When dealing with MySQL, I typically use the BOOLEAN type, which is equivalent to TINYINT(1), or 1/0
In most languages I work with, true/false is preferred
When displaying forms, sometimes "Yes / No" makes more sense
enum Bool
{
True,
False,
FileNotFound
};
http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/What_Is_Truth_0x3f_.aspx
In code: true/false.
In the UI: Yes/No or OK/Cancel
true and false makes a lot more sense to me, in code - partly through familiarity, I'm sure. I suspect I'd get used to yes and no pretty quickly. 1 and 0 really doesn't work for me though.
Consider the expression
age == 5
It's a test for truth-hood. Is the value of age 5? Yes, it's true. Both "yes" and "no" would be fine for me, but the idea that the answer to the question "Is the value of age 5?" is "1" seems pretty counter-intuitive to me. Just because that's the typical binary representation of truth-hood doesn't mean it's a useful one at a higher abstraction.
Which is easier to read?
while(true) {}
while(yes) {}
while(1) {}
I'll stick with true for most cases.
Here are rules I live by...
Rule #1
Use well defined constants in the programming languages that you use to communicate with the CPU, i.e., true/false in most modern cases for boolean values. If a database offers a boolean type or some such equivalent, of course it should be used.
Rule #2
Interact with users of your software by using their preferred language and idiom, i.e., Yes/No questions should offer Yes/No (or perhaps an alternative to No, such as Cancel).
Rule #3
Uncertainty should be expressed in terms of scope, i.e., "that depends", which will be followed up by the question "on what?". I know developers who answer the question by copying and pasting just about every dependency they may need into every code file of a project as a 'using' statement. That's just sloppy, and please bother to alphabetize or at least group namespaces together.
When a bool Just Isn't Enough
Incidentally, an interesting twist to this, available in C#, is Nullable;
The you can write
Nullable<bool> RespondToIritatingQuestion()
{
return new Nullable<bool>();
}
OR
bool? RespondToIritatingQuestionWithSytle()
{
return new bool?();
}
and the questioner would need to evaluate your response before even knowing what the answer, if there is one, might be...
bool? answer = RespondToIritatingQuestionWithStyle();
if (answer.HasValue)
Trace.WriteLine("The bloke responded with " + answer.Value.ToString());
else
Trace.WriteLine("The bloke responded with 'depends'.");
1 or 0 for SQL. SQL has a boolean type for a reason. Also, in very large databases, it can effect performance.
I use booleans for true/false fields in databases. Some people use ENUM('true', 'false'), but thats not my preference. For programming languages, I always use true/false, even if setting it to 0 or 1 will work. And if the form requires 'yes'/'no', I still use booleans to represent the values, but display them as strings that are more logical.
Related
to is an infix function within the standard library. It can be used to create Pairs concisely:
0 to "hero"
in comparison with:
Pair(0, "hero")
Typically, it is used to initialize Maps concisely:
mapOf(0 to "hero", 1 to "one", 2 to "two")
However, there are other situations in which one needs to create a Pair. For instance:
"to be or not" to "be"
(0..10).map { it to it * it }
Is it acceptable, stylistically, to (ab)use to in this manner?
Just because some language features are provided does not mean they are better over certain things. A Pair can be used instead of to and vice versa. What becomes a real issue is that, does your code still remain simple, would it require some reader to read the previous story to understand the current one? In your last map example, it does not give a hint of what it's doing. Imagine someone reading { it to it * it}, they would be most likely confused. I would say this is an abuse.
to infix offer a nice syntactical sugar, IMHO it should be used in conjunction with a nicely named variable that tells the reader what this something to something is. For example:
val heroPair = Ironman to Spiderman //including a 'pair' in the variable name tells the story what 'to' is doing.
Or you could use scoping functions
(Ironman to Spiderman).let { heroPair -> }
I don't think there's an authoritative answer to this. The only examples in the Kotlin docs are for creating simple constant maps with mapOf(), but there's no hint that to shouldn't be used elsewhere.
So it'll come down to a matter of personal taste…
For me, I'd be happy to use it anywhere it represents a mapping of some kind, so in a map{…} expression would seem clear to me, just as much as in a mapOf(…) list. Though (as mentioned elsewhere) it's not often used in complex expressions, so I might use parentheses to keep the precedence clear, and/or simplify the expression so they're not needed.
Where it doesn't indicate a mapping, I'd be much more hesitant to use it. For example, if you have a method that returns two values, it'd probably be clearer to use an explicit Pair. (Though in that case, it'd be clearer still to define a simple data class for the return value.)
You asked for personal perspective so here is mine.
I found this syntax is a huge win for simple code, especial in reading code. Reading code with parenthesis, a lot of them, caused mental stress, imagine you have to review/read thousand lines of code a day ;(
Sorry in advance if this has been answered somewhere, but I did look around for a while and didn't find anything.
I'm coding in Objective-C, but this is mostly a general coding question. I'm essentially wondering if there is a proper, professional way to write if else statements involving booleans. Specifically, I would like to know if
There is a "fastest" "best" coding practice for the ordering of if else statments involving booleans
Is there a more aesthetically popular way of writing them?
So, for example, here are three different ways I'm wondering about
Method 1
if (myBool)
{
//Do something
}
else
{
//Do something else
}
Method 2
if (myBool)
{
//Do something
}
else if (!myBool)
{
//Do something else
}
Method 3
if (myBool)
{
//Do something
}
if (!myBool)
{
//Do something else
}
I know this sounds kinda dumb and is really harping on subtle details. I'm mostly wondering about these different methods in terms of code readability. It almost seems like method 2/3 is best to me in terms of readability. This allows you to search for specific cases of that variable, which might be easier in large files. Maybe this is a minute point, and really doesn't matter though.
Method 1 seems like the most common to me, and is what I would pick by default. But for more experienced coders out there, is there a specific way to do this, or just preference?
1. There is a "fastest" "best" coding practice for the ordering of if else statments involving booleans
"Put the case you normally expect to process first. This is in line with the general principle of putting code that results from a decision as close as possible to the decision...[putting the normal case after the if] puts the focus on reading the main flow rather than on wading through the exceptional cases, so the code is easier to read overall."
Code Complete, 2nd Edition, pages 356-357.
2. Is there a more aesthetically popular way of writing them?
In normal logic flow it is better to use Method 1
One thing to take into consideration is the values you are expecting.
In this case, boolean only has two possible values, and therefore makes sense if we use Method 1 as the most "convenient" way.
Method 2 works effectively when you have more than 2 possible values to be checked.
Method 3 on the other hand is convenient when value of myBool may change after the first [if] condition.
I think Method1 is common and efficient also.
1. In method3 if myBool is true then there is no need of checking 2nd if condition.
2. In method2 there is no need of 2nd if because bool have only 2 values either it is yes/true or no/false. Use else if only there are more than 2 cases.
3. When you are using if else or if else if you should provide condition according to probability. Means condition which satisfied most must be placed first.
A neat way of doing if/else for very simple assignments
int num;
if (isNegative) {
num = -1;
} else {
num = 1;
}
Short hand would be:
int num = isNegative ? -1 : 1; // --> condition ? true : false
I wouldn't suggest this for complex conditions/assignments as can get messy. But I've found it useful for compacting very simple if/else assignments.
The large majority of SonarLint rules that I've come across in Java seemed plausible and justified. However, ever since I've started using SonarLint for VB.NET, I've come across several rules that left me questioning their usefulness or even whether or not they are working correctly.
I'd like to know if this is simply a problem of me using some VB.NET constructs in a suboptimal way or whether the rule really is flawed.
(Apologies if this question is a little longer. I didn't know if I should create a separate question for each individual rule.)
The following rules I found to leave some cases unconsidered that would actually turn up as false-positives:
S1871: Two branches in the same conditional structure should not have exactly the same implementation
I found this one to bring up a lot of false-positives for me, because sometimes the order in which the conditions are checked actually does matter. Take the following pseudo code as example:
If conditionA() Then
doSomething()
ElseIf conditionB() AndAlso conditionC() Then
doSomethingElse()
ElseIf conditionD() OrElse conditionE() Then
doYetAnotherThing()
'... feel free to have even more cases in between here
Else Then
doSomething() 'Non-compliant
End If
If I wanted to follow this Sonar rule and still make the code behave the same way, I'd have to add the negated version of each ElseIf-condition to the first If-condition.
Another example would be the following switch:
Select Case i
Case 0 To 40
value = 0
Case 41 To 60
value = 1
Case 61 To 80
value = 3
Case 81 To 100
value = 5
Case Else
value = 0 'Non-compliant
There shouldn't be anything wrong with having that last case in a switch. True, I could have initialized value beforehand to 0 and ignored that last case, but then I'd have one more assignment operation than necessary. And the Java ruleset has conditioned me to always put a default case in every switch.
S1764: Identical expressions should not be used on both sides of a binary operator
This rule does not seem to take into account that some functions may return different values every time you call them, for instance collections where accessing an element removes it from the collection:
stack.Push(stack.Pop() / stack.Pop()) 'Non-compliant
I understand if this is too much of an edge case to make special exceptions for it, though.
The following rules I am not actually sure about:
S3385: "Exit" statements should not be used
While I agree that Return is more readable than Exit Sub, is it really bad to use a single Exit For to break out of a For or a For Each loop? The SonarLint rule for Java permits the use of a single break; in a loop before flagging it as an issue. Is there a reason why the default in VB.NET is more strict in that regard? Or is the rule built on the assumption that you can solve nearly all your loop problems with LINQ extension methods and lambdas?
S2374: Signed types should be preferred to unsigned ones
This rule basically states that unsigned types should not be used at all because they "have different arithmetic operators than signed ones - operators that few developers understand". In my code I am only using UInteger for ID values (because I don't need negative values and a Long would be a waste of memory in my case). They are stored in List(Of UInteger) and only ever compared to other UIntegers. Is this rule even relevant to my case (are comparisons part of these "arithmetic operators" mentioned by the rule) and what exactly would be the pitfall? And if not, wouldn't it be better to make that rule apply to arithmetic operations involving unsigned types, rather than their declaration?
S2355: Array literals should be used instead of array creation expressions
Maybe I don't know VB.NET well enough, but how exactly would I satisfy this rule in the following case where I want to create a fixed-size array where the initialization length is only known at runtime? Is this a false-positive?
Dim myObjects As Object() = New Object(someOtherList.Count - 3) {} 'Non-compliant
Sure, I could probably just use a List(Of Object). But I am curious anyway.
Thanks for raising these points. Note that not all rules apply every time. There are cases when we need to balance between false positives/false negatives/real cases. For example with identical expressions on both sides of an operator rule. Is it a bug to have the same operands? No it's not. If it was, then the compiler would report it. Is it a bad smell, is it usually a mistake? Yes in many cases. See this for example in Roslyn. Should we tune this rule to exclude some cases? Yes we should, there's nothing wrong with 2 << 2. So there's a lot of balancing that needs to happen, and we try to settle for an implementation that brings the most value for the users.
For the points you raised:
Two branches in the same conditional structure should not have exactly the same implementation
This rule generally states that having two blocks of code match exactly is a bad sign. Copy-pasted code should be avoided for many reasons, for example if you need to fix the code in one place, you'll need to fix it in the other too. You're right that adding negated conditions would be a mess, but if you extract each condition into its own method (and call the negated methods inside them) with proper names, then it would probably improves the readability of your code.
For the Select Case, again, copy pasted code is always a bad sign. In this case you could do this:
Select Case i
...
Case 0 To 40
Case Else
value = 0 ' Compliant
End Select
Or simply remove the 0-40 case.
Identical expressions should not be used on both sides of a binary operator
I think this is a corner case. See the first paragraph of the answer.
"Exit" statements should not be used
It's almost always true that by choosing another type of loop, or changing the stop condition, you can get away without using any "Exit" statements. It's good practice to have a single exit point from loops.
Signed types should be preferred to unsigned ones
This is a legacy rule from SonarQube VB.NET, and I agree with you that it shouldn't be enabled by default in SonarLint. I created the following ticket in our JIRA: https://jira.sonarsource.com/browse/SLVS-1074
Array literals should be used instead of array creation expressions
Yes, it seems to be a false positive, we shouldn't report on array creations when the size is explicitly specified. https://jira.sonarsource.com/browse/SLVS-1075
Consider the following Java code:
public void DoStuff(String[] strings, boolean preEval)
{
final String compareTo = "A Somewhat Long String of Characters";
for ( int i = 0; i < strings.length; ++i )
{
if ( preEval )
{
if( strings[i].equals(compareTo) )
{
//do something process intensive
}
}
//do something process intensive
}
}
Now pay attention to if (preEval) and the inner statement within that. If the algorithm in use requires a condition such as preEval, does it make sense to include the preEval condition for the purposes of code optimization?
From my understanding, evaluating to see if a conditional flag resolves to true or false is much faster than iterating through a collection of characters and comparing each character within that collection with another corresponding character from a different collection.
My knowledge of assembly is about 30% I'd say in terms of the internals and opcodes/mnemonics involved, hence why I'm asking this question.
Update
Note: the code posted here is meant to be language independent; I simply chose Java just for the sake of something tangible and easy to read, as well as something which is widely known among the programmer community.
I would say that this would probably be an optimization in most cases.
That said, you should not spend time on optimizing code that has not been measured.
This might for example not be a worthwhile optimization if:
most of your cases involves few strings or very short strings.
it takes a long time to calculate the preEval parameter before calling the function.
Measure your code under realistic circumstances, identify your bottle necks, then you optimize.
A less costly approach might be to use a HashSet::contains(string) method to check for existence of a string in a collection. You can probably design away the need for string compares while iterating using a HashSet of strings or a HashMap keyed by String.
I always try to use a HashMap where i can to avoid conditional logic entirely.
_ryan
When I'm using an If statement and I want to check if a boolean is false should I use the "Not" keyword or just = false, like so
If (Not myboolean) then
vs
If (myboolean = False) then
Which is better practice and more readable?
Definitely, use "Not". And for the alternately, use "If (myboolean)" instead of "If (myboolean = true)"
The works best if you give the boolean a readable name:
if (node.HasChildren)
Since there's no functional difference between either style, this is one of those things that just comes down to personal preference.
If you're working on a codebase where a standard has already been set, then stick to that.
Use True and False to set variables, not to test them. This improves readability as described in the other answers, but it also improves portability, particularly when best practices aren't followed.
Some languages allow you to interchange bool and integer types. Consider the contrived example:
int differentInts(int i, int j)
{
return i-j; // Returns non-zero (true) if ints are different.
}
. . .
if (differentInts(4, 8) == TRUE)
printf("Four and Eight are different!\n");
else
printf("Four and Eight are equal!\n");
Horrible style, but I've seen worse sneak into production. On other people's watches, of course. :-)
Additionally to the consensus, when there is both a true case and a false case please use
if (condition)
// true case
else
// false case
rather than
if (not condition)
// false case
else
// true case
(But then I am never sure if python's x is not None is the true-case or the false case.)
Definitely use "Not", consider reading it aloud.
If you read aloud:
If X is false Then Do Y
Do Y
Versus
If Not X Then Do Y
I think you'll find the "Not" route is more natural. Especially if you pick good variable names or functions.
Code Complete has some good rules on variable names. http://cc2e.com/Page.aspx?hid=225 (login is probably required)
! condition
In C and pre-STL C++, "!condition" means condition evaluates to a false truth value, whereas "condition == FALSE" meant that the value of condition had to equal what the system designed as FALSE. Since different implementations defined it in different ways, it was deemed better practice to use !condition.
UPDATE: As pointed out in the comment -- FALSE is always 0, it's TRUE that can be dangerous.
Something else: Omit the parentheses, they’re redundant in VB and as such, constitute syntactic garbage.
Also, I'm slightly bothered by how many people argue by giving technical examples in other languages that simply do not apply in VB. In VB, the only reasons to use If Not x instead of If x = False is readability and logic. Not that you’d need other reasons.
Completely different reasons apply in C(++), true. Even more true due to the existence of frameworks that really handle this differently. But misleading in the context of VB!
It does not make any difference as long you are dealing with VB only, however if you happen to use C functions such as the Win32 API, definitely do not use "NOT" just "==False" when testing for false, but when testing for true do not use "==True" instead use "if(function())".
The reason for that is the difference between C and VB in how boolean is defined.
In C true == 1 while in VB true == -1 (therefore you should not compare the output of a C function to true, as you are trying to compare -1 to 1)
Not in Vb is a bitwise NOT (equal to C's ~ operator not the ! operator), and thus it negates each bit, and as a result negating 1 (true in C) will result in a non zero value which is true, NOT only works on VB true which is -1 (which in bit format is all one's according to the two's complement rule [111111111]) and negating all bits [0000000000] equals zero.
For a better understanding see my answer on Is there a VB.net equivalent for C#'s ! operator?
Made a difference with these lines in vb 2010/12
With the top line, Option Strict had to be turned off.
If InStr(strLine, "=") = False Then _
If Not CBool(InStr(strLine, "=")) Then
Thanks for answering the question for me. (I'm learning)