Related
Consider a Python module (but it is relevant to other language) with a series of functions meant to be used sequentialy.
Namely, functions are semantically linked according to the following scheme:
def function_a_to_b(thing_a):
"""Compute the thing_b."""
thing_b = thing_a**2
return thing_b
def function_b_to_c(thing_b):
"""Compute the thing_c."""
thing_c = thing_b**3
return thing_c
In this trivial example, a candidate name for function_a_to_b could be squaring and thing_a could be named square, and likewise we could use cubin and cube.
Now if thing_a is something complicated that does not support verbing, say a weighted_glonk.
How can I name function_a_to_b to keep things short, obvious, and avoid variable clash or error prone namespace subtleties?
I incline towards compute_weighted_glonk for the function. Another option is hungarian naming, say array_weighted_glonk for the thing
It depends what you want to do with that glonk, but you are mostly right with compute_wighted_glonk. If you want to compute him, then name that function compute_glonk(), if you want to get his name, the function would probably be get_name_of_glonk(). Lot of people will have lot of suggestions, there are lot of ways to name your functions. Was my answer enought?
If it is a complicated thing that doesn't support verbing, then i would suggest to create a class for it and create the thing by the constructor.
My advice is to find a balance between short and verbose in naming --Dmitri Pavlutin
Don't be afraid to use an auxiliary word. In plain english you wouldn't struggle with "The plant growthed..." but simply go with "The plant presented growth...".
Back to your example like cube/cubing you may write glonk/obtainGlonk or glonk/calculateGlonk.
Also, focus on the readability more than keeping the verbing standard which at the end of the day is what the fellow programmer will read. Your verbed word, is what, an effect? Keep it that way.
Your action should describe a change that has happened in your system
My fifty cents: I would argue against introducing naming conventions to reveal computational structure (Robert Martin: "We have enough encodings to deal with without adding more to our burden" [Clean Code, p.23]). If your functions are meant to be called in a strict order, you should encapsulate them in another function that does precisely that; or create some kind of latch, if that's approriate.
I don't know python, so I'd like to answer from javascript perspective. I can't figure out what you mean by a glonk and something that does not support verbing in programming context. thing_a can, at most be, as complicated as another array,object or another callable function -- in those cases you can put type checks in function_a_to_b. Also, Compute the thing_b can be replaced by another function if it involves multiple operations. What I would do is the following:
//I'm using $ for var names just for semantics.
//$var is a php usage but I want to emphasise
//what things are variables.
function myComputer($thing){
if(typeof($thing) == ("object")) {
//take total no of properties or whatever you want
return Object.keys($thing).length;
}
else if(typeof($thing) == ("number")) {
return $thing;
}
else if(typeof($thing) == ("string")) {
return $thing.length;
}
else {
return 0;
}
}
function mySquarer($a) { //sementic naming instead of function_a_to_b
var $b = Math.pow(myComputer($a),2); //In your original version whats the point of computing thing_b if you wanna reassign a different value afterwards?
return $b;
}
function myCuber($b) { //When you call myCuber you can do myCuber(mySquarer($anything));
var $c = Math.pow(myComputer($b),3);
return $c;
}
console.log(mySquarer(3));
console.log(myCuber(mySquarer(2)));
Now I have an import(a) function, that in short words dofile's header in .framework like this:
import("<Kakao/KARect>") => dofile("/System/Library/Frameworks/Kakao.framework/Headers/KARect.lua")
And in KARect.lua for example I have:
KARect = {}
function KARect:new(_x, _y, _width, _height, _colorBack)
local new = setmetatable({}, {__index = self})
new.id = KAEntities:generateID()
...
return new
end
function KARect:draw()
...
end
After some time I thought about reworking this system and making "headers" work like typical Lua modules with advanced require() so function will do e.g.:
import("<Kakao/KARect>") => package.path = "/System/Library/Frameworks/Kakao.framework/Headers/?.lua"; KARect = require("KARect")
and file will contain:
local KARect = {}
...
return KARect
Because headers should not contain anything but only classes with their names? I'm getting confused when thinking about it, as I never used Obj C :s
I never used Obj C
Then why are you trying to implement its headers in a language, that does not use headers at all?
Header! What is a header?
Header files in C-like languages store more than just a name. They store constants and macro commands, function and class method argument and return types, structure and class fields. In essence, the contents of the header file are forward declarations. They came into existence due to the need to perform the same forward-declarations across many files.
I don't know what additional rules and functions were added to header files in Obj-C, but you can get general understanding of what they do in the following links: 1, 2, 3, 4 with the last one being the most spot-on.
Answer to the question present
Lua is dynamically-typed interpreted language. It does not do compile time type checks and, typically, Lua programs can and should be structured in a way that does not need forward declarations across files. So there is no meaningful way for a programmer to create and for lua bytecode generator and interpreter to use header files.
Lua does not have classes at all. The code you've posted is a syntactic sugar for an assignment of a function with a slightly different signature to a table which imitates class:
KARect.new = function( first_arg_is_self, _x, _y, _width, _height, _colorBack)
local new = setmetatable({}, {__index = first_arg_is_self})
return new
end
There is no declarations here, only generation of an anonymous function and its assignment to a field in a table. Other parts of program do not need to know anything about a particular field, variable or function (which is stored in variable) in advance (unlike C).
So, no declaration means nothing to separate from implementation. You of course can first list fields of the class-table and do dummy assignments to them, but, again, Lua will have no use for those. If you want to give hints to humans, it is probably better to write a dedicated manual or put comments in the implementation.
Lua has situations where forward declarations are needed to reference local functions. But this situation does not arise in object oriented code, as all methods are accessed through reference to the object, and by the time first object is created, the class itself is usually fully constructed.
I'm implementing a dynamic language that will compile to C#, and it's implementing its own reflection API (.NET's is too slow, and the DLR is limited only to more recent and resourceful implementations).
For this, I've implemented a simple .GetField(string f) and .SetField(string f, object val) interface. Until recently, the implementation just switches over all possible field string values and makes the corresponding action.
Also, this dynamic language has the possibility to define anonymous objects. For those anonymous objects, at first, I had implemented a simple hash algorithm.
By now, I am looking for ways to optimize the dynamic parts of the language, and I have come across the fact that a hash algorithm for anonymous objects would be overkill. This is because the objects are usually small. I'd say the objects contain 2 or 3 fields, normally. Very rarely, they would contain more than 15 fields. It would take more time to actually hash the string and perform the lookup than if I would test for equality between them all. (This is not tested, just theoretical).
The first thing I did was to -- at compile-time -- create a red-black tree for each anonymous object declaration and have it laid onto an array so that the object can look for it in a very optimized way.
I am still divided, though, if that's the best way to do this. I could go for a perfect hashing function. Even more radically, I'm thinking about dropping the need for strings and actually work with a struct of 2 longs.
Those two longs will be encoded to support 10 chars (A-za-z0-9_) each, which is mostly a good prediction of the size of the fields. For fields larger than this, a special function (slower) receiving a string will also be provided.
The result will be that strings will be inlined (not references), and their comparisons will be as cheap as a long comparison.
Anyway, it's a little hard to find good information about this kind of optimization, since this is normally thought on a vm-level, not a static language compilation implementation.
Does anyone have any thoughts or tips about the best data structure to handle dynamic calls?
Edit:
For now, I'm really going with the string as long representation and a linear binary tree lookup.
I don't know if this is helpful, but I'll chuck it out in case;
If this is compiling to C#, do you know the complete list of fields at compile time? So as an idea, if your code reads
// dynamic
myObject.foo = "some value";
myObject.bar = 32;
then during the parse, your symbol table can build an int for each field name;
// parsing code
symbols[0] == "foo"
symbols[1] == "bar"
then generate code using arrays or lists;
// generated c#
runtimeObject[0] = "some value"; // assign myobject.foo
runtimeObject[1] = 32; // assign myobject.bar
and build up reflection as a separate array;
runtimeObject.FieldNames[0] == "foo"; // Dictionary<int, string>
runtimeObject.FieldIds["foo"] === 0; // Dictionary<string, int>
As I say, thrown out in the hope it'll be useful. No idea if it will!
Since you are likely to be using the same field and method names repeatedly, something like string interning would work well to quickly generate keys for your hash tables. It would also make string equality comparisons constant-time.
For such a small data set (expected upper bounds of 15) I think almost any hashing will be more expensive then a tree or even a list lookup, but that is really dependent on your hashing algorithm.
If you want to use a dictionary/hash then you'll need to make sure the objects you use for the key return a hash code quickly (perhaps a single constant hash code that's built once). If you can prevent collisions inside of an object (sounds pretty doable) then you'll gain the speed and scalability (well for any realistic object/class size) of a hash table.
Something that comes to mind is Ruby's symbols and message passing. I believe Ruby's symbols act as a constant to just a memory reference. So comparison is constant, they are very lite, and you can use symbols like variables (I'm a little hazy on this and don't have a Ruby interpreter on this machine). Ruby's method "calling" really turns into message passing. Something like: obj.func(arg) turns into obj.send(:func, arg) (":func" is the symbol). I would imagine that symbol makes looking up the message handler (as I'll call it) inside the object pretty efficient since it's hash code most likely doesn't need to be calculated like most objects.
Perhaps something similar could be done in .NET.
Lua does not have build in support for OO, but it allows you to build it yourself. Could you please share some of the ways one can implement OO?
Please write one example per answer. If you have more examples, post another answer.
I like to think of OOP as being the encapsulation of data inside a container (the Object) coupled with a subset of operations that can be done with this data. There IS a lot more to it, but let's assume that this simple definition is all and build something in Lua from it (also some familiarity with other OO implementations can be a nice boost for the reader).
As anyone with a little exposure to Lua may know, tables are a neat way to store key-value pairs and in combination with strings, things start to become very interesting:
local obj = {} -- a new table
obj["name"] = "John"
obj["age"] = 20
-- but there's a shortcut!
print("A person: " .. obj.name .. " of the age " .. obj.age)
String values as keys in a table can be accessed in a way very alike to the members of a struct in C or the public members of an object in C++/Java and similar languages.
And now for a cool magic trick: let's combine this with anonymous functions.
-- assume the obj from last example
obj.hello = function ()
print("Hello!")
end
obj.goodbye = function ()
print("I must be going.")
end
obj.hello()
obj.goodbye()
Awesome right? We now have means of having functions stored inside our tables, and again you can see it resembles how methods are used in other OOP languages. But something is missing. How can we access the data that belongs to our object inside our method definitions? This is generally addressed by changing the signature of the functions in the table to something like this:
-- assume the obj from last example
obj.inspect = function (self)
print("A person: " .. self.name .. " of the age " .. self.age)
end
obj.hello = function (self)
print(self.name .. ": Hello! I'm " .. self.name)
end
obj.goodbye = function (self)
print(self.name .. ": I must be going.")
end
-- now it receives the calling object as the first parameter
obj.inspect(obj) -- A person: John of age 20
obj.hello(obj) -- John: Hello! I'm John
obj.goodbye(obj) -- John: I must be going
That solves it in a simple manner. Maybe drawing a parallel to the way things work in Python (methods always get a explicit self) can aid you in learning how this works in Lua. But boy, isn't it inconvenient to be passing all these objects explicitly in our method calls? Yeah it bothers me too, so there's another shortcut to aid you in the use of OOP:
obj:hello() -- is the same as obj.hello(obj)
Finally, I have just scratched the surface of how this can be done. As has been noted in Kevin Vermeer's comment, the Lua Users Wiki is an excellent source of information about this topic and there you can learn all about how to implement another important aspects of OOP that have been neglected in this answer (private members, how to construct objects, inheritance, ...). Have in mind that this way of doing things is a little part of the Lua philosophy, giving you simple orthogonal tools capable of building more advanced constructs.
For a quick and dirty oo implementation I do something like -
function newRGB(r,g,b)
return {
red=r;
green=g;
blue=b;
name='';
setName = function(self,name)
self.name=name;
end;
getName = function(self)
return self.name;
end;
tostring = function(self)
return self.name..' = {'..self.red..','..self.green..','..self.blue..'}'
end
}
end
which can then be used like -
blue = newRGB(0,0,255);
blue:setName('blue');
yellow = newRGB(255,255,0);
yellow:setName('yellow');
print(yellow:tostring());
print(blue:tostring());
for a more full featured approach I would use an oo library as was mentioned by eemrevnivek. You can also find a simple class function here which is somewhere between full on library and quick and dirty.
This is already answered, but anyway, here's my oop implementation: middleclass.
That lib provides the bare minimum for creating classes, instances, inheritance, polymorphism and (primitive) mixins, with an acceptable performance.
Sample:
local class = require 'middleclass'
local Person = class('Person')
function Person:initialize(name)
self.name = name
end
function Person:speak()
print('Hi, I am ' .. self.name ..'.')
end
local AgedPerson = class('AgedPerson', Person) -- or Person:subclass('AgedPerson')
AgedPerson.static.ADULT_AGE = 18 --this is a class variable
function AgedPerson:initialize(name, age)
Person.initialize(self, name) -- this calls the parent's constructor (Person.initialize) on self
self.age = age
end
function AgedPerson:speak()
Person.speak(self) -- prints "Hi, I am xx."
if(self.age < AgedPerson.ADULT_AGE) then --accessing a class variable from an instance method
print('I am underaged.')
else
print('I am an adult.')
end
end
local p1 = AgedPerson:new('Billy the Kid', 13) -- this is equivalent to AgedPerson('Billy the Kid', 13) - the :new part is implicit
local p2 = AgedPerson:new('Luke Skywalker', 21)
p1:speak()
p2:speak()
Output:
Hi, I am Billy the Kid.
I am underaged.
Hi, I am Luke Skywalker.
I am an adult.
The approach I use usually goes like this:
class = {} -- Will remain empty as class
mt = {} -- Will contain everything the instances will contain _by default_
mt.new = function(self,foo)
local inst={}
if type(foo) == "table" then
for k,v in pairs(foo) do
inst[k]=v
end
else
inst.foo=foo
end
return setmetatable(inst,getmetatable(class))
end
mt.print = function(self)
print("My foo is ",self.foo)
end
mt.foo= 4 --standard foo
mt.__index=mt -- Look up all inexistent indices in the metatable
setmetatable(class,mt)
i1=class:new() -- use default foo
i1:print()
i2=class:new(42)
i2:print()
i3=class:new{foo=123,print=function(self) print("Fancy printing my foo:",self.foo) end}
Well, conclusion: with metatables and some clever thinking, about anything is possible: metatables are the REAL magic when working with classes.
The best solution I saw is not to implement OO in Lua, where it is not natural and patchy, and hence takes many lines; rather, implement it in C++ using luabridge or luabind, where it is natural and powerful!
A minimalistic example which uses LuaBridge:
m.class_<MyClass>("MyClass")
.constructor<void (*) (/* parameter types */)>()
.method("method1", &MyClass::method1)
.property_rw("property2", &MyClass::getter2, &MyClass::setter2)
.property_ro("property3", &MyClass::property3)
This would translate into natural lua syntax:
c=MyClass()
c.method1()
c.property2 = c.property3 * 2
do_stuff(c.property3)
Also one-level inheritence is supported...
This site tickled my sense of humour - http://www.antiifcampaign.com/ but can polymorphism work in every case where you would use an if statement?
Smalltalk, which is considered as a "truly" object oriented language, has no "if" statement, and it has no "for" statement, no "while" statement. There are other examples (like Haskell) but this is a good one.
Quoting Smalltalk has no “if” statement:
Some of the audience may be thinking
that this is evidence confirming their
suspicions that Smalltalk is weird,
but what I’m going to tell you is
this:
An “if” statement is an abomination in an Object Oriented language.
Why? Well, an OO language is composed
of classes, objects and methods, and
an “if” statement is inescapably none
of those. You can’t write “if” in an
OO way. It shouldn’t exist.
Conditional execution, like everything
else, should be a method. A method of
what? Boolean.
Now, funnily enough, in Smalltalk,
Boolean has a method called
ifTrue:ifFalse: (that name will look
pretty odd now, but pass over it for
now). It’s abstract in Boolean, but
Boolean has two subclasses: True and
False. The method is passed two blocks
of code. In True, the method simply
runs the code for the true case. In
False, it runs the code for the false
case. Here’s an example that hopefully
explains:
(x >= 0) ifTrue: [
'Positive'
] ifFalse: [
'Negative'
]
You should be able to see ifTrue: and
ifFalse: in there. Don’t worry that
they’re not together.
The expression (x >= 0) evaluates to
true or false. Say it’s true, then we
have:
true ifTrue: [
'Positive'
] ifFalse: [
'Negative'
]
I hope that it’s fairly obvious that
that will produce ‘Positive’.
If it was false, we’d have:
false ifTrue: [
'Positive'
] ifFalse: [
'Negative'
]
That produces ‘Negative’.
OK, that’s how it’s done. What’s so
great about it? Well, in what other
language can you do this? More
seriously, the answer is that there
aren’t any special cases in this
language. Everything can be done in an
OO way, and everything is done in an
OO way.
I definitely recommend reading the whole post and Code is an object from the same author as well.
That website is against using if statements for checking if an object has a specific type. This is completely different from if (foo == 5). It's bad to use ifs like if (foo instanceof pickle). The alternative, using polymorphism instead, promotes encapsulation, making code infinitely easier to debug, maintain, and extend.
Being against ifs in general (doing a certain thing based on a condition) will gain you nothing. Notice how all the other answers here still make decisions, so what's really the difference?
Explanation of the why behind polymorphism:
Take this situation:
void draw(Shape s) {
if (s instanceof Rectangle)
//treat s as rectangle
if (s instanceof Circle)
//treat s as circle
}
It's much better if you don't have to worry about the specific type of an object, generalizing how objects are processed:
void draw(Shape s) {
s.draw();
}
This moves the logic of how to draw a shape into the shape class itself, so we can now treat all shapes the same. This way if we want to add a new type of shape, all we have to do is write the class and give it a draw method instead of modifying every conditional list in the whole program.
This idea is everywhere in programming today, the whole concept of interfaces is all about polymorphism. (Shape is an interface defining a certain behavior, allowing us to process any type that implements the Shape interface in our method.) Dynamic programming languages take this even further, allowing us to pass any type that supports the necessary actions into a method. Which looks better to you? (Python-style pseudo-code)
def multiply(a,b):
if (a is string and b is int):
//repeat a b times.
if (a is int and b is int):
//multiply a and b
or using polymorphism:
def multiply(a,b):
return a*b
You can now use any 2 types that support the * operator, allowing you to use the method with types that haven't event been created yet.
See polymorphism and what is polymorhism.
Though not OOP-related: In Prolog, the only way to write your whole application is without if statements.
Yes actually, you can have a turing-complete language that has no "if" per se and only allows "while" statements:
http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/classes/fa08/cse200/while.html
As for OO design, it makes sense to use an inheritance pattern rather than switches based on a type field in certain cases... That's not always feasible or necessarily desirable though.
#ennuikiller: conditionals would just be a matter of syntactic sugar:
if (test) body; is equivalent to x=test; while (x) {x=nil; body;}
if-then-else is a little more verbose:
if (test) ifBody; else elseBody;
is equivalent to
x = test; y = true;
while (x) {x = nil; y = nil; ifBody;}
while (y) {y = nil; elseBody;}
the primitive data structure is a list of lists. you could say 2 scalars are equal if they are lists of the same length. you would loop over them simultaneously using the head/tail operators and see if they stop at the same point.
of course that could all be wrapped up in macros.
The simplest turing complete language is probably iota. It contains only 2 symbols ('i' and '*').
Yep. if statements imply branches which can be very costly on a lot of modern processors - particularly PowerPC. Many modern PCs do a lot of pipeline re-ordering and so branch mis-predictions can cost an order of >30 cycles per branch miss.
On console programming it's sometimes faster to just execute the code and ignore it than check if you should execute it!
Simple branch avoidance in C:
if (++i >= 15)
{
i = 0;
)
can be re-written as
i = (i + 1) & 15;
However, if you want to see some real anti-if fu then read this
Oh and on the OOP question - I'll replace a branch mis-prediction with a virtual function call? No thanks....
The reasoning behind the "anti-if" campaign is similar to what Kent Beck said:
Good code invariably has small methods and
small objects. Only by factoring the system into many small pieces of state
and function can you hope to satisfy the “once and only once” rule. I get lots
of resistance to this idea, especially from experienced developers, but no one
thing I do to systems provides as much help as breaking it into more pieces.
If you don't know how to factor a program with composition and inheritance, then your classes and methods will tend to grow bigger over time. When you need to make a change, the easiest thing will be to add an IF somewhere. Add too many IFs, and your program will become less and less maintainable, and still the easiest thing will be to add more IFs.
You don't have to turn every IF into an object collaboration; but it's a very good thing when you know how to :-)
You can define True and False with objects (in a pseudo-python):
class True:
def if(then,else):
return then
def or(a):
return True()
def and(a):
return a
def not():
return False()
class False:
def if(then,else):
return false
def or(a):
return a
def and(a):
return False()
def not():
return True()
I think it is an elegant way to construct booleans, and it proves that you can replace every if by polymorphism, but that's not the point of the anti-if campaign. The goal is to avoid writing things such as (in a pathfinding algorithm) :
if type == Block or type == Player:
# You can't pass through this
else:
# You can
But rather call a is_traversable method on each object. In a sense, that's exactly the inverse of pattern matching. "if" is useful, but in some cases, it is not the best solution.
I assume you are actually asking about replacing if statements that check types, as opposed to replacing all if statements.
To replace an if with polymorphism requires a method in a common supertype you can use for dispatching, either by overriding it directly, or by reusing overridden methods as in the visitor pattern.
But what if there is no such method, and you can't add one to a common supertype because the super types are not maintained by you? Would you really go to the lengths of introducing a new supertype along with subtypes just to get rid of a single if? That would be taking purity a bit far in my opinion.
Also, both approaches (direct overriding and the visitor pattern) have their disadvantages: Overriding the method directly requires that you implement your method in the classes you want to switch on, which might not help cohesion. On the other hand, the visitor pattern is awkward if several cases share the same code. With an if you can do:
if (o instanceof OneType || o instanceof AnotherType) {
// complicated logic goes here
}
How would you share the code with the visitor pattern? Call a common method? Where would you put that method?
So no, I don't think replacing such if statements is always an improvement. It often is, but not always.
I used to write code a lot as the recommend in the anti-if campaign, using either callbacks in a delegate dictionary or polymorphism.
It's quite a beguiling argument, especially if you are dealing with messy code bases but to be honest, although it's great for a plugin model or simplifying large nested if statements, it does make navigating and readability a bit of a pain.
For example F12 (Go To Definition) in visual studio will take you to an abstract class (or, in my case an interface definition).
It also makes quick visual scanning of a class very cumbersome, and adds an overhead in setting up the delegates and lookup hashes.
Using the recommendations put forward in the anti-if campaign as much as they appear to be recommending looks like 'ooh, new shiny thing' programming to me.
As for the other constructs put forward in this thread, albeit it has been done in the spirit of a fun challenge, are just substitutes for an if statement, and don't really address what the underlying beliefs of the anti-if campaign.
You can avoid ifs in your business logic code if you keep them in your construction code (Factories, builders, Providers etc.). Your business logic code would be much more readable, easier to understand or easier to maintain or extend. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F72VULWFvc
Haskell doesn't even have if statements, being pure functional. ;D
You can do it without if per se, but you can't do it without a mechanism that allows you to make a decision based on some condition.
In assembly, there's no if statement. There are conditional jumps.
In Haskell for instance, there's no explicit if, instead, you define a function multiple times, I forgot the exact syntax, but it's something like this:
pseudo-haskell:
def posNeg(x < 0):
return "negative"
def posNeg(x == 0):
return "zero"
def posNeg(x):
return "positive"
When you call posNeg(a), the interpreter will look at the value of a, if it's < 0 then it will choose the first definition, if it's == 0 then it will choose the second definition, otherwise it will default to the third definition.
So while languages like Haskell and SmallTalk don't have the usual C-style if statement, they have other means of allowing you to make decisions.
This is actually a coding game I like to play with programming languages. It's called "if we had no if" which has its origins at: http://wiki.tcl.tk/4821
Basically, if we disallow the use of conditional constructs in the language: no if, no while, no for, no unless, no switch etc.. can we recreate our own IF function. The answer depends on the language and what language features we can exploit (remember using regular conditional constructs is cheating co no ternary operators!)
For example, in tcl, a function name is just a string and any string (including the empty string) is allowed for anything (function names, variable names etc.). So, exploiting this we can do:
proc 0 {true false} {uplevel 1 $false; # execute false code block, ignore true}
proc 1 {true false} {uplevel 1 $true; # execute true code block, ignore flase}
proc _IF {boolean true false} {
$boolean $true $false
}
#usage:
_IF [expr {1<2}] {
puts "this is true"
} {
#else:
puts "this is false"
}
or in javascript we can abuse the loose typing and the fact that almost anything can be cast into a string and combine that with its functional nature:
function fail (discard,execute) {execute()}
function pass (execute,discard) {execute()}
var truth_table = {
'false' : fail,
'true' : pass
}
function _IF (expr) {
return truth_table[!!expr];
}
//usage:
_IF(3==2)(
function(){alert('this is true')},
//else
function(){alert('this is false')}
);
Not all languages can do this sort of thing. But languages I like tend to be able to.
The idea of polymorphism is to call an object without to first verify the class of that object.
That doesn't mean the if statement should not be used at all; you should avoid to write
if (object.isArray()) {
// Code to execute when the object is an array.
} else if (object.inString()) {
// Code to execute if the object is a string.
}
It depends on the language.
Statically typed languages should be able to handle all of the type checking by sharing common interfaces and overloading functions/methods.
Dynamically typed languages might need to approach the problem differently since type is not checked when a message is passed, only when an object is being accessed (more or less). Using common interfaces is still good practice and can eliminate many of the type checking if statements.
While some constructs are usually a sign of code smell, I am hesitant to eliminate any approach to a problem apriori. There may be times when type checking via if is the expedient solution.
Note: Others have suggested using switch instead, but that is just a clever way of writing more legible if statements.
Well, if you're writing in Perl, it's easy!
Instead of
if (x) {
# ...
}
you can use
unless (!x){
# ...
}
;-)
In answer to the question, and as suggested by the last respondent, you need some if statements to detect state in a factory. At that point you then instantiate a set of collaborating classes that solve the state specific problem. Of course, other conditionals would be required as needed, but they would be minimized.
What would be removed of course would be the endless procedural state checking rife in so much service based code.
Interesting smalltalk is mentioned, as that's the language I used before being dragged across into Java. I don't get home as early as I used to.
I thought about adding my two cents: you can optimize away ifs in many languages where the second part of a boolean expression is not evaluated when it won't affect the result.
With the and operator, if the first operand evaluates to false, then there is no need to evaluate the second one. With the or operator, it's the opposite - there's no need to evaluate the second operand if the first one is true. Some languages always behave like that, others offer an alternative syntax.
Here's an if - elseif - else code made in JavaScript by only using operators and anonymous functions.
document.getElementById("myinput").addEventListener("change", function(e) {
(e.target.value == 1 && !function() {
alert('if 1');
}()) || (e.target.value == 2 && !function() {
alert('else if 2');
}()) || (e.target.value == 3 && !function() {
alert('else if 3');
}()) || (function() {
alert('else');
}());
});
<input type="text" id="myinput" />
This makes me want to try defining an esoteric language where blocks implicitly behave like self-executing anonymous functions and return true, so that you would write it like this:
(condition && {
action
}) || (condition && {
action
}) || {
action
}