Is there a list of items on the web that you should not use when creating a model or variable?
For example, if I wanted to create apartment listings, naming a model something like Property would be problematic in the future and also confusing since property is a built-in Python function.
I did try Googling this, but couldn't come up with anything.
Thanks!
Rules and constraints about naming depend on the programming language. How an identifier/name is bound depends on the language semantics and its scoping rules: an identifer/name will be bound to different element depending on the scope. Scoping is usally lexical (i.e. static) but some language have dynamic scoping (some variant of lisp).
If names are different, there is no confusion in scoping. If identifiers/names are reused accrossed scopes, an identifier/name might mask another one. This is referred as Shadowing. This is a source of confusion.
Certain reserved names (i.e. keywords) have special meaning. Such keyword can simply be forbidden as names of other elements, or not.
For instance, in Smallatalk self is a keyword. It is still possible to declare a temporary variable self, though. In the scope where the temporary variable is visible, self resolves to the temporary variable, not the usual self that is receiver of the message.
Of course, shadowing can happen between regular names.
Scoping rules take types into consideration as well, and inheritance might introduce shadows.
Another source of confusion related to binding is Method Overloading. In statically typed languages, which method is executed depends on the static types at the call site. In certain cases, overloading makes it confusing to know which method is selected. Both Shadowing and Overloading should avoided to avoid confusions.
If your goal is to translate Python to Javascript, and vice versa, I guess you need to check the scoping rules and keywords of both languages to make sure your translation is not only syntactically correct, but also semantically correct.
Generally, programming languages have 'reserved words' or 'keywords' that you're either not able to use or in some cases are but should stay away from. For Python, you can find that list here.
Most words in most natural languages can have different meanings, according to the context. That's why we use specifiers to make the meaning of a word clear. If in any case you think that some particular identifier may be confusing, you can just add a specifier to make it clear. For example ObjectProperty has probably nothing to do with real estate, even in an application that deals with real estate.
The case you present is no different than using generic identifiers with no attached context. For example a variable named limit or length may have completely different meanings in different programs. Just use identifiers that make sense and document their meaning extensively. Being consistent within your own code base would also be preferable. Do not complicate your life with banned term lists that will never be complete and will only make programming more difficult.
The obvious exceptions are words reserved by your programming language of choice - but then again no decent compiler would allow you to use them anyway...
Related
Although you can actually itemize any kind of data structure to fit it into a scalar variable, sigilless variables might have some intrinsic value, since they are actually shapeless, to be used as class attributes. However, there seems to be no way to do so, has \.a does not work, has .\a either. A has $!a can probably cover most of what we could achieve with sigilless variables, but would there be an actual way to use them as attributes?
There's currently no way to have a sigilless attribute. It's also not, so far as I'm aware, currently under active consideration for inclusion in a future Raku version. The most obvious design considerations, were it to be proposed, would be:
The semantics of my \foo = ... are single static assignment. It's quite clear what that means on a lexically scoped symbol. It's less clear what it would mean in a class declaration, and how it would interact with the instantiation workflow. For example, there'd be no equivalent of the :$!foo signature syntax that can be convenient in BUILD/TWEAK.
The use of a twigil implies that it follows a sigil. The twigils without that are potentially ambiguous, depending on context. Further, it'd be odd to allow the . case only for the purpose of declaring that we want a sigilless attribute to get an accessor.
It would break the rule that you can always find access to the instance state by looking for a ! twigil, which would be a pity.
Is Haskell strongly typed? I.e. is it possible to change the type of a variable after you assigned one? I can't seem to find the answer on the internet.
Static — types are known at compile time. Java and Haskell have static typing. Also C/C++, C#, Go, Scala, Rust, Kotlin, Pascal to list a few more.
A statically typed language might or might not have type inference. Java almost completely lacks type inference (but it's very slowly changing just a little bit); Haskell has full type inference (except with certain very advanced extensions).
(Type inference is when you only have to declare a minimal amount of types by hand, e.g. var isFoo = true and var person = new Person(), instead of bool isFoo = ... and Person person = ....)
Dynamic — Python, JavaScript, Ruby, PHP, Clojure (and Lisps in general), Prolog, Erlang, Groovy etc. Can also be called "unityped"; dynamic typing can be "emulated" in a static setting, but the reverse is not true except by using external static analysis tools. Some languages make it possible to mix dynamic and static (see gradual typing, e.g. https://typedclojure.org/).
Some languages enable static typing for one or more modules, applied at import time, for example: Python+Mypy, Typed Clojure, JavaScript+Flow, PHP+Hack to name a few.
Strong — values that are intended to be treated as Cat always are; trying to treat them like a Dog will cause a loud meeewww... I mean error.
Weak — this effectively boils down to 2 similar but distinct things: type coercion (e.g. "5"+3 equals 8 in PHP — or does it!) and memory reinterpretation (e.g. (int) someCharValue or (bool) somePtr in C, and C++ as well, but C++ wants you to explicitly say reinterpret_cast). So there's really coercion-weak and reinterpretation-weak, and different languages are weak in one or both of these ways.
Interestingly, note that coercion is implicit by nature and memory reinterpretation is explicit (except in Assembly) — so weak typing consists of an implicit and an explicit behavior. Maybe that's even more of a reason to refer to 2 distinct subcategories under weak typing.
There are languages with all 4 possible combinations, and variations/gradations thereof.
Haskell is static+strong; of course it has unsafeCoerce so it can be static+a bit reinterpret-weak at times, but unsafeCoerce is very much frowned upon except in extreme situations where you are sure about something being the case but just can't seem to persuade the compiler without going all the way back and retelling the entire story in a different way.
C is static+weak because all memory can freely be reinterpreted as something it originally was not meant to contain, hence weak. But all of those reinterpretations are kept track of by the type checker, so still fully static too. But C does not do implicit coercions, so it's only reinterpret-weak.
Python is dynamic+almost entirely strong — there are no types known on any given line of code prior to reaching that line during execution, however values that live at runtime do have types associated with them and it's impossible to reinterpret memory. Implicit coercions are also kept to a meaningful minimum, so one might say Python is 99.9% strong and 0.01% coercion-weak.
PHP and JavaScript are dynamic+mostly weak — dynamic, in that nothing has type until you execute and introspect its contents, and also weak in that coercions happen all the time and with things you'd never really expect to be coerced, unless you are only calling methods and functions and not using built-in operations. These coercions are a source of a lot of humor on the internet. There are no memory reinterpretations so PHP and JS are coercion-weak.
Furthermore, some people like to think that static typing is about variables having type, and strong typing is about values having type — this is a very useful way to go about understanding the full picture, but it's not quite true: some dynamically typed languages also allow variables/parameters to be annotated with types/constraints that are enforced at runtime.
In static typing, it's expressions that have a type; the fact of variables having type is only a consequence of variables being used as a means to glue bigger expressions together from smaller ones, so it's not variables per se that have types.
Similarly, in dynamic typing, it's not the variables that lack statically known type — it's all expressions! Variables lacking type is merely a consequence of the expressions they store lacking type.
One final illustration
In dynamic typing, all the cats, dogs and even elephants (in fact entire zoos!) are packaged up in identically sized boxes.
In static typing these boxes look different and have stickers on them saying what's inside.
Some people like it because they can just use a single box form factor and don't have to put any labels on the boxes — it's only the arrangement of boxes with regards to each other that implicitly (and hopefully) provides type sanity.
Some people also like it because it allows them to do all sorts of tricks with tigers temporarily being transported in boxes that smell like lions, and bears put in the same array of interconnected boxes as wolves or deer.
In such label-free setting of transport boxes, all the possible logicistics scenarios need to be played or simulated in order to detect misalignment in the implicit arrangement, like in a stage performance. No reliable guarantees can be given based on reasoning only, generally speaking. (ad-hoc test cases that need for the entire system to be started up for any partial conclusions to be obtained of its soundness)
With labels and explicit rules on how to deal with boxes of various labels, automated/mechanized logical reasoning can be used to draw up conclusions on what the logistics system won't do or will do for sure (static verification, formal proof, or at least pseudo-proof like QuickCheck), Some aspects of the logistics still need to be verified with trial runs, such as whether the logistics team even got the client right. (integration testing, acceptance testing, end user sanity checks).
Moreover, in weak typing dogs can be sliced up and reassembled as frankenstein cats. Whether they like it or not, and whether the result is ugly or not. (weak typing)
But if you add labels to the boxes, it still matters that Frankenstein cats be put in cat boxes. (static+weak typing)
In strong typing, while you can put a cat in the box of a dog, but you can only keep pretending it's a dog until you try to humiliate it by feeding it something only dogs would eat — if that happens, it will scream out loud, but until that time, if you're in dynamic typing, it will silently accept its place (in a static world it would refuse to be put in a dog's box before you can say "kitty").
You seem to mix up dynamic/static and weak/strong typing.
Dynamic or static typing is about whether the type of a variable can be changed during execution.
Weak or strong typing is about being able to predict type errors just from function signatures.
Haskell is both statically and strongly typed.
However, there is no such thing as variable in Haskell so talking about dynamic or static typing makes no sense since every identifier assigned with a value cannot be changed at execution.
EDIT: But like goldenbull said, those typing notions are not clearly defined.
It is strongly typed. See section 2.3 here: Why Haskell matters
I think you are talking about two different things.
First, haskell, and most functional programming (FP) languages, do NOT have the concept "variable". Instead, they use the concept "name" and "value", they just "bind" a value to a name. Once the value is bound, you can not bind another value to the same name, this is the key feature of FP.
Strong typing is another topic. Yes, haskell is strongly typed, and so are most FP languages. Strong typing gives FP the ability of "type inference" which is powerful to eliminate hidden bugs in compile time and help reduce the size of the source code.
Maybe you are comparing haskell with python? Python is also strongly typed. The difference between haskell and python is "static typed" and "dynamic typed". The actual meaning of term "Strong type" and "Weak Type" are ambiguous and fuzzy. That is another long story...
For example, could I implement a rule that would change every string that followed the pattern '1..4' into the array [1,2,3,4]? In JavaScript:
//here you create a rule that changes every string that matches /$([0-9]+)_([0-9]+)*/
//ever created into range($1,$2) (imagine a b are the results of the regexp)
var a = '1..4';
console.log(a);
>> output: [1,2,3,4];
Of course, I'm pretty confident that would be impossible in most languages. My question is: is there any language in which that would be possible? Or have anyone ever proposed something like that? Does this thing have a 'name' for which I can google to read more about?
Modifying the language from whithin itself falls under the umbrell of reflection and metaprogramming. It is referred as behavioral reflection. It differs from structural reflection that opperates at the level of the application (e.g. classes, methods) and not the language level. Support for behavioral reflection varies greatly across languages.
We can broadly categorize language changes in two categories:
changes that modify the semantics (i.e. the rules) of the language itself (e.g. redefine the method lookup algorithm),
changes that modify the syntax (e.g. your syntax '1..4' to create arrays).
For case 1, certain languages expose the structure of the application (structural reflection) and the inner working of their implementation (behavioral reflection) to the application itself via special object, called meta-objects. Meta-objects are reifications of otherwise implicit aspects, that become then explicitely manipulable: the application can modify the meta-objects to redefine part of its structure, or part of the language. When it comes to langauge changes, the focus is usually on modifiying message sending / method invocation since it is the core mechanism of object-oriented language. But the same idea could be applied to expose other aspects of the language, e.g. field accesses, synchronization primitives, foreach enumeration, etc. depending on the language.
For case 2, the program must be representated in a suitable data structure to be modified. For languages of the lisp family, the program manipulates lists, and the program can be itself represented as lists. This is called homoiconicity and is handy for metaprogramming, hence the flexibility of lisp-like languages. For other languages, their representation is usually an AST. Transforming the representation of the program, or rewriting it, is possible with macro, preprocessors, or hooks during compilation or class loading.
The line between 1 and 2 is however blurry. Syntactical changes can appear to modify the semantics of the language. For instance, I can rewrite all fields accesses with proper getter and setter and perform additional logic there, say to implement transactional memory. Did I perform a semantical change of what a field access is, or merely a syntax change?
Also, there are other constructs the fall bewten the lines. For instance, proxies and #doesNotUnderstand trap are popular techniques to simulate the reification of message sends to some extent.
Lisp and Smalltalk have been very influencial in the field of metaprogramming, and I think the two following projects/platform are interesting to look at for a representative of each of these:
Racket, a lisp-like language focused on growing languages from within the langauge
Helvetia, a Smalltalk extension to embed new languages into the host language by leveraging the AST of the host environment.
I hope you enjoyed this even if I did not really address your question ;)
Your desired change require modifying the way literals are created. This is AFAIK not usually exposed to the application. The closed work that I can think of is Virtual Values for Language Extension, that tackled Javascript.
Yes. Common Lisp (and certain other lisps) have "reader macros" which allow the user to reprogram (incrementally) the mapping between the input stream and the actual language construct as parsed.
See http://dorophone.blogspot.com/2008/03/common-lisp-reader-macros-simple.html
If you want to operate on the level of objects, you will want to use a debugging/memory management framework that keeps track of all objects, and processes the rules on each evaluation step (nasty). This seems like the kind of thing you might be able to shoehorn into smalltalk.
CLOS (Common Lisp Object System) allows redefinition of live objects.
Ultimately you need two things to implement this:
Access to the running system's AST (Abstract Syntax Tree), and
Access to the running system's objects.
You'll want to study meta-object protocols and the languages that use them, then the implementations of both the MOPs and the environment within which these programs are executed.
Image-based systems will be the easiest to modify (e.g., Lisp, potentially Smalltalk).
(Image-based systems store a snapshot of a running system, allowing complete shutdown and restarts, redefinitions, etc. of a complete environment, including existing objects, and their definitions.)
Ruby allows you to extend classes. For instance, this example adds functionality to the String class. But you can do more than add methods to classes. You can also overwrite methods, but defining a method that's already been defined. You may want to preserve access to the original method using alias_method.
Putting all this together, you can overload a constructor in Ruby, but in your case, there's a catch: It sounds like you want the constructor to return a different type. Constructors by definition return instances of their class. If you just want it to return the string "[1,2,3,4]", that's simple enough:
class string
alias_method :initialize :old_constructor
def initialize
old_constructor
# code that applies your transformation
end
end
But there's no way to make it return an Array if that's what you want.
Suppose you have this pseudo-code
do_something();
function do_something(){
print "I am saying hello.";
}
Why do some programming languages require the call to do_something() to appear below the function declaration in order for the code to run?
Programming languages use a symbol table to hold the various classes, functions, etc. that are used in the source code. Some languages compile in a single pass, whereby the symbols are pulled out of the symbol table as soon as they are used. Others use two passes, where the first pass is used to populate the table, and then the second is used to find the entries.
Most languages with a static type system are designed to require definition before use, which means there must be some sort of declaration of a function before the call so that the call can be checked (e.g., is the function getting the right number and types of arguments). This sort of design helps both a person and a compiler reading the program: everything you see has already been defined. The ease of reading and the popularity of one-pass compilers may explain the popularity of this design rule.
Unfortunately definition before use does not play well with mutual recursion, and so language designers resorted to an ugly hack whereby you have
Declaration (sometimes called a "forward declaration" from the keyword in Pascal)
Use
Definition
You see the same phenomenon at the type level in C in the form of the "incomplete struct declaration."
Around 1990 some language designers figured out that the one-pass compiler with no abstract-syntax tree should be a thing of the past, and two very nice designs from that era—Modula-3 and Haskell got rid of definition before use: in those languages, any defined function or variable is visible throughout its scope, including parts of the program textually before the definition. In other words, mutual recursion is the default for both types and functions. Good on them, I say—these languages have no ugly and unnecessary forward declarations.
Why [have definition before use]?
Easy to write a one-pass compiler in 1975.
without definition before use, you have to think harder about mutual recursion, especially mutually recursive type definitions.
Some people think it makes it easier for a person to read the code.
As the title suggests I am wondering what the relationship between these two programming concepts are. Does a certain type system (static / dynamic) lend itself to a certain type of scoping (lexical / dynamic), or are these independent language choices?
Static typing doesn't work all that well with dynamic scoping since the variable binding is resolved at runtime. It's possible but it would be unwieldy, since the type system would have to type free variables somehow, probably by examining bound ones. Basically, you couldn't declare two different variables of the same name but different type. Strong and weak typing will also come into play. I'm still pondering what form a static, weakly typed, dynamically scoped language might take, assuming it's possible.
Lexical scoping is paired with both static and dynamic typing.