I'm not referring to the indentation or the directory structure but the actual file itself.
Do you arrange your members and methods alphabetically? Maybe in their order of use or order of complex logic (either ascending or descending)? Is there any rhyme to your madness?
I'm thinking about making the switch to alphabetically but some situations would just madden me:
var _height
var _properties
var _width
width and height should definitely be grouped together... but sometimes finding the right method in a larger file can be pretty disheartening.
What do you do?
I tend to be disorganized. I certainly don't arrange my variables alphabetically. And with C#, I am even less organized because some variables I use stuff_like_this, and with properties I might DoItLikeThis. It kind of drives me mad at times, but in the end I like letting the IDE features do the work for me. Visual Studio is incredibly nice, and being able to just right click on a variable to go to its definition, or see everywhere in the code that it's being used is downright awesome. I don't know what IDE you use, but hopefully it's got similar features. In the end, I care less about the organization and really need to worry if my design is fundamentally sound (and that part usually takes me a few tries to get right).
I would suggest not trying to apply any sweeping general rules to your code. Rather, on a case-by-case basis, organize it in a way that makes sense. In the example you give, purely alphabetical would not make sense. In other cases, it would.
Methods: public first, then private. Methods which are related (e.g. getHeight(), getWidth(), getArea()) are placed near each other. If there is a hierarchal relationship between methods, then high-level before the low level (e.g. getArea() uses getWidth() so it's placed before it)
variables: similar to functions, public first, then private. Grouped according to context.
Alphabetical? I don't like it. It can be a nightmare when reading / modifying the code. I cannot tell whether a function's name is sqrt() or calculateSqrt(), so I won't enjoy looking for it. If the functions are organized according to context, it will be much easier to find them.
Generally order the members by their nature (constants, fields, constructors, methods) and then by their visibility (private, protected, public).
For finding the right thing I rely a lot on a modern IDE's capabilities (e.g. Visual Studio + Resharper)
Functions are topologically sorted with the "root" at the bottom of the file.
Variables hardly matter -- if a single "unit" (function, class, etc.) has enough variables for their arrangement to mean anything, that's probably something that needs fixing in itself.
I organize my code is by type of the elements, meaning that all the methods are at one place (at the end of the file, that is), all the constructor in one (before methods), etc. The same goes for variables, constants, enums etc. Usually I place private variables first and others after them, but that's not a strict rule. Also by nature code related to each other often ends up at the same place, but that's just because it is easiest.
I don't bother keeping my code in alphabetical order as I do that easily in the Eclipse outline view. However, if the editor does not support this, then I might use alphabetical order. Well, at least for bigger files.
Related
This question already has answers here:
Closed 12 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Anyone else find naming classes and methods one of the most difficult part in programming?
Sometimes it seems i cant really find any name for a function i am writing, can this be because the function is not cohesive enough?
What do you do when no good name for a function comes to mind?
For naming functions, just avoid having simply nouns and rather name them after verbs. Some pointers:
Have function names that are unique visibly, e.g. don't have validateInput() and validateUserInput() since it's hard to say what one does over another. Also, avoid having characters that look very similar, e.g. the number 1 and lowercase 'l'. Sometimes it makes a difference.
Are you working on a project with multiple people? You should spend some time going over naming conventions as well, such as if the function name should have underscores, should be camelCase, etc.
Hungarian notation is a bad idea; avoid doing it.
Think about what the function is doing. The cohesion that you mentioned in your question comes to mind. Generally, functions should do just one thing, so don't name it constructCarAndRunCar() but rather have one function that constructs and another that runs it. If your functions are between, say 20 and 40 lines, you're good.
Sometimes, and this depends on the project, you might also want to prefix your function names with the class if the class is purely procedural (only composed of functions). So if you have a class that takes care of running a simulation, name your functions sim_pauseSimulation() and sim_restartSimulation(). If your class is OOP-based, this isn't an issue as much.
Don't use the underlying data structures in the functions themselves; these should be abstracted away. Rather than having functions like addToVector() or addToArray(), have them be addToList() instead. This is especially true if these are prototypes or the data structures might change later.
Finally, be consistent in your naming conventions. Once you come up with a convention after some thinking, stick to it. PHP comes to mind when thinking of inconsistent function names.
Happy coding! :)
Give it your best-shot and re-factor later if it still doesn't fit.
Sometimes it could be that your function is too large and therefore doing too many things. Try splitting up your function into other functions and it might be clearer what to call each individual function.
Don't worry about naming things with one or two words. Sometimes if functions do something that can be explained in a mini-sentence of sorts, go ahead and name the function a little longer if it'll help other developers understand what is going on.
Another suggestion is to get feedback from others. Often others who come from another perspective and seeing the function for the first time will have a better idea on what to call the function.
I follow following rule: Name according to the purpose (Why? - design decision) and not to the contents (What, How? - can be seen in the code).
For functions it is almost always an action (verb) followed by the noun of parameters and (or results. (Off-topic but for variables do not use "arrayOfNames" or "listOfNames", these are type information but simply "names"). This will also avoid inconsistencies if you refactor the code partly.
For given patterns like object creation, be consistent and always use the same naming like "Create..." (and not sometimes "Allocate..." or "Build..." otherwise you or your collegues will end up in scratching their head wound)
I find it easier to name functions when I don't have to cut back on the words. As long as your not doing javascript for the google start page you can do longer names.
For example you have the method dequeueReusableCellWithIdentifierandmergeChangesFromContextDidSaveNotification in apples cocoa framework.
As long as it's clear what the function is doing you can name it whatever you want and refactor it later.
Almost as important as the function name is that you are consistent with comments. Many IDEs will user your properly formatted comments not only to provide context sensitive help for a function you might be using, but they can be used to generate documentation. This is invaluable when returning to a project after a long period or when working with other developers.
In academic settings, they provide an appreciated demonstration of your intentions.
A good rule of thumb is [verb]returnDescription. This is easy with GetName() type functions and can't be applied universally. It's tough to find a balance between unobtrusive and descriptive code.
Here's a .Net convention guide, but it is applicable to most languages.
Go to www.thesaurus.com and try to find a better suited name though synonyms.
As a practical rule of my own, if a function name is too long, it should be atomized in a new object. Yet, i agree with all posts above. btw, nice noob question
Many people have argued about function size. They say that functions in general should be pretty short. Opinions vary from something like 15 lines to "about one screen", which today is probably about 40-80 lines.
Also, functions should always fulfill one task only.
However, there is one kind of function that frequently fails in both criteria in my code: Initialization functions.
For example in an audio application, the audio hardware/API has to be set up, audio data has to be converted to a suitable format and the object state has to properly initialized. These are clearly three different tasks and depending on the API this can easily span more than 50 lines.
The thing with init-functions is that they are generally only called once, so there is no need to re-use any of the components. Would you still break them up into several smaller functions would you consider big initialization functions to be ok?
I would still break the function up by task, and then call each of the lower level functions from within my public-facing initialize function:
void _init_hardware() { }
void _convert_format() { }
void _setup_state() { }
void initialize_audio() {
_init_hardware();
_convert_format();
_setup_state();
}
Writing succinct functions is as much about isolating fault and change as keeping things readable. If you know the failure is in _convert_format(), you can track down the ~40 lines responsible for a bug quite a bit faster. The same thing applies if you commit changes that only touch one function.
A final point, I make use of assert() quite frequently so I can "fail often and fail early", and the beginning of a function is the best place for a couple of sanity-checking asserts. Keeping the function short allows you to test the function more thoroughly based on its more narrow set of duties. It's very hard to unit-test a 400 line function that does 10 different things.
If breaking into smaller parts makes code better structured and/or more readable - do it no matter what the function does. It not about the number of lines it's about code quality.
I would still try to break up the functions into logical units. They should be as long or as short as makes sense. For example:
SetupAudioHardware();
ConvertAudioData();
SetupState();
Assigning them clear names makes everything more intuitive and readable. Also, breaking them apart makes it easier for future changes and/or other programs to reuse them.
In a situation like this I think it comes down to a matter of personal preference. I prefer to have functions do only one thing so I would split the initialization into separate functions, even if they are only called once. However, if someone wanted to do it all in a single function I wouldn't worry about it too much (as long as the code was clear). There are more important things to argue about (like whether curly braces belong on their own separate line).
If you have a lot of components the need to be plugged into each other, it can certainly be reasonably natural to have a large method - even if the creation of each component is refactored into a separate method where feasible.
One alternative to this is to use a Dependency Injection framework (e.g. Spring, Castle Windsor, Guice etc). That has definite pros and cons... while working your way through one big method can be quite painful, you at least have a good idea of where everything is initialized, and there's no need to worry about what "magic" might be going on. Then again, the initialization can't be changed after deployment (as it can with an XML file for Spring, for example).
I think it makes sense to design the main body of your code so that it can be injected - but whether that injection is via a framework or just a hard-coded (and potentially long) list of initialization calls is a choice which may well change for different projects. In both cases the results are hard to test other than by just running the application.
First, a factory should be used instead of an initialization function. That is, rather than have initialize_audio(), you have a new AudioObjectFactory (you can think of a better name here). This maintains separation of concerns.
However, be careful also not to abstract too early. Clearly you do have two concerns already: 1) audio initialization and 2) using that audio. Until, for example, you abstract the audio device to be initialized, or the way a given device may be configured during initialization, your factory method (audioObjectFactory.Create() or whatever), should really be kept to just one big method. Early abstraction serves only to obfuscate design.
Note that audioObjectFactory.Create() is not something that can be unit-tested. Testing it is an integration test, and until there are parts of it that can be abstracted, it will remain an integration test. Later on, you may find that the you have multiple different factories for different configurations; at that point, it might be beneficial to abstract the hardware calls into an interface, so you that you can create unit tests to ensure the various factories configure the hardware in a proper way.
I think it's the wrong approach to try and count the number of lines and determine functions based on that. For something like initialization code I often have a separate function for it, but mostly so that the Load or Init or New functions aren't cluttered and confusing. If you can separate it into a few tasks like others have suggested, then you can name it something useful and help organize. Even if you are calling it just once, it's not a bad habit, and often you find that there are other times when you may want to re-init things and can use that function again.
Just thought I'd throw this out there, since it hasn't been mentioned yet - the Facade Pattern is sometimes cited as an interface to a complex subsystem. I haven't done much with it myself, but the metaphors are usually something like turning on a computer (requires several steps), or turning on a home theater system (turn on TV, turn on receiver, turn down lights, etc...)
Depending on the code structure, might be something worth considering to abstract away your large initialization functions. I still agree with meagar's point though that breaking down functions into _init_X(), _init_Y(), etc. is a good way to go. Even if you aren't going to reuse comments in this code, on your next project, when you say to yourself, "How did I initialize that X-component?", it'll be much easier to go back and pick it out of the smaller _init_X() function than it would be to pick it out of a larger function, especially if the X-initialization is scattered throughout it.
Function length is, as you tagged, a very subjective matter. However, a standard best-practice is to isolate code that is often repeated and/or can function as its own entity. For instance, if your initialization function is loading library files or objects that will be used by a specific library, that block of code should be modularized.
With that said, it's not bad to have an initialization method that's long, as long as it's not long because of lots of repeated code or other snippets that can be abstracted away.
Hope that helps,
Carlos Nunez
I recently expressed my view about this elsewhere* , but I think it deserves further analysis so I'm posting this as its own question.
Let's say that I need to create and pass around a container in my program. I probably don't have a strong opinion about one kind of container versus another, at least at this stage, but I do pick one; for sake of argument, let's say I'm going to use a List<>.
The question is: Is it better to write my methods to accept and return a high level interface such as C#'s IEnumerable? Or should I write methods to take and pass the specific container class that I have chosen.
What factors and criteria should I look for to decide? What kind of programs work benefit from one or the other? Does the computer language affect your decision? Performance? Program size? Personal style?
(Does it even matter?)
**(Homework: find it. But please post your answer here before you look for my own, so as not bias you.)*
Your method should always accept the least-specific type it needs to execute its function. If your method needs to enumerate, accept IEnumerable. If it needs to do IList<>-specific things, by definition you must give it a IList<>.
The only thing that should affect your decision is how you plan to use the parameter. If you're only iterating over it, use IEnumerable<T>. If you are accessing indexed members (eg var x = list[3]) or modifying the list in any way (eg list.Add(x)) then use ICollection<T> or IList<T>.
There is always a tradeoff. The general rule of thumb is to declare things as high up the hierarchy as possible. So if all you need is access to the methods in IEnumerable then that is what you should use.
Another recent example of a SO question was a C API that took a filename instead of a File * (or file descriptor). There the filename severly limited what sores of things could be passed in (there are many things you can pass in with a file descriptor, but only one that has a filename).
Once you have to start casting you have either gone too high OR you should be making a second method that takes a more specific type.
The only exception to this that I can think of is when speed is an absolute must and you do not want to go through the expense of a virtual method call. Declaring the specific type removes the overhead of virtual functions (will depend on the language/environment/implementation, but as a general statement that is likely correct).
It was a discussion with me that prompted this question, so Euro Micelli already knows my answer, but here it is! :)
I think Linq to Objects already provides a great answer to this question. By using the simplest interface to a sequence of items it could, it gives maximum flexibility about how you implement that sequence, which allows lazy generation, boosting productivity without sacrificing performance (not in any real sense).
It is true that premature abstraction can have a cost - but mainly it is the cost of discovering/inventing new abstractions. But if you already have perfectly good ones provided to you, then you'd be crazy not to take advantage of them, and that is what the generic collection interfaces provides you with.
There are those who will tell you that it is "easier" to make all the data in a class public, just in case you will need to access it. In the same way, Euro advised that it would be better to use a rich interface to a container such as IList<T> (or even the concrete class List<T>) and then clean up the mess later.
But I think, just as it is better to hide the data members of a class that you don't want to access, to allow you to modify the implementation of that class easily later, so you should use the simplest interface available to refer to a sequence of items. It is easier in practice to start by exposing something simple and basic and then "loosen" it later, than it is to start with something loose and struggle to impose order on it.
So assume IEnumerable<T> will do to represent a sequence. Then in those cases where you need to Add or Remove items (but still don't need by-index lookup), use IContainer<T>, which inherits IEnumerable<T> and so will be perfectly interoperable with your other code.
This way it will be perfectly clear (just from local examination of some code) precisely what that code will be able to do with the data.
Small programs require less abstraction, it is true. But if they are successful, they tend to become big programs. This is much easier if they employ simple abstractions in the first place.
It does matter, but the correct solution completely depends on usage. If you only need to do a simple enumeration then sure use IEnumerable that way you can pass any implementer to access the functionality you need. However if you need list functionality and you don't want to have to create a new instance of a list if by chance every time the method is called the enumerable that was passed wasn't a list then go with a list.
I answered a similar C# question here. I think you should always provide the simplest contract you can, which in the case of collections in my opinion, ordinarily is IEnumerable Of T.
The implementation can be provided by an internal BCL type - be it Set, Collection, List etcetera - whose required members are exposed by your type.
Your abstract type can always inherit simple BCL types, which are implemented by your concrete types. This in my opinion allows you to adhere to LSP easier.
This has been asked before (question no. 308581), but that particular question and the answers are a bit C++ specific and a lot of things there are not really relevant in languages like Java or C#.
The thing is, that even after refactorization, I find that there is a bit of mess in my source code files. I mean, the function bodies are alright, but I'm not quite happy with the way the functions themselves are ordered. Of course, in an IDE like Visual Studio it is relatively easy to find a member if you remember how it is called, but this is not always the case.
I've tried a couple of approaches like putting public methods first but that the drawback of this approach is that a function at the top of the file ends up calling an other private function at the bottom of the file so I end up scrolling all the time.
Another approach is to try to group related methods together (maybe into regions) but obviously this has its limits as if there are many non-related methods in the same class then maybe it's time to break up the class to two or more smaller classes.
So consider this: your code has been refactored properly so that it satisfies all the requirements mentioned in Code Complete, but you would still like to reorder your methods for ergonomic purposes. What's your approach?
(Actually, while not exactly a technical problem, this is problem really annoys the hell out of me so I would be really grateful if someone could come up with a good approach)
Actually I totally rely on the navigation functionality of my IDE, i.e. Visual Studio. Most of the time I use F12 to jump to the declaration (or Shift-F12 to find all references) and the Ctrl+- to jump back.
The reason for that is that most of the time I am working on code that I haven't written myself and I don't want to spend my time re-ordering methods and fields.
P.S.: And I also use RockScroll, a VS add-in which makes navigating and scrolling large files quite easy
If you're really having problems scrolling and finding, it's possible you're suffering from god class syndrome.
Fwiw, I personally tend to go with:
class
{
#statics (if any)
#constructor
#destructor (if any)
#member variables
#properties (if any)
#public methods (overrides, etc, first then extensions)
#private (aka helper) methods (if any)
}
And I have no aversion to region blocks, nor comments, so make free use of both to denote relationships.
From my (Java) point of view I would say constructors, public methods, private methods, in that order. I always try to group methods implementing a certain interface together.
My favorite weapon of choice is IntelliJ IDEA, which has some nice possibilities to fold methods bodies so it is quite easy to display two methods directly above each other even when their actual position in the source file is 700 lines apart.
I would be careful with monkeying around with the position of methods in the actual source. Your IDE should give you the ability to view the source in the way you want. This is especially relevant when working on a project where developers can use their IDE of choice.
My order, here it comes.
I usually put statics first.
Next come member variables and properties, a property that accesses one specific member is grouped together with this member. I try to group related information together, for example all strings that contain path information.
Third is the constructor (or constructors if you have several).
After that follow the methods. Those are ordered by whatever appears logical for that specific class. I often group methods by their access level: private, protected, public. But I recently had a class that needed to override a lot of methods from its base class. Since I was doing a lot of work there, I put them together in one group, regardless of their access level.
My recommendation: Order your classes so that it helps your workflow. Do not simply order them, just to have order. The time spent on ordering should be an investment that helps you save more time that you would otherwise need to scroll up and down.
In C# I use #region to seperate those groups from each other, but that is a matter of taste. There are a lot of people who don't like regions. I do.
I place the most recent method I just created on top of the class. That way when I open the project, I'm back at the last method I'm developing. Easier for me to get back "in the zone."
It also reflected the fact that the method(which uses other methods) I just created is the topmost layer of other methods.
Group related functions together, don't be hard-pressed to put all private functions at the bottom. Likewise, imitate the design rationale of C#'s properties, related functions should be in close proximity to each other, the C# language construct for properties reinforces that idea.
P.S.
If only C# can nest functions like Pascal or Delphi. Maybe Anders Hejlsberg can put it in C#, he also invented Turbo Pascal and Delphi :-) D language has nested functions.
A few years ago I spent far too much time pondering this question, and came up with a horrendously complex system for ordering the declarations within a class. The order would depend on the access specifier, whether a method or field was static, transient, volatile etc.
It wasn't worth it. IMHO you get no real benefit from such a complex arrangement.
What I do nowadays is much simpler:
Constructors (default constructor first, otherwise order doesn't matter.)
Methods, sorted by name (static vs. non-static doesn't matter, nor abstract vs. concrete, virtual vs. final etc.)
Inner classes, sorted by name (interface vs. class etc. doesn't matter)
Fields, sorted by name (static vs. non-static doesn't matter.) Optionally constants (public static final) first, but this is not essential.
i pretty sure there was a visual studio addin that could re-order the class members in the code.
so i.e. ctors on the top of the class then static methods then instance methods...
something like that
unfortunately i can't remember the name of this addin! i also think that this addin was for free!
maybe someone other can help us out?
My personal take for structuring a class is as follows:
I'm strict with
constants and static fields first, in alpha order
non-private inner classes and enums in alpha order
fields (and attributes where applicable), in alpha order
ctors (and dtors where applicable)
static methods and factory methods
methods below, in alpha order, regardless of visibility.
I use the auto-formatting capabilities of an IDE at all times. So I'm constantly hitting Ctrl+Shift+F when I'm working. I export auto-formatting capabilities in an xml file which I carry with me everywhere.
It helps down the lane when doing merges and rebases. And it is the type of thing you can automate in your IDE or build process so that you don't have to make a brain cell sweat for it.
I'm not claiming MY WAY is the way. But pick something, configure it, use it consistently until it becomes a reflex, and thus forget about it.
What factors determine which approach is more appropriate?
I think both have their places.
You shouldn't simply use DoSomethingToThing(Thing n) just because you think "Functional programming is good". Likewise you shouldn't simply use Thing.DoSomething() because "Object Oriented programming is good".
I think it comes down to what you are trying to convey. Stop thinking about your code as a series of instructions, and start thinking about it like a paragraph or sentence of a story. Think about which parts are the most important from the point of view of the task at hand.
For example, if the part of the 'sentence' you would like to stress is the object, you should use the OO style.
Example:
fileHandle.close();
Most of the time when you're passing around file handles, the main thing you are thinking about is keeping track of the file it represents.
CounterExample:
string x = "Hello World";
submitHttpRequest( x );
In this case submitting the HTTP request is far more important than the string which is the body, so submitHttpRequst(x) is preferable to x.submitViaHttp()
Needless to say, these are not mutually exclusive. You'll probably actually have
networkConnection.submitHttpRequest(x)
in which you mix them both. The important thing is that you think about what parts are emphasized, and what you will be conveying to the future reader of the code.
To be object-oriented, tell, don't ask : http://www.pragmaticprogrammer.com/articles/tell-dont-ask.
So, Thing.DoSomething() rather than DoSomethingToThing(Thing n).
If you're dealing with internal state of a thing, Thing.DoSomething() makes more sense, because even if you change the internal representation of Thing, or how it works, the code talking to it doesn't have to change. If you're dealing with a collection of Things, or writing some utility methods, procedural-style DoSomethingToThing() might make more sense or be more straight-forward; but still, can usually be represented as a method on the object representing that collection: for instance
GetTotalPriceofThings();
vs
Cart.getTotal();
It really depends on how object oriented your code is.
Thing.DoSomething is appropriate if Thing is the subject of your sentence.
DoSomethingToThing(Thing n) is appropriate if Thing is the object of your sentence.
ThingA.DoSomethingToThingB(ThingB m) is an unavoidable combination, since in all the languages I can think of, functions belong to one class and are not mutually owned. But this makes sense because you can have a subject and an object.
Active voice is more straightforward than passive voice, so make sure your sentence has a subject that isn't just "the computer". This means, use form 1 and form 3 frequently, and use form 2 rarely.
For clarity:
// Form 1: "File handle, close."
fileHandle.close();
// Form 2: "(Computer,) close the file handle."
close(fileHandle);
// Form 3: "File handle, write the contents of another file handle."
fileHandle.writeContentsOf(anotherFileHandle);
I agree with Orion, but I'm going to rephrase the decision process.
You have a noun and a verb / an object and an action.
If many objects of this type will use this action, try to make the action part of the object.
Otherwise, try to group the action separately, but with related actions.
I like the File / string examples. There are many string operations, such as "SendAsHTTPReply", which won't happen for your average string, but do happen often in a certain setting. However, you basically will always close a File (hopefully), so it makes perfect sense to put the Close action in the class interface.
Another way to think of this is as buying part of an entertainment system. It makes sense to bundle a TV remote with a TV, because you always use them together. But it would be strange to bundle a power cable for a specific VCR with a TV, since many customers will never use this. The key idea is how often will this action be used on this object?
Not nearly enough information here. It depends if your language even supports the construct "Thing.something" or equivalent (ie. it's an OO language). If so, it's far more appropriate because that's the OO paradigm (members should be associated with the object they act on). In a procedural style, of course, DoSomethingtoThing() is your only choice... or ThingDoSomething()
DoSomethingToThing(Thing n) would be more of a functional approach whereas Thing.DoSomething() would be more of an object oriented approach.
That is the Object Oriented versus Procedural Programming choice :)
I think the well documented OO advantages apply to the Thing.DoSomething()
This has been asked Design question: does the Phone dial the PhoneNumber, or does the PhoneNumber dial itself on the Phone?
Here are a couple of factors to consider:
Can you modify or extend the Thing class. If not, use the former
Can Thing be instantiated. If not, use the later as a static method
If Thing actually get modified (i.e. has properties that change), prefer the latter. If Thing is not modified the latter is just as acceptable.
Otherwise, as objects are meant to map on to real world object, choose the method that seems more grounded in reality.
Even if you aren't working in an OO language, where you would have Thing.DoSomething(), for the overall readability of your code, having a set of functions like:
ThingDoSomething()
ThingDoAnotherTask()
ThingWeDoSomethingElse()
then
AnotherThingDoSomething()
and so on is far better.
All the code that works on "Thing" is on the one location. Of course, the "DoSomething" and other tasks should be named consistently - so you have a ThingOneRead(), a ThingTwoRead()... by now you should get point. When you go back to work on the code in twelve months time, you will appreciate taking the time to make things logical.
In general, if "something" is an action that "thing" naturally knows how to do, then you should use thing.doSomething(). That's good OO encapsulation, because otherwise DoSomethingToThing(thing) would have to access potential internal information of "thing".
For example invoice.getTotal()
If "something" is not naturally part of "thing's" domain model, then one option is to use a helper method.
For example: Logger.log(invoice)
If DoingSomething to an object is likely to produce a different result in another scenario, then i'd suggest you oneThing.DoSomethingToThing(anotherThing).
For example you may have two was of saving thing in you program so you might adopt a DatabaseObject.Save(thing) SessionObject.Save(thing) would be more advantageous than thing.Save() or thing.SaveToDatabase or thing.SaveToSession().
I rarely pass no parameters to a class, unless I'm retrieving public properties.
To add to Aeon's answer, it depends on the the thing and what you want to do to it. So if you are writing Thing, and DoSomething alters the internal state of Thing, then the best approach is Thing.DoSomething. However, if the action does more than change the internal state, then DoSomething(Thing) makes more sense. For example:
Collection.Add(Thing)
is better than
Thing.AddSelfToCollection(Collection)
And if you didn't write Thing, and cannot create a derived class, then you have no chocie but to do DoSomething(Thing)
Even in object oriented programming it might be useful to use a function call instead of a method (or for that matter calling a method of an object other than the one we call it on). Imagine a simple database persistence framework where you'd like to just call save() on an object. Instead of including an SQL statement in every class you'd like to have saved, thus complicating code, spreading SQL all across the code and making changing the storage engine a PITA, you could create an Interface defining save(Class1), save(Class2) etc. and its implementation. Then you'd actually be calling databaseSaver.save(class1) and have everything in one place.
I have to agree with Kevin Conner
Also keep in mind the caller of either of the 2 forms. The caller is probably a method of some other object that definitely does something to your Thing :)