Headline: description called by super.init()
This is a new take on an old question. As a primarily Swift programmer I tend to not use NSObject for class definitions because of the residual side effects of Objective-C. Like if I have a read-only property called length and I then want to create a setter function called setLength, I get warnings about it conflicting with a similar definition from Objective-C. I just discovered the set(var){} setter. If I subclass a Cacoa class like UIDocument, etc. that inherit from NSObject, I have to live with these side effects.
I have a class that uses two other classes in the property definitions, none of them NSObjects. This class has a description computed variable that uses the description computed variables for the other two classes in its composition. All three classes need to conform to the CustomStringConvertable protocol. Ok, everything is good.
At some point this class got upgraded to being a UIDocument and the CustomStringConvertable became redundant and was removed. Everything still works.
Here is what I found out today. I wanted to break at a point in the program where it was printing one of the two properties and as a convenience I set the break point in the description variable for that class, thinking that it should only be called at the point I am interested in, where it is printed out. What I discovered is that the description variable gets called during all the super.init() of the UIDocument sub-class! And there were a few of them. I think composing strings as being relatively expensive but didn't care because they were only used in debug, but with them being called and who knows how they are used in super.init(), I need to change this.
I checked another UIDocument class in the same program that has 200 files associated with it and it is also calling description in super.init().
Does anyone have any input on the Best Practices for using description vs debugDescription?
I'm going to answer my own question as a matter of documentation.
I switched the UIDocuments subclasses to define and use debugDescription. I am debugging some code that loads all the files and does some manipulation and I was able to reduce the load time from 9.8 seconds to 6.8 seconds.
I also went through all the places where the Swift 3 conversion added String(describing:) to the program and found I could change a lot of them to using debugDescription and eliminate the String(describing:) wrapper.
I think the best practice is to only define and use debugDescription and for my non-NSObjects change conformance from CustomStringConvertable to CustomDebugStringConvertable.
I already know the benefit of immutability over mutability in being able to reason about code and introducing less bugs, especially in multithreaded code. In creating structs, though, I cannot see any benefit over creating a completely immutable struct over a mutable one.
Let's have as an example of a struct that keeps some score:
struct ScoreKeeper {
var score: Int
}
In this structure I can change the value of score on an existing struct variable
var scoreKeeper = ScoreKeeper(score: 0)
scoreKeeper.score += 5
println(scoreKeeper.score)
// prints 5
The immutable version would look like this:
struct ScoreKeeper {
let score: Int
func incrementScoreBy(points: Int) -> ScoreKeeper {
return ScoreKeeper(score: self.score + points)
}
}
And its usage:
let scoreKeeper = ScoreKeeper(score: 0)
let newScoreKeeper = scoreKeeper.incrementScoreBy(5)
println(newScoreKeeper.score)
// prints 5
What I don't see is the benefit of the second approach over the first, since structs are value types. If I pass a struct around, it always gets copied. So it does not seem to matter to me if the structure has a mutable property, since other parts of the code would be working on a separate copy anyway, thus removing the problems of mutability.
I have seen some people using the second example, though, which requires more code for no apparent benefit. Is there some benefit I'm not seeing?
Different approaches will facilitate different kinds of changes to the code. An immutable structure is very similar to an immutable class object, but a mutable structure and a mutable class object are very different. Thus, code which uses an immutable structure can often be readily adapted if for some reason it becomes necessary to use a class object instead.
On the flip side, use of an immutable object will often make the code to replace a variable with a modified version more brittle in case additional properties are added to the type in question. For example, if a PhoneNumber type includes methods for AreaCode, LocalExchange, and LocalNumber and a constructor that takes those parameters, and then adds an "optional" fourth property for Extension, then code which is supposed to change the area codes of certain phone numbers by passing the new area code, LocalExchange, and LocalNumber, to the three-argument constructor will erase the Extension property of every phone number, while code which could write to AreaCode directly wouldn't have had that problem.
Your remark about copying value types is very good. Maybe this doesn't make much sense in particular language (swift) and particular compiler implementation (current version) but in general if the compiler knows for sure that the data structure is immutable, it could e.g. use reference instead of a copy behind the scenes to gain some performance improvement. This could not be done with mutable type for obvious reasons.
Even more generally speaking, limitation means information. If you limit your data structure somehow, you gain some extra knowledge about it. And extra knowledge means extra possibilities ;) Maybe the current compiler does not take advantage of them but this does not mean they are not here :)
Good analysis, especially pointing out that structs are passed by value and therefore will not be altered by other processes.
The only benefit I can see is a stylistic one by making the immutability of the element explicit.
It is more of a style to make value based types be treated on par with object based types in object oriented styles. It is more of a personal choice, and I don't see any big benefits in either of them.
In general terms, immutable objects are less costly to the system than mutable ones. Mutable objects need to have infrastructure for taking on new values, and the system has to allow for the fact that their values can change at any time.
Mutable objects are also a challenge in concurrent code because you have to guard against the value changing out from under you from another thread.
However, if you are constantly creating and destroying unique immutable objects, the overhead of creating new ones becomes costly quite quickly.
In the foundation classes, NSNumber is an immutable object. The system maintains a pool of NSNumber objects that you've used before, and under the covers, gives you back an existing number if you ask for one with the same value as one you created before.
That's about the only situation in which I could see value in using static structs - where they don't change very much and you have a fairly small pool of possible values. In that case you'd probably want to se up your class with a "factory method" that kept recently used structs around and reused them if you asked for a struct with the same value again.
Such a scheme could simplify concurrent code, as mentioned above. In that case you wouldn't have to guard against the values of your structs changing in another thread. If you were using such a struct, you could know that it would never change.
As we know, Scala generates getters and setters automatically for any public field and make the actual field variable private. Why is it better than just making the field public ?
For one this allows swapping a public var/val with a (couple of) def(s) and still maintain binary compatibility. Secondly it allows overriding a var/val in derived classes.
First, keeping the field public allows a client to read and write the field. Since it's beneficial to have immutable objects, I'd recommend to make the field read only (which you can achieve in Scala by declaring it as "val" rather than "var").
Now back to your actual question. Scala allows you to define your own setters and getters if you need more than the trivial versions. This is useful to maintain invariants. For setters you might want to check the value the field is set to. If you keep the field itself public, you have no chance to do so.
This is also useful for fields declared as "val". Assume you have a field of type Array[X] to represent the internal state of your class. A client could now get a reference to this array and modify it--again you have no chance to ensure the invariant is maintained. But since you can define your own getter you can return a copy of the actual array.
The same argument applies when you make a field of a reference type "final public" in Java--clients can't reset the reference but still modify the object the reference points to.
On a related note: accessing a field via getters in Scala looks like accessing the field directly. The nice thing about this is that it allows to make accessing a field and calling a method without parameters on the object look like the same thing. So if you decide you don't want to store a value in a field anymore but calculate it on the fly, the client does not have to care because it looks like the same thing to him--this is known as the Uniform Access Principle
In short: the Uniform Access Principle.
You can use a val to implement an abstract method from a superclass. Imagine the following definition from some imaginary graphics package:
abstract class circle {
def bounds: Rectangle
def centre: Point
def radius: Double
}
There are two possible subclasses, one where the circle is defined in terms of a bounding box, and one where it's defined in terms of the centre and radius. Thanks to the UAP, details of the implementation can be completely abstracted away, and easily changed.
There's also a third possibility: lazy vals. These would be very useful to avoid recalculating the bounds of our circle again and again, but it's hard to imagine how lazy vals could be implemented without the uniform access principle.
I'm fairly new to programming, and there's one thing I'm confused by. What is a class, and how do I use one? I understand a little bit, but I can't seem to find a full answer.
By the way, if this is language-specific, then I'm programming in PHP.
Edit: There's something else I forgot to say. Specifically, I meant to ask how defining functions are used in classes. I've seen examples of PHP code where functions are defined inside classes, but I can't really understand why.
To be as succinct as possible: a class describes a collection of data that can perform actions on itself.
For example, you might have a class that represents an image. An object of this class would contain all of the data necessary to describe the image, and then would also contain methods like rotate, resize, crop, etc. It would also have methods that you could use to ask the object about its own properties, like getColorPalette, or getWidth. This as opposed to being able to directly access the color pallette or width in a raw (non-object) data collection - by having data access go through class methods, the object can enforce constraints that maintain consistency (e.g. you shouldn't be able to change the width variable without actually changing the image data to be that width).
This is how object-oriented programming differs from procedural programming. In procedural programming, you have data and you have functions. The functions act on data, but there's no "ownership" of the data, and no fundamental connection between the data and the functions which make use of it.
In object-oriented programming, you have objects which are data in combination with actions. Each type of data has a defined set of actions that it can perform on itself, and a defined set of properties that it allows functions and other objects to read and write in a defined, constraint-respecting manner.
The point is to decouple parts of the program from each other. With an Image class, you can be assured that all of the code that manipulates the image data is within the Image class's methods. You can be sure that no other code is going to be mucking about with the internals of your images in unexpected ways. On the other hand, code outside your image class can know that there is a defined way to manipulate images (resize, crop, rotate methods, etc), and not have to worry about exactly how the image data is stored, or how the image functions are implemented.
Edit: And one more thing that is sometimes hard to grasp is the relationship between the terms "class" and "object". A "class" is a description of how to create a particular type of "object". An Image class would describe what variables are necessary to store image data, and give the implementation code for all of the Image methods. An Image object, called an "instance" of an image class, is a particular use of that description to store some actual data. For example, if you have five images to represent, you would have five different image "objects", all of the same Image "class".
Classes is a term used in the object oriented programming (OOP) paradigm. They provide abstraction, modularity and much more to your code. OOP is not language specific, other examples of languages supporting it are C++ and Java.
I suggest youtube to get an understanding of the basics. For instance this video and other related lectures.
Since you are using PHP I'll use it in my code examples but most everything should apply.
OOP treats everything as an object, which is a collection of methods (functions) and variables. In most languages objects are represented in code as classes.
Take the following code:
class person
{
$gender = null;
$weight = null;
$height = null;
$age = null;
$firstName = null;
$lastName = null;
function __CONSTRUCT($firstName, $lastName)
{
//__CONSTRUCT is a special method that is called when the class is initialized
$this->firstName = $firstName;
$this->lastName = $lastName;
}
}
This is a valid (if not perfect) class when you use this code you'll first have to initailize an instance of the class which is like making of copy of it in a variable:
$steve = new person('Steve', 'Jobs');
Then when you want to change some property (not technicaly the correct word as there are no properties in PHP but just bear with me in this case I mean variable). We can access them like so:
$steve->age = 54;
Note: this assumes you are a little familiar with programming, which I guess you are.
A class is like a blueprint. Let's suppose you're making a game with houses in it. You'd have a "House" class. This class describes the house and says what can it do and what can be done to it. You can have attributes, like height, width, number of rooms, city where it is located, etc. You can also have "methods" (fancy name for functions inside a class). For example, you can have a "Clean()" method, which would tell all the people inside the house to clean it.
Now suppose someone is playing your game and clicks the "make new house" button. You would then create a new object from that class. In PHP, you'd write "$house = new House;", and now $house has all the attributes and methods of a class.
You can make as many houses as you want, and they will all have the same properties, which you can then change. For example, if the people living in a house decide to add one more room, you could write "$house->numberOfRooms++;". If the default number of rooms for a house was 4, this house would have 5 rooms, and all the others would have 4. As you can see, the attributes are independent from one instance to another.
This is the basics; there is a lot more stuff about classes, like inheritance, access modifiers, etc.
Now, you may ask yourself why is this useful. Well, the point of Object Oriented Programming (OOP) is to think of all the things in the program as independent objects, trying to design them so they can be used regardless of context. For example, your house may be a standalone variable, may be inside an array of houses. If you have a "Person" class with a "residence" attribute, then your house may be that attribute.
This is the theory behind classes and objects. I suggest you look around for examples of code. If you want, you can look at the classes I made for a Pong game I programmed. It's written in Python and may use some stuff you don't understand, but you will get the basic idea. The classes are here.
A class is essentially an abstraction.
You have built-in datatypes such as "int" or "string" or "float", each of which have certain behavior, and operations that are possible.
For example, you can take the square root of a float, but not of a string. You can concatenate two strings, or you can add two integers. Each of these data types represent a general concept (integers, text or numbers with a fixed number of significant digits, which may or may not be fractional)
A class is simply a user-defined datatype that can represent some other concept, including the operations that are legal on it.
For example, we could define a "password" class which implements the behavior expected of a password. That is, we should be able to take a text string and create a password from it. (If I type 'secret02', that is a legal password). It should probably perform some verification on this input string, making sure that it is at least N characters long, and perhaps that it is not a dictionary word. And it should not allow us to read the password. (A password is usually represented as ****** on the screen). Instead, it should simply allow us to compare the password to other passwords, to see if it is identical.
If the password I just typed is the same as the one I originally signed up with, I should be allowed to log in. But what the password actually is, is not something the application I'm logging in to should know. So our password class should define a comparison function, but not a "display" function.
A class basically holds some data, and defines which operations are legal on that data. It creates an abstraction.
In the password example, the data is obviously just a text string internally, but the class allows only a few operations on this data. It prevents us from using the password as a string, and instead only allows the specific operations that would make sense for a password.
In most languages, the members of a class can be either private or public. Anything that is private can only be accessed by other members of the class. That is how we would implement the string stored inside the password class. It is private, so it is still visible to the operations we define in the class, but code outside the class can not just access the string inside a password. They can only access the public members of the class.
A class is a form of structure you could think of, such as int, string and so forth that an instance can be made from using object oriented programming language. Like a template or blueprint the class takes on the structure. You write this structure with every association to the class. Something from a class would be used as an object instance in the Main() method where all the sysync programming steps take place.
This is why you see people write code like Car car = new Car();to draw out a new object from a class. I personally do not like this type of code, its very bad and circular and does not explain which part is the class syntax (arrangement). Too bad many programmers use this syntax and it is difficult for beginners to understand what they are perceiving.
Think of this as,
CarClass theCar = new CarClass(); //
The class essentially takes on the infinitely many forms. You can write properties that describe the CarClass and every car generated will have these. To get them from the property that "gets" what (reads) and "sets" what (writes) data, you simply use the dot operator on the object instance generates in the Main() and state the descriptive property to the actual noun. The class is the noumenon (a word for something like math and numbers, you cannot perceive it to the senses but its a thought like the #1). Instead of writing each item as a variable the class enables us to write a definition of the object to use.
With the ability to write infinitely many things there is great responsibility! Like "Hello World!" how this little first statement says much about our audience as programmers.
So
CarClass theCar = new CarClass(); //In a way this says this word "car" will be a car
theCar.Color = red; //Given the instance of a car we can add that color detail.
Now these are only implementations of the CarClass, not how to build one.
You must be wondering what are some other terms, a field, constructor, and class level methods and why we use them and indexing.
A field is another modifier on a property. These tend to be written on a private class level so nothing from the outside affects it and tends to be focused on the property itself for functionality. It is in another region where you declare it usually with an underscore in front of it. The field will add constraints necessary to maintain data integrity meaning that you will prevent people from writing values that make no sense in the context. (Like real like measurements in the negative... that is just not real.)
The Constructor
The easiest way to describe a constructor is to make claims to some default values on the object properties where the constructor scope is laid. In example a car has a color, a max speed, a model and a company. But what should these values be and should some be used in millions of copies from the CarClass or just a few? The constructor enables one to do this, to generate copies by establishing a basic quality. These values are the defaults assigned to a property in a constructor block. To design a constructor block type ctor[tab][tab]. Inside this simply refer to those properties you write above and place an assigned value on it.
Color = “Red”;
If you go to the main() and now use the car.Color property in any writing output component such as a the console window or textbox you should see the word “Red”. The details are thus implicit and hidden. Instead of offering every word from a book you simply refer to the book then the computer gets the remaining information. This makes code scripts compact and easy to use.
The Class level method should explain how to do some process over and over. Typically a string or some writing you can format some written information for a class and format it with placeholders that are in the writing to display that are represented with your class properties. It makes sense when you make an object instance then need to use the object to display the details in a .ToString() form. The class object instance in a sense can also contain information like a book or box. When we write .ToString() with a ToString override method at class level it will print your custom ToString method and how it should explain the code. You can also write a property .ToString() and read it. This below being a string should read fine as it is...
Console.Writeline(theCar.Color);
Once you get many objects, one at a time you can put them in a list that allows you to add or remove them. Just wait...
Here's a good page about Classes and Objects:
http://ficl.sourceforge.net/oo_in_c.html
This is a resource which I would kindly recommend
http://www.cplusplus.com/doc/tutorial/
not sure why, but starting with C++ to apply OOP might be natural prior of any other language, the above link helped me a lot when I started at least.
Classes are a way programmers mark their territory on code.
They are supposedly necessary for writing big projects.
Linus and his team must have missed that memo developing the linux kernel.
However, they can be good for organization and categorizing code I guess.
It makes it easier to navigate code in an ide such as visual studio with the object browsers.
Here are some usage demonstrations of classes in 31 languages on rosettacode
First of all back to the definitions:
Class definition:
Abstract definition of something, an user-type, a blueprint;
Has States / Fields / Properties (what an object knows) and Methods / Behaviors / Member Functions (what an object does);
Defines objects behavior and default values;
Object definition:
Instance of a Class, Repository of data;
Has a unique identity: the property of an object that distinguishes it from other objects;
Has its own states: describes the data stored in the object;
Exhibits some well defined behavior: follows the class’s description;
Instantiation:
Is the way of instantiate a class to create an object;
Leaves the object in a valid state;
Performed by a constructor;
To use a class you must instantiate the class though a contructor. In PHP a straight-forward example could be:
<?php
class SampleClass {
function __construct() {
print "In SampleClass constructor\n";
}
}
// In SampleClass constructor
$obj = new SampleClass ();
?>
Exactly what the topic title says,
In which cases would you prefer using public functions to change local variables over just defining that variable as public and modifying it directly?
Don't expose the data members directly: using opaque accessors means you can change the implementation at a later date without changing the interface.
I should know. I take the short cut from time-to-time, and have had occasion to regret it.
Obviously if you want changing the variable to have some other effect on the object's state (like recalculating some other property of the object) you must use a mutator function.
If it's possible to set the variable to something that places the object in an invalid state, you should probably also use a mutator function. This way you can throw an exception (or return an error, or just ignore) if something illegal is about to happen. This does wonders for debugging.
But if some variables can be modified with mutator functions, and others are public, the programmer needs to keep track of which is which. This is a waste of time and effort so in some cases it's easiest to just use mutator functions for everything.
If you look at an object purely in term of service, you realize that exposing a variable is not a good way to expose those services.
The API must reflect what the object is all about (for it to achieve a high cohesiveness), and if you define a setValue(...), it is not so much because you need a way to -- today -- changes a variable, but because it makes sense for the object to expose this service.
So:
Don't provide accessors or mutator function to every single member of every single class you write. Only provide accessors/mutator functions if the accessors/mutator methods are a sensible and useful part of the class's interface (API).
Don't think of these methods as accessors or mutators. Instead, think of them as methods that access or mutate a certain abstract property of the object that happens to be represented by a single member today, but may be computed in a more complex manner tomorrow.
You should mention what language you are dealing with, since that will affect the answer.
Your first thought should be about the API to your class. If you want to keep that API stable (and you should!), then consider how you might change today's simple variable into a full-blown method later.
In many languages, you can't change a variable to a method without changing the calling code. C, C++, and Java fall into this category. Never use public variables in these languages, because you won't have any wiggle room later.
In Python, you can change a variable to a property without changing the callers, so you don't have to worry up front: use public variables.
C# I believe has properties that can let you change variables to methods transparently, but I am not sure.
If you want to change a variable inside a class, your best doing it through Properties.
Its not good practice to have variable's modified on the outside.
Think of future development too. You could put some logic behind a Property without changing the whole program.