I start with a list of integers from 1 to 1000 in listOfRandoms.
I would like to left join on random from the createDatabase list.
I am currently using a find{} statement within a loop to do this but feel like this is too heavy. Is there not a better (quicker) way to achieve same result?
Psuedo Code
data class DatabaseRow(
val refKey: Int,
val random: Int
)
fun main() {
val createDatabase = (1..1000).map { i -> DatabaseRow(i, Random()) }
val listOfRandoms = (1..1000).map { j ->
val lookup = createDatabase.find { it.refKey == j }
lookup.random
}
}
As mentioned in comments, the question seems to be mixing up database and programming ideas, which isn't helping.
And it's not entirely clear which parts of the code are needed, and which can be replaced. I'm assuming that you already have the createDatabase list, but that listOfRandoms is open to improvement.
The ‘pseudo’ code compiles fine except that:
You don't give an import for Random(), but none of the likely ones return an Int. I'm going to assume that should be kotlin.random.Random.nextInt().
And because lookup is nullable, you can't simply call lookup.random; a quick fix is lookup!!.random, but it would be safer to handle the null case properly with e.g. lookup?.random ?: -1. (That's irrelevant, though, given the assumption above.)
I think the general solution is to create a Map. This can be done very easily from createDatabase, by calling associate():
val map = createDatabase.associate{ it.refKey to it.random }
That should take time roughly proportional to the size of the list. Looking up values in the map is then very efficient (approx. constant time):
map[someKey]
In this case, that takes rather more memory than needed, because both keys and values are integers and will be boxed (stored as separate objects on the heap). Also, most maps use a hash table, which takes some memory.
Since the key is (according to comments) “an ascending list starting from a random number, like 18123..19123”, in this particular case it can instead be stored in an IntArray without any boxing. As you say, array indexes start from 0, so using the key directly would need a huge array and use only the last few cells — but if you know the start key, you could simply subtract that from the array index each time.
Creating such an array would be a bit more complex, for example:
val minKey = createDatabase.minOf{ it.refKey }
val maxKey = createDatabase.maxOf{ it.refKey }
val array = IntArray(maxKey - minKey + 1)
for (row in createDatabase)
array[row.refKey - minKey] = row.random
You'd then access values with:
array[someKey - minKey]
…which is also constant-time.
Some caveats with this approach:
If createDatabase is empty, then minOf() will throw a NoSuchElementException.
If it has ‘holes’, omitting some keys inside that range, then the array will hold its default value of 0 — you can change that by using the alternative IntArray constructor which also takes a lambda giving the initial value.)
Trying to look up a value outside that range will give an ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException.
Whether it's worth the extra complexity to save a bit of memory will depend on things like the size of the ‘database’, and how long it's in memory for; I wouldn't add that complexity unless you have good reason to think memory usage will be an issue.
I wrote the following code:
val src = (0 until 1000000).toList()
val dest = ArrayList<Double>(src.size / 2 + 1)
for (i in src)
{
if (i % 2 == 0) dest.add(Math.sqrt(i.toDouble()))
}
IntellJ (in my case AndroidStudio) is asking me if I want to replace the for loop with operations from stdlib. This results in the following code:
val src = (0 until 1000000).toList()
val dest = ArrayList<Double>(src.size / 2 + 1)
src.filter { it % 2 == 0 }
.mapTo(dest) { Math.sqrt(it.toDouble()) }
Now I must say, I like the changed code. I find it easier to write than for loops when I come up with similar situations. However upon reading what filter function does, I realized that this is a lot slower code compared to the for loop. filter function creates a new list containing only the elements from src that match the predicate. So there is one more list created and one more loop in the stdlib version of the code. Ofc for small lists it might not be important, but in general this does not sound like a good alternative. Especially if one should chain more methods like this, you can get a lot of additional loops that could be avoided by writing a for loop.
My question is what is considered good practice in Kotlin. Should I stick to for loops or am I missing something and it does not work as I think it works.
If you are concerned about performance, what you need is Sequence. For example, your above code will be
val src = (0 until 1000000).toList()
val dest = ArrayList<Double>(src.size / 2 + 1)
src.asSequence()
.filter { it % 2 == 0 }
.mapTo(dest) { Math.sqrt(it.toDouble()) }
In the above code, filter returns another Sequence, which represents an intermediate step. Nothing is really created yet, no object or array creation (except a new Sequence wrapper). Only when mapTo, a terminal operator, is called does the resulting collection is created.
If you have learned java 8 stream, you may found the above explaination somewhat familiar. Actually, Sequence is roughly the kotlin equivalent of java 8 Stream. They share similiar purpose and performance characteristic. The only difference is Sequence isn't designed to work with ForkJoinPool, thus a lot easier to implement.
When there is multiple steps involved or the collection may be large, it's suggested to use Sequence instead of plain .filter {...}.mapTo{...}. I also suggest you to use the Sequence form instead of your imperative form because it's easier to understand. Imperative form may become complex, thus hard to understand, when there are 5 or more steps involved in the data processing. If there is just one step, you don't need a Sequence, because it just creates garbage and gives you nothing useful.
You're missing something. :-)
In this particular case, you can use an IntProgression:
val progression = 0 until 1_000_000 step 2
You can then create your desired list of squares in various ways:
// may make the list larger than necessary
// its internal array is copied each time the list grows beyond its capacity
// code is very straight forward
progression.map { Math.sqrt(it.toDouble()) }
// will make the list the exact size needed
// no copies are made
// code is more complicated
progression.mapTo(ArrayList(progression.last / 2 + 1)) { Math.sqrt(it.toDouble()) }
// will make the list the exact size needed
// a single intermediate list is made
// code is minimal and makes sense
progression.toList().map { Math.sqrt(it.toDouble()) }
My advice would be to choose whichever coding style you prefer. Kotlin is both object-oriented and functional language, meaning both of your propositions are correct.
Usually, functional constructs favor readability over performance; however, in some cases, procedural code will also be more readable. You should try to stick with one style as much as possible, but don't be afraid to switch some code if you feel like it's better suited to your constraints, either readability, performance, or both.
The converted code does not need the manual creation of the destination list, and can be simplified to:
val src = (0 until 1000000).toList()
val dest = src.filter { it % 2 == 0 }
.map { Math.sqrt(it.toDouble()) }
And as mentioned in the excellent answer by #glee8e you can use a sequence to do a lazy evaluation. The simplified code for using a sequence:
val src = (0 until 1000000).toList()
val dest = src.asSequence() // change to lazy
.filter { it % 2 == 0 }
.map { Math.sqrt(it.toDouble()) }
.toList() // create the final list
Note the addition of the toList() at the end is to change from a sequence back to a final list which is the one copy made during the processing. You can omit that step to remain as a sequence.
It is important to highlight the comments by #hotkey saying that you should not always assume that another iteration or a copy of a list causes worse performance than lazy evaluation. #hotkey says:
Sometimes several loops. even if they copy the whole collection, show good performance because of good locality of reference. See: Kotlin's Iterable and Sequence look exactly same. Why are two types required?
And excerpted from that link:
... in most cases it has good locality of reference thus taking advantage of CPU cache, prediction, prefetching etc. so that even multiple copying of a collection still works good enough and performs better in simple cases with small collections.
#glee8e says that there are similarities between Kotlin sequences and Java 8 streams, for detailed comparisons see: What Java 8 Stream.collect equivalents are available in the standard Kotlin library?
This question already has answers here:
Closed 12 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Why do most programming languages only have binary equality comparison operators?
I have had a simple question for a fairly long time--since I started learning programming languages.
I'd like to write like "if x is either 1 or 2 => TRUE (otherwise FALSE)."
But when I write it in a programming language, say in C,
( x == 1 || x == 2 )
it really works but looks awkward and hard to read. I guess it should be possible to simplify such an or operation, and so if you have any idea, please tell me. Thanks, Nathan
Python allows test for membership in a sequence:
if x in (1, 2):
An extension version in C#
step 1: create an extension method
public static class ObjectExtensions
{
public static bool Either(this object value, params object[] array)
{
return array.Any(p => Equals(value, p));
}
}
step 2: use the extension method
if (x.Either(1,2,3,4,5,6))
{
}
else
{
}
While there are a number of quite interesting answers in this thread, I would like to point out that they may have performance implications if you're doing this kind of logic inside of a loop depending on the language. A far as for the computer to understand, the if (x == 1 || x == 2) is by far the easiest to understand and optimize when it's compiled into machine code.
When I started programming it seemed weird to me as well that instead of something like:
(1 < x < 10)
I had to write:
(1 < x && x < 10)
But this is how most programming languages work, and after a while you will get used to it.
So I believe it is perfectly fine to write
( x == 1 || x == 2 )
Writing it this way also has the advantage that other programmers will understand easily what you wrote. Using a function to encapsulate it might just make things more complicated because the other programmers would need to find that function and see what it does.
Only more recent programming languages like Python, Ruby etc. allow you to write it in a simpler, nicer way. That is mostly because these programming languages are designed to increase the programmers productivity, while the older programming languages' main goal was application performance and not so much programmer productivity.
It's Natural, but Language-Dependent
Your approach would indeed seem more natural but that really depends on the language you use for the implementation.
Rationale for the Mess
C being a systems programming language, and fairly close to the hardware (funny though, as we used to consider a "high-level" language, as opposed to writing machine code), it's not exactly expressive.
Modern higher-level languages (again, arguable, lisp is not that modern, historically speaking, but would allow you to do that nicely) allow you to do such things by using built-in constructs or library support (for instances, using Ranges, Tuples or equivalents in languages like Python, Ruby, Groovy, ML-languages, Haskell...).
Possible Solutions
Option 1
One option for you would be to implement a function or subroutine taking an array of values and checking them.
Here's a basic prototype, and I leave the implementation as an exercise to you:
/* returns non-zero value if check is in values */
int is_in(int check, int *values, int size);
However, as you will quickly see, this is very basic and not very flexible:
it works only on integers,
it works only to compare identical values.
Option 2
One step higher on the complexity ladder (in terms of languages), an alternative would be to use pre-processor macros in C (or C++) to achieve a similar behavior, but beware of side effects.
Other Options
A next step could be to pass a function pointer as an extra parameter to define the behavior at call-point, define several variants and aliases for this, and build yourself a small library of comparators.
The next step then would be to implement a similar thing in C++ using templates to do this on different types with a single implementation.
And then keep going from there to higher-level languages.
Pick the Right Language (or learn to let go!)
Typically, languages favoring functional programming will have built-in support for this sort of thing, for obvious reasons.
Or just learn to accept that some languages can do things that others cannot, and that depending on the job and environment, that's just the way it is. It mostly is syntactic sugar, and there's not much you can do. Also, some languages will address their shortcomings over time by updating their specifications, while others will just stall.
Maybe a library implements such a thing already and that I am not aware of.
that was a lot of interesting alternatives. I am surprised nobody mentioned switch...case - so here goes:
switch(x) {
case 1:
case 2:
// do your work
break;
default:
// the else part
}
it is more readable than having a
bunch of x == 1 || x == 2 || ...
more optimal than having a
array/set/list for doing a
membership check
I doubt I'd ever do this, but to answer your question, here's one way to achieve it in C# involving a little generic type inference and some abuse of operator overloading. You could write code like this:
if (x == Any.Of(1, 2)) {
Console.WriteLine("In the set.");
}
Where the Any class is defined as:
public static class Any {
public static Any2<T> Of<T>(T item1, T item2) {
return new Any2<T>(item1, item2);
}
public struct Any2<T> {
T item1;
T item2;
public Any2(T item1, T item2) {
this.item1 = item1;
this.item2 = item2;
}
public static bool operator ==(T item, Any2<T> set) {
return item.Equals(set.item1) || item.Equals(set.item2);
}
// Defining the operator== requires these three methods to be defined as well:
public static bool operator !=(T item, Any2<T> set) {
return !(item == set);
}
public override bool Equals(object obj) { throw new NotImplementedException(); }
public override int GetHashCode() { throw new NotImplementedException(); }
}
}
You could conceivably have a number of overloads of the Any.Of method to work with 3, 4, or even more arguments. Other operators could be provided as well, and a companion All class could do something very similar but with && in place of ||.
Looking at the disassembly, a fair bit of boxing happens because of the need to call Equals, so this ends up being slower than the obvious (x == 1) || (x == 2) construct. However, if you change all the <T>'s to int and replace the Equals with ==, you get something which appears to inline nicely to be about the same speed as (x == 1) || (x == 2).
Err, what's wrong with it? Oh well, if you really use it a lot and hate the looks do something like this in c#:
#region minimizethisandneveropen
public bool either(value,x,y){
return (value == x || value == y);
}
#endregion
and in places where you use it:
if(either(value,1,2))
//yaddayadda
Or something like that in another language :).
In php you can use
$ret = in_array($x, array(1, 2));
As far as I know, there is no built-in way of doing this in C. You could add your own inline function for scanning an array of ints for values equal to x....
Like so:
inline int contains(int[] set, int n, int x)
{
int i;
for(i=0; i<n; i++)
if(set[i] == x)
return 1;
return 0;
}
// To implement the check, you declare the set
int mySet[2] = {1,2};
// And evaluate like this:
contains(mySet,2,x) // returns non-zero if 'x' is contained in 'mySet'
In T-SQL
where x in (1,2)
In COBOL (it's been a long time since I've even glanced briefly at COBOL, so I may have a detail or two wrong here):
IF X EQUALS 1 OR 2
...
So the syntax is definitely possible. The question then boils down to "why is it not used more often?"
Well, the thing is, parsing expressions like that is a bit of a bitch. Not when standing alone like that, mind, but more when in compound expressions. The syntax starts to become opaque (from the compiler implementer's perspective) and the semantics downright hairy. IIRC, a lot of COBOL compilers will even warn you if you use syntax like that because of the potential problems.
In .Net you can use Linq:
int[] wanted = new int{1, 2};
// you can use Any to return true for the first item in the list that passes
bool result = wanted.Any( i => i == x );
// or use Contains
bool result = wanted.Contains( x );
Although personally I think the basic || is simple enough:
bool result = ( x == 1 || x == 2 );
Thanks Ignacio! I translate it into Ruby:
[ 1, 2 ].include?( x )
and it also works, but I'm not sure whether it'd look clear & normal. If you know about Ruby, please advise. Also if anybody knows how to write this in C, please tell me. Thanks. -Nathan
Perl 5 with Perl6::Junction:
use Perl6::Junction 'any';
say 'yes' if 2 == any(qw/1 2 3/);
Perl 6:
say 'yes' if 2 == 1|2|3;
This version is so readable and concise I’d use it instead of the || operator.
Pascal has a (limited) notion of sets, so you could do:
if x in [1, 2] then
(haven't touched a Pascal compiler in decades so the syntax may be off)
A try with only one non-bitwise boolean operator (not advised, not tested):
if( (x&3) ^ x ^ ((x>>1)&1) ^ (x&1) ^ 1 == 0 )
The (x&3) ^ x part should be equal to 0, this ensures that x is between 0 and 3. Other operands will only have the last bit set.
The ((x>>1)&1) ^ (x&1) ^ 1 part ensures last and second to last bits are different. This will apply to 1 and 2, but not 0 and 3.
You say the notation (x==1 || x==2) is "awkward and hard to read". I beg to differ. It's different than natural language, but is very clear and easy to understand. You just need to think like a computer.
Also, the notations mentioned in this thread like x in (1,2) are semantically different then what you are really asking, they ask if x is member of the set (1,2), which is not what you are asking. What you are asking is if x equals to 1 or to 2 which is logically (and semantically) equivalent to if x equals to 1 or x equals to 2 which translates to (x==1 || x==2).
In java:
List list = Arrays.asList(new Integer[]{1,2});
Set set = new HashSet(list);
set.contains(1)
I have a macro that I use a lot that's somewhat close to what you want.
#define ISBETWEEN(Var, Low, High) ((Var) >= (Low) && (Var) <= (High))
ISBETWEEN(x, 1, 2) will return true if x is 1 or 2.
Neither C, C++, VB.net, C#.net, nor any other such language I know of has an efficient way to test for something being one of several choices. Although (x==1 || x==2) is often the most natural way to code such a construct, that approach sometimes requires the creation of an extra temporary variable:
tempvar = somefunction(); // tempvar only needed for 'if' test:
if (tempvar == 1 || tempvar == 2)
...
Certainly an optimizer should be able to effectively get rid of the temporary variable (shove it in a register for the brief time it's used) but I still think that code is ugly. Further, on some embedded processors, the most compact and possibly fastest way to write (x == const1 || x==const2 || x==const3) is:
movf _x,w ; Load variable X into accumulator
xorlw const1 ; XOR with const1
btfss STATUS,ZERO ; Skip next instruction if zero
xorlw const1 ^ const2 ; XOR with (const1 ^ const2)
btfss STATUS,ZERO ; Skip next instruction if zero
xorlw const2 ^ const3 ; XOR with (const2 ^ const3)
btfss STATUS,ZERO ; Skip next instruction if zero
goto NOPE
That approach require two more instructions for each constant; all instructions will execute. Early-exit tests will save time if the branch is taken, and waste time otherwise. Coding using a literal interpretation of the separate comparisons would require four instructions for each constant.
If a language had an "if variable is one of several constants" construct, I would expect a compiler to use the above code pattern. Too bad no such construct exists in common languages.
(note: Pascal does have such a construct, but run-time implementations are often very wasteful of both time and code space).
return x === 1 || x === 2 in javascript
I want to check whether a value is equal to 1. Is there any difference in the following lines of code
Evaluated value == 1
1 == evaluated value
in terms of the compiler execution
In most languages it's the same thing.
People often do 1 == evaluated value because 1 is not an lvalue. Meaning that you can't accidentally do an assignment.
Example:
if(x = 6)//bug, but no compiling error
{
}
Instead you could force a compiling error instead of a bug:
if(6 = x)//compiling error
{
}
Now if x is not of int type, and you're using something like C++, then the user could have created an operator==(int) override which takes this question to a new meaning. The 6 == x wouldn't compile in that case but the x == 6 would.
It depends on the programming language.
In Ruby, Smalltalk, Self, Newspeak, Ioke and many other single-dispatch object-oriented programming languages, a == b is actually a message send. In Ruby, for example, it is equivalent to a.==(b). What this means, is that when you write a == b, then the method == in the class of a is executed, but when you write b == a, then the method in the class of b is executed. So, it's obviously not the same thing:
class A; def ==(other) false end; end
class B; def ==(other) true end; end
a, b = A.new, B.new
p a == b # => false
p b == a # => true
No, but the latter syntax will give you a compiler error if you accidentally type
if (1 = evaluatedValue)
Note that today any decent compiler will warn you if you write
if (evaluatedValue = 1)
so it is mostly relevant for historical reasons.
Depends on the language.
In Prolog or Erlang, == is written = and is a unification rather than an assignment (you're asserting that the values are equal, rather then testing that they are equal or forcing them to be equal), so you can use it for an assertion if the left hand side is a constant, as explained here.
So X = 3 would unify the variable X and the value 3, whereas 3 = X would attempt to unify the constant 3 with the current value of X, and be equivalent of assert(x==3) in imperative languages.
It's the same thing
In general, it hardly matters whether you use,
Evaluated value == 1 OR 1 == evaluated value.
Use whichever appears more readable to you. I prefer if(Evaluated value == 1) because it looks more readable to me.
And again, I'd like to quote a well known scenario of string comparison in java.
Consider a String str which you have to compare with say another string "SomeString".
str = getValueFromSomeRoutine();
Now at runtime, you are not sure if str would be NULL. So to avoid exception you'll write
if(str!=NULL)
{
if(str.equals("SomeString")
{
//do stuff
}
}
to avoid the outer null check you could just write
if ("SomeString".equals(str))
{
//do stuff
}
Though this is less readable which again depends on the context, this saves you an extra if.
For this and similar questions can I suggest you find out for yourself by writing a little code, running it through your compiler and viewing the emitted asembler output.
For example, for the GNU compilers, you do this with the -S flag. For the VS compilers, the most convenient route is to run your test program in the debugger and then use the assembeler debugger view.
Sometimes in C++ they do different things, if the evaluated value is a user type and operator== is defined. Badly.
But that's very rarely the reason anyone would choose one way around over the other: if operator== is not commutative/symmetric, including if the type of the value has a conversion from int, then you have A Problem that probably wants fixing rather than working around. Brian R. Bondy's answer, and others, are probably on the mark for why anyone worries about it in practice.
But the fact remains that even if operator== is commutative, the compiler might not do exactly the same thing in each case. It will (by definition) return the same result, but it might do things in a slightly different order, or whatever.
if value == 1
if 1 == value
Is exactly the same, but if you accidentally do
if value = 1
if 1 = value
The first one will work while the 2nd one will produce an error.
They are the same. Some people prefer putting the 1 first, to void accidentally falling into the trap of typing
evaluated value = 1
which could be painful if the value on the left hand side is assignable. This is a common "defensive" pattern in C, for instance.
In C languages it's common to put the constant or magic number first so that if you forget one of the "=" of the equality check (==) then the compiler won't interpret this as an assignment.
In java, you cannot do an assignment within a boolean expression, and so for Java, it is irrelevant which order the equality operands are written in; The compiler should flag an error anyway.