or not, and I would like general feedback on the question. Thanks.

  Read the article

• if ('constant' == $variable) vs. if ($variable == 'constant')

  - by Tom Auger

  Lately, I've been working a lot in PHP and specifically within the WordPress framework. I'm noticing a lot of code in the form of: if ( 1 == $options['postlink'] ) Where I would have expected to see: if ( $options['postlink'] == 1 ) Is this a convention found in certain languages / frameworks? Is there any reason the former approach is preferable to the latter (from a processing perspective, or a parsing perspective or even a human perspective?) Or is it merely a matter of taste? I have always thought it better when performing a test, that the variable item being tested against some constant is on the left. It seems to map better to the way we would ask the question in natural language: "if the cake is chocolate" rather than "if chocolate is the cake".

  Read the article

• Should you create a class within a method?

  - by Amndeep7

  I have made a program using Java that is an implementation of this project: http://nifty.stanford.edu/2009/stone-random-art/sml/index.html. Essentially, you create a mathematical expression and, using the pixel coordinate as input, make a picture. After I initially implemented this in serial, I then implemented it in parallel due to the fact that if the picture size is too large or if the mathematical expression is too complex (especially considering the fact that I made the expression recursively), it takes a really long time. During this process, I realized that I needed two classes which implemented the Runnable interface as I had to put in parameters for the run method, which you aren't allowed to do directly. One of these classes ended up being a medium sized static inner class (not large enough to make an independent class file for it though). The other though, just needed a few parameters to determine some indexes and the size of the for loop that I was making run in parallel - here it is: class DataConversionRunnable implements Runnable { int jj, kk, w; DataConversionRunnable(int column, int matrix, int wid) { jj = column; kk = matrix; w = wid; } public void run() { for(int i = 0; i < w; i++) colorvals[kk][jj][i] = (int) ((raw[kk][jj][i] + 1.0) * 255 / 2.0); increaseCounter(); } } My question is should I make it a static inner class or can I just create it in a method? What is the general programming convention followed in this case?

  Read the article

• Is writing comments inside methods not a good practice?

  - by Srini Kandula

  A friend told me that writing comments inside methods is not good. He said that we should have comments only for the method definitions(javadocs) but not inside the method body. It seems he read in a book that having comments inside the code means there is a problem in the code. I don't quite understand his reasoning. I think writing comments inside the method body is good and it helps other developers to understand it better and faster. Please provide your comments.

  Read the article

• How important is it that you know the C++ standard?

  - by Nim

  I did try searching, but I did not see a similar question (either that or my search terminology was incorrect - if so, feel free to close). I am an avid user of SO, and I notice that there are lots of references to the C++ standard in discussions and answers - and I have to admit, I have never read this particular document, the language makes my eyes hurt... So, the question is, can a C++ developer really code for a living without ever having read this document? Is it really important for us mere mortals who are not in the business of writing compilers?

  Read the article

• Should comments say WHY the program is doing what it is doing? (opinion on a dictum by the inventor of Forth)

  - by AKE

  The often provocative Chuck Moore (inventor of the Forth language) gave the following advice (paraphrasing): "Use comments sparingly. Programs are self-documenting, with a modicum of help from mnemonics. Comments should say WHAT the program is doing, not HOW." My question: Should comments say WHY the program is doing what it is doing? Update: In addition to the answers below, these two provide additional insight. Beginner's guide to writing comments? http://programmers.stackexchange.com/a/98609/62203

  Read the article

• Standard -server to server- and -browser to server- authentication method

  - by jeruki

  I have server with some resources; until now all these resources were requested through a browser by a human user, and the authentication was made with an username/password method, that generates a cookie with a token (to have the session open for some time). Right now the system requires that other servers make GET requests to this resource server but they have to authenticate to get them. We have been using a list of authorized IPs but having two authentication methods makes the code more complex. My questions are: Is there any standard method or pattern to authenticate human users and servers using the same code? If there is not, are the methods I'm using now the right ones or is there a better / more standard way to accomplish what I need? Thanks in advance for any suggestion.

  Read the article

• How should compound words be handled when coding? Is there a definitive list of compound words? [closed]

  - by Ray

  QUESTION: How should you handle compound words when programming? Are there any good lists available online for developers of generally accepted technology-related compound words? I can see how this is highly ambiguous, so should I just use common-sense? EXAMPLE: I would be inclined to do this: filename NOT FileName or login NOT LogIn However, the microsoft documentation indicates that filename is not compound. So I wonder, is there a more definitive source? See also, this english.stackexchange discussion on filename. Under the section "Capitalization Rules for Compound Words and Common Terms" located here: Microsoft .NET Capitalization Conventions only offers a limited introduction into the topic, and leaves it up to the developer to use their intuition with the rest.

  Read the article

• Control convention for circular movement?

  - by Christian

  I'm currently doing a kind of training project in Unity (still a beginner). It's supposed to be somewhat like Breakout, but instead of just going left and right I want the paddle to circle around the center point. This is all fine and dandy, but the problem I have is: how do you control this with a keyboard or gamepad? For touch and mouse control I could work around the problem by letting the paddle follow the cursor/finger, but with the other control methods I'm a bit stumped. With a keyboard for example, I could either make it so that the Left arrow always moves the paddle clockwise (it starts at the bottom of the circle), or I could link it to the actual direction - meaning that if the paddle is at the bottom, it goes left and up along the circle or, if it's in the upper hemisphere, it moves left and down, both times toward the outer left point of the circle. Both feel kind of weird. With the first one, it can be counter intuitive to press Left to move the paddle right when it's in the upper area, while in the second method you'd need to constantly switch buttons to keep moving. So, long story short: is there any kind of existing standard, convention or accepted example for this type of movement and the corresponding controls? I didn't really know what to google for (control conventions for circular movement was one of the searches I tried, but it didn't give me much), and I also didn't really find anything about this on here. If there is a Question that I simply didn't see, please excuse the duplicate.

  Read the article

• What is the worst programmer habit?

  - by 0x4a6f4672

  Many people get into programming because programming is fun. At least in the beginning. After some time doing it professionally, programming is no longer fun, often just hard work. Sometimes we develop bad habits along the way to make it fun again. Some bad habits of programmers are well known, for example the "I fix that in a second" habit, the "reinvent the wheel" practice or the "all code except mine is crap" attitude (which often leads to "I will re-write the entire program from scratch" syndrome). There are things which a programmer should never do. What is the worst programmer habit?

  Read the article

• Where did the notion of "one return only" come from?

  - by FredOverflow

  I often talk to Java programmers who say "Don't put multiple return statements in the same method." When I ask them to tell me the reasons why, all I get is "The coding standard says so." or "It's confusing." When they show me solutions with a single return statement, the code looks uglier to me. For example: if (blablabla) return 42; else return 97; "This is ugly, you have to use a local variable!" int result; if (blablabla) result = 42; else result = 97; return result; How does this 50% code bloat make the program any easier to understand? Personally, I find it harder, because the state space has just increased by another variable that could easily have been prevented. Of course, normally I would just write: return (blablabla) ? 42 : 97; But the conditional operator gets even less love among Java programmers. "It's incomprehensible!" Where did this notion of "one return only" come from, and why do people adhere to it rigidly?

  Read the article

• Why does Zend discourage "floating functions"?

  - by kojiro

  Zend's Coding Standard Naming Convention says Functions in the global scope (a.k.a "floating functions") are permitted but discouraged in most cases. Consider wrapping these functions in a static class. The common wisdom in Python says practically the opposite: Finally, use staticmethod sparingly! There are very few situations where static-methods are necessary in Python, and I've seen them used many times where a separate "top-level" function would have been clearer. (Not only does the above StackOverflow answer warn against overuse of static methods, but more than one Python linter will warn the same.) Is this something that can be generalized across programming languages, and if so, why does Python differ so from PHP? If it's not something that can be generalized, what is the basis for one approach or the other, and is there a way to immediately recognize in a language whether you should prefer bare functions or static methods?

  Read the article

• Assignments in mock return values

  - by zerkms

  (I will show examples using php and phpunit but this may be applied to any programming language) The case: let's say we have a method A::foo that delegates some work to class M and returns the value as-is. Which of these solutions would you choose: $mock = $this->getMock('M'); $mock->expects($this->once()) ->method('bar') ->will($this->returnValue('baz')); $obj = new A($mock); $this->assertEquals('baz', $obj->foo()); or $mock = $this->getMock('M'); $mock->expects($this->once()) ->method('bar') ->will($this->returnValue($result = 'baz')); $obj = new A($mock); $this->assertEquals($result, $obj->foo()); or $result = 'baz'; $mock = $this->getMock('M'); $mock->expects($this->once()) ->method('bar') ->will($this->returnValue($result)); $obj = new A($mock); $this->assertEquals($result, $obj->foo()); Personally I always follow the 2nd solution, but just 10 minutes ago I had a conversation with couple of developers who said that it is "too tricky" and chose 3rd or 1st. So what would you usually do? And do you have any conventions to follow in such cases?

  Read the article

• Naming conventions for newtype deconstructors (destructors?)

  - by Petr Pudlák

  Looking into Haskell's standard library we can see: newtype StateT s m a = StateT { runStateT :: s -> m (a, s) } newtype WrappedMonad m a = WrapMonad { unwrapMonad :: m a } newtype Sum a = Sum { getSum :: a } Apparently, there (at least) 3 different prefixes used to unwrap a value inside a newtype: un-, run- and get-. (Moreover run- and get- capitalizes the next letter while un- doesn't.) This seems confusing. Are there any reasons for that, or is that just a historical thing? If I design my own newtype, what prefix should I use and why?

  Read the article

• What should NOT be included in comments? (opinion on a dictum by the inventor of Forth)

  - by AKE

  The often provocative Chuck Moore (inventor of the Forth language) gave the following advice (paraphrasing): "Use comments sparingly. Programs are self-documenting, with a modicum of help from mnemonics. Comments should say WHAT the program is doing, not HOW." My question: Should comments say WHY the program is doing what it is doing? Update: In addition to the answers below, these two provide additional insight. 1: Beginner's guide to writing comments? 2: http://programmers.stackexchange.com/a/98609/62203

  Read the article

• How to define a natural id in database?

  - by gcc

  There are a lot of manuals. I am trying to create an database to hold information of these documents. But, there is a small problem. How can I give meaningful id to the manuals? Are there any standard or logic behind the giving meaningful id to the documents? If there is no standard, can you tell me how I should do that? example: table : manual id | manual name EDIT: Not Meaningful ID 1 or M1 or foo 2 C2 bar 3 P123 name ... ... ... (i) (ii) (iii) (i) Not meaningful for me because if some item deleted, there can be gap. ex 1 33 100. (ii) random character can be confusing when one try to give a name to new manual (iii) Why giving name is not preferred is because finding a name to the manual as ID is hard after 500 manuals. Meaningful : New ID * Can be easily produced even if after 1000 manuals * Should not be so complicated

  Read the article

• How important is to avoid name collisions between libraries belonging to different domains?

  - by Sergio

  I have written a small open source Java library for facilitating conversions between different types of objects (in the style of Google's gson, but quite more general). It seems to me that a nice natural name for my library is JConverter, after browsing in the web to see if another library with the same name already exists, I found a library with the same name for Joomla. My concrete question is: How important is to avoid naming collisions when creating an open source library if an existing library with the chosen name already exists in a complete different domain ? (in my concrete case, these are libraries even implemented for different languages).

  Read the article

• What is the benefit of not using Hungarian notation?

  - by user29981

  One of the things I struggle with is not using Hungarian notation. I don't want to have to go to the variable definition just to see what type it is. When a project gets extensive, it's nice to be able to look at a variable prefixed by 'bool' and know that it's looking for true/false instead of a 0/1 value. I also do a lot of work in SQL Server. I prefix my stored procedures with 'sp' and my tables with 'tbl', not to mention all of my variables in the database respectively. I see everywhere that nobody really wants to use Hungarian notation, to the point where they avoid it. My question is, what is the benefit of not using Hungarian notation, and why does the majority of developers avoid it like the plague?

  Read the article

• Single quotes vs double quotes

  - by Eric Hydrick

  I just started a job where I'm writing Python after coming from a Java background, and I'm noticing that other developers tend to quote strings using single quotes ('') instead of double quotes (""). For example: line1 = 'This is how strings typically look.' line2 = "Not like this." Is there a particular reason for this other than personal preference? Is this the proper way to be quoting strings?

  Read the article

• Custom HTML Tags: Are there any specifications stating a standard way to handle them?

  - by blesh

  It seems like for years they've just been given default styling and inline display. Is there a spec somewhere that has dictated this? I've looked over the RFC's but I'm not particularly good with RFC-ese, and I didn't notice anything anywhere. For example <body> Some content <mycustomtag>something else</mycustomtag> more content. </body> I can still style it with CSS, and the browser doesn't outright vomit... so it seems like there is some sort of expected behavior. Was that dictated by a specification?

  Read the article

• Eliminating Magic Numbers: When is it time to say "No"?

  - by oosterwal

  We're all aware that magic numbers (hard-coded values) can wreak havoc in your program, especially when it's time to modify a section of code that has no comments, but where do you draw the line? For instance, if you have a function that calculates the number of seconds between two days, do you replace seconds = num_days * 24 * 60 * 60 with seconds = num_days * HOURS_PER_DAY * MINUTES_PER_HOUR * SECONDS_PER_MINUTE At what point do you decide that it is completely obvious what the hard-coded value means and leave it alone?

  Read the article

• What do you do when working with multiple languages with different capitalization schemes?

  - by dvcolgan

  I'm making a webapp using Django. The Python convention for naming variables is lowercase_with_underscores, but the Javascript convention is camelCase. In addition, I've seen many people use lowercase-with-hyphens for CSS identifiers. Would you suggest using all three naming conventions where appropriate, or picking one and using it, even if the other two recommend something else? Switching back and forth isn't a huge problem, but it can still be mental overhead.

  Read the article

• Good practices when writing a parser for a standard file format (such as ePub)

  - by J-F L-R

  I am considering writing an Android reader software that can read ePubs and display them. I checked the ePub standard documents. However, these contain a lot of information. So I am wondering what is the process of implementing a standard for a file format. What are the steps to get a working implementation without passing by parts of the standard? Are there any best practices? Also, is it even possible to program this alone in a reasonable time? From what I have already found out, ePub is basically a zip archive. That means I could probably use zlib to decompress it. The content is in XHTML and CSS, so I believe it should be possible to display it in a WebView. The parts that are missing are writing the code that can read the metadata and manage the non-standard XHTML extensions.

  Read the article

• How do you avoid name similarities between your classes and the native ones?

  - by Oscar

  I just ran into an "interesting problem", which I would like your opinion about: I am developing a system and for many reasons (meaning: abstraction, technology independence, etc) we create our own types for exchanging information. For instance: if there is a method which is called SendEmail and is invoked by the business logic, it way have a parameter of type OurCompany.EMailMessage, which is an object which is completely technology independent and contains only "business relevant data" (for instance, no information abut head encoding). Inside the SendEmail function, we get this information from our EMailMEssage object and create a MailMessage (this one is technolgy specific) object so it can be sent over the network. As you can already notice, our class has a very similar name to the "native" language class. The problem is: this is exactly what they are, email messages, so it is hard to find another meaningful name for them. Do you have this problem often? How do you manage it? Edit: @mgkrebbs just commented about using fully qualified names. This is our current approach, but a little bit too verbose, IMHO. I would like something cleaner, if possible.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  | Next Page >