I've been studying Ruby on Rails for a class project. I keep hearing "everything in Ruby is an object". What I am not sure I understand is WHY that is a good thing, or maybe IF that is a good thing?
A counterexample would be that in Java Integer is an object but int is not, which means different operations apply to both (admittedly in recent Java there is automatic conversion to/from the object version, but this can introduce unexpected performance issues). Objects are a little slower due to indirection, but more flexible; everything being an object means everything behaves consistently. Again Java would be an example: an array is not an object, and ArrayIterator is something that is bolted on after the fact (with multiple third party implementations, even) and therefore not quite consistent with the way collection class iterators work.
It makes Ruby very flexible. Numbers and other primitive types can be altered or extended.
This can also result in quite elegant syntax:
5.times { print "print this 5 times" }
Everything in Ruby is not an object (Yes, I know what people generally mean when saying that statement, but its still not totally true). It is more appropriate to say "everything in Ruby evaluates to an object". This is an interesting insight to make, and for the more proper elaboration, I'll simply cite David Black. It's a good read:
http://rubylearning.com/blog/2010/09/27/almost-everything-is-an-object-and-everything-is-almost-an-object/
Like other people have pointed out already, there are primitives other than objects in other languages like Java. For the compiler and computer, it's a good thing to get the most efficient code, however, programmers need to use different functions and methods based on which one they are dealing with.
Since Ruby is designed for humans, not computers, sacrificing a bit of computational resource for the sake of human's productivity is considered good. Thus, Ruby has never had the distinction between objects and primitives. It definitely lowers the learning curve for novices, too. Internally, Ruby is using a technique called tagged pointers and the performance penalty by the lack of primitives is not as bad, as far as I know.
Another thing worth noting is that in Ruby, classes are also objects, which means you can modify classes and their behaviors with ease even when the code is running. This dynamic nature gives programmers so much power and the Ruby code tends to look quite terse. Ruby on Rails is taking full advantage of this dynamic aspect of the Ruby language.
Related
I'm doing a project which involves parsing the histories of common lisp repos. I need to parse them into list-of-lists or something like that. Ideally, I'd like to preserve as much of the original source file syntax as possible, in some way. For example, in the case of the text #+sbcl <something>, which I think means "If our current lisp is sbcl, read <something>, otherwise skip it", I'd like to get something like (#+ 'sbcl <something>).
I originally wrote a LALR parser in Python, which sort of worked, but it's not ideal for many reasons. I'm having a lot of difficulty getting correct output, and I have tons of special cases to add.
I figured that what I should really do is is use lisp itself, since it already has a lisp parser built in. If I could just read a file into sexps, I could dump it into something (cl-json would do) for further processing down the line.
Unfortunately, when I attempt to read https://github.com/fukamachi/woo/blob/master/src/woo.lisp, I get the error
There is no package with the name WOO.EV.TCP
which is of course coming from line 80 of that file, since that package is defined in src/ev/tcp.lisp, and we haven't read it.
Basically, is it possible to just read the file into sexps without caring whether the packages are defined or if they contain the relevant symbols? If so, how? I've tried looking at the hyperspec reader documentation, but I don't see anything that sounds relevant.
I'm out of practice with actually writing common lisp, but it seems potentially possible to hack around this by handling the undefined package condition by creating a blank package with that name, and handling the no-symbol-of-that-name-in-package condition by just interning a given symbol. I think. I don't know how to actually do this, I don't know if it would work, I don't know how many special cases would be involved. Offhand, the first condition is called no-such-package, but the second one (at least in sbcl) is called simple-error, so I don't even know how to determine whether this particular simple-error is the no-such-symbol-in-that-package error, let alone how to extract the relevant names from the condition, fix it, and restart. I'd really like to hear from a common lisp expert that this is the right thing to do here before I go down the road of trying to do it this way, because it will involve a lot of learning.
It also occurs to me that I could fix this by just sed-ing the file before reading it. E.g. turning woo.ev.tcp:start-listening-socket into, say, woo.ev.tcp===start-listening-socket. I don't particularly like this solution, and it's not clear that I wouldn't run into tons more ugly special cases, but it might work if there's no better answer.
I am almost sure there is no easy portable way to do this for a number of reasons.
(Just limiting things to the non-existent-package problem for now.)
First of all there is no portable access into the bit of the reader which decides that tokens are going to be symbols and then looks for package markers &c: that just happens according to the rules in 2.3. So you can't easily intervene in this.
Secondly there's not portably enough information in any kind of condition the reader might signal to be able to handle them.
There are several possible ways out of this bit of the problem.
If you felt sufficiently heroic you might be able to teach the reader that all of the token-starting characters are in fact things you control and then write a token-reader that somehow deals with the whole package thing by returning some object which isn't a symbol. But to do that you need to deal with numbers, and if you think that's simple, well, it's not.
If you felt less heroic you could write a more primitive token-reader which just doesn't even try to deal with anything except grabbing all the characters needed and returns some kind of object which wraps a string. This would avoid the whole number problem at the cost of losing a lot of intofmration.
If you don't care about portability, find an implementation, understand how its reader does it, and muck around with it. There are more open source or source-available implementations than I can easily count (perhaps I am not very good at counting) so this is a pretty good approach. It's certainly what I'd do.
But this is only the start of the problems. The CL reader is hairy and, in its standard configuration (the configuration which is used for things like compile-file unless people have arranged otherwise) can run completely arbitrary code at read time, including code which modifies the reader itself, some of which may do so in an implementation-dependent way. And people use this: there's a reason Lisp is called the 'programmable programming language' and it's that people program it.
I've decided to solve this using sed (actually Python's re.sub, but who's counting?) because it'll work for my actual use case, and was easy.
For future readers: The various people saying this is impossible in general are probably right. The other questions posted by #Svante look like good easy ways to solve part of the problem. Other parts of the problem might be solved more elegantly by replacing the reader macros for #., #+, #-, etc with ones which just make a list, which sounds less heroic than the suggestions from #tfb, but I don't have time for that shit.
I'm looking for an alternative to JMegahal that is just as simple, and easy to use, but yields better results. I know JMegahal uses Markov chains to generate new strings, and I know that they're not necessarily the best. I was pointed towards Bayesian Network as the best conceptual solution to this problem, but I cannot find any libraries for Java that are easy to use at all. I saw WEKA, but it seemed bloated, and hard to follow. I also saw JavaBayes, but it was almost completely undocumented (their javadocs contained little to no information, and the variables were poorly named) and the library was blatantly written in C-style, making it stand out in Java.
You might want to consider extending JMegahal to filter the input sentences. Back in the mid-90s, Jason Hutchens had written a C version of this 4th-order Markov strings algorithm (it was probably used as inspiration for the JMegahal implementation actually). At that time, Jason has added filters to improve on the implementations (by replacing 'you' by 'I', etc...). By doing some basic string manipulation meant to change the subject from the speaker to the system, the output became a lot more coherent. I think the expanded program was called HeX.
Reference 1
Reference 2
I'm still new to OOP, and the way I initially perceived it was to throw alot of procedural looking code inside of objects, and think I'd done my job. But as I've spent the last few weeks doing alot of thinking, reading, and coding (and looking at good code, which is a hugely under-rated resource), I believe I'm starting to grasp the different outlook. It's really just a matter of clarity, simplicity, and organization once you get down to it.
But now I'm starting to look at things as objects that are not as black and white a slamdunk case for being an object. For example, I have a parser, and usually the parser returns some strings that I have to deal with. But it has one specialized case where it has to return an array, and what goes in that array and how it's formatted has specialized rules. This only amounts to two lines plus one method of code, but this code sticks out to me as not being cleanly fitting in the Parser class, and I want to turn it into its own "ActionArray" object.
But is it going to far? Has OOP become a hammer that is making me look at everything like a nail? Is it possible to go too far with turning things into objects?
It's your call, but you should think of objects as real life objects.
Take for example a car. You could describe a car with different objects:
Engine
Wheels
Chassis
Or you could describe a car with just one object:
Engine
You can keep it simple and stupid or you can spread the dependency to different objects.
As a general guideline, I think Sesame Street says it best: you need an new object when "one of these things is not like the others".
Listen to your code. If it is telling you that your objects are becoming polluted with non-essential state and behavior (and thus violating the "Single Responsibility Principle"), or that one part of your object has a rate of change that is different from the rest, and so on, it is telling you that you are missing an object.
Do the simplest thing that could possibly work. When that no longer works, do the next simplest thing. And so on. In general, this means that a system tends to move from fewer, larger objects to more, smaller objects; but not always.
There are a number of great resources for OO design. In addition to the ones already mentioned, I highly recommend Smalltalk Best Practice Patterns and Implementation Patterns by Kent Beck. They use Smalltalk and Java examples, respectively, but I find the principles translate quite well to other OO languages.
Design patterns are your friend. A class rarely exists in a vacuum. It interacts with other classes, and the mechanisms by which your classes are coupled together is going to directly affect your ability to modify your code in the future. With poor class design, a change that you make in one class may ripple down and force changes in other classes, which cause you to have to change other classes, etc.
Design patterns force you to think about how classes relate to each other. For example, your Parser class might choose to implement the Strategy design pattern to abstract out the mechanism for parsing. You might decide to create your Parser as a Template design pattern, and then have each actual instance of the Parser complete the template.
The original book on Design Patters (Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software is excellent, but can be dense and intimidating reading if you are new to OOP. A more accessible book (and specific to Ruby) might be Design Patterns in Ruby, which has a nice introduction to design patterns, and talks about the Ruby way of implementing those patterns.
Object oriented programming is a pretty tricky tool. Many people today are getting into the same conflict, by forgetting the fundamental OOP purpose, which is improving code maintainability.
You can always brainstorm about your future OO code reusability and maintainability, and decide yourself if it's the best way to go. Take look at this interesting study:
Potok, Thomas; Mladen Vouk, Andy Rindos (1999). "Productivity Analysis of Object-Oriented Software Developed in a Commercial Environment"
At one point while traveling the web, I came across a great page which contrasted the clarity and terseness of different methods of doing a sequence of operations without having to make a bunch of throwaway variables, e.g., Var1, Var2, Var3. It tried list comprehensions, folds, maps, etc. For some reason, now matter what I google, I can't find it again. Anyone have any idea what I'm talking about? Or want to explore the topic anyway?
Your question doesn't make much sense.
List comprehensions, fold, and map aren't for avoiding variables (nor are they interchangeable), they're the right ways to process data depending on what you're trying to do.
This is the article you were looking for:
http://erlanganswers.com/web/mcedemo/VersionedVariables.html
It is probably more of an art than a science. In a nutshell my advice is to lean away from using throw-aways as a general habit, but equally, do not be afraid of using them intelligently and sparingly where you feel appropriate or necessary.
When you are starting to learn then by all means use throw-away variables if it helps you break things down into understandable chunks. But try to break away from that sooner rather than later, as using throw-aways may at times make your code harder to maintain and modify. On the other hand, even when you are experienced you may sometimes find that it is worth using throwaways for the same reason : keep things readable and manageable for less experienced programmers. Purists may say that you should never use them, but I believe that when you consider the lifetime costs of software maintenance it is important to remember that readability is very important. Maybe this argument doesn't apply if you are lucky enough to work in an environment that only hires the best of the best, but for the rest of us that's simply not a reflection of the real world.
The bottom line : what is "right" depends on your skill level, the skill level of your peers, what you are doing, and the likely volatility, complexity, and lifetime of the code. Use your best judgement.
In response to the answer saying the question doesn't make sense, you would certainly think it made sense if you saw the article to which I'm referring. The point is to elegantly process a series of statements without redundant intermediate variables. Zed is right on target. I really wish I could find the original link because it was super detailed and went through 5 or 6 methods, some of which were referenced from the erlang mailing list, and weighed the pros and cons of each.
If you're writing something by yourself, whether to practice, solve a personal problem, or just for entertainment, is it ok, once in a while, to have a public field? Maybe?
Let me give you an analogy.
I come from a part of the world where English is not the primary language. But it’s necessary for all things in life.
During one of those usual days during my pre-teen years I said something very funny in English. Then my Dad said, “Son, think in English. Then you’ll get fluent”
I think it applies perfectly to this situation.
Think,try and question best practices in your playground. You will soon realize what’s best for what.Why are properties needed in the first place. Why should this be public? Why should I not call a virtual member from the constructor? Let me try using "new" modifier for a method call. What happens when I write 10 nested levels of if-then-else and try reading it again after 10 days. Why the heck should I use a factory pattern for a simple project. Et cetera.
And then you’ll realize without shooting at your foot, why design patterns are patterns...
I think it's reasonable if you're consciously throwing the code away afterwards. In particular, if you're experimenting with something completely different, taking shortcuts makes sense. Just don't let it lead to habits which cross over into "real" code.
Violating general principles is always "ok"! It is not an error to violate a principle but it is a trade off. The cost of not writing clean code will be higher the longer your software will survive. My take on this is: If in doubt make it clean!
Of course it's OK. It's your code, you can do whatever you want with it. Personally, I try to stick to good practice also in my private code, just to make it a natural habit so I don't have to think about it.
The short answer is yes, if you believe that you're gaining a lot by making things public instead of private with accessors you are welcome to do so. Consistency, I think, is the biggest thing to keep in mind. For instance, don't make some variables straight public, and some not. Do the same across the board if you break with best practices. It comes back to a trade-off. Almost no-one follows many of the IEEE specs for how Software Engineering should be executed and documented because the overhead is far too great, and it can get unmanageable. The same is true for personal, light-weight programming. It's okay to do something quick and dirty, just do not get used to it.
Public members are acceptable in the Data Transfer Object design patter:
Typically, the members in the Transfer Object are defined as public, thus eliminating the need for get and set methods.
One of the key advantages of OOP is for scaling and maintainability. By encapsulating code, one can hide the implementation. This means other programmers don't have to know the implementation, and can't change your object's internal state. If you language doesn't support properties, you end up with a lot of code which obfuscates and bloats your project. If the code doesn't need to be worked on by multiple programmers, you aren't producing a reusable component, and YOU are the maintenance programmer, then code in whatever manner allows you to get things done.
Does a maid need to make his/her own bed in the morning in order to practice properly making a bed?
Side note: it also depends on the language:
In Scala, according to the Uniform Access Principle, clients read and write field values as if they are publicly accessible, even though in some case they are actually calling methods. The maintainer of the class has the freedom to change the implementation without forcing users to make code changes.
Scala keeps field and method names in the same namespace.
Many languages, like Java, keep field and method names in separate namespaces.
However, these languages can’t support the uniform access principle as a result, unless they build in ad hoc support in their grammars or compilers.
So the real question is:
What service are you exposing (here by having a public field)?.
If the service (get/set a given type value) makes sense for your API, then the "shortcut" is legitimate.
As long as you encapsulate that field eventually, is it ok because you made the shortcut for the "right" reason (API and service exposure), versus the "wrong" reason (quick ad-hoc access).
A good unit test (thinking like the user of your API) can help you check if that field should be accessed directly or if it is only useful for internal development of other classes within your program.
Here's my take on it:
I'd advise avoiding public fields. They have a nasty habit of biting you later on because you can't control them. (The word you're looking for here is volatility.) Further, if you decide to change their internal implementation, you have to touch a lot more code.
Then again, that's what refactoring tools are for. If you have a decent refactoring tool, that's not nearly so difficult.
There is no silver bullet. I can't repeat this enough. If you have work to do, and you need to get it done in a hurry, writing one line of code instead of eight (as is the case in Visual Basic) is certainly faster.
Rules were meant to be broken. If a rule doesn't necessarily apply in your case, don't use it. Design patterns, coding guidelines, laws and best practices should not be treated as a straightjacket that requires you to needlessly complicate your code to the point where it is enormously complex and difficult to understand and maintain. Don't let someone force you into a practice just because it's popular or "standard" when it doesn't fit your requirements.
Again, this is a subjective opinion, and your mileage may vary.