I am a little confused by the different use-cases of the methods. I can see that one is in Kotlin.math and one in Kotlin.comparisons, so I would guess that implies maxOf() can be used with objects of user-defined classes, but is that the only differentiating factor?
Perhaps knowing the history here can help.
In Kotlin 1.1, minOf and maxOf got added as their own separate feature. I think the idea is that you are supposed to use this in rather non-mathematical situations. After all, the example they gave was:
val list1 = listOf("a", "b")
val list2 = listOf("x", "y", "z")
val minSize = minOf(list1.size, list2.size)
val longestList = maxOf(list1, list2, compareBy { it.size })
Imagine just trying to write some readable code, putting the word "of" in there just makes the line a tad bit more English-y.
Later, in Kotlin 1.2, they added a whole lot of math constants and functions into the standard library, and called the package kotlin.math. Since min and max are also mathematical functions, they also added min and max.
This is just my opinion, but compared to minOf and maxOf, min and max would be more readable if you put them inside a more complex mathematical expression. It'd make the whole thing look more like math, rather than English.
Functionally, they behave the same, and as you said, minOf and maxOf also works for any Comparable things, or anything at all if you provide a Comparator. This is because minOf and maxOf is not strictly designed for mathematical situations, whereas min and max are.
Notice that in Kotlin 1.4, vararg versions of maxOf and minOf also got added, but not for min and max. Again this is because the mathematical min and max conventionally only take two arguments.
Related
Union types, also known as sum types are a powerful language feature that I find myself using often in TypeScript
something along the lines of:
let a: string | number = “hello”
a = 3
How would I achieve this type of behavior in kotlin?
I saw some people talking about using inheritance and sealed classes to accomplish this but it looks like if you want to use that approach with primitives (such as String and Int) then one would have to write wrappers around those types to access the underlying value.
Im wondering if there is a more pragmatic solution.
There is an issue in Kotlin issue tracker: Denotable union and intersection types (it also contains links to a few previous discussions). The last update from the team is
Roman Elizarov commented 19 Nov 2021 18:14
Short update on this issue. This is an interesting and important feature, but it is really hard to integrate into the language in a backward-compatible and pragmatic way. We'll start working on it fully when we release the new K2 compiler and the best compiler engineers from our team will be able to start looking into it.
As far as I know, there isn't really a "pretty" way to do it in kotlin
One way to achieve a variable that can hold strings and ints could look like that:
var x: Any = 5
x = "hello"
but as you can notice, X can hold any type not only strings and ints, but you could use the "Either" class, from Arrow library (If I'm not mistaken) which allows such behaviour:
var x = Either<Int, String>(5)
Either way, I'm not really sure why would you need such a variable
Thanks to #RedBassett for this Ressource (Kotlin problem solving): https://kotlinlang.org/docs/tutorials/koans.html
I'm aware this question exists here:
Creating a 4 digit Random Number using java with no repetition in digits
but I'm new to Kotlin and would like to explore the direct Kotlin features.
So as the title suggests, I'm trying to find a Kotlin specific way to nicely solve generate a 4 digit number (after that it's easy to make it adaptable for length x) without repeating digits.
This is my current working solution and would like to make it more Kotlin. Would be very grateful for some input.
fun createFourDigitNumber(): Int {
var fourDigitNumber = ""
val rangeList = {(0..9).random()}
while(fourDigitNumber.length < 4)
{
val num = rangeList().toString()
if (!fourDigitNumber.contains(num)) fourDigitNumber +=num
}
return fourDigitNumber.toInt()
}
So the range you define (0..9) is actually already a sequence of numbers. Instead of iterating and repeatedly generating a new random, you can just use a subset of that sequence. In fact, this is the accepted answer's solution to the question you linked. Here are some pointers if you want to implement it yourself to get the practice:
The first for loop in that solution is unnecessary in Kotlin because of the range. 0..9 does the same thing, you're on the right track there.
In Kotlin you can call .shuffled() directly on the range without needing to call Collections.shuffle() with an argument like they do.
You can avoid another loop if you create a string from the whole range and then return a substring.
If you want to look at my solution (with input from others in the comments), it is in a spoiler here:
fun getUniqueNumber(length: Int) = (0..9).shuffled().take(length).joinToString('')
(Note that this doesn't gracefully handle a length above 10, but that's up to you to figure out how to implement. It is up to you to use subList() and then toString(), or toString() and then substring(), the output should be the same.)
I'm using val globalList = listOf("a1" to "b1", "a2" to "b2") to create a large list of Pairs of strings.
All is fine until you try to put more than 1000 Pairs into a List. The compiler either takes > 5 minutes or just crashes (Both in IntelliJ and Android Studio).
Same happens if you use simple lists of Strings instead of Pairs.
Is there a better way / best practice to include large lists in your source code without resorting to a database?
You can replace a listOf(...) expression with a list created using a constructor or a factory function and adding the items to it:
val globalList: List<Pair<String, String>> = mutableListOf().apply {
add("a1" to "b1")
add("a2" to "b2")
// ...
}
This is definitely a simpler construct for the compiler to analyze.
If you need something quick and dirty instead of data files, one workaround is to use a large string, then split and map it into a list. Here's an example mapping into a list of Ints.
val onCommaWhitespace = "[\\s,]+".toRegex() // in this example split on commas w/ whitespace
val bigListOfNumbers: List<Int> = """
0, 1, 2, 3, 4,
:
:
:
8187, 8188, 8189, 8190, 8191
""".trimIndent()
.split(onCommaWhitespace)
.map { it.toInt() }
Of course for splitting into a list of Strings, you'd have to choose an appropriate delimiter and regex that don't interfere with the actual data set.
There's no good way to do what you want; for something that size, reading the values from a data file (or calculating them, if that were possible) is a far better solution all round — more maintainable, much faster to compile and run, easier to read and edit, less likely to cause trouble with build tools and frameworks…
If you let the compiler finish, its output will tell you the problem. (‘Always read the error messages’ should be one of the cardinal rules of development!)
I tried hotkey's version using apply(), and it eventually gave this error:
…
Caused by: org.jetbrains.org.objectweb.asm.MethodTooLargeException: Method too large: TestKt.main ()V
…
There's the problem: MethodTooLargeException. The JVM allows only 65535 bytes of bytecode within a single method; see this answer. That's the limit you're coming up against here: once you have too many entries, its code would exceed that limit, and so it can't be compiled.
If you were a real masochist, you could probably work around this to an extent by splitting the initialisation across many methods, keeping each one's code just under the limit. But please don't! For the sake of your colleagues, for the sake of your compiler, and for the sake of your own mental health…
to is an infix function within the standard library. It can be used to create Pairs concisely:
0 to "hero"
in comparison with:
Pair(0, "hero")
Typically, it is used to initialize Maps concisely:
mapOf(0 to "hero", 1 to "one", 2 to "two")
However, there are other situations in which one needs to create a Pair. For instance:
"to be or not" to "be"
(0..10).map { it to it * it }
Is it acceptable, stylistically, to (ab)use to in this manner?
Just because some language features are provided does not mean they are better over certain things. A Pair can be used instead of to and vice versa. What becomes a real issue is that, does your code still remain simple, would it require some reader to read the previous story to understand the current one? In your last map example, it does not give a hint of what it's doing. Imagine someone reading { it to it * it}, they would be most likely confused. I would say this is an abuse.
to infix offer a nice syntactical sugar, IMHO it should be used in conjunction with a nicely named variable that tells the reader what this something to something is. For example:
val heroPair = Ironman to Spiderman //including a 'pair' in the variable name tells the story what 'to' is doing.
Or you could use scoping functions
(Ironman to Spiderman).let { heroPair -> }
I don't think there's an authoritative answer to this. The only examples in the Kotlin docs are for creating simple constant maps with mapOf(), but there's no hint that to shouldn't be used elsewhere.
So it'll come down to a matter of personal taste…
For me, I'd be happy to use it anywhere it represents a mapping of some kind, so in a map{…} expression would seem clear to me, just as much as in a mapOf(…) list. Though (as mentioned elsewhere) it's not often used in complex expressions, so I might use parentheses to keep the precedence clear, and/or simplify the expression so they're not needed.
Where it doesn't indicate a mapping, I'd be much more hesitant to use it. For example, if you have a method that returns two values, it'd probably be clearer to use an explicit Pair. (Though in that case, it'd be clearer still to define a simple data class for the return value.)
You asked for personal perspective so here is mine.
I found this syntax is a huge win for simple code, especial in reading code. Reading code with parenthesis, a lot of them, caused mental stress, imagine you have to review/read thousand lines of code a day ;(
In algebra if I make the statement x + y = 3, the variables I used will hold the values either 2 and 1 or 1 and 2. I know that assignment in programming is not the same thing, but I got to wondering. If I wanted to represent the value of, say, a quantumly weird particle, I would want my variable to have two values at the same time and to have it resolve into one or the other later. Or maybe I'm just dreaming?
Is it possible to say something like i = 3 or 2;?
This is one of the features planned for Perl 6 (junctions), with syntax that should look like my $a = 1|2|3;
If ever implemented, it would work intuitively, like $a==1 being true at the same time as $a==2. Also, for example, $a+1 would give you a value of 2|3|4.
This feature is actually available in Perl5 as well through Perl6::Junction and Quantum::Superpositions modules, but without the syntax sugar (through 'functions' all and any).
At least for comparison (b < any(1,2,3)) it was also available in Microsoft Cω experimental language, however it was not documented anywhere (I just tried it when I was looking at Cω and it just worked).
You can't do this with native types, but there's nothing stopping you from creating a variable object (presuming you are using an OO language) which has a range of values or even a probability density function rather than an actual value.
You will also need to define all the mathematical operators between your variables and your variables and native scalars. Same goes for the equality and assignment operators.
numpy arrays do something similar for vectors and matrices.
That's also the kind of thing you can do in Prolog. You define rules that constraint your variables and then let Prolog resolve them ...
It takes some time to get used to it, but it is wonderful for certain problems once you know how to use it ...
Damien Conways Quantum::Superpositions might do what you want,
https://metacpan.org/pod/Quantum::Superpositions
You might need your crack-pipe however.
What you're asking seems to be how to implement a Fuzzy Logic system. These have been around for some time and you can undoubtedly pick up a library for the common programming languages quite easily.
You could use a struct and handle the operations manualy. Otherwise, no a variable only has 1 value at a time.
A variable is nothing more than an address into memory. That means a variable describes exactly one place in memory (length depending on the type). So as long as we have no "quantum memory" (and we dont have it, and it doesnt look like we will have it in near future), the answer is a NO.
If you want to program and to modell this behaviour, your way would be to use a an array (with length equal to the number of max. multiple values). With this comes the increased runtime, hence the computations must be done on each of the values (e.g. x+y, must compute with 2 different values x1+y1, x2+y2, x1+y2 and x2+y1).
In Perl , you can .
If you use Scalar::Util , you can have a var take 2 values . One if it's used in string context , and another if it's used in a numerical context .