Search Results

Search found 14169 results on 567 pages for 'parallel programming'.

Page 95/567 | < Previous Page | 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • Is there a way to procedurally generate the history of a world?

    - by pdusen
    I am somewhat intrigued by the diagram found here representing 1800 years of cultural history in an imaginary world some guy created. This sort of thing would seem to have strong applications for game development, insofar as world design. It looks like he did this diagram by hand. What I'm interested in is seeing if there is a way to create this sort of diagram programatically. If you were tasked with generating diagrams in the style of the above from random values, how would you go about it? Are there any particular data structures or algorithms that you would consider?

    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 it good to review programs with seniors and boss even if it is working fine?

    - by Himanshu
    In my company, before delivery of any project, my boss asks my seniors to review programs written by me or other team members or sometimes boss also sits with us for review. I think it is a good way of getting knowledge, but sometimes when programs are working fine, they don't work same after review and I need to look again into my program. They says that review helps to optimize program and query execution, but can we prefer optimization over actual functioning of program?

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Cloud Computing - just get started already!

    - by BuckWoody
    OK - you've been hearing about "cloud" (I really dislike that term, but whatever) for over two years. You've equated it with just throwing some VM's in some vendor's datacenter - which is certainly part of it, but not the whole story. There's a whole world of - wait for it - *coding* out there that you should be working on. If you're a developer, this is just a set of servers with operating systems and the runtime layer (like.NET, Java, PHP, etc.) that you can deploy code to and have it run. It can expand in a horizontal way, allowing massive - and I really, honestly mean massive, not just marketing talk kind of scale. We see this every day. If you're not a developer, well, now's the time to learn. Explore a little. Try it. We'll help you. There's a free conference you can attend in November, and you can sign up for it now. It's all on-line, and the tools you need to code are free. Put down Facebook and Twitter for a minute - go sign up. Learn. Do. :) See you there. http://www.windowsazureconf.net/

    Read the article

  • Which is more important in a web application code promotion hierarchy? production environment to repo equivalence or unidirectional propagation?

    - by ghbarratt
    Lets say you have a code promotion hierarchy consisting of several environments, (the polar end) two of which are development (dev) and production (prod). Lets say you also have a web application where important (but not developer controlled) files are created (and perhaps altered) in the production environment. Lets say that you (or someone above you) decided that the files which are controlled/created/altered/deleted in the production environment needed to go into the repository. Which of the following two sets of practice / approaches do you find best: Committing these non-developed file modifications made in the production environment so that the repository reflects the production environment as closely and as often as possible. Generally ignoring the non-developed production environment alterations, placing confidence in backups to restore the production environment should it be harmed, and keeping a resolution to avoid pushing developments through the promotion hierarchy in the reverse direction (avoiding pushing from prod to dev), only committing the files found in the production environment if they were absolutely necessary in other environments for development. So, 1 or 2, and why? PS - I am currently slightly biased toward maintaining production environment to repository equivalence (option 1), but I keep an open mind and would accept an answer supporting either.

    Read the article

  • What attracts software developers such as yourselves to choose to program for the Android mobile platform?

    - by Hasnan Karim
    Dear programmers, as part of my final year university project, I am conducting research into what makes programmers prefer to program for Android as opposed to other mobile operating systems. The description does not need to be detailed however, I am trying to find patterns between programmers to determine what properties (other than money) a software company such as Android must have in order to attract programmers and therefore grow.

    Read the article

  • Stuff you should have learned in school but didn't pay attention to at the time

    - by HLGEM
    This question made me think that there was a better question to ask. What did you learn in school that you didn't care about at the time, but turned out to be useful or you had to relearn in the workplace because you had it in school, but didn't retain the information and you needed it? (I mean for software related jobs.) I think this might help college students identify some of what they really should be paying attention to while they are in school.

    Read the article

  • Advice for how to handle company pride

    - by user17971
    We have this "amazing" little product using the latest development methodologies, components with all the bells and whistles. I took over this product maybe 6 months ago and struggled with it from day one. Even though it is supposedly is state of the art because of all its amazing structure, using dependency injections, inversion of control from the unity framework, hibernation and is domain driven in a .net mvvm xaml application to make it streamlined and modular. I knew from the moment I saw the monolith that it was going to be an uphill struggle for me. A lot of little code-bits scattered all around in neatly organized paradigms. Debugging is difficult, tracing the code is difficult, making new code is difficult, although some modifications is surprisinly easy but it doesn't out weight the problems I have with the code by a long shot. When I took over the project I was told that the new management console was ready for delivery and all I had to do was compile it and drop it. This was the beginning of a uphill struggle, our customer didn't agree at all that this was the functionality they had asked for so I had to do modifications to the program to their specifications. Since the project pretty much has been overdue since I took over it it has always been important that we didn't add or change much to the original system. I could modify the existing bits. fast forward until today where I finally completed all their comments and issues with the program but now I think that the users has opened their eyes (even though they saw this program many times) that they will be going backwards with this new system, that it will be much worse than the tool they got today (for a long time due to the fact that I'm the only resource on the project, project manager, tester, developer, integration specialist etc) My problem is that I lost faith in this system quite early due to the nature of the program. Although I made many changes and improvements to the system I wholeheartedly sympathize with the poor users who are going to start using this system. Its not nearly doing all the things it should do. I had this conversation internally with my boss where I told him what I thought about it, that if I were the customer I wouldn't have spent money developing it. So what do I do now? The system in ready, on a staging system and nobody likes it, its too slow and boring and does maybe do 50% of what they need it to do. Despite how much energy and working around the clock I've done to this project: I won't mind scrapping the system but we've spent much money (well my salaries) developing it and my company wants us to be proud of everything we do and advocate it. How will I tackle the contractor when he asks for advice? Surely I can tell him, this is what we agreed upon based on your use case scenarios, and be done with it? How will I inform my boss about this progress? He knows what I feel about it but I always get the feeling he let my criticism pass him by as just hot air, gone tomorrow,.

    Read the article

  • Mail Scanning System

    - by Mr D
    In the same way gmail can generate ads based on email content, I am looking for a way to develop a system which can: Allow users to connect their email address to our site It then would continously monitor all incomming emails From the incomming emails there would be a critera(e.g. a certain address or subject) if any of the emails matched the critea it would would be saved to a database Then once a new email had been found the users would receive an email notification will tells them to log back into the site to see it. My questions are: Would this be possible? What would be a good language to use(generally I like php, python and java) Are there any frameworks which would help do this? How would I connect the users email account to allow access to their emails(do I need a mail server?) Any advice? Thank you! If you need more information please let me know.

    Read the article

  • Mac mini 2012 graphic upgrade for UE4 Unity3D Blender

    - by DaCrAn
    I have a mac mini (late 2012) i7, 16gb ram Vengeance graphic card intel HD4000. I buy recently a thunderbolt expansion PCIE whit support a graphic card PCIE 2.0 16x whit space for Full leght card. I have dubts about what graphic card gona give me the best results for using the Unreal Engine 4 UE4 or Unity3D, and Blender. My badget cover a Nvidia Quadro K4000 3gb or ATI Firepro W7000 4gb. Any recomendation? What professional graphic card can be better for design games in 3D? Thanks. DaCrAn

    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

  • Is it a good pattern that no objects should know more than what it needs to know?

    - by Jim Thio
    I am implementing a viewController class. The view controller class got NSNotification when the Grabbing class start or finish updating. I have 2 choices. I can make the grabbing class to provide a public read only property so all other classes can know whether it is still uploading. Or I can let view Controller to listen to 2 different events. Start updating and finish updating events. The truth is the viewController do need to know whether the grabbing class is still updating or not at any other time. So I am thinking of creating 2 events would be a better way to go. Actually, what do you think?

    Read the article

  • Refactoring and Open / Closed principle

    - by Giorgio
    I have recently being reading a web site about clean code development (I do not put a link here because it is not in English). One of the principles advertised by this site is the Open Closed Principle: each software component should be open for extension and closed for modification. E.g., when we have implemented and tested a class, we should only modify it to fix bugs or to add new functionality (e.g. new methods that do not influence the existing ones). The existing functionality and implementation should not be changed. I normally apply this principle by defining an interface I and a corresponding implementation class A. When class A has become stable (implemented and tested), I normally do not modify it too much (possibly, not at all), i.e. If new requirements arrive (e.g. performance, or a totally new implementation of the interface) that require big changes to the code, I write a new implementation B, and keep using A as long as B is not mature. When B is mature, all that is needed is to change how I is instantiated. If the new requirements suggest a change to the interface as well, I define a new interface I' and a new implementation A'. So I, A are frozen and remain the implementation for the production system as long as I' and A' are not stable enough to replace them. So, in view of these observation, I was a bit surprised that the web page then suggested the use of complex refactorings, "... because it is not possible to write code directly in its final form." Isn't there a contradiction / conflict between enforcing the Open / Closed Principle and suggesting the use of complex refactorings as a best practice? Or the idea here is that one can use complex refactorings during the development of a class A, but when that class has been tested successfully it should be frozen?

    Read the article

  • Grading an algorithm: Readability vs. Compactness

    - by amiregelz
    Consider the following question in a test \ interview: Implement the strcpy() function in C: void strcpy(char *destination, char *source); The strcpy function copies the C string pointed by source into the array pointed by destination, including the terminating null character. Assume that the size of the array pointed by destination is long enough to contain the same C string as source, and does not overlap in memory with source. Say you were the tester, how would you grade the following answers to this question? 1) void strcpy(char *destination, char *source) { while (*source != '\0') { *destination = *source; source++; destionation++; } *destionation = *source; } 2) void strcpy(char *destination, char *source) { while (*(destination++) = *(source++)) ; } The first implementation is straightforward - it is readable and programmer-friendly. The second implementation is shorter (one line of code) but less programmer-friendly; it's not so easy to understand the way this code is working, and if you're not familiar with the priorities in this code then it's a problem. I'm wondering if the first answer would show more complexity and more advanced thinking, in the tester's eyes, even though both algorithms behave the same, and although code readability is considered to be more important than code compactness. It seems to me that since making an algorithm this compact is more difficult to implement, it will show a higher level of thinking as an answer in a test. However, it is also possible that a tester would consider the first answer not good because it's not readable. I would also like to mention that this is not specific to this example, but general for code readability vs. compactness when implementing an algorithm, specifically in tests \ interviews.

    Read the article

  • Started wrong with a project. Should I start over?

    - by solidsnake
    I'm a beginner web developer (one year of experience). A couple of weeks after graduating, I got offered a job to build a web application for a company whose owner is not much of a tech guy. He recruited me to avoid theft of his idea, the high cost of development charged by a service company, and to have someone young he can trust onboard to maintain the project for the long run (I came to these conclusions by myself long after being hired). Cocky as I was back then, with a diploma in computer science, I accepted the offer thinking I can build anything. I was calling the shots. After some research I settled on PHP, and started with plain PHP, no objects, just ugly procedural code. Two months later, everything was getting messy, and it was hard to make any progress. The web application is huge. So I decided to check out an MVC framework that would make my life easier. That's where I stumbled upon the cool kid in the PHP community: Laravel. I loved it, it was easy to learn, and I started coding right away. My code looked cleaner, more organized. It looked very good. But again the web application was huge. The company was pressuring me to deliver the first version, which they wanted to deploy, obviously, and start seeking customers. Because Laravel was fun to work with, it made me remember why I chose this industry in the first place - something I forgot while stuck in the shitty education system. So I started working on small projects at night, reading about methodologies and best practice. I revisited OOP, moved on to object-oriented design and analysis, and read Uncle Bob's book Clean Code. This helped me realize that I really knew nothing. I did not know how to build software THE RIGHT WAY. But at this point it was too late, and now I'm almost done. My code is not clean at all, just spaghetti code, a real pain to fix a bug, all the logic is in the controllers, and there is little object oriented design. I'm having this persistent thought that I have to rewrite the whole project. However, I can't do it... They keep asking when is it going to be all done. I can not imagine this code deployed on a server. Plus I still know nothing about code efficiency and the web application's performance. On one hand, the company is waiting for the product and can not wait anymore. On the other hand I can't see myself going any further with the actual code. I could finish up, wrap it up and deploy, but god only knows what might happen when people start using it. What do you think I should do?

    Read the article

  • What's a good starting point to learn about JIT compilers?

    - by davidk01
    I've spent the past few months learning about stack based virtual machines, parsers, compilers, and some elementary things about hardware architecture. I've also written a few parsers and compilers for C like languages to understand the generic parser/compiler pipeline. Now I'd like to take my understanding further by learning about optimizing compilers and JIT compilers but I'm having a hard time finding material at the right level. I don't yet understand enough to dive into a code base like PyPy or LuaJIT but I also know more than what most introductory compiler books have to offer. So what are some good books for an intermediate beginner like to me to look into?

    Read the article

  • How to create an Orthographic display in OpenGL (ES) that handles different screen sizes and orientations?

    - by Piku
    I'm trying to create an iPad/iPhone game using GLES2.0 that contains a 3D scene with a heads-up-display/GUI overlaid on the top. However, this problem would also apply if I were to port my game to a computer and run the game in a resizable window, or allow the user to change screen resolutions... When trying to make the 2D GUI/HUD work I've made the assumption that all I'm really doing is drawing a load of 2D textured 'quads' on the screen and am trying to treat the orthographic projection as an old-style 2D display with 0,0 in the upper left and screenWidth,ScreenHeight in the lower right. This causes me all sorts of confusion when I rotate my ipad into Landscape mode since I can't work out what to put into my projection and modelview matrices to turn everything around the right way. It also gets messy if I want to support the iPad's large screen, an iPhone or a Retina display since I have to then draw three sets of textures for everything and work out which ones to use. Should I be trying to map the 2D OpenGL co-ords 1:1 with the screen? While typing out this question it occurs to me that I could keep my origin in the centre, still running -1/+1 along the axes. This would let me scale my 2D content appropriately on the different screen sizes, but wouldn't I end up with the textures being scaled and possibly losing quality? I'm using OpenGLES 2.0 and have a matrix library that has equivalents to the GLES1.1 glOrthof() and glFrustrum() calls.

    Read the article

  • Question about separating game core engine from game graphics engine...

    - by Conrad Clark
    Suppose I have a SquareObject class, which implements IDrawable, an interface which contains the method void Draw(). I want to separate drawing logic itself from the game core engine. My main idea is to create a static class which is responsible to dispatch actions to the graphic engine. public static class DrawDispatcher<T> { private static Action<T> DrawAction = new Action<T>((ObjectToDraw)=>{}); public static void SetDrawAction(Action<T> action) { DrawAction = action; } public static void Dispatch(this T Obj) { DrawAction(Obj); } } public static class Extensions { public static void DispatchDraw<T>(this object Obj) { DrawDispatcher<T>.DispatchDraw((T)Obj); } } Then, on the core side: public class SquareObject: GameObject, IDrawable { #region Interface public void Draw() { this.DispatchDraw<SquareObject>(); } #endregion } And on the graphics side: public static class SquareRender{ //stuff here public static void Initialize(){ DrawDispatcher<SquareObject>.SetDrawAction((Square)=>{//my square rendering logic}); } } Do this "pattern" follow best practices? And a plus, I could easily change the render scheme of each object by changing the DispatchDraw parameter, as in: public class SuperSquareObject: GameObject, IDrawable { #region Interface public void Draw() { this.DispatchDraw<SquareObject>(); } #endregion } public class RedSquareObject: GameObject, IDrawable { #region Interface public void Draw() { this.DispatchDraw<RedSquareObject>(); } #endregion } RedSquareObject would have its own render method, but SuperSquareObject would render as a normal SquareObject I'm just asking because i do not want to reinvent the wheel, and there may be a design pattern similar (and better) to this that I may be not acknowledged of. Thanks in advance!

    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

  • 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

< Previous Page | 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102  | Next Page >