EPTHow much control do you exert on your operating system? Do you use it like an average window user and just boot all your programs to use, or do you fiddle under the hood a little bit, have scripts running, monitoring all sorts of stuff like network/performance/hardware usage/resource allocation/... or even go so far as to customize/personally upgrade your OS to the point it vastly outperforms the standard package?
The Big Programming Thread - Page 957
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Thread Rules 1. This is not a "do my homework for me" thread. If you have specific questions, ask, but don't post an assignment or homework problem and expect an exact solution. 2. No recruiting for your cockamamie projects (you won't replace facebook with 3 dudes you found on the internet and $20) 3. If you can't articulate why a language is bad, don't start slinging shit about it. Just remember that nothing is worse than making CSS IE6 compatible. 4. Use [code] tags to format code blocks. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5006 Posts
How much control do you exert on your operating system? Do you use it like an average window user and just boot all your programs to use, or do you fiddle under the hood a little bit, have scripts running, monitoring all sorts of stuff like network/performance/hardware usage/resource allocation/... or even go so far as to customize/personally upgrade your OS to the point it vastly outperforms the standard package? | ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
 | ||
|
Lmui
Canada6220 Posts
Tweaks: Ultimate windows tweaker and removed the arrow from shortcuts. I'm very much a casual operating system user, regardless of how much of a power user I am at anything else. Mobile: I have Nova launcher and I changed a few things but largely stock. Not much reason to go full cyanogen with anything any more. | ||
|
berated-
United States1134 Posts
On April 30 2018 12:39 WarSame wrote: I need a lot of help understanding Dagger 2. I've read a lot of guides and I don't understand DI in general. You have an object you want to inject. You Provide it with @Provides inside of an @Module. You then use it somewhere else with @Inject. Is this correct so far? If it is I'm failing to apply it to my cause and getting errors that aren't google-able. In my case I am trying to inject an instance of a javax.crypto.KeyGenerator. I created a Module AppComponent with an @Provides KeyGenerator provideKeyGenerator(String walletName). I then want to @Inject this into another Class with certain parameters but I can't get that to work. I've tried a number of things, but keep running into problems injecting it, because it runs into problems injecting into a static field. Does anyone have a good, basic guide for doing something like this? I feel like I'm running into a wall with this. I'll try to post some sample code tomorrow night to give this post an actual purpose. I haven't played around with dagger a whole lot, but, I'm a pretty big spring fan boy, so maybe that makes me qualified to help? Dependency injection is most often used to help implement the Inversion of Control pattern. The entire point is that one does not know where or how their dependencies are constructed, just that they need the service. The base example I always go back to is a print service in java. I don't care how the printer implementation is done, I just know that I need someone that can print, so I'm going to request such a service with my @Inject. The reason I point this out, is when you say you just need a key generator with certain parameters, it feels like it doesn't line up with IoC in the way previously mentioned. IoC would work best if you just said, hey,I need a key generator, not with certain parameters. That's where in the Java world where we love our patterns, the factory pattern comes in. In your case you don't just need a keygenerator, you need one who knows how to make key generators. You could inject that in, and then use that method. All of this is kind of eclipsed by the fact that you then mention statics. This isnt' to say that statics are bad, it's just that, they aren't often used with DI. One of the reasons that DI is so popular is that when you aren't specifying your implementation, but yet the interface that you need -- one can provide a completely different implementation under test that can skip hard integration and allow for easier unit testing with mocks or test doubles. Specifying a concrete implementation into a static field doesn't help that much for test-ability in most cases. If you would like to get into more specifics I would be glad to ramble more. | ||
|
spinesheath
Germany8679 Posts
| ||
|
bo1b
Australia12814 Posts
| ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17610 Posts
On May 01 2018 13:44 berated- wrote: I haven't played around with dagger a whole lot, but, I'm a pretty big spring fan boy, so maybe that makes me qualified to help? Dependency injection is most often used to help implement the Inversion of Control pattern. The entire point is that one does not know where or how their dependencies are constructed, just that they need the service. The base example I always go back to is a print service in java. I don't care how the printer implementation is done, I just know that I need someone that can print, so I'm going to request such a service with my @Inject. The reason I point this out, is when you say you just need a key generator with certain parameters, it feels like it doesn't line up with IoC in the way previously mentioned. IoC would work best if you just said, hey,I need a key generator, not with certain parameters. That's where in the Java world where we love our patterns, the factory pattern comes in. In your case you don't just need a keygenerator, you need one who knows how to make key generators. You could inject that in, and then use that method. All of this is kind of eclipsed by the fact that you then mention statics. This isnt' to say that statics are bad, it's just that, they aren't often used with DI. One of the reasons that DI is so popular is that when you aren't specifying your implementation, but yet the interface that you need -- one can provide a completely different implementation under test that can skip hard integration and allow for easier unit testing with mocks or test doubles. Specifying a concrete implementation into a static field doesn't help that much for test-ability in most cases. If you would like to get into more specifics I would be glad to ramble more. The word "static" shouldn't really be used in OOP (speaking from pure OOP perspective). Although I like it on some abstract or final classes to get some "hard-coded" properties going. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18191 Posts
On May 01 2018 16:31 spinesheath wrote: I use windows mostly like a regular user. I'll only look at resource usage etc. if something seems off. I guess the biggest change I made is relocating my user folder to the D: drive. Other than that just some basic settings like showing file extensions and hidden folders, turning off mouse acceleration, multiple input schemes... but all of that is easily available to the average user. Pretty much this. And the same for my ubuntu. I installed a dual boot because I mostly prefer working in Linux for development, but need Windows for the odd thing. Both have some minor tweaks but nothing beyond some UI tweaks to make it a bit more comfortable for me. I'll only really worry about monitoring resources when things get awfully slow for no reason I can really think of. | ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
On May 01 2018 17:03 Manit0u wrote: The word "static" shouldn't really be used in OOP (speaking from pure OOP perspective). Although I like it on some abstract or final classes to get some "hard-coded" properties going. the semantics of static is tied to a particular language and context. can you go into a bit more detail about the alleged contradiction between static and OOP for C++? | ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
On May 01 2018 16:57 bo1b wrote: I use arch linux with xmonad (just to really get a better feel for haskell), Depending on what I need to do I have a dual boot windows on hand. I used to use pci pass through but I pretty much have stopped playing games for the most part, and use windows so rarely currently that I just don't care to stuff around with that much of a hassle. I have spent almost no time customizing my background as I simply don't give a shit, though I've spent a lot of time setting up spacemacs to do what I want to do. If for whatever reason I need to do some web editing, I have intellij ready to go at a moments notice, though again, I have an emacs set up that's significantly better in some regards. this is me almost. except i use i3 instead of xmonad, and emacs instead of spacemacs. i switched from vim recently, very fun and painful. the way i use emacs tends to make me rely a bit less on the windows manager and the shell, which maybe is a bit worriesome, and un-unix like. maybe if used emacs server / client instead this would not be an issue. however i chose the easier path. i try to homogenize hotkeys (f.ex. navigation) and theme across the programs i use in a programming context (windows-manager, text-editor, shell), but i don't bother customizing other software. i have a nice background photo that reminds me of relaxing in nature, the opposite of working with programming, but my tiling window manager makes sure i never get to see it. i am planning to transition to guixsd from arch linux. but i did not find the time yet. i really do like arch, but i want to try something new. hopefully it will not be as short-lived as my excursion into gentoo. | ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
except i had to swap some of the regexi the gdb-integration uses that was causing stack-overflow due to the symbol-names of my binaries being huge because of meta-programming. nothing somebody haven't already worked around and shared though. the gcc integration seems to be a bit slow dealing with your typical gcc-template spew. i'm sure i can fix this as well, but as of now it is working alright. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4740 Posts
On May 02 2018 01:21 nunez wrote: the semantics of static is tied to a particular language and context. can you go into a bit more detail about the alleged contradiction between static and OOP for C++? Deosnt Java, C, C# , Rust (and probably more) also use static?? I mean this indeed feels like huge generalization. | ||
|
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
On April 30 2018 12:39 WarSame wrote: I need a lot of help understanding Dagger 2. I've read a lot of guides and I don't understand DI in general. You have an object you want to inject. You Provide it with @Provides inside of an @Module. You then use it somewhere else with @Inject. Is this correct so far? If it is I'm failing to apply it to my cause and getting errors that aren't google-able. In my case I am trying to inject an instance of a javax.crypto.KeyGenerator. I created a Module AppComponent with an @Provides KeyGenerator provideKeyGenerator(String walletName). I then want to @Inject this into another Class with certain parameters but I can't get that to work. I've tried a number of things, but keep running into problems injecting it, because it runs into problems injecting into a static field. Does anyone have a good, basic guide for doing something like this? I feel like I'm running into a wall with this. I'll try to post some sample code tomorrow night to give this post an actual purpose. For your case, your Application needs to store an instance of the AppComponent object, and you'll do something like `Application.getInstance.inject(this)`. I've never tried injecting into static fields, but I wouldn't be surprised if that doesn't work. You're basically subverting the whole point of using a dependency injection framework. IMO this (https://www.techyourchance.com/dagger-tutorial/) is a simple Dagger tutorial that should get you running. Vasiliy has good ideas about Dagger. I would also check r/androiddev if you have any Android specific questions, more actives there. | ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
On May 02 2018 03:46 Silvanel wrote: Deosnt Java, C, C# , Rust (and probably more) also use static?? I mean this indeed feels like huge generalization. yes, exactly. i am only familiar with its semantics in C and C++, and it is not immediately obvious to me how OOP and static are contradictory here. it would be an interesting read. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17610 Posts
Every time you want to use the static keyword in an OOP language you should ask yourself some questions first: 1. Do you really need a method that can be called without instantiating an object? 2. If your answer to #1 was "yes" then you must ask yourself if this breaks the single responsibility principle? 3. In any case, maybe this code could be moved to a different class altogether and not make it static? The only reasons I've found to use static props was for some helper classes, preferably making them abstract so that they're never instantiated (man, sometimes I really wish you could use both final and abstract at the same time). Usually they're used for storing some kind of system setting stuff that has to be hardcoded. Perhaps I'm dead wrong, but that's my take on it  | ||
|
IyMoon
United States1249 Posts
I have a script that takes an int parameter and also queries a SQL table to get its row counts, and stores the row counts as an array. Then I need to check if the number provided in the parameter is inside this array. Is it every faster to convert the array into a hash then do a hash look up vs just iterating through the array and checking if each number in the array is == to the parameter? I know its a dumb question but I am curious | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18191 Posts
On May 02 2018 07:49 IyMoon wrote: I have a really random question. I have a script that takes an int parameter and also queries a SQL table to get its row counts, and stores the row counts as an array. Then I need to check if the number provided in the parameter is inside this array. Is it every faster to convert the array into a hash then do a hash look up vs just iterating through the array and checking if each number in the array is == to the parameter? I know its a dumb question but I am curious Building the hash is O(n log n). Lookup is then O(1). Alternatively, iterating through an array is O(n). So it depends on how many times you have to look something up. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
but if that's the case then there is probably a better design you could use, where you avoid that problem | ||
|
spinesheath
Germany8679 Posts
| ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17610 Posts
On May 03 2018 02:01 spinesheath wrote: Static only really becomes bad if you combine it with mutability. And I make a special exception for caches, as long as the static part is private and you never remove elements from the cache/modify elements in the cache. Private static is fine for the most part. Public static is where things get hectic. Here's a nice and brief explanation: https://dzone.com/articles/why-static-bad-and-how-avoid Edit: Also, speaking of DI and encapsulation I think that Symfony project in PHP world is doing a great thing. They're basically forcing you to do nice and clean DI as they won't allow typehinting arguments to constructors with concrete classes, you can only specify interfaces and then inject whatever you want that implements this interface. Very neat. | ||
| ||
