Search Results

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

Page 8/65 | < Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >

• Can someone explain to me C#'s coding convention?

  - by AedonEtLIRA

  I recently started working with Unity3D and primarily scripting with C#. As, I normally program in Java, the differences aren't too great but I still referred to a crash course just to make sure I am on the right track. However, My biggest curiosity with C# is that is capitalises the first letter its method names (eg. java: getPrime() C#: GetPrime() aka: Pascal Case?). Is there a good reason for this? I understand from the crash course page that I read that apparently it's convention for .Net and I have no way of ever changing it, but I am curious to hear why it was done like this as opposed to the normal (relative?) camel case that, say, Java uses. Note: I understand that languages have their own coding conventions (python methods are all lower case which also applies in this question) but I've never really understood why it isn't formalised into a standard.

  Read the article

• Please help me give this principle a name

  - by Brent Arias

  As a designer, I like providing interfaces that cater to a power/simplicity balance. For example, I think the LINQ designers followed that principle because they offered both dot-notation and query-notation. The first is more powerful, but the second is easier to read and follow. If you disagree with my assessment of LINQ, please try to see my point anyway; LINQ was just an example, my post is not about LINQ. I call this principle "dial-able power". But I'd like to know what other people call it. Certainly some will say "KISS" is the common term. But I see KISS as a superset, or a "consumerism" practice. Using LINQ as my example again, in my view, a team of programmers who always try to use query notation over dot-notation are practicing KISS. Thus the LINQ designers practiced "dial-able power", whereas the LINQ consumers practice KISS. The two make beautiful music together. I'll give another example. Imagine a C# logging tool that has two signatures allowing two uses: void Write(string message); void Write(Func<string> messageCallback); The purpose of the two signatures is to fulfill these needs: //Every-day "simple" usage, nothing special. myLogger.Write("Something Happened" + error.ToString() ); //This is performance critical, do not call ToString() if logging is //disabled. myLogger.Write( () => { "Something Happened" + error.ToString() }); Having these overloads represents "dial-able power," because the consumer has the choice of a simple interface or a powerful interface. A KISS-loving consumer will use the simpler signature most of the time, and will allow the "busy" looking signature when the power is needed. This also helps self-documentation, because usage of the powerful signature tells the reader that the code is performance critical. If the logger had only the powerful signature, then there would be no "dial-able power." So this comes full-circle. I'm happy to keep my own "dial-able power" coinage if none yet exists, but I can't help think I'm missing an obvious designation for this practice. p.s. Another example that is related, but is not the same as "dial-able power", is Scott Meyer's principle "make interfaces easy to use correctly, and hard to use incorrectly."

  Read the article

• CSS naming guildlines with elements with multiple classes

  - by ryanzec

  Its seems like there are 2 ways someone can handle naming classes for elements that are designed to have multiple classes. One way would be: <span class="btn btn-success"></span> This is something that twitter bootstrap uses. Another possibility I would think would be: <span class="btn success"></span> It seems like the zurb foundation uses this method. Now the benefits of the first that I can see is that there less chance of outside css interfering with styling as the class name btn-success would not be as common as the class name success. The benefit of the second as I can see is that there is less typing and potential better style reuse. Are there any other benefits/disadvantages of either option and is one of them more popular than the other?

  Read the article

• Approach on Software Development Architecture

  - by john ryan

  Hi i am planning to standardize our way of creating project for our new projects. Currently we are using 3tier architecture where we have our ClassLibrary Project where it includes our Data Access Layer and Business Layer Something like: Solution ClassLibrary >ClassLibrary Project : >DAL(folder) > DAL Classes >BAL(folder) > BAL Classes And this Class Library dll was reference on our presentation Layer Project which are the Application(web/desktop) Something like: Solution WebUniversitySystem >Libraries(folder) > ClassLibrary.dll >WebUniversitySystem(Project): >Reference ClassLibrary.dll >Pages etc... Now i am planning to do is something like: Solution WebUniversitySystem >DataAccess(Project) >BusinesLayer(Project) >Reference DAL >WebUniversitySystem(Project): >Reference BAL >Pages etc... Is this Ok ? Or there is a good Approach that we can follow? Thanks In Regards

  Read the article

• Are there well-known PowerShell coding conventions?

  - by Tahir Hassan

  Are there any well-defined conventions when programming in PowerShell? For example, in scripts which are to be maintained long-term, do we need to: Use the real cmdlet name or alias? Specify the cmdlet parameter name in full or only partially (dir -Recurse versus dir -r) When specifying string arguments for cmdlets do you enclose them in quotes (New-Object 'System.Int32' versus New-Object System.Int32 When writing functions and filters do you specify the types of parameters? Do you write cmdlets in the (official) correct case? For keywords like BEGIN...PROCESS...END do you write them in uppercase only? It seems that MSDN lack coding conventions document for PowerShell, while such document exist for example for C#.

  Read the article

• Are there deprecated practices for multithread and multiprocessor programming that I should no longer use?

  - by DeveloperDon

  In the early days of FORTRAN and BASIC, essentially all programs were written with GOTO statements. The result was spaghetti code and the solution was structured programming. Similarly, pointers can have difficult to control characteristics in our programs. C++ started with plenty of pointers, but use of references are recommended. Libraries like STL can reduce some of our dependency. There are also idioms to create smart pointers that have better characteristics, and some version of C++ permit references and managed code. Programming practices like inheritance and polymorphism use a lot of pointers behind the scenes (just as for, while, do structured programming generates code filled with branch instructions). Languages like Java eliminate pointers and use garbage collection to manage dynamically allocated data instead of depending on programmers to match all their new and delete statements. In my reading, I have seen examples of multi-process and multi-thread programming that don't seem to use semaphores. Do they use the same thing with different names or do they have new ways of structuring protection of resources from concurrent use? For example, a specific example of a system for multithread programming with multicore processors is OpenMP. It represents a critical region as follows, without the use of semaphores, which seem not to be included in the environment. th_id = omp_get_thread_num(); #pragma omp critical { cout << "Hello World from thread " << th_id << '\n'; } This example is an excerpt from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenMP Alternatively, similar protection of threads from each other using semaphores with functions wait() and signal() might look like this: wait(sem); th_id = get_thread_num(); cout << "Hello World from thread " << th_id << '\n'; signal(sem); In this example, things are pretty simple, and just a simple review is enough to show the wait() and signal() calls are matched and even with a lot of concurrency, thread safety is provided. But other algorithms are more complicated and use multiple semaphores (both binary and counting) spread across multiple functions with complex conditions that can be called by many threads. The consequences of creating deadlock or failing to make things thread safe can be hard to manage. Do these systems like OpenMP eliminate the problems with semaphores? Do they move the problem somewhere else? How do I transform my favorite semaphore using algorithm to not use semaphores anymore?

  Read the article

• Is a coding standard even needed anymore?

  - by SomeKittens

  I know that it's been proven that a coding standard helps enormously. However, there are many different tools and IDEs that will format to whatever standard the programmer prefers. So long as the code's neat/commented (and not a spaghetti mess), I don't see the need for a coding standard. Are there any arguments for the development of a coding standard (we don't have one, but I was looking into creating one)?

  Read the article

• How to deal with different programming styles in a team?

  - by user3287

  We have a small dev team (only 3 developers) and we recently got a new team member. While he is a smart coder, his coding style is completely different from ours. Our existing code base contains mostly readable, clean and maintainable code, but the new team member is quickly changing many files, introducing ugly hacks and shortcuts, using defines all over the place, adding functions in the wrong places, etc. My question is if others have experienced such a situation before, and if anyone has tips on how to talk to him.

  Read the article

• User defined type for healthcare / Medical Records variable name prefixes?

  - by Peter Turner

  I was reading Code Complete regarding variable naming in trying to find an answer to this question and stumbled on a table of commonly accepted prefixes for programming word processor software. Well, I'm not a word processor software programmer, but if I was, I'd be happy to use those user defined types. Since I'm a programmer for a smallish healthcare ISV, and have no contact with the larger community of healthcare software programmers (other than the neglected and forsaken HealthCareIT.SE where I never had the chance to ask this question). I want to know if there is a coding convention for medical records. Like Patient = pnt and Chart = chrt and Medication = med or mdctn or whatever. I'm not talking full on hungarian notation, but just a standard that would fit in code complete in place of that wonderful chart of word processor UDT's which are of so little use to me.

  Read the article

• What is a widely accepted term for a string variable that would probably contain a file path and file name?

  - by Peter Turner

  For functions that need to index files in a directory and rename them FileName0001, FileName0002, etc... I often need to write a function that splits the file name from the file path and rename the file. When I put the file name and file path back together, I don't have a very good name for the variable that contains both of them and I usually just wind up concatenating them every time I want to use them (usually using them as parameters for functions labeled either filename or filepath) so I never really know what I'm doing until I notice a lot of files being written in the same directory as my binaries. Anyway, what do I call a file name and a file path? I don't want to call it File, because that usually means the binary information behind the file. I don't want to call it URI because that usually means I've got some sort of protocol, which I don't. I just want a good way to denote "c:\somedir\somedir\somedir\somefile.txt" so as to deconfuse this mess I've just realized I'm in. Please don't just list your personal preference. I think an excellent answer should "'site its sources". (as in, provide a link to a repository with a good example of the code being used as I described)

  Read the article

• Matching the superclass's constructor's parameter list, is treating a null default value as a non-null value within a constructor a violation of LSP?

  - by Panzercrisis

  I kind of ran into this when messing around with FlashPunk, and I'm going to use it as an example. Essentially the main sprite class is pretty much class Entity. Entity's constructor has four parameters, each with a default value. One of them is graphic, whose default value is null. Entity is designed to be inherited from, with many such subclasses providing their own graphic within their own internal workings. Normally these subclasses would not have graphic in their constructor's parameter lists, but would simply pick something internally and go with it. However I was looking into possibly still adhering to the Liskov Substitution Principal. Which led me to the following example: package com.blank.graphics { import net.flashpunk.*; import net.flashpunk.graphics.Image; public class SpaceGraphic extends Entity { [Embed(source = "../../../../../../assets/spaces/blank.png")] private const BLANK_SPACE:Class; public function SpaceGraphic(x:Number = 0, y:Number = 0, graphic:Graphic = null, mask:Mask = null) { super(x, y, graphic, mask); if (!graphic) { this.graphic = new Image(BLANK_SPACE); } } } } Alright, so now there's a parameter list in the constructor that perfectly matches the one in the super class's constructor. But if the default value for graphic is used, it'll exhibit two different behaviors, depending on whether you're using the subclass or the superclass. In the superclass, there won't be a graphic, but in the subclass, it'll choose the default graphic. Is this a violation of the Liskov Substitution Principal? Does the fact that subclasses are almost intended to use different parameter lists have any bearing on this? Would minimizing the parameter list violate it in a case like this? Thanks.

  Read the article

• What is the convention for the star location in reference variables?

  - by Brett Ryan

  Have been learning Objective-C and different books and examples use differing conventions for the location of the star (*) when naming reference variables. MyType* x; MyType *y; MyType*z; // this also works Personally I prefer the first option as it illustrates that x is a "pointer type of MyType". I see the first two used interchangeably, and sometimes in the same code I've seen differing uses of both. I want to know what is the most common convention It's been a very long time since I've programmed in C (15 years) so I can't remember if all variants are legal for C also or if this is Objective-C specific. I'd prefer answers which state why one is better than the other, as how I explained how I read it above.

  Read the article

• Create new variable or make multiple chained calls?

  - by Rodrigo

  What is the best way to get this attributes, thinking in performance and code quality? Using chained calls: name = this.product.getStock().getItems().get(index).getName(); id = this.product.getStock().getItems().get(index).getId(); Creating new variable: final item = this.product.getStock().getItems().get(index); name = item.getName(); it = item.getId(); I prefer the second way, to let the code cleaner. But I would like to see some opinions about it. Thank you!

  Read the article

• What is a generic term for name/identifier? (as opposed to label)

  - by d3vid

  I need to refer to a number of things that have both an identifier value (used in code and configuration), and a human-readable label. These things include: database columns dropdown items subapplications objects stored in a dictionary I want two unambiguous terms. One to refer to the identifier/value/key. One to refer to the label. As you can see, I'm pretty settled on the latter :) For the former, identifier seems best (not everything is strictly a key, and value and name could refer to the label; although, identifier usually refers only to a variable name), but I would prefer to follow an established practice if there is one. Is there an established term for this? (Please provide a source.) If not, are there any examples of a choice from a significant source (Java APIs, MSDN, a big FLOSS project)? (I wasn't sure if this should be posted here or to English Language & Usage. I thought this was the more appropriate expert audience. Happy to migrate if not.)

  Read the article

• Naming a predicate: "precondition" or "precondition_is_met"?

  - by RexE

  In my web app framework, each page can have a precondition that needs to be satisfied before it can be displayed to the user. For example, if user 1 and user 2 are playing a back-and-forth role-playing game, user 2 needs to wait for user 1 to finish his turn before he can take his turn. Otherwise, the user is displayed a waiting page. This is implemented with a predicate: def precondition(self): return user_1.completed_turn The simplest name for this API is precondition, but this leads to code like if precondition(): ..., which is not really obvious. Seems to me like it is more accurate to call it precondition_is_met(), but not sure about that either. Is there a best practice for naming methods like this?

  Read the article

• Naming conventions for language file keys

  - by VirtuosiMedia

  What is your strategy for naming conventions for the keys in language files used for localization? We have a team that is going to conversion of a project to multiple languages and would like to have some guidelines to follow. As an example, usually the files end up being a series of key/value pairs, with the key being the placeholder in the template for the language specific value. 'Username': 'Username', 'Enter Username': 'Enter your username here'

  Read the article

• Naming: objectAction or actionObject?

  - by DocSalvage

  The question, Stored procedure Naming conventions?, and Joel's excellent Making Wrong Code Look Wrong article come closest to addressing my question, but I'm looking for a more general set of criteria to use in deciding how to name modules containing code (classes, objects, methods, functions, widgets, or whatever). English (my only human language) is structured as action-object (i.e closeFile, openFile, saveFile) and since almost all computer languages are based on English, this is the most common convention. However, in trying to keep related code close together and still be able to find things, I've found object-action (i.e. fileClose, fileOpen, fileSave) to be very attractive. Quite a number of non-English human languages follow this structure as well. I doubt that one form is universally superior, but when should each be used in the pursuit of helping to make sure bad code looks bad?

  Read the article

• How do you overcome your own coding biases when handed legacy code?

  - by Bryan M.

  As programmers, we often take incredible pride in our skills and hold very strong opinions about what is 'good' code and 'bad' code. At any given point in our careers, we've probably had some legacy system dropped in our laps, and thought 'My god, this code sucks!' because it didn't fit into our notion of what good code should be, despite the fact that it may have well been perfectly functional, maintainable code. How do you prepare yourself mentally when trying to get your head around another programmer's work?

  Read the article

• Is my Document Type Definition Still Up to Date?

  - by Sam

  Hi folks, currently all my php generated rich html webpages start with this line, which I have been adding to my tempaltes YEARS ago... <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> Am I still up to date and 2011-proof? or Should I be changing this into something fasterloaden/more agile/more flexible? I have heard of XHTML 1.1. When I remove this line all still works fine. Is it very much needed still? What are my alternatives? Thanks very much for your suggestions.

  Read the article

• Studies on code documentation productivity gains/losses

  - by J T

  Hi everyone, After much searching, I have failed to answer a basic question pertaining to an assumed known in the software development world: WHAT IS KNOWN: Enforcing a strict policy on adequate code documentation (be it Doxygen tags, Javadoc, or simply an abundance of comments) adds over-head to the time required to develop code. BUT: Having thorough documentation (or even an API) brings with it productivity gains (one assumes) in new and seasoned developers when they are adding features, or fixing bugs down the road. THE QUESTION: Is the added development time required to guarantee such documentation offset by the gains in productivity down-the-road (in a strictly economical sense)? I am looking for case studies, or answers that can bring with them objective evidence supporting the conclusions that are drawn. Thanks in advance!

  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

• TechCast Live: "Java and Oracle, One Year Later" Replay Now Available

  - by Justin Kestelyn

  Earlier this week I had the opportunity to chat with Ajay Patel, Oracle's VP leading the Java Evangelist team, about "the state of the union" wrt Oracle and Java. Take a look: And here are some choice quotes, some paraphrased, as helpfully transcribed by Java evangelist Terrence Barr: "One key thing we have learned ... Java is not just a platform, it is also an ecosystem, and you can't have an ecosystem without a community." "The objectives, strategically [for Java at Oracle] have been pretty clear: How do we drive adoption, how do we build a larger, stronger developer community, how do we really make the platform much more competitive." "It's about transparency, involvement. IBM, RedHat, Apple have all agreed to working with us to make OpenJDK the best platform for open source development ... it is a sign that the community has been waiting to move the Java platform forward." "It's not just about Oracle anymore, it's about Java, the technology, the community, the developer base, and how we work with them to move the innovation forward." "Java is strategic to Oracle, and the community is strategic for Java to be successful ... it is critical to our business." On JavaFX 2.0: "... is coming to beta soon, with a release planned in second half [of 2011] ... will give you a new, high-performance graphics engine, the new API for JavaFX ... you will see a very strong, relevant platform for levering rich media platforms." On the JDK and SE: "... aggressively moving forward, JDK 7 is now code complete ... looking good for getting JDK 7 out by summer as we promised. Started work on JDK 8, Jigsaw and Lambda are moving along nicely, on track for JDK 8 release next year ... good progress." On Java EE and Glassfish: "... Very excited to have Glassfish 3.1 released, with clustering and management capabilities ... working with the JCP to shortly submit a number of JSRs for Java EE 7 ... You'll see Java EE 7 becoming the platform for cloud-based development." "You will see Oracle continue to step up to this role of Java steward, making sure that the language, the technology, the platform ... is competitive, relevant, and widely adopted." Making progress!

  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

• Working with fubar/refuctored code

  - by Keyo

  I'm working with some code which was written by a contractor who left a year ago leaving a number of projects with buggy, disgustingly bad code. This is what I call cowboy PHP, say no more. Ideally I'd like to leave the project as is and never touch it again. Things break, requirements change and it needs to be maintained. Part A needs to be changed. There is a bug I cannot reproduce. Part A is connect to parts B D and E. This kind of work gives me a headache and makes me die a little inside. It kills my motivation and productivity. To be honest I'd say it's affecting my mental health. Perhaps being at the start of my career I'm being naive to think production code should be reasonably clean. I would like to hear from anyone else who has been in this situation before. What did you do to get out of it? I'm thinking long term I might have to find another job. Edit I've moved on from this company now, to a place where idiots are not employed. The code isn't perfect but it's at least manageable and peer reviewed. There are a lot of people in the comments below telling me that software is messy like this. Sure I don't agree with the way some programmers do things but this code was seriously mangled. The guy who wrote it tried to reinvent every wheel he could, and badly. He stopped getting work from us because of his bad code that nobody on the team could stand. If it were easy to refactor I would have. Eventually after many 'just do this small 10minute change' situations had ballooned into hours of lost time (regardless of who on the team was doing the work) my boss finally caved in it was rewritten.

  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

< Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >