Are functions which involve type paramters limited in their use to collections ?
Such as appending, removing and sorting of Lists of generic types ?
I find I rarely ever encounter a use case for type parameters but at same time feel that I may be missing something ?
This code :
object customType {
class MyClass[A] = {
def doFun(a : A) = {
}
}
}
The method doFun cannot actually perform anything on the type A (other than List operations)
as its type is unbouned/not known ?
Type parameters appear to be very powerful, but I would like to extend their use to not just type checking that
collections contain the correct types at compile time. Are there other common examples/patterns that display the use of
type parameters ?
The short answer is that it might not be useful to you if you are an application programmer. More often you will end up using a library that has used type parameters. They are useful for solving general patterns of coding (thus generics), thus why they are often in library code where the writer does not know what the end user will need.
That being said, you might want to read up on type classes, as they can be a decent way to solve some dependency problems even at application level coding. And, last...the pattern that types come in most handy for is the ...duh duh duh... monad pattern :), which is not nearly as scary as it's made out to be.
Related
This question may be very silly, but I am a little confused which is the best way to do in scala.
In scala, compiler does the type inference and assign the most closest(or may be Restrictive) type for each variable or a method.
I am new to scala, and from many sample code/ libraries, I have noticed that in many places people are not explicitly providing the types for most of the time. But, in most of the code I wrote, I was/still am explicitly providing the types. For eg:
val someVal: String = "def"
def getMeResult() : List[String]= {
val list:List[String] = List("abc","def")
list
}
The reason I started to write this especially for method return type is that, when I write a method itself, I know what it should return. So If I explicitly provide the return type, I can find out if I am making any mistakes. Also, I felt it is easier to understand what that method returns by reading the return type itself. Otherwise, I will have to check what the return type of the last statement.
So my questions/doubts are :
1. Does it take less compilation time since the compiler doesn't have to infer much? Or it doesn't matter much ?
2. What is the normal standard in the scala world?
From "Scala in Depth" chapter 4.5:
For a human reading a nontrivial method implementation, infering the
return type can be troubling. It’s best to explicitly document and
enforce return types in public APIs.
From "Programming in Scala" chapter 2:
Sometimes the Scala compiler will require you to specify the result
type of a function. If the function is recursive, for example, you
must explicitly specify the function’s result type.
It is often a good idea to indicate function result types explicitly.
Such type annotations can make the code easier to read, because the
reader need not study the function body to figure out the inferred
result type.
From "Scala in Action" chapter 2.2.3:
It’s a good practice to specify the return type for the users of the
library. If you think it’s not clear from the function what its return
type is, either try to improve the name or specify the return type.
From "Programming Scala" chapter 1:
Recursive functions are one exception where the execution scope
extends beyond the scope of the body, so the return type must be
declared.
For simple functions perhaps it’s not that important to show it
explicitly. However, sometimes the inferred type won’t be what’s
expected. Explicit return types provide useful documentation for the
reader. I recommend adding return types, especially in public APIs.
You have to provide explicit return types in the following cases:
When you explicitly call return in a method.
When a method is recursive.
When two or more methods are overloaded and one of them calls another; the calling method needs a return type annotation.
When the inferred return type would be more general than you intended, e.g., Any.
Another reason which has not yet been mentioned in the other answers is the following. You probably know that it is a good idea to program to an interface, not an implementation.
In the case of return values of functions or methods, that means that you don't want users of the function or method to know what specific implementation of some interface (or trait) the function returns - that's an implementation detail you want to hide.
If you write a method like this:
trait Example
class ExampleImpl1 extends Example { ... }
class ExampleImpl2 extends Example { ... }
def example() = new ExampleImpl1
then the return type of the method will be inferred to be ExampleImpl1 - so, it is exposing the fact that it is returning a specific implementation of trait Example. You can use an explicit return type to hide this:
def example(): Example = new ExampleImpl1
The standard rule is to use explicit types for API (in order to specify the type precisely and as a guard against refactoring) and also for implicits (especially because implicits without an explicit type may be ignored if the definition site is after the use site).
To the first question, type inference can be a significant tax, but that is balanced against the ease of both writing and reading expressions.
In the example, the type on the local list is not even a "better java." It's just visual clutter.
However, it should be easy to read the inferred type. Occasionally, I have to fire up the IDE just to tell me what is inferred.
By implication, methods should be short enough so that it's easy to scan for the result type.
Sorry for the lack of references. Maybe someone else will step forward; the topic is frequent on MLs and SO.
2. The scala style guide says
Use type inference where possible, but put clarity first, and favour explicitness in public APIs.
You should almost never annotate the type of a private field or a local variable, as their type will usually be immediately evident in their value:
private val name = "Daniel"
However, you may wish to still display the type where the assigned value has a complex or non-obvious form.
All public methods should have explicit type annotations. Type inference may break encapsulation in these cases, because it depends on internal method and class details. Without an explicit type, a change to the internals of a method or val could alter the public API of the class without warning, potentially breaking client code. Explicit type annotations can also help to improve compile times.
The twitter scala style guide says of method return types:
While Scala allows these to be omitted, such annotations provide good documentation: this is especially important for public methods. Where a method is not exposed and its return type obvious, omit them.
I think there's a broad consensus that explicit types should be used for public APIs, and shouldn't be used for most local variable declarations. When to use explicit types for "internal" methods is less clear-cut and more a matter of judgement; different organizations have different standards.
1. Type inference doesn't seem to visibly affect compilation time for the line where the inference happens (aside from a few rare cases with implicits which are basically compiler bugs) - after all, the compiler still has to check the type, which is pretty much the same calculation it would use to infer it. But if a method return type is inferred then anything using that method has to be recompiled when that method changes.
So inferring a method (or public variable) that's used in many places can slow down compilation (particularly if you're using incremental compilation). But inferring local or private variables, private methods, or public methods that are only used in one or two places, makes no (significant) difference.
I've been reading a lot of other people's Scala code recently, and one of the things that I have difficultly with (coming from Java) is a lack of explicit type annotations.
It's certainly convenient when writing code to be able to leave out type annotations -- however when reading code I often find that explicit type annotations help me to understand at a glance what code is doing more easily.
The Scala style guide (http://docs.scala-lang.org/style/types.html) doesn't seem to provide any definitive guidance on this, stating:
Use type inference where possible, but put clarity first, and favour explicitness in public APIs.
To my mind, this is a bit contradictory. While it's clearly obvious what type this variable is:
val tokens = new HashMap[String, Int]
It's not so obvious what type this one is:
val tokens = readTokens()
So, if I was putting clarity first I would probably annotate all variables where the type is not already declared on the same line.
Do any Scala practitioners have guidance on this? Am I crazy to be considering adding type annotations to my local variables? I'm particularly interested in hearing from folks who spend a lot of time reading scala code (for example, in code reviews), as well as writing it.
It's not so obvious what type this one is:
val tokens = readTokens()
Good names are important: the name is plural, ergo it returns some collection of some kind. The most general collection types in Scala are Traversable and Iterator, and they mostly share a common interface, so it's not really important which one of the two it is. The name also talks about "reading tokens", ergo it obviously should return Tokens in some fashion. And last but not least, the method call has parentheses, which according to the style guide means it has side-effects, so I wouldn't count on being able to traverse the collection more than once.
Ergo, the return type is something like
Traversable[Token]
or
Iterator[Token]
and which of the two it is doesn't really matter because their client interfaces are mostly identical.
Note also that the latter constraint (only traversing the collection once) isn't even captured in the type, even if you were providing an explicit type, you would still have to look at the name and the style!
I am new to Scala and heard a lot that everything is an object in Scala. What I don't get is what's the advantage of "everything's an object"? What are things that I cannot do if everything is not an object? Examples are welcome. Thanks
The advantage of having "everything" be an object is that you have far fewer cases where abstraction breaks.
For example, methods are not objects in Java. So if I have two strings, I can
String s1 = "one";
String s2 = "two";
static String caps(String s) { return s.toUpperCase(); }
caps(s1); // Works
caps(s2); // Also works
So we have abstracted away string identity in our operation of making something upper case. But what if we want to abstract away the identity of the operation--that is, we do something to a String that gives back another String but we want to abstract away what the details are? Now we're stuck, because methods aren't objects in Java.
In Scala, methods can be converted to functions, which are objects. For instance:
def stringop(s: String, f: String => String) = if (s.length > 0) f(s) else s
stringop(s1, _.toUpperCase)
stringop(s2, _.toLowerCase)
Now we have abstracted the idea of performing some string transformation on nonempty strings.
And we can make lists of the operations and such and pass them around, if that's what we need to do.
There are other less essential cases (object vs. class, primitive vs. not, value classes, etc.), but the big one is collapsing the distinction between method and object so that passing around and abstracting over functionality is just as easy as passing around and abstracting over data.
The advantage is that you don't have different operators that follow different rules within your language. For example, in Java to perform operations involving objects, you use the dot name technique of calling the code (static objects still use the dot name technique, but sometimes the this object or the static object is inferred) while built-in items (not objects) use a different method, that of built-in operator manipulation.
Number one = Integer.valueOf(1);
Number two = Integer.valueOf(2);
Number three = one.plus(two); // if only such methods existed.
int one = 1;
int two = 2;
int three = one + two;
the main differences is that the dot name technique is subject to polymorphisim, operator overloading, method hiding, and all the good stuff that you can do with Java objects. The + technique is predefined and completely not flexible.
Scala circumvents the inflexibility of the + method by basically handling it as a dot name operator, and defining a strong one-to-one mapping of such operators to object methods. Hence, in Scala everything is an object means that everything is an object, so the operation
5 + 7
results in two objects being created (a 5 object and a 7 object) the plus method of the 5 object being called with the parameter 7 (if my scala memory serves me correctly) and a "12" object being returned as the value of the 5 + 7 operation.
This everything is an object has a lot of benefits in a functional programming environment, for example, blocks of code now are object too, making it possible to pass back and forth blocks of code (without names) as parameters, yet still be bound to strict type checking (the block of code only returns Long or a subclass of String or whatever).
When it boils down to it, it makes some kinds of solutions very easy to implement, and often the inefficiencies are mitigated by the lack of need to handle "move into primitives, manipulate, move out of primitives" marshalling code.
One specific advantage that comes to my mind (since you asked for examples) is what in Java are primitive types (int, boolean ...) , in Scala are objects that you can add functionality to with implicit conversions. For example, if you want to add a toRoman method to ints, you could write an implicit class like:
implicit class RomanInt(i:Int){
def toRoman = //some algorithm to convert i to a Roman representation
}
Then, you could call this method from any Int literal like :
val romanFive = 5.toRoman // V
This way you can 'pimp' basic types to adapt them to your needs
In addition to the points made by others, I always emphasize that the uniform treatment of all values in Scala is in part an illusion. For the most part it is a very welcome illusion. And Scala is very smart to use real JVM primitives as much as possible and to perform automatic transformations (usually referred to as boxing and unboxing) only as much as necessary.
However, if the dynamic pattern of application of automatic boxing and unboxing is very high, there can be undesirable costs (both memory and CPU) associated with it. This can be partially mitigated with the use of specialization, which creates special versions of generic classes when particular type parameters are of (programmer-specified) primitive types. This avoids boxing and unboxing but comes at the cost of more .class files in your running application.
Not everything is an object in Scala, though more things are objects in Scala than their analogues in Java.
The advantage of objects is that they're bags of state which also have some behavior coupled with them. With the addition of polymorphism, objects give you ways of changing the implicit behavior and state. Enough with the poetry, let's go into some examples.
The if statement is not an object, in either scala or java. If it were, you could be able to subclass it, inject another dependency in its place, and use it to do stuff like logging to a file any time your code makes use of the if statement. Wouldn't that be magical? It would in some cases help you debug stuff, and in other cases it would make your hairs grow white before you found a bug caused by someone overwriting the behavior of if.
Visiting an objectless, statementful world: Imaging your favorite OOP programming language. Think of the standard library it provides. There's plenty of classes there, right? They offer ways for customization, right? They take parameters that are other objects, they create other objects. You can customize all of these. You have polymorphism. Now imagine that all the standard library was simply keywords. You wouldn't be able to customize nearly as much, because you can't overwrite keywords. You'd be stuck with whatever cases the language designers decided to implement, and you'd be helpless in customizing anything there. Such languages exist, you know them well, they're the sequel-like languages. You can barely create functions there, but in order to customize the behavior of the SELECT statement, new versions of the language had to appear which included the features most desired. This would be an extreme world, where you'd only be able to program by asking the language designers for new features (which you might not get, because someone else more important would require some feature incompatible with what you want)
In conclusion, NOT everything is an object in scala: Classes, expressions, keywords and packages surely aren't. More things however are, like functions.
What's IMHO a nice rule of thumb is that more objects equals more flexibility
P.S. in Python for example, even more things are objects (like the classes themselves, the analogous concept for packages (that is python modules and packages). You'd see how there, black magic is easier to do, and that brings both good and bad consequences.
I mean if there's some declarative way to prevent an object from changing any of it's members.
In the following example
class student(var name:String)
val s = new student("John")
"s" has been declared as a val, so it will always point to the same student.
But is there some way to prevent s.name from being changed by just declaring it like immutable???
Or the only solution is to declare everything as val, and manually force immutability?
No, it's not possible to declare something immutable. You have to enforce immutability yourself, by not allowing anyone to change it, that is remove all ways of modifying the class.
Someone can still modify it using reflection, but that's another story.
Scala doesn't enforce that, so there is no way to know. There is, however, an interesting compiler-plugin project named pusca (I guess it stands for Pure-Scala). Pure is defined there as not mutating a non-local variable and being side-effect free (e.g. not printing to the console)—so that calling a pure method repeatedly will always yield the same result (what is called referentially transparent).
I haven't tried out that plug-in myself, so I can't say if it's any stable or usable already.
There is no way that Scala could do this generally.
Consider the following hypothetical example:
class Student(var name : String, var course : Course)
def stuff(course : Course) {
magically_pure_val s = new Student("Fredzilla", course)
someFunctionOfStudent(s)
genericHigherOrderFunction(s, someFunctionOfStudent)
course.someMethod()
}
The pitfalls for any attempt to actually implement that magically_pure_val keyword are:
someFunctionOfStudent takes an arbitrary student, and isn't implemented in this compilation unit. It was written/compiled knowing that Student consists of two mutable fields. How do we know it doesn't actually mutate them?
genericHigherOrderFunction is even worse; it's going to take our Student and a function of Student, but it's written polymorphically. Whether or not it actually mutates s depends on what its other arguments are; determining that at compile time with full generality requires solving the Halting Problem.
Let's assume we could get around that (maybe we could set some secret flags that mean exceptions get raised if the s object is actually mutated, though personally I wouldn't find that good enough). What about that course field? Does course.someMethod() mutate it? That method call isn't invoked from s directly.
Worse than that, we only know that we'll have passed in an instance of Course or some subclass of Course. So even if we are able to analyze a particular implementation of Course and Course.someMethod and conclude that this is safe, someone can always add a new subclass of Course whose implementation of someMethod mutates the Course.
There's simply no way for the compiler to check that a given object cannot be mutated. The pusca plugin mentioned by 0__ appears to detect purity the same way Mercury does; by ensuring that every method is known from its signature to be either pure or impure, and by raising a compiler error if the implementation of anything declared to be pure does anything that could cause impurity (unless the programmer promises that the method is pure anyway).[1]
This is quite a different from simply declaring a value to be completely (and deeply) immutable and expecting the compiler to notice if any of the code that could touch it could mutate it. It's also not a perfect inference, just a conservative one
[1]The pusca README claims that it can infer impurity of methods whose last expression is a call to an impure method. I'm not quite sure how it can do this, as checking if that last expression is an impure call requires checking if it's calling a not-declared-impure method that should be declared impure by this rule, and the implementation might not be available to the compiler at that point (and indeed could be changed later even if it is). But all I've done is look at the README and think about it for a few minutes, so I might be missing something.
Structural types are one of those "wow, cool!" features of Scala. However, For every example I can think of where they might help, implicit conversions and dynamic mixin composition often seem like better matches. What are some common uses for them and/or advice on when they are appropriate?
Aside from the rare case of classes which provide the same method but aren't related nor do implement a common interface (for example, the close() method -- Source, for one, does not extend Closeable), I find no use for structural types with their present restriction. If they were more flexible, however, I could well write something like this:
def add[T: { def +(x: T): T }](a: T, b: T) = a + b
which would neatly handle numeric types. Every time I think structural types might help me with something, I hit that particular wall.
EDIT
However unuseful I find structural types myself, the compiler, however, uses it to handle anonymous classes. For example:
implicit def toTimes(count: Int) = new {
def times(block: => Unit) = 1 to count foreach { _ => block }
}
5 times { println("This uses structural types!") }
The object resulting from (the implicit) toTimes(5) is of type { def times(block: => Unit) }, ie, a structural type.
I don't know if Scala does that for every anonymous class -- perhaps it does. Alas, that is one reason why doing pimp my library that way is slow, as structural types use reflection to invoke the methods. Instead of an anonymous class, one should use a real class to avoid performance issues in pimp my library.
Structural types are very cool constructs in Scala. I've used them to represent multiple unrelated types that share an attribute upon which I want to perform a common operation without a new level of abstraction.
I have heard one argument against structural types from people who are strict about an application's architecture. They feel it is dangerous to apply a common operation across types without an associative trait or parent type, because you then leave the rule of what type the method should apply to open-ended. Daniel's close() example is spot on, but what if you have another type that requires different behavior? Someone who doesn't understand the architecture might use it and cause problems in the system.
I think structural types are one of these features that you don't need that often, but when you need it, it helps you a lot. One area where structural types really shine is "retrofitting", e.g. when you need to glue together several pieces of software you have no source code for and which were not intended for reuse. But if you find yourself using structural types a lot, you're probably doing it wrong.
[Edit]
Of course implicits are often the way to go, but there are cases when you can't: Imagine you have a mutable object you can modify with methods, but which hides important parts of it's state, a kind of "black box". Then you have to work somehow with this object.
Another use case for structural types is when code relies on naming conventions without a common interface, e.g. in machine generated code. In the JDK we can find such things as well, like the StringBuffer / StringBuilder pair (where the common interfaces Appendable and CharSequence are way to general).
Structural types gives some benefits of dynamic languages to a statically linked language, specifically loose coupling. If you want a method foo() to call instance methods of class Bar, you don't need an interface or base-class that is common to both foo() and Bar. You can define a structural type that foo() accepts and whose Bar has no clue of existence. As long as Bar contains methods that match the structural type signatures, foo() will be able to call.
It's great because you can put foo() and Bar on distinct, completely unrelated libraries, that is, with no common referenced contract. This reduces linkage requirements and thus further contributes for loose coupling.
In some situations, a structural type can be used as an alternative to the Adapter pattern, because it offers the following advantages:
Object identity is preserved (there is no separate object for the adapter instance, at least in the semantic level).
You don't need to instantiate an adapter - just pass a Bar instance to foo().
You don't need to implement wrapper methods - just declare the required signatures in the structural type.
The structural type doesn't need to know the actual instance class or interface, while the adapter must know Bar so it can call its methods. This way, a single structural type can be used for many actual types, whereas with adapter it's necessary to code multiple classes - one for each actual type.
The only drawback of structural types compared to adapters is that a structural type can't be used to translate method signatures. So, when signatures doesn't match, you must use adapters that will have some translation logic. I particularly don't like to code "intelligent" adapters because in many times they are more than just adapters and cause increased complexity. If a class client needs some additional method, I prefer to simply add such method, since it usually doesn't affect footprint.