Related
I came across this yesterday and was wondering what the relationship of pass-by-value, pass-by-reference and pass-reference-by-value is. How do they all behave? Which programming language uses which?
Additionally:
I have also occasionally heard other terms like pass-by-pointer, pass-by-copy, pass-by-object...how do they all fit in?
It's a made-up term that refers to something that is actually pass-by-value, but where people always get confused because the only values in the language are references (pointers to things). Many modern languages work this way, including Java (for non-primitives), JavaScript, Python, Ruby, Scheme, Smalltalk, etc.
Beginners always ask questions on StackOverflow about why it's not pass-by-reference, because they don't understand what pass-by-reference really is. So to satisfy them some people make up a new term that they also don't understand, but makes it seem like they learned something, and which sounds vaguely like both pass-by-value and pass-by-reference.
Use of terminology varies widely between different language communities. For example, the Java community almost always describes this semantics as pass-by-value, while the Python and Ruby communities rarely describe it as pass-by-value, even though they are semantically identical.
Let's start with the basics. You probably already know this or at least think you do. Surprisingly many people are actually misusing these terms quite a bit (which certainly doesn't help with the confusion).
What is pass-by-value and pass-by-reference?
I am not going to tell you the answer just yet and explain it using examples instead. You will see why later.
Imagine you are trying to learn a programming language and a friend tells you that he knows a great book on the topic. You have two options:
borrow the book from him or
buy your own copy.
Case 1: If you borrow his book and you make notes in the margins (and add some bookmarks, references, drawings, ...) your friend can later benefit from those notes and bookmarks as well. Sharing is caring. The world is great!
Case 2: But if, on the other hand, your friend is a bit of a neat freak or holds his books very dear he might not appreciate your notes and even less the occasional coffee stain or how you fold the corners for bookmarking. You should really get your own book and everybody can happily treat his book the way he likes. The world is great!
These two cases are - you guessed it - just like pass-by-reference and pass-by-value.
The difference is whether the caller of the function can see changes that the callee makes.
Let's look at a code example.
Say you have the following code snippet:
function largePrint(text):
text = makeUpperCase(text)
print(text)
myText = "Hello"
largePrint(myText)
print(myText)
and you run it in a pass-by-value language the output will be
HELLO
Hello
while in a pass-by-reference language the output will be
HELLO
HELLO
If you pass-by-reference the variable "myText" gets changed by the function. If you just pass the value of the variable the function cannot change it.
If you need another example, this one using websites got quite a few upvotes.
Okay, now that we have the basics down let's move on to...
What is pass-reference-by-value?
Let's use our book example again. Assume that you have decided to borrow the book from your friend although you know how much he loves his books. Let us also assume that you then - being the total klutz that you are - spilled a gallon of coffee over it. Oh, my...
Not to worry, your brain starts up and realizes that you can just buy your friend a new book. It was in such good condition he won't even notice!
What does that story have to do with pass-reference-by-value?
Well, imagine on the other hand that your friend loved his books so muchs he doesn't want to lend it to you. He does however agree to bring the book and show it to you. The problem is, you can still spill a gallon of coffee over it but now you can't buy him a new book anymore. He would notice!
While this may sound dreadful (and probably has you sweating as if you had drunk that gallon of coffee) but it is actually quite common and a perfectly good way to share books call functions. It is sometimes called pass-reference-by-value.
How does the code example fare?
In a pass-reference-by-value function the output of our snippet is
HELLO
Hello
just like in the pass-by-value case. But if we change the code a little bit:
function largePrint(text):
text.toUpperCase()
print(text)
myText = "Hello"
largePrint(myText)
print(myText)
The output becomes:
HELLO
HELLO
just like in the pass-by-reference case. The reason is the same as in the book example: We can change the variable (or book) by calling text.toUpperCase() (or by spilling coffee on it). BUT we cannot change the object that the variable references anymore (text = makeUppercase(text) has no effect); in other words we cannot use a different book.
So summarizing we get:
pass-by-value:
You get your own book, your own copy of the variable and whatever you do with it the original owner will never know.
pass-by-reference:
You use the same book as your friend or the same variable as the caller. If you change the variable it changes outside your function.
pass-reference-by-value
You use the same book as your friend but he doesn't let it out of his sight. You can change the book but not EXchange it. In variable terms that means that you cannot change what the variable references but you can change that which the variable references.
So now when I show you the following Python code:
def appendSeven(list):
list.append(7)
def replaceWithNewList(list):
list = ["a", "b", "c"]
firstList = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]
print(firstList)
appendSeven(firstList)
print(firstList)
secondList = ["x", "y", "z"]
print(secondList)
replaceWithNewList(secondList)
print(secondList)
and tell you that the output is this
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]
['x', 'y', 'z']
['x', 'y', 'z']
what do you say?
Indeed, you are correct! Python uses pass-reference-by-value! (And so is Java and Ruby and Scheme and...)
Conclusion:
Was this extremely difficult? No.
Then why are so many people confused by it? (I'm not going to link to all the other questions about "How do I pass a variable by reference in Python" or "Is Java pass-by-reference?" and so on...)
Well, I see several reasons:
Saying pass-value-by-reference is really long (and it behaves almost the same as pass-by-reference anyway so get of my back and stop splitting hairs!)
There are nasty special cases that complicate the issue
like primitive types (which are often pass-by-value in pass-value-by-reference languages)
immutable types (which cannot be changed so passing them by-reference doesn't get you anywhere)
Some people just like to use different names:
pass-by-copy for pass-by-value because if you paid attention, you need your own book, so a copy has to be made. (But that is an implementation detail, other tricks like copy-on-write might be used to only sometimes make a copy.)
pass-by-reference for pass-reference-by-value because, after all, you did get a reference and that means you can change the object that the caller had (even if you cannot EXchange it)
pass-by-reference for pass-reference-by-value because almost no language actually has pass-by-reference (notable Exceptions (that I know): C++, C# but you have to use special syntax)
pass-by-sharing for pass-reference-by-value (remember our book example? that name is actually way better and everybody should use it!)
pass-by-object for pass-reference-by-value because allegedly Barbara Liskov first named it and used that, so that's its birthname)
pass-by-pointer for pass-by-reference because C doesn't have pass-by-reference and that is how it allows you to accomplish the same thing.
If there is anything you think I should add, please let me know. If I made a mistake, PLEASE LET ME KNOW!
For those of you who still haven't got enough: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaluation_strategy
This question bugged me for years now and can't seem to find good solution still. I working in PHP and Java but it sounds like this maybe language-agnostic :)
Say we have a standard status reference table that holds status ids for some kind of entity. Further let's assume the table will have just 5 values, and will remain like this for a long time, maybe edited occasionally with addition of a new status.
When you fetch a row and need to see what status it is you have 2 options(as I see it at least) - put it straight ID values(magic numbers that is) or use a named constant. Latter seem much cleaner, the question though is where those named constants should leave? In a model class? In a class that uses this particular constant? Somewhere else?
It sounds like what you're wanting to do is an enumerated value.
This is a value that has a literal name mapped to a constant value, this would be something like
Statusone = 1
Statustwo = 2
Then anywhere in your program you could refrenece statusone which the compiler would see as 1.
I'm not sure if this exists in php but I'm pretty sure it does in java
EDIT In response to some comments
I would typically put enumerated values in some kind of global namespace, or if you only need them when you are using that class spefically you can put them at the class level.
I am curious to know about this.
whenever I write a function which have to return multiple values, either I have to use pass by reference or create an array store values in it and pass them.
Why all the Object Orinented languages functions are not allowed to return multiple parameters as we pass them as input. Like is there anything inbuilt structure of the language which is restricting from doing this.
Dont you think it will be fun and easy if we are allowed to do so.
It's not true that all Object-Oriented languages follow this paradigm.
e.g. in Python (from here):
def quadcube (x):
return x**2, x**3
a, b = quadcube(3)
a will be 9 and b will be 27.
The difference between the traditional
OutTypeA SomeFunction(out OutTypeB, TypeC someOtherInputParam)
and your
{ OutTypeA, OutTypeB } SomeFunction(TypeC someOtherInputParam)
is just syntactic sugar. Also, the tradition of returning one single parameter type allows writing in the easy readable natural language of result = SomeFunction(...). It's just convenience and ease of use.
And yes, as others said, you have tuples in some languages.
This is likely because of the way processors have been designed and hence carried over to modern languages such as Java or C#. The processor can load multiple things (pointers) into parameter registers but only has one return value register that holds a pointer.
I do agree that not all OOP languages only support returning one value, but for the ones that "apparently" do, this I think is the reason why.
Also for returning a tuple, pair or struct for that matter in C/C++, essentially, the compiler is returning a pointer to that object.
First answer: They don't. many OOP languages allow you to return a tuple. This is true for instance in python, in C++ you have pair<> and in C++0x a fully fledged tuple<> is in TR1.
Second answer: Because that's the way it should be. A method should be short and do only one thing and thus can be argued, only need to return one thing.
In PHP, it is like that because the only way you can receive a value is by assigning the function to a variable (or putting it in place of a variable). Although I know array_map allows you to do return something & something;
To return multiple parameters, you return an single object that contains both of those parameters.
public MyResult GetResult(x)
{
return new MyResult { Squared = Math.Pow(x,2), Cubed = Math.Pow(x,3) };
}
For some languages you can create anonymous types on the fly. For others you have to specify a return object as a concrete class. One observation with OO is you do end up with a lot of little classes.
The syntactic niceties of python (see #Cowan's answer) are up to the language designer. The compiler / runtime could creating an anonymous class to hold the result for you, even in a strongly typed environment like the .net CLR.
Yes it can be easier to read in some circumstances, and yes it would be nice. However, if you read Eric Lippert's blog, you'll often read dialogue's and hear him go on about how there are many nice features that could be implemented, but there's a lot of effort that goes into every feature, and some things just don't make the cut because in the end they can't be justified.
It's not a restriction, it is just the architecture of the Object Oriented and Structured programming paradigms. I don't know if it would be more fun if functions returned more than one value, but it would be sure more messy and complicated. I think the designers of the above programming paradigms thought about it, and they probably had good reasons not to implement that "feature" -it is unnecessary, since you can already return multiple values by packing them in some kind of collection. Programming languages are designed to be compact, so usually unnecessary features are not implemented.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Closed 11 months ago.
Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
Sorry for the waffly title - if I could come up with a concise title, I wouldn't have to ask the question.
Suppose I have an immutable list type. It has an operation Foo(x) which returns a new immutable list with the specified argument as an extra element at the end. So to build up a list of strings with values "Hello", "immutable", "world" you could write:
var empty = new ImmutableList<string>();
var list1 = empty.Foo("Hello");
var list2 = list1.Foo("immutable");
var list3 = list2.Foo("word");
(This is C# code, and I'm most interested in a C# suggestion if you feel the language is important. It's not fundamentally a language question, but the idioms of the language may be important.)
The important thing is that the existing lists are not altered by Foo - so empty.Count would still return 0.
Another (more idiomatic) way of getting to the end result would be:
var list = new ImmutableList<string>().Foo("Hello")
.Foo("immutable")
.Foo("word");
My question is: what's the best name for Foo?
EDIT 3: As I reveal later on, the name of the type might not actually be ImmutableList<T>, which makes the position clear. Imagine instead that it's TestSuite and that it's immutable because the whole of the framework it's a part of is immutable...
(End of edit 3)
Options I've come up with so far:
Add: common in .NET, but implies mutation of the original list
Cons: I believe this is the normal name in functional languages, but meaningless to those without experience in such languages
Plus: my favourite so far, it doesn't imply mutation to me. Apparently this is also used in Haskell but with slightly different expectations (a Haskell programmer might expect it to add two lists together rather than adding a single value to the other list).
With: consistent with some other immutable conventions, but doesn't have quite the same "additionness" to it IMO.
And: not very descriptive.
Operator overload for + : I really don't like this much; I generally think operators should only be applied to lower level types. I'm willing to be persuaded though!
The criteria I'm using for choosing are:
Gives the correct impression of the result of the method call (i.e. that it's the original list with an extra element)
Makes it as clear as possible that it doesn't mutate the existing list
Sounds reasonable when chained together as in the second example above
Please ask for more details if I'm not making myself clear enough...
EDIT 1: Here's my reasoning for preferring Plus to Add. Consider these two lines of code:
list.Add(foo);
list.Plus(foo);
In my view (and this is a personal thing) the latter is clearly buggy - it's like writing "x + 5;" as a statement on its own. The first line looks like it's okay, until you remember that it's immutable. In fact, the way that the plus operator on its own doesn't mutate its operands is another reason why Plus is my favourite. Without the slight ickiness of operator overloading, it still gives the same connotations, which include (for me) not mutating the operands (or method target in this case).
EDIT 2: Reasons for not liking Add.
Various answers are effectively: "Go with Add. That's what DateTime does, and String has Replace methods etc which don't make the immutability obvious." I agree - there's precedence here. However, I've seen plenty of people call DateTime.Add or String.Replace and expect mutation. There are loads of newsgroup questions (and probably SO ones if I dig around) which are answered by "You're ignoring the return value of String.Replace; strings are immutable, a new string gets returned."
Now, I should reveal a subtlety to the question - the type might not actually be an immutable list, but a different immutable type. In particular, I'm working on a benchmarking framework where you add tests to a suite, and that creates a new suite. It might be obvious that:
var list = new ImmutableList<string>();
list.Add("foo");
isn't going to accomplish anything, but it becomes a lot murkier when you change it to:
var suite = new TestSuite<string, int>();
suite.Add(x => x.Length);
That looks like it should be okay. Whereas this, to me, makes the mistake clearer:
var suite = new TestSuite<string, int>();
suite.Plus(x => x.Length);
That's just begging to be:
var suite = new TestSuite<string, int>().Plus(x => x.Length);
Ideally, I would like my users not to have to be told that the test suite is immutable. I want them to fall into the pit of success. This may not be possible, but I'd like to try.
I apologise for over-simplifying the original question by talking only about an immutable list type. Not all collections are quite as self-descriptive as ImmutableList<T> :)
In situations like that, I usually go with Concat. That usually implies to me that a new object is being created.
var p = listA.Concat(listB);
var k = listA.Concat(item);
I'd go with Cons, for one simple reason: it means exactly what you want it to.
I'm a huge fan of saying exactly what I mean, especially in source code. A newbie will have to look up the definition of Cons only once, but then read and use that a thousand times. I find that, in the long term, it's nicer to work with systems that make the common case easier, even if the up-front cost is a little bit higher.
The fact that it would be "meaningless" to people with no FP experience is actually a big advantage. As you pointed out, all of the other words you found already have some meaning, and that meaning is either slightly different or ambiguous. A new concept should have a new word (or in this case, an old one). I'd rather somebody have to look up the definition of Cons, than to assume incorrectly he knows what Add does.
Other operations borrowed from functional languages often keep their original names, with no apparent catastrophes. I haven't seen any push to come up with synonyms for "map" and "reduce" that sound more familiar to non-FPers, nor do I see any benefit from doing so.
(Full disclosure: I'm a Lisp programmer, so I already know what Cons means.)
Actually I like And, especially in the idiomatic way. I'd especially like it if you had a static readonly property for the Empty list, and perhaps make the constructor private so you always have to build from the empty list.
var list = ImmutableList<string>.Empty.And("Hello")
.And("Immutable")
.And("Word");
Whenever I'm in a jam with nomenclature, I hit up the interwebs.
thesaurus.com returns this for "add":
Definition: adjoin, increase; make
further comment
Synonyms: affix,
annex, ante, append, augment, beef
up, boost, build up, charge up,
continue, cue in, figure in, flesh
out, heat up, hike, hike up, hitch on,
hook on, hook up with, include, jack
up, jazz up, join together, pad,
parlay, piggyback, plug into, pour it
on, reply, run up, say further, slap
on, snowball, soup up, speed up,
spike, step up, supplement, sweeten,
tack on, tag
I like the sound of Adjoin, or more simply Join. That is what you're doing, right? The method could also apply to joining other ImmutableList<>'s.
Personally, I like .With(). If I was using the object, after reading the documentation or the code comments, it would be clear what it does, and it reads ok in the source code.
object.With("My new item as well");
Or, you add "Along" with it.. :)
object.AlongWith("this new item");
I ended up going with Add for all of my Immutable Collections in BclExtras. The reason being is that it's an easy predictable name. I'm not worried so much about people confusing Add with a mutating add since the name of the type is prefixed with Immutable.
For awhile I considered Cons and other functional style names. Eventually I discounted them because they're not nearly as well known. Sure functional programmers will understand but they're not the majority of users.
Other Names: you mentioned:
Plus: I'm wishy/washing on this one. For me this doesn't distinguish it as being a non-mutating operation anymore than Add does
With: Will cause issues with VB (pun intended)
Operator overloading: Discoverability would be an issue
Options I considered:
Concat: String's are Immutable and use this. Unfortunately it's only really good for adding to the end
CopyAdd: Copy what? The source, the list?
AddToNewList: Maybe a good one for List. But what about a Collection, Stack, Queue, etc ...
Unfortunately there doesn't really seem to be a word that is
Definitely an immutable operation
Understandable to the majority of users
Representable in less than 4 words
It gets even more odd when you consider collections other than List. Take for instance Stack. Even first year programmers can tell you that Stacks have a Push/Pop pair of methods. If you create an ImmutableStack and give it a completely different name, lets call it Foo/Fop, you've just added more work for them to use your collection.
Edit: Response to Plus Edit
I see where you're going with Plus. I think a stronger case would actually be Minus for remove. If I saw the following I would certainly wonder what in the world the programmer was thinking
list.Minus(obj);
The biggest problem I have with Plus/Minus or a new pairing is it feels like overkill. The collection itself already has a distinguishing name, the Immutable prefix. Why go further by adding vocabulary whose intent is to add the same distinction as the Immutable prefix already did.
I can see the call site argument. It makes it clearer from the standpoint of a single expression. But in the context of the entire function it seems unnecessary.
Edit 2
Agree that people have definitely been confused by String.Concat and DateTime.Add. I've seen several very bright programmers hit this problem.
However I think ImmutableList is a different argument. There is nothing about String or DateTime that establishes it as Immutable to a programmer. You must simply know that it's immutable via some other source. So the confusion is not unexpected.
ImmutableList does not have that problem because the name defines it's behavior. You could argue that people don't know what Immutable is and I think that's also valid. I certainly didn't know it till about year 2 in college. But you have the same issue with whatever name you choose instead of Add.
Edit 3: What about types like TestSuite which are immutable but do not contain the word?
I think this drives home the idea that you shouldn't be inventing new method names. Namely because there is clearly a drive to make types immutable in order to facilitate parallel operations. If you focus on changing the name of methods for collections, the next step will be the mutating method names on every type you use that is immutable.
I think it would be a more valuable effort to instead focus on making types identifiable as Immutable. That way you can solve the problem without rethinking every mutating method pattern out there.
Now how can you identify TestSuite as Immutable? In todays environment I think there are a few ways
Prefix with Immutable: ImmutableTestSuite
Add an Attribute which describes the level of Immutablitiy. This is certainly less discoverable
Not much else.
My guess/hope is development tools will start helping this problem by making it easy to identify immutable types simply by sight (different color, stronger font, etc ...). But I think that's the answer though over changing all of the method names.
I think this may be one of those rare situations where it's acceptable to overload the + operator. In math terminology, we know that + doesn't append something to the end of something else. It always combines two values together and returns a new resulting value.
For example, it's intuitively obvious that when you say
x = 2 + 2;
the resulting value of x is 4, not 22.
Similarly,
var empty = new ImmutableList<string>();
var list1 = empty + "Hello";
var list2 = list1 + "immutable";
var list3 = list2 + "word";
should make clear what each variable is going to hold. It should be clear that list2 is not changed in the last line, but instead that list3 is assigned the result of appending "word" to list2.
Otherwise, I would just name the function Plus().
To be as clear as possible, you might want to go with the wordier CopyAndAdd, or something similar.
I would call it Extend() or maybe ExtendWith() if you feel like really verbose.
Extends means adding something to something else without changing it. I think this is very relevant terminology in C# since this is similar to the concept of extension methods - they "add" a new method to a class without "touching" the class itself.
Otherwise, if you really want to emphasize that you don't modify the original object at all, using some prefix like Get- looks like unavoidable to me.
Added(), Appended()
I like to use the past tense for operations on immutable objects. It conveys the idea that you aren't changing the original object, and it's easy to recognize when you see it.
Also, because mutating method names are often present-tense verbs, it applies to most of the immutable-method-name-needed cases you run into. For example an immutable stack has the methods "pushed" and "popped".
I like mmyers suggestion of CopyAndAdd. In keeping with a "mutation" theme, maybe you could go with Bud (asexual reproduction), Grow, Replicate, or Evolve? =)
EDIT: To continue with my genetic theme, how about Procreate, implying that a new object is made which is based on the previous one, but with something new added.
This is probably a stretch, but in Ruby there is a commonly used notation for the distinction: add doesn't mutate; add! mutates. If this is an pervasive problem in your project, you could do that too (not necessarily with non-alphabetic characters, but consistently using a notation to indicate mutating/non-mutating methods).
Join seems appropriate.
Maybe the confusion stems from the fact that you want two operations in one. Why not separate them? DSL style:
var list = new ImmutableList<string>("Hello");
var list2 = list.Copy().With("World!");
Copy would return an intermediate object, that's a mutable copy of the original list. With would return a new immutable list.
Update:
But, having an intermediate, mutable collection around is not a good approach. The intermediate object should be contained in the Copy operation:
var list1 = new ImmutableList<string>("Hello");
var list2 = list1.Copy(list => list.Add("World!"));
Now, the Copy operation takes a delegate, which receives a mutable list, so that it can control the copy outcome. It can do much more than appending an element, like removing elements or sorting the list. It can also be used in the ImmutableList constructor to assemble the initial list without intermediary immutable lists.
public ImmutableList<T> Copy(Action<IList<T>> mutate) {
if (mutate == null) return this;
var list = new List<T>(this);
mutate(list);
return new ImmutableList<T>(list);
}
Now there's no possibility of misinterpretation by the users, they will naturally fall into the pit of success.
Yet another update:
If you still don't like the mutable list mention, even now that it's contained, you can design a specification object, that will specify, or script, how the copy operation will transform its list. The usage will be the same:
var list1 = new ImmutableList<string>("Hello");
// rules is a specification object, that takes commands to run in the copied collection
var list2 = list1.Copy(rules => rules.Append("World!"));
Now you can be creative with the rules names and you can only expose the functionality that you want Copy to support, not the entire capabilities of an IList.
For the chaining usage, you can create a reasonable constructor (which will not use chaining, of course):
public ImmutableList(params T[] elements) ...
...
var list = new ImmutableList<string>("Hello", "immutable", "World");
Or use the same delegate in another constructor:
var list = new ImmutableList<string>(rules =>
rules
.Append("Hello")
.Append("immutable")
.Append("World")
);
This assumes that the rules.Append method returns this.
This is what it would look like with your latest example:
var suite = new TestSuite<string, int>(x => x.Length);
var otherSuite = suite.Copy(rules =>
rules
.Append(x => Int32.Parse(x))
.Append(x => x.GetHashCode())
);
A few random thoughts:
ImmutableAdd()
Append()
ImmutableList<T>(ImmutableList<T> originalList, T newItem) Constructor
DateTime in C# uses Add. So why not use the same name? As long the users of your class understand the class is immutable.
I think the key thing you're trying to get at that's hard to express is the nonpermutation, so maybe something with a generative word in it, something like CopyWith() or InstancePlus().
I don't think the English language will let you imply immutability in an unmistakable way while using a verb that means the same thing as "Add". "Plus" almost does it, but people can still make the mistake.
The only way you're going to prevent your users from mistaking the object for something mutable is by making it explicit, either through the name of the object itself or through the name of the method (as with the verbose options like "GetCopyWith" or "CopyAndAdd").
So just go with your favourite, "Plus."
First, an interesting starting point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naming_conventions_(programming) ...In particular, check the "See Also" links at the bottom.
I'm in favor of either Plus or And, effectively equally.
Plus and And are both math-based in etymology. As such, both connote mathematical operation; both yield an expression which reads naturally as expressions which may resolve into a value, which fits with the method having a return value. And bears additional logic connotation, but both words apply intuitively to lists. Add connotes action performed on an object, which conflicts with the method's immutable semantics.
Both are short, which is especially important given the primitiveness of the operation. Simple, frequently-performed operations deserve shorter names.
Expressing immutable semantics is something I prefer to do via context. That is, I'd rather simply imply that this entire block of code has a functional feel; assume everything is immutable. That might just be me, however. I prefer immutability to be the rule; if it's done, it's done a lot in the same place; mutability is the exception.
How about Chain() or Attach()?
I prefer Plus (and Minus). They are easily understandable and map directly to operations involving well known immutable types (the numbers). 2+2 doesn't change the value of 2, it returns a new, equally immutable, value.
Some other possibilities:
Splice()
Graft()
Accrete()
How about mate, mateWith, or coitus, for those who abide. In terms of reproducing mammals are generally considered immutable.
Going to throw Union out there too. Borrowed from SQL.
Apparently I'm the first Obj-C/Cocoa person to answer this question.
NNString *empty = [[NSString alloc] init];
NSString *list1 = [empty stringByAppendingString:#"Hello"];
NSString *list2 = [list1 stringByAppendingString:#"immutable"];
NSString *list3 = [list2 stringByAppendingString:#"word"];
Not going to win any code golf games with this.
I think "Add" or "Plus" sounds fine. The name of the list itself should be enough to convey the list's immutability.
Maybe there are some words which remember me more of making a copy and add stuff to that instead of mutating the instance (like "Concatenate"). But i think having some symmetry for those words for other actions would be good to have too. I don't know of a similar word for "Remove" that i think of the same kind like "Concatenate". "Plus" sounds little strange to me. I wouldn't expect it being used in a non-numerical context. But that could aswell come from my non-english background.
Maybe i would use this scheme
AddToCopy
RemoveFromCopy
InsertIntoCopy
These have their own problems though, when i think about it. One could think they remove something or add something to an argument given. Not sure about it at all. Those words do not play nice in chaining either, i think. Too wordy to type.
Maybe i would just use plain "Add" and friends too. I like how it is used in math
Add 1 to 2 and you get 3
Well, certainly, a 2 remains a 2 and you get a new number. This is about two numbers and not about a list and an element, but i think it has some analogy. In my opinion, add does not necessarily mean you mutate something. I certainly see your point that having a lonely statement containing just an add and not using the returned new object does not look buggy. But I've now also thought some time about that idea of using another name than "add" but i just can't come up with another name, without making me think "hmm, i would need to look at the documentation to know what it is about" because its name differs from what I would expect to be called "add". Just some weird thought about this from litb, not sure it makes sense at all :)
Looking at http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/add and http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/plus I found gain and affix but I'm not sure how much they imply non-mutation.
I think that Plus() and Minus() or, alternatively, Including(), Excluding() are reasonable at implying immutable behavior.
However, no naming choice will ever make it perfectly clear to everyone, so I personally believe that a good xml doc comment would go a very long way here. VS throws these right in your face when you write code in the IDE - they're hard to ignore.
Append - because, note that names of the System.String methods suggest that they mutate the instance, but they don't.
Or I quite like AfterAppending:
void test()
{
Bar bar = new Bar();
List list = bar.AfterAppending("foo");
}
list.CopyWith(element)
As does Smalltalk :)
And also list.copyWithout(element) that removes all occurrences of an element, which is most useful when used as list.copyWithout(null) to remove unset elements.
I would go for Add, because I can see the benefit of a better name, but the problem would be to find different names for every other immutable operation which might make the class quite unfamiliar if that makes sense.
Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
I know what Hungarian refers to - giving information about a variable, parameter, or type as a prefix to its name. Everyone seems to be rabidly against it, even though in some cases it seems to be a good idea. If I feel that useful information is being imparted, why shouldn't I put it right there where it's available?
See also: Do people use the Hungarian naming conventions in the real world?
vUsing adjHungarian nnotation vmakes nreading ncode adjdifficult.
Most people use Hungarian notation in a wrong way and are getting wrong results.
Read this excellent article by Joel Spolsky: Making Wrong Code Look Wrong.
In short, Hungarian Notation where you prefix your variable names with their type (string) (Systems Hungarian) is bad because it's useless.
Hungarian Notation as it was intended by its author where you prefix the variable name with its kind (using Joel's example: safe string or unsafe string), so called Apps Hungarian has its uses and is still valuable.
Joel is wrong, and here is why.
That "application" information he's talking about should be encoded in the type system. You should not depend on flipping variable names to make sure you don't pass unsafe data to functions requiring safe data. You should make it a type error, so that it is impossible to do so. Any unsafe data should have a type that is marked unsafe, so that it simply cannot be passed to a safe function. To convert from unsafe to safe should require processing with some kind of a sanitize function.
A lot of the things that Joel talks of as "kinds" are not kinds; they are, in fact, types.
What most languages lack, however, is a type system that's expressive enough to enforce these kind of distinctions. For example, if C had a kind of "strong typedef" (where the typedef name had all the operations of the base type, but was not convertible to it) then a lot of these problems would go away. For example, if you could say, strong typedef std::string unsafe_string; to introduce a new type unsafe_string that could not be converted to a std::string (and so could participate in overload resolution etc. etc.) then we would not need silly prefixes.
So, the central claim that Hungarian is for things that are not types is wrong. It's being used for type information. Richer type information than the traditional C type information, certainly; it's type information that encodes some kind of semantic detail to indicate the purpose of the objects. But it's still type information, and the proper solution has always been to encode it into the type system. Encoding it into the type system is far and away the best way to obtain proper validation and enforcement of the rules. Variables names simply do not cut the mustard.
In other words, the aim should not be "make wrong code look wrong to the developer". It should be "make wrong code look wrong to the compiler".
I think it massively clutters up the source code.
It also doesn't gain you much in a strongly typed language. If you do any form of type mismatch tomfoolery, the compiler will tell you about it.
Hungarian notation only makes sense in languages without user-defined types. In a modern functional or OO-language, you would encode information about the "kind" of value into the datatype or class rather than into the variable name.
Several answers reference Joels article. Note however that his example is in VBScript, which didn't support user-defined classes (for a long time at least). In a language with user-defined types you would solve the same problem by creating a HtmlEncodedString-type and then let the Write method accept only that. In a statically typed language, the compiler will catch any encoding-errors, in a dynamically typed you would get a runtime exception - but in any case you are protected against writing unencoded strings. Hungarian notations just turns the programmer into a human type-checker, with is the kind of job that is typically better handled by software.
Joel distinguishes between "systems hungarian" and "apps hungarian", where "systems hungarian" encodes the built-in types like int, float and so on, and "apps hungarian" encodes "kinds", which is higher-level meta-info about variable beyound the machine type, In a OO or modern functional language you can create user-defined types, so there is no distinction between type and "kind" in this sense - both can be represented by the type system - and "apps" hungarian is just as redundant as "systems" hungarian.
So to answer your question: Systems hungarian would only be useful in a unsafe, weakly typed language where e.g. assigning a float value to an int variable will crash the system. Hungarian notation was specifically invented in the sixties for use in BCPL, a pretty low-level language which didn't do any type checking at all. I dont think any language in general use today have this problem, but the notation lived on as a kind of cargo cult programming.
Apps hungarian will make sense if you are working with a language without user defined types, like legacy VBScript or early versions of VB. Perhaps also early versions of Perl and PHP. Again, using it in a modern languge is pure cargo cult.
In any other language, hungarian is just ugly, redundant and fragile. It repeats information already known from the type system, and you should not repeat yourself. Use a descriptive name for the variable that describes the intent of this specific instance of the type. Use the type system to encode invariants and meta info about "kinds" or "classes" of variables - ie. types.
The general point of Joels article - to have wrong code look wrong - is a very good principle. However an even better protection against bugs is to - when at all possible - have wrong code to be detected automatically by the compiler.
I always use Hungarian notation for all my projects. I find it really helpful when I'm dealing with 100s of different identifier names.
For example, when I call a function requiring a string I can type 's' and hit control-space and my IDE will show me exactly the variable names prefixed with 's' .
Another advantage, when I prefix u for unsigned and i for signed ints, I immediately see where I am mixing signed and unsigned in potentially dangerous ways.
I cannot remember the number of times when in a huge 75000 line codebase, bugs were caused (by me and others too) due to naming local variables the same as existing member variables of that class. Since then, I always prefix members with 'm_'
Its a question of taste and experience. Don't knock it until you've tried it.
You're forgetting the number one reason to include this information. It has nothing to do with you, the programmer. It has everything to do with the person coming down the road 2 or 3 years after you leave the company who has to read that stuff.
Yes, an IDE will quickly identify types for you. However, when you're reading through some long batches of 'business rules' code, it's nice to not have to pause on each variable to find out what type it is. When I see things like strUserID, intProduct or guiProductID, it makes for much easier 'ramp up' time.
I agree that MS went way too far with some of their naming conventions - I categorize that in the "too much of a good thing" pile.
Naming conventions are good things, provided you stick to them. I've gone through enough old code that had me constantly going back to look at the definitions for so many similarly-named variables that I push "camel casing" (as it was called at a previous job). Right now I'm on a job that has many thousand of lines of completely uncommented classic ASP code with VBScript and it's a nightmare trying to figure things out.
Tacking on cryptic characters at the beginning of each variable name is unnecessary and shows that the variable name by itself isn't descriptive enough. Most languages require the variable type at declaration anyway, so that information is already available.
There's also the situation where, during maintenance, a variable type needs to change. Example: if a variable declared as "uint_16 u16foo" needs to become a 64-bit unsigned, one of two things will happen:
You'll go through and change each variable name (making sure not to hose any unrelated variables with the same name), or
Just change the type and not change the name, which will only cause confusion.
Joel Spolsky wrote a good blog post about this.
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Wrong.html
Basically it comes down to not making your code harder to read when a decent IDE will tell you want type the variable is if you can't remember. Also, if you make your code compartmentalized enough, you don't have to remember what a variable was declared as three pages up.
Isn't scope more important than type these days, e.g.
* l for local
* a for argument
* m for member
* g for global
* etc
With modern techniques of refactoring old code, search and replace of a symbol because you changed its type is tedious, the compiler will catch type changes, but often will not catch incorrect use of scope, sensible naming conventions help here.
There is no reason why you should not make correct use of Hungarian notation. It's unpopularity is due to a long-running back-lash against the mis-use of Hungarian notation, especially in the Windows APIs.
In the bad-old days, before anything resembling an IDE existed for DOS (odds are you didn't have enough free memory to run the compiler under Windows, so your development was done in DOS), you didn't get any help from hovering your mouse over a variable name. (Assuming you had a mouse.) What did you did have to deal with were event callback functions in which everything was passed to you as either a 16-bit int (WORD) or 32-bit int (LONG WORD). You then had to cast those parameter to the appropriate types for the given event type. In effect, much of the API was virtually type-less.
The result, an API with parameter names like these:
LRESULT CALLBACK WindowProc(HWND hwnd,
UINT uMsg,
WPARAM wParam,
LPARAM lParam);
Note that the names wParam and lParam, although pretty awful, aren't really any worse than naming them param1 and param2.
To make matters worse, Window 3.0/3.1 had two types of pointers, near and far. So, for example, the return value from memory management function LocalLock was a PVOID, but the return value from GlobalLock was an LPVOID (with the 'L' for long). That awful notation then got extended so that a long pointer string was prefixed lp, to distinguish it from a string that had simply been malloc'd.
It's no surprise that there was a backlash against this sort of thing.
Hungarian Notation can be useful in languages without compile-time type checking, as it would allow developer to quickly remind herself of how the particular variable is used. It does nothing for performance or behavior. It is supposed to improve code readability and is mostly a matter a taste and coding style. For this very reason it is criticized by many developers -- not everybody has the same wiring in the brain.
For the compile-time type-checking languages it is mostly useless -- scrolling up a few lines should reveal the declaration and thus type. If you global variables or your code block spans for much more than one screen, you have grave design and reusability issues. Thus one of the criticisms is that Hungarian Notation allows developers to have bad design and easily get away with it. This is probably one of the reasons for hatered.
On the other hand, there can be cases where even compile-time type-checking languages would benefit from Hungarian Notation -- void pointers or HANDLE's in win32 API. These obfuscates the actual data type, and there might be a merit to use Hungarian Notation there. Yet, if one can know the type of data at build time, why not to use the appropriate data type.
In general, there are no hard reasons not to use Hungarian Notation. It is a matter of likes, policies, and coding style.
As a Python programmer, Hungarian Notation falls apart pretty fast. In Python, I don't care if something is a string - I care if it can act like a string (i.e. if it has a ___str___() method which returns a string).
For example, let's say we have foo as an integer, 12
foo = 12
Hungarian notation tells us that we should call that iFoo or something, to denote it's an integer, so that later on, we know what it is. Except in Python, that doesn't work, or rather, it doesn't make sense. In Python, I decide what type I want when I use it. Do I want a string? well if I do something like this:
print "The current value of foo is %s" % foo
Note the %s - string. Foo isn't a string, but the % operator will call foo.___str___() and use the result (assuming it exists). foo is still an integer, but we treat it as a string if we want a string. If we want a float, then we treat it as a float. In dynamically typed languages like Python, Hungarian Notation is pointless, because it doesn't matter what type something is until you use it, and if you need a specific type, then just make sure to cast it to that type (e.g. float(foo)) when you use it.
Note that dynamic languages like PHP don't have this benefit - PHP tries to do 'the right thing' in the background based on an obscure set of rules that almost no one has memorized, which often results in catastrophic messes unexpectedly. In this case, some sort of naming mechanism, like $files_count or $file_name, can be handy.
In my view, Hungarian Notation is like leeches. Maybe in the past they were useful, or at least they seemed useful, but nowadays it's just a lot of extra typing for not a lot of benefit.
The IDE should impart that useful information. Hungarian might have made some sort (not a whole lot, but some sort) of sense when IDE's were much less advanced.
Apps Hungarian is Greek to me--in a good way
As an engineer, not a programmer, I immediately took to Joel's article on the merits of Apps Hungarian: "Making Wrong Code Look Wrong". I like Apps Hungarian because it mimics how engineering, science, and mathematics represent equations and formulas using sub- and super-scripted symbols (like Greek letters, mathematical operators, etc.). Take a particular example of Newton's Law of Universal Gravity: first in standard mathematical notation, and then in Apps Hungarian pseudo-code:
frcGravityEarthMars = G * massEarth * massMars / norm(posEarth - posMars)
In the mathematical notation, the most prominent symbols are those representing the kind of information stored in the variable: force, mass, position vector, etc. The subscripts play second fiddle to clarify: position of what? This is exactly what Apps Hungarian is doing; it's telling you the kind of thing stored in the variable first and then getting into specifics--about the closest code can get to mathematical notation.
Clearly strong typing can resolve the safe vs. unsafe string example from Joel's essay, but you wouldn't define separate types for position and velocity vectors; both are double arrays of size three and anything you're likely to do to one might apply to the other. Furthermore, it make perfect sense to concatenate position and velocity (to make a state vector) or take their dot product, but probably not to add them. How would typing allow the first two and prohibit the second, and how would such a system extend to every possible operation you might want to protect? Unless you were willing to encode all of math and physics in your typing system.
On top of all that, lots of engineering is done in weakly typed high-level languages like Matlab, or old ones like Fortran 77 or Ada.
So if you have a fancy language and IDE and Apps Hungarian doesn't help you then forget it--lots of folks apparently have. But for me, a worse than a novice programmer who is working in weakly or dynamically typed languages, I can write better code faster with Apps Hungarian than without.
It's incredibly redundant and useless is most modern IDEs, where they do a good job of making the type apparent.
Plus -- to me -- it's just annoying to see intI, strUserName, etc. :)
If I feel that useful information is being imparted, why shouldn't I put it right there where it's available?
Then who cares what anybody else thinks? If you find it useful, then use the notation.
Im my experience, it is bad because:
1 - then you break all the code if you need to change the type of a variable (i.e. if you need to extend a 32 bits integer to a 64 bits integer);
2 - this is useless information as the type is either already in the declaration or you use a dynamic language where the actual type should not be so important in the first place.
Moreover, with a language accepting generic programming (i.e. functions where the type of some variables is not determine when you write the function) or with dynamic typing system (i.e. when the type is not even determine at compile time), how would you name your variables? And most modern languages support one or the other, even if in a restricted form.
In Joel Spolsky's Making Wrong Code Look Wrong he explains that what everybody thinks of as Hungarian Notation (which he calls Systems Hungarian) is not what was it was really intended to be (what he calls Apps Hungarian). Scroll down to the I’m Hungary heading to see this discussion.
Basically, Systems Hungarian is worthless. It just tells you the same thing your compiler and/or IDE will tell you.
Apps Hungarian tells you what the variable is supposed to mean, and can actually be useful.
I've always thought that a prefix or two in the right place wouldn't hurt. I think if I can impart something useful, like "Hey this is an interface, don't count on specific behaviour" right there, as in IEnumerable, I oughtta do it. Comment can clutter things up much more than just a one or two character symbol.
It's a useful convention for naming controls on a form (btnOK, txtLastName etc.), if the list of controls shows up in an alphabetized pull-down list in your IDE.
I tend to use Hungarian Notation with ASP.NET server controls only, otherwise I find it too hard to work out what controls are what on the form.
Take this code snippet:
<asp:Label ID="lblFirstName" runat="server" Text="First Name" />
<asp:TextBox ID="txtFirstName" runat="server" />
<asp:RequiredFieldValidator ID="rfvFirstName" runat="server" ... />
If someone can show a better way of having that set of control names without Hungarian I'd be tempted to move to it.
Joel's article is great, but it seems to omit one major point:
Hungarian makes a particular 'idea' (kind + identifier name) unique,
or near-unique, across the codebase - even a very large codebase.
That's huge for code maintenance.
It means you can use good ol' single-line text search
(grep, findstr, 'find in all files') to find EVERY mention of that 'idea'.
Why is that important when we have IDE's that know how to read code?
Because they're not very good at it yet. This is hard to see in a small codebase,
but obvious in a large one - when the 'idea' might be mentioned in comments,
XML files, Perl scripts, and also in places outside source control (documents, wikis,
bug databases).
You do have to be a little careful even here - e.g. token-pasting in C/C++ macros
can hide mentions of the identifier. Such cases can be dealt with using
coding conventions, and anyway they tend to affect only a minority of the identifiers in the
codebase.
P.S. To the point about using the type system vs. Hungarian - it's best to use both.
You only need wrong code to look wrong if the compiler won't catch it for you. There are plenty of cases where it is infeasible to make the compiler catch it. But where it's feasible - yes, please do that instead!
When considering feasibility, though, do consider the negative effects of splitting up types. e.g. in C#, wrapping 'int' with a non-built-in type has huge consequences. So it makes sense in some situations, but not in all of them.
Debunking the benefits of Hungarian Notation
It provides a way of distinguishing variables.
If the type is all that distinguishes the one value from another, then it can only be for the conversion of one type to another. If you have the same value that is being converted between types, chances are you should be doing this in a function dedicated to conversion. (I have seen hungarianed VB6 leftovers use strings on all of their method parameters simply because they could not figure out how to deserialize a JSON object, or properly comprehend how to declare or use nullable types.) If you have two variables distinguished only by the Hungarian prefix, and they are not a conversion from one to the other, then you need to elaborate on your intention with them.
It makes the code more readable.
I have found that Hungarian notation makes people lazy with their variable names. They have something to distinguish it by, and they feel no need to elaborate to its purpose. This is what you will typically find in Hungarian notated code vs. modern: sSQL vs. groupSelectSql (or usually no sSQL at all because they are supposed to be using the ORM that was put in by earlier developers.), sValue vs. formCollectionValue (or usually no sValue either, because they happen to be in MVC and should be using its model binding features), sType vs. publishSource, etc.
It can't be readability. I see more sTemp1, sTemp2... sTempN from any given hungarianed VB6 leftover than everybody else combined.
It prevents errors.
This would be by virtue of number 2, which is false.
In the words of the master:
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Wrong.html
An interesting reading, as usual.
Extracts:
"Somebody, somewhere, read Simonyi’s paper, where he used the word “type,” and thought he meant type, like class, like in a type system, like the type checking that the compiler does. He did not. He explained very carefully exactly what he meant by the word “type,” but it didn’t help. The damage was done."
"But there’s still a tremendous amount of value to Apps Hungarian, in that it increases collocation in code, which makes the code easier to read, write, debug, and maintain, and, most importantly, it makes wrong code look wrong."
Make sure you have some time before reading Joel On Software. :)
Several reasons:
Any modern IDE will give you the variable type by simply hovering your mouse over the variable.
Most type names are way long (think HttpClientRequestProvider) to be reasonably used as prefix.
The type information does not carry the right information, it is just paraphrasing the variable declaration, instead of outlining the purpose of the variable (think myInteger vs. pageSize).
I don't think everyone is rabidly against it. In languages without static types, it's pretty useful. I definitely prefer it when it's used to give information that is not already in the type. Like in C, char * szName says that the variable will refer to a null terminated string -- that's not implicit in char* -- of course, a typedef would also help.
Joel had a great article on using hungarian to tell if a variable was HTML encoded or not:
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Wrong.html
Anyway, I tend to dislike Hungarian when it's used to impart information I already know.
Of course when 99% of programmers agree on something, there is something wrong. The reason they agree here is because most of them have never used Hungarian notation correctly.
For a detailed argument, I refer you to a blog post I have made on the subject.
http://codingthriller.blogspot.com/2007/11/rediscovering-hungarian-notation.html
I started coding pretty much the about the time Hungarian notation was invented and the first time I was forced to use it on a project I hated it.
After a while I realised that when it was done properly it did actually help and these days I love it.
But like all things good, it has to be learnt and understood and to do it properly takes time.
The Hungarian notation was abused, particularly by Microsoft, leading to prefixes longer than the variable name, and showing it is quite rigid, particularly when you change the types (the infamous lparam/wparam, of different type/size in Win16, identical in Win32).
Thus, both due to this abuse, and its use by M$, it was put down as useless.
At my work, we code in Java, but the founder cames from MFC world, so use similar code style (aligned braces, I like this!, capitals to method names, I am used to that, prefix like m_ to class members (fields), s_ to static members, etc.).
And they said all variables should have a prefix showing its type (eg. a BufferedReader is named brData). Which shown as being a bad idea, as the types can change but the names doesn't follow, or coders are not consistent in the use of these prefixes (I even see aBuffer, theProxy, etc.!).
Personally, I chose for a few prefixes that I find useful, the most important being b to prefix boolean variables, as they are the only ones where I allow syntax like if (bVar) (no use of autocast of some values to true or false).
When I coded in C, I used a prefix for variables allocated with malloc, as a reminder it should be freed later. Etc.
So, basically, I don't reject this notation as a whole, but took what seems fitting for my needs.
And of course, when contributing to some project (work, open source), I just use the conventions in place!