I like to use keyword where, for example.
I simply do it like this
Dim orderFromThisGridTrading = _orders1.Where(Function(x) x.customIdentifier = ASimpleGridTradeSettings.name).ToArray
However, most samples would say I have to use from
Dim customersForRegion = From cust In customers Where cust.Region = region
Which is weird af and don't follow normal vb.net format. That looks a like like SQL languages and not a real programming language.
I wonder if I can always avoid using Form and just use like I am using? Are there any cases where that is not possible?
Is this even a good idea?
There is nothing bad in using query syntax in general. Especially in VB.NET it is very powerful and supports a lot of LINQ methods(more than in C#). Many prefer that because it can make your code more readable. But it seems that the opposite is true for you, you don't like it. Then use the method syntax, it supports all methods. I don't like it in VB.NET because of that ugly and verbose Function keyword, especially with GroupBy or Join i prefer query syntax.
I wonder if I can always avoid using From and just use like I am
using? Are there any cases where that is not possible?
No, method syntax is always possible. Actually query syntax gets compiled to method syntax.
The second example is called "Query Comprehension Syntax". It's optional. A lot of people find it makes their code more readable, but not everyone likes it. Personally, I find it adds another extra layer of indirection for what you need to know to get the computer to do what you want.
In the first example, the "From" is implied by the intial IEnumerable or IQueryable item in the expression.
But I do have one issue:
SQL is definitely a real programming language, and you'll likely get even better results from learning it well vs needing to rely on an ORM to construct queries. Eventually, usually sooner than later, you'll find you want to do something where you need to know advanced SQL anyway. Then you have two problems, because you need to the know the SQL and you need to know how to construct the ORM syntax to produce that SQL.
This is a question with no definite answer so apologies if I posted this wrongly however at my place of work alot of the code I see written by our developers have function names with the keyword 'should', must I add they base this on 'should' and 'should not'. From a point of semantics, whats your view on this? I've mentioned before that I don't believe this should be used because it has too many possibilities (where does it end) however they insist its a good practice.
Example use;
$this->it_should_render_template_partially($params);
$this->it_should_show_module_parameters($params);
$this->it_should_not_return_module_parameters($params);
I am curious on others thoughts. Just to add, this is production code and not unit tests.
While I like long, descriptive, names, I don't like redundancy. When I read the documentation of a function, I expect it to do what it is supposed to do. Yes, functions are written by humans that make a lot of mistakes, so they can have bugs, which means they do not behave as intended. But this is implied when one uses a function. We hope that out functions do what they should (and we try to make sure that is the case using tests). But specifying the should part in the name of a function is just redundant, which is, in my opinion, a bad practice, as it results in longer names, harder to read/write.
What is the best way to implement a constructor for a record? It seems like a function should be able to return a record object in the instantiation of the record in some later model higher up the tree, but I can't get that to work. For now I just use a bunch of parameters at the top of the record that populate the variables stored in the record, but it seems like that will only work in simple cases.
Can anyone shed a little light? Perhaps I shouldn't be using a record but a model. Also does anyone know how the PDE functionality is coming? The book only says that it is coming, but I have seen some other things around.
I don't seem to have the clout to add tags (which makes sense, since my "reputation" is lower than yours) so sorry about that. I thought I had actually added one at one point, but perhaps I am mistaken.
I think you need to be clear what you mean by constructor since it has a very specific meaning in Modelica. If I understand your question correctly, it sounds like what you want to do is create an instance of a record that has some fields that are specified in the constructor arguments and from those arguments a bunch of other fields in the record are computed. Is that correct?
If so, there is a mechanism to do this. You mention "the book" but it isn't clear which one you mean. If it is mine, it definitely has no mention of these so called "record constructors" because it is too old. I do not know if Peter Fritzson's book mentions them either. However, they do exist and are documented in Section 12.6 of the Modelica 3.2 specification.
As for PDEs, there has been work into this kind of thing but nothing has really been done within the design group on this topic. I would add that if you want to solve either elliptical or parabolic PDEs on regular grids, this isn't too hard even with the current language. The only real drawback is that most tools probably don't handle sparsity very efficiently. Irregular grids would also be possible, but then you get into complicated basis functions. Finally, hyperbolic PDEs are, in my opinion, quite tricky (in any environment) due to the implicit physical constraints between time and space which are difficult to express (i.e. the CFL condition).
I hope that answers your questions so far.
I can only comment on your question regarding the book of Peter Fritzson. He confirmed that he's working on an update and he hopes to get it ready 'in the course of 2011'.
Original post here:
http://openmodelica.org/index.php/forum/topic?id=50
And thanks for initiating the modelica tag, I might be useful in the near future for me too... :-)
regards,
Roel
I am using HP Exstream (formerly Dialogue from Exstream Software) version 5.0.x. It has a feature to define and save boolean expressions as "Rules".
It has been about 6 years since I used this, but does anybody know if you can define a rule in terms of another rule? There is a "VB-like" language in a popup window, so you are not forced to use the and/or, variable-relational expression form, but I don't have documentation handy. :-(
I would like to define a rule, "NotFoo", in terms of "Foo", instead of repeating the inverse of the whole thing. (Yes, that would be retarded, but that's probably what I will be forced to do, as in other examples of what I am maintaining.) Actually, nested rules would have many uses, if I can figure out how to do it.
I later found that what one needs to do in this case is create user defined "functions", which can reference each other (so long as you avoid indirect recursion). Then, use the functions to define the "rules" (and, don't even bother with "library" rules instead of "inline" rules, most of the time).
I'm late to the question but since you had to answer yourself there is a better way to handle it.
The issue with using functions and testing the result is that there's a good chance that you're going to be adding unnecessary processing because the engine will run through the function every time it's called. Not a big issue with a simple function but it can easily become a problem if the function is complex, especially if it's called in several places.
Depending on the timing of the function (you didn't say whether it was a run level, customer level, or specific to particular documents), it's often better to have the function set a User Boolean variable to store the result then in your library rules you can just check the value of the variable without having to run through the function every time.
Do languages become more verbose as they mature? It feels like each new version of VB.net gains more syntax. Is it possible to trim down some fat like the keyword "Dim"? C# also feels like it is getting more syntax since version 1.
C# has certainly gained more syntax, but in a way which makes it less verbose.
Virtually every feature in C# 3.0 allows you to do more with less code.
That's the VB idiom. All languages have an idiom, and there are plenty that go for verbose and spelled-out. Thank your lucky stars you're not WRITING IN COBOL.
C# evolved out of the C-like languages, and in the C tradition brevity and terseness are valued, hence braces, && and ||, int not integer, case-sensitive lower-cased code. In the VB idiom, long self-explanatory keywords are good, terse keywords or cryptic symbols are bad, hence MustInherit, Dim blah as Integer and case insensitivity but with a tendency to Capitalise Your Keywords. Basically, stick with the idiom of the language you're using. If you use (or have to use) VB, then get used to the verbosity - it's intentional.
There's nothing wrong with verbosity, in fact it often can be a very good thing.
I assume you have meaningful variable names? Descriptive method names? Then why is there a problem with typing 'end if' instead of '}'. Its really not an issue at all, if anything, the terseness of C# is more of a problem trying to fit as much as possible into as few characters as possible - that means it harder to read, not easier.
Okay... this feels embarrassing to admit, but I like the use of Dim in VB.NET. Yes, it's not serving any particular use that couldn't be inferred by the use of "As" later... but to me, there's something absolutely "beat you over the head" obvious about having declaration statements start with Dim. It means when someone's looking through the code, they don't even have to think about what those statements mean, even for a microsecond. Languages like C# have declarations that are obvious enough, but if you're just browsing by it you may have to consider it for a moment (even the most brief of moments).
There's something "extra obvious" about having a special keyword at the start of certain kinds of statements. In VB.NET, assignments start with "Dim" and calls to methods (can) start with "Call", giving them a kind of "left side uniformity" that If, For, and other constructs already have: you get the barest gist of what's going on with that line just by looking at the very start of it. Using these almost gives you the equivalent of a left-hand column that you can browse down extremely quickly and get the gist of what's going on on some kind of basic level ("Okay, we're declaring things here... we're calling to other things here...").
That might seem irrational or even silly to some people... but it does make the purpose of each statement explicit enough that it feels faster (at least to me) to browse through... especially when browsing through unfamiliar code written by others.
I guess, in the end, it comes down to "different strokes for different folks". I don't mind typing the extra three characters for that obviousness of purpose.
VB.NET is great as it is, it brings more clarity in code.
For instance I love the fact how you can describe what your ending.
End while vs }
End for vs }
End if vs }
And really the verbosity isn't an issue while typing because of intellisence.
Verbosity and readability often go hand-in-hand. Lately I've come to fear the word "Elegant", because it generally translates into "Fun but less immediately readable"
Of course the person writing the code always says "Well it's MORE readable to me because it's shorter/more elegant.
that's crap. It's always easier to read something more explicit unless you have so much trouble reading that it takes you two hours to get through a Dick and Jane novel.
Note that I'm not talking about redundancies, just being explicit and spelling out your desires.
As a programmer it's much MUCH more fun to write elegant expressions, but I've found myself looking at the "elegance" of others and even my own "elegance" after a while and I'll change it to something more explicit, readable and reliable when I realize that although it was fun to write, I just spent more time reading/debugging it than it took to write in the first place.
On the other hand, DIM is just stupid :)
I'm slightly out of my depth here.
I like what everyone calls verbose. Does no one ever wonder my we don't have multiple nested parenthesis in any natural languages (e.g. English)? In fact nested parenthesis really need the convention of indentation to make then legible at all. In natural languages we use verbose clauses and multiple sentences, to avoid, or at least explain layering parenthesis.
Also in a certain sense I wouldn't say vb has much more syntax than c# at all. It doesn't really have many more lexical tokens in a certain block of code than would c# (Does it?). It has about the same syntax as c# it just has longer syntactical tokens, 'End Sub' instead of '}' for example. For most pieces of syntactical plumbing, the VB version will just be more typing (if you are sworn off intelisense), Also '}' is ambiguous compared to 'End Sub' since it also means 'End If' and whole load of other things. This doesn't make it more concise in a certain sense, There are still the same number of tokens in the code, but from a smaller subset of more curt token markers. But different tokens in C# have different meanings depending on the context, which requires you still to have that nested level in your mind as you read the code, in order to get, for example what kind of code block you are reading if you lose your place, even though the end of the code block could be in view you might have to look up to see the beginning of the code block. Even where this is not the case is && really better than AndAlso?
Dim I suppose is quite useless, an extra lexical token compared to c#, but I suppose at least it's consistent with linq, vb doesn't need the var command. I can't think of any other candidates for the chop. Maybe I don't have the imagination.
I'm sure someone is going to come along and tell me how wrong I am :) My best guess this is to do with personal preference anyway.
Then C# should get rid of ";" at the end of every fricking line :)
Default should be easy way to go such "New Line" instead of a ";" if you want exceptions such 2 statements in the same line then you need use a separator such as ":" or ";"
Some people like that. I suspect things like Dim are left in for legacy reasons as much as anything else.
VB does have some nice short cuts though. For example the conversion routines. Eg CInt, CStr etc
OK I'm an old C programmer that came to .Net via C#, and Now I'm working in VB.Net
I have to say at first I was appalled by the verbosity, but having gone back to
C# for I bit, I have to admit I like VB.Net a bit more now.
I can write VB code that reads better and is less cryptic and it really doesn't take
up much more space (especially if you put all your C# curly braces on their own line)
Also the editor in Visual Studio takes care of most of the verbosity for me.
I like how Dim X As List(Of SomeType) reads as opposed to List<sometype> X
Semi-colons are a nuisance now. Curly braces are annoying.
I do miss the square brackets for array refs, a little bit though.
Ever since I saw this...
lowercase keywords?
...I've been hoping it would get included in the language. It's amazing how much more readable it is Without All The Capitalized Keywords.
C# is not a user-friendly language and takes many MORE lines of code to accomplish the same task as VB.Net. Optional parameters, with/end with, etc. are not supported within C#. Even db connections take more code in C#. Star Wars fans love the C# though, as you get to talk like Yoda while you're programming.
My $0.02: VB.Net's intellisense features, shortcuts, logical readability, etc. make it a superior language.
Yes I know what you mean, it can get a bit long winded, I find it becomes hard to read due to there being to too many keywords and making it hard to see the logic behind it all but hey some people like it.
I have just recently started writing all my stuff in C# and I must say I have come to like it a lot more since I just cut of VB and said right C# from now on, so if you are that worried your could always just switch.
Use a pre-processor... and loose any hope to be read by anybody else (or yourself in some years, perhaps...).
I will answer what is often answered to people complaining that Lua is verbose: if you want a concise language, you know where to find it. There are tons of languages around, even if you restrict yourself to the CLR, so why complain about the one you chose? (I know, you might work on a project you didn't started, etc.).
That's not a flame or something. There are many languages for a reason. Some like them super-concise, close of mathematical notations, others like them (more or less) verbose, finding that more readable. There are languages for all tastes!
for one thing that i don't like about VB is this
print("ByVal sender as object, ByVal e as EventArgs");
vs C#
object sender, Eventargs e
Doing so will only make your code harder to read.