Is it OK to use the constructor to set properties for a value object class or must I use dot notation and set each one, one-by-one?
I recently read an article that was saying I should do it one-by-one as value objects should only contain properties and went on to say using the constructor is not OK (best-practice wise).
Code:
("not OK")
var employee=new
Employee(firstName,lastName,age);
("OK")
var employee=new Employee();
employee.firstName=firstName;
employee.lastName=lastName;
employee.age=age;
What's your take on this?
Thank you.
I've never heard anyone say that using a constructor to construct an object is a bad idea. The only case that I can think of is if the list of elements to be initialized can be changed (add/removed) and therefore changing the API of the object (which is bad, especially when developing libraries). In this case, I'd still use the constructor, but I'd pass in an initialization object (which contains n parameters) rather than modifying the function signature.
The statement "it's bad practice to use the constructor to construct the object" (paraphrasing) just doesn't make sense to me :P
Related
We have an app that makes fairly extensive use of TIniFile. In the past we created our own descendant class, let's call it TMyIniFile, that overrides WriteString. We create one instance of this that the entire app uses. That instance is passed all around through properties and parameters, but the type of all of these is still TIniFile, since that is what it was originally. This seems to work, calling our overridden method through polymorphism, even though all the variable types are still TIniFile. This seems to be proper since we descend from TIniFile.
Now we are making some changes where we want to switch TMyIniFile to descend from TMemIniFile instead of TIniFile. Those are both descendants of TCustomIniFile. We'll also probably be overriding some more methods. I'm inclined to leave all the declarations as TIniFile even though technically our class is no longer a descendant of it, just to avoid having to change a lot of source files if I don't need to.
In every tutorial example of polymorphism, the variable is declared as the base class, and an instance is created of the descendant class and assigned to the variable of the base class. So I assume this is the "right" way to do it. What I'm looking at doing now will end up having the variables declared as, what I guess you'd call a "sibling" class, so this "seems wrong". Is this a bad thing to do? Am I asking for trouble, or does polymorphism actually allow for this sort of thing?
TIniFile and TMemIniFile are distinct classes that do not derive from each other, so you simply cannot create a TMemIniFile object and assign it to a TIniFile variable, and vice versa. The compiler won't let you do that. And using a type-cast to force it will be dangerous.
You will just have to update the rest of your code to change all of the TIniFile declarations to TCustomIniFile instead, which is the common ancestor for both classes. That is the "correct" thing to do.
The compiler is your friend - why would you lie to it by using the wrong type ... and if you do lie to it why would you expect it to know what you want it to do?
You should use a base class that you derive from, like TCustomIniFile. I would expect compile issues if you are trying to make assignments which are known at compile time to be wrong.
The different classes have different signatures so the compiler needs to know which class it is using to call the correct method or access the correct property. With virtual methods the different classes setup their own implementation of those methods so that the correct one is called - so using a pointer to a base type when you call the virtual method it calls that method in the derived type because it is in the class vtable.
So if the code does compile, it's very likely that the compiler will not be doing the right thing ...
I'm trying to do something that would be a basic feature in any other Object Oriented Language but for some reasons in Dart, I can't manage to do it. I'm new to Dart so this question might be dumb, but I couldn't find any answer online.
I have a property that need to be calculated once and on the constructor. This is my code so far :
class Game {
String _wordChosen;
Game() {
final _random = Random();
_wordChosen = WORDS[_random.nextInt(WORDS.length)];
}
}
WORDS is a list defined outside the class. My error is on the Game constructor :
not_initialized_non_nullable_instance_field.
I don't want to set the _wordChosen variable to a default value as that would make no sense (it would be overwritten right when the constructor is run).
I also don't want to set the property as nullable as again, it would make no sense.
i think the answer is using the keyword late to make compiler know that you will initialize the variable before using it but not now like below
late String _wordChosen;
i think this is your solution and it in null safety documents here
i hope this answer helps you
So the following code snippet
Set mySet = {1,2,3};
is an instance of type Set which is permissible, however what would the class of the set literal be. I have tried to search for this, however I have found no answer in the dart documentation.
A literal exists only in your source code. Asking for its "class" doesn't make a lot of sense.
Using a Set, Map, or List literal is just syntactic sugar for invoking a corresponding constructor. The Set factory constructor constructs a LinkedHashSet.
However, you'll see that LinkedHashSet is also abstract. Its factory constructor returns an instance of a private, internal class. You can see its typename via print(Set().runtimeType); the actual type might be different for different platforms and is unlikely to be useful to you.
Dart's Datetime class has a number of named constructors, but DateTime.parse() is not one of them. Instead, DateTime.parse() is a static method which returns a DateTime. To me, it makes sense as a constructor (since you are generating a new DateTime object in a manner not too different from the Datetime.utc() constructor).
Theories I've come up with are to mirror the fact that int.parse is not a constructor or to allow easier chaining (you don't need to use the cascade operator with a static method). But maybe there is another reason that I'm not thinking of. Does anyone know why they didn't make it a named constructor?
More explanation for the same change for Uri.parse: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.dart.general/17081
"parse" is special. The question is: do you see parsing as an
operation that does something and ends up giving you the result, or do
you see the string as data to construct a new element. If you see it
as the earlier, then "parse" should be a static function. If you see
the string as the data, then it should be a named constructor.
And then, of course, there is consistency.
There's this dichotomy in the way we can create classes in f# which really bothers me. I can create classes using either an implicit format or an explicit one. But some of the features that I want are only available for use with the implicit format and some are only available for use with the explicit format.
For example:
I can't use let inline* (or let alone) inside an explicitly defined class.
The only way (that I know) to define immutable public fields (not properties*) inside an implicitly defined class is the val bla : bla syntax.
But there's a redundancy here. Since I'll end up with two copy of the same immutable data, one private, one public (because in the implicit mode the constructor parameters persist throughout the class existence)
(Not so relevant) The need to use attributes for method overloading and for field's defaults is rather off putting.
Is there anyway I can work around this?
*For performance reasons
EDIT: Turns out I'm wrong about both points (Thanks Ganesh Sittampalam & MichaelGG).
While I can't use let inline in both implicit & explicit class definition, I can use member inline just fine, which I assume does the same thing.
Apparently with the latest F# there's no longer any redundancy since any parameters not used in the class body are local to the constructor.
Will be gone in the next F# release.
This might not help, but you can make members inline. "member inline private" works fine.
For let inline, you can work around by moving it outside the class and explicitly passing any values you need from inside the scope of the class when calling it. Since it'll be inlined, there'll be no performance penalty for doing this.