Related
I'm trying to implement dark mode in my flutter app using provider, but I'm having some issues:
I have a home screen that it has a scaffold widget. The body of the scaffold is a Stack with two different classes, as you can see here:
#override
Widget build(BuildContext context) {
return ClipRRect(
borderRadius: Constant.menuOn
? BorderRadius.circular(60.0)
: BorderRadius.circular(0.0),
child: Scaffold(
body: Stack(
children: const [
Menu(),
HomeScreen(),
],
),
),
);
}
The home screen class has another Scaffold widget, where hos body has another class called body.
It is from the body where I'm able to change the theme of my app using a switch where I can set state my BODY class with the provider as you can see here:
lsetState(() {
final provider = Provider.of<ThemeProvider>(
context,
listen: false);
rovider.toggleTheme(Constant.isDarkMode);
});
My body class change the theme however the class that is under the body class (Remember that my class "MENU" is under the class BODY because the first stake), does not change theme until restart my app (I'm using the same parameters of the body in order to know when has to change the class)...
I want to know how I can set the theme state of my menu class, or in general how I can change any other state from any class.
Note: Both of my class are StatefulWidget.
In general, setState is a very local intra-widget operation. Local data has changed, so the local view needs updating. Wanting to call the setState of another widget is a bad code smell. If you need other views depending on data you've updated, consider one of the state management solutions. (I would, for example, use a Riverpod Provider to hold the data, then watch that in every dependent view.)
Searching online on "how to refactor Flutter widgets" I found that there exist two possible ways that are both functioning as per my testing, still very different from a structural standpoint. The second method, indeed includes and additional building instruction, which should bring a further burden on the app performances right?
This is the code I want to refactor:
Container(
child: Column(
children: <Widget> [
[long code to create a button with many properties],
[long code to create a button with many properties],
[long code to create a button with many properties],
[long code to create a button with many properties],
],),);
These are the main ways I found:
1):
Widget MyButton(Color color, String text) {
return [long code to create a button with many properties];
}
2):
class MyButton extends StatelessWidget {
MyButton(this.color, this.text);
final Color color;
final String text;
#override
Widget build(BuildContext context) {
return [long code to create a button with many properties];
}
}
Which is the best method?
Please take a look and consider this other question:
What is the difference between functions and classes to create reusable widgets?
Short answer: It' better the second method (both efficient and elegant).
In the first method (extract to a function), you are just creating a function that return the encapsulated widget.
In the second method (extract to a class), you are extracting the widget to a new class that extends from StatelessWidget. This difference gives to the Flutter framework a way to make optimizations.
I have realized that it is possible to create widgets using plain functions instead of subclassing StatelessWidget. An example would be this:
Widget function({ String title, VoidCallback callback }) {
return GestureDetector(
onTap: callback,
child: // some widget
);
}
This is interesting because it requires far less code than a full-blown class. Example:
class SomeWidget extends StatelessWidget {
final VoidCallback callback;
final String title;
const SomeWidget({Key key, this.callback, this.title}) : super(key: key);
#override
Widget build(BuildContext context) {
return GestureDetector(
onTap: callback,
child: // some widget
);
}
}
So I've been wondering: Is there any difference besides syntax between functions and classes to create widgets? And is it a good practice to use functions?
Edit: The Flutter team has now taken an official stance on the matter and stated that classes are preferable. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOyq-eTRhvo
TL;DR: Prefer using classes over functions to make reusable widget-tree.
EDIT: To make up for some misunderstanding:
This is not about functions causing problems, but classes solving some.
Flutter wouldn't have StatelessWidget if a function could do the same thing.
Similarly, it is mainly directed at public widgets, made to be reused. It doesn't matter as much for private functions made to be used only once – although being aware of this behavior is still good.
There is an important difference between using functions instead of classes, that is: The framework is unaware of functions, but can see classes.
Consider the following "widget" function:
Widget functionWidget({ Widget child}) {
return Container(child: child);
}
used this way:
functionWidget(
child: functionWidget(),
);
And it's class equivalent:
class ClassWidget extends StatelessWidget {
final Widget child;
const ClassWidget({Key key, this.child}) : super(key: key);
#override
Widget build(BuildContext context) {
return Container(
child: child,
);
}
}
used like that:
new ClassWidget(
child: new ClassWidget(),
);
On paper, both seem to do exactly the same thing: Create 2 Container, with one nested into the other. But the reality is slightly different.
In the case of functions, the generated widget tree looks like this:
Container
Container
While with classes, the widget tree is:
ClassWidget
Container
ClassWidget
Container
This is important because it changes how the framework behaves when updating a widget.
Why that matters
By using functions to split your widget tree into multiple widgets, you expose yourself to bugs and miss on some performance optimizations.
There is no guarantee that you will have bugs by using functions, but by using classes, you are guaranteed to not face these issues.
Here are a few interactive examples on Dartpad that you can run yourself to better understand the issues:
https://dartpad.dev/?id=bcae5878ccced764b35dd9a659a593db
This example showcases how by splitting your app into functions,
you may accidentally break things like AnimatedSwitcher
https://dartpad.dev/?id=481a2c301c2e4bed6c30ba651d01bacb
This example showcases how classes allow more granular rebuilds of the
widget tree, improving performances
https://dartpad.dev/?id=8bcb85ba535102bed652e5bf1540ac3b
This example showcases how, by using functions, you expose yourself
to misusing BuildContext and facing bugs when using InheritedWidgets (such as Theme or providers)
Conclusion
Here's a curated list of the differences between using functions and classes:
Classes:
allow performance optimization (const constructor, more granular rebuild)
ensure that switching between two different layouts correctly disposes of the resources (functions may reuse some previous state)
ensures that hot-reload works properly (using functions could break hot-reload for showDialogs & similar)
are integrated into the widget inspector.
We see ClassWidget in the widget-tree showed by the devtool, which
helps understanding what is on screen
We can override debugFillProperties to print what the parameters passed to a widget are
better error messages
If an exception happens (like ProviderNotFound), the framework will give you the name of the currently building widget.
If you've split your widget tree only in functions + Builder, your errors won't have a helpful name
can define keys
can use the context API
Functions:
have less code (which can be solved using code-generation functional_widget)
Overall, it is considered a bad practice to use functions over classes for reusing widgets because of these reasons.
You can, but it may bite you in the future.
I've been researching on this issue for the past 2 days. I came to the following conclusion: it is OKAY to break down pieces of the app into functions. It's just ideal that those functions return a StatelessWidget, so optimisations can be made, such as making the StatelessWidget const, so it doesn't rebuild if it doesn't have to.
For example, this piece of code is perfectly valid:
import 'package:flutter/material.dart';
void main() => runApp(MyApp());
class MyApp extends StatelessWidget {
#override
Widget build(BuildContext context) {
return MaterialApp(
title: 'Flutter Demo',
theme: ThemeData(
primarySwatch: Colors.blue,
),
home: MyHomePage(title: 'Flutter Demo Home Page'),
);
}
}
class MyHomePage extends StatefulWidget {
MyHomePage({Key key, this.title}) : super(key: key);
final String title;
#override
_MyHomePageState createState() => _MyHomePageState();
}
class _MyHomePageState extends State<MyHomePage> {
int _counter = 0;
void _incrementCounter() {
setState(() {
++_counter;
});
}
#override
Widget build(BuildContext context) {
return Scaffold(
appBar: AppBar(
title: Text(widget.title),
),
body: Center(
child: Column(
mainAxisAlignment: MainAxisAlignment.center,
children: <Widget>[
Text(
'You have pushed the button this many times:',
),
Text(
'$_counter',
style: Theme.of(context).textTheme.display1,
),
const MyWidgetClass(key: const Key('const')),
MyWidgetClass(key: Key('non-const')),
_buildSomeWidgets(_counter),
],
),
),
floatingActionButton: FloatingActionButton(
onPressed: _incrementCounter,
tooltip: 'Increment',
child: Icon(Icons.add),
), // This trailing comma makes auto-formatting nicer for build methods.
);
}
Widget _buildSomeWidgets(int val) {
print('${DateTime.now()} Rebuild _buildSomeWidgets');
return const MyWidgetClass(key: Key('function'));
// This is bad, because it would rebuild this every time
// return Container(
// child: Text("hi"),
// );
}
}
class MyWidgetClass extends StatelessWidget {
const MyWidgetClass({Key key}) : super(key: key);
#override
Widget build(BuildContext context) {
print('${DateTime.now()} Rebuild MyWidgetClass $key');
return Container(
child: Text("hi"),
);
}
}
The use of function there is perfectly fine, as it returns a const StatelessWidget. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
1 - Most of the time build method (child widget) calls number of synchronous and asynchronous functions.
Ex:
To download network image
get input from users etc.
so build method need to keep in the separate class widget (because all other methods call by build() method can keep in one class)
2 - Using the widget class you can create a number of other classes without writing the same code again and again (** Use Of Inheritance** (extends)).
And also using inheritance(extend) and polymorphism (override) you can create your own custom class.
(Down below example, In there I will customize (Override) the animation by extending MaterialPageRoute (because its default transition I want to customize).👇
class MyCustomRoute<T> extends MaterialPageRoute<T> {
MyCustomRoute({ WidgetBuilder builder, RouteSettings settings })
: super(builder: builder, settings: settings);
#override //Customize transition
Widget buildTransitions(BuildContext context,
Animation<double> animation,
Animation<double> secondaryAnimation,
Widget child) {
if (settings.isInitialRoute)
return child;
// Fades between routes. (If you don't want any animation,
// just return child.)
return new FadeTransition(opacity: animation, child: child);
}
}
3 - Functions cannot add conditions for their parameters, But using the class widget's constructor You can do this.
Down below Code example👇 (this feature is heavily used by framework widgets)
const Scaffold({
Key key,
this.bottomNavigationBar,
this.bottomSheet,
this.backgroundColor,
this.resizeToAvoidBottomPadding,
this.resizeToAvoidBottomInset,
this.primary = true,
this.drawerDragStartBehavior = DragStartBehavior.start,
this.extendBody = false,
this.extendBodyBehindAppBar = false,
this.drawerScrimColor,
this.drawerEdgeDragWidth,
}) : assert(primary != null),
assert(extendBody != null),
assert(extendBodyBehindAppBar != null),
assert(drawerDragStartBehavior != null),
super(key: key);
4 - Functions cannot use const and the Class widget can use the const for their constructors.
(that affect the performance of the main thread)
5 - You can create any number of independent widgets using the same class (instances of a class/objects)
But function cannot create independant widgets(instance), but reusing can.
[each instance has its own instance variable and that is completely independant from other widgets(object), But function's local variable is dependant on each function call* (which means, when you change a value of a local variable it affect for all other parts of the application which use this function)]
There were many Advantages in class over functions..(above are few use cases only)
My Final Thought
So don't use Functions as building blocks of your application, use them only for doing Operations.
Otherwise, it causes many unchangeable problems when your application gets scalable.
Use functions for doing a small portion of the task
Use class as a building block of an application(Managing application)
As Remi has eloquently put repeatedly, it's not the functions by themselves that cause a problem, the problem is us thinking that using a function has a similar benefit to using a new widget.
Unfortunately this advice is evolving into "the act of merely using a function is inefficient", with often incorrect speculations into why this might be.
Using a function is almost the same as using what the function returns in place of that function. So, if you are calling a widget constructor and giving it as a child to another widget, you are not making your code inefficient by moving that constructor call into a function.
//...
child: SomeWidget(),
//...
is not significantly better in terms of efficiency than
//...
child: buildSomeWidget();
//...
Widget buildSomeWidget() => SomeWidget();
It is fine to argue the following about the second one:
It's ugly
It's unnecessary
I don't like it
Function does not appear in Flutter Inspector
Two functions may not work with AnimatedSwitcher et al.
It does not create a new context, so you can't reach the Scaffold above it through context
If you use ChangeNotifier in it, its rebuild is not contained within the function
But it's not correct to argue this:
Using a function is inefficient in terms of performance
Creating a new widget brings these performance benefits:
ChangeNotifier within it does not make its parent rebuild upon changes
Sibling widgets are protected from each other's rebuilds
Creating it with const (if possible) protects it from parent's rebuilds
You are more likely to keep your const constructor if you can isolate the changing children to other widgets
However, if you do not have any of these cases, and your build function is looking more and more like pyramid of doom, it is better to refactor a part of it to a function rather than keeping the pyramid. Especially if you are enforcing 80 character limit, you may find yourself writing code in about 20 character-wide space. I see a lot of newbies falling into this trap. The message to those newbies should be "You should really be creating new widgets here. But if you can't, at least create a function.", not "You have to create a widget or else!". Which is why I think we have to be more specific when we promote widgets over functions and avoid being factually incorrect about efficiency.
For your convenience, I have refactored Remi's code to show that the problem is not simply using functions, but the problem is avoiding creating new widgets. So, if you were to place the widget-creating code in those functions into where the functions are called (refactor-inline) you have the exact same behavior as using functions, but without using functions! So, it's not using functions that's the problem, it's the avoidance of creating new widget classes.
(remember to turn off null safety as the original code is from 2018)
Here are a few interactive examples on Dartpad that you can run
yourself to better understand the issues:
https://dartpad.dev/1870e726d7e04699bc8f9d78ba71da35 This example
showcases how by splitting your app into functions, you may
accidentally break things like AnimatedSwitcher
Non-function version: https://dartpad.dev/?id=ae5686f3f760e7a37b682039f546a784
https://dartpad.dev/a869b21a2ebd2466b876a5997c9cf3f1 This example
showcases how classes allow more granular rebuilds of the widget tree,
improving performances
Non-function version: https://dartpad.dev/?id=795f286791110e3abc1900e4dcd9150b
https://dartpad.dev/06842ae9e4b82fad917acb88da108eee This example
showcases how, by using functions, you expose yourself to misusing
BuildContext and facing bugs when using InheritedWidgets (such as
Theme or providers)
Non-function version: https://dartpad.dev/?id=65f753b633f68503262d5adc22ea27c0
You will find that not having them in a function creates the exact same behavior. So it's adding widgets that gives you the win. It's not adding functions that creates a problem.
So the suggestions should be:
Avoid the pyramid of doom at any cost! You need horizontal space to code. Don't get stuck at the right margin.
Create functions if you need, but do not give parameters to them as it's impossible to find the line that calls the function through Flutter Inspector.
Consider creating new widget classes, it's the better way! Try Refactor->Extract Flutter Widget. You won't be able to if your code is too coupled with the current class. Next time you should plan better.
Try to comment out things that prevent you from extracting a new widget. Most likely they are function calls in the current class (setState, etc.). Extract your widget then, and find ways of adding that stuff in. Passing functions to the constructor may be ok (think onPressed). Using a state management system may be even better.
I hope this can help remind why we prefer widgets over functions and that simply using a function is not a huge problem.
Edit: one point that was missed in this whole discussion: when you widgetize, siblings don't rebuild each other anymore. This Dartpad demonstrates this: https://dartpad.dartlang.org/?id=8d9b6d5bd53a23b441c117cd95524892
When you are calling the Flutter widget make sure you use the const keyword. For example const MyListWidget();
In case this helps anyone passing this way, some things I have in my conceptual model of Flutter developed from this question and working with Flutter in general (caveat: I could still be deeply confused and wrong about this stuff).
A Widget is what you want and the Elements are what you have. It is the job of the rendering engine to reconcile the two as efficiently as possible.
Use Keys, they can help a lot.
A BuildContext is an Element.
Any Thing.of(context) is likely to introduce a build dependency. If Thing changes it will trigger a rebuild from the context element.
In your build() if you access a BuildContext from a nested widget you are acting on the Element at the top of your subtree.
Widget build(BuildContext rootElement) {
return Container(
child:Container(
child:Container(
child:Text(
"Depends on rootElement",
// This introduces a build trigger
// If ThemeData changes a rebuild is triggered
// on rootElement not this Text()-induced element
style:Theme.of(rootElement).textTheme.caption,
),
),
),
);
}
AnimatedSwitcher is a slippery beast - it has to be able to distinguish its children. You can use functions if they return different types or return the same type but with different Keys
If you are authoring a Widget use a class not a Function but feel free to refactor your 1000 line build() method with functions/methods, the outcome is identical*.
* but could be even better to refactor into classes
I have realized that it is possible to create widgets using plain functions instead of subclassing StatelessWidget. An example would be this:
Widget function({ String title, VoidCallback callback }) {
return GestureDetector(
onTap: callback,
child: // some widget
);
}
This is interesting because it requires far less code than a full-blown class. Example:
class SomeWidget extends StatelessWidget {
final VoidCallback callback;
final String title;
const SomeWidget({Key key, this.callback, this.title}) : super(key: key);
#override
Widget build(BuildContext context) {
return GestureDetector(
onTap: callback,
child: // some widget
);
}
}
So I've been wondering: Is there any difference besides syntax between functions and classes to create widgets? And is it a good practice to use functions?
Edit: The Flutter team has now taken an official stance on the matter and stated that classes are preferable. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOyq-eTRhvo
TL;DR: Prefer using classes over functions to make reusable widget-tree.
EDIT: To make up for some misunderstanding:
This is not about functions causing problems, but classes solving some.
Flutter wouldn't have StatelessWidget if a function could do the same thing.
Similarly, it is mainly directed at public widgets, made to be reused. It doesn't matter as much for private functions made to be used only once – although being aware of this behavior is still good.
There is an important difference between using functions instead of classes, that is: The framework is unaware of functions, but can see classes.
Consider the following "widget" function:
Widget functionWidget({ Widget child}) {
return Container(child: child);
}
used this way:
functionWidget(
child: functionWidget(),
);
And it's class equivalent:
class ClassWidget extends StatelessWidget {
final Widget child;
const ClassWidget({Key key, this.child}) : super(key: key);
#override
Widget build(BuildContext context) {
return Container(
child: child,
);
}
}
used like that:
new ClassWidget(
child: new ClassWidget(),
);
On paper, both seem to do exactly the same thing: Create 2 Container, with one nested into the other. But the reality is slightly different.
In the case of functions, the generated widget tree looks like this:
Container
Container
While with classes, the widget tree is:
ClassWidget
Container
ClassWidget
Container
This is important because it changes how the framework behaves when updating a widget.
Why that matters
By using functions to split your widget tree into multiple widgets, you expose yourself to bugs and miss on some performance optimizations.
There is no guarantee that you will have bugs by using functions, but by using classes, you are guaranteed to not face these issues.
Here are a few interactive examples on Dartpad that you can run yourself to better understand the issues:
https://dartpad.dev/?id=bcae5878ccced764b35dd9a659a593db
This example showcases how by splitting your app into functions,
you may accidentally break things like AnimatedSwitcher
https://dartpad.dev/?id=481a2c301c2e4bed6c30ba651d01bacb
This example showcases how classes allow more granular rebuilds of the
widget tree, improving performances
https://dartpad.dev/?id=8bcb85ba535102bed652e5bf1540ac3b
This example showcases how, by using functions, you expose yourself
to misusing BuildContext and facing bugs when using InheritedWidgets (such as Theme or providers)
Conclusion
Here's a curated list of the differences between using functions and classes:
Classes:
allow performance optimization (const constructor, more granular rebuild)
ensure that switching between two different layouts correctly disposes of the resources (functions may reuse some previous state)
ensures that hot-reload works properly (using functions could break hot-reload for showDialogs & similar)
are integrated into the widget inspector.
We see ClassWidget in the widget-tree showed by the devtool, which
helps understanding what is on screen
We can override debugFillProperties to print what the parameters passed to a widget are
better error messages
If an exception happens (like ProviderNotFound), the framework will give you the name of the currently building widget.
If you've split your widget tree only in functions + Builder, your errors won't have a helpful name
can define keys
can use the context API
Functions:
have less code (which can be solved using code-generation functional_widget)
Overall, it is considered a bad practice to use functions over classes for reusing widgets because of these reasons.
You can, but it may bite you in the future.
I've been researching on this issue for the past 2 days. I came to the following conclusion: it is OKAY to break down pieces of the app into functions. It's just ideal that those functions return a StatelessWidget, so optimisations can be made, such as making the StatelessWidget const, so it doesn't rebuild if it doesn't have to.
For example, this piece of code is perfectly valid:
import 'package:flutter/material.dart';
void main() => runApp(MyApp());
class MyApp extends StatelessWidget {
#override
Widget build(BuildContext context) {
return MaterialApp(
title: 'Flutter Demo',
theme: ThemeData(
primarySwatch: Colors.blue,
),
home: MyHomePage(title: 'Flutter Demo Home Page'),
);
}
}
class MyHomePage extends StatefulWidget {
MyHomePage({Key key, this.title}) : super(key: key);
final String title;
#override
_MyHomePageState createState() => _MyHomePageState();
}
class _MyHomePageState extends State<MyHomePage> {
int _counter = 0;
void _incrementCounter() {
setState(() {
++_counter;
});
}
#override
Widget build(BuildContext context) {
return Scaffold(
appBar: AppBar(
title: Text(widget.title),
),
body: Center(
child: Column(
mainAxisAlignment: MainAxisAlignment.center,
children: <Widget>[
Text(
'You have pushed the button this many times:',
),
Text(
'$_counter',
style: Theme.of(context).textTheme.display1,
),
const MyWidgetClass(key: const Key('const')),
MyWidgetClass(key: Key('non-const')),
_buildSomeWidgets(_counter),
],
),
),
floatingActionButton: FloatingActionButton(
onPressed: _incrementCounter,
tooltip: 'Increment',
child: Icon(Icons.add),
), // This trailing comma makes auto-formatting nicer for build methods.
);
}
Widget _buildSomeWidgets(int val) {
print('${DateTime.now()} Rebuild _buildSomeWidgets');
return const MyWidgetClass(key: Key('function'));
// This is bad, because it would rebuild this every time
// return Container(
// child: Text("hi"),
// );
}
}
class MyWidgetClass extends StatelessWidget {
const MyWidgetClass({Key key}) : super(key: key);
#override
Widget build(BuildContext context) {
print('${DateTime.now()} Rebuild MyWidgetClass $key');
return Container(
child: Text("hi"),
);
}
}
The use of function there is perfectly fine, as it returns a const StatelessWidget. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
1 - Most of the time build method (child widget) calls number of synchronous and asynchronous functions.
Ex:
To download network image
get input from users etc.
so build method need to keep in the separate class widget (because all other methods call by build() method can keep in one class)
2 - Using the widget class you can create a number of other classes without writing the same code again and again (** Use Of Inheritance** (extends)).
And also using inheritance(extend) and polymorphism (override) you can create your own custom class.
(Down below example, In there I will customize (Override) the animation by extending MaterialPageRoute (because its default transition I want to customize).👇
class MyCustomRoute<T> extends MaterialPageRoute<T> {
MyCustomRoute({ WidgetBuilder builder, RouteSettings settings })
: super(builder: builder, settings: settings);
#override //Customize transition
Widget buildTransitions(BuildContext context,
Animation<double> animation,
Animation<double> secondaryAnimation,
Widget child) {
if (settings.isInitialRoute)
return child;
// Fades between routes. (If you don't want any animation,
// just return child.)
return new FadeTransition(opacity: animation, child: child);
}
}
3 - Functions cannot add conditions for their parameters, But using the class widget's constructor You can do this.
Down below Code example👇 (this feature is heavily used by framework widgets)
const Scaffold({
Key key,
this.bottomNavigationBar,
this.bottomSheet,
this.backgroundColor,
this.resizeToAvoidBottomPadding,
this.resizeToAvoidBottomInset,
this.primary = true,
this.drawerDragStartBehavior = DragStartBehavior.start,
this.extendBody = false,
this.extendBodyBehindAppBar = false,
this.drawerScrimColor,
this.drawerEdgeDragWidth,
}) : assert(primary != null),
assert(extendBody != null),
assert(extendBodyBehindAppBar != null),
assert(drawerDragStartBehavior != null),
super(key: key);
4 - Functions cannot use const and the Class widget can use the const for their constructors.
(that affect the performance of the main thread)
5 - You can create any number of independent widgets using the same class (instances of a class/objects)
But function cannot create independant widgets(instance), but reusing can.
[each instance has its own instance variable and that is completely independant from other widgets(object), But function's local variable is dependant on each function call* (which means, when you change a value of a local variable it affect for all other parts of the application which use this function)]
There were many Advantages in class over functions..(above are few use cases only)
My Final Thought
So don't use Functions as building blocks of your application, use them only for doing Operations.
Otherwise, it causes many unchangeable problems when your application gets scalable.
Use functions for doing a small portion of the task
Use class as a building block of an application(Managing application)
As Remi has eloquently put repeatedly, it's not the functions by themselves that cause a problem, the problem is us thinking that using a function has a similar benefit to using a new widget.
Unfortunately this advice is evolving into "the act of merely using a function is inefficient", with often incorrect speculations into why this might be.
Using a function is almost the same as using what the function returns in place of that function. So, if you are calling a widget constructor and giving it as a child to another widget, you are not making your code inefficient by moving that constructor call into a function.
//...
child: SomeWidget(),
//...
is not significantly better in terms of efficiency than
//...
child: buildSomeWidget();
//...
Widget buildSomeWidget() => SomeWidget();
It is fine to argue the following about the second one:
It's ugly
It's unnecessary
I don't like it
Function does not appear in Flutter Inspector
Two functions may not work with AnimatedSwitcher et al.
It does not create a new context, so you can't reach the Scaffold above it through context
If you use ChangeNotifier in it, its rebuild is not contained within the function
But it's not correct to argue this:
Using a function is inefficient in terms of performance
Creating a new widget brings these performance benefits:
ChangeNotifier within it does not make its parent rebuild upon changes
Sibling widgets are protected from each other's rebuilds
Creating it with const (if possible) protects it from parent's rebuilds
You are more likely to keep your const constructor if you can isolate the changing children to other widgets
However, if you do not have any of these cases, and your build function is looking more and more like pyramid of doom, it is better to refactor a part of it to a function rather than keeping the pyramid. Especially if you are enforcing 80 character limit, you may find yourself writing code in about 20 character-wide space. I see a lot of newbies falling into this trap. The message to those newbies should be "You should really be creating new widgets here. But if you can't, at least create a function.", not "You have to create a widget or else!". Which is why I think we have to be more specific when we promote widgets over functions and avoid being factually incorrect about efficiency.
For your convenience, I have refactored Remi's code to show that the problem is not simply using functions, but the problem is avoiding creating new widgets. So, if you were to place the widget-creating code in those functions into where the functions are called (refactor-inline) you have the exact same behavior as using functions, but without using functions! So, it's not using functions that's the problem, it's the avoidance of creating new widget classes.
(remember to turn off null safety as the original code is from 2018)
Here are a few interactive examples on Dartpad that you can run
yourself to better understand the issues:
https://dartpad.dev/1870e726d7e04699bc8f9d78ba71da35 This example
showcases how by splitting your app into functions, you may
accidentally break things like AnimatedSwitcher
Non-function version: https://dartpad.dev/?id=ae5686f3f760e7a37b682039f546a784
https://dartpad.dev/a869b21a2ebd2466b876a5997c9cf3f1 This example
showcases how classes allow more granular rebuilds of the widget tree,
improving performances
Non-function version: https://dartpad.dev/?id=795f286791110e3abc1900e4dcd9150b
https://dartpad.dev/06842ae9e4b82fad917acb88da108eee This example
showcases how, by using functions, you expose yourself to misusing
BuildContext and facing bugs when using InheritedWidgets (such as
Theme or providers)
Non-function version: https://dartpad.dev/?id=65f753b633f68503262d5adc22ea27c0
You will find that not having them in a function creates the exact same behavior. So it's adding widgets that gives you the win. It's not adding functions that creates a problem.
So the suggestions should be:
Avoid the pyramid of doom at any cost! You need horizontal space to code. Don't get stuck at the right margin.
Create functions if you need, but do not give parameters to them as it's impossible to find the line that calls the function through Flutter Inspector.
Consider creating new widget classes, it's the better way! Try Refactor->Extract Flutter Widget. You won't be able to if your code is too coupled with the current class. Next time you should plan better.
Try to comment out things that prevent you from extracting a new widget. Most likely they are function calls in the current class (setState, etc.). Extract your widget then, and find ways of adding that stuff in. Passing functions to the constructor may be ok (think onPressed). Using a state management system may be even better.
I hope this can help remind why we prefer widgets over functions and that simply using a function is not a huge problem.
Edit: one point that was missed in this whole discussion: when you widgetize, siblings don't rebuild each other anymore. This Dartpad demonstrates this: https://dartpad.dartlang.org/?id=8d9b6d5bd53a23b441c117cd95524892
When you are calling the Flutter widget make sure you use the const keyword. For example const MyListWidget();
In case this helps anyone passing this way, some things I have in my conceptual model of Flutter developed from this question and working with Flutter in general (caveat: I could still be deeply confused and wrong about this stuff).
A Widget is what you want and the Elements are what you have. It is the job of the rendering engine to reconcile the two as efficiently as possible.
Use Keys, they can help a lot.
A BuildContext is an Element.
Any Thing.of(context) is likely to introduce a build dependency. If Thing changes it will trigger a rebuild from the context element.
In your build() if you access a BuildContext from a nested widget you are acting on the Element at the top of your subtree.
Widget build(BuildContext rootElement) {
return Container(
child:Container(
child:Container(
child:Text(
"Depends on rootElement",
// This introduces a build trigger
// If ThemeData changes a rebuild is triggered
// on rootElement not this Text()-induced element
style:Theme.of(rootElement).textTheme.caption,
),
),
),
);
}
AnimatedSwitcher is a slippery beast - it has to be able to distinguish its children. You can use functions if they return different types or return the same type but with different Keys
If you are authoring a Widget use a class not a Function but feel free to refactor your 1000 line build() method with functions/methods, the outcome is identical*.
* but could be even better to refactor into classes
I am trying to insert a Container to the Overlay, but I had an error with this code.
class _MyHomePageState extends State<MyHomePage> {
#override
void didChangeDependencies() {
super.didChangeDependencies();
final entry = OverlayEntry(builder: (BuildContext overlayContext) {
return Container(
height: 50.0,
width: 50.0,
color: Colors.blue,
);
});
_addOverlay(entry);
}
void _addOverlay(OverlayEntry entry) async {
Overlay.of(context).insert(entry);
}
#override
Widget build(BuildContext context) {
return Scaffold(
appBar: AppBar(
title: Text('Flutter'),
),
body: Center(),
);
}
}
This is error
setState() or markNeedsBuild() called during build. This Overlay widget cannot be marked as needing to build because the framework is already in the process of building widgets. A widget can be marked as needing to be built during the build phase only if one of its ancestors is currently building. This exception is allowed because the framework builds parent widgets before children, which means a dirty descendant will always be built. Otherwise, the framework might not visit this widget during this build phase...
Thank you in advance.
Since the last update to flutter 0.8.1 I noticed this change too. I fixed this to add the overlay after a minimal delay
Timer.run(() { Overlay.of(context).insert(calendarOverlay);});
Now this works but it feels like a hack...
So in my build i use this code when the overlay should present itself..
If anyone has a better solution, I am interested ;-)
John
UPDATE: I found this code to be working too:
final overlay = Overlay.of(context);
WidgetsBinding.instance.addPostFrameCallback((_) => overlay.insert(entry));
It saves me from including timers...
Just share some of my findings. I am about to implement overlay in my app too. So found this SO question by searching.
Many people build overlay before the normal widget. For example, in your code, the overlay insert in didChangeDependencies is called before building the Scaffold. This is the cause of all the async problems. I found people do this (couple the overlay insert and corresponding normal widget in a stateful widget) is because they want to find the corresponding child widget's position, but the child widget is build after the overlay insert call, thus the overlay insert has to be in an async function.
But If you just call overlay insert after building the normal widget (make overlay insert call independent from building the base widget. Separate/decouple them), you won't need any async or Timer functions at all. In my current implementation, I separate them just to make the code safe (I feel it's safer). So no need for any async calls.