Can someone provide a simple explanation of methods vs. functions in OOP context?
A function is a piece of code that is called by name. It can be passed data to operate on (i.e. the parameters) and can optionally return data (the return value). All data that is passed to a function is explicitly passed.
A method is a piece of code that is called by a name that is associated with an object. In most respects it is identical to a function except for two key differences:
A method is implicitly passed the object on which it was called.
A method is able to operate on data that is contained within the class (remembering that an object is an instance of a class - the class is the definition, the object is an instance of that data).
(this is a simplified explanation, ignoring issues of scope etc.)
A method is on an object or is static in class.
A function is independent of any object (and outside of any class).
For Java and C#, there are only methods.
For C, there are only functions.
For C++ and Python it would depend on whether or not you're in a class.
But in basic English:
Function: Standalone feature or functionality.
Method: One way of doing something, which has different approaches or methods, but related to the same aspect (aka class).
'method' is the object-oriented word for 'function'. That's pretty much all there is to it (ie., no real difference).
Unfortunately, I think a lot of the answers here are perpetuating or advancing the idea that there's some complex, meaningful difference.
Really - there isn't all that much to it, just different words for the same thing.
[late addition]
In fact, as Brian Neal pointed out in a comment to this question, the C++ standard never uses the term 'method' when refering to member functions. Some people may take that as an indication that C++ isn't really an object-oriented language; however, I prefer to take it as an indication that a pretty smart group of people didn't think there was a particularly strong reason to use a different term.
In general: methods are functions that belong to a class, functions can be on any other scope of the code so you could state that all methods are functions, but not all functions are methods:
Take the following python example:
class Door:
def open(self):
print 'hello stranger'
def knock_door():
a_door = Door()
Door.open(a_door)
knock_door()
The example given shows you a class called "Door" which has a method or action called "open", it is called a method because it was declared inside a class. There is another portion of code with "def" just below which defines a function, it is a function because it is not declared inside a class, this function calls the method we defined inside our class as you can see and finally the function is being called by itself.
As you can see you can call a function anywhere but if you want to call a method either you have to pass a new object of the same type as the class the method is declared (Class.method(object)) or you have to invoke the method inside the object (object.Method()), at least in python.
Think of methods as things only one entity can do, so if you have a Dog class it would make sense to have a bark function only inside that class and that would be a method, if you have also a Person class it could make sense to write a function "feed" for that doesn't belong to any class since both humans and dogs can be fed and you could call that a function since it does not belong to any class in particular.
Simple way to remember:
Function → Free (Free means it can be anywhere, no need to be in an object or class)
Method → Member (A member of an object or class)
A very general definition of the main difference between a Function and a Method:
Functions are defined outside of classes, while Methods are defined inside of and part of classes.
The idea behind Object Oriented paradigm is to "treat" the software is composed of .. well "objects". Objects in real world have properties, for instance if you have an Employee, the employee has a name, an employee id, a position, he belongs to a department etc. etc.
The object also know how to deal with its attributes and perform some operations on them. Let say if we want to know what an employee is doing right now we would ask him.
employe whatAreYouDoing.
That "whatAreYouDoing" is a "message" sent to the object. The object knows how to answer to that questions, it is said it has a "method" to resolve the question.
So, the way objects have to expose its behavior are called methods. Methods thus are the artifact object have to "do" something.
Other possible methods are
employee whatIsYourName
employee whatIsYourDepartmentsName
etc.
Functions in the other hand are ways a programming language has to compute some data, for instance you might have the function addValues( 8 , 8 ) that returns 16
// pseudo-code
function addValues( int x, int y ) return x + y
// call it
result = addValues( 8,8 )
print result // output is 16...
Since first popular programming languages ( such as fortran, c, pascal ) didn't cover the OO paradigm, they only call to these artifacts "functions".
for instance the previous function in C would be:
int addValues( int x, int y )
{
return x + y;
}
It is not "natural" to say an object has a "function" to perform some action, because functions are more related to mathematical stuff while an Employee has little mathematic on it, but you can have methods that do exactly the same as functions, for instance in Java this would be the equivalent addValues function.
public static int addValues( int x, int y ) {
return x + y;
}
Looks familiar? That´s because Java have its roots on C++ and C++ on C.
At the end is just a concept, in implementation they might look the same, but in the OO documentation these are called method.
Here´s an example of the previously Employee object in Java.
public class Employee {
Department department;
String name;
public String whatsYourName(){
return this.name;
}
public String whatsYourDeparmentsName(){
return this.department.name();
}
public String whatAreYouDoing(){
return "nothing";
}
// Ignore the following, only set here for completness
public Employee( String name ) {
this.name = name;
}
}
// Usage sample.
Employee employee = new Employee( "John" ); // Creates an employee called John
// If I want to display what is this employee doing I could use its methods.
// to know it.
String name = employee.whatIsYourName():
String doingWhat = employee.whatAreYouDoint();
// Print the info to the console.
System.out.printf("Employee %s is doing: %s", name, doingWhat );
Output:
Employee John is doing nothing.
The difference then, is on the "domain" where it is applied.
AppleScript have the idea of "natural language" matphor , that at some point OO had. For instance Smalltalk. I hope it may be reasonable easier for you to understand methods in objects after reading this.
NOTE: The code is not to be compiled, just to serve as an example. Feel free to modify the post and add Python example.
In OO world, the two are commonly used to mean the same thing.
From a pure Math and CS perspective, a function will always return the same result when called with the same arguments ( f(x,y) = (x + y) ). A method on the other hand, is typically associated with an instance of a class. Again though, most modern OO languages no longer use the term "function" for the most part. Many static methods can be quite like functions, as they typically have no state (not always true).
Let's say a function is a block of code (usually with its own scope, and sometimes with its own closure) that may receive some arguments and may also return a result.
A method is a function that is owned by an object (in some object oriented systems, it is more correct to say it is owned by a class). Being "owned" by a object/class means that you refer to the method through the object/class; for example, in Java if you want to invoke a method "open()" owned by an object "door" you need to write "door.open()".
Usually methods also gain some extra attributes describing their behaviour within the object/class, for example: visibility (related to the object oriented concept of encapsulation) which defines from which objects (or classes) the method can be invoked.
In many object oriented languages, all "functions" belong to some object (or class) and so in these languages there are no functions that are not methods.
Methods are functions of classes. In normal jargon, people interchange method and function all over. Basically you can think of them as the same thing (not sure if global functions are called methods).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_(computer_science)
A function is a mathematical concept. For example:
f(x,y) = sin(x) + cos(y)
says that function f() will return the sin of the first parameter added to the cosine of the second parameter. It's just math. As it happens sin() and cos() are also functions. A function has another property: all calls to a function with the same parameters, should return the same result.
A method, on the other hand, is a function that is related to an object in an object-oriented language. It has one implicit parameter: the object being acted upon (and it's state).
So, if you have an object Z with a method g(x), you might see the following:
Z.g(x) = sin(x) + cos(Z.y)
In this case, the parameter x is passed in, the same as in the function example earlier. However, the parameter to cos() is a value that lives inside the object Z. Z and the data that lives inside it (Z.y) are implicit parameters to Z's g() method.
Historically, there may have been a subtle difference with a "method" being something which does not return a value, and a "function" one which does.Each language has its own lexicon of terms with special meaning.
In "C", the word "function" means a program routine.
In Java, the term "function" does not have any special meaning. Whereas "method" means one of the routines that forms the implementation of a class.
In C# that would translate as:
public void DoSomething() {} // method
public int DoSomethingAndReturnMeANumber(){} // function
But really, I re-iterate that there is really no difference in the 2 concepts.
If you use the term "function" in informal discussions about Java, people will assume you meant "method" and carry on. Don't use it in proper documents or presentations about Java, or you will look silly.
Function or a method is a named callable piece of code which performs some operations and optionally returns a value.
In C language the term function is used. Java & C# people would say it a method (and a function in this case is defined within a class/object).
A C++ programmer might call it a function or sometimes method (depending on if they are writing procedural style c++ code or are doing object oriented way of C++, also a C/C++ only programmer would likely call it a function because term 'method' is less often used in C/C++ literature).
You use a function by just calling it's name like,
result = mySum(num1, num2);
You would call a method by referencing its object first like,
result = MyCalc.mySum(num1,num2);
Function is a set of logic that can be used to manipulate data.
While, Method is function that is used to manipulate the data of the object where it belongs.
So technically, if you have a function that is not completely related to your class but was declared in the class, its not a method; It's called a bad design.
In OO languages such as Object Pascal or C++, a "method" is a function associated with an object. So, for example, a "Dog" object might have a "bark" function and this would be considered a "Method". In contrast, the "StrLen" function stands alone (it provides the length of a string provided as an argument). It is thus just a "function." Javascript is technically Object Oriented as well but faces many limitations compared to a full-blown language like C++, C# or Pascal. Nonetheless, the distinction should still hold.
A couple of additional facts: C# is fully object oriented so you cannot create standalone "functions." In C# every function is bound to an object and is thus, technically, a "method." The kicker is that few people in C# refer to them as "methods" - they just use the term "functions" because there isn't any real distinction to be made.
Finally - just so any Pascal gurus don't jump on me here - Pascal also differentiates between "functions" (which return a value) and "procedures" which do not. C# does not make this distinction explicitly although you can, of course, choose to return a value or not.
Methods on a class act on the instance of the class, called the object.
class Example
{
public int data = 0; // Each instance of Example holds its internal data. This is a "field", or "member variable".
public void UpdateData() // .. and manipulates it (This is a method by the way)
{
data = data + 1;
}
public void PrintData() // This is also a method
{
Console.WriteLine(data);
}
}
class Program
{
public static void Main()
{
Example exampleObject1 = new Example();
Example exampleObject2 = new Example();
exampleObject1.UpdateData();
exampleObject1.UpdateData();
exampleObject2.UpdateData();
exampleObject1.PrintData(); // Prints "2"
exampleObject2.PrintData(); // Prints "1"
}
}
Since you mentioned Python, the following might be a useful illustration of the relationship between methods and objects in most modern object-oriented languages. In a nutshell what they call a "method" is just a function that gets passed an extra argument (as other answers have pointed out), but Python makes that more explicit than most languages.
# perfectly normal function
def hello(greetee):
print "Hello", greetee
# generalise a bit (still a function though)
def greet(greeting, greetee):
print greeting, greetee
# hide the greeting behind a layer of abstraction (still a function!)
def greet_with_greeter(greeter, greetee):
print greeter.greeting, greetee
# very simple class we can pass to greet_with_greeter
class Greeter(object):
def __init__(self, greeting):
self.greeting = greeting
# while we're at it, here's a method that uses self.greeting...
def greet(self, greetee):
print self.greeting, greetee
# save an object of class Greeter for later
hello_greeter = Greeter("Hello")
# now all of the following print the same message
hello("World")
greet("Hello", "World")
greet_with_greeter(hello_greeter, "World")
hello_greeter.greet("World")
Now compare the function greet_with_greeter and the method greet: the only difference is the name of the first parameter (in the function I called it "greeter", in the method I called it "self"). So I can use the greet method in exactly the same way as I use the greet_with_greeter function (using the "dot" syntax to get at it, since I defined it inside a class):
Greeter.greet(hello_greeter, "World")
So I've effectively turned a method into a function. Can I turn a function into a method? Well, as Python lets you mess with classes after they're defined, let's try:
Greeter.greet2 = greet_with_greeter
hello_greeter.greet2("World")
Yes, the function greet_with_greeter is now also known as the method greet2. This shows the only real difference between a method and a function: when you call a method "on" an object by calling object.method(args), the language magically turns it into method(object, args).
(OO purists might argue a method is something different from a function, and if you get into advanced Python or Ruby - or Smalltalk! - you will start to see their point. Also some languages give methods special access to bits of an object. But the main conceptual difference is still the hidden extra parameter.)
for me:
the function of a method and a function is the same if I agree that:
a function may return a value
may expect parameters
Just like any piece of code you may have objects you put in and you may have an object that comes as a result. During doing that they might change the state of an object but that would not change their basic functioning for me.
There might be a definition differencing in calling functions of objects or other codes. But isn't that something for a verbal differenciations and that's why people interchange them? The mentions example of computation I would be careful with. because I hire employes to do my calculations:
new Employer().calculateSum( 8, 8 );
By doing it that way I can rely on an employer being responsible for calculations. If he wants more money I free him and let the carbage collector's function of disposing unused employees do the rest and get a new employee.
Even arguing that a method is an objects function and a function is unconnected computation will not help me. The function descriptor itself and ideally the function's documentation will tell me what it needs and what it may return. The rest, like manipulating some object's state is not really transparent to me. I do expect both functions and methods to deliver and manipulate what they claim to without needing to know in detail how they do it.
Even a pure computational function might change the console's state or append to a logfile.
From my understanding a method is any operation which can be performed on a class. It is a general term used in programming.
In many languages methods are represented by functions and subroutines. The main distinction that most languages use for these is that functions may return a value back to the caller and a subroutine may not. However many modern languages only have functions, but these can optionally not return any value.
For example, lets say you want to describe a cat and you would like that to be able to yawn. You would create a Cat class, with a Yawn method, which would most likely be a function without any return value.
To a first order approximation, a method (in C++ style OO) is another word for a member function, that is a function that is part of a class.
In languages like C/C++ you can have functions which are not members of a class; you don't call a function not associated with a class a method.
IMHO people just wanted to invent new word for easier communication between programmers when they wanted to refer to functions inside objects.
If you are saying methods you mean functions inside the class.
If you are saying functions you mean simply functions outside the class.
The truth is that both words are used to describe functions. Even if you used it wrongly nothing wrong happens. Both words describe well what you want to achieve in your code.
Function is a code that has to play a role (a function) of doing something.
Method is a method to resolve the problem.
It does the same thing. It is the same thing. If you want to be super precise and go along with the convention you can call methods as the functions inside objects.
Let's not over complicate what should be a very simple answer. Methods and functions are the same thing. You call a function a function when it is outside of a class, and you call a function a method when it is written inside a class.
Function is the concept mainly belonging to Procedure oriented programming where a function is an an entity which can process data and returns you value
Method is the concept of Object Oriented programming where a method is a member of a class which mostly does processing on the class members.
I am not an expert, but this is what I know:
Function is C language term, it refers to a piece of code and the function name will be the identifier to use this function.
Method is the OO term, typically it has a this pointer in the function parameter. You can not invoke this piece of code like C, you need to use object to invoke it.
The invoke methods are also different. Here invoke meaning to find the address of this piece of code. C/C++, the linking time will use the function symbol to locate.
Objecive-C is different. Invoke meaning a C function to use data structure to find the address. It means everything is known at run time.
TL;DR
A Function is a piece of code to run.
A Method is a Function inside an Object.
Example of a function:
function sum(){
console.log("sum")l
}
Example of a Method:
const obj = {
a:1,
b:2,
sum(){
}
}
So thats why we say that a "this" keyword inside a Function is not very useful unless we use it with call, apply or bind .. because call, apply, bind will call that function as a method inside object ==> basically it converts function to method
I know many others have already answered, but I found following is a simple, yet effective single line answer. Though it doesn't look a lot better than others answers here, but if you read it carefully, it has everything you need to know about the method vs function.
A method is a function that has a defined receiver, in OOP terms, a method is a function on an instance of an object.
A class is the collection of some data and function optionally with a constructor.
While you creating an instance (copy,replication) of that particular class the constructor initialize the class and return an object.
Now the class become object (without constructor)
&
Functions are known as method in the object context.
So basically
Class <==new==>Object
Function <==new==>Method
In java the it is generally told as that the constructor name same as class name but in real that constructor is like instance block and static block but with having a user define return type(i.e. Class type)
While the class can have an static block,instance block,constructor, function
The object generally have only data & method.
Function - A function in an independent piece of code which includes some logic and must be called independently and are defined outside of class.
Method - A method is an independent piece of code which is called in reference to some object and are be defined inside the class.
General answer is:
method has object context (this, or class instance reference),
function has none context (null, or global, or static).
But answer to question is dependent on terminology of language you use.
In JavaScript (ES 6) you are free to customising function context (this) for any you desire, which is normally must be link to the (this) object instance context.
In Java world you always hear that "only OOP classes/objects, no functions", but if you watch in detailes to static methods in Java, they are really in global/null context (or context of classes, whithout instancing), so just functions whithout object. Java teachers could told you, that functions were rudiment of C in C++ and dropped in Java, but they told you it for simplification of history and avoiding unnecessary questions of newbies. If you see at Java after 7 version, you can find many elements of pure function programming (even not from C, but from older 1988 Lisp) for simplifying parallel computing, and it is not OOP classes style.
In C++ and D world things are stronger, and you have separated functions and objects with methods and fields. But in practice, you again see functions without this and methods whith this (with object context).
In FreePascal/Lazarus and Borland Pascal/Delphi things about separation terms of functions and objects (variables and fields) are usually similar to C++.
Objective-C comes from C world, so you must separate C functions and Objective-C objects with methods addon.
C# is very similar to Java, but has many C++ advantages.
In C++, sometimes, method is used to reflect the notion of member function of a class. However, recently I found a statement in the book «The C++ Programming Language 4th Edition», on page 586 "Derived Classes"
A virtual function is sometimes called a method.
This is a little bit confusing, but he said sometimes, so it roughly makes sense, C++ creator tends to see methods as functions can be invoked on objects and can behave polymorphic.
I'm learning flex/flash and I'm lost on this one. I have used the "data" in a bunch of views and it works fine. For some reason it isn't working here.
I set a field to a string here:
function LoginLoaded (e:Event):void {
trace(e.target.data);
var ServerReturn:String;
ServerReturn = new String(e.target.data);
data.UserCommonReturnData = ServerReturn;
navigator.pushView(CommonPlaces, data);
}
and here in the common places view I try to load it back:
var CommonPlacesData:String = new String();
var CurrentSelect:String = new String();
CommonPlacesData = new String(data.UserCommonReturnData);
This gives the error "Access of undefined property data" I don't get it because calling on something like data.PickUpTime (also a string) works fine in other views.
The data begins in the first view like this:
[Bindable] public var User:ObjectProxy = new ObjectProxy();
User.ID = "2314084";
navigator.pushView(TaxiNowOrLaterView, User);
then in later views I call on it like this: (works fine)
var PickUpString:String = new String(data.ID);
Any help would be great!! Thanks!!!
There are few things about your code. First, you really should make it a habit to name the identifiers as appropriate to the language. Identifiers that start with the capital letter and subsequently use minuscule letters for the rest of the logical part of the word (system alternatively known as PascalCase) is employed to only name classes. The rest of identifiers should use camelCase (similar to PascalCase, but the first letter isn't capitalized)**. This greatly reduces the effort at understanding your code. A seasoned AS3 programmer would interpret your code as follows:
// Static constant (!) ID of the class User is assigned (?) a value of "2314084"
User.ID = "2314084";
// invoke a method pushView of a local variable navigator with arguments
// of which first is the class TaxiNowOrLater, the second is the class User
navigator.pushView(TaxiNowOrLaterView, User);
while, perhaps, you didn't mean it.
new String();
In the context of AS3 makes no sense at all. Strings are never references, are immutable and have literal syntax the majority of programmers agreed upon. The code above is identical to "". In the similar way, new String(anotherString) has exact same effect as anotherString.
Your question: event.target may be many different things, some of them may have property called "data" and some may not. The general approach to this problem is that you need to cast the value of event.currentTarget or event.target to the type you expect to dispatch the event. Suppose you are expecting an event from an instance of a Button class, then:
private function clickHandler(event:MouseEvent):void {
if (Button(event.currentTarget).enabled) // do things
}
This will not protect you from an error, if the same event was dispatched by an object, which is not a button, but will make the error reporting more conscious, because it would tell you what class was it trying to cast to what other class, when it failed.
If your program logic requires that the handler be aware of events it shouldn't handle (why?) you could then write it like this:
private function clickHandler(event:MouseEvent):void {
var button:Button = event.currentTarget as Button;
if (button && button.enabled) // do things
}
event.target vs event.currentTarget - very-very rarely you would need the event.target, most of the time you need the currentTarget. I'm not saying it is wrong, but, it looks like it might be the problem. target is the object that was the first cause of the event. Events may bubble, which means they may travel the display list hierarchy up and down, first from the parent to child, then in reverse direction. In the example below, suppose there was a label on the button, which was clicked once the event was generated - in such case, even if you added a listener to the button, event.target would be the button label, not the button. currentTarget is, on the contrary, the immediate object which dispatched the event into the handler.
Few more things: ObjectProxy is an idiotic class, you probably shouldn't use at any event. It serves no purpose and, perhaps, buggy, but very few cared to discover its bugs so far. In a nutshell, what it does is as follows: it creates an object, which "watches" dynamic creation, assignment and removal of its properties and dispatches events when these events happen. This behavior is prone to a lot of errors and implicit bugs. For example, is foo.bar = "baz"; foo.bar = "baz"; a reassignment of the same property or not? Is foo.bar.baz = "fizzbuzz"; a modification of foo.bar? What if property name is not a sting? And so on.
Why you shouldn't use it: there is always a better way to treat your data. A more transparent, easier to debug, more efficient. This class is a prototype, which had never really worked. Besides having the behavior described above, it is huge in terms of lines of code that were used to write it. Debugging the errors that happen inside of it requires a lot of time and patience, which are certainly not worth it.
If you need an object to represent a user, define a class, with properties you expect the user to have and just use that class - this will make debugging and understanding your code much easier.
[Bindable] metadata is evil. I can't tell you you should avoid it, because it is used too often, but, I will. You should avoid it as much as possible. I didn't yet encounter an instance of when the use of this meta would be justified. Much in the similar spirit as ObjectProxy it is a prototype, something designed for lazy programmers w/o much consideration for either performance or corner cases. This is, again, a source of a lot of implicit bugs, typically difficult to spot due to the code generated around this meta "swallowing" the errors. The alternative to this meta is plain addEventListener(...) code with custom events.
Unfortunately, a lot of tutorial will use this kind of code to have you quickly started with the language + framework...
** there are some exceptions to this rule: constants are all upper-case and namespace names use underscores to separate the logical part of the word, but never use uppercase letters.
I want to create a class that will mainly house a Vector. The class will have some methods that deal with items in the Vector.
The issue I am having at the moment is that I can't work out how to dynamically create an instance of Vector. So far I've tried this and similar with no luck:
public class List
{
private var _content:Vector;
public function List(type:Class)
{
_content = new Vector.<type>();
}
}
Here is how I dynamically construct a vector of BitmapData (which is required by the MouseCursorData class):
var vectorClassOfBitmapData:Class = Class(getDefinitionByName("__AS3__.vec::Vector.<flash.display::BitmapData>"));
var bitmapDataVector:* = new vectorClassOfBitmapData(1,true);
The above is the same as the compile-time:
var bitmapDataVector:* = new Vector.<BitmapData>(1, true);
In this way, you can compose the class definition string at runtime and use getDefinitionByName to dynamically construct vectors of different data types.
Not exactly what you were after, but it might help others.
This post by Paul Robertson (previously Senior ActionScript Developer/Writer at Adobe) provides a little more information on how Vectors are declared:
The Vector class allows (requires) you to specify the type it will
contain at compile time — both for variable declarations and when
creating instances.
Because the type parameter is a literal, it must be provided at compile time. In fact, every reference to a Vector is checked at compile time, with the exception of .shift() and .unshift, which are checked at run time.
Adobe's article on indexed arrays provides some more interesting information on that. In fact, it mentions that strict compile time type safety is one of the key features of Vectors.
In short: It is not possible to use a variable to set a Vector's type, because the type parameter is a literal and a compile time requirement.
Hope that helps!
Additional References:
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flash/quickstart/programming_vectors_as3.html
http://help.adobe.com/en_US/FlashPlatform/reference/actionscript/3/Vector.html
http://www.mikechambers.com/blog/2008/08/19/using-vectors-in-actionscript-3-and-flash-player-10/
How do generics (Vector) work inside the AVM?
Another option that might work for you is to use an interface; Vectors do not have to be concrete types. So if you can abstract out some common contract that your objects can abide by, then use that instead. For example, say you wanted a list of renderable objects, you could say:
public interface IRenderable {
function renderTo(obj:DisplayObject):void;
}
var _content:Vector.<IRenderable> = new Vector.<IRenderable>();
Then you can shove as many different concrete types into the Vector, as long as they implement the IRenderable interface. So while generics in ActionScript 3 are really just syntactic compiler sugar, like Andrew Odri said, you might be able to get around that depending on what you are specifically trying to do.
Sounds like you just need an Array! The performance is only improved with a Vector<> because the type is sorted out at compile time. If you want a "dynamic" type, then you should use an Array.
The original question is a couple years old, but I felt like sharing this because it might help others.
It's inspired upon Matthew Peterson's answer but it assumes a little less about the internal class names (it only assumes the .<> syntax).
function CreateVectorOf(subtype:Class)
{
var vecname:String = getQualifiedClassName(Vector);
var subname:String = getQualifiedClassName(subtype);
var vecclass:Class = getDefinitionByName(vecname + ".<" + subname + ">") as Class;
return new vecclass();
}
For a game I'm attempting to develop, I am writing a resource pool class in order to recycle objects without calling the "new" operator. I would like to be able to specify the size of the pool, and I would like it to be strongly typed.
Because of these considerations, I think that a Vector would be my best choice. However, as Vector is a final class, I can't extend it. So, I figured I'd use composition instead of inheritance, in this case.
The problem I'm seeing is this - I want to instantiate the class with two arguments: size and class type, and I'm not sure how to pass a type as an argument.
Here's what I tried:
public final class ObjPool
{
private var objects:Vector.<*>;
public function ObjPool(poolsize:uint, type:Class)
{
objects = new Vector.<type>(poolsize); // line 15
}
}
And here's the error I receive from FlashDevelop when I try to build:
\src\ObjPool.as(15): col: 18 Error: Access of undefined property type.
Does anybody know of a way to do this? It looks like the Flash compiler doesn't like to accept variable names within the Vector bracket notation. (I tried changing constructor parameter "type" to String as a test, with no results; I also tried putting a getQualifiedClassName in there, and that didn't work either. Untyping the objects var was fruitless as well.) Additionally, I'm not even sure if type "Class" is the right way to do this - does anybody know?
Thanks!
Edit: For clarification, I am calling my class like this:
var i:ObjPool = new ObjPool(5000, int);
The intention is to specify a size and a type.
Double Edit: For anyone who stumbles upon this question looking for an answer, please research Generics in the Java programming language. As of the time of this writing, they are not implemented in Actionscript 3. Good luck.
I have been trying to do this for a while now and Dominic Tancredi's post made me think that even if you can't go :
objects = new Vector.<classType>(poolsize);
You could go something like :
public final class ObjPool
{
private var objects:Vector.<*>;
public function ObjPool(poolsize:uint, type:Class)
{
var className : String = getQualifiedClassName(type);
var vectorClass : Class = Class(getDefinitionByName("Vector.<" + className + ">"));
objects = new vectorClass(poolsize);
}
}
I tried it with both int and a custom class and it seems to be working fine. Of course you would have to check if you actually gain any speed from this since objects is a Vector.<*> and flash might be making some implicit type checks that would negate the speed up you get from using a vector.
Hope this helps
This is an interesting question (+1!), mostly because I've never tried it before. It seems like from your example it is not possible, which I do find odd, probably something to do with how the compiler works. I question why you would want to do this though. The performance benefit of a Vector over an Array is mostly the result of it being typed, however you are explicitly declaring its type as undefined, which means you've lost the performance gain. So why not just use an array instead? Just food for though.
EDIT
I can confirm this is not possible, its an open bug. See here: http://bugs.adobe.com/jira/browse/ASC-3748 Sorry for the news!
Tyler.
It is good you trying to stay away from new but:
Everything I have ever read about Vector<> in actionscript says it must be strongly typed. So
this shouldn't work.
Edit: I am saying it can't be done.
Here see if this helps.
Is it possible to define a generic type Vector in Actionsctipt 3?
Shot in the dock, but try this:
var classType:Class = getDefinitionByName(type) as Class;
...
objects = new Vector.<classType>(poolsize); // line 15
drops the mic
I don't really see the point in using a Vector.<*>. Might as well go with Array.
Anyhow, I just came up with this way of dynamically create Vectors:
public function getCopy (ofVector:Object):Object
{
var copy:Object = new ofVector.constructor;
// Do whatever you like with the vector as long as you don't need to know the type
return copy;
}
I have question regarding the use of function parameters.
In the past I have always written my code such that all information needed by a function is passed in as a parameter. I.e. global parameters are not used.
However through looking over other peoples code, functions without parameters seem to be the norm. I should note that these are for private functions of a class and that the values that would have been passed in as paramaters are in fact private member variables for that class.
This leads to neater looking code and im starting to lean towards this for private functions but would like other peoples views.
E.g.
Start();
Process();
Stop();
is neater and more readable than:
ParamD = Start(paramA, ParamB, ParamC);
Process(ParamA, ParamD);
Stop(ParamC);
It does break encapsulation from a method point of view but not from a class point of view.
There's nothing wrong in principle with having functions access object fields, but the particular example you give scares me, because the price of simplifying your function calls is that you're obfuscating the life cycle of your data.
To translate your args example into fields, you'd have something like:
void Start() {
// read FieldA, FieldB, and FieldC
// set the value of FieldD
}
void Process() {
// read FieldA and do something
// read FieldD and do something
}
void Stop() {
// read the value of FieldC
}
Start() sets FieldD by side effect. This means that it's probably not valid to call Process() until after you've called Start(). But the code doesn't tell you that. You only find out by searching to see where FieldD is initialized. This is asking for bugs.
My rule of thumb is that functions should only access an object field if it's always safe to access that field. Best if it's a field that's initialized at construction time, but a field that stores a reference to a collaborator object or something, which could change over time, is okay too.
But if it's not valid to call one function except after another function has produced some output, that output should be passed in, not stored in the state. If you treat each function as independent, and avoid side effects, your code will be more maintainable and easier to understand.
As you mentioned, there's a trade-off between them. There's no hard rule for always preferring one to another. Minimizing the scope of variables will keep their side effect local, the code more modular and reusable and debugging easier. However, it can be an overkill in some cases. If you keep your classes small (which you should do) then the shared variable would generally make sense. However, there can be other issues such as thread safety that might affect your choice.
Not passing the object's own member attributes as parameters to its methods is the normal practice: effectively when you call myobject.someMethod() you are implicitly passing the whole object (with all its attributes) as a parameter to the method code.
I generally agree with both of Mehrdad and Mufasa's comments. There's no hard and fast rule for what is best. You should use the approach that suits the specific scenarios you work on bearing in mind:
readability of code
cleanliness of code (can get messy if you pass a million and one parameters into a method - especially if they are class level variables. Alternative is to encapsulate parameters into groups, and create e.g. a struct to whole multiple values, in one object)
testability of code. This is important in my opinion. I have occassionally refactored code to add parameters to a method purely for the purpose of improving testability as it can allow for better unit testing
This is something you need to measure on a case by case basis.
For example ask yourself if you were to use parameter in a private method is it ever going to be reasonable to pass a value that is anything other than that of a specific property in the object? If not then you may as well access the property/field directly in the method.
OTH you may ask yourself does this method mutate the state of the object? If not then perhaps it may be better as a Static and have all its required values passed as parameters.
There are all sorts of considerations, the upper most has to be "What is most understandable to other developers".
In an object-oriented language it is common to pass in dependencies (classes that this class will communicate with) and configuration values in the constructor and only the values to actually be operated on in the function call.
This can actually be more readable. Consider code where you have a service that generates and publishes an invoice. There can be a variety of ways to do the publication - via a web-service that sends it to some sort of centralized server, or via an email sent to someone in the warehouse, or maybe just by sending it to the default printer. However, it is usually simpler for the method calling Publish() to not know the specifics of how the publication is happening - it just needs to know that the publication went off without a hitch. This allows you to think of less things at a time and concentrate on the problem better. Then you are simply making use of an interface to a service (in C#):
// Notice the consuming class needs only know what it does, not how it does it
public interface IInvoicePublisher {
pubic void Publish(Invoice anInvoice);
}
This could be implemented in a variety of ways, for example:
public class DefaultPrinterInvoicePublisher
DefaultPrinterInvoicePublisher _printer;
public DefaultPrinterInvoicePublisher(DefaultPrinterFacade printer) {
_printer = printer
}
public void Publish(Invoice anInvoice) {
printableObject = //Generate crystal report, or something else that can be printed
_printer.Print(printableObject);
}
The code that uses it would then take an IInvoicePublisher as a constructor parameter too so that functionality is available to be used throughout.
Generally, it's better to use parameters. Greatly increases the ability to use patterns like dependency injection and test-driven design.
If it is an internal only method though, that's not as important.
I don't pass the object's state to the private methods because the method can access the state just like that.
I pass parameters to a private method when the private method is invoked from a public method and the public method gets a parameter which it then sends to the private method.
Public DoTask( string jobid, object T)
{
DoTask1(jobid, t);
DoTask2(jobid, t);
}
private DoTask1( string jobid, object T)
{
}
private DoTask2( string jobid, object T)
{
}