I always set the types of my variables and functions, a habit I brought from my Java learning, seems the right thing to do.
But I always see "weak typing" in other people's code, but I can't disagree with that as I don't know what are the real advantages of keep everything strong typed.
I think my question is clear, but I gonna give some examples:
var id = "Z226";
function changeId(newId){
id = newId;
return newId;
}
My code would be like this:
var id:String = "Z226";
function changeId(newId:String):String{
id = newId;
return newId;
}
Yes, the big advantanges are:
faster code execution, because the runtime know the type, it does not have to evaluate the call
better tool support: auto completion and code hints will work with typed arguments and return types
far better readability
You get performance benefits from strongly typing. See http://gskinner.com/talks/quick/#45
I also find strongly typed code to be much more readable, but I guess depending on the person they may not care.
As pointed out by florian, two advantages of strongly typing are that development tools can can use the information to provide better code-hinting and code-completion, and that type, as an explicit indicator of how the variable or method is intended to be used, can make the code much easier to understand.
The question of performance seems to be up for debate. However, this answer on stackoverflow suggests that typed is definitely faster than untyped in certain benchmark tests but, as the author states, not so much that you would notice it under normal conditions.
However, I would argue that the biggest advantage of strong typing is that you get a compiler error if you attempt to assign or return a value of the wrong type. This helps prevent the kind of pernicious bug which can only be tracked down by actually running the program.
Consider the following contrived example in which ActionScript automatically converts the result to a string before returning. Strongly typing the method's parameter and return will ensure that the program will not compile and a warning is issued. This could potentially save you hours of debugging.
function increment(value) {
return value + 1;
}
trace(increment("1"));
// 11
While the points in the other answers about code hinting and error checking are accurate, I want to address the claim about performance. It's really not all that true. In theory, strong type allows the compiler to generate code that's closer to native. With the current VM though, such optimization doesn't happen. Here and there the AS3 compiler will employ an integer instruction instead of a floating point one. Otherwise the type indicators don't have much effect at runtime.
For example, consider the following code:
function hello():String {
return "Hello";
}
var s:String = hello() + ' world';
trace(s);
Here're the AVM2 op codes resulting from it:
getlocal_0
pushscope
getlocal_0
getlocal_0
callproperty 4 0 ; call hello()
pushstring 12 ; push ' world' onto stack
add ; concatenate the two
initproperty 5 ; save it to var s
findpropstrict 7 ; look up trace
getlocal_0 ; push this onto stack
getproperty 5 ; look up var s
callpropvoid 7 1 ; call trace
returnvoid
Now, if I remove the type indicators, I get the following:
getlocal_0
pushscope
getlocal_0
getlocal_0
callproperty 3 0
pushstring 11
add
initproperty 4
findpropstrict 6
getlocal_0
getproperty 4
callpropvoid 6 1
returnvoid
It's exactly the same, except all the name indices are one less since 'String' no longer appears in the constant table.
I'm not trying to discourage people from employing strong typing. One just shouldn't expect miracle on the performance front.
EDIT: In case anyone is interested, I've put my AS3 bytecode disassembler online:
http://flaczki.net46.net/codedump/
I've improved it so that it now dereferences the operands.
Related
While finalizing my upcoming Raku Advent Calendar post on sigils, I decided to double-check my understanding of the type constraints that sigils create. The docs describe sigil type constraints with the table
below:
Based on this table (and my general understanding of how sigils and containers work), I strongly expected this code
my %percent-sigil is List = 1,2;
my #at-sigil is Map = :k<v>;
to throw an error.
Specifically, I expected that is List would attempt to bind the %-sigiled variable to a List, and that this would throw an X::TypeCheck::Binding error – the same error that my %h := 1,2 throws.
But it didn't error. The first line created a List that seemed perfectly ordinary in every way, other than the sigil on its variable. And the second created a seemingly normal Map. Neither of them secretly had Scalar intermediaries, at least as far as I could tell with VAR and similar introspection.
I took a very quick look at the World.nqp source code, and it seems at least plausible that discarding the % type constraint with is List is intended behavior.
So, is this behavior correct/intended? If so, why? And how does that fit in with the type constraints and other guarantees that sigils typically provide?
(I have to admit, seeing an %-sigiled variable that doesn't support Associative indexing kind of shocked me…)
I think this is a grey area, somewhere between DIHWIDT (Docter, It Hurts When I Do This) and an oversight in implementation.
Thing is, you can create your own class and use that in the is trait. Basically, that overrides the type with which the object will be created from the default Hash (for %) and Array (for # sigils). As long as you provide the interface methods, it (currently) works. For example:
class Foo {
method AT-KEY($) { 42 }
}
my %h is Foo;
say %h<a>; # 42
However, if you want to pass such an object as an argument to a sub with a % sigil in the signature, it will fail because the class did not consume the Associatve role:
sub bar(%) { 666 }
say bar(%h);
===SORRY!=== Error while compiling -e
Calling bar(A) will never work with declared signature (%)
I'm not sure why the test for Associative (for the % sigil) and Positional (for #) is not enforced at compile time with the is trait. I would assume it was an oversight, maybe something to be fixed in 6.e.
Quoting the Parameters and arguments section of the S06 specification/speculation document about the related issue of binding arguments to routine parameters:
Array and hash parameters are simply bound "as is". (Conjectural: future versions ... may do static analysis and forbid assignments to array and hash parameters that can be caught by it. This will, however, only happen with the appropriate use declaration to opt in to that language version.)
Sure enough the Rakudo compiler implemented some rudimentary static analysis (in its AOT compilation optimization pass) that normally (but see footnote 3 in this SO answer) insists on binding # routine parameters to values that do the Positional role and % ones to Associatives.
I think this was the case from the first official Raku supporting release of Rakudo, in 2016, but regardless, I'm pretty sure the "appropriate use declaration" is any language version declaration, including none. If your/our druthers are static typing for the win for # and % sigils, and I think they are, then that's presumably very appropriate!
Another source is the IRC logs. A quick search quickly got me nothing.
Hmm. Let's check the blame for the above verbiage so I can find when it was last updated and maybe spot contemporaneous IRC discussion. Oooh.
That is an extraordinary read.
"oversight" isn't the right word.
I don't have time tonight to search the IRC logs to see what led up to that commit, but I daresay it's interesting. The previous text was talking about a PL design I really liked the sound of in terms of immutability, such that code could become increasingly immutable by simply swapping out one kind of scalar container for another. Very nice! But reality is important, and Jonathan switched the verbiage to the implementation reality. The switch toward static typing certainty is welcome, but has it seriously harmed the performance and immutability options? I don't know. Time for me to go to sleep and head off for seasonal family visits. Happy holidays...
it's my first post here.
I know that the question may seem vague i'll try to be clear...
globally without targeting any interpreted language (well i'm using C# currently but i think the answer should work for others too...)
I wonder, does this type of call :
Afunction(var1,var2,AnotherFunction(var3,var2,AthirdFunction(Avector.z)),Mathf.RoundToInt(Avector.x));
Will run faster than :
Type var1 = avalue;
Type var2 = avalue;
Type var3 = avalue;
Type var4 = AthirdFunction(Avector.z);
Type var5 = Mathf.RoundToInt(Avector.x);
Type var6 = AnotherFunction(var3,var2,var4);
Afunction(var1,var2,var6,var5);
I know that the second way is easier to read, but does it runs faster, knowing that i'll probably call this function extensively (lets say, in a graphic app, every frame).
And about memory use, is it better to create more variables to destroy it right after using the function, or to directly code everything inside "Afunction" while declaring as less variables as possible...
(and for understanding : Afunction(), AnotherFunction() and AthirdFunction() are already declared somewhere else)
I hope this type of question is not outside of the forum rules of use...
Assuming a reasonable compiler, the algorithms you use in Afunction, AnotherFunction, and AthirdFunction have way more impact on performance than anything else that you asked above. Generally you worry about what you've asked once you have the most efficient function possible.
Plus, compilers will inline function calls which means that you may call
return_value = fx( A(), B() );
But if you were to look at what passes for assembler output for your compiler, things may not look that way.
There is overhead with invoking a function call, and it is system and compiler architecture that dictates what that overhead will be.
If this were an interpreted language like awk or BASIC, then the second code block, calling things outside a function linearly, will run faster. Or more correctly it did back in 1980's on DEC PDP's.
A very common beginner mistake when writing recursive functions is to accidentally fire off completely redundant recursive calls from the same function. For example, consider this recursive function that finds the maximum value in a binary tree (not a binary search tree):
int BinaryTreeMax(Tree* root) {
if (root == null) return INT_MIN;
int maxValue = root->value;
if (maxValue < BinaryTreeMax(root->left))
maxValue = BinaryTreeMax(root->left); // (1)
if (maxValue < BinaryTreeMax(root->right))
maxValue = BinaryTreeMax(root->right); // (2)
return maxValue;
}
Notice that this program potentially makes two completely redundant recursive calls to BinaryTreeMax in lines (1) and (2). We could rewrite this code so that there's no need for these extra calls by simply caching the value from before:
int BinaryTreeMax(Tree* root) {
if (root == null) return INT_MIN;
int maxValue = root->value;
int leftValue = BinaryTreeMax(root->left);
int rightValue = BinaryTreeMax(root->right);
if (maxValue < leftValue)
maxValue = leftValue;
if (maxValue < rightValue)
maxValue = rightValue;
return maxValue;
}
Now, we always make exactly two recursive calls.
My question is whether there is a tool that does either a static or dynamic analysis of a program (in whatever language you'd like; I'm not too picky!) that can detect whether a program is making completely unnecessary recursive calls. By "completely unnecessary" I mean that
The recursive call has been made before,
by the same invocation of the recursive function (or one of its descendants), and
the call itself has no observable side-effects.
This is something that can usually be determined by hand, but I think it would be great if there were some tool that could flag things like this automatically as a way of helping students gain feedback about how to avoid making simple but expensive mistakes in their programs that could contribute to huge inefficiencies.
Does anyone know of such a tool?
First, your definition of 'completely unnecessary' is insufficient. It is possible that some code between the two function calls affects the result of the second function call.
Second, this has nothing to do with recursion, the same question can apply to any function call. If it has been called before with the exact same parameters, has no side-effects, and no code between the two calls changed any data the function accesses.
Now, I'm pretty sure a perfect solution is impossible, as it would solve The Halting Problem, but that doesn't mean there isn't a way to detect enough of these cases and optimize away some of them.
Some compilers know how to do that (GCC has a specific flag that warns you when it does so). Here's a 2003 article I found about the issue: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~jsstylos/15745/final.pdf .
I couldn't find a tool for this, though, but that's probably something Eric Lipert knows, if he happens to bump into your question.
Some compilers (such as GCC) do have ways to mark determinate functions explicitly (to be more precise, __attribute__((const)) (see GCC function attributes) applies some restrictions onto the function body to make its result depend only from its argument and get no depency from shared state of program or other non-deterministic functions). Then they eliminate duplicate calls to costy functions. Some other high-level language implementations (may be Haskell) does this tests automatically.
Really, I don't know tools for such analysis (but if i find it i will be happy). And if there is one that correcly detects unnecessary recursion or, in general way, function evaluation (in language-agnostic environment) it would be a kind of determinacy prover.
BTW, it's not so difficult to write such program when you already have access to semantic tree of the code :)
One thing I've sometimes wondered is which is the better style out of the two shown below (if any)? Is it better to return immediately if a guard condition hasn't been satisfied, or should you only do the other stuff if the guard condition is satisfied?
For the sake of argument, please assume that the guard condition is a simple test that returns a boolean, such as checking to see if an element is in a collection, rather than something that might affect the control flow by throwing an exception. Also assume that methods/functions are short enough not to require editor scrolling.
// Style 1
public SomeType aMethod() {
SomeType result = null;
if (!guardCondition()) {
return result;
}
doStuffToResult(result);
doMoreStuffToResult(result);
return result;
}
// Style 2
public SomeType aMethod() {
SomeType result = null;
if (guardCondition()) {
doStuffToResult(result);
doMoreStuffToResult(result);
}
return result;
}
I prefer the first style, except that I wouldn't create a variable when there is no need for it. I'd do this:
// Style 3
public SomeType aMethod() {
if (!guardCondition()) {
return null;
}
SomeType result = new SomeType();
doStuffToResult(result);
doMoreStuffToResult(result);
return result;
}
Having been trained in Jackson Structured Programming in the late '80s, my ingrained philosophy was always "a function should have a single entry-point and a single exit-point"; this meant I wrote code according to Style 2.
In the last few years I have come to realise that code written in this style is often overcomplex and hard to read/maintain, and I have switched to Style 1.
Who says old dogs can't learn new tricks? ;)
Style 1 is what the Linux kernel indirectly recommends.
From https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst, chapter 1:
Now, some people will claim that having 8-character indentations makes
the code move too far to the right, and makes it hard to read on a
80-character terminal screen. The answer to that is that if you need
more than 3 levels of indentation, you're screwed anyway, and should fix
your program.
Style 2 adds levels of indentation, ergo, it is discouraged.
Personally, I like style 1 as well. Style 2 makes it harder to match up closing braces in functions that have several guard tests.
I don't know if guard is the right word here. Normally an unsatisfied guard results in an exception or assertion.
But beside this I'd go with style 1, because it keeps the code cleaner in my opinion. You have a simple example with only one condition. But what happens with many conditions and style 2? It leads to a lot of nested ifs or huge if-conditions (with || , &&). I think it is better to return from a method as soon as you know that you can.
But this is certainly very subjective ^^
Martin Fowler refers to this refactoring as :
"Replace Nested Conditional with Guard Clauses"
If/else statements also brings cyclomatic complexity. Hence harder to test cases. In order to test all the if/else blocks you might need to input lots of options.
Where as if there are any guard clauses, you can test them first, and deal with the real logic inside the if/else clauses in a clearer fashion.
If you dig through the .net-Framework using .net-Reflector you will see the .net programmers use style 1 (or maybe style 3 already mentioned by unbeli).
The reasons are already mentioned by the answers above. and maybe one other reason is to make the code better readable, concise and clear.
the most thing this style is used is when checking the input parameters, you always have to do this if you program a kind of frawework/library/dll.
first check all input parameters than work with them.
It sometimes depends on the language and what kinds of "resources" that you are using (e.g. open file handles).
In C, Style 2 is definitely safer and more convenient because a function has to close and/or release any resources that it obtained during execution. This includes allocated memory blocks, file handles, handles to operating system resources such as threads or drawing contexts, locks on mutexes, and any number of other things. Delaying the return until the very end or otherwise restricting the number of exits from a function allows the programmer to more easily ensure that s/he properly cleans up, helping to prevent memory leaks, handle leaks, deadlock, and other problems.
In C++ using RAII-style programming, both styles are equally safe, so you can pick one that is more convenient. Personally I use Style 1 with RAII-style C++. C++ without RAII is like C, so, again, Style 2 is probably better in that case.
In languages like Java with garbage collection, the runtime helps smooth over the differences between the two styles because it cleans up after itself. However, there can be subtle issues with these languages, too, if you don't explicitly "close" some types of objects. For example, if you construct a new java.io.FileOutputStream and do not close it before returning, then the associated operating system handle will remain open until the runtime garbage collects the FileOutputStream instance that has fallen out of scope. This could mean that another process or thread that needs to open the file for writing may be unable to until the FileOutputStream instance is collected.
Although it goes against best practices that I have been taught I find it much better to reduce the nesting of if statements when I have a condition such as this. I think it is much easier to read and although it exits in more than one place it is still very easy to debug.
I would say that Style1 became more used because is the best practice if you combine it with small methods.
Style2 look a better solution when you have big methods. When you have them ... you have some common code that you want to execute no matter how you exit. But the proper solution is not to force a single exit point but to make the methods smaller.
For example if you want to extract a sequence of code from a big method, and this method has two exit points you start to have problems, is hard to do it automatically. When i have a big method written in style1 i usually transform it in style2, then i extract methods then in each of them i should have Style1 code.
So Style1 is best but is compatible with small methods.
Style2 is not so good but is recommended if you have big methods that you don't want, have time to split.
I prefer to use method #1 myself, it is logically easier to read and also logically more similar to what we are trying to do. (if something bad happens, exit function NOW, do not pass go, do not collect $200)
Furthermore, most of the time you would want to return a value that is not a logically possible result (ie -1) to indicate to the user who called the function that the function failed to execute properly and to take appropriate action. This lends itself better to method #1 as well.
I would say "It depends on..."
In situations where I have to perform a cleanup sequence with more than 2 or 3 lines before leaving a function/method I would prefer style 2 because the cleanup sequence has to be written and modified only once. That means maintainability is easier.
In all other cases I would prefer style 1.
Number 1 is typically the easy, lazy and sloppy way. Number 2 expresses the logic cleanly. What others have pointed out is that yes it can become cumbersome. This tendency though has an important benefit. Style #1 can hide that your function is probably doing too much. It doesn't visually demonstrate the complexity of what's going on very well. I.e. it prevents the code from saying to you "hey this is getting a bit too complex for this one function". It also makes it a bit easier for other developers that don't know your code to miss those returns sprinkled here and there, at first glance anyway.
So let the code speak. When you see long conditions appearing or nested if statements it is saying that maybe it would be better to break this stuff up into multiple functions or that it needs to be rewritten more elegantly.
Similar to Is hard-coding literals ever acceptable?, but I'm specifically thinking of "magic strings" here.
On a large project, we have a table of configuration options like these:
Name Value
---- -----
FOO_ENABLED Y
BAR_ENABLED N
...
(Hundreds of them).
The common practice is to call a generic function to test an option like this:
if (config_options.value('FOO_ENABLED') == 'Y') ...
(Of course, this same option may need to be checked in many places in the system code.)
When adding a new option, I was considering adding a function to hide the "magic string" like this:
if (config_options.foo_enabled()) ...
However, colleagues thought I'd gone overboard and objected to doing this, preferring the hard-coding because:
That's what we normally do
It makes it easier to see what's going on when debugging the code
The trouble is, I can see their point! Realistically, we are never going to rename the options for any reason, so about the only advantage I can think of for my function is that the compiler would catch any typo like fo_enabled(), but not 'FO_ENABLED'.
What do you think? Have I missed any other advantages/disadvantages?
If I use a string once in the code, I don't generally worry about making it a constant somewhere.
If I use a string twice in the code, I'll consider making it a constant.
If I use a string three times in the code, I'll almost certainly make it a constant.
if (config_options.isTrue('FOO_ENABLED')) {...
}
Restrict your hard coded Y check to one place, even if it means writing a wrapper class for your Map.
if (config_options.isFooEnabled()) {...
}
Might seem okay until you have 100 configuration options and 100 methods (so here you can make a judgement about future application growth and needs before deciding on your implementation). Otherwise it is better to have a class of static strings for parameter names.
if (config_options.isTrue(ConfigKeys.FOO_ENABLED)) {...
}
I realise the question is old, but it came up on my margin.
AFAIC, the issue here has not been identified accurately, either in the question, or the answers. Forget about 'harcoding strings" or not, for a moment.
The database has a Reference table, containing config_options. The PK is a string.
There are two types of PKs:
Meaningful Identifiers, that the users (and developers) see and use. These PKs are supposed to be stable, they can be relied upon.
Meaningless Id columns which the users should never see, that the developers have to be aware of, and code around. These cannot be relied upon.
It is ordinary, normal, to write code using the absolute value of a meaningful PK IF CustomerCode = "IBM" ... or IF CountryCode = "AUS" etc.
referencing the absolute value of a meaningless PK is not acceptable (due to auto-increment; gaps being changed; values being replaced wholesale).
.
Your reference table uses meaningful PKs. Referencing those literal strings in code is unavoidable. Hiding the value will make maintenance more difficult; the code is no longer literal; your colleagues are right. Plus there is the additional redundant function that chews cycles. If there is a typo in the literal, you will soon find that out during Dev testing, long before UAT.
hundreds of functions for hundreds of literals is absurd. If you do implement a function, then Normalise your code, and provide a single function that can be used for any of the hundreds of literals. In which case, we are back to a naked literal, and the function can be dispensed with.
the point is, the attempt to hide the literal has no value.
.
It cannot be construed as "hardcoding", that is something quite different. I think that is where your issue is, identifying these constructs as "hardcoded". It is just referencing a Meaningfull PK literally.
Now from the perspective of any code segment only, if you use the same value a few times, you can improve the code by capturing the literal string in a variable, and then using the variable in the rest of the code block. Certainly not a function. But that is an efficiency and good practice issue. Even that does not change the effect IF CountryCode = #cc_aus
I really should use constants and no hard coded literals.
You can say they won't be changed, but you may never know. And it is best to make it a habit. To use symbolic constants.
In my experience, this kind of issue is masking a deeper problem: failure to do actual OOP and to follow the DRY principle.
In a nutshell, capture the decision at startup time by an appropriate definition for each action inside the if statements, and then throw away both the config_options and the run-time tests.
Details below.
The sample usage was:
if (config_options.value('FOO_ENABLED') == 'Y') ...
which raises the obvious question, "What's going on in the ellipsis?", especially given the following statement:
(Of course, this same option may need to be checked in many places in the system code.)
Let's assume that each of these config_option values really does correspond to a single problem domain (or implementation strategy) concept.
Instead of doing this (repeatedly, in various places throughout the code):
Take a string (tag),
Find its corresponding other string (value),
Test that value as a boolean-equivalent,
Based on that test, decide whether to perform some action.
I suggest encapsulating the concept of a "configurable action".
Let's take as an example (obviously just as hypthetical as FOO_ENABLED ... ;-) that your code has to work in either English units or metric units. If METRIC_ENABLED is "true", convert user-entered data from metric to English for internal computation, and convert back prior to displaying results.
Define an interface:
public interface MetricConverter {
double toInches(double length);
double toCentimeters(double length);
double toPounds(double weight);
double toKilograms(double weight);
}
which identifies in one place all the behavior associated with the concept of METRIC_ENABLED.
Then write concrete implementations of all the ways those behaviors are to be carried out:
public class NullConv implements MetricConverter {
double toInches(double length) {return length;}
double toCentimeters(double length) {return length;}
double toPounds(double weight) {return weight;}
double toKilograms(double weight) {return weight;}
}
and
// lame implementation, just for illustration!!!!
public class MetricConv implements MetricConverter {
public static final double LBS_PER_KG = 2.2D;
public static final double CM_PER_IN = 2.54D
double toInches(double length) {return length * CM_PER_IN;}
double toCentimeters(double length) {return length / CM_PER_IN;}
double toPounds(double weight) {return weight * LBS_PER_KG;}
double toKilograms(double weight) {return weight / LBS_PER_KG;}
}
At startup time, instead of loading a bunch of config_options values, initialize a set of configurable actions, as in:
MetricConverter converter = (metricOption()) ? new MetricConv() : new NullConv();
(where the expression metricOption() above is a stand-in for whatever one-time-only check you need to make, including looking at the value of METRIC_ENABLED ;-)
Then, wherever the code would have said:
double length = getLengthFromGui();
if (config_options.value('METRIC_ENABLED') == 'Y') {
length = length / 2.54D;
}
// do some computation to produce result
// ...
if (config_options.value('METRIC_ENABLED') == 'Y') {
result = result * 2.54D;
}
displayResultingLengthOnGui(result);
rewrite it as:
double length = converter.toInches(getLengthFromGui());
// do some computation to produce result
// ...
displayResultingLengthOnGui(converter.toCentimeters(result));
Because all of the implementation details related to that one concept are now packaged cleanly, all future maintenance related to METRIC_ENABLED can be done in one place. In addition, the run-time trade-off is a win; the "overhead" of invoking a method is trivial compared with the overhead of fetching a String value from a Map and performing String#equals.
I believe that the two reasons you have mentioned, Possible misspelling in string, that cannot be detected until run time and the possibility (although slim) of a name change would justify your idea.
On top of that you can get typed functions, now it seems you only store booleans, what if you need to store an int, a string etc. I would rather use get_foo() with a type, than get_string("FOO") or get_int("FOO").
I think there are two different issues here:
In the current project, the convention of using hard-coded strings is already well established, so all the developers working on the project are familiar with it. It might be a sub-optimal convention for all the reasons that have been listed, but everybody familiar with the code can look at it and instinctively knows what the code is supposed to do. Changing the code so that in certain parts, it uses the "new" functionality will make the code slightly harder to read (because people will have to think and remember what the new convention does) and thus a little harder to maintain. But I would guess that changing over the whole project to the new convention would potentially be prohibitively expensive unless you can quickly script the conversion.
On a new project, symbolic constants are the way IMO, for all the reasons listed. Especially because anything that makes the compiler catch errors at compile time that would otherwise be caught by a human at run time is a very useful convention to establish.
Another thing to consider is intent. If you are on a project that requires localization hard coded strings can be ambiguous. Consider the following:
const string HELLO_WORLD = "Hello world!";
print(HELLO_WORLD);
The programmer's intent is clear. Using a constant implies that this string does not need to be localized. Now look at this example:
print("Hello world!");
Here we aren't so sure. Did the programmer really not want this string to be localized or did the programmer forget about localization while he was writing this code?
I too prefer a strongly-typed configuration class if it is used through-out the code. With properly named methods you don't lose any readability. If you need to do conversions from strings to another data type (decimal/float/int), you don't need to repeat the code that does the conversion in multiple places and can cache the result so the conversion only takes place once. You've already got the basis of this in place already so I don't think it would take much to get used to the new way of doing things.