I’m trying to rap my head around why formal verification is useful? I’ve read that it reduces vulnerabilities in code but I’m puzzled by how it can do that, my understanding is you write a specification in another language that you can use to test your implementation for conformity to the spec but to me that alone wouldn’t make code better? What am I missing? Or is that the whole picture? I’ve read that multilingual people tend to be more logical, is the idea behind formal methods the same? Is it as simple as writing the same problem in two languages force you to think about the problem clearer?
I'm not necessarily looking for an example of code written on an AOP language, but some code that thoroughly and effectively divides into aspects, rather than components, so I could read it and see how to do it well.
Most of the examples of aspects I've seen are only a small part of the program (locking, logging); I don't think I've ever seen a complete semi-non-trivial program that was primarily divided along aspects.
Anyone know some good ones?
Spring Roo uses aspects quite a bit. IMO finding open-source AOP code is relatively uncommon, though; most of it I've seen IRL is embedded into closed-source, internal code.
There are a few books that discuss AOP application/architecture design which I found pretty interesting, and there are a fair number of papers that discuss non-canonical uses.
This answer shows a pretty example of using a parser generator to look through text for some patterns of interest. In that example, it's product prices.
Does anyone know of tools to generate the grammars given training examples (document + info I want from it)? I found a couple papers, but no tools. I looked through ANTLR docs a bit, but it deals with grammars; a "recognizer" takes as input a grammar, not training examples.
This is a machine learning problem. You can at best get an approximation. But I don't think anybody has done this well, let alone released a tool. (I actively track what people do to build grammars for computer languages, and this idea has been proposed many times, but I have yet to see a useful implementation).
The problem is that for any fixed set of examples, there's a huge number of possible grammars. It is easy to construct a naive one: for the fixed set of examples, simply propose a grammar that has one rule to recognize each example. That works, but is hardly helpful. Now the question is, how many ways can you generalize this, and which one is the best? In fact you can't know, because your next new example may be a total surprise in terms of structure. (Theory definition: A language is the set of sentences that comprise it).
We haven't even talked about the simpler problem of learning the lexemes of the language. How would you propose to learn what legal strings for floating point numbers are?
One tool that does this is NLTK. I Highly recommend it, and the O'Reilly book that covers it is available free online. There are tools for parsing, learning grammars, etc... The only downside is that it is mainly a research rather than production tool, so the emphasis isn't on performance.
NLTK is able to construct grammar from labeled training samples, which is exactly what you are asking. Have a look at the great docs and the book. (My last experience with it also had it working on the JVM through Jython without any issues.)
I'm looking for code or a product or a service to do semantic analysis of text (sentences and or paragraphs) to categorize the text by general topic, e.g.
Finance
Entertainment
Technology
Business
Art
etc...
If you have a bunch of examples that have already been categorised, you can use these to train a classifier.
This is a very simple document classfication problem, and any suite of machine learning tools will have the algorithms and tutorials for this. For instance, check out weka: http://www.cs.waikato.ac.nz/ml/weka/
or rapidminer: http://rapid-i.com/content/blogcategory/38/69/
If your needs are limited, and you just want a simple API, you cannot go wrong with this Naive Bayes library: https://ci-bayes.dev.java.net/
Good luck!
If you want to evaluate a commercial service API, check out the VIKI engine APIs:
http://www.softwareevolution.it/en/products/viki-core-api.html
It is an easy to use Json service api with specific semantic features.
Would this be of any help to you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document_classification
It's not a finished product or service, neither code, but it describes the various algorithms that can be used for semantic analysis. Googling on a bit further, I believe that it's not really out of the laboratory yet. People are experimenting with KNN algorithms mostly, resulting in cool stuff, but not really what you need:
http://www.ebi.ac.uk/webservices/whatizit/info.jsf
But if there is some software that will do what you ask, it would be in this list:
http://www.kdnuggets.com/software/text.html
For example the LPU program, it seems to be able to learn if you feed it enough teaching documents.
http://www.cs.uic.edu/~liub/LPU/LPU-download.html
If you're into Python/interpreted languages, check out the excellent NLTK framework at nltk.org. It has an excellent how to page and a recently published O'Reilly book.
If you're into Java and/or require a more mature but harder to grasp framework, try GATE instead.
I've been studying OOP for quite a while now and I have a good grasp of the theory. I read the Head First book on OOP and, while it reinforced a lot of the theory, I found the case studies to be somewhat trivial.
I find that I'm applying OOP principles to my code each day, but I'm not sure if I'm applying them correctly. I need to get to the point where I am able to look at my code and know whether I'm using inheritance appropriately, whether my object is cohesive enough, etc.
Does anyone have any good recommendations (books, online guides, blogs, walk-throughs, etc.) for taking the next step in developing solid OOP skills?
I am working primarily in .NET (visual basic), but I welcome suggestions that incorporate various platforms.
Read Refactoring by Martin Fowler, and apply it to your own work.
It will take you through a litany of malodorous characteristics of software code that describe how to detect improperly constructed classes, and even more importantly, how to fix them.
Consider looking into Design Patterns. Although it seems like they aren't commonly used in enterprise applications (I've seen them more commonly used in API's and Frameworks than embedded into enterprise code), they could be applied to make software simpler or more robust in a lot of situations if only developers knew how to apply them.
The key is to understand the design patterns first, then with experience you'll learn how to apply them.
There is a Head First book on design patterns that teaches the concept pretty simply, although if you want a book that really covers design patterns in detail, check out the Gang of Four design patterns book, which is basically what made design patterns mainstream and is referred to almost every time the topic is brought up.
Design patterns can be applied in pretty much any object-oriented language to some degree or another, although some patterns can be overkill or over engineering in some cases.
EDIT:
I also want to add, you should check out the book Code Complete 2. It's a very influential book in the world of software development. It covers a lot of different concepts and theories. I learn something new every time I read it. It's such a good book that if I read it every 6 months to a year, I look at it from a different perspective that makes me a better programmer just by re-reading it. No matter how much you might think you know, this book will make you realize just how little you really know. It's really a great book. I can't stress how much you should own this book.
If you already have the basics, I believe only experience will get you further. You say you are not sure if you are applying the principles correctly, but there is no one correct way. Code you write today, you'll look at in 6 months time, and wonder why you wrote it that way, and probably know of a better, cleaner way of doing it. I also guarantee that after 10 years, you'll still be learning new techniques and tricks. Don't worry too much about it, it will come, just read as much as you can, and try and apply what you read in small chunks.
I am currently half-way through the following book:
http://www.amazon.com/Applying-UML-Patterns-Introduction-Object-Oriented/dp/0131489062
I cannot recommend this book strongly enough in terms of learning a real-life, professional-grade, practical approach to drafting and applying a well-formed and iterative design strategy before diving into code.
I, too, read the "Head First" book and felt that I was much better off for having read it.
After having a few years of working-world experience, I now view the Craig Larman book that I am recommending to be a perfect "next step" for me.
About the Presence of "UML" in this Book Title:
Whether you have positive feelings or negative feelings about UML notation, please do not let that influence your decision to buy the book (ISBN 0131489062) in either direction.
The prominence of "UML" in the title is misleading. While the author does use and explain UML notation, these explanations are extremely well-woven into relevant design discussions, and at no time does this book read like a boring UML spec.
In fact, here is a quote taken directly from the book:
What's important is knowing how to think and design in objects, which is a very different and much more valuable skill than knowing UML notation. While drawing a diagram, we need to answer key questions: What are the responsibilities of the object? Who does it collaborate with? What design patterns should be applied? Far more important than knowing the difference between UML 1.4 and 2.0 !
This book at times seems like it is "speaking to" a lead architect or a project manager. What I mean to say by that is that it assumes that the reader has significant control over the planning and direction of a software project.
Nonetheless, even if you are only responsible for some very small piece of your company's projects and products, I would still recommend this book and encourage you to apply some "scaled down" modifications of the book's advice to your piece of the project.
My OOP epiphany came from Grady Booch's book, way long time ago. Suddenly I realized why objects were good.
While polymorphism is cool, encapsulation is 75% of why objects are cool. It is sort of like an interface: you see the buttons but not the wiring. Before objects, only the most disciplined coders kept their grubby fingers off the internal bits of other people's procedures (it was called "structured programming").
Object make it easy to Do the Right Thing. Inheritance and polymorphism are little bonuses.
One way to learn about objects is to read other peoples' code. I learned a lot by reading the source code for the Delphi VCL framework. Even just looking at the documentation for Java will help you see what a single object class should do and how it is designed to be used by other objects.
Start a project of your own and pay attention when you want to sub-class your own classes and find that you have to go back and break up some protected methods so you can override just one piece of a process instead of replacing all of it. See how ancestors talk to descendants by calling abstract functions. In other words, go make a lot of mistakes and learn from them.
Enjoy!
Frankly, re-reading old David Parnas papers on information hiding helps me get in the right state of mind. The case studies may not be directly applicable but you should be able to get some useful generalizations out of them.
My epiphany happened when I tried to implement a very OO problem (dynamically and recursively building SQL statements) in VB6. The best way to understand polymorphism or inheritance is to need it and not be able to use it.
One thing that will definitely help you is working on a well-known, respected open source project. Either dig through the source code and see how things are done or try to make some additions / modifications. You'll find that there isn't one style or one right answer for most problems, but by looking at several projects, you'll be able to get a wide view of how things can be done. From there, you'll begin to develop your own style and will hopefully make some contributions to open source in the process.
I think you have to attempt and fail at implementing OO solutions. That's how I did it anyway. What I mean by fail is that you end up writing smelly code while successfully delivering a working solution. After it's written you'll get a feel for where things didn't quite feel right. You may have some epiphanies, and/or you may go and hunt for a slicker solution from other programmers. Undoubtedly you'll implement some variation of standard design patterns by accident. In hindsight, a light will click on (oh! so that's what a visitor is for), and then understanding will accelerate.
As others have said, I think tooling through some good OO open source code is a good idea. So is working with more experienced programmers who would be willing to critique your work. However understanding comes through doing.
You might want to try to read (and write) some Smalltalk for a while. Squeak is a free implementation that can show you the power of a fully object-oriented environment (unlike java or .net). All library code source is included. The language itself is incredibly simple. You'll find that java and c# are slowly adding the features well-known to Smalltalk since 1980.
Tortoise HG is extrodanarily well designed piece of OO open source software (written in Python).
If you already understand the basics, building something from scratch in a fully object oriented language will be a good step in fully understanding OOP software architecture. If you don't know Python, Python Essential Reference will take you through the language in full in a few days to a week.
After you understand the language take a look through the software above and you'll have all sorts of epiphanies.
To understand basically anything thoroughly, you need to have a decent knowledge of at least one abstraction level above and one level below it. In the case of OO, others have mentioned design patterns as the layer above OO. This helps a lot to illustrate why OO is useful.
As far as the layer below OO, try to play around with higher-order functions/late binding for a while and get a feel for how these relatively simple constructs are used. Also, try to understand how OO is implemented under the hood (vtables, etc.) and how it can be done in pure C. Once you grok the value of using higher order functions and late binding, you'll quickly realize that OO is just a convenient syntax for passing around a set of related functions and the data they operate on.