I understand Swift's inlining well. I know the nuances between the four function-inlining attributes. I use #inline(__always) a lot, especially when I'm just making sugary APIs like this:
public extension String {
#inline(__always)
var length: Int { count }
}
I do this because there's not really a cost involved in inlining it, but there would be the cost of an extra stack frame if it weren't inlined. For less-obvious sugar, I'll lean toward #inlinable andor #usableFromInline as needed.
However, one distinction vexes me. The two possible arguments to #inline are never and __always. Despite the lack of actual documentation, this choice of spelling here acts as a sort of self-documentation, implying that if you are going to use one of these, you should lean toward never, and __always is discouraged.
But why is this the direction the Swift language designers encourage? As far as I know, if no attribute is applied at all, then this is the behavior:
If a function (et al) is used within the module in which it's declared, the compiler might choose to inline it or not, depending on which would produce better code (by some measure)
If that function (et al) is used outside the module, its implementation is not exposed in a way that allows it to be inlined, so it is never inlined.
So, it seems most of the time, not-inlining is the default. That's fine and dandy, I have no problem with that on the surface; don't bloat the executable any more than you need to.
But then, I've never had a reason to think #inline(never) is useful. From what I understand, the only reason I would use #inline(never) is if I've noticed that the Swift compiler is choosing to inline a non-annotated function too much, and it's bloating my executable. This seems like a super-niche occurrence:
My software is running fine
The Swift compiler's algorithm for deciding whether to inline something is not making the right choice for my code
I care about the size of the binary so much that I'm inspecting it closely enough to discover that a function is being inlined automatically too much
The problem is only in code that I've written into my own module; not code I'm using from some other module
Or, as Rob said in the comments, if you're going through some disassembly and automatic inlining makes it hard to read.
I can't imagine that these are the use cases which the Swift language designers had in mind when designing this attribute. Especially since Swift is not meant for embedded systems, binary size (and the (dis)assembly in general) isn't really that much of a concern. I've never seen an unreasonably-large Swift binary anyway (>50MB).
So why is never encouraged more than __always? I often run into reasons why I should force a function to be inlined, but I've not yet seen a reason to force a function to be stacked, at least in my own work.
Related
Before you relieve the itching in your fingertips, I already understand:
how and when to use the try keyword
the differences between the try, try?, and try! keywords
What I want to understand is what the use of the unadorned try keyword buys me (and you and all of us) over and above merely quieting a compiler diagnostic. We're already inside the scope of a do, and clearly the compiler knows to demand a try, and I can't (yet) see how there might be some ambiguity about where the try needs to land. So why can't the compiler quietly do the right thing without the explicit appearance of the keyword?
There's been a fair amount of discussion (below) about the possibility that the language is trying to enforce readability for humans. I guess we'd need the input from one of the Swift language designers to determine whether that's true. And even if we had that it would be debatable whether it's wise and/or has been a success. So let's put that aside for the moment. Does the existence of the un-adorned try keyword solve some problem other than enforcing readability for humans?
After a long, productive discussion (linked elsewhere on this page)…
In short, the answer is no, there isn't a purpose other than enforcing readability, but it turns out the readability win is more significant than I had realized.
The try keyword should be seen as akin to (though not the equivalent of) a combination of if and goto. Although try doesn't direct the compiler to do anything it could not have inferred it should do, no one would argue that an if or a goto should be invisible. This makes try a little weird for folks coming from other languages — but not unreasonably so.
It may be difficult for Objective C programmers to grasp this because they are accustomed to assuming almost anything they do may raise an exception. Of course, Objective C exceptions are very different from Swift errors, but knowing this consciously is different from metabolizing it and knowing it unconsciously.
As well, if your intuition immediately tells you that as a matter of style in most cases there should probably be only one failable operation inside a do clause, it may be difficult to see what value a try adds.
In comparing these two options for defining an instance property:
var networkManager = NetworkManager.sharedInstance()
var lazy networkManager = NetworkManager.sharedInstance()
Both:
Can evaluate a block to get the value
Can be declared inline (not a block, like above)
Lazy:
Can refer to self
Is not calculated until needed
If you don't use it, it is never calculated
Non-lazy:
No benefits whatsoever
It appears that there is no benefit to ever use a non-lazy variable. So why does the language allow the programmer to make this inferior choice?
(I am NOT asking about the difference between var and let à la Are Swift constants lazy by default?)
One reason might be that lazyness is not well-suited for situations where you want control when the evaluation happens. this is relevant in cases where the work being done in the assignment has side effects.
Although this pertains to closure, this blog post by stuart sierra explains this idea very well, and I think it applies equally in any language.
As others already said, there are several critical scenarios where you want the initialization of the properties to be deterministic.
This is an example (among many others) related to game development.
Often the instances of classes representing items in a game scene/level, are created before the level does begin.
Initialisation can be a time expensive task (load stuff from persistent storage, allocate memory, prepare the instances...) and doing this part before the player does begin playing the level does avoid CPU overhead.
This is critical because a CPU overhead in the middle of a level could cause a drop in the frame rate which is a nightmare for the user experience.
FYI. My feeling is that Swift wants to become more like a functional language and would like lazy instantiation in more places.
My early assessment of Swift has held up pretty well over time (well, the "not functional" part. I didn't anticipate how much Swift would favor methods over functions in later versions). Swift is not a functional language and does not intend to be one. This has come up often in WWDC talks, on the forums, on Twitter, and in conversations with the Swift team. Originally all maps and filters were lazy. Swift removed that because of the problems it caused. Probably the best talk on that subject is "Building Better Apps with Value Types in Swift". As they say:
We like mutation. We think it's valuable. We think it's easy to use when done correctly.
You don't get much more "non-functional" than that. Swift also embraces immutable data. But functional programming is about pure functions over immutable data, and that's not Swift.
(Of course there are plenty of non-lazy functional languages. Lazy and functional are orthogonal concepts. Haskell just happened to embrace both.)
To the question at hand, though:
I've found the lazy attribute rarely useful in real-world Swift (I'm being generous; I have never encountered a case where I kept it in the code). It doesn't offer anything like the laziness you get in Haskell. It isn't thread safe, so that's a nightmare. It forces you into reference types (or forces your structs to be mutable), so that can be annoying. If I heard they were pulling it from the language and we just had to roll our own, that'd be fine with me. (I'm tempted to write a proposal to do just that.) It implements a specific memo pattern that can occasionally be handy, but often isn't the one you want. So it's a very good thing that it isn't the default.
As you likely know, global variables and class variables are lazy by default, and I think that tends to work out pretty well since there are so many fewer of them, there's a much better chance they won't be accessed in practice, and that laziness is thread safe (which has a cost, but since they're so much rarer, the cost is much lower).
If you have an expensive object (in terms of, takes long to create) you would like to decide and control when it is created. One could argue that the lazy variable should be the default though. Maybe it has historical reasons. Lazy properties in ObjC resulted in a lot boilerplate code.
This is really a question of precedence: which is more preferred in C++, avoiding pointers or avoiding #includes in header files?
"Don't Use #include in header files."
There seems to be some ambiguity based on my research. In this SO question, the top answer says "...make sure you actually need an include, [don't use one] when a forward declaration or even leaving it out completely will do." (From Header files and include best practice)
And this article explains the negative effect excess header inclusions can have on compile-time: http://blog.knatten.org/2012/11/09/another-reason-to-avoid-includes-in-headers/
As well as this tutorial, stating, "...you should try to put all of your code in the CPP class and only the class declaration in the HPP file.": https://github.com/LaurentGomila/SFML/wiki/Tutorial%3A-Basic-Game-Engine#wiki-declarations
"Don't Use Pointers."
But, there is also evidence that pointers should be avoided most often as well:
c++: when to use pointers?
https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/56935/why-are-pointers-not-recommended-when-coding-with-c
Which preference takes precedence?
If my understanding about avoiding #includes in header files is correct, this can easily be done by changing things like class members to pointers so I can use a forward declaration instead, but is this a good idea for class members whose lifetime only lasts as long as the class itself?
It's not really an "one or the other". Both statements are true, but you need to understand the reasoning behind them.
tl;dr: Use forward declaration where possible to reduce compile time. Use stack objects or references as much as possible and pointers only in rare cases.
"Don't Use #include in header files."
This is a rather general statement, which as is, would be wrong. The more important part behind this statement actually is: "Use forward declarations where ever possible". Includes in header files are not something bad per se, but they often aren't needed either.
Forward declarations can be used, if the included type/class/etc. is used as a pointer in the new type/class/etc. declaration within the given header. Forward declaration just tells the compiler: "Somewhere a long the way you'll find the actual declaration of type X." The include can even be removed if the type isn't used at all in the declaration. The reason is that the compiler doesn't need to know anything about these types to calculate the required memory layout for the new type. For example a pointer has "always" the same size. Including the file additionally in the header, would potentially only waste processing power, since the compiler would have to open and parse the file, thus adding expensive seconds to the compile time. So in most cases you'll do yourself a favor by reducing the unnecessary includes in the header files and instead use forward declaration.
For the sake of completion: Forward declaration are explicitly needed if you get circular references (class A depends on class B, which depends on class C, which depends on class A). However this can often also reveal either bad design and/or old/outdate coding standards which would lead us to the second topic.
"Don't use pointers."
Again the statement is a tiny bit too general. One might rather want to say: "Don't use raw pointers."
With C++11 and soon C++1y the language itself has changed a lot. As much bad C++ books the world has seen, the more outdated C++ books float around nowadays (here's a good list however). While in the past we were mostly stuck with pointers new and delete for memory management, we've evolved to better, more readable, less risk and 100% memory leak free ways to manage the data in memory. One of the magic words is RAII - since you linked something from SFML above, here's a nice demonstration of the power of RAII. I see many people use pointers and new and delete just because or maybe because they are thinking in Java or C# terms were objects get instantiated with the new keyword. In C++ however object don't need to use new to be allocated and it's mostly preferable to run things on the stack instead of the heap. This works for many, many things, especially when using STL containers, which will hide the dynamic management in the background. The usage of the heap is mostly all cases only preferable if you need the data to be dynamic, non "local" or you need a lot of it. However when you use the heap, make sure to use smart pointers such as std::unique_ptr or std::shared_ptr depending on the use case, but certainly not raw pointers. In modern C++ raw pointers should never own an object anymore. There are cases where it's okay to return a raw pointer to reference an object, but there's really no reason in modern C++ to call new on a raw pointer.
Lets get back to the original question though. The "Don't use raw pointers" is essentially more of a design question and quite unrelated to the whole header issue. While there might be some cases where you'll have to switch to raw pointers, due to circular references, the use of forward declarations is otherwise just about compilation time (and maybe clean code), but it's not as essential for the programming itself.
In short: Don't use raw pointers to avoid inclusions in header files, but use forward declaration where ever possible and utilize smart pointers as much as possible.
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.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 13 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
C# 'var' keyword versus explicitly defined variables
EDIT:
For those who are still viewing this, I've completely changed my opinion on var. I think it was largely due to the responses to this topic that I did. I'm an avid 'var' user now, and I think its proponents comments below were absolutely correct in pretty much all cases. I think the thing I like most about var is it REALLY DOES reduce repetition (conforms to DRY), and makes your code considerably cleaner. It supports refactoring (when you need to change the return type of something, you have less code cleanup to deal with, and NO, NOT everyone has a fancy refactoring tool!), and anecdotally, people don't really seem to have a problem not knowing the specific type of a variable up front (its easy enough to "discover" the capabilities of a type on-demand, which is generally a necessity anyway, even if you DO know the name of a type.)
So here's a big applause for the 'var' keyword!!
This is a relatively simple question...more of a poll really. I am a HUGE fan of C#, and have used it for over 8 years, since before .NET was first released. I am a fan of all of the improvements made to the language, including lambda expressions, extension methods, LINQ, and anonymous types. However, there is one feature from C# 3.0 that I feel has been SORELY misused....the 'var' keyword.
Since the release of C# 3.0, on blogs, forums, and yes, even Stackoverflow, I have seen var replace pretty much every variable that has been written! To me, this is a grave misuse of the feature, and leads to very arbitrary code that can have many obfuscated bugs due to the lack in clarity of what type a variable actually is.
There is only a single truly valid use for 'var' (in my opinion at least). What is that valid use, you ask? The only valid use is when you are incapable of knowing the type, and the only instance where that can happen:
When accessing an anonymous type
Anonymous types have no compile-time identity, so var is the only option. It's the only reason why var was added...to support anonymous types.
So...whats your opinion? Given the prolific use of var on blogs, forums, suggested/enforced by tools like ReSharper, etc. many up and coming developers will see it as a completely valid thing.
Do you think var should be used so prolifically?
Do you think var should ever be used for anything other than an anonymous type?
Is it acceptable to use in code posted to blogs to maintain brevity...terseness? (Not sure about the answer this one myself...perhaps with a disclaimer)
Should we, as a community, encourage better use of strongly typed variables to improve code clarity, or allow C# to become more vague and less descriptive?
I would like to know the communities opinions. I see var used a lot, but I have very little idea why, and perhapse there is a good reason (i.e. brevity/terseness.)
var is a splendid idea to help implement a key principle of good programming: DRY, i.e., Don't Repeat Yourself.
VeryComplicatedType x = new VeryComplicatedType();
is bad coding, because it repeats VeryComplicatedType, and the effects are all negative: more verbose and boilerplatey code, less readability, silly "makework" for both the reader and the writer of the code. Because of all this, I count var as a very useful enhancement in C# 3 compared to Java and previous versions of C#.
Of course it can be mildly misused, by using as the RHS an expression whose type is not clear and obvious (e.g., a call to a method whose declaration may be far away) -- such misuse may decrease readability (by forcing the reader to hunt for the method's declaration or ponder deeply about some other subtle expression's type) instead of increasing it. But if you stick to using var to avoid repetition, you'll be in its sweet spot, and no misuse.
I think it should be used in those situations where the type is clearly specified elsewhere in the same statement:
Dictionary<string, List<int>> myHashMap = new Dictionary<string, List<int>>();
is a pain to read. This could be replaced by the following with no loss of clarity:
var myHashMap = new Dictionary<string, List<int>>();
Pop quiz!
What type is this:
var Foo = new string[]{"abc","123","yoda"};
How about this:
var Bar = {"abc","123","yoda"};
It takes me roughly no longer to determine what types those are than with the explicity redundant specification of the type. As a programmer I have no issues with letting a compiler figure out things that are obvious for me. You may disagree.
Cheers.
Never say never. I'm pretty sure there are a bunch of questions where people have expounded their views on var, but here's mine once more.
var is a tool; use it where it's appropriate, and don't use it when it's not. You're right that the only required use of var is when addressing anonymous types, in which case you have no type name to use. Personally, I'd say any other use has to be considered in terms of readability and laziness; specifically, when avoiding use of a cumbersome type name.
var i = 5;
(Laziness)
var list = new List<Customer>();
(Convenience)
var customers = GetCustomers();
(Questionable; I'd consider it acceptable if and only if GetCustomers() returns an IEnumerable)
Read up on Haskell. It's a statically typed language in which you rarely have to state the type of anything. So it uses the same approach as var, as the standard "idiomatic" coding style.
If the compiler can figure something out for you, why write the same thing twice?
A colleague of mine was at first very opposed to var, just as you are, but has now started using it habitually. He was worried it would make programs less self-documenting, but in practice that's caused more by overly long methods.
var MyCustomers = from c in Customers
where c.City="Madrid"
select new { c.Company, c.Mail };
If I need only Company and Mail from Customers collection. It's nonsense define new type with members what I need.
If you feel that giving the same information twice reduces errors (the designers of many web forms that insist you type in your email address twice seem to agree), then you'll probably hate var. If you write a lot of code that uses complicated type specifications then it's a godsend.
EDIT: To exapand this a bit (incase it sounds like I'm not in favour of var):
In the UK (at least at the time I went), it was standard practice to make Computer Science students learn how to program in Standard ML. Like other functional languages it has a type system that puts languages in the C++/Java mould to shame.
Anyway, what I noticed at the time (and heard similar remarks from other students) was that it was a nightmare to get your SML programs to compile because the compiler was so increadibly picky about types, but once the did compile, they almost always ran without error.
This aspect of SML (and other functional languages) seems to be one the questioner sees as a 'good thing' - i.e. that anything that helps the compiler catch more errors at compile time is good.
Now here's the thing with SML: it uses type inference exclusively when assigning. So I don't think type inference can be inherently bad.
I agree with others that var eliminates redundancy. I have decided to use var where it eliminates redundancy as much as possible. I think consistency is important. Choose a style and stick with it through a project.
As Earwicker indicated, there are some functional languages, Haskell being one and F# being another, where such type inference is used much more pervasively -- the C# analogy would be declaring the return types and parameter types of methods as "var", and then having the compiler infer the static type for you. Static and explicit typing are two orthogonal concerns.
In fact, is it even correct to say that use of "var" is dynamic typing? From what I understood, that's what the new "dynamic" keyword in C# 4.0 is for. "var" is for static type inference. Correct me if I am wrong.
I must admit when i first saw the var keyword pop up i was very skeptical.
However it is definitely an easy way to shorten the lines of a new declaration, and i use it all the time for that.
However when i change the type of an underlying method, and accept the return type using var. I do get the occasional run time error. Most are still picked up by the compiler.
The secound issue i run into is when i am not sure what method to use (and i am simply looking through the auto complete). IF i choose the wrong one and expect it to be type FOO and it is type BAR then it takes a while to figure that out.
If i had of literally specified the variable type in both cases it would have saved a bit of frustration.
overall the benefits exceed the problems.
I have to dissent with the view that var reduces redundancy in any meaningful way. In the cases that have been put forward here, type inference can and should come out of the IDE, where it can be applied much more liberally with no loss of readability.