I have two different types, TypeA and TypeB, both of which are relatable in the sense that they describe the same concept but from different view points - though there exists a loose temporal relationship.
I want to create a utility method which tests to see if the two types I pass into the utility method are in fact related.
The objects are not directly equitable, but I thought that they might be Comparable (which they are), however when I look at the description of ICompareable, it suggest that this should be implemented to assist sorting of arrays.
Is there a better interface to use, or should I just create my own comparer routine which does not implement any interface. This is what I am going with for now, but I thought there might be a more pattern specific solution, hence the question.
I would go for an own solution, as neither IComparer nor IEquatable are matching your requirement.
Maybe just bool IsRelatedTo() instance method would be enough?
Related
I'm having problem understanding the usefulness of Rust enums after reading The Rust Programming Language.
In section 17.3, Implementing an Object-Oriented Design Pattern, we have this paragraph:
If we were to create an alternative implementation that didn’t use the state pattern, we might instead use match expressions in the methods on Post or even in the main code that checks the state of the post and changes behavior in those places. That would mean we would have to look in several places to understand all the implications of a post being in the published state! This would only increase the more states we added: each of those match expressions would need another arm.
I agree completely. It would be very bad to use enums in this case because of the reasons outlined. Yet, using enums was my first thought of a more idiomatic implementation. Later in the same section, the book introduces the concept of encoding the state of the objects using types, via variable shadowing.
It's my understanding that Rust enums can contain complex data structures, and different variants of the same enum can contain different types.
What is a real life example of a design in which enums are the better option? I can only find fake or very simple examples in other sources.
I understand that Rust uses enums for things like Result and Option, but those are very simple uses. I was thinking of some functionality with a more complex behavior.
This turned out to be a somewhat open ended question, but I could not find a useful response after searching Google. I'm free to change this question to a more closed version if someone could be so kind as to help me rephrase it.
A fundamental trade-off between these choices in a broad sense has a name: "the expression problem". You should find plenty on Google under that name, both in general and in the context of Rust.
In the context of the question, the "problem" is to write the code in such a way that both adding a new state and adding a new operation on states does not involve modifying existing implementations.
When using a trait object, it is easy to add a state, but not an operation. To add a state, one defines a new type and implements the trait. To add an operation, naively, one adds a method to the trait but has to intrusively update the trait implementations for all states.
When using an enum for state, it is easy to add a new operation, but not a new state. To add an operation, one defines a new function. To add a new state, naively, one must intrusively modify all the existing operations to handle the new state.
If I explained this well enough, hopefully it should be clear that both will have a place. They are in a way dual to one another.
With this lens, an enum would be a better fit when the operations on the enum are expected to change more than the alternatives. For example, suppose you were trying to represent an abstract syntax tree for C++, which changes every three years. The set of types of AST nodes may not change frequently relative to the set of operations you may want to perform on AST nodes.
With that said, there are solutions to the more difficult options in both cases, but they remain somewhat more difficult. And what code must be modified may not be the primary concern.
In the book GOOS. It is told not to mock values, which leaves me confused. Does it means that values don't have any behavior?
I dont' much knowledge about the value object but AFAIK the value objects are those which are immutable. Is there any heuristic on deciding when to create a value object?
Not all immutable objects are value objects. By the way, when designing, consider that the ideal object has only immutable fields and no-arg methods.
Regarding the heuristic, a valid approach can be considering how objects will be used: if you build an instance, invoke some methods and then are done with it (or store it in a field) likely it won't be a value object. On the contrary, if you keep objects in some data structure and compare them (with .equals()) likely you have a value object. This is especially true for objects that will be used to key Maps
Value objects should be automatic-tested themselves (and tests are usually a pleasure to read and write because are straightforward) but there's no point in mocking them: the main practical reasons for mocking interfaces is that implementation classes
are usually difficult to build (need lot of collaborators)
are expensive to run (access the network, the filesystem, ...).
Neither apply to value objects.
Quoting the linked blog post:
There are a couple of heuristics for when a class is not worth mocking. First, it has only accessors or simple methods that act on values it holds, it doesn't have any interesting behaviour. Second, you can't think of a meaningful name for the class other than VideoImpl or some such vague term.
The implication of the first point, in the context of a section entitled "Don't mock value objects", is that value objects don't have interesting behaviour.
I know that memoization seems to be a perennial topic here on the haskell tag on stack overflow, but I think this question has not been asked before.
I'm aware of several different 'off the shelf' memoization libraries for Haskell:
The memo-combinators and memotrie packages, which make use of a beautiful trick involving lazy infinite data structures to achieve memoization in a purely functional way. (As I understand it, the former is slightly more flexible, while the latter is easier to use in simple cases: see this SO answer for discussion.)
The uglymemo package, which uses unsafePerformIO internally but still presents a referentially transparent interface. The use of unsafePerformIO internally results in better performance than the previous two packages. (Off the shelf, its implementation uses comparison-based search data structures, rather than perhaps-slightly-more-efficient hash functions; but I think that if you find and replace Cmp for Hashable and Data.Map for Data.HashMap and add the appropraite imports, you get a hash based version.)
However, I'm not aware of any library that looks answers up based on object identity rather than object value. This can be important, because sometimes the kinds of object which are being used as keys to your memo table (that is, as input to the function being memoized) can be large---so large that fully examining the object to determine whether you've seen it before is itself a slow operation. Slow, and also unnecessary, if you will be applying the memoized function again and again to an object which is stored at a given 'location in memory' 1. (This might happen, for example, if we're memoizing a function which is being called recursively over some large data structure with a lot of structural sharing.) If we've already computed our memoized function on that exact object before, we can already know the answer, even without looking at the object itself!
Implementing such a memoization library involves several subtle issues and doing it properly requires several special pieces of support from the language. Luckily, GHC provides all the special features that we need, and there is a paper by Peyton-Jones, Marlow and Elliott which basically worries about most of these issues for you, explaining how to build a solid implementation. They don't provide all details, but they get close.
The one detail which I can see which one probably ought to worry about, but which they don't worry about, is thread safety---their code is apparently not threadsafe at all.
My question is: does anyone know of a packaged library which does the kind of memoization discussed in the Peyton-Jones, Marlow and Elliott paper, filling in all the details (and preferably filling in proper thread-safety as well)?
Failing that, I guess I will have to code it up myself: does anyone have any ideas of other subtleties (beyond thread safety and the ones discussed in the paper) which the implementer of such a library would do well to bear in mind?
UPDATE
Following #luqui's suggestion below, here's a little more data on the exact problem I face. Let's suppose there's a type:
data Node = Node [Node] [Annotation]
This type can be used to represent a simple kind of rooted DAG in memory, where Nodes are DAG Nodes, the root is just a distinguished Node, and each node is annotated with some Annotations whose internal structure, I think, need not concern us (but if it matters, just ask and I'll be more specific.) If used in this way, note that there may well be significant structural sharing between Nodes in memory---there may be exponentially more paths which lead from the root to a node than there are nodes themselves. I am given a data structure of this form, from an external library with which I must interface; I cannot change the data type.
I have a function
myTransform : Node -> Node
the details of which need not concern us (or at least I think so; but again I can be more specific if needed). It maps nodes to nodes, examining the annotations of the node it is given, and the annotations its immediate children, to come up with a new Node with the same children but possibly different annotations. I wish to write a function
recursiveTransform : Node -> Node
whose output 'looks the same' as the data structure as you would get by doing:
recursiveTransform Node originalChildren annotations =
myTransform Node recursivelyTransformedChildren annotations
where
recursivelyTransformedChildren = map recursiveTransform originalChildren
except that it uses structural sharing in the obvious way so that it doesn't return an exponential data structure, but rather one on the order of the same size as its input.
I appreciate that this would all be easier if say, the Nodes were numbered before I got them, or I could otherwise change the definition of a Node. I can't (easily) do either of these things.
I am also interested in the general question of the existence of a library implementing the functionality I mention quite independently of the particular concrete problem I face right now: I feel like I've had to work around this kind of issue on a few occasions, and it would be nice to slay the dragon once and for all. The fact that SPJ et al felt that it was worth adding not one but three features to GHC to support the existence of libraries of this form suggests that the feature is genuinely useful and can't be worked around in all cases. (BUT I'd still also be very interested in hearing about workarounds which will help in this particular case too: the long term problem is not as urgent as the problem I face right now :-) )
1 Technically, I don't quite mean location in memory, since the garbage collector sometimes moves objects around a bit---what I really mean is 'object identity'. But we can think of this as being roughly the same as our intuitive idea of location in memory.
If you only want to memoize based on object identity, and not equality, you can just use the existing laziness mechanisms built into the language.
For example, if you have a data structure like this
data Foo = Foo { ... }
expensive :: Foo -> Bar
then you can just add the value to be memoized as an extra field and let the laziness take care of the rest for you.
data Foo = Foo { ..., memo :: Bar }
To make it easier to use, add a smart constructor to tie the knot.
makeFoo ... = let foo = Foo { ..., memo = expensive foo } in foo
Though this is somewhat less elegant than using a library, and requires modification of the data type to really be useful, it's a very simple technique and all thread-safety issues are already taken care of for you.
It seems that stable-memo would be just what you needed (although I'm not sure if it can handle multiple threads):
Whereas most memo combinators memoize based on equality, stable-memo does it based on whether the exact same argument has been passed to the function before (that is, is the same argument in memory).
stable-memo only evaluates keys to WHNF.
This can be more suitable for recursive functions over graphs with cycles.
stable-memo doesn't retain the keys it has seen so far, which allows them to be garbage collected if they will no longer be used. Finalizers are put in place to remove the corresponding entries from the memo table if this happens.
Data.StableMemo.Weak provides an alternative set of combinators that also avoid retaining the results of the function, only reusing results if they have not yet been garbage collected.
There is no type class constraint on the function's argument.
stable-memo will not work for arguments which happen to have the same value but are not the same heap object. This rules out many candidates for memoization, such as the most common example, the naive Fibonacci implementation whose domain is machine Ints; it can still be made to work for some domains, though, such as the lazy naturals.
Ekmett just uploaded a library that handles this and more (produced at HacPhi): http://hackage.haskell.org/package/intern. He assures me that it is thread safe.
Edit: Actually, strictly speaking I realize this does something rather different. But I think you can use it for your purposes. It's really more of a stringtable-atom type interning library that works over arbitrary data structures (including recursive ones). It uses WeakPtrs internally to maintain the table. However, it uses Ints to index the values to avoid structural equality checks, which means packing them into the data type, when what you want are apparently actually StableNames. So I realize this answers a related question, but requires modifying your data type, which you want to avoid...
I have an upcoming project in which a core requirement will be to mutate the way a method works at runtime. Note that I'm not talking about a higher level OO concept like "shadow one method with another", although the practical effect would be similar.
The key properties I'm after are:
I must be able to modify the method in such a way that I can add new expressions, remove existing expressions, or modify any of the expressions that take place in it.
After modifying the method, subsequent calls to that method would invoke the new sequence of operations. (Or, if the language binds methods rather than evaluating every single time, provide me a way to unbind/rebind the new method.)
Ideally, I would like to manipulate the atomic units of the language (e.g., "invoke method foo on object bar") and not the assembly directly (e.g. "pop these three parameters onto the stack"). In other words, I'd like to be able to have high confidence that the operations I construct are semantically meaningful in the language. But I'll take what I can get.
If you're not sure if a candidate language meets these criteria, here's a simple litmus test:
Can you write another method called clean which:
accepts a method m as input
returns another method m2 that performs the same operations as m
such that m2 is identical to m, but doesn't contain any calls to the print-to-standard-out method in your language (puts, System.Console.WriteLn, println, etc.)?
I'd like to do some preliminary research now and figure out what the strongest candidates are. Having a large, active community is as important to me as the practicality of implementing what I want to do. I am aware that there may be some unforged territory here, since manipulating bytecode directly is not typically an operation that needs to be exposed.
What are the choices available to me? If possible, can you provide a toy example in one or more of the languages that you recommend, or point me to a recent example?
Update: The reason I'm after this is that I'd like to write a program which is capable of modifying itself at runtime in response to new information. This modification goes beyond mere parameters or configurable data, but full-fledged, evolved changes in behavior. (No, I'm not writing a virus. ;) )
Well, you could always use .NET and the Expression libraries to build up expressions. That I think is really your best bet as you can build up representations of commands in memory and there is good library support for manipulating, traversing, etc.
Well, those languages with really strong macro support (in particular Lisps) could qualify.
But are you sure you actually need to go this deeply? I don't know what you're trying to do, but I suppose you could emulate it without actually getting too deeply into metaprogramming. Say, instead of using a method and manipulating it, use a collection of functions (with some way of sharing state, e.g. an object holding state passed to each).
I would say Groovy can do this.
For example
class Foo {
void bar() {
println "foobar"
}
}
Foo.metaClass.bar = {->
prinltn "barfoo"
}
Or a specific instance of foo without effecting other instances
fooInstance.metaClass.bar = {->
println "instance barfoo"
}
Using this approach I can modify, remove or add expression from the method and Subsequent calls will use the new method. You can do quite a lot with the Groovy metaClass.
In java, many professional framework do so using the open source ASM framework.
Here is a list of all famous java apps and libs including ASM.
A few years ago BCEL was also very much used.
There are languages/environments that allows a real runtime modification - for example, Common Lisp, Smalltalk, Forth. Use one of them if you really know what you're doing. Otherwise you can simply employ an interpreter pattern for an evolving part of your code, it is possible (and trivial) with any OO or functional language.
Take for example:
CreateOrderTicket(ByVal items As List(Of OrderItems)) As String
Where would you put this sort of logic given:
CreateOrder should generate a simple list ( i.e. Item Name - Item Price )
PizzaOrderItem
SaladBarOrderItem
BarOrderItem
Would you recommend:
Refactoring common to an abstract class/interface with shared properties a method called CreateOrderTicket
Or,
Creating a common service that exposes a CreateOrderTicket
We obviously would not want three createOrderTicket methods, but adding methods, inheriting, overloading and using generics seem like a high cost just to abstract one behaviour..
Assume for the sake of a simple example that (currently) there is no OrderItem baseclass or interface..
Help!! :)
p.s. Is there a way to overload without forcing all inheriting objects to use the same name?
Abstract base class sounds like the best option in this situation. Of course it all depends on what kind of shared behaviour these items have. Without knowing more, I'd guess all of these order items have Name and Price for example - and in future you might add more common stuff.
Without a shared base class which contains the Name and Price properties, you'll probably have troubles implementing a CreateOrderTicket method which takes a list containing more than 1 kind of orders.
Also I don't think inheriting from an abstract base class would be that high cost as technically the objects already derive from the Object base class. (Though I don't think this is completely equal to a custom base class.)
VB.Net can implement methods from an interface using a different name than the one specified in the interface but don't think the same goes for overriding abstract functionality.