Related
So, suppose I'm working in the world of discrete mathematics and I have some function
f: A x B x C -> D.
With this function I can make computations like f(a,b,c) = d. (I'm being vague here on purpose).
Now suppose I want to implement this computation explicitly in some modern OO programming language. So I initialize a variable called a of class ClassA and so on with b and c. Then what? Which object should own the computation? Or could it be an initializer. Could it be a static function?
I could have:
d = a.f_1(b,c),
d = b.f_2(a,c),
d = c.f_3(a,b),
d = new ObjD(a,b,c),
d = ZStatic.f_4(a,b,c)
all as plausible options, couldn't I?
Given the situation, should symmetry demand I implement all of these options?
I'd prefer to avoid the constructor approach completely, but beyond that I don't know what progress could be made other than the assumption of essentially arbitrary information.
So, what object should own the function $f$, if any?
To give the best answer, it is important to know what kind of variables you use.
A very important metric in oop is to achieve high cohesion. Cohesion is the degree to which the elements of a module belong together. If your variables a,b and c belong together in a specific context, then it should be the best solution to put them in exactly one class. And if they are in one class you should not worry about, which class should own the computation (your fourth solution).
Your last suggestion, to use a static function is also conceivable. This approach is often used in mathematic librarys in different kind of languages (e.g. Java: Math class)
I'm reading through Paulson's ML For the Working Programmer and am a bit confused about the distinction between datatypes and structures.
On p. 142, he defines a type for binary trees as follows:
datatype 'a tree = Lf
| Br of 'a * 'a tree * 'a tree;
This seems to be a recursive definition where 'a denotes some fixed type. So any time I see 'a, it must refer to the same type throughout.
On p. 148, he discusses a structure for binary trees:
"...we have been following an imaginary ML session in which we typed in the tree functions one at a time. Now we ought to collect the most important of those functions into a structure, called Tree. We really must do so, because one of our functions (size) clashes with a built-in function. One reason for using structures is to prevent such name clashes.
We shall, however, leave the datatype declaration of tree outside of the structure. If it were inside, we should be forced to refer to the constructors by Tree.Lf and Tree.Br, which would make our patters unreadable. Thus, in the sequel, imagine that we have made the following declarations:
datatype 'a tree = Lf
| Br of 'a * 'a tree * 'a tree;
structure Tree =
struct
fun size Lf = 0
| size (Br( v, t1, t2)) = 1 + size t1 + size t2;
fun depth...
etc...
end;
I'm a little confused.
1) What is the relationship between a datatype and a structure?
2) What is the role of "struct" within the structure definition?
3) Later on, Paulson discusses a structure for dictionaries as binary search trees. He does the following:
structure Dict : DICTIONARY =
struct
type key = string;
type 'a t = (key * 'a) tree;
val empty = Lf;
<a bunch of functions for dictionaries>
This makes me think struct specifies the different primitive or compound types involved int he definition of a Dict.
That's a really fuzzy definition though. Anyone like to clarify?
Thanks for the help,
bclayman
A structure is a module. Everything between the struct and end keywords forms the body of this module. Similarly, you can view a signature as the description of an abstract module interface. Ascribing a signature to a structure (like the : DICTIONARY syntax does in your example) limits the exports of the module to what is specified in that signature (by default, everything would be accessible). That allows you to hide implementation details of a module.
However, ML modules are much richer than that. They can be arbitrarily nested. There are also functors, which are effectively functions from modules to modules ("parameterised modules", if you want). Altogether, the module language in ML forms a full functional language on its own, with structures as the basic entities, functors over them, and signatures describing the "types" of such modules. This little language is a layer on top of the so-called core language, where ordinary values and types live.
So, to answer your individual questions:
1) There is no specific relationship between the datatype and the structure. The latter simply uses the former.
2) struct-end is simply a keyword pair to delimit the structure body (languages in C tradition would probably use curly braces there).
3) As explained above, a structure is a basic module. It can contain (and export) arbitrary other language entities, including other modules. By grouping definitions together, and potentially hiding some of them through a signature ascription, you can express namespacing and encapsulation (in particular, abstract data types).
I should also note that Paulson's book is outdated regarding its description of modules, as it predates the current language version. In particular, it does not describe how to express abstract data types through modules, but instead introduces the obsolete abstype declaration which nobody has been using in almost 20 years. A more extensive and up-to-date introduction to modular programming in ML can be found in Harper's Programming in Standard ML.
In this example, the datatype 'a tree is describing a binary tree (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_tree) that is capable of storing any value of a single type. The 'a in the definition is a variant type which will later be constrained down to a concrete type wherever tree is used with a different type. This allows you to define the structure of a tree once and then use it with any type later on.
The Tree structure is separate from the datatype definition. It is being used to group functions together that operate on the 'a tree datatype. It is being used right now as a way to modularize the code and, as it points out, to prevent namespace clashes.
struct is just an identifier keyword to let the compiler know where your structure definition starts while the end keyword is used to let the compiler know where the definition ends.
The dictionary structure is defining a dictionary (a key -> value data structure) that uses a tree as the internal data structure. Once again, the structure is a collection of functions that will be used to create and operate on dictionaries. The types within the dictionary structure compose the type of the internal data structure that makes up the dictionary. The following functions define the public interface that you're exposing to allow clients to work with dictionaries.
I have a lot to learn in the way of OO patterns and this is a problem I've come across over the years. I end up in situations where my classes' sole purpose is procedural, just basically wrapping a procedure up in a class. It doesn't seem like the right OO way to do things, and I wonder if someone is experienced with this problem enough to help me consider it in a different way. My specific example in the current application follows.
In my application I'm taking a set of points from engineering survey equipment and normalizing them to be used elsewhere in the program. By "normalize" I mean a set of transformations of the full data set until a destination orientation is reached.
Each transformation procedure will take the input of an array of points (i.e. of the form class point { float x; float y; float z; }) and return an array of the same length but with different values. For example, a transformation like point[] RotateXY(point[] inList, float angle). The other kind of procedure wold be of the analysis type, used to supplement the normalization process and decide what transformation to do next. This type of procedure takes in the same points as a parameter but returns a different kind of dataset.
My question is, what is a good pattern to use in this situation? The one I was about to code in was a Normalization class which inherits class types of RotationXY for instance. But RotationXY's sole purpose is to rotate the points, so it would basically be implementing a single function. This doesn't seem very nice, though, for the reasons I mentioned in the first paragraph.
Thanks in advance!
The most common/natural approach for finding candidate classes in your problem domain is to look for nouns and then scan for the verbs/actions associated with those nouns to find the behavior that each class should implement. While this is generally a good advise, it doesn't mean that your objects must only represent concrete elements. When processes (which are generally modeled as methods) start to grow and become complex, it is a good practice to model them as objects. So, if your transformation has a weight on its own, it is ok to model it as an object and do something like:
class RotateXY
{
public function apply(point p)
{
//Apply the transformation
}
}
t = new RotateXY();
newPoint = t->apply(oldPoint);
in case you have many transformations you can create a polymorphic hierarchy and even chain one transformation after another. If you want to dig a bit deeper you can also take a look at the Command design pattern, which closely relates to this.
Some final comments:
If it fits your case, it is a good idea to model the transformation at the point level and then apply it to a collection of points. In that way you can properly isolate the transformation concept and is also easier to write test cases. You can later even create a Composite of transformations if you need.
I generally don't like the Utils (or similar) classes with a bunch of static methods, since in most of the cases it means that your model is missing the abstraction that should carry that behavior.
HTH
Typically, when it comes to classes that contain only static methods, I name them Util, e.g. DbUtil for facading DB access, FileUtil for file I/O etc. So find some term that all your methods have in common and name it that Util. Maybe in your case GeometryUtil or something along those lines.
Since the particulars of the transformations you apply seem ad-hoc for the problem and possibly prone to change in the future you could code them in a configuration file.
The point's client would read from the file and know what to do. As for the rotation or any other transformation method, they could go well as part of the Point class.
I see nothing particularly wrong with classes/interfaces having just essentially one member.
In your case the member is an "Operation with some arguments of one type that returns same type" - common for some math/functional problems. You may find convenient to have interface/base class and helper methods that combine multiple transformation classes together into more complex transformation.
Alternative approach: if you language support it is just go functional style altogether (similar to LINQ in C#).
On functional style suggestion: I's start with following basic functions (probably just find them in standard libraries for the language)
collection = map(collection, perItemFunction) to transform all items in a collection (Select in C#)
item = reduce (collection, agregateFunction) to reduce all items into single entity (Aggregate in C#)
combine 2 functions on item funcOnItem = combine(funcFirst, funcSecond). Can be expressed as lambda in C# Func<T,T> combined = x => second(first(x)).
"bind"/curry - fix one of arguments of a function functionOfOneArg = curry(funcOfArgs, fixedFirstArg). Can be expressed in C# as lambda Func<T,T> curried = x => funcOfTwoArg(fixedFirstArg, x).
This list will let you do something like "turn all points in collection on a over X axis by 10 and shift Y by 15": map(points, combine(curry(rotateX, 10), curry(shiftY(15))).
The syntax will depend on language. I.e. in JavaScript you just pass functions (and map/reduce are part of language already), C# - lambda and Func classes (like on argument function - Func<T,R>) are an option. In some languages you have to explicitly use class/interface to represent a "function" object.
Alternative approach: If you actually dealing with points and transformation another traditional approach is to use Matrix to represent all linear operations (if your language supports custom operators you get very natural looking code).
i know this question has been already asked, but i didnt get it quite right, i would like to know, which is the base one, class or the type. I have few questions, please clear those for me,
Is type the base of a programing data type?
type is hard coded into the language itself. Class is something we can define ourselves?
What is untyped languages, please give some examples
type is not something that fall in to the oop concepts, I mean it is not restricted to oop world
Please clear this for me, thanks.
I didn't work with many languages. Maybe, my questions are correct in terms of : Java, C#, Objective-C
1/ I think type is actually data type in some way people talk about it.
2/ No. Both type and class we can define it. An object of Class A has type A. For example if we define String s = "123"; then s has a type String, belong to class String. But the vice versa is not correct.
For example:
class B {}
class A extends B {}
B b = new A();
then you can say b has type B and belong to both class A and B. But b doesn't have type A.
3/ untyped language is a language that allows you to change the type of the variable, like in javascript.
var s = "123"; // type string
s = 123; // then type integer
4/ I don't know much but I think it is not restricted to oop. It can be procedural programming as well
It may well depend on the language. I treat types and classes as the same thing in OO, only making a distinction between class (the definition of a family of objects) and instance (or object), specific concrete occurrences of a class.
I come originally from a C world where there was no real difference between language-defined types like int and types that you made yourself with typedef or struct.
Likewise, in C++, there's little difference (probably none) between std::string and any class you put together yourself, other than the fact that std::string will almost certainly be bug-free by now. The same isn't always necessary in our own code :-)
I've heard people suggest that types are classes without methods but I don't believe that distinction (again because of my C/C++ background).
There is a fundamental difference in some languages between integral (in the sense of integrated rather than integer) types and class types. Classes can be extended but int and float (examples for C++) cannot.
In OOP languages, a class specifies the definition of an object. In many cases, that object can serve as a type for things like parameter matching in a function.
So, for an example, when you define a function, you specify the type of data that should be passed to the function and the type of data that is returned:
int AddOne(int value) { return value+1; } uses int types for the return value and the parameter being passed in.
In languages that have both, the concepts of type and class/object can almost become interchangeable. However, there are many languages that do not have both. For instance, I believe that standard C has no support for custom-defined objects, but it certainly does still have types. On the otherhand, both PHP and Javascript are examples of languages where type is very loosely defined (basically, types are either single item, collection/array/object, or undefined [js only]), but they have full support for classes/objects.
Another key difference: you can have methods and custom-functions associated with a class/object, but not with a standard data-type.
Hopefully that clarified some. To answer your specific questions:
In some ways, type could be considered a base concept of programming, yes.
Yes, with the exception that classes can be treated as types in functions, as in the example above.
An untyped language is one that lets you use any type of variable interchangeably. Meaning that you can handle a string with the same code that handles an int, for instance. In practice most 'untyped' languages actually implement a concept called duck-typing, so named because they say that 'if it acts like a duck, it should be treated like a duck' and attempt to use any variable as the type that makes sense for the code encountered. Again, php and javascript are two languages which do this.
Very true, type is applicable outside of the OOP world.
I am a C# developer. Coming from OO side of the world, I start with thinking in terms of interfaces, classes and type hierarchies. Because of lack of OO in Haskell, sometimes I find myself stuck and I cannot think of a way to model certain problems with Haskell.
How to model, in Haskell, real world situations involving class hierarchies such as the one shown here: http://www.braindelay.com/danielbray/endangered-object-oriented-programming/isHierarchy-4.gif
First of all: Standard OO design is not going to work nicely in Haskell. You can fight the language and try to make something similar, but it will be an exercise in frustration. So step one is look for Haskell-style solutions to your problem instead of looking for ways to write an OOP-style solution in Haskell.
But that's easier said than done! Where to even start?
So, let's disassemble the gritty details of what OOP does for us, and think about how those might look in Haskell.
Objects: Roughly speaking, an object is the combination of some data with methods operating on that data. In Haskell, data is normally structured using algebraic data types; methods can be thought of as functions taking the object's data as an initial, implicit argument.
Encapsulation: However, the ability to inspect an object's data is usually limited to its own methods. In Haskell, there are various ways to hide a piece of data, two examples are:
Define the data type in a separate module that doesn't export the type's constructors. Only functions in that module can inspect or create values of that type. This is somewhat comparable to protected or internal members.
Use partial application. Consider the function map with its arguments flipped. If you apply it to a list of Ints, you'll get a function of type (Int -> b) -> [b]. The list you gave it is still "there", in a sense, but nothing else can use it except through the function. This is comparable to private members, and the original function that's being partially applied is comparable to an OOP-style constructor.
"Ad-hoc" polymorphism: Often, in OO programming we only care that something implements a method; when we call it, the specific method called is determined based on the actual type. Haskell provides type classes for compile-time function overloading, which are in many ways more flexible than what's found in OOP languages.
Code reuse: Honestly, my opinion is that code reuse via inheritance was and is a mistake. Mix-ins as found in something like Ruby strike me as a better OO solution. At any rate, in any functional language, the standard approach is to factor out common behavior using higher-order functions, then specialize the general-purpose form. A classic example here are fold functions, which generalize almost all iterative loops, list transformations, and linearly recursive functions.
Interfaces: Depending on how you're using an interface, there are different options:
To decouple implementation: Polymorphic functions with type class constraints are what you want here. For example, the function sort has type (Ord a) => [a] -> [a]; it's completely decoupled from the details of the type you give it other than it must be a list of some type implementing Ord.
Working with multiple types with a shared interface: For this you need either a language extension for existential types, or to keep it simple, use some variation on partial application as above--instead of values and functions you can apply to them, apply the functions ahead of time and work with the results.
Subtyping, a.k.a. the "is-a" relationship: This is where you're mostly out of luck. But--speaking from experience, having been a professional C# developer for years--cases where you really need subtyping aren't terribly common. Instead, think about the above, and what behavior you're trying to capture with the subtyping relationship.
You might also find this blog post helpful; it gives a quick summary of what you'd use in Haskell to solve the same problems that some standard Design Patterns are often used for in OOP.
As a final addendum, as a C# programmer, you might find it interesting to research the connections between it and Haskell. Quite a few people responsible for C# are also Haskell programmers, and some recent additions to C# were heavily influenced by Haskell. Most notable is probably the monadic structure underlying LINQ, with IEnumerable being essentially the list monad.
Let's assume the following operations: Humans can speak, Dogs can bark, and all members of a species can mate with members of the same species if they have opposite gender. I would define this in haskell like this:
data Gender = Male | Female deriving Eq
class Species s where
gender :: s -> Gender
-- Returns true if s1 and s2 can conceive offspring
matable :: Species a => a -> a -> Bool
matable s1 s2 = gender s1 /= gender s2
data Human = Man | Woman
data Canine = Dog | Bitch
instance Species Human where
gender Man = Male
gender Woman = Female
instance Species Canine where
gender Dog = Male
gender Bitch = Female
bark Dog = "woof"
bark Bitch = "wow"
speak Man s = "The man says " ++ s
speak Woman s = "The woman says " ++ s
Now the operation matable has type Species s => s -> s -> Bool, bark has type Canine -> String and speak has type Human -> String -> String.
I don't know whether this helps, but given the rather abstract nature of the question, that's the best I could come up with.
Edit: In response to Daniel's comment:
A simple hierarchy for collections could look like this (ignoring already existing classes like Foldable and Functor):
class Foldable f where
fold :: (a -> b -> a) -> a -> f b -> a
class Foldable m => Collection m where
cmap :: (a -> b) -> m a -> m b
cfilter :: (a -> Bool) -> m a -> m a
class Indexable i where
atIndex :: i a -> Int -> a
instance Foldable [] where
fold = foldl
instance Collection [] where
cmap = map
cfilter = filter
instance Indexable [] where
atIndex = (!!)
sumOfEvenElements :: (Integral a, Collection c) => c a -> a
sumOfEvenElements c = fold (+) 0 (cfilter even c)
Now sumOfEvenElements takes any kind of collection of integrals and returns the sum of all even elements of that collection.
Instead of classes and objects, Haskell uses abstract data types. These are really two compatible views on the problem of organizing ways of constructing and observing information. The best help I know of on this subject is William Cook's essay Object-Oriented Programming Versus Abstract Data Types. He has some very clear explanations to the effect that
In a class-based system, code is organized around different ways of constructing abstractions. Generally each different way of constructing an abstraction is assigned its own class. The methods know how to observe properties of that construction only.
In an ADT-based system (like Haskell), code is organized around different ways of observing abstractions. Generally each different way of observing an abstraction is assigned its own function. The function knows all the ways the abstraction could be constructed, and it knows how to observe a single property, but of any construction.
Cook's paper will show you a nice matrix layout of abstractions and teach you how to organize any class as an ADY or vice versa.
Class hierarchies involve one more element: the reuse of implementations through inheritance. In Haskell, such reuse is achieved through first-class functions instead: a function in a Primate abstraction is a value and an implementation of the Human abstraction can reuse any functions of the Primate abstraction, can wrap them to modify their results, and so on.
There is not an exact fit between design with class hierarchies and design with abstract data types. If you try to transliterate from one to the other, you will wind up with something awkward and not idiomatic—kind of like a FORTRAN program written in Java.
But if you understand the principles of class hierarchies and the principles of abstract data types, you can take a solution to a problem in one style and craft a reasonably idiomatic solution to the same problem in the other style. It does take practice.
Addendum: It's also possible to use Haskell's type-class system to try to emulate class hierarchies, but that's a different kettle of fish. Type classes are similar enough to ordinary classes that a number of standard examples work, but they are different enough that there can also be some very big surprises and misfits. While type classes are an invaluable tool for a Haskell programmer, I would recommend that anyone learning Haskell learn to design programs using abstract data types.
Haskell is my favorite language, is a pure functional language.
It does not have side effects, there is no assignment.
If you find to hard the transition to this language, maybe F# is a better place to start with functional programming. F# is not pure.
Objects encapsulate states, there is a way to achieve this in Haskell, but this is one of the issues that takes more time to learn because you must learn some category theory concepts to deeply understand monads. There is syntactic sugar that lets you see monads like non destructive assignment, but in my opinion it is better to spend more time understanding the basis of category theory (the notion of category) to get a better understanding.
Before trying to program in OO style in Haskell, you should ask yourself if you really use the object oriented style in C#, many programmers use OO languages, but their programs are written in the structured style.
The data declaration allows you to define data structures combining products (equivalent to structure in C language) and unions (equivalent to union in C), the deriving part o the declaration allows to inherit default methods.
A data type (data structure) belongs to a class if has an implementation of the set of methods in the class.
For example, if you can define a show :: a -> String method for your data type, then it belong to the class Show, you can define your data type as an instance of the Show class.
This is different of the use of class in some OO languages where it is used as a way to define structures + methods.
A data type is abstract if it is independent of it's implementation. You create, mutate, and destroy the object by an abstract interface, you do not need to know how it is implemented.
Abstraction is supported in Haskell, it is very easy to declare.
For example this code from the Haskell site:
data Tree a = Nil
| Node { left :: Tree a,
value :: a,
right :: Tree a }
declares the selectors left, value, right.
the constructors may be defined as follows if you want to add them to the export list in the module declaration:
node = Node
nil = Nil
Modules are build in a similar way as in Modula. Here is another example from the same site:
module Stack (Stack, empty, isEmpty, push, top, pop) where
empty :: Stack a
isEmpty :: Stack a -> Bool
push :: a -> Stack a -> Stack a
top :: Stack a -> a
pop :: Stack a -> (a,Stack a)
newtype Stack a = StackImpl [a] -- opaque!
empty = StackImpl []
isEmpty (StackImpl s) = null s
push x (StackImpl s) = StackImpl (x:s)
top (StackImpl s) = head s
pop (StackImpl (s:ss)) = (s,StackImpl ss)
There is more to say about this subject, I hope this comment helps!