I'm asking myself what the language designers intention behind the also scope function was and if almost everyone is misusing it.
If you search here on stack overflow for examples of Kotlins scope functions, you'll end up with this accepted answer: https://stackoverflow.com/a/45977254/5122729
The given answer for also { } is
also - use it when you want to use apply, but don't want to shadow
this
class FruitBasket {
private var weight = 0
fun addFrom(appleTree: AppleTree) {
val apple = appleTree.pick().also { apple ->
this.weight += apple.weight
add(apple)
}
...
}
...
fun add(fruit: Fruit) = ... }
Using apply here would shadow this, so that this.weight would refer to
the apple, and not to the fruit basket.
That's also the usage I see quite often. But if I have a look into the documentation at kotlinlang.org, they are clearly saying:
also is good for performing some actions that take the context object
as an argument. Use also for additional actions that don't alter the
object, such as logging or printing debug information. Usually, you
can remove the calls of also from the call chain without breaking the
program logic.
From that point of view, the given example would be wrong as it would break the program logic if it is removed. For me, also is kind of Javas peek (doc), which is there, but should not be used for productive program logic.
Can someone enlighten me?
After having a longer discussion on Reddit about this topic, the documentation was adjusted in a way were the sentence
Usually, you can remove the calls of also from the call chain without
breaking the program logic.
was removed. See the corresponding PR: https://github.com/JetBrains/kotlin-web-site/pull/1676
Consider a Python module (but it is relevant to other language) with a series of functions meant to be used sequentialy.
Namely, functions are semantically linked according to the following scheme:
def function_a_to_b(thing_a):
"""Compute the thing_b."""
thing_b = thing_a**2
return thing_b
def function_b_to_c(thing_b):
"""Compute the thing_c."""
thing_c = thing_b**3
return thing_c
In this trivial example, a candidate name for function_a_to_b could be squaring and thing_a could be named square, and likewise we could use cubin and cube.
Now if thing_a is something complicated that does not support verbing, say a weighted_glonk.
How can I name function_a_to_b to keep things short, obvious, and avoid variable clash or error prone namespace subtleties?
I incline towards compute_weighted_glonk for the function. Another option is hungarian naming, say array_weighted_glonk for the thing
It depends what you want to do with that glonk, but you are mostly right with compute_wighted_glonk. If you want to compute him, then name that function compute_glonk(), if you want to get his name, the function would probably be get_name_of_glonk(). Lot of people will have lot of suggestions, there are lot of ways to name your functions. Was my answer enought?
If it is a complicated thing that doesn't support verbing, then i would suggest to create a class for it and create the thing by the constructor.
My advice is to find a balance between short and verbose in naming --Dmitri Pavlutin
Don't be afraid to use an auxiliary word. In plain english you wouldn't struggle with "The plant growthed..." but simply go with "The plant presented growth...".
Back to your example like cube/cubing you may write glonk/obtainGlonk or glonk/calculateGlonk.
Also, focus on the readability more than keeping the verbing standard which at the end of the day is what the fellow programmer will read. Your verbed word, is what, an effect? Keep it that way.
Your action should describe a change that has happened in your system
My fifty cents: I would argue against introducing naming conventions to reveal computational structure (Robert Martin: "We have enough encodings to deal with without adding more to our burden" [Clean Code, p.23]). If your functions are meant to be called in a strict order, you should encapsulate them in another function that does precisely that; or create some kind of latch, if that's approriate.
I don't know python, so I'd like to answer from javascript perspective. I can't figure out what you mean by a glonk and something that does not support verbing in programming context. thing_a can, at most be, as complicated as another array,object or another callable function -- in those cases you can put type checks in function_a_to_b. Also, Compute the thing_b can be replaced by another function if it involves multiple operations. What I would do is the following:
//I'm using $ for var names just for semantics.
//$var is a php usage but I want to emphasise
//what things are variables.
function myComputer($thing){
if(typeof($thing) == ("object")) {
//take total no of properties or whatever you want
return Object.keys($thing).length;
}
else if(typeof($thing) == ("number")) {
return $thing;
}
else if(typeof($thing) == ("string")) {
return $thing.length;
}
else {
return 0;
}
}
function mySquarer($a) { //sementic naming instead of function_a_to_b
var $b = Math.pow(myComputer($a),2); //In your original version whats the point of computing thing_b if you wanna reassign a different value afterwards?
return $b;
}
function myCuber($b) { //When you call myCuber you can do myCuber(mySquarer($anything));
var $c = Math.pow(myComputer($b),3);
return $c;
}
console.log(mySquarer(3));
console.log(myCuber(mySquarer(2)));
Could someone help me to understand the difference between:
Mono.defer()
Mono.create()
Mono.just()
How to use it properly?
Mono.just(value) is the most primitive - once you have a value you can wrap it into a Mono and subscribers down the line will get it.
Mono.defer(monoSupplier) lets you provide the whole expression that supplies the resulting Mono instance. The evaluation of this expression is deferred until somebody subscribes. Inside of this expression you can additionally use control structures like Mono.error(throwable) to signal an error condition (you cannot do this with Mono.just).
Mono.create(monoSinkConsumer) is the most advanced method that gives you the full control over the emitted values. Instead of the need to return Mono instance from the callback (as in Mono.defer), you get control over the MonoSink<T> that lets you emit values through MonoSink.success(), MonoSink.success(value), MonoSink.error(throwable) methods.
Reactor documentation contains a few good examples of possible Mono.create use cases: link to doc.
The general advice is to use the least powerful abstraction to do the job: Mono.just -> Mono.defer -> Mono.create.
Although in general I agree with (and praise) #IlyaZinkovich's answer, I would be careful with the advice
The general advice is to use the least powerful abstraction to do the job: Mono.just -> Mono.defer -> Mono.create.
In the reactive approach, especially if we are beginners, it's very easy to overlook which the "least powerful abstraction" actually is. I am not saying anything else than #IlyaZinkovich, just depicting one detailed aspect.
Here is one specific use case where the more powerful abstraction Mono.defer() is preferable over Mono.just() but which might not be visible at the first glance.
See also:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/54412779/2886891
https://stackoverflow.com/a/57877616/2886891
We use switchIfEmpty() as a subscription-time branching:
// First ask provider1
provider1.provide1(someData)
// If provider1 did not provide the result, ask the fallback provider provider2
.switchIfEmpty(provider2.provide2(someData))
public Mono<MyResponse> provide2(MyRequest someData) {
// The Mono assembly is needed only in some corner cases
// but in fact it is always happening
return Mono.just(someData)
// expensive data processing which might even fail in the assemble time
.map(...)
.map(...)
...
}
provider2.provide2() accepts someData only when provider1.provide1() does not return any result, and/or the method assembly of the Mono returned by provider2.provide2() is expensive and even fails when called on wrong data.
It this case defer() is preferable, even if it might not be obvious at the first glance:
provider1.provide1(someData)
// ONLY IF provider1 did not provide the result, assemble another Mono with provider2.provide()
.switchIfEmpty(Mono.defer(() -> provider2.provide2(someData)))
I populate an object based on the users input from the commandline.
The object needs to have a certain amount of data to proceed. My solution so far is nested if-statements to check if the object is ready. Like below example.
Maybe 3 if-statements aren't so bad(?) but what if that number of if-statements starts to increase? What are my alternatives here? Let's say that X, Y and Z are three completely different things. For example let's say that object.X is a list of integers and object.Y is a string and maybe Z is some sort of boolean to return true only if object.Y has a certain amount of values?
I'm not sure polymorhism will work in this case?
do
{
if (object.HasX)
{
if (object.HasY)
{
if (object.HasZ)
{
//Object is ready to proceed.
}
else
{
//Object is missing Z. Handle it...
}
}
else
{
//Object is missing Y. Handle it...
}
}
else
{
//Object is missing X. Handle it...
}
} while (!String.IsNullOrEmpty(line));
For complex logic workflow, I have found, it's important for maintainability to decide which level of abstraction the logic should live in.
Will new logic/parsing rules have to be added regularly?
Unfortunately, there isn't a way to avoid having to do explicit conditionals, they have to live somewhere.
Some things that can help keep it clean could be:
Main function is only responsible for converting command line arguments to native datatypes, then it pushes the logic down to an object builder class, This will keep main function stable and unchanged, except for adding flag descriptions, THis should keep the logic out of the domain, and centralized to the builder abstraction
Main function is responsible for parsing and configuring the domain, this isolates all the messy conditionals in the main/parsing function and keeps the logic outside of the domain models
Flatten the logic, if not object.hasX; return, next step you know has.X, this will still have a list of conditionals but will be flatter
Create a DSL declarative rule language (more apparent when flattening). This could be a rule processor, where the logic lives, then the outer main function could define that states that are necessary to proceed
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
}