How would I make a 2D raycast? Also, how would I check if 2 line segments intersect (relativity the same thing in my eyes, probably different though). I am not using unity or anything, I am just using plain python (I can translate from most languages to python so I don't really care what language you use) and don't want to use a library so I can learn. But every article I look at has no actual explanation, it just shows code. I've looked at the Geeks4Geeks one and that also really only shows code and does not explain what it does. So if someone could explain it that would be helpful.
Related
What do following snippets of code do in Math ML files? I removed those lines and it still worked fine for me.
<mo></mo>
<mo></mo>
<mo></mo>
Answering to any of them or just letting me know what they are would be very much appreciated.
The first two are function application and invisible times. They help indicate semantic information, see this Wikipedia entry
The last one, , could be anything since it lies in the Unicode Private Use Area which is provided so that font developers can store glyphs that do not correspond to regular Unicode positions. (Unless it's a typo and really 6349 in which case it's a a Han character.)
I didn't know before about artistic or artwork QR codes, while checking some of these codes, they are completely different from the regular standard QR code, but how is it possible to create this kind of QR code without loosing it's value (the scan result is the same) ?
These QR Codes are the most ones that amazed me:
http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/qr-code-artworks/
The only thing in common is the 3 corners, and they're different in style.
So my question is, what are the elements that we should preserve while creating such QR Codes ?
The most important things are:
Dark-on-light
Very nearly square modules
Modest light border
Substantially preserve the three-finder patterns
... and the first line of modules around them, which carries format info
... and the bottom-right alignment pattern, is helpful
The rest, the interior, can be substantially obscured and still be readable, certainly with high error correction. But messing with the elements above will tend to make it unreadable much more rapidly
(I couldn't find anything related to this, as I don't know what keywords to search for).
I want a simple function - one that prints 3 lines, then erases the 3 lines and replaces with new ones. If it were a single line, I could just print \r or \b and overwrite it.
How can I do this without a Curses library? There must be some escape codes or something for this.
I found some escape codes to print colored text, so I'm guessing there is something similar to overwrite previous lines.
I want this to run on OSX and Ubuntu at least.
Edit: I found this - http://www.perlmonks.org/?displaytype=displaycode;node_id=575125
Is there a list of ALL such available commands?
(Short answer: Yes. See "ANSI Escape code" in Wikipedia for a complete list of ANSI sequences. Your terminal may or may not be ANSI, but ANSI sequence support seems pretty common - a good starting point at least).
The commands depends on the terminal you are using, or these days of course the terminal emulator.
Back in the day there were physical boxes with names such as "VT-100" or "Ontel".
Each implemented whatever set of escape sequence commands they chose.
Lately of course we only use emulators. Nearly every sort of command line type interface operates in a text-window that emulates something or other.
Curses is a library that allowes your average programmer to write code to manipulate the terminal without having to know how to code for each of the many difference terminals out there. Kind like printer drivers let you print without having to know the details of any particular printer.
First you need to find out what kind of terminal you are using.
Then you can look up the specific commands.
One possible answer is here.
"ANSI" is a common one, typical of MSDOS.
Or, use curses and be happy for it :-)
I'm maintaining code for a mathematical algorithm that came from a book, with references in the comments. Is it better to have variable names that are descriptive of what the variables represent, or should the variables match what is in the book?
For a simple example, I may see this code, which reflects the variable in the book.
A_c = v*v/r
I could rewrite it as
centripetal_acceleration = velocity*velocity/radius
The advantage of the latter is that anyone looking at the code could understand it. However, the advantage of the former is that it is easier to compare the code with what is in the book. I may do this in order to double check the implementation of the algorithms, or I may want to add additional calculations.
Perhaps I am over-thinking this, and should simply use comments to describe what the variables are. I tend to favor self-documenting code however (use descriptive variable names instead of adding comments to describe what they are), but maybe this is a case where comments would be very helpful.
I know this question can be subjective, but I wondered if anyone had any guiding principles in order to make a decision, or had links to guidelines for coding math algorithms.
I would prefer to use the more descriptive variable names. You can't guarantee everyone that is going to look at the code has access to "the book". You may leave and take your copy, it may go out of print, etc. In my opinion it's better to be descriptive.
We use a lot of mathematical reference books in our work, and we reference them in comments, but we rarely use the same mathematically abbreviated variable names.
A common practise is to summarise all your variables, indexes and descriptions in a comment header before starting the code proper. eg.
// A_c = Centripetal Acceleration
// v = Velocity
// r = Radius
A_c = (v^2)/r
I write a lot of mathematical software. IF I can insert in the comments a very specific reference to a book or a paper or (best) web site that explains the algorithm and defines the variable names, then I will use the SHORT names like a = v * v / r because it makes the formulas easier to read and write and verify visually.
IF not, then I will write very verbose code with lots of comments and long descriptive variable names. Essentially, my code becomes a paper that describes the algorithm (anyone remember Knuth's "Literate Programming" efforts, years ago? Though the technology for it never took off, I emulate the spirit of that effort). I use a LOT of ascii art in my comments, with box-and-arrow diagrams and other descriptive graphics. I use Jave.de -- the Java Ascii Vmumble Editor.
I will sometimes write my math with short, angry little variable names, easier to read and write for ME because I know the math, then use REFACTOR to replace the names with longer, more descriptive ones at the end, but only for code that is much more informal.
I think it depends almost entirely upon the audience for whom you're writing -- and don't ever mistake the compiler for the audience either. If your code is likely to be maintained by more or less "general purpose" programmers who may not/probably won't know much about physics so they won't recognize what v and r mean, then it's probably better to expand them to be recognizable for non-physicists. If they're going to be physicists (or, for another example, game programmers) for whom the textbook abbreviations are clear and obvious, then use the abbreviations. If you don't know/can't guess which, it's probably safer to err on the side of the names being longer and more descriptive.
I vote for the "book" version. 'v' and 'r' etc are pretty well understood as acronymns for velocity and radius and is more compact.
How far would you take it?
Most (non-greek :-)) keyboards don't provide easy access to Δ, but it's valid as part of an identifier in some languages (e.g. C#):
int Δv;
int Δx;
Anyone coming afterwards and maintaining the code may curse you every day. Similarly for a lot of other symbols used in maths. So if you're not going to use those actual symbols (and I'd encourage you not to), I'd argue you ought to translate the rest, where it doesn't make for code that's too verbose.
In addition, what if you need to combine algorithms, and those algorithms have conflicting usage of variables?
A compromise could be to code and debug as contained in the book, and then perform a global search and replace for all of your variables towards the end of your development, so that it is easier to read. If you do this I would change the names of the variables slightly so that it is easier to change them later.
e.g A_c# = v#*v#/r#
What do you think of using a metric of function point to lines of code as a metric?
It makes me think of the old game show "Name That Tune". "I can name that tune in three notes!" I can write that functionality in 0.1 klocs! Is this useful?
It would certainly seem to promote library usage, but is that what you want?
I think it's a terrible idea. Just as bad as paying programmers by lines of code that they write.
In general, I prefer concise code over verbose code, but only as long as it still expresses the programmers' intention clearly. Maximizing function points per kloc is going to encourage everyone to write their code as briefly as they possibly can, which goes beyond concise and into cryptic. It will also encourage people to join adjacent lines of code into one line, even if said joining would not otherwise be desirable, just to reduce the number of lines of code. The maximum allowed line length would also become an issue.
KLOC is tolerable if you strictly enforce code standards, kind of like using page requirements for a report: no putting five statements on a single line or removing most of the whitespace from your code.
I guess one way you could decide how effective it is for your environment is to look at several different applications and modules, get a rough estimate of the quality of the code, and compare that to the size of the code. If you can demonstrate that code quality is consistent within your organization, then KLOC isn't a bad metric.
In some ways, you'll face the same battle with any similar metric. If you count feature or function points, or simply features or modules, you'll still want to weight them in some fashion. Ultimately, you'll need some sort of subjective supplement to the objective data you'll collect.
"What do you think of using a metric of function point to lines of code as a metric?"
Don't get the question. The above ratio is -- for a given language and team -- a simple statistical fact. And it tends toward a mean value with a small standard deviation.
There are lots of degrees of freedom: how you count function points, what language you're using, how (collectively) clever the team is. If you don't change those things, the value stays steady.
After a few projects together, you have a solid expectation that 1200 function points will be 12,000 lines of code in your preferred language/framework/team organization.
KSloc / FP is a bare statistical observation. Clearly, there's something else about this that's bothering you. Could you be more specific in your question?
The metric of Function Points to Lines of Code is actually used to generate the language level charts (actually, it is Function Points to Statements) to give an approximate sense of how powerful a programming language is. Here is an example: http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~timm/dm/functionpoints.html
I wouldn't recommend using that ratio for anything else, except high level approximations like the language level chart.
Promoting library usage is a good thing, but the other thing to keep in mind is you will lose in the ratio when you are building the libraries, and will only pay it off with dividends of savings over time. Bean-counters won't understand that.
I personally would like to see a Function point to ABC metric ratio -- as I am curious about how the ABC metric (which indicates size and includes complexity as part of the info) would relate - perhaps linear, perhaps exponential, etc... www.softwarerenovation.com/ABCMetric.pdf
All metrics suck. My theory has always been that if you have to have them, then use the easiest thing you can to gather them and be done with it and onto important things.
That generally means something along the lines of
grep -c ";" *.h *.cpp | awk -F: '/:/ {x += $2} END {print x}'
If you are looking for a "metric" to track code efficency, don't. If you insist, again try something stupid but easy like source file size (see grep command above, w/o the awk pipe) or McCabe (with a counter program).