When linting dart files, one of the checks that seems relatively standard (and part of the google pedantic style) is unnecessary_this, which favors not using the explicit this keyword unless necessary when the instance variable is shadowed.
Coming from more of a Java/Python background, where (in Java) the standard seems to favor explicit use of this., plus a pretty typical checkstyle check RequireThis, I'm wondering the rationale behind dart's preference for this type of style check - to me it seems Java and Dart have similar semantics for implicit this's, so why are the standard preferences opposing each other?
In the unnecessary_this docs, it says:
From the style guide:
DON'T use this when not needed to avoid shadowing
However the linked style guide does not mention it or provide any rationale.
I'm wondering because I'd like to have a check that is the exact opposite of unnecessary_this, but there doesn't seem to be one so I'm curious if there's something about dart I don't know that is rationale for implicit this.
Dart's style-guide focuses a lot on "don't write what is not necessary", and unnecessary_this is one of its representations
The overall rationale behind it is that by removing the obvious redundant bit, this decrease visual noise, and therefore increase readability (while also being easier to type).
The only reason I can think of for wanting a "require this" lint is to avoid getting confused by variable shadowing. But then, might as well have a lint for "don't shadow variables".
I have heard people describe dynamic patching as a bit of a hack or at risk of breaking in future releases of Pd. This is reasonable enough, but it seems to imply that there are alternatives when building abstractions.
Dynamic patching seems to be useful for both instantiating a variable number of objects and connecting up to a variable number (a number defined at creation time - I personally don't need it to change after the fact, at this stage) of inlets and outlets within an abstraction.
Now I understand that the [clone] object can solve the problem of creating objects. I can see too that looping through send and receive objects would solve much of the connection issues with careful planning but what I do not understand is how objects like [trigger], [route] and [select] can be adjusted or replaced in some way? I fail to see how you would avoid using dynamic patching to, for example, create a [trigger f f] when the creation arg to your abstraction is 2, and a [trigger f f f] when the creation arg is 3. Again, the same with [route] and [select] and similar objects.
EDIT: The original question was perceived as too vague. I later posed a follow-up question in the comments which should really be here instead. As it happens, the answer to the follow-up provided a good answer to the original question, in my opinion. So to summarise and hopefully clarify, I was after a few "tools" to use when building abstractions so that I could limit my use of dynamic patching, if possible. These tools turned out to be:
using send and receive instead of inlets and outlets (although [initbang] can be used for creating inlets and outlets at instantiation).
using [clone]
chaining trigger, route and select objects using send and receive - for example, using [t b b] - [t b b] instead of [t b b b]. This means that the number of arguments in these objects can be defined at creation time with the help of [clone] for example. This is discussed in the Pd mailing list.
using [initbang] as indicated in the answer below.
After having attempted to build a drum machine with presets and an arbitrary number of tracks with my limited knowledge of dynamic patching techniques, I realised that there must be many ways of avoiding the problems I had when doing this, which were several! Of course, some things have to be done with dynamic patching and that's fine. It's just about creating manageable code.
This is really an answer to "follow-up question" in the comment¹, rather than the original question (which I consider too broad to be answered),
Is there a way to define an abstraction that has an argument that defines how many outlets the abstraction exposes?
Sure, just use $1 for that.
E.g. [gates 10] could create 10 outlets...
Presumably it could dynamically patch itself, but that doesn't seem like a good idea.
well, if you want an abstraction to have a dynamic API (that is: a variable number of inlets/outlets), then there is no way around dynamic patching.
Is this a good case for building your own external?
depends on what you actually want the external to do.
the iemguts library (disclaimer: of which I am the author) has everything in place to allow you to dynamically patch what you need.
Most important, there is [initbang], to create iolets before Pd tries to connect them (if you use [loadbang], the iolets will be created after Pd failed to connect to them).
It also includes a [canvasargs] object which allows you to get all the arguments to the abstraction (e.g. which simplifies the task of having the number of outlets equal the number of arguments - like [trigger] or [pack])
if instead you want to wrap the entire functionality of your abstraction into an external, that's of course also possible (and pretty simple in the realm of C).
Also keep in mind that other's might have already coded what you need.
¹ please don't abuse the comment field for follow-up questions. either update your original question (if the follow-up is a mere clarification of the original question) or post a new one.
I used FEST-Assert and moved to AssertJ after it stopped development.
Recently I was pointed to Google repository with another assertions library Truth (http://google.github.io/truth/).
Reading the examples I can not find any advantage of start using it over AssertJ. So it is just matter of taste what to use. But maybe I missed the point, did I?
From one of their comments at GitHub:
The core difference is that the design of Truth includes two specific
areas of extensibility - that of a strategy for proposition failure -
such that a "subject" for Integers, or a subject for Strings can be
re-used in the context of completely different results for failure. A
notable example is the distinction between JUnit's use of
AssertionError and it's AssumptionViolationException. Truth lets you
use the same proposition classes for both.
The other area of flexibility is the ability to create new
assertion/proposition types and hook them in without declaring
possibly conflicting static methods to import. This can be for new
types (say, adding protobufs) or for new uses of existing types (say,
Strings that are treated as Uris). This is the assertAbout() feature.
Other than that, Truth is very similar to AssertJ, since it was
inspired by FEST, of which AssertJ is a fork of the 2.0 development
line.
To sum up, Truth is designed to be a bit more extensible and flexible, but AssertJ will be great (possibly the greatest) for assertions on standard types.
I've run into a frustrating feature of KVO: all notifications are funneled through a single method (observeValueForKeyPath:....), requiring a bunch of IF statements if the object is observing numerous properties.
The ideal solution would be to pass a method as an argument to the method that establishes the observing in the first place, but it seems this isn't possible. Does a solution exist to this problem? I initially considered using the keyPath argument (addObserver:forKeyPath:options:context:) to call a method via NSSelectorFromString, but then I came across the post KVO Dispatcher pattern with Method as context and the article it linked to which offers a different solution in order to pass arguments along as well (although I haven't gotten that working yet).
I know a lot of people have come up against this issue. Has a standard way of handling it emerged?
OP asks:
Has a standard way of handling it emerged?
No, not really. There are a lot of different approaches out there. Here are some:
https://github.com/sleroux/KVO-Blocks
http://pandamonia.github.io/BlocksKit
http://www.mikeash.com/pyblog/friday-qa-2012-03-02-key-value-observing-done-right-take-2.html
https://github.com/ReactiveCocoa/ReactiveCocoa
http://blog.andymatuschak.org/post/156229939/kvo-blocks-block-callbacks-for-cocoa-observers
Seriously, there are a ton of these... Google "KVO blocks"
I can't say that any of the options I've seen seem prevalent enough to earn the title "standard way". I suspect most folks who feel motivated to conquer this issue just pick one and go with it, or write their own -- it's not as if adapting KVO to use block based callbacks is rocket science. The Method-based approach you link to doesn't seem like a step forward for simplicity. I get that you're trying to take the uncertainty of the string-based-key-path <-> method conversion out of the equation, but that kind of falls down because not all observable keys/keyPaths are methods. (If nothing else, you can observe arbitrary keys on NSMutableDictionaries and get notifications.)
It sure would be nice if Apple would release a new blocks-based KVO API, but I'm not holding my breath. But in the meantime, like I said, just pick one you like and use it or write your own and use that.
With the growth of dynamically typed languages, as they give us more flexibility, there is the very likely probability that people will write programs that go beyond what the specification allows.
My thinking was influenced by this question, when I read the answer by bobince:
A question about JavaScript's slice and splice methods
The basic thought is that splice, in Javascript, is specified to be used in only certain situations, but, it can be used in others, and there is nothing that the language can do to stop it, as the language is designed to be extremely flexible.
Unless someone reads through the specification, and decides to adhere to it, I am fairly certain that there are many such violations occuring.
Is this a problem, or a natural extension of writing such flexible languages? Or should we expect tools like JSLint to help be the specification police?
I liked one answer in this question, that the implementation of python is the specification. I am curious if that is actually closer to the truth for these types of languages, that basically, if the language allows you to do something then it is in the specification.
Is there a Python language specification?
UPDATE:
After reading a couple of comments, I thought I would check the splice method in the spec and this is what I found, at the bottom of pg 104, http://www.mozilla.org/js/language/E262-3.pdf, so it appears that I can use splice on the array of children without violating the spec. I just don't want people to get bogged down in my example, but hopefully to consider the question.
The splice function is intentionally generic; it does not require that its this value be an Array object.
Therefore it can be transferred to other kinds of objects for use as a method. Whether the splice function
can be applied successfully to a host object is implementation-dependent.
UPDATE 2:
I am not interested in this being about javascript, but language flexibility and specs. For example, I expect that the Java spec specifies you can't put code into an interface, but using AspectJ I do that frequently. This is probably a violation, but the writers didn't predict AOP and the tool was flexible enough to be bent for this use, just as the JVM is also flexible enough for Scala and Clojure.
Whether a language is statically or dynamically typed is really a tiny part of the issue here: a statically typed one may make it marginally easier for code to enforce its specs, but marginally is the key word here. Only "design by contract" -- a language letting you explicitly state preconditions, postconditions and invariants, and enforcing them -- can help ward you against users of your libraries empirically discovering what exactly the library will let them get away with, and taking advantage of those discoveries to go beyond your design intentions (possibly constraining your future freedom in changing the design or its implementation). And "design by contract" is not supported in mainstream languages -- Eiffel is the closest to that, and few would call it "mainstream" nowadays -- presumably because its costs (mostly, inevitably, at runtime) don't appear to be justified by its advantages. "Argument x must be a prime number", "method A must have been previously called before method B can be called", "method C cannot be called any more once method D has been called", and so on -- the typical kinds of constraints you'd like to state (and have enforced implicitly, without having to spend substantial programming time and energy checking for them yourself) just don't lend themselves well to be framed in the context of what little a statically typed language's compiler can enforce.
I think that this sort of flexibility is an advantage as long as your methods are designed around well defined interfaces rather than some artificial external "type" metadata. Most of the array functions only expect an object with a length property. The fact that they can all be applied generically to lots of different kinds of objects is a boon for code reuse.
The goal of any high level language design should be to reduce the amount of code that needs to be written in order to get stuff done- without harming readability too much. The more code that has to be written, the more bugs get introduced. Restrictive type systems can be, (if not well designed), a pervasive lie at worst, a premature optimisation at best. I don't think overly restrictive type systems aid in writing correct programs. The reason being that the type is merely an assertion, not necessarily based on evidence.
By contrast, the array methods examine their input values to determine whether they have what they need to perform their function. This is duck typing, and I believe that this is more scientific and "correct", and it results in more reusable code, which is what you want. You don't want a method rejecting your inputs because they don't have their papers in order. That's communism.
I do not think your question really has much to do with dynamic vs. static typing. Really, I can see two cases: on one hand, there are things like Duff's device that martin clayton mentioned; that usage is extremely surprising the first time you see it, but it is explicitly allowed by the semantics of the language. If there is a standard, that kind of idiom may appear in later editions of the standard as a specific example. There is nothing wrong with these; in fact, they can (unless overused) be a great productivity boost.
The other case is that of programming to the implementation. Such a case would be an actual abuse, coming from either ignorance of a standard, or lack of a standard, or having a single implementation, or multiple implementations that have varying semantics. The problem is that code written in this way is at best non-portable between implementations and at worst limits the future development of the language, for fear that adding an optimization or feature would break a major application.
It seems to me that the original question is a bit of a non-sequitor. If the specification explicitly allows a particular behavior (as MUST, MAY, SHALL or SHOULD) then anything compiler/interpreter that allows/implements the behavior is, by definition, compliant with the language. This would seem to be the situation proposed by the OP in the comments section - the JavaScript specification supposedly* says that the function in question MAY be used in different situations, and thus it is explicitly allowed.
If, on the other hand, a compiler/interpreter implements or allows behavior that is expressly forbidden by a specification, then the compiler/interpreter is, by definition, operating outside the specification.
There is yet a third scenario, and an associated, well defined, term for those situations where the specification does not define a behavior: undefined. If the specification does not actually specify a behavior given a particular situation, then the behavior is undefined, and may be handled either intentionally or unintentionally by the compiler/interpreter. It is then the responsibility of the developer to realize that the behavior is not part of the specification, and, should s/he choose to leverage the behavior, the developer's application is thereby dependent upon the particular implementation. The interpreter/compiler providing that implementation is under no obligation to maintain the officially undefined behavior beyond backwards compatibility and whatever commitments the producer may make. Furthermore, a later iteration of the language specification may define the previously undefined behavior, making the compiler/interpreter either (a) non-compliant with the new iteration, or (b) come out with a new patch/version to become compliant, thereby breaking older versions.
* "supposedly" because I have not seen the spec, myself. I go by the statements made, above.