I have been working on a multi-GPU project where I have had problems with obtaining non-deterministic results. I was surprised when it turned out that I obtained non-deterministic results due to a reduction clause executed on the CPU.
In the book Using OpenMP - The Next Step it is written that
"[...] the order in which threads combine their value to construct the
value for the shared result is non-deterministic."
Maybe I just don't understand how the reduction clauses are implemented. Does it mean that if I use schedule(monotonic:static) in combination with a reduction clause each thread will execute its chunk of the iterations in a deterministic order, but that the order in which the partial results are combined at the end of the parallel region is non-deterministic?
Does it mean that if I use schedule(monotonic:static) in combination
with a reduction clause each thread will execute its chunk of the
iterations in a deterministic order, but that the order in which the
partial results are combined at the end of the parallel region is
non-deterministic?
It is known that the end result is non-determinist, detailed information can be found in:
What Every Computer Scientist Should Know about Floating Point Arithmetic. For instance:
Another grey area concerns the interpretation of parentheses. Due to roundoff errors, the associative laws of algebra do not necessarily hold for floating-point numbers. For example, the expression (x+y)+z has a totally different answer than x+(y+z) when x = 1e30, y = -1e30 and z = 1 (it is 1 in the former case, 0 in the latter).
Now regarding the order in which the threads perform the reduction action, as far as I know, the OpenMP standard does not enforce any order, or requires that the order has to be deterministic. Hence, this is an implementation detail that is left up to the compiler that is implementing the OpenMP standard to decide, and consequently, it is something that your code should not reply upon.
Programming language semantics usually declares that a+b+c+d is evaluated as ((a+b)+c)+d. This is not parallel, so an OpenMP reduction is probably evaluated as (a+b)+(c+d). And so on for larger numbers of summands.
So you immediately have that, because of the non-associativity of floating point arithmetic, the result may be subtly different from the sequential value.
But more importantly, the exact value will depend on precisely how the combination is done. Is it a+(b+c) (on 2 threads) or (a+b)+c? So the result is at least "indeterministic" in the sense that you can not reconstruct how it was formed. It could probably even be done in two different ways, if you run the same reduction twice. That's what I would call "non-deterministic", but look in the standard for the exact definition of the term.
By the way, if you want to get some idea of how OpenMP actually does it, write your own reduction operator, and let each invocation print out what it computes. Here is a decent illustration: https://victoreijkhout.github.io/pcse/omp-reduction.html#Initialvalueforreductions
By the way, the standard actually doesn't use the word "non-deterministic" for this case. The following passage explains the issue:
Furthermore, using different numbers of threads may result in
different numeric results because of changes in the association of
numeric operations. For example, a serial addition reduction may have
a different pattern of addition associations than a parallel
reduction.
i have technical wondering here guys , switch statement performs faster ,that thing i know it
but what i want to know is how does it perform faster than if & else if ?
how can it find the controlExpression suitable case among all its cases directly?
and if i supposed that it is written using if else if it self to run and find the suitable case ,so it shouldnt perform faster ,it would perform the same as if else if?
so can u please answer me ? thanks in advance
A switch statement basically executes the same sort of comparison for every case: var == a, var == b, var == c, etc.
This page has details of how that's translated into assembly by a compiler, but there are essentially three "kinds" of switch statements:
switch statements with contiguous case integers - such as case 3: ... case 4: ... case 5: .... In these cases, the compiler can create a jump table -- a listing of addresses to jump to in a contiguous block of memory and just calculate the offset, find the address, and jump. This can be faster than if-else if type chains. (Slightly slow if there's only one case, of course.)
switch statements with seemingly random case integers - such as case 12: ... case 106: ... case 9: .... In these cases, the compiler will just build an if-else if chain, so it can't be faster than the if-else if type of code.
switch statement with LOTS of seemingly random case integers - If there are a significant number, some compilers will build a binary search tree for all of the cases, so you have O(log(n)) time to execute any particular branch, which should improve the performance of your code. (Significant depends on the architecture you're compiling on, since there's extra overhead with checking which branch of the tree you should follow or if you should now jump.)
This is a situation where you could outsmart the compiler, sometimes: If you know your cases can only be matched by some equation, like 3x+5, then you could build an array of function pointers, calculate the index ((caseNum - 5) / 3), and then execute it Continuation-Passing Style (or if you want to drive people batty, do the same calculation and build an array of goto labels, and then jump spaghetti-style. Either way you'd get the optimal "contiguous case"-style assembly with O(1) branching time.
This question already has answers here:
Advantage of switch over if-else statement
(23 answers)
Eliminating `switch` statements [closed]
(23 answers)
Is there any significant difference between using if/else and switch-case in C#?
(21 answers)
Closed 2 years ago.
Why you would want to use a switch block over a series of if statements?
switch statements seem to do the same thing but take longer to type.
As with most things you should pick which to use based on the context and what is conceptually the correct way to go. A switch is really saying "pick one of these based on this variables value" but an if statement is just a series of boolean checks.
As an example, if you were doing:
int value = // some value
if (value == 1) {
doThis();
} else if (value == 2) {
doThat();
} else {
doTheOther();
}
This would be much better represented as a switch as it then makes it immediately obviously that the choice of action is occurring based on the value of "value" and not some arbitrary test.
Also, if you find yourself writing switches and if-elses and using an OO language you should be considering getting rid of them and using polymorphism to achieve the same result if possible.
Finally, regarding switch taking longer to type, I can't remember who said it but I did once read someone ask "is your typing speed really the thing that affects how quickly you code?" (paraphrased)
If you are switching on the value of a single variable then I'd use a switch every time, it's what the construct was made for.
Otherwise, stick with multiple if-else statements.
concerning Readability:
I typically prefer if/else constructs over switch statements, especially in languages that allows fall-through cases. What I've found, often, is as the projects age, and multiple developers gets involved, you'll start having trouble with the construction of a switch statement.
If they (the statements) become anything more than simple, many programmers become lazy and instead of reading the entire statement to understand it, they'll simply pop in a case to cover whatever case they're adding into the statement.
I've seen many cases where code repeats in a switch statement because a person's test was already covered, a simple fall-though case would have sufficed, but laziness forced them to add the redundant code at the end instead of trying to understand the switch. I've also seen some nightmarish switch statements with many cases that were poorly constructed, and simply trying to follow all the logic, with many fall-through cases dispersed throughout, and many cases which weren't, becomes difficult ... which kind of leads to the first/redundancy problem I talked about.
Theoretically, the same problem could exist with if/else constructs, but in practice this just doesn't seem to happen as often. Maybe (just a guess) programmers are forced to read a bit more carefully because you need to understand the, often, more complex conditions being tested within the if/else construct? If you're writing something simple that you know others are likely to never touch, and you can construct it well, then I guess it's a toss-up. In that case, whatever is more readable and feels best to you is probably the right answer because you're likely to be sustaining that code.
concerning Speed:
Switch statements often perform faster than if-else constructs (but not always). Since the possible values of a switch statement are laid out beforehand, compilers are able to optimize performance by constructing jump tables. Each condition doesn't have to be tested as in an if/else construct (well, until you find the right one, anyway).
However this isn't always the case, though. If you have a simple switch, say, with possible values of 1 to 10, this will be the case. The more values you add requires the jump tables to be larger and the switch becomes less efficient (not than an if/else, but less efficient than the comparatively simple switch statement). Also, if the values are highly variant ( i.e. instead of 1 to 10, you have 10 possible values of, say, 1, 1000, 10000, 100000, and so on to 100000000000), the switch is less efficient than in the simpler case.
Hope this helps.
Switch statements are far easier to read and maintain, hands down. And are usually faster and less error prone.
Use switch every time you have more than 2 conditions on a single variable, take weekdays for example, if you have a different action for every weekday you should use a switch.
Other situations (multiple variables or complex if clauses you should Ifs, but there isn't a rule on where to use each.
I personally prefer to see switch statements over too many nested if-elses because they can be much easier to read. Switches are also better in readability terms for showing a state.
See also the comment in this post regarding pacman ifs.
This depends very much on the specific case. Preferably, I think one should use the switch over the if-else if there are many nested if-elses.
The question is how much is many?
Yesterday I was asking myself the same question:
public enum ProgramType {
NEW, OLD
}
if (progType == OLD) {
// ...
} else if (progType == NEW) {
// ...
}
if (progType == OLD) {
// ...
} else {
// ...
}
switch (progType) {
case OLD:
// ...
break;
case NEW:
// ...
break;
default:
break;
}
In this case, the 1st if has an unnecessary second test. The 2nd feels a little bad because it hides the NEW.
I ended up choosing the switch because it just reads better.
I have often thought that using elseif and dropping through case instances (where the language permits) are code odours, if not smells.
For myself, I have normally found that nested (if/then/else)s usually reflect things better than elseifs, and that for mutually exclusive cases (often where one combination of attributes takes precedence over another), case or something similar is clearer to read two years later.
I think the select statement used by Rexx is a particularly good example of how to do "Case" well (no drop-throughs) (silly example):
Select
When (Vehicle ¬= "Car") Then
Name = "Red Bus"
When (Colour == "Red") Then
Name = "Ferrari"
Otherwise
Name = "Plain old other car"
End
Oh, and if the optimisation isn't up to it, get a new compiler or language...
The tendency to avoid stuff because it takes longer to type is a bad thing, try to root it out. That said, overly verbose things are also difficult to read, so small and simple is important, but it's readability not writability that's important. Concise one-liners can often be more difficult to read than a simple well laid out 3 or 4 lines.
Use whichever construct best descibes the logic of the operation.
Let's say you have decided to use switch as you are only working on a single variable which can have different values. If this would result in a small switch statement (2-3 cases), I'd say that is fine. If it seems you will end up with more I would recommend using polymorphism instead. An AbstractFactory pattern could be used here to create an object that would perform whatever action you were trying to do in the switches. The ugly switch statement will be abstracted away and you end up with cleaner code.
I just came from Simple Design and Testing Conference. In one of the session we were talking about evil keywords in programming languages. Corey Haines, who proposed the subject, was convinced that if statement is absolute evil. His alternative was to create functions with predicates. Can you please explain to me why if is evil.
I understand that you can write very ugly code abusing if. But I don't believe that it's that bad.
The if statement is rarely considered as "evil" as goto or mutable global variables -- and even the latter are actually not universally and absolutely evil. I would suggest taking the claim as a bit hyperbolic.
It also largely depends on your programming language and environment. In languages which support pattern matching, you will have great tools for replacing if at your disposal. But if you're programming a low-level microcontroller in C, replacing ifs with function pointers will be a step in the wrong direction. So, I will mostly consider replacing ifs in OOP programming, because in functional languages, if is not idiomatic anyway, while in purely procedural languages you don't have many other options to begin with.
Nevertheless, conditional clauses sometimes result in code which is harder to manage. This does not only include the if statement, but even more commonly the switch statement, which usually includes more branches than a corresponding if would.
There are cases where it's perfectly reasonable to use an if
When you are writing utility methods, extensions or specific library functions, it's likely that you won't be able to avoid ifs (and you shouldn't). There isn't a better way to code this little function, nor make it more self-documented than it is:
// this is a good "if" use-case
int Min(int a, int b)
{
if (a < b)
return a;
else
return b;
}
// or, if you prefer the ternary operator
int Min(int a, int b)
{
return (a < b) ? a : b;
}
Branching over a "type code" is a code smell
On the other hand, if you encounter code which tests for some sort of a type code, or tests if a variable is of a certain type, then this is most likely a good candidate for refactoring, namely replacing the conditional with polymorphism.
The reason for this is that by allowing your callers to branch on a certain type code, you are creating a possibility to end up with numerous checks scattered all over your code, making extensions and maintenance much more complex. Polymorphism on the other hand allows you to bring this branching decision as closer to the root of your program as possible.
Consider:
// this is called branching on a "type code",
// and screams for refactoring
void RunVehicle(Vehicle vehicle)
{
// how the hell do I even test this?
if (vehicle.Type == CAR)
Drive(vehicle);
else if (vehicle.Type == PLANE)
Fly(vehicle);
else
Sail(vehicle);
}
By placing common but type-specific (i.e. class-specific) functionality into separate classes and exposing it through a virtual method (or an interface), you allow the internal parts of your program to delegate this decision to someone higher in the call hierarchy (potentially at a single place in code), allowing much easier testing (mocking), extensibility and maintenance:
// adding a new vehicle is gonna be a piece of cake
interface IVehicle
{
void Run();
}
// your method now doesn't care about which vehicle
// it got as a parameter
void RunVehicle(IVehicle vehicle)
{
vehicle.Run();
}
And you can now easily test if your RunVehicle method works as it should:
// you can now create test (mock) implementations
// since you're passing it as an interface
var mock = new Mock<IVehicle>();
// run the client method
something.RunVehicle(mock.Object);
// check if Run() was invoked
mock.Verify(m => m.Run(), Times.Once());
Patterns which only differ in their if conditions can be reused
Regarding the argument about replacing if with a "predicate" in your question, Haines probably wanted to mention that sometimes similar patterns exist over your code, which differ only in their conditional expressions. Conditional expressions do emerge in conjunction with ifs, but the whole idea is to extract a repeating pattern into a separate method, leaving the expression as a parameter. This is what LINQ already does, usually resulting in cleaner code compared to an alternative foreach:
Consider these two very similar methods:
// average male age
public double AverageMaleAge(List<Person> people)
{
double sum = 0.0;
int count = 0;
foreach (var person in people)
{
if (person.Gender == Gender.Male)
{
sum += person.Age;
count++;
}
}
return sum / count; // not checking for zero div. for simplicity
}
// average female age
public double AverageFemaleAge(List<Person> people)
{
double sum = 0.0;
int count = 0;
foreach (var person in people)
{
if (person.Gender == Gender.Female) // <-- only the expression
{ // is different
sum += person.Age;
count++;
}
}
return sum / count;
}
This indicates that you can extract the condition into a predicate, leaving you with a single method for these two cases (and many other future cases):
// average age for all people matched by the predicate
public double AverageAge(List<Person> people, Predicate<Person> match)
{
double sum = 0.0;
int count = 0;
foreach (var person in people)
{
if (match(person)) // <-- the decision to match
{ // is now delegated to callers
sum += person.Age;
count++;
}
}
return sum / count;
}
var males = AverageAge(people, p => p.Gender == Gender.Male);
var females = AverageAge(people, p => p.Gender == Gender.Female);
And since LINQ already has a bunch of handy extension methods like this, you actually don't even need to write your own methods:
// replace everything we've written above with these two lines
var males = list.Where(p => p.Gender == Gender.Male).Average(p => p.Age);
var females = list.Where(p => p.Gender == Gender.Female).Average(p => p.Age);
In this last LINQ version the if statement has "disappeared" completely, although:
to be honest the problem wasn't in the if by itself, but in the entire code pattern (simply because it was duplicated), and
the if still actually exists, but it's written inside the LINQ Where extension method, which has been tested and closed for modification. Having less of your own code is always a good thing: less things to test, less things to go wrong, and the code is simpler to follow, analyze and maintain.
Huge runs of nested if/else statements
When you see a function spanning 1000 lines and having dozens of nested if blocks, there is an enormous chance it can be rewritten to
use a better data structure and organize the input data in a more appropriate manner (e.g. a hashtable, which will map one input value to another in a single call),
use a formula, a loop, or sometimes just an existing function which performs the same logic in 10 lines or less (e.g. this notorious example comes to my mind, but the general idea applies to other cases),
use guard clauses to prevent nesting (guard clauses give more confidence into the state of variables throughout the function, because they get rid of exceptional cases as soon as possible),
at least replace with a switch statement where appropriate.
Refactor when you feel it's a code smell, but don't over-engineer
Having said all this, you should not spend sleepless nights over having a couple of conditionals now and there. While these answers can provide some general rules of thumb, the best way to be able to detect constructs which need refactoring is through experience. Over time, some patterns emerge that result in modifying the same clauses over and over again.
There is another sense in which if can be evil: when it comes instead of polymorphism.
E.g.
if (animal.isFrog()) croak(animal)
else if (animal.isDog()) bark(animal)
else if (animal.isLion()) roar(animal)
instead of
animal.emitSound()
But basically if is a perfectly acceptable tool for what it does. It can be abused and misused of course, but it is nowhere near the status of goto.
A good quote from Code Complete:
Code as if whoever maintains your program is a violent psychopath who
knows where you live.
— Anonymous
IOW, keep it simple. If the readability of your application will be enhanced by using a predicate in a particular area, use it. Otherwise, use the 'if' and move on.
I think it depends on what you're doing to be honest.
If you have a simple if..else statement, why use a predicate?
If you can, use a switch for larger if replacements, and then if the option to use a predicate for large operations (where it makes sense, otherwise your code will be a nightmare to maintain), use it.
This guy seems to have been a bit pedantic for my liking. Replacing all if's with Predicates is just crazy talk.
There is the Anti-If campaign which started earlier in the year. The main premise being that many nested if statements often can often be replaced with polymorphism.
I would be interested to see an example of using the Predicate instead. Is this more along the lines of functional programming?
Just like in the bible verse about money, if statements are not evil -- the LOVE of if statements is evil. A program without if statements is a ridiculous idea, and using them as necessary is essential. But a program that has 100 if-else if blocks in a row (which, sadly, I have seen) is definitely evil.
I have to say that I recently have begun to view if statements as a code smell: especially when you find yourself repeating the same condition several times. But there's something you need to understand about code smells: they don't necessarily mean that the code is bad. They just mean that there's a good chance the code is bad.
For instance, comments are listed as a code smell by Martin Fowler, but I wouldn't take anyone seriously who says "comments are evil; don't use them".
Generally though, I prefer to use polymorphism instead of if statements where possible. That just makes for so much less room for error. I tend to find that a lot of the time, using conditionals leads to a lot of tramp arguments as well (because you have to pass the data needed to form the conditional on to the appropriate method).
if is not evil(I also hold that assigning morality to code-writing practices is asinine...).
Mr. Haines is being silly and should be laughed at.
I'll agree with you; he was wrong. You can go too far with things like that, too clever for your own good.
Code created with predicates instead of ifs would be horrendous to maintain and test.
Predicates come from logical/declarative programming languages, like PROLOG. For certain classes of problems, like constraint solving, they are arguably superior to a lot of drawn out step-by-step if-this-do-that-then-do-this crap. Problems that would be long and complex to solve in imperative languages can be done in just a few lines in PROLOG.
There's also the issue of scalable programming (due to the move towards multicore, the web, etc.). If statements and imperative programming in general tend to be in step-by-step order, and not scaleable. Logical declarations and lambda calculus though, describe how a problem can be solved, and what pieces it can be broken down into. As a result, the interpreter/processor executing that code can efficiently break the code into pieces, and distribute it across multiple CPUs/cores/threads/servers.
Definitely not useful everywhere; I'd hate to try writing a device driver with predicates instead of if statements. But yes, I think the main point is probably sound, and worth at least getting familiar with, if not using all the time.
The only problem with a predicates (in terms of replacing if statements) is that you still need to test them:
function void Test(Predicate<int> pr, int num)
{
if (pr(num))
{ /* do something */ }
else
{ /* do something else */ }
}
You could of course use the terniary operator (?:), but that's just an if statement in disguise...
Perhaps with quantum computing it will be a sensible strategy to not use IF statements but to let each leg of the computation proceed and only have the function 'collapse' at termination to a useful result.
Sometimes it's necessary to take an extreme position to make your point. I'm sure this person uses if -- but every time you use an if, it's worth having a little think about whether a different pattern would make the code clearer.
Preferring polymorphism to if is at the core of this. Rather than:
if(animaltype = bird) {
squawk();
} else if(animaltype = dog) {
bark();
}
... use:
animal.makeSound();
But that supposes that you've got an Animal class/interface -- so really what the if is telling you, is that you need to create that interface.
So in the real world, what sort of ifs do we see that lead us to a polymorphism solution?
if(logging) {
log.write("Did something");
}
That's really irritating to see throughout your code. How about, instead, having two (or more) implementations of Logger?
this.logger = new NullLogger(); // logger.log() does nothing
this.logger = new StdOutLogger(); // logger.log() writes to stdout
That leads us to the Strategy Pattern.
Instead of:
if(user.getCreditRisk() > 50) {
decision = thoroughCreditCheck();
} else if(user.getCreditRisk() > 20) {
decision = mediumCreditCheck();
} else {
decision = cursoryCreditCheck();
}
... you could have ...
decision = getCreditCheckStrategy(user.getCreditRisk()).decide();
Of course getCreditCheckStrategy() might contain an if -- and that might well be appropriate. You've pushed it into a neat place where it belongs.
It probably comes down to a desire to keep code cyclomatic complexity down, and to reduce the number of branch points in a function. If a function is simple to decompose into a number of smaller functions, each of which can be tested, you can reduce the complexity and make code more easily testable.
IMO:
I suspect he was trying to provoke a debate and make people think about the misuse of 'if'. No one would seriously suggest such a fundamental construction of programming syntax was to be completely avoided would they?
Good that in ruby we have unless ;)
But seriously probably if is the next goto, that even if most of the people think it is evil in some cases is simplifying/speeding up the things (and in some cases like low level highly optimized code it's a must).
I think If statements are evil, but If expressions are not. What I mean by an if expression in this case can be something like the C# ternary operator (condition ? trueExpression : falseExpression). This is not evil because it is a pure function (in a mathematical sense). It evaluates to a new value, but it has no effects on anything else. Because of this, it works in a substitution model.
Imperative If statements are evil because they force you to create side-effects when you don't need to. For an If statement to be meaningful, you have to produce different "effects" depending on the condition expression. These effects can be things like IO, graphic rendering or database transactions, which change things outside of the program. Or, it could be assignment statements that mutate the state of the existing variables. It is usually better to minimize these effects and separate them from the actual logic. But, because of the If statements, we can freely add these "conditionally executed effects" everywhere in the code. I think that's bad.
If is not evil! Consider ...
int sum(int a, int b) {
return a + b;
}
Boring, eh? Now with an added if ...
int sum(int a, int b) {
if (a == 0 && b == 0) {
return 0;
}
return a + b;
}
... your code creation productivity (measured in LOC) is doubled.
Also code readability has improved much, for now you can see in the blink of an eye what the result is when both argument are zero. You couldn't do that in the code above, could you?
Moreover you supported the testteam for they now can push their code coverage test tools use up more to the limits.
Furthermore the code now is better prepared for future enhancements. Let's guess, for example, the sum should be zero if one of the arguments is zero (don't laugh and don't blame me, silly customer requirements, you know, and the customer is always right).
Because of the if in the first place only a slight code change is needed.
int sum(int a, int b) {
if (a == 0 || b == 0) {
return 0;
}
return a + b;
}
How much more code change would have been needed if you hadn't invented the if right from the start.
Thankfulness will be yours on all sides.
Conclusion: There's never enough if's.
There you go. To.