Related
The second way is a little smaller but i dont know if this is okay, can i use also just for be able to use expression body and put the first line of the cod on the side of method name?
override fun findOrdensColeta() {
view.setProgressBarVisibility(View.VISIBLE)
model.findOrdensColeta {
handleFindOrdensColeta()
}
}
override fun findOrdensColeta() = view.setProgressBarVisibility(View.VISIBLE).also {
model.findOrdensColeta {
handleFindOrdensColeta()
}
}
Yes, I think the second version is bad style. I see no good reasons to use also() like that, and several reasons not to:
also() is intended for use within expressions, where you don't have the option of adding a separate statement. (The classic case is logging a value before doing something with it.) That doesn't apply here, where two simple statements work just as well. So there's no benefit other than conciseness; using also() here is unnecessary complexity.
The second version has an expression body, which looks like it returns a useful value — but it actually returns the result of calling setProgressBarVisibility(), which is presumably Unit just like the first version. So the expression body is highly misleading.
Also, the only reason that the second version is shorter is that the first statement has been squeezed onto the same line. I don't think that's justified here* — it joins two things (the function signature and the call to setProgressBarVisibility()) that aren't directly related, and it makes the line too long for most people to read easily. (I'm surprised you find the second version easier to read. I tend to prefer conciseness, but even I find the first version a good deal easier to read — probably because it falls into a very familiar pattern that doesn't need any extra thought.)
If you cared only about reducing the number of lines, then the first version could be written like this (not recommended!):
override fun findOrdensColeta() { view.setProgressBarVisibility(View.VISIBLE)
model.findOrdensColeta {
handleFindOrdensColeta()
}
}
(You could join even more lines, perhaps squeezing it all onto a single line if you wanted to make it completely unreadable!)
Conversely, if there were other good reasons for using the second version, it would be better if wrapped like this:
override fun findOrdensColeta()
= view.setProgressBarVisibility(View.VISIBLE).also {
model.findOrdensColeta {
handleFindOrdensColeta()
}
}
So as you can see, the difference in length is mainly due to the (unjustified and confusing) line-joining, not the use of also().
So using also() here has no real benefit, as well as some significant drawbacks.
* I'm not saying you should never put the function body on the same line as its signature. That can work well if the body is an expression that's short enough to fit neatly all one line. For example:
override fun toString() = "MyClass(val1 = $val1)"
However, if that makes the line very long, or wraps onto further lines, or is a function body, then it's almost always more readable to start the body on the next line in the traditional fashion.
I believe the second one is a bad approach.
also is designed to provide the ability to modify or use the receiver and return it afterwards.
In your case, also is not containing any usages of its receiver (which is the result of view.setProgressBarVisibility(View.VISIBLE) ). Therefore it is not needed here
The second version is a bit confused to me - if you take the first one as the standard way to do things, a simple code block with two statements in it, what benefit does the second one really give you? You're basically using expression syntax to make it a one-liner - but it's not a one-liner, so you have to add a scope function just to give yourself back the curly braces so you can add another line of code!
So this:
override fun findOrdensColeta() {
view.setProgressBarVisibility(View.VISIBLE)
model.findOrdensColeta {
handleFindOrdensColeta()
}
}
Does exactly the same thing as this:
override fun findOrdensColeta() = view.setProgressBarVisibility(View.VISIBLE).also {
model.findOrdensColeta {
handleFindOrdensColeta()
}
}
But with the latter
it appears to return a result from setProgressBarInvisibility because it's a single-expression function (the original clearly returns nothing)
the use of also which passes that result value through reinforces the idea that you're trying to return that result
the also block implies you're using that value for something (otherwise why's it there?) and it takes a moment to see that you're not
when you realise none of the above are true, now you might be wondering if you're missing something, or if the original coder intended something specific but made a mistake
Because the basic function block is so simple and readable and a natural fit for what you're doing, doing something else can throw up some questions, or be confusing to read. Sure the way it's formatted you've saved a single line, but now it's harder to understand, y'know?
This is something to watch out for in Kotlin I think (and I'm guilty of this myself) - being able to chain stuff together sometimes encourages people to go for "one-liners" that are hard to follow, but hey at least you didn't (explicitly) create a variable! That's not what you're doing here (you're creating an unnecessary variable actually!) but it feels like a similar thing - trying to make a single expression instead of doing things the old-school way.
Coding is about trying to strike that balance between simplicity and readability, and elegant efficiency, and a lot of it's about learning what tools and tricks are available, and knowing when to use them (and how best to do it) and when to avoid them. At the end of the day it's a style choice and this is just my opinion (although all the other commenters so far are saying similar things) but hopefully it's given you something to think about! I've been there too - including using expressions for functions that don't return a value at all - but I think that's all part of learning a language and the things it offers you
As I learn new components in Kotlin, I came accross requireNotNull and checkNotNull but the only difference I've found is that requireNotNull can throw an IllegalArgumentException while checkNotNull can throw an IllegalStateException. Is this the only reason why there are two methods, or I'm missing some under-the-hood implementation detail?
The exception types are the only practical difference, as far as the compiler is concerned — but there's a big difference in intent, for anyone reading the code:
• require…() functions are for checking parameters, to confirm that a function's input fulfils its contract. So you'd normally call them first thing in a function. (Of course, Kotlin's non-nullable types mean that you wouldn't need to call requireNotNull() for a single parameter; but you might need to check a more complex condition on a combination of parameters or their sub-objects.) That's why they throw IllegalArgumentException: it's checking that the arguments are legal.
• check…() functions are for checking the relevant properties, to confirm that the object or whatever is in a valid state for this function to be called now. (Again, any properties that were never null would be typed accordingly, so checkNotNull() is more appropriate for cases where a property, combination, and/or sub-property can be null, but this function mustn't be called when they are.) So they throw IllegalStateException: they're checking that the object's current state allows the function to be called.
In both cases, you could of course write a standard if check (as you would in Java). Or you could use the Elvis operator ?: to do the check the first time the possibly-null value is used. But these functions give you an alternative that's in a more declarative form: you'd normally put them at the top of the function, where they spell out what the function's contract is, in a way that's obvious to anyone glancing at the code.
As a linked answer points out, there are also assert…() functions, which again have more of a semantic difference than a practical one. Those are for detecting programming errors away from the boundary of a function call: for confirming invariants and other conditions, and for all the checks in unit tests and other automated tests.
(Assertions have another important difference: they can be enabled and disabled from the command-line. Though in my experience, that's not a very good thing. If a check is important, it should always be run: be mandatory; if not, then it should be removed, or at least moved to automated tests, once the code is debugged.)
It is a semantic difference and hence it throws different exceptions. RequireNotNull is used to check input values, typically at the beginning of a method, while checkNotNull is used anywhere to check the current state.
If you're looking for differences in implementation, the best place to go would be the source code. In this case it seems like there are no differences aside from the different exception thrown, the source for both methods is otherwise identical.
checkNotNull
[...]
if (value == null) {
val message = lazyMessage()
throw IllegalStateException(message.toString())
} else {
return value
}
requireNotNull
[...]
if (value == null) {
val message = lazyMessage()
throw IllegalArgumentException(message.toString())
} else {
return value
}
Therefore the difference is purely semantic. The answer from #gidds details some good scenarios for using them both.
There are some ways to fulfill a null-checking in Kotlin:
1.
if(myVar != null) {
foo(myVar)
}
2.
myVar?.let {
foo(it)
}
3.
myVar?.run {
foo(this)
}
What are the difference between these ways?
Are there any reasons (performance, best practice, code style etc.) why I should prefer on way over the other?
!! is to tell the compiler that I am sure the value of the variable is not null, and if it is null throw a null pointer exception (NPE) where as ?. is to tell the compiler that I am not sure if the value of the variable is null or not, if it is null do not throw any null pointer.
Another way of using a nullable property is safe call operator ?.
This calls the method if the property is not null or returns null if that property is null without throwing an NPE (null pointer exception).
nullableVariable?.someMethodCall()
All three code are behave same null check in operation-wise.
?. is used for chain operations.
bob?.department?.head?.name // if any of the properties in it is null it returns null
To perform a chain operation only for non-null values, you can use the safe call operator together with let
myVar?.let {
foo(it)
}
the above code is good for code style and performance
more details refer Null Safety
The ways 2 and 3 are more idiomatic for Kotlin. Both functions are quite similar. There is little difference with argument passing.
For example, we have a nullable variable:
var canBeNull: String? = null
When you working with T.run you work with extension function calling and you pass this in the closure.
canBeNull?.run {
println(length) // `this` could be omitted
}
When you call T.let you can use it like lambda argument it.
canBeNull?.let {
myString -> println(myString.length) // You could convert `it` to some other name
}
A good article about Kotlin standard functions.
All three are roughly equivalent.
The if case is more like most other languages, and so many developers may find it easier to read.
However, one difference is that the if case will read the value of myVar twice: once for the check, and again when passing it to foo(). That makes a difference, because if myVar is a property (i.e. something that could potentially be changed by another thread), then the compiler will warn that it could have been set to null after the check. If that's a problem (e.g. because foo() expects a non-null parameter), then you'll need to use one of the other cases.
For that reason, the let case has become fairly common practice in Kotlin. (The run case does just about the same thing, but for some reason isn't as popular for this sort of thing. I don't know why.)
Another way around it is to assign myVar to a temporary value, test that, and then use that. That's also more like other languages, but it's more verbose; many people prefer the conciseness of the let case — especially when myVar is actually a complicated expression.
The examples in your question don't show the true reason to decide.
First of all, since you're not using the return value of foo, you should use neither let nor run. Your choice is between also and apply.
Second, since you already have the result you want to null-check in a variable, the difference fades. This is a better motivating example:
complexCall(calculateArg1(), calculateArg2())?.also {
results.add(it)
}
as opposed to
val result = complexCall(calculateArg1(), calculateArg2())
if (result != null) {
results.add(result)
}
The second example declares an identifier, result, which is now available to the rest of the lexical scope, even though you're done with it in just one line.
The first example, on the other hand, keeps everything self-contained and when you go on reading the rest of the code, you are 100% confident that you don't have to keep in mind the meaning of result.
Kotlin have new features with NullPoint-Exception as Compare to Java.
Basically When we do Coding in Java , then we have to Check with !! in every Flied.
But in Kotlin, it is Easy way to Implement First
as Like,
Suppose, in Kotlin
var response:Json?=Null
response:Json?.let {
this part will handle automatic if response is Not Null....then this Block start Executing }?.run {
This is Nullable But, where we Can put Warring } So, I am Suggest you Guys to Start Work in Kotlin with this Features Provided by Kotlin.
(Flied)?.let { Not Null Value Comes Under }?.run{ Null Value Code }
This will Handle to NullPoint Exception or Protect You App for Crash
What you want to achieve
What you want to achieve is that the Kotlin compiler does a smart cast on the variable you are working with.
In all of your three examples, the compiler can do that.
Example:
if(myVar != null) {
foo(myVar) // smart cast: the compiler knows, that myVar can never be null here
}
The choice
Which one of the options to use, is really a matter of style. What you should not do is mix it up to often. Use one and stick to it.
You don't need to worry about performance since let and run are inlined (see inline function). This means that their code (body) is copied to the call site at compile time so there is no runtime overhead.
This site tickled my sense of humour - http://www.antiifcampaign.com/ but can polymorphism work in every case where you would use an if statement?
Smalltalk, which is considered as a "truly" object oriented language, has no "if" statement, and it has no "for" statement, no "while" statement. There are other examples (like Haskell) but this is a good one.
Quoting Smalltalk has no “if” statement:
Some of the audience may be thinking
that this is evidence confirming their
suspicions that Smalltalk is weird,
but what I’m going to tell you is
this:
An “if” statement is an abomination in an Object Oriented language.
Why? Well, an OO language is composed
of classes, objects and methods, and
an “if” statement is inescapably none
of those. You can’t write “if” in an
OO way. It shouldn’t exist.
Conditional execution, like everything
else, should be a method. A method of
what? Boolean.
Now, funnily enough, in Smalltalk,
Boolean has a method called
ifTrue:ifFalse: (that name will look
pretty odd now, but pass over it for
now). It’s abstract in Boolean, but
Boolean has two subclasses: True and
False. The method is passed two blocks
of code. In True, the method simply
runs the code for the true case. In
False, it runs the code for the false
case. Here’s an example that hopefully
explains:
(x >= 0) ifTrue: [
'Positive'
] ifFalse: [
'Negative'
]
You should be able to see ifTrue: and
ifFalse: in there. Don’t worry that
they’re not together.
The expression (x >= 0) evaluates to
true or false. Say it’s true, then we
have:
true ifTrue: [
'Positive'
] ifFalse: [
'Negative'
]
I hope that it’s fairly obvious that
that will produce ‘Positive’.
If it was false, we’d have:
false ifTrue: [
'Positive'
] ifFalse: [
'Negative'
]
That produces ‘Negative’.
OK, that’s how it’s done. What’s so
great about it? Well, in what other
language can you do this? More
seriously, the answer is that there
aren’t any special cases in this
language. Everything can be done in an
OO way, and everything is done in an
OO way.
I definitely recommend reading the whole post and Code is an object from the same author as well.
That website is against using if statements for checking if an object has a specific type. This is completely different from if (foo == 5). It's bad to use ifs like if (foo instanceof pickle). The alternative, using polymorphism instead, promotes encapsulation, making code infinitely easier to debug, maintain, and extend.
Being against ifs in general (doing a certain thing based on a condition) will gain you nothing. Notice how all the other answers here still make decisions, so what's really the difference?
Explanation of the why behind polymorphism:
Take this situation:
void draw(Shape s) {
if (s instanceof Rectangle)
//treat s as rectangle
if (s instanceof Circle)
//treat s as circle
}
It's much better if you don't have to worry about the specific type of an object, generalizing how objects are processed:
void draw(Shape s) {
s.draw();
}
This moves the logic of how to draw a shape into the shape class itself, so we can now treat all shapes the same. This way if we want to add a new type of shape, all we have to do is write the class and give it a draw method instead of modifying every conditional list in the whole program.
This idea is everywhere in programming today, the whole concept of interfaces is all about polymorphism. (Shape is an interface defining a certain behavior, allowing us to process any type that implements the Shape interface in our method.) Dynamic programming languages take this even further, allowing us to pass any type that supports the necessary actions into a method. Which looks better to you? (Python-style pseudo-code)
def multiply(a,b):
if (a is string and b is int):
//repeat a b times.
if (a is int and b is int):
//multiply a and b
or using polymorphism:
def multiply(a,b):
return a*b
You can now use any 2 types that support the * operator, allowing you to use the method with types that haven't event been created yet.
See polymorphism and what is polymorhism.
Though not OOP-related: In Prolog, the only way to write your whole application is without if statements.
Yes actually, you can have a turing-complete language that has no "if" per se and only allows "while" statements:
http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/classes/fa08/cse200/while.html
As for OO design, it makes sense to use an inheritance pattern rather than switches based on a type field in certain cases... That's not always feasible or necessarily desirable though.
#ennuikiller: conditionals would just be a matter of syntactic sugar:
if (test) body; is equivalent to x=test; while (x) {x=nil; body;}
if-then-else is a little more verbose:
if (test) ifBody; else elseBody;
is equivalent to
x = test; y = true;
while (x) {x = nil; y = nil; ifBody;}
while (y) {y = nil; elseBody;}
the primitive data structure is a list of lists. you could say 2 scalars are equal if they are lists of the same length. you would loop over them simultaneously using the head/tail operators and see if they stop at the same point.
of course that could all be wrapped up in macros.
The simplest turing complete language is probably iota. It contains only 2 symbols ('i' and '*').
Yep. if statements imply branches which can be very costly on a lot of modern processors - particularly PowerPC. Many modern PCs do a lot of pipeline re-ordering and so branch mis-predictions can cost an order of >30 cycles per branch miss.
On console programming it's sometimes faster to just execute the code and ignore it than check if you should execute it!
Simple branch avoidance in C:
if (++i >= 15)
{
i = 0;
)
can be re-written as
i = (i + 1) & 15;
However, if you want to see some real anti-if fu then read this
Oh and on the OOP question - I'll replace a branch mis-prediction with a virtual function call? No thanks....
The reasoning behind the "anti-if" campaign is similar to what Kent Beck said:
Good code invariably has small methods and
small objects. Only by factoring the system into many small pieces of state
and function can you hope to satisfy the “once and only once” rule. I get lots
of resistance to this idea, especially from experienced developers, but no one
thing I do to systems provides as much help as breaking it into more pieces.
If you don't know how to factor a program with composition and inheritance, then your classes and methods will tend to grow bigger over time. When you need to make a change, the easiest thing will be to add an IF somewhere. Add too many IFs, and your program will become less and less maintainable, and still the easiest thing will be to add more IFs.
You don't have to turn every IF into an object collaboration; but it's a very good thing when you know how to :-)
You can define True and False with objects (in a pseudo-python):
class True:
def if(then,else):
return then
def or(a):
return True()
def and(a):
return a
def not():
return False()
class False:
def if(then,else):
return false
def or(a):
return a
def and(a):
return False()
def not():
return True()
I think it is an elegant way to construct booleans, and it proves that you can replace every if by polymorphism, but that's not the point of the anti-if campaign. The goal is to avoid writing things such as (in a pathfinding algorithm) :
if type == Block or type == Player:
# You can't pass through this
else:
# You can
But rather call a is_traversable method on each object. In a sense, that's exactly the inverse of pattern matching. "if" is useful, but in some cases, it is not the best solution.
I assume you are actually asking about replacing if statements that check types, as opposed to replacing all if statements.
To replace an if with polymorphism requires a method in a common supertype you can use for dispatching, either by overriding it directly, or by reusing overridden methods as in the visitor pattern.
But what if there is no such method, and you can't add one to a common supertype because the super types are not maintained by you? Would you really go to the lengths of introducing a new supertype along with subtypes just to get rid of a single if? That would be taking purity a bit far in my opinion.
Also, both approaches (direct overriding and the visitor pattern) have their disadvantages: Overriding the method directly requires that you implement your method in the classes you want to switch on, which might not help cohesion. On the other hand, the visitor pattern is awkward if several cases share the same code. With an if you can do:
if (o instanceof OneType || o instanceof AnotherType) {
// complicated logic goes here
}
How would you share the code with the visitor pattern? Call a common method? Where would you put that method?
So no, I don't think replacing such if statements is always an improvement. It often is, but not always.
I used to write code a lot as the recommend in the anti-if campaign, using either callbacks in a delegate dictionary or polymorphism.
It's quite a beguiling argument, especially if you are dealing with messy code bases but to be honest, although it's great for a plugin model or simplifying large nested if statements, it does make navigating and readability a bit of a pain.
For example F12 (Go To Definition) in visual studio will take you to an abstract class (or, in my case an interface definition).
It also makes quick visual scanning of a class very cumbersome, and adds an overhead in setting up the delegates and lookup hashes.
Using the recommendations put forward in the anti-if campaign as much as they appear to be recommending looks like 'ooh, new shiny thing' programming to me.
As for the other constructs put forward in this thread, albeit it has been done in the spirit of a fun challenge, are just substitutes for an if statement, and don't really address what the underlying beliefs of the anti-if campaign.
You can avoid ifs in your business logic code if you keep them in your construction code (Factories, builders, Providers etc.). Your business logic code would be much more readable, easier to understand or easier to maintain or extend. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F72VULWFvc
Haskell doesn't even have if statements, being pure functional. ;D
You can do it without if per se, but you can't do it without a mechanism that allows you to make a decision based on some condition.
In assembly, there's no if statement. There are conditional jumps.
In Haskell for instance, there's no explicit if, instead, you define a function multiple times, I forgot the exact syntax, but it's something like this:
pseudo-haskell:
def posNeg(x < 0):
return "negative"
def posNeg(x == 0):
return "zero"
def posNeg(x):
return "positive"
When you call posNeg(a), the interpreter will look at the value of a, if it's < 0 then it will choose the first definition, if it's == 0 then it will choose the second definition, otherwise it will default to the third definition.
So while languages like Haskell and SmallTalk don't have the usual C-style if statement, they have other means of allowing you to make decisions.
This is actually a coding game I like to play with programming languages. It's called "if we had no if" which has its origins at: http://wiki.tcl.tk/4821
Basically, if we disallow the use of conditional constructs in the language: no if, no while, no for, no unless, no switch etc.. can we recreate our own IF function. The answer depends on the language and what language features we can exploit (remember using regular conditional constructs is cheating co no ternary operators!)
For example, in tcl, a function name is just a string and any string (including the empty string) is allowed for anything (function names, variable names etc.). So, exploiting this we can do:
proc 0 {true false} {uplevel 1 $false; # execute false code block, ignore true}
proc 1 {true false} {uplevel 1 $true; # execute true code block, ignore flase}
proc _IF {boolean true false} {
$boolean $true $false
}
#usage:
_IF [expr {1<2}] {
puts "this is true"
} {
#else:
puts "this is false"
}
or in javascript we can abuse the loose typing and the fact that almost anything can be cast into a string and combine that with its functional nature:
function fail (discard,execute) {execute()}
function pass (execute,discard) {execute()}
var truth_table = {
'false' : fail,
'true' : pass
}
function _IF (expr) {
return truth_table[!!expr];
}
//usage:
_IF(3==2)(
function(){alert('this is true')},
//else
function(){alert('this is false')}
);
Not all languages can do this sort of thing. But languages I like tend to be able to.
The idea of polymorphism is to call an object without to first verify the class of that object.
That doesn't mean the if statement should not be used at all; you should avoid to write
if (object.isArray()) {
// Code to execute when the object is an array.
} else if (object.inString()) {
// Code to execute if the object is a string.
}
It depends on the language.
Statically typed languages should be able to handle all of the type checking by sharing common interfaces and overloading functions/methods.
Dynamically typed languages might need to approach the problem differently since type is not checked when a message is passed, only when an object is being accessed (more or less). Using common interfaces is still good practice and can eliminate many of the type checking if statements.
While some constructs are usually a sign of code smell, I am hesitant to eliminate any approach to a problem apriori. There may be times when type checking via if is the expedient solution.
Note: Others have suggested using switch instead, but that is just a clever way of writing more legible if statements.
Well, if you're writing in Perl, it's easy!
Instead of
if (x) {
# ...
}
you can use
unless (!x){
# ...
}
;-)
In answer to the question, and as suggested by the last respondent, you need some if statements to detect state in a factory. At that point you then instantiate a set of collaborating classes that solve the state specific problem. Of course, other conditionals would be required as needed, but they would be minimized.
What would be removed of course would be the endless procedural state checking rife in so much service based code.
Interesting smalltalk is mentioned, as that's the language I used before being dragged across into Java. I don't get home as early as I used to.
I thought about adding my two cents: you can optimize away ifs in many languages where the second part of a boolean expression is not evaluated when it won't affect the result.
With the and operator, if the first operand evaluates to false, then there is no need to evaluate the second one. With the or operator, it's the opposite - there's no need to evaluate the second operand if the first one is true. Some languages always behave like that, others offer an alternative syntax.
Here's an if - elseif - else code made in JavaScript by only using operators and anonymous functions.
document.getElementById("myinput").addEventListener("change", function(e) {
(e.target.value == 1 && !function() {
alert('if 1');
}()) || (e.target.value == 2 && !function() {
alert('else if 2');
}()) || (e.target.value == 3 && !function() {
alert('else if 3');
}()) || (function() {
alert('else');
}());
});
<input type="text" id="myinput" />
This makes me want to try defining an esoteric language where blocks implicitly behave like self-executing anonymous functions and return true, so that you would write it like this:
(condition && {
action
}) || (condition && {
action
}) || {
action
}
Simple question, from a readability standpoint, which method name do you prefer for a boolean method:
public boolean isUserExist(...)
or:
public boolean doesUserExist(...)
or:
public boolean userExists(...)
public boolean userExists(...)
Would be my prefered. As it makes your conditional checks far more like natural english:
if userExists ...
But I guess there is no hard and fast rule - just be consistent
I would say userExists, because 90% of the time my calling code will look like this:
if userExists(...) {
...
}
and it reads very literally in English.
if isUserExist and if doesUserExist seem redundant.
Beware of sacrificing clarity whilst chasing readability.
Although if (user.ExistsInDatabase(db)) reads nicer than if (user.CheckExistsInDatabase(db)), consider the case of a class with a builder pattern, (or any class which you can set state on):
user.WithName("Mike").ExistsInDatabase(db).ExistsInDatabase(db2).Build();
It's not clear if ExistsInDatabase is checking whether it does exist, or setting the fact that it does exist. You wouldn't write if (user.Age()) or if (user.Name()) without any comparison value, so why is if (user.Exists()) a good idea purely because that property/function is of boolean type and you can rename the function/property to read more like natural english? Is it so bad to follow the same pattern we use for other types other than booleans?
With other types, an if statement compares the return value of a function to a value in code, so the code looks something like:
if (user.GetAge() >= 18) ...
Which reads as "if user dot get age is greater than or equal to 18..." true - it's not "natural english", but I would argue that object.verb never resembled natural english and this is simply a basic facet of modern programming (for many mainstream languages). Programmers generally don't have a problem understanding the above statement, so is the following any worse?
if (user.CheckExists() == true)
Which is normally shortened to
if (user.CheckExists())
Followed by the fatal step
if (user.Exists())
Whilst it has been said that "code is read 10x more often than written", it is also very important that bugs are easy to spot. Suppose you had a function called Exists() which causes the object to exist, and returns true/false based on success. You could easily see the code if (user.Exists()) and not spot the bug - the bug would be very much more obvious if the code read if (user.SetExists()) for example.
Additionally, user.Exists() could easily contain complex or inefficient code, round tripping to a database to check something. user.CheckExists() makes it clear that the function does something.
See also all the responses here: Naming Conventions: What to name a method that returns a boolean?
As a final note - following "Tell Don't Ask", a lot of the functions that return true/false disappear anyway, and instead of asking an object for its state, you tell it to do something, which it can do in different ways based on its state.
The goal for readability should always be to write code the closest possible to natural language. So in this case, userExists seems the best choice. Using the prefix "is" may nonetheless be right in another situations, for example isProcessingComplete.
My simple rule to this question is this:
If the boolean method already HAS a verb, don't add one. Otherwise, consider it. Some examples:
$user->exists()
$user->loggedIn()
$user->isGuest() // "is" added
I would go with userExists() because 1) it makes sense in natural language, and 2) it follows the conventions of the APIs I have seen.
To see if it make sense in natural language, read it out loud. "If user exists" sounds more like a valid English phrase than "if is user exists" or "if does user exist". "If the user exists" would be better, but "the" is probably superfluous in a method name.
To see whether a file exists in Java SE 6, you would use File.exists(). This looks like it will be the same in version 7. C# uses the same convention, as do Python and Ruby. Hopefully, this is a diverse enough collection to call this a language-agnostic answer. Generally, I would side with naming methods in keeping with your language's API.
There are things to consider that I think were missed by several other answers here
It depends if this is a C++ class method or a C function. If this is a method then it will likely be called if (user.exists()) { ... } or if (user.isExisting()) { ... }
not if (user_exists(&user)) .
This is the reason behind coding standards that state bool methods should begin with a verb since they will read like a sentence when the object is in front of them.
Unfortunately lots of old C functions return 0 for success and non-zero for failure so it can be difficult to determine the style being used unless you follow the all bool functions begin with verbs or always compare to true like so if (true == user_exists(&user))
Why not rename the property then?
if (user.isPresent()) {
Purely subjective.
I prefer userExists(...) because then statements like this read better:
if ( userExists( ... ) )
or
while ( userExists( ... ) )
In this particular case, the first example is such horrible English that it makes me wince.
I'd probably go for number three because of how it sounds when reading it in if statements. "If user exists" sounds better than "If does user exists".
This is assuming it's going to be to used in if statement tests of course...
I like any of these:
userExists(...)
isUserNameTaken(...)
User.exists(...)
User.lookup(...) != null
Method names serves for readability, only the ones fit into your whole code would be the best which most of the case it begins with conditions thus subjectPredicate follows natural sentence structure.
Since I follow the convention to put verb before function name, I would do the same here too:
//method name
public boolean doesExists(...)
//this way you can also keep a variable to store the result
bool userExists = user.doesExists()
//and use it like a english phrase
if (userExists) {...}
//or you can use the method name directly also and it will make sense here too
if (user.doesExists()) {...}