I've looked at both the Named Parameter Idiom and the Boost::Parameter library. What advantages does each one have over the other? Is there a good reason to always choose one over the other, or might each of them be better than the other in some situations (and if so, what situations)?
Implementing the Named Parameter Idiom is really easy, almost about as easy as using Boost::Parameter, so it kind of boils down to one main point.
-Do you already have boost dependencies? If you don't, Boost::parameter isn't special enough to merit adding the dependency.
Personally I've never seen Boost::parameter in production code, 100% of the time its been a custom implementation of Named Parameters, but that's not necessarily a good thing.
Normally, I'm a big fan of Boost, but I wouldn't use the Boost.Parameter library for a couple of reasons:
If you don't know what's going on,
the call looks like you're assigning
a value to a variable in the scope
on the calling function before
making the call. That can be very
confusing.
There is too much boilerplate code necessary to set it up in the first place.
Another point, while I have never used Named Parameter Idiom, I have used Boost Parameter for defining up to 20 optional arguments. And, my compile times are insane. What used to take a couple seconds, now takes 30sec. This adds up if you have a library of stuff that use your one little application that you wrote using boost parameter. Of course, I might be implementing it wrongly, but I hope this changes, because other than that, i really like it.
The Named Parameter idiom is a LOT simpler. I can't see (right now) why we would need the complexity of the Boost::Parameter library. (Even the supposed "feature" Deduced parameters, seems like a way to introduce coding errors ;) )
You probably don't want Boost.Parameter for general application logic so much as you would want it for library code that you are developing where it can be quite a time saver for clients of the library.
Never heard of either, but reviewing the links, named parameter is WAY easier and more obvious to understand. I'd pick it in a heartbeat over the boost implementation.
Related
I came across this today, and I am surprised that I haven't noticed it before. Given a simple C# program similar to the following:
public class Program
{
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
Method(); // Called the method with no arguments.
Method("a string"); // Called the method with a string.
Console.ReadLine();
}
public static void Method()
{
Console.WriteLine("Called the method with no arguments.");
}
public static void Method(string aString = "a string")
{
Console.WriteLine("Called the method with a string.");
}
}
You get the output shown in the comments for each method call.
I understand why the compiler chooses the overloads that it does, but why is this allowed in the first place? I am not asking what the overload resolution rules are, I understand those, but I am asking if there is a technical reason why the compiler allows what are essentially two overloads with the same signature?
As far as I can tell, a function overload with a signature that differs from another overload only through having an additional optional argument offers nothing more than it would if the argument (and all preceding arguments) were simply required.
One thing it does do is makes it possible for a programmer (who probably isn't paying enough attention) to think they're calling a different overload to the one that they actually are.
I suppose it's a fairly uncommon case, and the answer for why this is allowed may just be because it's simply not worth the complexity to disallow it, but is there another reason why C# allows function overloads to differ from others solely through having one additional optional argument?
His point that Eric Lippert could have an answer lead me to this https://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/323382/1880663, which makes it sounds like my question will only annoy him. I'll try to rephrase it to make it clearer that I'm asking about the language design, and that I'm not looking for a spec reference
I appreciate it! I am happy to talk about language design; what annoys me is when I waste time doing so when the questioner is very unclear about what would actually satisfy their request. I think your question was phrased clearly.
The comment to your question posted by Hans is correct. The language design team was well aware of the issue you raise, and this is far from the only potential ambiguity created by optional / named arguments. We considered a great many scenarios for a long time and designed the feature as carefully as possible to mitigate potential problems.
All design processes are the result of compromise between competing design principles. Obviously there were many arguments for the feature that had to be balanced against the significant design, implementation and testing costs, as well as the costs to users in the form of confusion, bugs, and so on, from accidental construction of ambiguities such as the one you point out.
I'm not going to rehash what was dozens of hours of debate; let me just give you the high points.
The primary motivating scenario for the feature was, as Hans notes, popular demand, particularly coming from developers who use C# with Office. (And full disclosure, as a guy on the team that wrote the C# programming model for Word and Excel before I joined the C# team, I was literally the first one asking for it; the irony that I then had to implement this difficult feature a couple years later was not lost on me.) Office object models were designed to be used from Visual Basic, a language that has long had optional / named parameter support.
C# 4 might have seemed like a bit of a "thin" release in terms of obvious features. That's because a lot of the work done in that release was infrastructure for allowing more seamless interoperability with object models that were designed for dynamic languages. The dynamic typing feature is the obvious one, but there were numerous other small features added that combine together to make working with dynamic and legacy COM object models easier. Named / optional arguments was just one of them.
The fact that we had existing languages like VB that had this specific feature for decades and the world hadn't ended yet was further evidence that the feature was both doable and valuable. It's great having an example where you can learn from its successes and failures before designing a new version of the feature.
As for the specific situation you mention: we considered doing things like detecting when there was a possible ambiguity and making a warning, but that then opens up a whole other cans of worms. Warnings have to be for code that is common, plausible and almost certainly wrong, and there should be a clear way to address the problem that causes the warning to go away. Writing an ambiguity detector is a lot of work; believe me, it took way longer to write the ambiguity detection in overload resolution than it took to write the code to handle successful cases. We didn't want to spend a lot of time on adding a warning for a rare scenario that is hard to detect and that there might be no clear advice on how to eliminate the warning.
Also, frankly, if you write code where you have two methods named the same thing that do something completely different depending on which one you call, you already have a larger design problem on your hands! Fix that problem first, rather than worrying that someone is going to accidentally call the wrong method; make it so that either method is the right one to call.
This behaviour is specified by Microsoft at the MSDN. Have a look at Named and Optional Arguments (C# Programming Guide).
If two candidates are judged to be equally good, preference goes to a candidate that does not have optional parameters for which arguments were omitted in the call. This is a consequence of a general preference in overload resolution for candidates that have fewer parameters.
A reason why they decided to implement it the way like this could be if you want to overload a method afterwards. So you don't have to change all your method calls that are already written.
UPDATE
I'm surprised, also Jon Skeet has no real explantation why they did it like this.
I think this question basically boils down to how those signatures are represented by the intermediate language. Note that the signatures of both overloads are not equal! The second method has a signature like this:
.method public hidebysig static void Method([opt] string aString) cil managed
{
.param [1] = string('a string')
// ...
}
In IL the signature of the method is different. It takes a string, which is marked as optional. This changes the behaviour of how the parameter get's initialize, but does not change the presence of this parameter.
The compiler is not able to decide, which method you are calling, so it uses the one that fits best, based on the parameters you provide. Since you did not provide any parameters for the first call, it assumes that you are calling the overload without any parameters.
In the end it is a question about good code design. As a rule of thumb, I either use optional parameters or overloads, depending on what I want to do: Optional parameters are good, if the logic within the method does not depend on the provided arguments, while overloads are good to provide a different implementation for different sets of arguments. If you ever find yourself checking if a parameter equals a default value in order to decide what to do, you should probably go for an overload. On the other hand, if you find yourself repeating large chunks of code in many overloads, you should try extracting optional parameters.
There's also a good answer of Chuck Skeet to this question.
I often find myself in a situation where i am repeating two,three lines of code in a method multiple times and then think whether i should put that in a separate method to avoid code duplication. But then when i move those lines out of the method i find that the method just created is not reusable, was used only one time or requires an overload to be useful for another method.
My Question is what sort of patterns should we be looking for that indicate we should create a new method. I appreciate your response.
Don't put too much functionality in one method/class. Try to follow the single responsibility principle. It'll take some time getting familiar with that approach. But once you reach that level, you'll notice that it's done all by itself. Before coding, try to ask yourself, what functional units your concept includes.
For example, you want to develop an application, that can index the content of pdf files. It's just fictional, but at first sight, I could identify at least three components:
PdfParser - this provides you with the content of a pdf
Indexer - gets input from parser and counts meaningful words
Repository - it's for persistence; this could be made generic; so just say repository.Get<IndexData>(filename) or something
You should also try to code against interfaces. Especially when some kind of UI is involved. For example, you are developing a chat client with WinForms. If you follow the MVC/MVVM-pattern, you can easily (i.e., easier than coding against a Form object) use your original logic with a WPF version of the client.
I would start by reading about the DRY principle (Don't Repeat Yourself) hopefully it will give you a good answer for your question, which is a question that all developers should be asking themselves by the way, great question!!
See Don't repeat yourself
I wanted to leave it at DRY because it is such a simple but powerful concept that will need some reading and a lot of practice to get good add. But let me try to answer directly to your question (IMHO),
If you can't give your method a name that reflects exactly what your method is doing, break it into pieces that have meaning.
You'll find yourself DRYing up your code with ease, reusable pieces will show up, and you probably will never find yourself repeating code.
I would do this even if it meant having methods with only couple of lines of code.
Following this practice will give meaning to your code, make it readable and predictable, and definitely more reusable
If the lines of code that you intend to move to another method perform a specific set of actions (like read a file, calculate a value, etc.) then it is best to refactor into another helper method. Again, do this only if the helper method is being called at several places in your code or if your caller method is too long (definition of too long depends on the developer).
Similar questions
How do programmers practice code reuse
What techniques do you use to maximise code reuse?
Code Reusability: Is it worth it?
Coding Priorities: Performance, Maintainability, Reusability?
As a general rule, always think of those situations as functional entities. If a piece of code functionally performs a task (complex string conversion, parsing, etc), you should write reusable method.
If that function is specific to a certain type, then write an extension method.
You could create a local variable inside your function of type Action<> or Func<> and assign the code snippet to it. Then you can use it everywhere inside your function without polluting your class with too many little helper functions.
If you build a method for reusability, but don't use it in more than one place, then the reusability of you method isn't really verified.
Extract methods when it makes sense, and redesign those methods for reusability when you actually have the opportunity to reuse code.
I have a method that is over 700+ lines long. In the beginning of the method, there are around 50 local variables declared. I decided to take the local variables out and put them into a separate class as properties so I could just declare the class in the method and use the properties through out it. Is this perfectly fine or does another data type fit in here such as a struct? This method was written during classic ASP times.
I have a method that is over 700+ lines long. In the beginning of the method, there are around 50 local variables declared.
Ok, so, the length of that method is also a problem. 700 lines is just too much to keep straight in one normal person's head all at once. When you have to fix a bug in there you end up scrolling up and down and up and down and... you get the idea. It really makes things hard to maintain.
So my answer is, yes, you should likely split up your data into a structure of some sort assuming that it actually makes sense to do so (i.e., I probably wouldn't create a SomeMethodParmaters class). The next thing to do is to split that method out into smaller pieces. You may even find that you no longer need a data structure as now each method only has a handful of variables declared for the work it needs to do.
Also, this is subjective, but there is really no good reason to declare all variables at the top of the method. Try declaring them as close to when they are actually used as possible. Again, this just keeps things nice and clean for maintenance in the future. It's much easier to concentrate on one section of code when you can see it all on the screen.
Hrm... I think you'd probably be better off refactoring the method to not have to operate on so many variables at all. For instance, five methods operating on ten variables each would infinitely better. As it stands now, it feels like you're simply trying to mask an issue rather than solve it.
I would strongly recommend you take a read through this book and/or any number of web sites concerned with refactoring. http://www.amazon.com/Refactoring-Improving-Design-Existing-Code/dp/0201485672
Although you can't look at 700+ lines in a single method and automatically say that is bad, it does indicate a bad code smell. Methods should be small units of code with a single purpose. This makes it easier for you to maintain or those who come behind you. It can also help you to figure out improvements to your design and make altering your design in the future much easier.
Creating a class just to hold properties without looking at what the overall structure should be is just hiding a problem. That is not to say in this particular instance that is not a perfectly acceptable and correct solution, just that you should make sure you are taking the time to provide a properly thought out design where your classes have the properties, state, and functionality they deserve.
Hope this helps.
Do default parameters for methods violate Encapsulation?
What was the rationale behind not providing default parameters in C#?
I would take this as the "official" answer from Microsoft. However, default (and named) parameters will most definitely be available in C# 4.0.
No, it doesn't affect encapsulation in any way. It simply is not often necessary. Often, creating an overload which takes fewer arguments is a more flexible and cleaner solution, so C#'s designer simply did not see a reason to add the complexity of default parameters to the language.
Adding "Another way to do the same thing" is always a tradeoff. In some cases it may be convenient. But the more syntax you make legal, the more complex the language becomes to learn, and the more you may wall yourself in, preventing future extension. (Perhaps they'd one day come up with another extension to the language, which uses a similar syntax. Then that'd be impossible to add, because it'd conflict with the feature they added earlier)
As has been noted, default parameters were not a prioritized feature, but is likely to be added in C# 4.0. However, I believe there were excellent reasons not to include it earlier (in 4.0, as I've understood it, itäs mostly to support duck typing styles of programming where default parameters increases type compatibility).
I believe excessive parameter lists (certainly more than 4-5 distinct parameters) is a code smell. Default parameters are not evil in themselves, but risk encouraging poor design, delaying the refactoring into more objects.
To your first question - no, it's exactly the same as providing multiple overloaded constructors. As for the second, I couldn't say.
Default parameters will be included in C# 4.0
Some reading material about it:
click
click
It also seems that the author of this post will publish an article in the near future on the 'why' MS chooses to implement default params in C#
Here is an answer why it's not provided in C#
http://blogs.msdn.com/csharpfaq/archive/2004/03/07/85556.aspx
One drawback with the default parameter implementation in C# 4.0 is that it creates a dependency on the parameters name. This already existed in VB, which could be one reason why they chose to implement it in 4.0.
Another drawback is that the default value depends on how you cast your object. You can read about it here: http://saftsack.fs.uni-bayreuth.de/~dun3/archives/optional-parameters-conclusion-treat-like-unsafe/216.html .
I've just coded a 700 line class. Awful. I hang my head in shame. It's as opposite to DRY as a British summer.
It's full of cut and paste with minor tweaks here and there. This makes it's a prime candidate for refactoring. Before I embark on this, I'd thought I'd ask when you have lots of repetition, what are the first refactoring opportunities you look for?
For the record, mine are probably using:
Generic classes and methods
Method overloading/chaining.
What are yours?
I like to start refactoring when I need to, rather than the first opportunity that I get. You might say this is somewhat of an agile approach to refactoring. When do I feel I need to? Usually when I feel that the ugly parts of my codes are starting to spread. I think ugliness is okay as long as they are contained, but the moment when they start having the urge to spread, that's when you need to take care of business.
The techniques you use for refactoring should start with the simplest. I would strongly recommand Martin Fowler's book. Combining common code into functions, removing unneeded variables, and other simple techniques gets you a lot of mileage. For list operations, I prefer using functional programming idioms. That is to say, I use internal iterators, map, filter and reduce(in python speak, there are corresponding things in ruby, lisp and haskell) whenever I can, this makes code a lot shorter and more self-contained.
#region
I made a 1,000 line class only one line with it!
In all seriousness, the best way to avoid repetition is the things covered in your list, as well as fully utilizing polymorphism, examine your class and discover what would best be done in a base class, and how different components of it can be broken away a subclasses.
Sometimes by the time you "complete functionality" using copy and paste code, you've come to a point that it is maimed and mangled enough that any attempt at refactoring will actually take much, much longer than refactoring it at the point where it was obvious.
In my personal experience my favorite "way of removing repetition" has been the "Extract Method" functionality of Resharper (although this is also available in vanilla Visual Studio).
Many times I would see repeated code (some legacy app I'm maintaining) not as whole methods but in chunks within completely separate methods. That gives a perfect opportunity to turn those chunks into methods.
Monster classes also tend to reveal that they contain more than one functionality. That in turn becomes an opportunity to separate each distinct functionality into its own (hopefully smaller) class.
I have to reiterate that doing all of these is not a pleasurable experience at all (for me), so I really would rather do it right while it's a small ball of mud, rather than let the big ball of mud roll and then try to fix that.
First of all, I would recommend refactoring much sooner than when you are done with the first version of the class. Anytime you see duplication, eliminate it ASAP. This may take a little longer initially, but I think the results end up being a lot cleaner, and it helps you rethink your code as you go to ensure you are doing things right.
As for my favorite way of removing duplication.... Closures, especially in my favorite language (Ruby). They tend to be a really concise way of taking 2 pieces of code and merging the similarities. Of course (like any "best practice" or tip), this can not be blindly done... I just find them really fun to use when I can use them.
One of the things I do, is try to make small and simple methods that I can see on a single page in my editor (visual studio).
I've learnt from experience that making code simple makes it easier for the compiler to optimise it. The larger the method, the harder the compiler has to work!
I've also recently seen a problem where large methods have caused a memory leak. Basically I had a loop very much like the following:
while (true)
{
var smallObject = WaitForSomethingToTurnUp();
var largeObject = DoSomethingWithSmallObject();
}
I was finding that my application was keeping a large amount of data in memory because even though 'largeObject' wasn't in scope until smallObject returned something, the garbage collector could still see it.
I easily solved this by moving the 'DoSomethingWithSmallObject()' and other associated code to another method.
Also, if you make small methods, your reuse within a class will become significantly higher. I generally try to make sure that none of my methods look like any others!
Hope this helps.
Nick
"cut and paste with minor tweaks here and there" is the kind of code repetition I usually solve with an entirely non-exotic approach- Take the similar chunk of code, extract it out to a seperate method. The little bit that is different in every instance of that block of code, change that to a parameter.
There's also some easy techniques for removing repetitive-looking if/else if and switch blocks, courtesy of Scott Hanselman:
http://www.hanselman.com/blog/CategoryView.aspx?category=Source+Code&page=2
I might go something like this:
Create custom (private) types for data structures and put all the related logic in there. Dictionary<string, List<int>> etc.
Make inner functions or properties that guarantee behaviour. If you’re continually checking conditions from a publically accessible property then create an private getter method with all of the checking baked in.
Split methods apart that have too much going on. If you can’t put something succinct into the or give it a good name, then start breaking the function apart until the code is (even if these “child” functions aren’t used anywhere else).
If all else fails, slap a [SuppressMessage("Microsoft.Maintainability", "CA1502:AvoidExcessiveComplexity")] on it and comment why.