TLDR summary: (a) Should I include (lengthy) method code in classes which may spawn multiple objects at runtime, (b) does doing so cause memory usage bloat, (c) if so should I "outsource" the code to a class that is loaded only once and have the class methods call that, or alternatively (d) does the code get loaded only once with the object definition anyway and I'm worrying about nothing?
........
I don't know whether there's a good answer to this but if there is I haven't found it yet by searching in the usual places.
In my VB.Net (2010 if it matters) WinForms project I have about a dozen or so class objects in an object model. Some of these are pretty simple and do little more than act as data storage repositories. The ones further up the object model, however, have an increasing number of methods. There can be a significant number of higher level objects in use though the exact number will be runtime dependent so I can't be more precise than that.
As I was writing the method code for one of the top level ones I noticed that it was starting to get quite lengthy.
Memory optimisation is something of a lost art given how much memory the average PC has these days but I don't want to make my application a resource hog. So my questions for anyone who knows .Net way better than I do (of which there will be many) are:
Is the code loaded into memory with each instance of the class that's created?
Alternatively is it loaded only once with the definition of the class, and all derived objects just refer to that definition? (I'm not really sure how that could be possible given that, for example, event handlers can be assigned dynamically, but no harm asking.)
If the answer to the first one is yes, would it be more efficient to write the code in a "utility" object which is loaded only once and called from the real class' methods?
Any thoughts appreciated.
Go with whichever is going to be the easier to maintain codebase (shorter methods, etc). That is the more important cost with anything that has increasing complexity.
Memory optimization is only a problem if its a problem. 12 classes is really nothing, when you have hundreds of instances of hundreds of classes, then it may become a problem.
The short answer, it doesn't matter. Your data is stored in memory but your code is loaded only once.
EDIT: I guess I need a longer answer.
If you have 10 instances of a class, the variables that are part of that instance all take up thier own memory space. So if you have 10 properties, variables, etc, that means you have 100(ish) items in your memory. As for your code, it was loaded just once with your assembly. If you create 10 instances of your class, your code is not in memory 10 times.
Related
Some Vulkan objects (eg vkPipelines, vkCommandBuffers) are able to be created/allocated in arrays (using size + pointer parameters). At a glance, this appears to be done to make it easier to code using common usage patterns. But in some cases (eg: when creating a C++ RAII wrapper), it's nicer to create them one at a time. It is, of course, simple to achieve this.
However, I'm wondering whether there are any significant downsides to doing this?
(I guess this may vary depending on the actual object type being created - but I didn't think it'd be a good idea to ask the same question for each object)
Assume that, in both cases, objects are likely to be created in a first-created-last-destroyed manner, and that - while the objects are individually created and destroyed - this will likely happen in a loop.
Also note:
vkCommandBuffers are also deallocated in arrays.
vkPipelines are destroyed individually.
Are there any reasons I should modify my RAII wrapper to allow for array-based creation/destruction? For example, will it save memory (significantly)? Will single-creation reduce performance?
Remember that vkPipeline creation does not require external synchronization. That means that the process is going to handle its own mutexes and so forth. As such, it makes sense to avoid locking those internal mutexes whenever possible.
Also, the process is slow. So being able to batch it up and execute it into another thread is very useful.
Command buffer creation doesn't have either of these concerns. So there, you should feel free to allocate whatever CBs you need. However, multiple creation will never harm performance, and it may help it. So there's no reason to avoid it.
Vulkan is an API designed around modern graphics hardware. If you know you want to create a certain number of objects up front, you should use the batch functions if they exist, as the driver may be able to optimize creation/allocation, resulting in potentially better performance.
There may (or may not) be better performance (depending on driver and the type of your workload). But there is obviously potential for better performance.
If you create one or ten command buffers in you application then it does not matter.
For most cases it will be like less than 5 %. So if you do not care about that (e.g. your application already runs 500 FPS), then it does not matter.
Then again, C++ is a versatile language. I think this is a non-problem. You would simply have a static member function or a class that would construct/initialize N objects (there's probably a pattern name for that).
The destruction may be trickier. You can again have static member function that would destroy N objects. But it would not be called automatically and it is annoying to have null/husk objects around. And the destructor would still be called on VK_NULL_HANDLE. There is also a problem, that a pool reset or destruction would invalidate all the command buffer C++ objects, so there's probably no way to do it cleanly/simply.
What kind of dependency is between number of methods, or length of source code of a class to performance (memory usage, speed of execution )? It is better to create as simple class as possible, or I can implement as may function as I want to one class? Does Java load whole class to memory, when object is accessed by interfaces?
You're thinking about it for the completely wrong reason.
Forget about performance. It does not matter in this question. At all.
Huge classes are very bad because they are hard to maintain. They're hard to understand, probably violate the Single Responsibility Principle massively or even harbor duplicated code.
There are a lot of parts to your question but performance and class size usually shouldn't be talked about together. Make small classes because it's easier to maintain and debug.
Classes (class code) are loaded into memory when they are referenced for the first time, or maybe sooner depending on the class loader but this is usually a small price compared to actually executing your code.
Yes, Java loads the whole class into memory. But it's probably not the class that consumes most memory, but rather the number of instances of it.
I'd say that except for extreme cases, there is little or no correlation between the lengthes and number of methods in your classes and memory usage in runtine.
AFAIU, the number of methods in a class (or more accurately the size of the class) will only affect the loading time.
When working on the early stages of a console-based Python remake of the classic game 'Snake', someone submitted a patch to spawn food at random locations. The code defined a Food class which worked fine, but the logic behind it seemed a little weird.
I think we should delete the food once it's been consumed, then create another one. However, this person simply moves the food to a new random location once it's been consumed. While the latter seems illogical to me, it seems to do the exact same thing, maybe even more efficiently.
My question is: Would it be better to use the former logic, or the later, or am I simply nit-picking over nothing?
This all started at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/snakes-game/+bug/628180
Either is fine - within certain common-sense boundaries.
The latter approach will save re-allocating the object, so recycling it in this way will be more efficient - the gain is likely to be irrelevant in your particular example though unless heap fragmentation is a concern (e.g. on an embedded app with very limited RAM).
The danger with recycling is that the object may retain some vestige of its former state, so may not behave in the same manner as a new object would - in your case the logic is simple, so there is little danger, but with more complex objects this could become significant.
So in general I'd suggest the "create a new object" approach (it follows the principle of "least surprise", and will be less likely to confuse other programmers who come to work on the code) unless there are performance implications (e.g. on an embedded application like a phone where you have very limited resources and don't want a fragmented heap), in which case the "re-use an existing object" may be a smart solution.
I believe both solutions are fine. Relocating the food to another location is brobably less error prone in memory management terms, but due to garbage collection, you shouldn't care about that too much.
I'd argue, while instantiating a new food object is more logical, and closer to the real life model, relocating is more efficient.
The main issue as far as OOP is concerned isn't so much whether the food re-instantiates vs. relocates, but rather that this behavior remain transparent outside of the object. The game engine should be telling the object "you've been eaten" and such, but how the object handles that internally shouldn't be known to the game engine. If, internally, the object maintains a singleton of "food" and the "consume" method simply re-forms the food object with new values, that's fine. That's all internal to the implementation of "food" and just shouldn't be known outside of that class.
I often find myself needing reference to an object that is several objects away, or so it seems. The options I see are passing a reference through a middle-man or just making something available statically. I understand the danger of global scope, but passing a reference through an object that does nothing with it feels ridiculous. I'm okay with a little bit passing around, I suppose. I suspect there's a line to be drawn somewhere.
Does anyone have insight on where to draw this line?
Or a good way to deal with the problem of distributing references amongst dependent objects?
Use the Law of Demeter (with moderation and good taste, not dogmatically). If you're coding a.b.c.d.e, something IS wrong -- you've nailed forevermore the implementation of a to have a b which has a c which... EEP!-) One or at the most two dots is the maximum you should be using. But the alternative is NOT to plump things into globals (and ensure thread-unsafe, buggy, hard-to-maintain code!), it is to have each object "surface" those characteristics it is designed to maintain as part of its interface to clients going forward, instead of just letting poor clients go through such undending chains of nested refs!
This smells of an abstraction that may need some improvement. You seem to be violating the Law of Demeter.
In some cases a global isn't too bad.
Consider, you're probably programming against an operating system's API. That's full of globals, you can probably access a file or the registry, write to the console. Look up a window handle. You can do loads of stuff to access state that is global across the whole computer, or even across the internet... and you don't have to pass a single reference to your class to access it. All this stuff is global if you access the OS's API.
So, when you consider the number of global things that often exist, a global in your own program probably isn't as bad as many people try and make out and scream about.
However, if you want to have very nice OO code that is all unit testable, I suppose you should be writing wrapper classes around any access to globals whether they come from the OS, or are declared yourself to encapsulate them. This means you class that uses this global state can get references to the wrappers, and they could be replaced with fakes.
Hmm, anyway. I'm not quite sure what advice I'm trying to give here, other than say, structuring code is all a balance! And, how to do it for your particular problem depends on your preferences, preferences of people who will use the code, how you're feeling on the day on the academic to pragmatic scale, how big the code base is, how safety critical the system is and how far off the deadline for completion is.
I believe your question is revealing something about your classes. Maybe the responsibilities could be improved ? Maybe moving some code would solve problems ?
Tell, don't ask.
That's how it was explained to me. There is a natural tendency to call classes to obtain some data. Taken too far, asking too much, typically leads to heavy "getter sequences". But there is another way. I must admit it is not easy to find, but improves gradually in a specific code and in the coder's habits.
Class A wants to perform a calculation, and asks B's data. Sometimes, it is appropriate that A tells B to do the job, possibly passing some parameters. This could replace B's "getName()", used by A to check the validity of the name, by an "isValid()" method on B.
"Asking" has been replaced by "telling" (calling a method that executes the computation).
For me, this is the question I ask myself when I find too many getter calls. Gradually, the methods encounter their place in the correct object, and everything gets a bit simpler, I have less getters and less call to them. I have less code, and it provides more semantic, a better alignment with the functional requirement.
Move the data around
There are other cases where I move some data. For example, if a field moves two objects up, the length of the "getter chain" is reduced by two.
I believe nobody can find the correct model at first.
I first think about it (using hand-written diagrams is quick and a big help), then code it, then think again facing the real thing... Then I code the rest, and any smells I feel in the code, I think again...
Split and merge objects
If a method on A needs data from C, with B as a middle man, I can try if A and C would have some in common. Possibly, A or a part of A could become C (possible splitting of A, merging of A and C) ...
However, there are cases where I keep the getters of course.
But it's less likely a long chain will be created.
A long chain will probably get broken by one of the techniques above.
I have three patterns for this:
Pass the necessary reference to the object's constructor -- the reference can then be stored as a data member of the object, and doesn't need to be passed again; this implies that the object's factory has the necessary reference. For example, when I'm creating a DOM, I pass the element name to the DOM node when I construct the DOM node.
Let things remember their parent, and get references to properties via their parent; this implies that the parent or ancestor has the necessary property. For example, when I'm creating a DOM, there are various things which are stored as properties of the top-level DomDocument ancestor, and its child nodes can access those properties via the reference which each one has to its parent.
Put all the different things which are passed around as references into a single class, and then pass around just that one class instance as the only thing that's passed around. For example, there are many properties required to render a DOM (e.g. the GDI graphics handle, the viewport coordinates, callback events, etc.) ... I put all of these things into a single 'Context' instance which is passed as the only parameter to the methods of the DOM nodes to be rendered, and each method can get whichever properties it needs out of that context parameter.
This is a question with many answers - I am interested in knowing what others consider to be "best practice".
Consider the following situation: you have an object-oriented program that contains one or more data structures that are needed by many different classes. How do you make these data structures accessible?
You can explicitly pass references around, for example, in the constructors. This is the "proper" solution, but it means duplicating parameters and instance variables all over the program. This makes changes or additions to the global data difficult.
You can put all of the data structures inside of a single object, and pass around references to this object. This can either be an object created just for this purpose, or it could be the "main" object of your program. This simplifies the problems of (1), but the data structures may or may not have anything to do with one another, and collecting them together in a single object is pretty arbitrary.
You can make the data structures "static". This lets you reference them directly from other classes, without having to pass around references. This entirely avoids the disadvantages of (1), but is clearly not OO. This also means that there can only ever be a single instance of the program.
When there are a lot of data structures, all required by a lot of classes, I tend to use (2). This is a compromise between OO-purity and practicality. What do other folks do? (For what it's worth, I mostly come from the Java world, but this discussion is applicable to any OO language.)
Global data isn't as bad as many OO purists claim!
After all, when implementing OO classes you've usually using an API to your OS. What the heck is this if it isn't a huge pile of global data and services!
If you use some global stuff in your program, you're merely extending this huge environment your class implementation can already see of the OS with a bit of data that is domain specific to your app.
Passing pointers/references everywhere is often taught in OO courses and books, academically it sounds nice. Pragmatically, it is often the thing to do, but it is misguided to follow this rule blindly and absolutely. For a decent sized program, you can end up with a pile of references being passed all over the place and it can result in completely unnecessary drudgery work.
Globally accessible services/data providers (abstracted away behind a nice interface obviously) are pretty much a must in a decent sized app.
I must really really discourage you from using option 3 - making the data static. I've worked on several projects where the early developers made some core data static, only to later realise they did need to run two copies of the program - and incurred a huge amount of work making the data non-static and carefully putting in references into everything.
So in my experience, if you do 3), you will eventually end up doing 1) at twice the cost.
Go for 1, and be fine-grained about what data structures you reference from each object. Don't use "context objects", just pass in precisely the data needed. Yes, it makes the code more complicated, but on the plus side, it makes it clearer - the fact that a FwurzleDigestionListener is holding a reference to both a Fwurzle and a DigestionTract immediately gives the reader an idea about its purpose.
And by definition, if the data format changes, so will the classes that operate on it, so you have to change them anyway.
You might want to think about altering the requirement that lots of objects need to know about the same data structures. One reason there does not seem to be a clean OO way of sharing data is that sharing data is not very object-oriented.
You will need to look at the specifics of your application but the general idea is to have one object responsible for the shared data which provides services to the other objects based on the data encapsulated in it. However these services should not involve giving other objects the data structures - merely giving other objects the pieces of information they need to meet their responsibilites and performing mutations on the data structures internally.
I tend to use 3) and be very careful about the synchronisation and locking across threads. I agree it is less OO, but then you confess to having global data, which is very un-OO in the first place.
Don't get too hung up on whether you are sticking purely to one programming methodology or another, find a solution which fits your problem. I think there are perfectly valid contexts for singletons (Logging for instance).
I use a combination of having one global object and passing interfaces in via constructors.
From the one main global object (usually named after what your program is called or does) you can start up other globals (maybe that have their own threads). This lets you control the setting up of program objects in the main objects constructor and tearing them down again in the right order when the application stops in this main objects destructor. Using static classes directly makes it tricky to initialize/uninitialize any resources these classes use in a controlled manner. This main global object also has properties for getting at the interfaces of different sub-systems of your application that various objects may want to get hold of to do their work.
I also pass references to relevant data-structures into constructors of some objects where I feel it is useful to isolate those objects from the rest of the world within the program when they only need to be concerned with a small part of it.
Whether an object grabs the global object and navigates its properties to get the interfaces it wants or gets passed the interfaces it uses via its constructor is a matter of taste and intuition. Any object you're implementing that you think might be reused in some other project should definately be passed data structures it should use via its constructor. Objects that grab the global object should be more to do with the infrastructure of your application.
Objects that receive interfaces they use via the constructor are probably easier to unit-test because you can feed them a mock interface, and tickle their methods to make sure they return the right arguments or interact with mock interfaces correctly. To test objects that access the main global object, you have to mock up the main global object so that when they request interfaces (I often call these services) from it they get appropriate mock objects and can be tested against them.
I prefer using the singleton pattern as described in the GoF book for these situations. A singleton is not the same as either of the three options described in the question. The constructor is private (or protected) so that it cannot be used just anywhere. You use a get() function (or whatever you prefer to call it) to obtain an instance. However, the architecture of the singleton class guarantees that each call to get() returns the same instance.
We should take care not to confuse Object Oriented Design with Object Oriented Implementation. Al too often, the term OO Design is used to judge an implementation, just as, imho, it is here.
Design
If in your design you see a lot of objects having a reference to exactly the same object, that means a lot of arrows. The designer should feel an itch here. He should verify whether this object is just commonly used, or if it is really a utility (e.g. a COM factory, a registry of some kind, ...).
From the project's requirements, he can see if it really needs to be a singleton (e.g. 'The Internet'), or if the object is shared because it's too general or too expensive or whatsoever.
Implementation
When you are asked to implement an OO Design in an OO language, you face a lot of decisions, like the one you mentioned: how should I implement all the arrows to the oft used object in the design?
That's the point where questions are addressed about 'static member', 'global variable' , 'god class' and 'a-lot-of-function-arguments'.
The Design phase should have clarified if the object needs to be a singleton or not. The implementation phase will decide on how this singleness will be represented in the program.
Option 3) while not purist OO, tends to be the most reasonable solution. But I would not make your class a singleton; and use some other object as a static 'dictionary' to manage those shared resources.
I don't like any of your proposed solutions:
You are passing around a bunch of "context" objects - the things that use them don't specify what fields or pieces of data they are really interested in
See here for a description of the God Object pattern. This is the worst of all worlds
Simply do not ever use Singleton objects for anything. You seem to have identified a few of the potential problems yourself