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).
Related
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.
A program variable is an abstraction of a computer memory cell or collection
of cells. Programmers often think of variable names as names for memory locations, but there is much more to a variable than just a name.
In this case, what is an anonymous variable?
What does the below statement mean?
Variables without names are called anonymous variables.
Can you provide language specific examples for the same?
In C++, reference variable to const can be initialized by constant.
In this point, temporary variable is created in memory to grab the constant.
const int &ref = 3;
like this. so we can call this temporary variable to "anonymous variable".
Variables are where you store you values. 'Variable Name' is the usually the easiest (and more human-like) way to locate your value.For example, if I am a variable, you can get my value by calling my name, and the combination of my value and my name is called 'variable'.
However, not all variables need a name.Sometimes you just use them once and don't need them anymore; and in that case, a name is unnecessary.
The example given by #BAE HA RAM is a telling one,in which case you don't need a name for the value but ref to it by a pointer(But still got a name for that pointer)..
There are also many other anonymous things, anonymous type, anonymous function and so on. Most of them are created to avoid too many meaningless names for the things that you only need to run once.
I'd like to know which language you are using, so more specific example can be given...
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.)
In the example below, what would you name the parameter given that it is used to initialize the property FromDate?
For class constructor methods, I like to have the name of the constructor parameter variable match the name of the property which is being initialized. For example, the parameter "fromDate" is used to initialize the module level variable "_FromDate" with the statement _FromDate = fromDate. Likewise, I could have alternatively written Me.FromDate = fromDate.
Proponents of C#'s case sensitivity would probably say that using a leading lower cased letter for the param variable name, which I believe is MS convention, is an acceptable approach to distinguish it from the Property of the same name but different casing.
However, VB is not case sensitive, which I generally appreciate. In the following example, I am using a param name that matches the property name, 'fromDate," and VB refers to the local instance when there is ambiguity. However, many would probably argue that this "ambiguity" introduces the opportunity for the developer to get confused and not realize which variable is being used. For example, my intent below was to have TWO params passed in, "fromDate" and "toDate" but I accidentily ommited one and as a result, the VB.NET did not warn me of the mistake because it assumed that the statement _ToDate = ToDate was equivalent to _ToDate = Me.ToDate instead of informing me that the variable on the right side of the assignment statement was undeclared.
Public Class Period
Property FromDate As Date
Property ToDate As Date
Public Sub New(ByVal fromDate As Date)
If fromDate > ToDate Then
Throw New ArgumentException("fromDate must be less than or equal to toDate")
End If
_FromDate = fromDate
_ToDate = ToDate
End Sub
End Class
So what is the best solution for VB.NET?
In my judgement, we should have a convention for prefixing all parameter variable with a prefix, but hasn't the use of prefixes been discouraged by Microsoft? For example:
Public Sub New(ByVal paramFromDate As Date, paramToDate As Date)
..or maybe it could be shortened to pFromDate, pToDate...
Whatever approach is taken, I feel that it should be a consistant approach that is used throughout the application.
What do you do?
Use the clearest code possible, which I would suggest is not a prefix. I think using the same name (first letter lowercased) is the clearest code. To avoid the problem encountered I'd rely on a tool, like compiler warnings, FxCop, or ReSharper to alert me that I'm assigning something to itself, since that is almost certainly a mistake in all scenarios.
I know this is against all Microsoft convention, but we use v_ for ByVal parameters, r_ for ByRef parameters and m_ for Module level variables. This allows you to have
m_FromDate = v_FromDate
And you can see straight away what is going on without needing to check the definitions of the variables. I think the biggest argument for non-Hungarian was that modern IDE's allow you to see type on hover over, and changing the type will leave incorrect variables. This scope prefix doesn't clash with that theory and also with CodeRush and ReSharper you can update every instance of a variable if it is required.
Personally, I prefer the _ prefix convention, but there are others I like too. In PL/SQL, my parameters are prefixed with in_, out_, or io_ for in, out, or in/out parameters.
I dislike using only upper and lower cases to distinguish in any language.
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