Related
What is the difference between a var and val definition in Scala and why does the language need both? Why would you choose a val over a var and vice versa?
As so many others have said, the object assigned to a val cannot be replaced, and the object assigned to a var can. However, said object can have its internal state modified. For example:
class A(n: Int) {
var value = n
}
class B(n: Int) {
val value = new A(n)
}
object Test {
def main(args: Array[String]) {
val x = new B(5)
x = new B(6) // Doesn't work, because I can't replace the object created on the line above with this new one.
x.value = new A(6) // Doesn't work, because I can't replace the object assigned to B.value for a new one.
x.value.value = 6 // Works, because A.value can receive a new object.
}
}
So, even though we can't change the object assigned to x, we could change the state of that object. At the root of it, however, there was a var.
Now, immutability is a good thing for many reasons. First, if an object doesn't change internal state, you don't have to worry if some other part of your code is changing it. For example:
x = new B(0)
f(x)
if (x.value.value == 0)
println("f didn't do anything to x")
else
println("f did something to x")
This becomes particularly important with multithreaded systems. In a multithreaded system, the following can happen:
x = new B(1)
f(x)
if (x.value.value == 1) {
print(x.value.value) // Can be different than 1!
}
If you use val exclusively, and only use immutable data structures (that is, avoid arrays, everything in scala.collection.mutable, etc.), you can rest assured this won't happen. That is, unless there's some code, perhaps even a framework, doing reflection tricks -- reflection can change "immutable" values, unfortunately.
That's one reason, but there is another reason for it. When you use var, you can be tempted into reusing the same var for multiple purposes. This has some problems:
It will be more difficult for people reading the code to know what is the value of a variable in a certain part of the code.
You may forget to re-initialize the variable in some code path, and end up passing wrong values downstream in the code.
Simply put, using val is safer and leads to more readable code.
We can, then, go the other direction. If val is that better, why have var at all? Well, some languages did take that route, but there are situations in which mutability improves performance, a lot.
For example, take an immutable Queue. When you either enqueue or dequeue things in it, you get a new Queue object. How then, would you go about processing all items in it?
I'll go through that with an example. Let's say you have a queue of digits, and you want to compose a number out of them. For example, if I have a queue with 2, 1, 3, in that order, I want to get back the number 213. Let's first solve it with a mutable.Queue:
def toNum(q: scala.collection.mutable.Queue[Int]) = {
var num = 0
while (!q.isEmpty) {
num *= 10
num += q.dequeue
}
num
}
This code is fast and easy to understand. Its main drawback is that the queue that is passed is modified by toNum, so you have to make a copy of it beforehand. That's the kind of object management that immutability makes you free from.
Now, let's covert it to an immutable.Queue:
def toNum(q: scala.collection.immutable.Queue[Int]) = {
def recurse(qr: scala.collection.immutable.Queue[Int], num: Int): Int = {
if (qr.isEmpty)
num
else {
val (digit, newQ) = qr.dequeue
recurse(newQ, num * 10 + digit)
}
}
recurse(q, 0)
}
Because I can't reuse some variable to keep track of my num, like in the previous example, I need to resort to recursion. In this case, it is a tail-recursion, which has pretty good performance. But that is not always the case: sometimes there is just no good (readable, simple) tail recursion solution.
Note, however, that I can rewrite that code to use an immutable.Queue and a var at the same time! For example:
def toNum(q: scala.collection.immutable.Queue[Int]) = {
var qr = q
var num = 0
while (!qr.isEmpty) {
val (digit, newQ) = qr.dequeue
num *= 10
num += digit
qr = newQ
}
num
}
This code is still efficient, does not require recursion, and you don't need to worry whether you have to make a copy of your queue or not before calling toNum. Naturally, I avoided reusing variables for other purposes, and no code outside this function sees them, so I don't need to worry about their values changing from one line to the next -- except when I explicitly do so.
Scala opted to let the programmer do that, if the programmer deemed it to be the best solution. Other languages have chosen to make such code difficult. The price Scala (and any language with widespread mutability) pays is that the compiler doesn't have as much leeway in optimizing the code as it could otherwise. Java's answer to that is optimizing the code based on the run-time profile. We could go on and on about pros and cons to each side.
Personally, I think Scala strikes the right balance, for now. It is not perfect, by far. I think both Clojure and Haskell have very interesting notions not adopted by Scala, but Scala has its own strengths as well. We'll see what comes up on the future.
val is final, that is, cannot be set. Think final in java.
In simple terms:
var = variable
val = variable + final
val means immutable and var means mutable.
Full discussion.
The difference is that a var can be re-assigned to whereas a val cannot. The mutability, or otherwise of whatever is actually assigned, is a side issue:
import collection.immutable
import collection.mutable
var m = immutable.Set("London", "Paris")
m = immutable.Set("New York") //Reassignment - I have change the "value" at m.
Whereas:
val n = immutable.Set("London", "Paris")
n = immutable.Set("New York") //Will not compile as n is a val.
And hence:
val n = mutable.Set("London", "Paris")
n = mutable.Set("New York") //Will not compile, even though the type of n is mutable.
If you are building a data structure and all of its fields are vals, then that data structure is therefore immutable, as its state cannot change.
Thinking in terms of C++,
val x: T
is analogous to constant pointer to non-constant data
T* const x;
while
var x: T
is analogous to non-constant pointer to non-constant data
T* x;
Favoring val over var increases immutability of the codebase which can facilitate its correctness, concurrency and understandability.
To understand the meaning of having a constant pointer to non-constant data consider the following Scala snippet:
val m = scala.collection.mutable.Map(1 -> "picard")
m // res0: scala.collection.mutable.Map[Int,String] = HashMap(1 -> picard)
Here the "pointer" val m is constant so we cannot re-assign it to point to something else like so
m = n // error: reassignment to val
however we can indeed change the non-constant data itself that m points to like so
m.put(2, "worf")
m // res1: scala.collection.mutable.Map[Int,String] = HashMap(1 -> picard, 2 -> worf)
"val means immutable and var means mutable."
To paraphrase, "val means value and var means variable".
A distinction that happens to be extremely important in computing (because those two concepts define the very essence of what programming is all about), and that OO has managed to blur almost completely, because in OO, the only axiom is that "everything is an object". And that as a consequence, lots of programmers these days tend not to understand/appreciate/recognize, because they have been brainwashed into "thinking the OO way" exclusively. Often leading to variable/mutable objects being used like everywhere, when value/immutable objects might/would often have been better.
val means immutable and var means mutable
you can think val as java programming language final key world or c++ language const key world。
Val means its final, cannot be reassigned
Whereas, Var can be reassigned later.
It's as simple as it name.
var means it can vary
val means invariable
Val - values are typed storage constants. Once created its value cant be re-assigned. a new value can be defined with keyword val.
eg. val x: Int = 5
Here type is optional as scala can infer it from the assigned value.
Var - variables are typed storage units which can be assigned values again as long as memory space is reserved.
eg. var x: Int = 5
Data stored in both the storage units are automatically de-allocated by JVM once these are no longer needed.
In scala values are preferred over variables due to stability these brings to the code particularly in concurrent and multithreaded code.
Though many have already answered the difference between Val and var.
But one point to notice is that val is not exactly like final keyword.
We can change the value of val using recursion but we can never change value of final. Final is more constant than Val.
def factorial(num: Int): Int = {
if(num == 0) 1
else factorial(num - 1) * num
}
Method parameters are by default val and at every call value is being changed.
In terms of javascript , it same as
val -> const
var -> var
I wonder if i can create an implicit increment or "++" operator on "Int" type
that i can be invoked from any scope in my code.
(i.e from any package)
so for exampe:
var x = 4
x++
println(x) // will print 5
thanks.
You can create an implicit class at a high level (util package). I was able to achieve this using explicit type ascription:
object RichPrimitive {
implicit class RichInt(var int: Int) {
def ++ = int = int + 1
}
}
import RichPrimitive.RichInt
var x: RichInt = 4 // if you don't do : RichInt, this does not work
x ++
println(x.int) // returns 5
Not entirely sure why the implicit did not take care of it (without it println for x returned a 4).
No.
Implicit classes don't allow you to change a variable. Note that this is not the same as mutability vs immutability (i.e. changing a 1 to a 2 is changing a variable, not mutating the Int. To contrast, adding a value to a collection.mutable.Map is mutating the Map, not changing the variable that holds the map)
Even if they did allow you to change a variable, implicit classes always need to be imported if you want to use them outside the scope where you define them. You might define your implicit class RichInt in a package object for the main package in your code, but if you want to use it from any other package, you'll still need to import it.
That said, #Tanjin's answer is a fair approximation of what you want.
I have written the following Scala code:
class MyTestApi {
private def toCPArray(inputStr: String): Array[Int] = {
val len = inputStr.length
//invoke ofDim of Scala.Array
val cpArray = Array.ofDim[Int](inputStr.codePointCount(0, len))
var i = 0
var j = 0
while (i < len) {
cpArray(j += 1) = inputStr.codePointAt(i)
i = inputStr.offsetByCodePoints(i, 1)
}
cpArray
}
}
This is what I want to accomplish:
I would create an instance of class MyTestApi and then invoke the method toCPArray and pass to it a parameter of type String. I would then like this method to return me an `Array[Int].
However as it stands now, the Scala IDE is complaining about this line:
**cpArray(j += 1) = inputStr.codePointAt(i)**
type mismatch; Found: Unit required: Int
Two things I would like to accomplish are:
How would I fix this method? (or is it a function)
My hope is, after I understand what it takes to fix this method (or function) I will be able to return the appropriate type. Also, I should be in better position to understand the difference between a method and a function.
So far my research on stackoverflow and Martin Odersky's book seems to suggests to me that what I wrote is a method because it is invokded on an instance of the underlying class. Is my understanding right on that?
After it is fixed, how can i rewrite it in a more Scalaesque way, by getting rid of the var. The code looks more C or java like right now and is a little long in my opinion, after all that I have studied about Scala so far.
Thanks for any help in refactoring the above code to accomplish my learning objectives.
You are calling cpArray.update with an assignment statement which evaluates to Unit when it expects an Integer. You need to call it with an Integer:
j += 1
cpArray(j) = inputStr.codePointAt(i)
Many questions in one. I try to answer them all.
First of all as Jörg pointed out, moving the assignment makes the code work. Contrary to Java and C, Scala's assignment doesn't return the assigned value but Unit.
Now for making it idiomatic. Scala's String can be seem as IndexedSeq[Char], meaning you can generally treat them as IndexedSeqs. So you doing do something like:
inputStr.map{ x => x.toInt }.toArray
This will return an Array[Int]. Notice it will only work for 16-bits char representations. Hopefully it will help in giving an idea of idiomatic Scala, even not being a perfect solution.
For the difference between methods and functions, it's simple: methods are generally defs in a class. Functions one the other hands are Objects in the JVM sense. For example, the above map could be defined like:
def map(f: Function1[Char, Int]):IndexedSeq[Int]
// or
def map(f: Char => Int):IndexedSeq[Int]
Both are the same, => desugars to one of the scala.FunctionN (N from 0 to 22 inclusive).
And x => x.toInt is desugared in a similar way into a instance of scala.Function1. See it's Scaladoc.
So, functions are objects of type scala.FunctionN.
Note: to keep things simple I omitted a few details like type parameters, vals (which often compiles to JVM methods) and probably a few more details.
What exactly is the difference between:
scala> def foo = 5
foo: Int
and
scala> def foo() = 5
foo: ()Int
Seems that in both cases, I end up with a variable foo which I can refer to without parenthesis, always evaluating to 5.
You're not defining a variable in either case. You're defining a method. The first method has no parameter lists, the second has one parameter list, which is empty. The first of these should be
called like this
val x = foo
while the second should be called like this
val x = foo()
However, the Scala compiler will let you call methods with one empty parameter list without the parentheses, so either form of call will work for the second method. Methods without parameter lists cannot be called with the parentheses
The preferred Scala style is to define and call no-argument methods which have side-effects with the parentheses. No-argument methods without side-effects should be defined and called without the parentheseses.
If you actually which to define a variable, the syntax is
val foo = 5
Before anything else is said, def does not define a field, it defines a method.
In the second case, you can omit parenthesis because of a specific feature of Scala. There are two differences of interest here: one mechanical, and one of recommended usage.
Beginning with the latter, it is recommended usage to use empty parameter list when there are side effects. One classic example is close(). You'd omit parenthesis if there are no side effects to calling the element.
Now, as a practical difference -- beyond possible weird syntactic mix-ups in corner cases (I'm not saying there are, just conjecturing) -- structural types must follow the correct convention.
For example, Source had a close method without parenthesis, meaning a structural type of def close(): Unit would not accept Source. Likewise, if I define a structural method as def close: Unit, then Java closeable objects will not be accepted.
What does it mean when I use def to define a field in Scala
You can't define a field using def.
Seems that in both cases, I end up with a variable foo which I can refer to without parenthesis, always evaluating to 5.
No, in both cases you end up with a method foo, which you can call without parentheses.
To see that, you can use javap:
// Main.scala
object Main {
def foo1 = 5
def foo2() = 5
}
F:\MyProgramming\raw>scalac main.scala
F:\MyProgramming\raw>javap Main
Compiled from "main.scala"
public final class Main extends java.lang.Object{
public static final int foo2();
public static final int foo1();
}
However, see http://tommy.chheng.com/index.php/2010/03/when-to-call-methods-with-or-without-parentheses-in-scala/
Additionally to the answers already given I'd like to stress two points:
The possibility to define methods without a parameter list is a way to realize the Uniform Access Principle. This allows to hide the difference between fields and methods, which makes later implementation changes easier.
You can call a method defined as def foo() = 5 using foo, but you can't call a method defined as def foo = 5 using foo()
I'm surprised that nobody mentioned anything about the laziness difference.
While val is evaluated only once at the time of definition, def is evaluated only when we access it and evaluated every-time we access it. See example below:
scala> def foo = {
| println("hi")
| 5
| }
foo: Int
scala> val onlyOnce = foo
scala> def everyTime = foo
scala> onlyOnce
res0: Int = 5
scala> onlyOnce
res1: Int = 5
scala> everyTime
hi
res2: Int = 5
scala> everyTime
hi
res3: Int = 5
What is the difference between a var and val definition in Scala and why does the language need both? Why would you choose a val over a var and vice versa?
As so many others have said, the object assigned to a val cannot be replaced, and the object assigned to a var can. However, said object can have its internal state modified. For example:
class A(n: Int) {
var value = n
}
class B(n: Int) {
val value = new A(n)
}
object Test {
def main(args: Array[String]) {
val x = new B(5)
x = new B(6) // Doesn't work, because I can't replace the object created on the line above with this new one.
x.value = new A(6) // Doesn't work, because I can't replace the object assigned to B.value for a new one.
x.value.value = 6 // Works, because A.value can receive a new object.
}
}
So, even though we can't change the object assigned to x, we could change the state of that object. At the root of it, however, there was a var.
Now, immutability is a good thing for many reasons. First, if an object doesn't change internal state, you don't have to worry if some other part of your code is changing it. For example:
x = new B(0)
f(x)
if (x.value.value == 0)
println("f didn't do anything to x")
else
println("f did something to x")
This becomes particularly important with multithreaded systems. In a multithreaded system, the following can happen:
x = new B(1)
f(x)
if (x.value.value == 1) {
print(x.value.value) // Can be different than 1!
}
If you use val exclusively, and only use immutable data structures (that is, avoid arrays, everything in scala.collection.mutable, etc.), you can rest assured this won't happen. That is, unless there's some code, perhaps even a framework, doing reflection tricks -- reflection can change "immutable" values, unfortunately.
That's one reason, but there is another reason for it. When you use var, you can be tempted into reusing the same var for multiple purposes. This has some problems:
It will be more difficult for people reading the code to know what is the value of a variable in a certain part of the code.
You may forget to re-initialize the variable in some code path, and end up passing wrong values downstream in the code.
Simply put, using val is safer and leads to more readable code.
We can, then, go the other direction. If val is that better, why have var at all? Well, some languages did take that route, but there are situations in which mutability improves performance, a lot.
For example, take an immutable Queue. When you either enqueue or dequeue things in it, you get a new Queue object. How then, would you go about processing all items in it?
I'll go through that with an example. Let's say you have a queue of digits, and you want to compose a number out of them. For example, if I have a queue with 2, 1, 3, in that order, I want to get back the number 213. Let's first solve it with a mutable.Queue:
def toNum(q: scala.collection.mutable.Queue[Int]) = {
var num = 0
while (!q.isEmpty) {
num *= 10
num += q.dequeue
}
num
}
This code is fast and easy to understand. Its main drawback is that the queue that is passed is modified by toNum, so you have to make a copy of it beforehand. That's the kind of object management that immutability makes you free from.
Now, let's covert it to an immutable.Queue:
def toNum(q: scala.collection.immutable.Queue[Int]) = {
def recurse(qr: scala.collection.immutable.Queue[Int], num: Int): Int = {
if (qr.isEmpty)
num
else {
val (digit, newQ) = qr.dequeue
recurse(newQ, num * 10 + digit)
}
}
recurse(q, 0)
}
Because I can't reuse some variable to keep track of my num, like in the previous example, I need to resort to recursion. In this case, it is a tail-recursion, which has pretty good performance. But that is not always the case: sometimes there is just no good (readable, simple) tail recursion solution.
Note, however, that I can rewrite that code to use an immutable.Queue and a var at the same time! For example:
def toNum(q: scala.collection.immutable.Queue[Int]) = {
var qr = q
var num = 0
while (!qr.isEmpty) {
val (digit, newQ) = qr.dequeue
num *= 10
num += digit
qr = newQ
}
num
}
This code is still efficient, does not require recursion, and you don't need to worry whether you have to make a copy of your queue or not before calling toNum. Naturally, I avoided reusing variables for other purposes, and no code outside this function sees them, so I don't need to worry about their values changing from one line to the next -- except when I explicitly do so.
Scala opted to let the programmer do that, if the programmer deemed it to be the best solution. Other languages have chosen to make such code difficult. The price Scala (and any language with widespread mutability) pays is that the compiler doesn't have as much leeway in optimizing the code as it could otherwise. Java's answer to that is optimizing the code based on the run-time profile. We could go on and on about pros and cons to each side.
Personally, I think Scala strikes the right balance, for now. It is not perfect, by far. I think both Clojure and Haskell have very interesting notions not adopted by Scala, but Scala has its own strengths as well. We'll see what comes up on the future.
val is final, that is, cannot be set. Think final in java.
In simple terms:
var = variable
val = variable + final
val means immutable and var means mutable.
Full discussion.
The difference is that a var can be re-assigned to whereas a val cannot. The mutability, or otherwise of whatever is actually assigned, is a side issue:
import collection.immutable
import collection.mutable
var m = immutable.Set("London", "Paris")
m = immutable.Set("New York") //Reassignment - I have change the "value" at m.
Whereas:
val n = immutable.Set("London", "Paris")
n = immutable.Set("New York") //Will not compile as n is a val.
And hence:
val n = mutable.Set("London", "Paris")
n = mutable.Set("New York") //Will not compile, even though the type of n is mutable.
If you are building a data structure and all of its fields are vals, then that data structure is therefore immutable, as its state cannot change.
Thinking in terms of C++,
val x: T
is analogous to constant pointer to non-constant data
T* const x;
while
var x: T
is analogous to non-constant pointer to non-constant data
T* x;
Favoring val over var increases immutability of the codebase which can facilitate its correctness, concurrency and understandability.
To understand the meaning of having a constant pointer to non-constant data consider the following Scala snippet:
val m = scala.collection.mutable.Map(1 -> "picard")
m // res0: scala.collection.mutable.Map[Int,String] = HashMap(1 -> picard)
Here the "pointer" val m is constant so we cannot re-assign it to point to something else like so
m = n // error: reassignment to val
however we can indeed change the non-constant data itself that m points to like so
m.put(2, "worf")
m // res1: scala.collection.mutable.Map[Int,String] = HashMap(1 -> picard, 2 -> worf)
"val means immutable and var means mutable."
To paraphrase, "val means value and var means variable".
A distinction that happens to be extremely important in computing (because those two concepts define the very essence of what programming is all about), and that OO has managed to blur almost completely, because in OO, the only axiom is that "everything is an object". And that as a consequence, lots of programmers these days tend not to understand/appreciate/recognize, because they have been brainwashed into "thinking the OO way" exclusively. Often leading to variable/mutable objects being used like everywhere, when value/immutable objects might/would often have been better.
val means immutable and var means mutable
you can think val as java programming language final key world or c++ language const key world。
Val means its final, cannot be reassigned
Whereas, Var can be reassigned later.
It's as simple as it name.
var means it can vary
val means invariable
Val - values are typed storage constants. Once created its value cant be re-assigned. a new value can be defined with keyword val.
eg. val x: Int = 5
Here type is optional as scala can infer it from the assigned value.
Var - variables are typed storage units which can be assigned values again as long as memory space is reserved.
eg. var x: Int = 5
Data stored in both the storage units are automatically de-allocated by JVM once these are no longer needed.
In scala values are preferred over variables due to stability these brings to the code particularly in concurrent and multithreaded code.
Though many have already answered the difference between Val and var.
But one point to notice is that val is not exactly like final keyword.
We can change the value of val using recursion but we can never change value of final. Final is more constant than Val.
def factorial(num: Int): Int = {
if(num == 0) 1
else factorial(num - 1) * num
}
Method parameters are by default val and at every call value is being changed.
In terms of javascript , it same as
val -> const
var -> var