Closed. This question needs debugging details. It is not currently accepting answers.
Edit the question to include desired behavior, a specific problem or error, and the shortest code necessary to reproduce the problem. This will help others answer the question.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm doing a code cleanup and I want your HELP
The code creates units and place them in a unitPositionHashmap. Furthermore it reduces production value according to unit type.
I'm looking for a way to reduce the amount of code and smarter way to structure this method, so I avoide almost dublicated code.
The code
Create a method having one if block and use parameters to fill in the variable values (p, GameConstants value (like ARCHER), ProductionAmount condition value (like 10). You'll have one if left in the makeUnit method, while having only one if in the new method.
Related
Closed. This question needs debugging details. It is not currently accepting answers.
Edit the question to include desired behavior, a specific problem or error, and the shortest code necessary to reproduce the problem. This will help others answer the question.
Closed 10 days ago.
Improve this question
I am debugging a complicated Python 3 program. Deep in one of the system libraries, I put in a print() statement, which reported:
target_setting: (ComplexType){
Type = None
Details =
(ArrayOfComplexTypeDetail){
ComplexTypeDetail[] = <empty>
}
}
I don't see how this could have been produced inside of Python; callout may have been to Java.
Am I wrong about this? Can you do this inside Python3? What is an example, if so?
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I want such a script or logic so that if somebody has a copy of my code, they can only access/run it if they have my unique key, otherwise they get an error. Is there any way to do like this?
Thanks
If somebody has a copy of your PHP code they can run it. As PHP is not compiled, the possessor can read and edit the code as well; so even if you put in something that checks against a secret key, they could simply remove it. If you encrypt the code into an unreadable state, it’s also in an un-runnable state.
So, in brief, there really isn’t a way to give working PHP to another person in a way that they can’t simply run it. If you’re looking to sell a product of some sort, your best bet is probably to run it as a service so the end user never actually sees the code.
The closest you might hope for would be to make it difficult to read, i.e. with meaningless variable and function names and zero white space; but that won’t stop somebody who really wants it, (and who knows how to work some basic refactoring utilities), and only adds significant complication to your own work
Closed. This question needs debugging details. It is not currently accepting answers.
Edit the question to include desired behavior, a specific problem or error, and the shortest code necessary to reproduce the problem. This will help others answer the question.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
Code fragment
I followed a video series of Derek Banas about java threads but applying the same code on my compiler it gave me an error. I dont know why.please help me out.
Another code fragment
note: I have already defined "getTheMail" with an integer.
This is not a threading issue. You should instantiate GetTheMail class without giving any constructor parameters since it is not expecting any.. like this : new GetTheMail(); I encourage you to read this article for further understanding : https://www.javaworld.com/article/2076204/core-java/understanding-constructors.html
Closed. This question needs debugging details. It is not currently accepting answers.
Edit the question to include desired behavior, a specific problem or error, and the shortest code necessary to reproduce the problem. This will help others answer the question.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm writing a java program in Eclipse, and when I try to use recursion it gives this error:
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.StackOverflowError
I know that people have probably already asked this question, but every response I've found has been to remove recursion. For what I'm trying to do, recursion is a necessity. There's no other option. I know that the recursive limit can be modified in Enthought Canopy (for python) like this:
import sys
sys.setrecursionlimit(10000)
Is there a way to do this for java in Eclipse? Again, removing recursion is not an option.
UPDATE: I figured out the problem (which was an infinite loop), and the code works now.
Take a look at this: What is the maximum depth of the java call stack?
While it is not exactly a duplicate, it also answers your question by explaining how the limit can be changed.
Note that Eclipse itself has nothing to do with the limit, it is a Java restriction and can be increased by allocating more space to it.
As always with such questions one should note that your code is likely to be inefficient, wrong or maybe has a non-recursive alternative. However you said that you are not interested in such solutions, so I just leave it here as a side note.
Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
Please explain me the differences over time and space complexities in java for user defined and predefined functions in java. examples like, linked list, list, stack class. please explain this with valid example.
thank you.
There is nothing special in predefined function over user defined. The only thing is predefined has been written by somebody else for you. It depends on algorithm.
Crap code/implementation runs in a crap way. Doesn't matter if its user created or system/API provided. example at a high level is EJBs vs Spring.
Good written code runs pretty and sleek. Again doesn't matter who the hell wrote it.