I have been wondering if dynamic types are slower in Dart.
Example given:
final dynamic example = "Example"
versus
final String example = "Example"
Yes, using dynamic typed variables in Dart is often slower than using variables typed with an actual type.
However, your example is not using dynamic as type, it is using type inference to infer the String type. That might cost a little extra at compile-time, but at run-time, your two code examples are completely identical. Both variables are typed as String.
A dynamic method invocation may be slower because the run-time system must add extra checks to ensure that the variable can do the things you are trying to do with it.
If you have int x = 2; print(x + 3); the run-time system knows that int has a + operator, and even knows what it is.
If you write dynamic x = 2; print(x + 3);, the run-time system must first check whether x has a + operator before it can call it, and find that operator's definition on the object before calling it. It might not always be slower, some cases optimize better than others, but it can never be faster.
Not all code is performance sensitive, and not all variables can be typed. If you have a variable that holds either a String or a List, and you want to know the length, just writing stringOrList.length is more convenient than stringOrList is String ? stringOrList.length : (stringOrList as List).length. It may be slower depending on the compiler and the target platform.
Well, in your first example (heh), example is inferred to be a type String, not dynamic, so how could it be slower? The style guide even recommends not adding redundant types to those variables that can be inferred correctly.
Related
I wanted to ask if anyone knows of a programming language where there is dynamic typing but the binding between a name and a type is permanent. Static typing guards your code from assigning a wrong value into a variable, but forces you to declare(and know) the type before compilation. Dynamic typing allows you to assign values with a different type to the same variable one after the other. What I was thinking is, it would be nice to have dynamic typing, but once the variable is bound, the first binding also determines the type of the variable.
For example, using python-like syntax, if I write by mistake:
persons = []
....
adam = Person("adam")
persons = adam #(instead of persons += [adam])
Then I want to get an error(either at runtime or during compilation if possible) because name was defined as a list, and cannot accept values of type Person.
Same thing if the type can not be resolved statically:
result = getData()
...
result = 10
Will generate a runtime error iff getData() did not return an integer.
I know you can hack a similar behavior with a wrapper class but it would be nice to have the option by default in the language as I don't see a good legitimate use for this flexibility in dynamic languages(except for inheritance, or overwriting a common default value such as null/None which could be permitted as special cases).
Is it possible to create variables to be a specific type in Lua?
E.g. int x = 4
If this is not possible, is there at least some way to have a fake "type" shown before the variable so that anyone reading the code will know what type the variable is supposed to be?
E.g. function addInt(int x=4, int y=5), but x/y could still be any type of variable? I find it much easier to type the variable's type before it rather than putting a comment at above the function to let any readers know what type of variable it is supposed to be.
The sole reason I'm asking isn't to limit the variable to a specific data type, but simply to have the ability to put a data type before the variable, whether it does anything or not, to let the reader know what type of variable that it is supposed to be without getting an error.
You can do this using comments:
local x = 4 -- int
function addInt(x --[[int]],
y --[[int]] )
You can make the syntax a = int(5) from your other comment work using the following:
function int(a) return a end
function string(a) return a end
function dictionary(a) return a end
a = int(5)
b = string "hello, world!"
c = dictionary({foo = "hey"})
Still, this doesn't really offer any benefits over a comment.
The only way I can think of to do this, would be by creating a custom type in C.
Lua Integer type
No. But I understand your goal is to improve understanding when reading and writing functions calls.
Stating the expected data type of parameters adds only a little in terms of giving a specification for the function. Also, some function parameters are polymorphic, accepting a specific value, or a function or table from which to obtain the value for a context in which the function operates. See string.gsub, for example.
When reading a function call, the only thing known at the call site is the name of the variable or field whose value is being invoked as a function (sometimes read as the "name" of the function) and the expressions being passed as actual parameters. It is sometimes helpful to refactor parameter expressions into named local variables to add to the readability.
When writing a function call, the name of the function is key. The names of the formal parameters are also helpful. But still, names (like types) do not comprise much of a specification. The most help comes from embedded structured documentation used in conjunction with an IDE that infers the context of a name and performs content assistance and presentations of available documentation.
luadoc is one such a system of documentation. You can write luadoc for function you declare.
Eclipse Koneki LDT is one such an IDE. Due to the dynamic nature of Lua, it is a difficult problem so LDT is not always as helpful as one would like. (To be clear, LDT does not use luadoc; It evolved its own embedded documentation system.)
Is there any advantage to using a constant (unchangable) than just not changing a variable?
Depending on your language and compiler, a constant may get inlined & optimized when built. Variables will likely eat up stack space even if it never changes.
By making the value constant, the compiler can just substitute it. If you have x / 2, for example, the compiler can compute the value and use that instead of having to emit code to retrieve the value of x and then divide it by 2.
Also, you don't have to worry about accidentally changing the value. For example, in C-like languages you might accidentally type if (x = 2) when you meant if (x == 2) which will change the value of x if it's a variable.
Anyone maintaining your code in the future (including you) won't have to look around to see where (if anywhere) a constant is changed when finding a bug or adding a feature - they'll know right off the bat that it can't be changed.
In some program languages, declaring something to be constant will allow a compiler to make optimizations which would not otherwise be possible. Further, declaring something to be constant can be a useful way of documenting that there are places in the code which might be broken should the value change.
Unfortunately, some programming languages sometimes do evil things with things that are declared constant. For example, in some .net languages, if a value type which is declared read-only is passed by modifiable reference, the compiler will, rather than refusing to allow such an action, instead make a copy and pass that. Such implicit copying will impair efficiency, and may result in unexpected semantics.
I'm implementing a dynamic language that will compile to C#, and it's implementing its own reflection API (.NET's is too slow, and the DLR is limited only to more recent and resourceful implementations).
For this, I've implemented a simple .GetField(string f) and .SetField(string f, object val) interface. Until recently, the implementation just switches over all possible field string values and makes the corresponding action.
Also, this dynamic language has the possibility to define anonymous objects. For those anonymous objects, at first, I had implemented a simple hash algorithm.
By now, I am looking for ways to optimize the dynamic parts of the language, and I have come across the fact that a hash algorithm for anonymous objects would be overkill. This is because the objects are usually small. I'd say the objects contain 2 or 3 fields, normally. Very rarely, they would contain more than 15 fields. It would take more time to actually hash the string and perform the lookup than if I would test for equality between them all. (This is not tested, just theoretical).
The first thing I did was to -- at compile-time -- create a red-black tree for each anonymous object declaration and have it laid onto an array so that the object can look for it in a very optimized way.
I am still divided, though, if that's the best way to do this. I could go for a perfect hashing function. Even more radically, I'm thinking about dropping the need for strings and actually work with a struct of 2 longs.
Those two longs will be encoded to support 10 chars (A-za-z0-9_) each, which is mostly a good prediction of the size of the fields. For fields larger than this, a special function (slower) receiving a string will also be provided.
The result will be that strings will be inlined (not references), and their comparisons will be as cheap as a long comparison.
Anyway, it's a little hard to find good information about this kind of optimization, since this is normally thought on a vm-level, not a static language compilation implementation.
Does anyone have any thoughts or tips about the best data structure to handle dynamic calls?
Edit:
For now, I'm really going with the string as long representation and a linear binary tree lookup.
I don't know if this is helpful, but I'll chuck it out in case;
If this is compiling to C#, do you know the complete list of fields at compile time? So as an idea, if your code reads
// dynamic
myObject.foo = "some value";
myObject.bar = 32;
then during the parse, your symbol table can build an int for each field name;
// parsing code
symbols[0] == "foo"
symbols[1] == "bar"
then generate code using arrays or lists;
// generated c#
runtimeObject[0] = "some value"; // assign myobject.foo
runtimeObject[1] = 32; // assign myobject.bar
and build up reflection as a separate array;
runtimeObject.FieldNames[0] == "foo"; // Dictionary<int, string>
runtimeObject.FieldIds["foo"] === 0; // Dictionary<string, int>
As I say, thrown out in the hope it'll be useful. No idea if it will!
Since you are likely to be using the same field and method names repeatedly, something like string interning would work well to quickly generate keys for your hash tables. It would also make string equality comparisons constant-time.
For such a small data set (expected upper bounds of 15) I think almost any hashing will be more expensive then a tree or even a list lookup, but that is really dependent on your hashing algorithm.
If you want to use a dictionary/hash then you'll need to make sure the objects you use for the key return a hash code quickly (perhaps a single constant hash code that's built once). If you can prevent collisions inside of an object (sounds pretty doable) then you'll gain the speed and scalability (well for any realistic object/class size) of a hash table.
Something that comes to mind is Ruby's symbols and message passing. I believe Ruby's symbols act as a constant to just a memory reference. So comparison is constant, they are very lite, and you can use symbols like variables (I'm a little hazy on this and don't have a Ruby interpreter on this machine). Ruby's method "calling" really turns into message passing. Something like: obj.func(arg) turns into obj.send(:func, arg) (":func" is the symbol). I would imagine that symbol makes looking up the message handler (as I'll call it) inside the object pretty efficient since it's hash code most likely doesn't need to be calculated like most objects.
Perhaps something similar could be done in .NET.
Are there any other ways of changing a variable's type in a statically typed language like Java and C++, except 'casting'?
I'm trying to figure out what the main difference is in practical terms between dynamic and static typing and keep finding very academic definitions. I'm wondering what it means in terms of what my code looks like.
Make sure you don't get static vs. dynamic typing confused with strong vs. weak typing.
Static typing: Each variable, method parameter, return type etc. has a type known at compile time, either declared or inferred.
Dynamic typing: types are ignored/don't exist at compile time
Strong typing: each object at runtime has a specific type, and you can only perform those operations on it that are defined for that type.
Weak typing: runtime objects either don't have an explicit type, or the system attempts to automatically convert types wherever necessary.
These two opposites can be combined freely:
Java is statically and strongly typed
C is statically and weakly typed (pointer arithmetics!)
Ruby is dynamically and strongly typed
JavaScript is dynamically and weakly typed
Genrally, static typing means that a lot of errors are caught by the compiler which are runtime errors in a dynamically typed language - but it also means that you spend a lot of time worrying about types, in many cases unnecessarily (see interfaces vs. duck typing).
Strong typing means that any conversion between types must be explicit, either through a cast or through the use of conversion methods (e.g. parsing a string into an integer). This means more typing work, but has the advantage of keeping you in control of things, whereas weak typing often results in confusion when the system does some obscure implicit conversion that leaves you with a completely wrong variable value that causes havoc ten method calls down the line.
In C++/Java you can't change the type of a variable.
Static typing: A variable has one type assigned at compile type and that does not change.
Dynamic typing: A variable's type can change while runtime, e.g. in JavaScript:
js> x="5" <-- String
5
js> x=x*5 <-- Int
25
The main difference is that in dynamically typed languages you don't know until you go to use a method at runtime whether that method exists. In statically typed languages the check is made at compile time and the compilation fails if the method doesn't exist.
I'm wondering what it means in terms of what my code looks like.
The type system does not necessarily have any impact on what code looks like, e.g. languages with static typing, type inference and implicit conversion (like Scala for instance) look a lot like dynamically typed languages. See also: What To Know Before Debating Type Systems.
You don't need explicit casting. In many cases implicit casting works.
For example:
int i = 42;
float f = i; // f ~= 42.0
int b = f; // i == 42
class Base {
};
class Subclass : public Base {
};
Subclass *subclass = new Subclass();
Base *base = subclass; // Legal
Subclass *s = dynamic_cast<Subclass *>(base); // == subclass. Performs type checking. If base isn't a Subclass, NULL is returned instead. (This is type-safe explicit casting.)
You cannot, however, change the type of a variable. You can use unions in C++, though, to achieve some sort of dynamic typing.
Lets look at Java for he staitically typed language and JavaScript for the dynamc. In Java, for objects, the variable is a reference to an object. The object has a runtime type and the reference has a type. The type of the reference must be the type of the runtime object or one of its ancestors. This is how polymorphism works. You have to cast to go up the hierarchy of the reference type, but not down. The compiler ensures that these conditions are met. In a language like JavaScript, your variable is just that, a variable. You can have it point to whatever object you want, and you don't know the type of it until you check.
For conversions, though, there are lots of methods like toInteger and toFloat in Java to do a conversion and generate an object of a new type with the same relative value. In JavaScript there are also conversion methods, but they generate new objects too.
Your code should actally not look very much different, regardless if you are using a staticly typed language or not. Just because you can change the data type of a variable in a dynamically typed language, doesn't mean that it is a good idea to do so.
In VBScript, for example, hungarian notation is often used to specify the preferred data type of a variable. That way you can easily spot if the code is mixing types. (This was not the original use of hungarian notation, but it's pretty useful.)
By keeping to the same data type, you avoid situations where it's hard to tell what the code actually does, and situations where the code simply doesn't work properly. For example:
Dim id
id = Request.QueryString("id") ' this variable is now a string
If id = "42" Then
id = 142 ' sometimes turned into a number
End If
If id > 100 Then ' will not work properly for strings
Using hungarian notation you can spot code that is mixing types, like:
lngId = Request.QueryString("id") ' putting a string in a numeric variable
strId = 42 ' putting a number in a string variable