Let's say I want to connect to two package repositories, make a query for a package name, combine the result from the repos and process it (filter, unique, prioritize,...), What is a good way to do that?
What I though about is creating Array of two Cro::HTTP::Client objects (with base-uri specific to each repo), and when I need to make HTTP request I call #a>>.get, then process the result from the repos together.
I have attached a snippet of what I'm trying to do. But I would like to see if there is a better way to do that. or if the approach mention in the following link is suitable for this use case! https://perl6advent.wordpress.com/2013/12/08/day-08-array-based-objects/
use Cro::HTTP::Client;
class Repo {
has $.name;
has Cro::HTTP::Client $!client;
has Cro::Uri $.uri;
has Bool $.disable = False;
submethod TWEAK () {
$!client = Cro::HTTP::Client.new(base-uri => $!uri, :json);
}
method get (:$package) {
my $path = <x86_64?>;
my $resp = await $!client.get($path ~ $package);
my $json = await $resp.body;
return $json;
}
}
class AllRepos {
has Repo #.repo;
method get (:$package) {
# check if some repos are disabled
my #candidate = #!repo>>.get(:$package).unique(:with(&[eqv])).flat;
# do furthre processign of the data then return it;
return #candidate;
}
}
my $repo1 = Repo.new: name => 'repo1', uri => Cro::Uri.new(:uri<http://localhost:80>);
my $repo2 = Repo.new: name => 'repo2', uri => Cro::Uri.new(:uri<http://localhost:77>);
my #repo = $repo1, $repo2;
my $repos = AllRepos.new: :#repo;
#my #packages = $repos.get: package => 'rakudo';
Let's say I want to connect to two package repositories, make a query for a package name, combine the result from the repos and process it (filter, unique, prioritize,...), What is a good way to do that?
The code you showed looks like one good way in principle but not, currently, in practice.
The hyperoperators such as >>:
Distribute an operation (in your case, connect and make a query) ...
... to the leaves of one or two input composite data structures (in your case the elements of one array #!repo) ...
... with logically parallel semantics (by using a hyperoperator you are declaring that you are taking responsibility for thinking that the parallel invocations of the operation will not interfere with each other, which sounds reasonable for connecting and querying) ...
... and then return a resulting composite data structure with the same shape as the original structure if the hyperoperator is a unary operator (which applies in your case, because you applied >>, which is an unary operator which takes a single argument on its left, so the result of the >>.get is just a new array, just like the input #!repo) or whose shape is the hyper'd combination of the shapes of the pair of structures if the hyperoperator is a binary operator, such as >>op<< ...
... which can then be further processed (in your case it is, with .unique, which will produce a resulting Seq) ...
... whose elements you then assign back into another array (#candidate).
So your choice is a decent fit in principle, but the commitment to parallelism is only semantic and right now the Rakudo compiler never takes advantage of it, so it will actually run your code sequentially, which presumably isn't a good fit in practice.
Instead I suggest you consider:
Using map to distribute an operation over multiple elements (in a shallow manner; map doesn't recursively descend into a deep structure like the hyperoperators, deepmap etc., but that's OK for your use case) ...
... in combination with the race method which parallelizes the method it proceeds.
So you might write:
my #candidate =
#!repo.hyper.map(*.get: :$package).unique(:with(&[eqv])).flat;
Alternatively, check out task 94 in Using Perl 6.
if the approach mention in the following link is suitable for this use case! https://perl6advent.wordpress.com/2013/12/08/day-08-array-based-objects/
I don't think so. That's about constructing a general purpose container that's like an array but with some differences to the built in Array that are worth baking into a new type.
I can just about imagine such things that are vaguely related to your use case -- eg an array type that automatically hyper distributes method calls invoked on it, if they're defined on Any or Mu (rather than Array or List), i.e. does what I described above but with the code #!repo.get... instead of hyper #!repo.map: *.get .... But would it be worth it (assuming it would work -- I haven't thought about it beyond inventing the idea for this answer)? I doubt it.
More generally...
It seems like what you are looking for is cookbook like material. Perhaps a question posted at the reddit sub /r/perl6 is in order?
In the process of learning Rust, I am getting acquainted with error propagation and the choice between unwrap and the ? operator. After writing some prototype code that only uses unwrap(), I would like to remove unwrap from reusable parts, where panicking on every error is inappropriate.
How would one avoid the use of unwrap in a closure, like in this example?
// todo is VecDeque<PathBuf>
let dir = fs::read_dir(&filename).unwrap();
todo.extend(dir.map(|dirent| dirent.unwrap().path()));
The first unwrap can be easily changed to ?, as long as the containing function returns Result<(), io::Error> or similar. However, the second unwrap, the one in dirent.unwrap().path(), cannot be changed to dirent?.path() because the closure must return a PathBuf, not a Result<PathBuf, io::Error>.
One option is to change extend to an explicit loop:
let dir = fs::read_dir(&filename)?;
for dirent in dir {
todo.push_back(dirent?.path());
}
But that feels wrong - the original extend was elegant and clearly reflected the intention of the code. (It might also have been more efficient than a sequence of push_backs.) How would an experienced Rust developer express error checking in such code?
How would one avoid the use of unwrap in a closure, like in this example?
Well, it really depends on what you wish to do upon failure.
should failure be reported to the user or be silent
if reported, should one failure be reported or all?
if a failure occur, should it interrupt processing?
For example, you could perfectly decide to silently ignore all failures and just skip the entries that fail. In this case, the Iterator::filter_map combined with Result::ok is exactly what you are asking for.
let dir = fs::read_dir(&filename)?;
let todos.extend(dir.filter_map(Result::ok));
The Iterator interface is full of goodies, it's definitely worth perusing when looking for tidier code.
Here is a solution based on filter_map suggested by Matthieu. It calls Result::map_err to ensure the error is "caught" and logged, sending it further to Result::ok and filter_map to remove it from iteration:
fn log_error(e: io::Error) {
eprintln!("{}", e);
}
(|| {
let dir = fs::read_dir(&filename)?;
todo.extend(dir
.filter_map(|res| res.map_err(log_error).ok()))
.map(|dirent| dirent.path()));
})().unwrap_or_else(log_error)
I grew up in the days when passing around structures was bad mojo because they are often large, so pointers were always the way to go. Now that C++11 has quite good RVO (right value optimization), I'm wondering if code like the following will be efficient.
As you can see, my class has a bunch of vector structures (not pointers to them). The constructor accepts value structures and stores them away.
My -hope- is that the compiler will use move semantics so that there really is no copying of data going on; the constructor will (when possible) just assume ownership of the values passed in.
Does anyone know if this is true, and happens automagically, or do I need a move constructor with the && syntax and so on?
// ParticleVertex
//
// Class that represents the particle vertices
class ParticleVertex : public Vertex
{
public:
D3DXVECTOR4 _vertexPosition;
D3DXVECTOR2 _vertexTextureCoordinate;
D3DXVECTOR3 _vertexDirection;
D3DXVECTOR3 _vertexColorMultipler;
ParticleVertex(D3DXVECTOR4 vertexPosition,
D3DXVECTOR2 vertexTextureCoordinate,
D3DXVECTOR3 vertexDirection,
D3DXVECTOR3 vertexColorMultipler)
{
_vertexPosition = vertexPosition;
_vertexTextureCoordinate = vertexTextureCoordinate;
_vertexDirection = vertexDirection;
_vertexColorMultipler = vertexColorMultipler;
}
virtual const D3DVERTEXELEMENT9 * GetVertexDeclaration() const
{
return particleVertexDeclarations;
}
};
Yes, indeed you should trust the compiler to optimally "move" the structures:
Want Speed? Pass By Value
Guideline: Don’t copy your function arguments. Instead, pass them by value and let the compiler do the copying
In this case, you'd move the arguments into the constructor call:
ParticleVertex myPV(std::move(pos),
std::move(textureCoordinate),
std::move(direction),
std::move(colorMultipler));
In many contexts, the std::move will be implicit, e.g.
D3DXVECTOR4 getFooPosition() {
D3DXVECTOR4 result;
// bla
return result; // NRVO, std::move only required with MSVC
}
ParticleVertex myPV(getFooPosition(), // implicit rvalue-reference moved
RVO means Return Value Optimization not Right value optimization.
RVO is a optimization performed by the compiler when the return of a function is by value, and its clear that the code returns a temporary object created in the body, so the copy can be avoided. The function returns the created object directly.
What C++11 introduces is Move Semantics. Move semantics allows us to "move" the resource from a certain temporary to a target object.
But, move implies that the object wich the resource comes from, is in a unusable state after the move. This is not the case (I think) you want in your class, because the vertex data is used by the class, even if the user calls to this function or not.
So, use the common return by const reference to avoid copies.
On the other hand,, DirectX provides handles to the resources (Pointers), not the real resource. Pointers are basic types,its copying is cheap, so don't worry about performance. In your case, you are using 2d/3d vectors. Its copying is cheap too.
Personally, I think that returning a pointer to an internal resource is a very bad idea, always. I think that in this case the best aproach is to return by const reference.
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
}
In my language I can use a class variable in my method when the definition appears below the method. It can also call methods below my method and etc. There are no 'headers'. Take this C# example.
class A
{
public void callMethods() { print(); B b; b.notYetSeen();
public void print() { Console.Write("v = {0}", v); }
int v=9;
}
class B
{
public void notYetSeen() { Console.Write("notYetSeen()\n"); }
}
How should I compile that? what i was thinking is:
pass1: convert everything to an AST
pass2: go through all classes and build a list of define classes/variable/etc
pass3: go through code and check if there's any errors such as undefined variable, wrong use etc and create my output
But it seems like for this to work I have to do pass 1 and 2 for ALL files before doing pass3. Also it feels like a lot of work to do until I find a syntax error (other than the obvious that can be done at parse time such as forgetting to close a brace or writing 0xLETTERS instead of a hex value). My gut says there is some other way.
Note: I am using bison/flex to generate my compiler.
My understanding of languages that handle forward references is that they typically just use the first pass to build a list of valid names. Something along the lines of just putting an entry in a table (without filling out the definition) so you have something to point to later when you do your real pass to generate the definitions.
If you try to actually build full definitions as you go, you would end up having to rescan repatedly, each time saving any references to undefined things until the next pass. Even that would fail if there are circular references.
I would go through on pass one and collect all of your class/method/field names and types, ignoring the method bodies. Then in pass two check the method bodies only.
I don't know that there can be any other way than traversing all the files in the source.
I think that you can get it down to two passes - on the first pass, build the AST and whenever you find a variable name, add it to a list that contains that blocks' symbols (it would probably be useful to add that list to the corresponding scope in the tree). Step two is to linearly traverse the tree and make sure that each symbol used references a symbol in that scope or a scope above it.
My description is oversimplified but the basic answer is -- lookahead requires at least two passes.
The usual approach is to save B as "unknown". It's probably some kind of type (because of the place where you encountered it). So you can just reserve the memory (a pointer) for it even though you have no idea what it really is.
For the method call, you can't do much. In a dynamic language, you'd just save the name of the method somewhere and check whether it exists at runtime. In a static language, you can save it in under "unknown methods" somewhere in your compiler along with the unknown type B. Since method calls eventually translate to a memory address, you can again reserve the memory.
Then, when you encounter B and the method, you can clear up your unknowns. Since you know a bit about them, you can say whether they behave like they should or if the first usage is now a syntax error.
So you don't have to read all files twice but it surely makes things more simple.
Alternatively, you can generate these header files as you encounter the sources and save them somewhere where you can find them again. This way, you can speed up the compilation (since you won't have to consider unchanged files in the next compilation run).
Lastly, if you write a new language, you shouldn't use bison and flex anymore. There are much better tools by now. ANTLR, for example, can produce a parser that can recover after an error, so you can still parse the whole file. Or check this Wikipedia article for more options.