Related
In statically typed language, people are able to use algebraic data type to abstract data and also generate constructors, or use class, trait and mixin to deal with data abstraction.
In dynamically typed language, like Python and Ruby, they all provide a class system to users.
But what about scheme, the simplest functional language, the closest one to λ-calculi, how does it abstract data?
Do scheme programmers usually just put data in a list or a lambda abstraction, and write some accessor function to make it look like a tree or something else? like EOPL says: specifying data via interfaces.
And then how does this abstraction technique relate to abstract data type (ADT) and objects? with regard to On understanding data abstraction, revisited.
What SICP (and I guess, EOPL) is advocating is just using functions to access data; then you can always switch one set of functions for another, implementing the same named set of functions to work with another concrete implementation. And that (i.e. the sets of such functions) is what forms the "interfaces", and that's what you put in different source files, and by just loading the appropriate one you can switch the concrete implementation while all the other code is none the wiser. That's what makes it "abstract" datatype.
As for the algebraic data types, the old bare-bones Scheme way is to create closures (that hold and hide the data) which respond to "messages" and thus become "objects" (something about "Scheme mailboxes"). This gives us products, i.e. records, and functions we get for free from Scheme itself. For sum types, just as in C/C++, we can use tagged unions in a disciplined manner (or, again, hide the specifics behind a set of "interface" functions).
EOPL has something called "variant-case" which handles such sum types in a manner similar to pattern matching. Searching brings up e.g. this link saying
I'm using DrScheme w/ the EOPL textbook, which uses define-record and variant-case. I've got the macro definitions from the PLT site, but am now dealing with ...
so seems relevant, as one example.
What is the difference between Type-pool and creating a class for constants?
What is better?
My question is for a large group of constants and to be accessible to other groups.
Thank you
EDIT - Thank you for the answers and I will improve my question. I need something to store constants and I will use them on programs or other classes. Basically, I wanted to know if it is better to use a type-pool or a class with constants (only). I can have more than one class or type-pool.
The documentation mentions this:
Since it is possible to also define data types and constants in the public visibility section of global classes, type groups are obsolete and should no longer be created. Existing type groups can still be used.
A sensibly named interface with the constants you desire is the way to go. An additional benefit is that ABAP OO enforces some more rules.
Agree with #petul's answer, except for one detail: I'd recommend creating one enumeration-like class per logical group of constants, instead of collecting constants in interfaces.
Consider using the new enum language feature for specifying the constant values.
Interfaces can be accidentally "implemented", which doesn't make sense here. Classes can prevent this with final.
Making one class per logical group simplifies finding the constants with IDE features such as Ctrl+Shift+A search in the ABAP Development Tools. Constants that are randomly thrown together into interfaces are hard to find later on.
Classes allow adding enumeration-like helper methods like converters, existence checks, numbering all values.
Classes also allow adding unit tests, such as ensuring that the constant collection is still in sync with the fixed values of an underlying domain.
Given Object1 and Object2, are there any techniques for determining if they both implement a common interface? No problem if the interface is known at compile time (use typeof ... is [known interface]), but what about if interface isn't specified at compile time?
Specific use case is implementing a strongly typed collection object. I only want to add Object2 if it shares a common interface as Object1. Typename doesn't work since it returns the underlying object type and I may have two distinct objects each implementing ISomeInterface but on different underlying classes.
An example that doesn't quite work can be found here (as it relies on typename but that doesn't allow for interface comparisons)
Specifically, expanding the IsTypeSafe function found here on CodeReview but adapted so that if an object supports an interface common to all previously added items, it can be added to the list.
Specific question: is there a way to determine if two objects both implement a common interface that is unspecified at compile time?
I got really confused with your "unspecified at compile time" wording, but the crux of your question is here:
if an object supports an interface common to all previously added items, it can be added to the list.
In other words, you're asking if there's a way to do this in VBA (pseudo-mish-mash of VBA/C#):
isOk = item.Type.Interfaces.Any(i => other.Type.Interfaces.Contains(i))
In order to be able to inspect an object variable's implemented interfaces, you'd need to be able to inspect its type at run-time. This ability is called "reflection"... and VBA can't do that.
Rubberduck (disclaimer: I manage this OSS VBIDE add-in project) has a COM API that might eventually grow to support exactly that though (it's open-source, implement it - we are very happy to take pull requests!), but in order to work its magic it needs to literally parse and resolve the entire project and all its references, which means using reflection for what you'd like to use it for, would be a massive performance hit.
A "type-safe" List class in VBA is basically smokes & mirrors. Sorry!
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
Our company keeps a MiscUtilities class that consists solely of public static methods that do often unrelated tasks like converting dates from String to Calendar and writing ArrayLists to files. We refer to it in other classes and find it pretty convenient. However, I've seen that sort of Utilities class derided on TheDailyWTF. I'm just wondering if there's any actual downside to this sort of class, and what the alternatives are.
Rather than giving personal opinion, I will quote from an authoritative source in the Java community, and examples from 2 very reputable third party libraries.
A quote from Effective Java 2nd Edition, Item 4: Enforce noninstantiability with a private constructor:
Occasionally you'll want to write a class that is just a grouping of static methods and static fields. Such classes have acquired a bad reputation because some people abuse them to avoid thinking in terms of objects, but they do have valid uses. They can be used to group related methods on primitive values or arrays, in the manner of java.lang.Math or java.util.Arrays. They can also be used to group static methods, including factory methods, for objects that implements a particular interface, in the manner of java.util.Collections. Lastly, they can be used to group methods on a final class, instead of extending the class.
Java libraries has many examples of such utility classes.
Apache Commons Lang follows the TypeUtils naming convention
ArrayUtils, StringUtils, ObjectUtils, BooleanUtils, etc
Guava follows the Types naming convention
Objects, Strings, Throwables, Collections2, Iterators, Iterables, Lists, Maps, etc.
The package summary actually has a specific section on classes of static utility methods
Another entire package consists of nothing but utility classes for working with Java primitives, Ints, Floats, Booleans, etc.
Short summary
Prefer good OOP design, always
static utility classes have valid uses to group related methods on:
Primitives (since they're not objects)
Interfaces (since they can't have anything concrete of their own)
final classes (since they're not extensible)
Prefer good organization, always
Group utility methods for SomeType to SomeTypeUtils or SomeTypes
Avoid a single big utility class that contains various unrelated tasks on different types/concepts
Convenient, most likely.
Possible to grow into a scary, hard to maintain swiss-army-rocket-chainsaw-and-floor-polisher, also most likely.
I'd recommend separating the various tasks into separate classes, with some logical grouping besides "won't fit anywhere else".
The risk here is that the class becomes a tangled mess nobody fully comprehends and noone dares to touch - or replace. If you feel that is an acceptable risk and/or avoidable under your circumstances, nothing really prevents you from using it.
I've never been a fan of the MiscUtilities class. My biggest issue is that I never know what is in it. Anything filed under miscellaneous is not discoverable. Instead I prefer to use a common dll that I can import into my projects that contains well named, separated classes for different purposes. The difference is subtle, but I find that it makes my life a little easier.
For languages that support functions, this sort of class is undeniably bad form.
For languages that don't, this sort of class isn't, and is probably superior to extending other classes with random utility methods. The static utility methods, because they are in some other class, can only use the public interface of the objects they handle, which decreases the likelihood of certain kinds of bug. And this approach also avoids polluting public interfaces with a random grab bag of whatever people happened to find useful at the time.
There's a certain amount of personal style involved of course. I'm not a big believer in classes that provide everything under the sun (even C++'s std::string is a tad over-featured for my taste) and tend to prefer to have helper functionality as separate functions. Makes maintenance of the class easier, forces the public interface to be useful and efficient, and with duck-typing style mechanisms the external functions can be used across a wide range of types without having to duplicate source text or share base classes and so on. (The oft-derided algorithms in the C++ Standard Library are a good demonstration of this, imperfect and verbose as they are.)
That said, I've worked with many who complain about strings that don't know how to interpret themselves as filenames, or split themselves into words, or what have you, and so on. (I pick on strings because they seem to be the prime target for utility functions...) I happen to think there are unseen maintenance and reliability costs associated with having large classes like that, quite apart from the ugliness of having a nominally simple class that's actually a vast illogical mishmash of unrelated concerns whose grubby fingers end up poking themselves into every last corner -- because your self-tokenizing string needs some kind of container to put the tokens in, right?! -- but it's a balancing act, even if my wording suggests it's more clean-cut than that.
I'm not a big believer in the notion of "OO dogma", but perhaps the paranoid might see it at work here. There's no good reason that all functionality should be attached to a particular class, and many good reasons why it should not. But some languages still don't allow the creation of functions, which does nothing to remove the need for them and forces people to work around the restriction by creating classes that consist of nothing but static methods. This rather overloads the meaning of the class concept, to my mind, and not in any good way.
So that IS a good reason to rail against this practice, but it's pretty futile unless the language changes to accommodate what people need to do. And languages don't come without functions unless their designers have an axe to grind, or there are technical reasons for it, so I should think that change in either case is unlikely.
I suppose the executive summary is: no.
Well, bad utility classes are derided on TheDailyWTF :)
There's really nothing wrong with having a generic utilities class for miscellaneous static business functions. I mean, you could try to put it all into a more object oriented approach, but at what cost in time and effort to the business and for what trade-off of maintainability? If the latter outweighs the former, go for it.
One approach you may be able to take, depending on the language, etc., is to perhaps move some of the logic into extensions on existing objects. For example, extending the String class (thinking in C# here) with a method that tries to parse the string into a DateTime. An in-house library of extensions just enhances the language with your business' own little DSL(s).
The company I work for has a class like that in its repository. Personally I find it annoying because you have to be really intimate with the class in order to know what it's useful for. Consequently, I've found myself re-writing methods that this class already covers! Double annoying because I've now wasted my time.
I would prefer a more object oriented approach that would lead to expandability. Have a Utilities class for sure, but inside it put other classes that expand toward specific functionality. Like Utilities.XML, Utilities.DataFunctions, Utilities.WhateverYouWant. That way you can expand and eventually take your 20 function MiscUtilities class and turn it into a 500 function class library.
A Class Library like this could then be used by anyone, and added to by anyone (with privileges) in a logically organized way.
I think the wrong defect of such a class is that it break Separation of concerns principle. I usually create multiple "Helpers" class to contains widely used, public static methods, for example ArrayHelpers to writing ArrayLists to files, and DatesHelper to converting dates from String to Calendar.
Moreover, if the class does contain complicated methods, it's better to try to refactor them using more object-oriented tecnique.
You can always switch from your "Helpers" class to the use of various OO pattern, leaving your old static methods to function as a Facade.
Yuo'll find great benefits everytime you'll be able to do so.
I keep a separate misc class for each project, and copy/paste code from other projects as needed. Perhaps not the best approach, but I prefer to avoid cross-project dependencies.
Examples of things in my helper class:
hex2, hex4, and hex8 (accept integer parameters, except hex8 which has integer and uinteger variations; all versions ignore higher-order bits)
byt (convert 8 lsb's of argument into a byte)
getSI, getUI, getSL, getUL (each takes a byte array and an offset, and returns the little-endian signed word, unsigned word, signed 32-bit word, or unsigned 32-bit word at that offset
putSI, putUI, putSL, putUL (takes a byte array, offset, and a value to put there in little-endian format)
hexArr (converts a byte array or portion thereof into a hex string)
hexToArr (converts a hex string to a byte array)
Zap(of T as iDisposable) (takes a byref iDisposable; if not Nothing, disposes it and sets it to Nothing)
Many of those are only useful when fiddling with binary data, but none of them is really domain-specific. Maybe the first six could go in a BinaryHelpers module, but I'm not sure where Zap should go other than in a misc utilities class.
Utility classes aren't bad, in and of themselves. They can be (mis|ab|over)used at times, but they do have their place. If you have utility methods for types you own, consider moving the static methods to the appropriate types. Or creating extension methods.
Do try to avoid a monolithic utilities class - they may be static methods, but they will have poor cohesion. Break up a large set of unrelated functions into smaller groupings of related functionality, much like you would your "normal" classes. Name them *Helper or *Utils, or whatever your preference is. But be consistent, and group them together, perhaps in a folder within a project.
When utility classes are broken up as described, you can create methods for working with specific types - primitives or classes, such as arrays, strings, dates and times, and so on. Admittedly, these wouldn't belong anywhere else, so a utility class is the place to go.
Personally, I often find such a class handy - even if only in the short term. That said, I try not to share them between projects. I would not keep a global version, but write one specific to each project - otherwise you're incorporating dead-weight which may cause issues for security or architecture.
What I do for my personal projects is keep a misc library but rather than adding a reference in my projects, I paste the relevant bits of code in to the relevant places. It's technically duplicaintg it, but not within a single solution and thats the important thing. However I don't think this would work on a larger scale, too messy.
I generally don't have a problem with them, although, like all things, they can be abused:
They grow wildly large, so that most problems that use the class don't use 99% of the functions.
They grow wildly large, so that 90% of the functions aren't used by any program still in use.
Often they are a dumping ground for functions which are specific to one domain. They should be pared off to a similar class use just by program in that domain. Often, these function would be better off incorporated into proper classes.
I used to have, in every project, a module called MiscStuffAndJunk. It was a place to hold everything that didn't have a clear place to go, either because the functionality was a one-off, or because I didn't want to change my focus, so as to do a proper design for a function that was needed by but extraneous away from what I was currently concentrating on.
Still, it these modules are clearly in violation of OO design principles.
So nowadays, I name the module StuffIHaventRefactoredYet, and all is right with the world.
Depending on what your static utility functions actually do and return, it may be cause problems unit testing. I have come across a method in a class that calls a static function on a static class that return things I do not want in my unit test, rendering the whole method untestable...
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
What features do you wish were in common languages? More precisely, I mean features which generally don't exist at all but would be nice to see, rather than, "I wish dynamic typing was popular."
I've often thought that "observable" would make a great field modifier (like public, private, static, etc.)
GameState {
observable int CurrentScore;
}
Then, other classes could declare an observer of that property:
ScoreDisplay {
observe GameState.CurrentScore(int oldValue, int newValue) {
...do stuff...
}
}
The compiler would wrap all access to the CurrentScore property with notification code, and observers would be notified immediately upon the value's modification.
Sure you can do the same thing in most programming languages with event listeners and property change handlers, but it's a huge pain in the ass and requires a lot of piecemeal plumbing, especially if you're not the author of the class whose values you want to observe. In which case, you usually have to write a wrapper subclass, delegating all operations to the original object and sending change events from mutator methods. Why can't the compiler generate all that dumb boilerplate code?
I guess the most obvious answer is Lisp-like macros. Being able to process your code with your code is wonderfully "meta" and allows some pretty impressive features to be developed from (almost) scratch.
A close second is double or multiple-dispatch in languages like C++. I would love it if polymorphism could extend to the parameters of a virtual function.
I'd love for more languages to have a type system like Haskell. Haskell utilizes a really awesome type inference system, so you almost never have to declare types, yet it's still a strongly typed language.
I also really like the way you declare new types in Haskell. I think it's a lot nicer than, e.g., object-oriented systems. For example, to declare a binary tree in Haskell, I could do something like:
data Tree a = Node a (Tree a) (Tree a) | Nothing
So the composite data types are more like algebraic types than objects. I think it makes reasoning about the program a lot easier.
Plus, mixing in type classes is a lot nicer. A type class is just a set of classes that a type implements -- sort of like an interface in a language like Java, but more like a mixin in a language like Ruby, I guess. It's kind of cool.
Ideally, I'd like to see a language like Python, but with data types and type classes like Haskell instead of objects.
I'm a big fan of closures / anonymous functions.
my $y = "world";
my $x = sub { print #_ , $y };
&$x( 'hello' ); #helloworld
and
my $adder = sub {
my $reg = $_[0];
my $result = {};
return sub { return $reg + $_[0]; }
};
print $adder->(4)->(3);
I just wish they were more commonplace.
Things from Lisp I miss in other languages:
Multiple return values
required, keyword, optional, and rest parameters (freely mixable) for functions
functions as first class objects (becoming more common nowadays)
tail call optimization
macros that operate on the language, not on the text
consistent syntax
To start things off, I wish the standard for strings was to use a prefix if you wanted to use escape codes, rather than their use being the default. E.g. in C# you can prefix with # for a raw string. Similarly, Python has the r prefix. I'd rather use #/r when I don't want a raw string and need escape codes.
More powerful templates that are actually designed to be used for metaprogramming, rather than C++ templates that are really designed for relatively simple generics and are Turing-complete almost by accident. The D programming language has these, but it's not very mainstream yet.
immutable keyword. Yes, you can make immutable objects, but that's lot pain in most of the languages.
class JustAClass
{
private int readonly id;
private MyClass readonly obj;
public MyClass
{
get
{
return obj;
}
}
}
Apparently it seems JustAClass is an immutable class. But that's not the case. Because another object hold the same reference, can modify the obj object.
So it's better to introduce new immutable keyword. When immutable is used that object will be treated immutable.
I like some of the array manipulation capabilities found in the Ruby language. I wish we had some of that built into .Net and Java. Of course, you can always create such a library, but it would be nice not to have to do that!
Also, static indexers are awesome when you need them.
Type inference. It's slowly making it's way into the mainstream languages but it's still not good enough. F# is the gold standard here
I wish there was a self-reversing assignment operator, which rolled back when out of scope. This would be to replace:
type datafoobak = item.datafoobak
item.datafoobak = 'tootle'
item.handledata()
item.datafoobak = datafoobak
with this
item.datafoobar #=# 'tootle'
item.handledata()
One could explicitely rollback such changes, but they'd roll back once out of scope, too. This kind of feature would be a bit error prone, maybe, but it would also make for much cleaner code in some cases. Some sort of shallow clone might be a more effective way to do this:
itemclone = item.shallowclone
itemclone.datafoobak='tootle'
itemclone.handledata()
However, shallow clones might have issues if their functions modified their internal data...though so would reversible assignments.
I'd like to see single-method and single-operator interfaces:
interface Addable<T> --> HasOperator( T = T + T)
interface Splittable<T> --> HasMethod( T[] = T.Split(T) )
...or something like that...
I envision it as being a typesafe implementation of duck-typing. The interfaces wouldn't be guarantees provided by the original class author. They'd be assertions made by a consumer of a third-party API, to provide limited type-safety in cases where the original authors hadn't anticipated.
(A good example of this in practice would be the INumeric interface that people have been clamboring for in C# since the dawn of time.)
In a duck-typed language like Ruby, you can call any method you want, and you won't know until runtime whether the operation is supported, because the method might not exist.
I'd like to be able to make small guarantees about type safety, so that I can polymorphically call methods on heterogeneous objects, as long as all of those objects have the method or operator that I want to invoke.
And I should be able to verify the existence of the methods/operators I want to call at compile time. Waiting until runtime is for suckers :o)
Lisp style macros.
Multiple dispatch.
Tail call optimization.
First class continuations.
Call me silly, but I don't think every feature belongs in every language. It's the "jack of all trades, master of none" syndrome. I like having a variety of tools available, each one of which is the best it can be for a particular task.
Functional functions, like map, flatMap, foldLeft, foldRight, and so on. Type system like scala (builder-safety). Making the compilers remove high-level libraries at compile time, while still having them if you run in "interpreted" or "less-compiled" mode (speed... sometimes you need it).
There are several good answers here, but i will add some:
1 - The ability to get a string representation for the current and caller code, so that i could output a variable name and its value easily, or print the name of the current class, function or a stack trace at any time.
2 - Pipes would be nice too. This feature is common in shells, but uncommon in other types of languages.
3 - The ability to delegate any number of methods to another class easily. This looks like inheritance, but even in the presence of inheritance, once in a while we need some kind of wrapper or stub which cannot be implemented as a child class, and forwarding all methods requires a lot of boilerplate code.
I'd like a language that was much more restrictive and was designed around producing good, maintainable code without any trickiness. Also, it should be designed to give the compiler the ability to check as much as possible at compile time.
Start with a newish VM based heavily OO language.
Remove complexities like Operator Overloading and multiple inheritance if they exist.
Force all non-final variables to Private.
Members should default to "Final" but should have a "Variable" tag to override it. (This may require built-in support for the builder pattern to be fully effective).
Variables should not allow a "Null" value by default, but variables and parameters should have a "nullable" tag that indicates that null is acceptable for that variable.
It would also be nice to be able to avoid some common questionable patterns:
Some built-in way to simplify IOC/DI to eliminate singletons,
Java--eliminate checked exceptions so people stop putting in empty catches.
Finally focus on code readability:
Named Parameters
Remove the ability to create methods more than, say, 100 lines long.
Add some complexity analysis to help detect complicated methods and classes.
I'm sure I haven't named 1/10 of the items possible, but basically I'm talking about something that compiles to the same bytecode as C# or Java, but is so restrictive that a programmer can hardly help but write good code.
And yes, I know there are lint-type tools that will do some of this, but I've never seen them on any project I've worked on (and they wouldn't physically run on the code I'm working on now, for instance) so they aren't being very helpful, and I would love to see a compile actually fail when you type in a 101 line method...