Related
I have a few related questions about pragmas. What got me started on this line of questions was trying to determine whether it's possible to disable some warnings without going all the way to no worries (I'd still like to worry, at least a little bit!). And I'm still interested in the answer to that specific question.
But thinking about that issue made me realize that I don't really understand how pragmas work. It's clear that at least some pragmas take arguments (e.g., use isms<Perl5>). But they don't seem to be functions. Where do they fit into the overall MOP? Are they sort of like Traits? Or packages? Is there any way to introspect over them? See what pragmas are currently in effect?
Are pragmas built into the language, or are they something that users can add? When writing a library, I'd love to have some errors/warnings that users can optionally disable with a pragma – is that possible, or are they restricted to use in the compiler? If I can create my pragmas, is there a practical difference between setting something with a pragma versus with a dynamic variable, aside from the cleaner look of a pragma? For that matter, how do we decide what language features should be set with a pragma versus a variable (e.g., why is $*TOLERANCE not a pragma)?
Basically, I'd be interested in any info about pragmas that you could offer or point me towards – though my specific question is still whether I can selectively turn off certain warnings.
Currently, pragmas are hard-coded in the handling of the use statement. They usually either set some flag in a hash that is associated with the lexical scope of the moment, or change the setting of a dynamic variable in the grammar.
Since use is a compile time construct, you can only use compile time constructs to get at them (currently) (so you'd need BEGIN if it is not part of a use).
I have been in favour of decoupling use from pragma's in the past, as I see them as mostly a holdover from the Perl roots of Raku.
All of this will be changed in the RakuAST branch. I'm not sure what Jonathan Worthington has in mind regarding pragmas in the RakuAST context. For one thing, I think we should be able to "export" a pragma to the scope of a use statement.
I'm not referring to the indentation or the directory structure but the actual file itself.
Do you arrange your members and methods alphabetically? Maybe in their order of use or order of complex logic (either ascending or descending)? Is there any rhyme to your madness?
I'm thinking about making the switch to alphabetically but some situations would just madden me:
var _height
var _properties
var _width
width and height should definitely be grouped together... but sometimes finding the right method in a larger file can be pretty disheartening.
What do you do?
I tend to be disorganized. I certainly don't arrange my variables alphabetically. And with C#, I am even less organized because some variables I use stuff_like_this, and with properties I might DoItLikeThis. It kind of drives me mad at times, but in the end I like letting the IDE features do the work for me. Visual Studio is incredibly nice, and being able to just right click on a variable to go to its definition, or see everywhere in the code that it's being used is downright awesome. I don't know what IDE you use, but hopefully it's got similar features. In the end, I care less about the organization and really need to worry if my design is fundamentally sound (and that part usually takes me a few tries to get right).
I would suggest not trying to apply any sweeping general rules to your code. Rather, on a case-by-case basis, organize it in a way that makes sense. In the example you give, purely alphabetical would not make sense. In other cases, it would.
Methods: public first, then private. Methods which are related (e.g. getHeight(), getWidth(), getArea()) are placed near each other. If there is a hierarchal relationship between methods, then high-level before the low level (e.g. getArea() uses getWidth() so it's placed before it)
variables: similar to functions, public first, then private. Grouped according to context.
Alphabetical? I don't like it. It can be a nightmare when reading / modifying the code. I cannot tell whether a function's name is sqrt() or calculateSqrt(), so I won't enjoy looking for it. If the functions are organized according to context, it will be much easier to find them.
Generally order the members by their nature (constants, fields, constructors, methods) and then by their visibility (private, protected, public).
For finding the right thing I rely a lot on a modern IDE's capabilities (e.g. Visual Studio + Resharper)
Functions are topologically sorted with the "root" at the bottom of the file.
Variables hardly matter -- if a single "unit" (function, class, etc.) has enough variables for their arrangement to mean anything, that's probably something that needs fixing in itself.
I organize my code is by type of the elements, meaning that all the methods are at one place (at the end of the file, that is), all the constructor in one (before methods), etc. The same goes for variables, constants, enums etc. Usually I place private variables first and others after them, but that's not a strict rule. Also by nature code related to each other often ends up at the same place, but that's just because it is easiest.
I don't bother keeping my code in alphabetical order as I do that easily in the Eclipse outline view. However, if the editor does not support this, then I might use alphabetical order. Well, at least for bigger files.
What exactly is global data?
This may seem like a very rudimentary question but the reason I'm asking is because I'm wondering has the term become stretched over time - i.e it dosn't just apply to data in the "Global" namespace (in c++) or a variable that is available in every scope.
So, what do you consider to be global data?
I agree David, global can quite often mean different things to different people in different languages!
Personally I hate globals which are truly global, i.e. available to everything, everywhere. The greater the restriction of a scopes' variable, generally the better.
The scope of the information often has to be open to lots of functions within a module, this is OK, but should be limited where required. These I would define a module globals or local globals.
Variables which are shared between modules through a defined interface and only included as required are OK-ish, but data passed back and forth (or pointers to data) from/to functions are the best.
Of course, this is all my personal opinion in my native language (C) and might not agree with everyone's opinion!
Global data is a variable that can be put in any local scope (i.e. of a function) without passing it as a parameter or class attribute.
In some languages you need a global or extern keyword to import it, in others it enters the function's scope automatically.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 12 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Anyone else find naming classes and methods one of the most difficult part in programming?
Sometimes it seems i cant really find any name for a function i am writing, can this be because the function is not cohesive enough?
What do you do when no good name for a function comes to mind?
For naming functions, just avoid having simply nouns and rather name them after verbs. Some pointers:
Have function names that are unique visibly, e.g. don't have validateInput() and validateUserInput() since it's hard to say what one does over another. Also, avoid having characters that look very similar, e.g. the number 1 and lowercase 'l'. Sometimes it makes a difference.
Are you working on a project with multiple people? You should spend some time going over naming conventions as well, such as if the function name should have underscores, should be camelCase, etc.
Hungarian notation is a bad idea; avoid doing it.
Think about what the function is doing. The cohesion that you mentioned in your question comes to mind. Generally, functions should do just one thing, so don't name it constructCarAndRunCar() but rather have one function that constructs and another that runs it. If your functions are between, say 20 and 40 lines, you're good.
Sometimes, and this depends on the project, you might also want to prefix your function names with the class if the class is purely procedural (only composed of functions). So if you have a class that takes care of running a simulation, name your functions sim_pauseSimulation() and sim_restartSimulation(). If your class is OOP-based, this isn't an issue as much.
Don't use the underlying data structures in the functions themselves; these should be abstracted away. Rather than having functions like addToVector() or addToArray(), have them be addToList() instead. This is especially true if these are prototypes or the data structures might change later.
Finally, be consistent in your naming conventions. Once you come up with a convention after some thinking, stick to it. PHP comes to mind when thinking of inconsistent function names.
Happy coding! :)
Give it your best-shot and re-factor later if it still doesn't fit.
Sometimes it could be that your function is too large and therefore doing too many things. Try splitting up your function into other functions and it might be clearer what to call each individual function.
Don't worry about naming things with one or two words. Sometimes if functions do something that can be explained in a mini-sentence of sorts, go ahead and name the function a little longer if it'll help other developers understand what is going on.
Another suggestion is to get feedback from others. Often others who come from another perspective and seeing the function for the first time will have a better idea on what to call the function.
I follow following rule: Name according to the purpose (Why? - design decision) and not to the contents (What, How? - can be seen in the code).
For functions it is almost always an action (verb) followed by the noun of parameters and (or results. (Off-topic but for variables do not use "arrayOfNames" or "listOfNames", these are type information but simply "names"). This will also avoid inconsistencies if you refactor the code partly.
For given patterns like object creation, be consistent and always use the same naming like "Create..." (and not sometimes "Allocate..." or "Build..." otherwise you or your collegues will end up in scratching their head wound)
I find it easier to name functions when I don't have to cut back on the words. As long as your not doing javascript for the google start page you can do longer names.
For example you have the method dequeueReusableCellWithIdentifierandmergeChangesFromContextDidSaveNotification in apples cocoa framework.
As long as it's clear what the function is doing you can name it whatever you want and refactor it later.
Almost as important as the function name is that you are consistent with comments. Many IDEs will user your properly formatted comments not only to provide context sensitive help for a function you might be using, but they can be used to generate documentation. This is invaluable when returning to a project after a long period or when working with other developers.
In academic settings, they provide an appreciated demonstration of your intentions.
A good rule of thumb is [verb]returnDescription. This is easy with GetName() type functions and can't be applied universally. It's tough to find a balance between unobtrusive and descriptive code.
Here's a .Net convention guide, but it is applicable to most languages.
Go to www.thesaurus.com and try to find a better suited name though synonyms.
As a practical rule of my own, if a function name is too long, it should be atomized in a new object. Yet, i agree with all posts above. btw, nice noob question
Many people have argued about function size. They say that functions in general should be pretty short. Opinions vary from something like 15 lines to "about one screen", which today is probably about 40-80 lines.
Also, functions should always fulfill one task only.
However, there is one kind of function that frequently fails in both criteria in my code: Initialization functions.
For example in an audio application, the audio hardware/API has to be set up, audio data has to be converted to a suitable format and the object state has to properly initialized. These are clearly three different tasks and depending on the API this can easily span more than 50 lines.
The thing with init-functions is that they are generally only called once, so there is no need to re-use any of the components. Would you still break them up into several smaller functions would you consider big initialization functions to be ok?
I would still break the function up by task, and then call each of the lower level functions from within my public-facing initialize function:
void _init_hardware() { }
void _convert_format() { }
void _setup_state() { }
void initialize_audio() {
_init_hardware();
_convert_format();
_setup_state();
}
Writing succinct functions is as much about isolating fault and change as keeping things readable. If you know the failure is in _convert_format(), you can track down the ~40 lines responsible for a bug quite a bit faster. The same thing applies if you commit changes that only touch one function.
A final point, I make use of assert() quite frequently so I can "fail often and fail early", and the beginning of a function is the best place for a couple of sanity-checking asserts. Keeping the function short allows you to test the function more thoroughly based on its more narrow set of duties. It's very hard to unit-test a 400 line function that does 10 different things.
If breaking into smaller parts makes code better structured and/or more readable - do it no matter what the function does. It not about the number of lines it's about code quality.
I would still try to break up the functions into logical units. They should be as long or as short as makes sense. For example:
SetupAudioHardware();
ConvertAudioData();
SetupState();
Assigning them clear names makes everything more intuitive and readable. Also, breaking them apart makes it easier for future changes and/or other programs to reuse them.
In a situation like this I think it comes down to a matter of personal preference. I prefer to have functions do only one thing so I would split the initialization into separate functions, even if they are only called once. However, if someone wanted to do it all in a single function I wouldn't worry about it too much (as long as the code was clear). There are more important things to argue about (like whether curly braces belong on their own separate line).
If you have a lot of components the need to be plugged into each other, it can certainly be reasonably natural to have a large method - even if the creation of each component is refactored into a separate method where feasible.
One alternative to this is to use a Dependency Injection framework (e.g. Spring, Castle Windsor, Guice etc). That has definite pros and cons... while working your way through one big method can be quite painful, you at least have a good idea of where everything is initialized, and there's no need to worry about what "magic" might be going on. Then again, the initialization can't be changed after deployment (as it can with an XML file for Spring, for example).
I think it makes sense to design the main body of your code so that it can be injected - but whether that injection is via a framework or just a hard-coded (and potentially long) list of initialization calls is a choice which may well change for different projects. In both cases the results are hard to test other than by just running the application.
First, a factory should be used instead of an initialization function. That is, rather than have initialize_audio(), you have a new AudioObjectFactory (you can think of a better name here). This maintains separation of concerns.
However, be careful also not to abstract too early. Clearly you do have two concerns already: 1) audio initialization and 2) using that audio. Until, for example, you abstract the audio device to be initialized, or the way a given device may be configured during initialization, your factory method (audioObjectFactory.Create() or whatever), should really be kept to just one big method. Early abstraction serves only to obfuscate design.
Note that audioObjectFactory.Create() is not something that can be unit-tested. Testing it is an integration test, and until there are parts of it that can be abstracted, it will remain an integration test. Later on, you may find that the you have multiple different factories for different configurations; at that point, it might be beneficial to abstract the hardware calls into an interface, so you that you can create unit tests to ensure the various factories configure the hardware in a proper way.
I think it's the wrong approach to try and count the number of lines and determine functions based on that. For something like initialization code I often have a separate function for it, but mostly so that the Load or Init or New functions aren't cluttered and confusing. If you can separate it into a few tasks like others have suggested, then you can name it something useful and help organize. Even if you are calling it just once, it's not a bad habit, and often you find that there are other times when you may want to re-init things and can use that function again.
Just thought I'd throw this out there, since it hasn't been mentioned yet - the Facade Pattern is sometimes cited as an interface to a complex subsystem. I haven't done much with it myself, but the metaphors are usually something like turning on a computer (requires several steps), or turning on a home theater system (turn on TV, turn on receiver, turn down lights, etc...)
Depending on the code structure, might be something worth considering to abstract away your large initialization functions. I still agree with meagar's point though that breaking down functions into _init_X(), _init_Y(), etc. is a good way to go. Even if you aren't going to reuse comments in this code, on your next project, when you say to yourself, "How did I initialize that X-component?", it'll be much easier to go back and pick it out of the smaller _init_X() function than it would be to pick it out of a larger function, especially if the X-initialization is scattered throughout it.
Function length is, as you tagged, a very subjective matter. However, a standard best-practice is to isolate code that is often repeated and/or can function as its own entity. For instance, if your initialization function is loading library files or objects that will be used by a specific library, that block of code should be modularized.
With that said, it's not bad to have an initialization method that's long, as long as it's not long because of lots of repeated code or other snippets that can be abstracted away.
Hope that helps,
Carlos Nunez