代码比较容易理解。
需求、软件设计，甚至测试脚本与代码比较有相对短的预期寿命。
Requirements, software designs and even test scripts have relatively short life expectancies compared to code.
一个原因是这种使用错误内存的症状距离实际出问题的代码比较远。
One of the reasons for this is that symptoms of incorrect memory use typically show up far from the offending code that actually caused them.
编写客户端代码比较慢，繁琐而且经常重复：使用细粒度api产生多次调用，然后将所有返回结果聚合起来。
Writing client code is slow, repetitive and verbose. Using granular APIs generates multiple API calls results of which need to be aggregated.
要验证两个数据库中是否都存在新文档，您可以重用清单27 中的代码，该代码比较两个数据库的文档列表。
To verify that the new documents exist in both databases, you can reuse the code from Listing 27 that compares the document lists of two databases.
而且，为了香料的东西，我们也跑了好一些多线程桌面的基准来检查，这到底配置将与我们的读者的代码比较熟悉的。
And, to spice things up, we also ran some of the well multithreaded desktop benchmarks to check how far this configuration will go with the codes our readers are more familiar with.
但是Ajax应用程序可能会迫使应用程序长期维持与用户的连接，这样应用程序才能进行响应并使状态跟踪代码比较容易编写。
But Ajax applications tend to force an application to maintain a connection to a user for long periods of time to keep applications responsive and keep state tracking easy to code.
因此，看一下另一种代码比较—这次使用php语言—从read开始，然后是create、delete和update，同上面的代码比较一样。
So, take a gander at another code comparison - this time using the PHP language - starting with read, then going on to create, delete, and update, as with the code comparisons above.
尽管仅仅通过解压缩源tarball来检查代码比较繁琐，甚至使用针对代码知识库的Gitweb界面这种简单一些的方法也是如此，但实际构建代码可能会更麻烦。
While it is trivial to look at the code by simply uncompressing a source tarball, and even easier using the Git Web interface to the code repository, but getting it to actually build can be tricky.
要想看时间上的实际差别，您可以分别使用SOAP和RMI连接器来运行样本代码，然后比较结果。
To see the actual difference in times, you can run the sample code with both the SOAP and RMI connector and compare the results.
把BCEL细节隐藏在包装器中，也提供了方便地添加更多功能的位置，就像在类和方法比较代码中一样。
Hiding the BCEL details in my wrapper also gave me convenient places to add more functionality, as in the class and method comparison code.
英国阿伯丁大学的研究者们将人体的DNA与鸟类和鼠类的遗传代码进行比较之后，提出了这一发现。
The researchers from Aberdeen University made their discovery after comparing the DNA of people with the genetic code of birds and mice.
我建议从模型自身产生代码，因为你可以把它根目标和产生代码作比较。
I recommend generating code from the model itself because you can compare it with the target and generate code selectively.
修改模板来执行期望的内核代码相对也比较简单。
Modifying the template to execute the desired kernel code is relatively straightforward.
首先，可以通过它们比较自己和别人的代码库。
First, they allow you to compare your code base to others along several dimensions.
尽管XML代码的部分比较优美，但是它可能会导致意想不到的结果。
While the separation of code and XML is nice, it can lead to several undesirable situations.
代码相对比较简单。
这对于试图在实际设备上实现OCAP的人以及任何认为从大量源代码开始比较有趣的人而言，是很有帮助的。
This is helpful for people who are trying to implement OCAP on real devices or for anyone else who thinks it's fun to stare at huge piles of source code.
因此，对于具有N 个选项的典型程序调用，代码只需执行O(N) [N*O(1)]比较 —这是对遗留代码的巨大改进。
Thus, for a typical program invocation with N options, the code needs only O(N) [N*O(1)] comparisons—an order of magnitude improvement over the legacy code.
将这段基于SQL的代码与清单2中所示的基于SPARQL的代码相比较。
Compare that SQL-based code with the SPARQL-based code shown in Listing 2.
这个比较代码定义了hashCode()和equals()方法，用来检测类或方法什么时候可以相互替代。
This comparison code defines hashCode() and equals() methods for checking when one class or method can be substituted for another.
然后，内核本身具有一个内嵌的RAMdisk，其中包含了一些安全性特性；我们可以对在硬盘上找到的代码进行比较，例如 /var/utils/checkkernel.tcl脚本。
Then, the kernel itself has a RAMdisk built into it that contains some of the security features; compare with the code found on the hard drive, such as the /var/utils/checkkernel.tcl script.
本文将对使用三种完全受支持的数据绑定框架的示例代码进行比较，并讨论每个框架与axis2一起使用的一些优缺点。
This article compares sample code using the three fully supported data-binding frameworks and covers some of the strengths and weaknesses of each framework when used with Axis2.
模板代码通过比较参数demo_radio与每个按钮的值决定应该选择哪个单选按钮。
The template's code determines which radio button should be selected by comparing each button's value with the demo_radio parameter.
我们分别使用了write -through和write -behind技术运行示例代码，比较了各自的响应时间以及数据库的CPU占用率。
We ran the sample code using write-through and write-behind for a comparison in response time and database CPU utilization.
我们分别使用了write -through和write -behind技术运行示例代码，比较了各自的响应时间以及数据库的CPU占用率。
We ran the sample code using write-through and write-behind for a comparison in response time and database CPU utilization.
应用推荐