今日已更新 249 条资讯 | 累计 37498 条内容
关于我们

标签:#war

找到 798 篇相关文章

AI 资讯

LLD Data Structures in Design Context: Why Great Software Starts with Behaviours, Not Data Structures

"The best software engineers don't begin by choosing data structures. They begin by understanding what the system needs to do." In the previous article, we learned that data structures never stopped being important after DSA. Their role simply changed. During coding interviews, we often ask ourselves: "Which data structure will solve this problem efficiently?" In Low-Level Design, experienced engineers ask a different question: "What behaviour should this system optimise?" At first glance, these questions sound similar. In reality, they lead to completely different ways of thinking. This article is about understanding why behaviour—not implementation—is where every good design begins. Why Beginners Often Think About Data Structures Too Early Imagine someone asks you to design an online food delivery platform. Many beginners immediately start thinking: Should I use a HashMap? Will I need a Queue? Should I store everything in a Tree? Would a Graph be useful? These aren't bad questions. They're simply being asked too early. Before choosing any data structure, we need to understand what the system is actually expected to do. Software engineering isn't about selecting tools first. It's about understanding problems first. Every Software System Is Really a Collection of Behaviours Let's consider a food delivery application. From a user's perspective, it looks like this. Customer Places Order │ Restaurant Accepts │ Assign Delivery Partner │ Track Delivery │ Order Delivered It looks like one workflow. But an engineer sees something very different. Each step represents a different behaviour. Let's break them apart. Behaviour 1 — Retrieve Existing Information A customer opens an order they placed yesterday. Customer ↓ Order ID ↓ Retrieve Order The system already knows exactly which order it needs. The challenge is retrieving it quickly. Behaviour 2 — Choose the Best Candidate A restaurant has multiple delivery partners nearby. Available Drivers ↓ Choose Best Driver ↓ Assign Ri

2026-07-29 原文 →
AI 资讯

‘No one’s making a phone like this’: Light’s co-founders on building for the anti-smartphone generation

With the Light Phone, Kaiwei Tang and Joe Hollier have spent over a decade exploring the value of simplicity in our relationship to technology, partnering along the way with players like Andrew Yang, Kendrick Lamar, and Pete Davidson. Now, with a new flip phone and a growing wave of “attention activists” pushing back against Big Tech, they think the rest of […]

2026-07-29 原文 →
AI 资讯

Displaying async values in Flutter

The build method in Flutter widgets is synchronous. That means it doesn’t like to wait for anything. But sometimes, we need to wait for a value to arrive in order to display it. Let’s think of a simple weather app that displays only the temperature of a city. The app needs to make a request to the backend, get the temperature value, and finally display it. It will have to wait for a response from the backend, but as we discussed, the build method does not like to wait for anything. So how do we solve this issue? Enter: FutureBuilder . FutureBuilder takes a value of type Future and displays widgets until it is resolved. In fact, we can specify which widgets to display not only while loading but also when an error occurs. Let’s see how we can use FutureBuilder in a simple app. First, create an app in a directory of your choice: flutter create future_builder --platforms = macos You can choose whichever platform you want. Open the project in your preferred IDE, and navigate to lib/main.dart . Replace the entire content of the file with the following: import 'package:flutter/material.dart' ; void main () { runApp ( const MyApp ()); } class MyApp extends StatelessWidget { const MyApp ({ super . key }); @override Widget build ( BuildContext context ) { return MaterialApp ( home: const MyHomePage ()); } } class MyHomePage extends StatelessWidget { const MyHomePage ({ super . key }); Future < int > _getTemperature () async { await Future . delayed ( Duration ( seconds: 3 )); // Dummy delay of three seconds. return 25 ; } Future < int > _getTemperatureError () async { await Future . delayed ( Duration ( seconds: 3 )); throw Exception ( 'An error occurred while retrieving the temperature value.' ); } Future < int ? > _getTemperatureEmpty () async { await Future . delayed ( Duration ( seconds: 3 )); return null ; } @override Widget build ( BuildContext context ) { return Scaffold ( body: Center ( child: FutureBuilder ( future: _getTemperature (), builder: ( context , snapshot )

2026-07-29 原文 →
AI 资讯

Good Documentation Explains the Decision, Not Just the Code

A pattern I’ve seen many times in software projects is that documentation starts too late and documents the wrong thing. A team ships a feature, the code works, the tests pass, and everyone moves on. Maybe someone adds a README section, maybe not. If they do, it usually explains how to run something, how to call an endpoint, or what a component does. That kind of documentation is useful, but it often misses the part future developers need most. It misses the decision. Six months later, someone opens the same part of the codebase and asks the usual questions. Why is this data model shaped like this? Why is this rule handled in the backend instead of the frontend? Why is this integration synchronous? Why does this permission check live here? Why did the team choose this simple approach instead of something more flexible? The code can show what exists, but it rarely explains why it exists. That is where a lot of engineering context disappears. The Problem Is Not Always Missing Documentation When people complain about documentation, the usual diagnosis is that there is not enough of it. The README is outdated. The setup instructions are incomplete. The API docs are missing examples. The architecture diagram no longer matches reality. All of those problems are real. But I think there is another documentation problem that is easier to miss: the docs describe the system without preserving the reasoning behind it. This matters because software is full of trade-offs. A piece of code may look strange because it was written badly, but it may also look strange because it was solving a constraint that is no longer visible. Maybe the team chose a simpler data model because they were still validating the product. Maybe they avoided a generic abstraction because they had only one real use case. Maybe they accepted duplication because the two workflows looked similar but were expected to diverge. Without the reasoning, future developers have to guess. That guessing creates waste. So

2026-07-29 原文 →
AI 资讯

Long-Lived Vulnerability in Microsoft Secure Boot

Microsoft’s Secure Boot has had a serious vulnerability for most of its existence. An industry-wide standard Microsoft invented to protect Windows, and later Linux, devices from firmware infections has been trivial to bypass for 13 of its 14 years of existence. The discovery was made by researchers at security firm ESET after identifying 11 firmware images, at least one from 2013, that were known to be defective but remained signed by the software company anyway. The images are known as shims , which were invented to extend Secure Boot to Linux devices and utility software. Using a technique simple enough to be performed by novice hackers, these old, forgotten shims can be used to completely circumvent the protection, which is embedded into the UEFI (Unified Extensible Firmware Interface) of the device’s motherboard. The gaffe is the result of the failure by Microsoft, which oversees the signing of shims, to revoke the publicly available images once vulnerabilities were found in them...

2026-07-29 原文 →
AI 资讯

# What I Learned from Building with GIS Data and the Copernicus API at the KijaniSpace Hackathon

As software developers, we often spend most of our time building APIs, databases, authentication systems, and web applications. That's certainly been my focus recently, especially working with Go, JWT authentication, and backend services. Last week, however, I had the opportunity to participate in the KijaniSpace Hackathon , held at Zone01 Kisumu , and it introduced me to an entirely different side of software development. Our challenge was to build solutions using: Geographic Information Systems (GIS) The Copernicus API IoT devices where applicable It was an opportunity to see how software can interact with our physical world. What is GIS? GIS (Geographic Information Systems) is a technology used to collect, analyze, visualize, and manage data that has a geographic location. Imagine not just storing information like: Temperature Population Vegetation Buildings Roads ...but also knowing exactly where that information exists on Earth. That location data allows developers to build intelligent systems capable of answering questions like: Which farms are experiencing drought? Which roads are likely to flood? Which areas are losing forest cover? Where should new infrastructure be built? GIS transforms ordinary data into meaningful geographic insights. Discovering the Copernicus Program Before this hackathon, I had heard very little about Copernicus. Copernicus is the European Union's Earth Observation Programme. It provides free satellite imagery and environmental data collected by the Sentinel satellite missions. Through its APIs, developers can access information about: Land cover Vegetation health Weather patterns Water bodies Air quality Climate changes Disaster monitoring What amazed me most is that much of this data is openly available for developers to build impactful applications. Where IoT Fits In Some teams also explored Internet of Things (IoT) solutions. IoT devices can collect real-world information through sensors measuring: Soil moisture Temperature Humidi

2026-07-29 原文 →
AI 资讯

How to Rescue a Failed Odoo Implementation: A Consultant's Triage Playbook

The call usually comes about eleven months in. Go-live happened, sort of. Finance is still closing the month in a spreadsheet, the warehouse team keeps a parallel notebook, and someone has quietly stopped using the CRM entirely. The system technically works. Nobody trusts it. Odoo rarely fails because Odoo is bad software. It fails because the implementation encoded somebody's misunderstanding of the business into 40 custom modules, and now every fix breaks two things. Panorama Consulting's 2026 ERP Report still puts cost overruns and schedule slippage among the most persistent problems across ERP projects of every size — and in our experience the overrun is almost never in licensing. It's in the rework. Here's the triage sequence we actually run when we inherit a broken deployment, in the order we run it. Step 1: Read the database before you read the code Skip the codebase for a day. Open PostgreSQL and ask the system what people are really doing. A few queries tell you more than a week of stakeholder interviews: Row counts per model over time. If crm.lead stopped growing in March, sales abandoned the module in March. Nobody will volunteer this in a meeting. ir.model.fields where state = 'manual' . Every field created through Studio or a quick patch. A healthy mid-size deployment has a few dozen. We've opened databases with 900. That number is a direct measure of how much undocumented business logic is floating outside version control. stock.quant versus what the warehouse counts. Any gap here means inventory valuation is wrong, which means the P&L is wrong, which is usually the real reason finance went back to Excel. ir_cron last-run timestamps and failure counts. Silently dead crons are behind a surprising share of "the system doesn't update" complaints. Direct SQL writes. Grep the custom modules for self.env.cr.execute with UPDATE or INSERT . Every one of those bypasses the ORM, so computed fields never recomputed and stored values are now lying to you. This ste

2026-07-29 原文 →
AI 资讯

How I Built My Own AI Platforms as a 2nd-Year Engineering Student 🚀

markdown Hello Dev Community! 👋 I’m Anshul Raturi , a Full-Stack Software Developer and 2nd-year Computer Engineering student at Pithuwala Polytechnic in Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India. Today, I want to share my journey of building and launching two AI platforms from scratch: RaturiHub AI and MAX AI Assistant . 💡 The Problem As a developer, I use AI tools daily for coding, brainstorming, and research. However, I found that most mainstream AI wrappers are either cluttered with unnecessary features or lock their best performance behind expensive enterprise paywalls. I wanted a sleek, blazing-fast, and distraction-free AI workspace for my daily coordination and private Q&A. When I couldn’t find the perfect tool, I decided to engineer it myself. 🛠️ Building RaturiHub AI & MAX AI Over the past few months, I poured my skills in JavaScript, Python, C++, and Web Development into creating two distinct AI applications: RaturiHub AI (RaturiGPT) : An intelligent, highly responsive AI platform focused on smart chat and seamless admin coordination. MAX AI Assistant : Designed for a premium, secure, and highly optimized conversational experience. I focused heavily on the UI/UX, ensuring that the interface feels glass-like, modern, and completely intuitive. Performance optimization was key—I wanted the response latency to be as minimal as possible. ### 🚀 We Are Live on ProductHunt! Building these platforms solo was a massive learning curve, from handling API integrations to perfecting the frontend design. Today, I am thrilled to announce that RaturiHub AI is officially live on ProductHunt! 🎉 I would love for the developer community here to check it out. Your feedback on the UI, speed, and overall experience means the world to me. 🔗 Check out RaturiHub AI : [Link to your ProductHunt page or App] 🔗 My Official Portfolio : https://anshulraturi2009.github.io/portfolio/ ### 🤝 Let's Connect! I am always looking to connect with fellow developers, tech enthusiasts, and mentors. Let’s talk ab

2026-07-29 原文 →
AI 资讯

Why Online Doctor Directories Keep Letting You Down

If you have ever tried to find a new physician through a search box, you already know the frustration: outdated phone numbers, doctors who left the practice two years ago, and "accepting new patients" labels that turn out to be fiction. Anyone who has read the candid breakdown in Online Doctor Directories: A User's Guide to a Very Imperfect Tool will recognize the pattern immediately, because the core problem is not laziness on anyone's part — it is a data engineering problem hiding inside a healthcare product. And for those of us who build software for a living, it is a fascinating case study in what happens when stale data meets high-stakes decisions. The Root Cause Is a Data Pipeline, Not a Design Flaw Most doctor directories aggregate information from insurance networks, state licensing boards, hospital affiliations, and self-reported provider profiles. Each of these sources updates on its own schedule, uses its own identifiers, and defines fields differently. One system records a physician under her maiden name; another lists the clinic's billing address instead of the practice location; a third still shows a specialty she stopped practicing in 2019. The result is a classic entity-resolution nightmare. Without a reliable primary key shared across sources, merge logic has to guess whether "J. Martinez, Internal Medicine, Suite 400" and "Julia Martinez-Reyes, IM" are the same human. Get it wrong in either direction and the user suffers: duplicates erode trust, while over-aggressive merging attaches one doctor's malpractice history to a stranger with a similar name. If you have ever built a CRM deduplication service or wrestled with customer identity graphs, you have fought this exact battle — just with lower stakes. Staleness compounds the problem. Physicians change practices constantly. A directory that syncs quarterly is, by definition, wrong about a meaningful slice of its records at any given moment. Harvard Health has pointed out that an ongoing physician sh

2026-07-28 原文 →
AI 资讯

Presentation: The Future of Engineering: Mindsets That Matter When Code Isn’t Enough

Ben Greene discusses how software engineers can adapt and thrive in an era of rapid AI code automation. Drawing on his startup experience, he explains key mindsets like starting simple, maintaining code comprehension, attacking hard problems first, and focusing on customer impact. He shares why human empathy, agency, and practical problem-solving remain irreplaceable when code is automated. By Ben Greene

2026-07-28 原文 →
AI 资讯

Don't Replace Your Legacy System. Wrap It.

We're Byte Me , a software agency from Alkmaar, the Netherlands. The most valuable advice we give clients is usually not "Let's build something new"; it's "Let's not touch the thing that works." Here's why and how. The rebuild reflex Every company running a 15-year-old ERP has had this meeting. Someone opens the ancient interface on the big screen, everyone groans, and a decision crystallizes: "We need to replace this." We understand the reflex. The UI looks like Windows XP. The one person who understands the database retired. Adding a field takes a change request and three weeks. Every new hire asks why orders live in a system older than they are. And yet, when companies come to us with "We want to replace our legacy system," our first answer is almost always: you probably don't. Not because rebuilds are impossible but because the odds are terrible. Big-bang legacy replacements are among the highest-risk projects in software. They take longer than planned, cost more than planned, and the scariest part isn't the code: it's the twenty years of business rules buried in that old system that nobody documented. The weird discount logic for that one big customer. The field that means something different depending on which decade the record was created in. The nightly job everyone forgets exists until you turn it off. That old system isn't just software. It's your company's institutional memory, compiled. Ugly ≠ broken Here's the reframe that changes these conversations: most legacy systems don't have a functionality problem. They have an access problem. The ERP still processes orders correctly. It's been doing so, reliably, for fifteen years, a track record your rebuild won't have on day one. What's actually painful: Customers can't see their own orders, so they email and call Sales can't check stock from the road Data has to be retyped into the accounting tool, the webshop, the planning board Reporting means exporting to Excel and praying None of those problems require r

2026-07-28 原文 →
AI 资讯

Without Exception: How Neander Programs Fail

Neander has no exceptions. No try , no catch , no finally . A call to one of the host application's APIs returns something closer to Rust's Result : either the answer, or the reason there is no answer. In place of a catch block there is one type marker, three operators, and a guarantee that every submission comes back in the same shape no matter what happened. Last time the foundational series closed with isolation. This is the first of two encores, and it takes the subject that came up in nearly every entry without ever being laid out in full: what happens when something goes wrong. There are two answers, because there are two audiences. An error is a value while the program runs, and a verdict once it has stopped. The two are made of the same parts, on purpose. The failable type Every call returns a failable type, written T! . It carries either a value of type T or an error with a code, a message, and the name of the function that produced it. T! is the mirror of the nullable type T? . Same shape, different question: one asks whether a value is there at all, the other asks whether obtaining it worked. The mirroring runs deeper than the notation, because the same three operators serve both types. A failure gets no unwrapping vocabulary of its own. Those three are =? , ?? and is : // narrow, or throw the error out of the enclosing block let order : Order =? call orders .get ( id : 42 ) // or substitute a default let order : Order = call orders .get ( id : 42 ) ?? emptyOrder // or inspect it and decide let result : Order! = call orders .get ( id : 42 ) if result is error { if errorCode ( result ) != 404 { throw result } return emptyOrder } A standalone call statement, one without a let , narrows implicitly: the error is thrown and the success value is discarded. One property does the heavy lifting throughout the rest of this post: T! originates only from a call . No expression picks up a ! along the way, and no widening rule introduces one. The marker means exactly o

2026-07-28 原文 →
AI 资讯

What is an Agent Harness?

An Agent Harness is a comprehensive application layer that securely wraps a Large Language Model (LLM) to govern its memory, tools, execution boundaries, and deterministic policy enforcement. When engineers first transition from building simple conversational chatbots to fully autonomous AI agents, they typically make a critical mistake: they treat the Large Language Model (LLM) as the entire system. The reality is quite different. The LLM is not an agent. The LLM provides a reasoning engine, and nothing else. Everything else we build around that engine—the memory, the execution of tools, the planning capabilities, the routing of context, and the security boundaries—is the Agent Harness . Why an Agent Harness is Important If an LLM is the engine of a car, the harness represents the steering wheel, the brakes, the transmission, and the dashboard. When you give an agent access to your production database, cloud infrastructure, or private customer records, relying purely on the model's internal prompt instructions to keep it safe is insufficient. Models hallucinate, they are susceptible to adversarial inputs (like prompt injection), and they are inherently non-deterministic. If your only defense against a rogue action is a sentence in a system prompt that says "Do not drop the database," your system is not ready for production. A robust Agent Harness provides the deterministic guarantees that the non-deterministic LLM lacks. It acts as the application layer that securely wraps the model, governing exactly what context the model is allowed to see, what tools it is authorized to call, and what policies constrain its overall execution. The Architecture of an Enterprise Agent Harness In enterprise environments, defining a complete Agent Harness goes far beyond what a single developer can implement in an application codebase. A full-scale enterprise harness intersects with massive infrastructure components, such as: Cloud IAM (Identity and Access Management) Corporate Data

2026-07-28 原文 →
AI 资讯

I wrote an article about enforcing rules with machines. Two days later one of the rules enforced me

I keep a shelf. Rules I haven't earned the pain for yet go on it — because my own rule says a rule is born from an incident, not from someone else's "best practice." Import a rule you haven't bled for, and you'll be the first one to route around it. On the shelf sat a rule with its trigger condition written down, word for word: The first merged PR with a green DoD checklist and a flow that doesn't actually work. I put it there a couple of weeks ago, thinking "this'll come in handy someday." It came in handy two days after I published an article about this very method. The trigger fired. Word for word. What happened The PR merged. CI green. Every DoD box checked. And the flow didn't work — not for one second, not in a single real stack. Three bugs in a cascade, and every one of them invisible to CI by construction. One. A module read a JSON registry from a shared/ folder at import time, on app startup. Works in CI — full checkout there, shared/ is present. But the production image is built from a narrow context that doesn't include that folder. The container crash-looped on its very first start. And you know the best part? CI never ran the image at all. It ran the tests on the host. Green. Two. Two migrations merged the same day and got the same version. And the version is the primary key in the applied-migrations table. A local db reset died on the second row: duplicate key . Columns never got created. CI didn't see this one either — it runs migrations through a bare psql loop, no duplicate check. Three was just a consequence: no columns, endpoints return 500. Every check was honestly green. All three bugs would've been caught by one attempt from a live human to hit the endpoint on a running stand. One. The lesson, one paragraph Deterministic checks catch structure: the test file exists, the status is set, migrations are listed, the linter is clean. What they can't see, by construction, is whether the flow works in the stack where the product actually lives. Green C

2026-07-27 原文 →
开发者

OpenGL Learning Needs

Hello Im Turbo i Want To Develop A Graphical App With "OpenGL" And "C++" My App Is The Simulator Of Gravity For Using The OpenGL I Need To Learn "GLSL" Language Or No And I Can Write All Program With The "C++" Language ؟ ؟؟؟؟؟؟

2026-07-27 原文 →