Related
My program had a simple function newline() that would provide an int value to a int variable x.
public void autowordwrap(string wrapthisword)
{
//some code that does things irrelevant to this problem, with the string
x=newline();
//assume x is already declared properly
//do something with value from x
}
Problem started when I introduced a new function sameline()
I want to be able to do any one of these conveniently, at a time:
public void autowordwrap(string wrapthisword)
{
x=newline();
}
or,
public void autowordwrap(string wrapthisword)
{
x=sameline();
}
So, I thought of trying this:
public void autowordwrap(string wrapthisword, Func<void,int> linefunc)
{
x=linefunc;
}
which I can later call on requirement as:
autowordwrap(mystring,newline());
or,
autowordwrap(mystring,sameline());
But it is not quite working out for me!
It says keyword 'void' cannot be used in this context
Problem is:
What I want to do should be simple enough but I'm not quite understanding how it works. I understand that Action<> works for functions without return type and Func<> works for function with a return type.[Reference-1].
What I've gathered so far is:
MSDN tells me: To reference a method that has no parameters and returns void (or in Visual Basic, that is declared as a Sub rather than as a Function), use the Action delegate instead.
Since my newline() function is defined as an int-datatype, and it returns an integer after running, I thought Action<> didn't suit my needs.
This answer has what I need but for the life of me, I couldn't make it work for my specific purpose.
Problem Breakdown
I have two functions newline() and sameline()
I wish to pass any ONE out of the TWO of them as an argument of the function autowordwrap()
which means, in my Main Program, I will be using autowordwrap(somestring, newline()); or autowordwrap(somestring, sameline()); wherever necessary!
both newline() and sameline() are int-datatype functions who return integer value upon being called. For the sake of this problem, lets store it in int x
while trying to solve this, I'm assuming that using Func is used to pass nothing onto the function as an argument while calling example: newline(void) and the int part is used to define the function newline() or any function represented by delegate Func<> as one which returns an int value.
I have realized that what I have seemed to learn must be fundamentally flawed somehow somewhere. Please enlighten me. Reference links would be very helpful too.
Solving this problem in any way is acceptable. You do not need to do this in the way that I may have unintentionally rigidly outlined. Please feel free to explore creative solutions as long as they fulfill the intended purpose in C#
Yes, I acknowledge that THIS is a possible duplicate of this question but I couldn't make much sense of the helpful answer posted over there. Assuming, this will be the case for many future readers, I'm making this question and linking it to that question so that it may be helpful to people who'll face this same problem in the future.
Endnote:
This Question has been solved! The marked answer lays down the way for doing this and there is also some great explanation in the answers. If you are facing some errors while solving a similar question of this nature, you might be able to fix those my looking over screenshots of my own errors. They're here in the revision section no.4
Func<T> has to return some thing, it cannot be void, you have to use Action<T>, if you don't want to return anything.
and if you don't want to pass any input argument to the Func<T>, then you just need one parameter which is return type like:
Func<int> linefunc
you cannot define input type parameter for Func<T,TResult> as void, instead of that just remove the input type parameter of it,
your method definition would look like :
public void autowordwrap(string wrapthisword, Func<int> linefunc)
{
x=linefunc();
}
and call it like:
autowordwrap(mystring, newline);
autowordwrap(mystring, sameline);
You're very nearly there. There are a couple of issues.
First, from your code you appear to be passing the result of your functions in;
autowordwrap("foo", newline());
In this code, C# will invoke the newline function, getting a result. It will then pass the result of that function -- your int -- as the second parameter to autowordwrap.
What you're wanting to do is pass in the un-invoked function itself;
autowordwrap("foo", newline);
So long as the signature of the newline function is compatible with the signature required by autowordwrap, you'll be able to invoke that function inside autowordwrap.
The second part isn't so much the difference between Func<> and Action<>, but about the generic parameters.
The signature you want is a function which takes no parameters and returns an int. So it's reasonable to try
Func<void, int>
but actually, Func<> can take any number of generic types. All but the last are parameters; the last is the return value. So
Func<string, string, int>
corresponds to a method like
public int MyFunction(string s1, string s2) { return 0; }
What you're trying for is a function of no parameters, equivalent to
public int MyFunction() { reutrn 0; }
So the signature you're looking for is
Func<int>
That is, a function of no parameters, returning int. For clarity,
Action<int>
takes one integer parameter and reutrns nothing, equivalent to
public void MyAction(int myParam) { }
--
Oh, and to clarify;
Func<void, int>
Doesn't work because it's equivalent to writing this in C#
public int MyFunction(void x) {}
which is like saying 'a function which takes one parameter, which is a variable of type 'void''. That doesn't make sense, hence the compiler error.
Since your function doesn't need a delegate, it needs an int, you're better off avoiding delegates altogether, just pass the int value, and do this:
public void autowordwrap(string wrapthisword, int separator)
{
//some code that does things irrelevant to this problem, with the string
// if you need it in "x"
x=separator;
//do something with value from x
}
autowordwrap(mystring,newline());
// or
autowordwrap(mystring,sameline());
The general idea for creating clean high quality code is for a function to accept the value(s) it requires to do its specific task, and not some complex input that is "bigger" then that.
If we want to get a value from a method, we can use either return value, like this:
public int GetValue();
or:
public void GetValue(out int x);
I don't really understand the differences between them, and so, don't know which is better. Can you explain me this?
Thank you.
Return values are almost always the right choice when the method doesn't have anything else to return. (In fact, I can't think of any cases where I'd ever want a void method with an out parameter, if I had the choice. C# 7's Deconstruct methods for language-supported deconstruction acts as a very, very rare exception to this rule.)
Aside from anything else, it stops the caller from having to declare the variable separately:
int foo;
GetValue(out foo);
vs
int foo = GetValue();
Out values also prevent method chaining like this:
Console.WriteLine(GetValue().ToString("g"));
(Indeed, that's one of the problems with property setters as well, and it's why the builder pattern uses methods which return the builder, e.g. myStringBuilder.Append(xxx).Append(yyy).)
Additionally, out parameters are slightly harder to use with reflection and usually make testing harder too. (More effort is usually put into making it easy to mock return values than out parameters). Basically there's nothing I can think of that they make easier...
Return values FTW.
EDIT: In terms of what's going on...
Basically when you pass in an argument for an "out" parameter, you have to pass in a variable. (Array elements are classified as variables too.) The method you call doesn't have a "new" variable on its stack for the parameter - it uses your variable for storage. Any changes in the variable are immediately visible. Here's an example showing the difference:
using System;
class Test
{
static int value;
static void ShowValue(string description)
{
Console.WriteLine(description + value);
}
static void Main()
{
Console.WriteLine("Return value test...");
value = 5;
value = ReturnValue();
ShowValue("Value after ReturnValue(): ");
value = 5;
Console.WriteLine("Out parameter test...");
OutParameter(out value);
ShowValue("Value after OutParameter(): ");
}
static int ReturnValue()
{
ShowValue("ReturnValue (pre): ");
int tmp = 10;
ShowValue("ReturnValue (post): ");
return tmp;
}
static void OutParameter(out int tmp)
{
ShowValue("OutParameter (pre): ");
tmp = 10;
ShowValue("OutParameter (post): ");
}
}
Results:
Return value test...
ReturnValue (pre): 5
ReturnValue (post): 5
Value after ReturnValue(): 10
Out parameter test...
OutParameter (pre): 5
OutParameter (post): 10
Value after OutParameter(): 10
The difference is at the "post" step - i.e. after the local variable or parameter has been changed. In the ReturnValue test, this makes no difference to the static value variable. In the OutParameter test, the value variable is changed by the line tmp = 10;
What's better, depends on your particular situation. One of the reasons out exists is to facilitate returning multiple values from one method call:
public int ReturnMultiple(int input, out int output1, out int output2)
{
output1 = input + 1;
output2 = input + 2;
return input;
}
So one is not by definition better than the other. But usually you'd want to use a simple return, unless you have the above situation for example.
EDIT:
This is a sample demonstrating one of the reasons that the keyword exists. The above is in no way to be considered a best practise.
You should generally prefer a return value over an out param. Out params are a necessary evil if you find yourself writing code that needs to do 2 things. A good example of this is the Try pattern (such as Int32.TryParse).
Let's consider what the caller of your two methods would have to do. For the first example I can write this...
int foo = GetValue();
Notice that I can declare a variable and assign it via your method in one line. FOr the 2nd example it looks like this...
int foo;
GetValue(out foo);
I'm now forced to declare my variable up front and write my code over two lines.
update
A good place to look when asking these types of question is the .NET Framework Design Guidelines. If you have the book version then you can see the annotations by Anders Hejlsberg and others on this subject (page 184-185) but the online version is here...
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms182131(VS.80).aspx
If you find yourself needing to return two things from an API then wrapping them up in a struct/class would be better than an out param.
There's one reason to use an out param which has not already been mentioned: the calling method is obliged to receive it. If your method produces a value which the caller should not discard, making it an out forces the caller to specifically accept it:
Method1(); // Return values can be discard quite easily, even accidentally
int resultCode;
Method2(out resultCode); // Out params are a little harder to ignore
Of course the caller can still ignore the value in an out param, but you've called their attention to it.
This is a rare need; more often, you should use an exception for a genuine problem or return an object with state information for an "FYI", but there could be circumstances where this is important.
It's preference mainly
I prefer returns and if you have multiple returns you can wrap them in a Result DTO
public class Result{
public Person Person {get;set;}
public int Sum {get;set;}
}
You should almost always use a return value. 'out' parameters create a bit of friction to a lot of APIs, compositionality, etc.
The most noteworthy exception that springs to mind is when you want to return multiple values (.Net Framework doesn't have tuples until 4.0), such as with the TryParse pattern.
You can only have one return value whereas you can have multiple out parameters.
You only need to consider out parameters in those cases.
However, if you need to return more than one parameter from your method, you probably want to look at what you're returning from an OO approach and consider if you're better off return an object or a struct with these parameters. Therefore you're back to a return value again.
I would prefer the following instead of either of those in this simple example.
public int Value
{
get;
private set;
}
But, they are all very much the same. Usually, one would only use 'out' if they need to pass multiple values back from the method. If you want to send a value in and out of the method, one would choose 'ref'. My method is best, if you are only returning a value, but if you want to pass a parameter and get a value back one would likely choose your first choice.
I think one of the few scenarios where it would be useful would be when working with unmanaged memory, and you want to make it obvious that the "returned" value should be disposed of manually, rather than expecting it to be disposed of on its own.
Additionally, return values are compatible with asynchronous design paradigms.
You cannot designate a function "async" if it uses ref or out parameters.
In summary, Return Values allow method chaining, cleaner syntax (by eliminating the necessity for the caller to declare additional variables), and allow for asynchronous designs without the need for substantial modification in the future.
As others have said: return value, not out param.
May I recommend to you the book "Framework Design Guidelines" (2nd ed)? Pages 184-185 cover the reasons for avoiding out params. The whole book will steer you in the right direction on all sorts of .NET coding issues.
Allied with Framework Design Guidelines is the use of the static analysis tool, FxCop. You'll find this on Microsoft's sites as a free download. Run this on your compiled code and see what it says. If it complains about hundreds and hundreds of things... don't panic! Look calmly and carefully at what it says about each and every case. Don't rush to fix things ASAP. Learn from what it is telling you. You will be put on the road to mastery.
Using the out keyword with a return type of bool, can sometimes reduce code bloat and increase readability. (Primarily when the extra info in the out param is often ignored.) For instance:
var result = DoThing();
if (result.Success)
{
result = DoOtherThing()
if (result.Success)
{
result = DoFinalThing()
if (result.Success)
{
success = true;
}
}
}
vs:
var result;
if (DoThing(out result))
{
if (DoOtherThing(out result))
{
if (DoFinalThing(out result))
{
success = true;
}
}
}
There is no real difference. Out parameters are in C# to allow method return more then one value, that's all.
However There are some slight differences , but non of them are really important:
Using out parameter will enforce you to use two lines like:
int n;
GetValue(n);
while using return value will let you do it in one line:
int n = GetValue();
Another difference (correct only for value types and only if C# doesn't inline the function) is that using return value will necessarily make a copy of the value when the function return, while using OUT parameter will not necessarily do so.
Please avoid using out parameters.
Although, they can make sense in certain situations (for example when implementing the Try-Parse Pattern), they are very hard to grasp.
Chances to introduce bugs or side effects by yourself (unless you are very experienced with the concept) and by other developers (who either use your API or may inherit your code) is very high.
According to Microsoft's quality rule CA1021:
Although return values are commonplace and heavily used, the correct application of out and ref parameters requires intermediate design and coding skills. Library architects who design for a general audience should not expect users to master working with out or ref parameters.
Therefore, if there is not a very good reason, please just don't use out or ref.
See also:
Is using "out" bad practice
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/fundamentals/code-analysis/quality-rules/ca1021
Both of them have a different purpose and are not treated the same by the compiler. If your method needs to return a value, then you must use return. Out is used where your method needs to return multiple values.
If you use return, then the data is first written to the methods stack and then in the calling method's. While in case of out, it is directly written to the calling methods stack. Not sure if there are any more differences.
out is more useful when you are trying to return an object that you declare in the method.
Example
public BookList Find(string key)
{
BookList book; //BookList is a model class
_books.TryGetValue(key, out book) //_books is a concurrent dictionary
//TryGetValue gets an item with matching key and returns it into book.
return book;
}
return value is the normal value which is returned by your method.
Where as out parameter, well out and ref are 2 key words of C# they allow to pass variables as reference.
The big difference between ref and out is, ref should be initialised before and out don't
I suspect I'm not going to get a look-in on this question, but I am a very experienced programmer, and I hope some of the more open-minded readers will pay attention.
I believe that it suits object-oriented programming languages better for their value-returning procedures (VRPs) to be deterministic and pure.
'VRP' is the modern academic name for a function that is called as part of an expression, and has a return value that notionally replaces the call during evaluation of the expression. E.g. in a statement such as x = 1 + f(y) the function f is serving as a VRP.
'Deterministic' means that the result of the function depends only on the values of its parameters. If you call it again with the same parameter values, you are certain to get the same result.
'Pure' means no side-effects: calling the function does nothing except computing the result. This can be interpreted to mean no important side-effects, in practice, so if the VRP outputs a debugging message every time it is called, for example, that can probably be ignored.
Thus, if, in C#, your function is not deterministic and pure, I say you should make it a void function (in other words, not a VRP), and any value it needs to return should be returned in either an out or a ref parameter.
For example, if you have a function to delete some rows from a database table, and you want it to return the number of rows it deleted, you should declare it something like this:
public void DeleteBasketItems(BasketItemCategory category, out int count);
If you sometimes want to call this function but not get the count, you could always declare an overloading.
You might want to know why this style suits object-oriented programming better. Broadly, it fits into a style of programming that could be (a little imprecisely) termed 'procedural programming', and it is a procedural programming style that fits object-oriented programming better.
Why? The classical model of objects is that they have properties (aka attributes), and you interrogate and manipulate the object (mainly) through reading and updating those properties. A procedural programming style tends to make it easier to do this, because you can execute arbitrary code in between operations that get and set properties.
The downside of procedural programming is that, because you can execute arbitrary code all over the place, you can get some very obtuse and bug-vulnerable interactions via global variables and side-effects.
So, quite simply, it is good practice to signal to someone reading your code that a function could have side-effects by making it non-value returning.
I got a function that is in need of a custom data type, one way to
approach this problem is by defining a struct however this is only for
just one function, wouldn't it be better if i just use a dynamic
object instead?
For example:
public struct myDataType(){
public string name { get; set; }
public string email { get; set; }
public string token { get; set; }
}
public bool doSomething(string name, string email, string token){
myDataType MDT = new myDataType();
MDT.name = name;
MDT.email = email;
MDT.token = token;
//Do something with MDT
return 1;
}
Or
public bool doSomething(string name, string email, string token){
dynamic MDT = new ExpandoObject();
MDT.name = name;
MDT.email = email;
MDT.token = token;
//Do something with MDT
return 1;
}
Note:
While i can define all possible props in the struct, i don't know how many i need to use.
The Example is not real it just shows the 2 possible approaches.
That is not the purpose of dynamic. Dynamic is used when you don't know the type until runtime (and have a good reason to have such a scenario). Usages outside of this just de-value the strongly typed nature of C#, allowing code to compile that could be invalid at runtime.
If you need object A with properties B, C, D, then create that object, even if you are going to use it once. Besides, you will need to use that object when something calls your function and needs to access the properties of the returned object. It's better that those properties are known and strongly typed. You can use a struct instead of a class if you prefer, but make it a strongly typed object.
Edit: The original question was edited to indicate that the function does not return the object. Nonetheless, the above still otherwise holds true - that is, this is not a scenario when you don't know the type until runtime, and therefore it is not the right scenario to use dynamic. Since the usage of the object is short-lived, I would use a struct. See here for in-depth discussion on when struct should be used: When to use struct?
There is no performance impact if you choose any of the two solutions you came up with.
When the compiler meets the dynamic keyword it will do the same, will define a class that contains all the members defined.
for this example:
new { Property1 = "something", Propert2 = "somethingElse" }
compiler will generate something like:
class SomeNameChoosenByCompiler
{
public string Property1 {get; set; }
public string Property2 {get; set; }
}
as you are actually using the object outside of your method i would go with the struct version as it makes the code more readable and easy to understand and maybe scalable in time.
Also, with dynamic you would loose compile-time benefits
You can do it either way.
My personal preference would be to use the strongly typed struct so that if I mistype any of the property names I'll find out when I compile the project. If you use the expandoobject you won't find out until the code runs.
The other thing to consider is that a struct is a value type while an expandoobject is obviously a reference type. This may affect your decision because of the way the two types can be used in the rest of your code. For example, a value type variable cannot be set to null, and they follow different copying semantics.
A variable of a structure type is, in essence, a group of variables stuck together with duct tape. A heap object of a structure type (i.e. a "boxed" struct instance) is processed by the runtime as though it were a class object with a variable of that structure type as its only field; any methods which would operate on the structure as a whole operate on that field, while those which would operate on the fields of the structure operate on its sub-fields.
The ability to binding groups of variables together with duct tape is useful if one will be using the variables as a group; almost all cases where one would want to do that, however, would require that the structure be used in at least two places (e.g. a place it's copied from, and a place it's copied to), though there are cases where all the places might be confined to a single function (e.g. one may have a variables prevState and currentState, each containing a few fields, and may want to be able to take a snapshot of all the variables in currentState and later revert all the variables to their earlier values). Structures can be good for that.
I would suggest that it's often good to have very bare-bones structure definitions. If one has a method which reads through a list and computes the minimum and maximum values according to some passed-in IComparer<T>, having a structure:
struct MinMaxResult<T> { public T Minimum, Maximum; }
could make things clearer than having a more complicated data type which wraps its fields in properties and tries to enforce invariants such as Maximim >= Minimum, etc. The fact that MinMaxResult is a structure with exposed fields makes it clear that given the declaration MinMaxResult mmr;, code shouldn't expect mmr.Minimum to have any meaning beyond "the last value written to mmr.Minimum, or default(T) if nothing was written." Everything of interest is going to be in whatever writes to mmr; the more concise definition of MinMaxResult<T>, the less it will distract from what's actually going on.
I thought I'd offer this softball to whomever would like to hit it out of the park. What are generics, what are the advantages of generics, why, where, how should I use them? Please keep it fairly basic. Thanks.
Allows you to write code/use library methods which are type-safe, i.e. a List<string> is guaranteed to be a list of strings.
As a result of generics being used the compiler can perform compile-time checks on code for type safety, i.e. are you trying to put an int into that list of strings? Using an ArrayList would cause that to be a less transparent runtime error.
Faster than using objects as it either avoids boxing/unboxing (where .net has to convert value types to reference types or vice-versa) or casting from objects to the required reference type.
Allows you to write code which is applicable to many types with the same underlying behaviour, i.e. a Dictionary<string, int> uses the same underlying code as a Dictionary<DateTime, double>; using generics, the framework team only had to write one piece of code to achieve both results with the aforementioned advantages too.
I really hate to repeat myself. I hate typing the same thing more often than I have to. I don't like restating things multiple times with slight differences.
Instead of creating:
class MyObjectList {
MyObject get(int index) {...}
}
class MyOtherObjectList {
MyOtherObject get(int index) {...}
}
class AnotherObjectList {
AnotherObject get(int index) {...}
}
I can build one reusable class... (in the case where you don't want to use the raw collection for some reason)
class MyList<T> {
T get(int index) { ... }
}
I'm now 3x more efficient and I only have to maintain one copy. Why WOULDN'T you want to maintain less code?
This is also true for non-collection classes such as a Callable<T> or a Reference<T> that has to interact with other classes. Do you really want to extend Callable<T> and Future<T> and every other associated class to create type-safe versions?
I don't.
Not needing to typecast is one of the biggest advantages of Java generics, as it will perform type checking at compile-time. This will reduce the possibility of ClassCastExceptions which can be thrown at runtime, and can lead to more robust code.
But I suspect that you're fully aware of that.
Every time I look at Generics it gives
me a headache. I find the best part of
Java to be it's simplicity and minimal
syntax and generics are not simple and
add a significant amount of new
syntax.
At first, I didn't see the benefit of generics either. I started learning Java from the 1.4 syntax (even though Java 5 was out at the time) and when I encountered generics, I felt that it was more code to write, and I really didn't understand the benefits.
Modern IDEs make writing code with generics easier.
Most modern, decent IDEs are smart enough to assist with writing code with generics, especially with code completion.
Here's an example of making an Map<String, Integer> with a HashMap. The code I would have to type in is:
Map<String, Integer> m = new HashMap<String, Integer>();
And indeed, that's a lot to type just to make a new HashMap. However, in reality, I only had to type this much before Eclipse knew what I needed:
Map<String, Integer> m = new Ha Ctrl+Space
True, I did need to select HashMap from a list of candidates, but basically the IDE knew what to add, including the generic types. With the right tools, using generics isn't too bad.
In addition, since the types are known, when retrieving elements from the generic collection, the IDE will act as if that object is already an object of its declared type -- there is no need to casting for the IDE to know what the object's type is.
A key advantage of generics comes from the way it plays well with new Java 5 features. Here's an example of tossing integers in to a Set and calculating its total:
Set<Integer> set = new HashSet<Integer>();
set.add(10);
set.add(42);
int total = 0;
for (int i : set) {
total += i;
}
In that piece of code, there are three new Java 5 features present:
Generics
Autoboxing and unboxing
For-each loop
First, generics and autoboxing of primitives allow the following lines:
set.add(10);
set.add(42);
The integer 10 is autoboxed into an Integer with the value of 10. (And same for 42). Then that Integer is tossed into the Set which is known to hold Integers. Trying to throw in a String would cause a compile error.
Next, for for-each loop takes all three of those:
for (int i : set) {
total += i;
}
First, the Set containing Integers are used in a for-each loop. Each element is declared to be an int and that is allowed as the Integer is unboxed back to the primitive int. And the fact that this unboxing occurs is known because generics was used to specify that there were Integers held in the Set.
Generics can be the glue that brings together the new features introduced in Java 5, and it just makes coding simpler and safer. And most of the time IDEs are smart enough to help you with good suggestions, so generally, it won't a whole lot more typing.
And frankly, as can be seen from the Set example, I feel that utilizing Java 5 features can make the code more concise and robust.
Edit - An example without generics
The following is an illustration of the above Set example without the use of generics. It is possible, but isn't exactly pleasant:
Set set = new HashSet();
set.add(10);
set.add(42);
int total = 0;
for (Object o : set) {
total += (Integer)o;
}
(Note: The above code will generate unchecked conversion warning at compile-time.)
When using non-generics collections, the types that are entered into the collection is objects of type Object. Therefore, in this example, a Object is what is being added into the set.
set.add(10);
set.add(42);
In the above lines, autoboxing is in play -- the primitive int value 10 and 42 are being autoboxed into Integer objects, which are being added to the Set. However, keep in mind, the Integer objects are being handled as Objects, as there are no type information to help the compiler know what type the Set should expect.
for (Object o : set) {
This is the part that is crucial. The reason the for-each loop works is because the Set implements the Iterable interface, which returns an Iterator with type information, if present. (Iterator<T>, that is.)
However, since there is no type information, the Set will return an Iterator which will return the values in the Set as Objects, and that is why the element being retrieved in the for-each loop must be of type Object.
Now that the Object is retrieved from the Set, it needs to be cast to an Integer manually to perform the addition:
total += (Integer)o;
Here, a typecast is performed from an Object to an Integer. In this case, we know this will always work, but manual typecasting always makes me feel it is fragile code that could be damaged if a minor change is made else where. (I feel that every typecast is a ClassCastException waiting to happen, but I digress...)
The Integer is now unboxed into an int and allowed to perform the addition into the int variable total.
I hope I could illustrate that the new features of Java 5 is possible to use with non-generic code, but it just isn't as clean and straight-forward as writing code with generics. And, in my opinion, to take full advantage of the new features in Java 5, one should be looking into generics, if at the very least, allows for compile-time checks to prevent invalid typecasts to throw exceptions at runtime.
If you were to search the Java bug database just before 1.5 was released, you'd find seven times more bugs with NullPointerException than ClassCastException. So it doesn't seem that it is a great feature to find bugs, or at least bugs that persist after a little smoke testing.
For me the huge advantage of generics is that they document in code important type information. If I didn't want that type information documented in code, then I'd use a dynamically typed language, or at least a language with more implicit type inference.
Keeping an object's collections to itself isn't a bad style (but then the common style is to effectively ignore encapsulation). It rather depends upon what you are doing. Passing collections to "algorithms" is slightly easier to check (at or before compile-time) with generics.
Generics in Java facilitate parametric polymorphism. By means of type parameters, you can pass arguments to types. Just as a method like String foo(String s) models some behaviour, not just for a particular string, but for any string s, so a type like List<T> models some behaviour, not just for a specific type, but for any type. List<T> says that for any type T, there's a type of List whose elements are Ts. So List is a actually a type constructor. It takes a type as an argument and constructs another type as a result.
Here are a couple of examples of generic types I use every day. First, a very useful generic interface:
public interface F<A, B> {
public B f(A a);
}
This interface says that for some two types, A and B, there's a function (called f) that takes an A and returns a B. When you implement this interface, A and B can be any types you want, as long as you provide a function f that takes the former and returns the latter. Here's an example implementation of the interface:
F<Integer, String> intToString = new F<Integer, String>() {
public String f(int i) {
return String.valueOf(i);
}
}
Before generics, polymorphism was achieved by subclassing using the extends keyword. With generics, we can actually do away with subclassing and use parametric polymorphism instead. For example, consider a parameterised (generic) class used to calculate hash codes for any type. Instead of overriding Object.hashCode(), we would use a generic class like this:
public final class Hash<A> {
private final F<A, Integer> hashFunction;
public Hash(final F<A, Integer> f) {
this.hashFunction = f;
}
public int hash(A a) {
return hashFunction.f(a);
}
}
This is much more flexible than using inheritance, because we can stay with the theme of using composition and parametric polymorphism without locking down brittle hierarchies.
Java's generics are not perfect though. You can abstract over types, but you can't abstract over type constructors, for example. That is, you can say "for any type T", but you can't say "for any type T that takes a type parameter A".
I wrote an article about these limits of Java generics, here.
One huge win with generics is that they let you avoid subclassing. Subclassing tends to result in brittle class hierarchies that are awkward to extend, and classes that are difficult to understand individually without looking at the entire hierarchy.
Wereas before generics you might have classes like Widget extended by FooWidget, BarWidget, and BazWidget, with generics you can have a single generic class Widget<A> that takes a Foo, Bar or Baz in its constructor to give you Widget<Foo>, Widget<Bar>, and Widget<Baz>.
Generics avoid the performance hit of boxing and unboxing. Basically, look at ArrayList vs List<T>. Both do the same core things, but List<T> will be a lot faster because you don't have to box to/from object.
The best benefit to Generics is code reuse. Lets say that you have a lot of business objects, and you are going to write VERY similar code for each entity to perform the same actions. (I.E Linq to SQL operations).
With generics, you can create a class that will be able to operate given any of the types that inherit from a given base class or implement a given interface like so:
public interface IEntity
{
}
public class Employee : IEntity
{
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
public int EmployeeID { get; set; }
}
public class Company : IEntity
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public string TaxID { get; set }
}
public class DataService<ENTITY, DATACONTEXT>
where ENTITY : class, IEntity, new()
where DATACONTEXT : DataContext, new()
{
public void Create(List<ENTITY> entities)
{
using (DATACONTEXT db = new DATACONTEXT())
{
Table<ENTITY> table = db.GetTable<ENTITY>();
foreach (ENTITY entity in entities)
table.InsertOnSubmit (entity);
db.SubmitChanges();
}
}
}
public class MyTest
{
public void DoSomething()
{
var dataService = new DataService<Employee, MyDataContext>();
dataService.Create(new Employee { FirstName = "Bob", LastName = "Smith", EmployeeID = 5 });
var otherDataService = new DataService<Company, MyDataContext>();
otherDataService.Create(new Company { Name = "ACME", TaxID = "123-111-2233" });
}
}
Notice the reuse of the same service given the different Types in the DoSomething method above. Truly elegant!
There's many other great reasons to use generics for your work, this is my favorite.
I just like them because they give you a quick way to define a custom type (as I use them anyway).
So for example instead of defining a structure consisting of a string and an integer, and then having to implement a whole set of objects and methods on how to access an array of those structures and so forth, you can just make a Dictionary
Dictionary<int, string> dictionary = new Dictionary<int, string>();
And the compiler/IDE does the rest of the heavy lifting. A Dictionary in particular lets you use the first type as a key (no repeated values).
Typed collections - even if you don't want to use them you're likely to have to deal with them from other libraries , other sources.
Generic typing in class creation:
public class Foo < T> {
public T get()...
Avoidance of casting - I've always disliked things like
new Comparator {
public int compareTo(Object o){
if (o instanceof classIcareAbout)...
Where you're essentially checking for a condition that should only exist because the interface is expressed in terms of objects.
My initial reaction to generics was similar to yours - "too messy, too complicated". My experience is that after using them for a bit you get used to them, and code without them feels less clearly specified, and just less comfortable. Aside from that, the rest of the java world uses them so you're going to have to get with the program eventually, right?
To give a good example. Imagine you have a class called Foo
public class Foo
{
public string Bar() { return "Bar"; }
}
Example 1
Now you want to have a collection of Foo objects. You have two options, LIst or ArrayList, both of which work in a similar manner.
Arraylist al = new ArrayList();
List<Foo> fl = new List<Foo>();
//code to add Foos
al.Add(new Foo());
f1.Add(new Foo());
In the above code, if I try to add a class of FireTruck instead of Foo, the ArrayList will add it, but the Generic List of Foo will cause an exception to be thrown.
Example two.
Now you have your two array lists and you want to call the Bar() function on each. Since hte ArrayList is filled with Objects, you have to cast them before you can call bar. But since the Generic List of Foo can only contain Foos, you can call Bar() directly on those.
foreach(object o in al)
{
Foo f = (Foo)o;
f.Bar();
}
foreach(Foo f in fl)
{
f.Bar();
}
Haven't you ever written a method (or a class) where the key concept of the method/class wasn't tightly bound to a specific data type of the parameters/instance variables (think linked list, max/min functions, binary search, etc.).
Haven't you ever wish you could reuse the algorthm/code without resorting to cut-n-paste reuse or compromising strong-typing (e.g. I want a List of Strings, not a List of things I hope are strings!)?
That's why you should want to use generics (or something better).
The primary advantage, as Mitchel points out, is strong-typing without needing to define multiple classes.
This way you can do stuff like:
List<SomeCustomClass> blah = new List<SomeCustomClass>();
blah[0].SomeCustomFunction();
Without generics, you would have to cast blah[0] to the correct type to access its functions.
Don't forget that generics aren't just used by classes, they can also be used by methods. For example, take the following snippet:
private <T extends Throwable> T logAndReturn(T t) {
logThrowable(t); // some logging method that takes a Throwable
return t;
}
It is simple, but can be used very elegantly. The nice thing is that the method returns whatever it was that it was given. This helps out when you are handling exceptions that need to be re-thrown back to the caller:
...
} catch (MyException e) {
throw logAndReturn(e);
}
The point is that you don't lose the type by passing it through a method. You can throw the correct type of exception instead of just a Throwable, which would be all you could do without generics.
This is just a simple example of one use for generic methods. There are quite a few other neat things you can do with generic methods. The coolest, in my opinion, is type inferring with generics. Take the following example (taken from Josh Bloch's Effective Java 2nd Edition):
...
Map<String, Integer> myMap = createHashMap();
...
public <K, V> Map<K, V> createHashMap() {
return new HashMap<K, V>();
}
This doesn't do a lot, but it does cut down on some clutter when the generic types are long (or nested; i.e. Map<String, List<String>>).
Generics allow you to create objects that are strongly typed, yet you don't have to define the specific type. I think the best useful example is the List and similar classes.
Using the generic list you can have a List List List whatever you want and you can always reference the strong typing, you don't have to convert or anything like you would with a Array or standard List.
the jvm casts anyway... it implicitly creates code which treats the generic type as "Object" and creates casts to the desired instantiation. Java generics are just syntactic sugar.
I know this is a C# question, but generics are used in other languages too, and their use/goals are quite similar.
Java collections use generics since Java 1.5. So, a good place to use them is when you are creating your own collection-like object.
An example I see almost everywhere is a Pair class, which holds two objects, but needs to deal with those objects in a generic way.
class Pair<F, S> {
public final F first;
public final S second;
public Pair(F f, S s)
{
first = f;
second = s;
}
}
Whenever you use this Pair class you can specify which kind of objects you want it to deal with and any type cast problems will show up at compile time, rather than runtime.
Generics can also have their bounds defined with the keywords 'super' and 'extends'. For example, if you want to deal with a generic type but you want to make sure it extends a class called Foo (which has a setTitle method):
public class FooManager <F extends Foo>{
public void setTitle(F foo, String title) {
foo.setTitle(title);
}
}
While not very interesting on its own, it's useful to know that whenever you deal with a FooManager, you know that it will handle MyClass types, and that MyClass extends Foo.
From the Sun Java documentation, in response to "why should i use generics?":
"Generics provides a way for you to communicate the type of a collection to the compiler, so that it can be checked. Once the compiler knows the element type of the collection, the compiler can check that you have used the collection consistently and can insert the correct casts on values being taken out of the collection... The code using generics is clearer and safer.... the compiler can verify at compile time that the type constraints are not violated at run time [emphasis mine]. Because the program compiles without warnings, we can state with certainty that it will not throw a ClassCastException at run time. The net effect of using generics, especially in large programs, is improved readability and robustness. [emphasis mine]"
Generics let you use strong typing for objects and data structures that should be able to hold any object. It also eliminates tedious and expensive typecasts when retrieving objects from generic structures (boxing/unboxing).
One example that uses both is a linked list. What good would a linked list class be if it could only use object Foo? To implement a linked list that can handle any kind of object, the linked list and the nodes in a hypothetical node inner class must be generic if you want the list to contain only one type of object.
If your collection contains value types, they don't need to box/unbox to objects when inserted into the collection so your performance increases dramatically. Cool add-ons like resharper can generate more code for you, like foreach loops.
Another advantage of using Generics (especially with Collections/Lists) is you get Compile Time Type Checking. This is really useful when using a Generic List instead of a List of Objects.
Single most reason is they provide Type safety
List<Customer> custCollection = new List<Customer>;
as opposed to,
object[] custCollection = new object[] { cust1, cust2 };
as a simple example.
In summary, generics allow you to specify more precisily what you intend to do (stronger typing).
This has several benefits for you:
Because the compiler knows more about what you want to do, it allows you to omit a lot of type-casting because it already knows that the type will be compatible.
This also gets you earlier feedback about the correctnes of your program. Things that previously would have failed at runtime (e.g. because an object couldn't be casted in the desired type), now fail at compile-time and you can fix the mistake before your testing-department files a cryptical bug report.
The compiler can do more optimizations, like avoiding boxing, etc.
A couple of things to add/expand on (speaking from the .NET point of view):
Generic types allow you to create role-based classes and interfaces. This has been said already in more basic terms, but I find you start to design your code with classes which are implemented in a type-agnostic way - which results in highly reusable code.
Generic arguments on methods can do the same thing, but they also help apply the "Tell Don't Ask" principle to casting, i.e. "give me what I want, and if you can't, you tell me why".
I use them for example in a GenericDao implemented with SpringORM and Hibernate which look like this
public abstract class GenericDaoHibernateImpl<T>
extends HibernateDaoSupport {
private Class<T> type;
public GenericDaoHibernateImpl(Class<T> clazz) {
type = clazz;
}
public void update(T object) {
getHibernateTemplate().update(object);
}
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
public Integer count() {
return ((Integer) getHibernateTemplate().execute(
new HibernateCallback() {
public Object doInHibernate(Session session) {
// Code in Hibernate for getting the count
}
}));
}
.
.
.
}
By using generics my implementations of this DAOs force the developer to pass them just the entities they are designed for by just subclassing the GenericDao
public class UserDaoHibernateImpl extends GenericDaoHibernateImpl<User> {
public UserDaoHibernateImpl() {
super(User.class); // This is for giving Hibernate a .class
// work with, as generics disappear at runtime
}
// Entity specific methods here
}
My little framework is more robust (have things like filtering, lazy-loading, searching). I just simplified here to give you an example
I, like Steve and you, said at the beginning "Too messy and complicated" but now I see its advantages
Obvious benefits like "type safety" and "no casting" are already mentioned so maybe I can talk about some other "benefits" which I hope it helps.
First of all, generics is a language-independent concept and , IMO, it might make more sense if you think about regular (runtime) polymorphism at the same time.
For example, the polymorphism as we know from object oriented design has a runtime notion in where the caller object is figured out at runtime as program execution goes and the relevant method gets called accordingly depending on the runtime type. In generics, the idea is somewhat similar but everything happens at compile time. What does that mean and how you make use of it?
(Let's stick with generic methods to keep it compact) It means that you can still have the same method on separate classes (like you did previously in polymorphic classes) but this time they're auto-generated by the compiler depend on the types set at compile time. You parametrise your methods on the type you give at compile time. So, instead of writing the methods from scratch for every single type you have as you do in runtime polymorphism (method overriding), you let compilers do the work during compilation. This has an obvious advantage since you don't need to infer all possible types that might be used in your system which makes it far more scalable without a code change.
Classes work the pretty much same way. You parametrise the type and the code is generated by the compiler.
Once you get the idea of "compile time", you can make use "bounded" types and restrict what can be passed as a parametrised type through classes/methods. So, you can control what to be passed through which is a powerful thing especially you've a framework being consumed by other people.
public interface Foo<T extends MyObject> extends Hoo<T>{
...
}
No one can set sth other than MyObject now.
Also, you can "enforce" type constraints on your method arguments which means you can make sure both your method arguments would depend on the same type.
public <T extends MyObject> foo(T t1, T t2){
...
}
Hope all of this makes sense.
I once gave a talk on this topic. You can find my slides, code, and audio recording at http://www.adventuresinsoftware.com/generics/.
Using generics for collections is just simple and clean. Even if you punt on it everywhere else, the gain from the collections is a win to me.
List<Stuff> stuffList = getStuff();
for(Stuff stuff : stuffList) {
stuff.do();
}
vs
List stuffList = getStuff();
Iterator i = stuffList.iterator();
while(i.hasNext()) {
Stuff stuff = (Stuff)i.next();
stuff.do();
}
or
List stuffList = getStuff();
for(int i = 0; i < stuffList.size(); i++) {
Stuff stuff = (Stuff)stuffList.get(i);
stuff.do();
}
That alone is worth the marginal "cost" of generics, and you don't have to be a generic Guru to use this and get value.
Generics also give you the ability to create more reusable objects/methods while still providing type specific support. You also gain a lot of performance in some cases. I don't know the full spec on the Java Generics, but in .NET I can specify constraints on the Type parameter, like Implements a Interface, Constructor , and Derivation.
Enabling programmers to implement generic algorithms - By using generics, programmers can implement generic algorithms that work on collections of different types, can be customized, and are type-safe and easier to read.
Stronger type checks at compile time - A Java compiler applies strong type checking to generic code and issues errors if the code violates type safety. Fixing compile-time errors is easier than fixing runtime errors, which can be difficult to find.
Elimination of casts.
Can someone please break down what a delegate is into a simple, short and terse explanation that encompasses both the purpose and general benefits? I've tried to wrap my head around this and it's just not sinking in.
I have a function:
public long GiveMeTwoTimesTwo()
{
return 2 * 2;
}
This function sucks. What if I want 3 * 3?
public long GiveMeThreeTimesThree()
{
return 3 * 3;
}
Too much typing. I'm lazy!
public long SquareOf(int n)
{
return n * n;
}
My SquareOf function doesn't care what n is. It will operate properly for any n passed in. It doesn't know exactly what number n is, but it does know that n is an integer. You can't pass "Haha not an integer" into SquareOf.
Here's another function:
public void DoSomethingRad()
{
int x = 4;
long y = SquareOf(x);
Console.WriteLine(y);
}
Contrary to its name, DoSomethingRad doesn't actually do anything rad. However, it does write the SquareOf(4) which is 16. Can we change it to be less boring?
public void DoSomethingRad(int numberToSquare)
{
long y = SquareOf(numberToSquare);
Console.WriteLine(y);
}
DoSomethingRad is clearly still pretty fail. But at least now we can pass in a number to square, so it won't write 16 every time. (It'll write 1, or 4, or 9, or 16, or... zzzz still kinda boring).
It'd be nice if there was a way to change what happens to the number passed in. Maybe we don't want to square it; maybe we want to cube it, or subtract it from 69 (number chosen at random from my head).
On further inspection, it seems as though the only part of SquareOf that DoSomethingRad cares about is that we can give it an integer (numberToSquare) and that it gives us a long (because we put its return value in y and y is a long).
public long CubeOf(int n)
{
return n * n * n;
}
public void DoSomethingLeet(int numberToSquare)
{
long y = CubeOf(numberToSquare);
Console.WriteLine(y);
}
See how similar DoSomethingLeet is to DoSomethingRad? If only there was a way to pass in behavior (DoX()) instead of just data (int n)...
So now if we want to write a square of a number, we can DoSomethingRad and if we want to write the cube of a number, we can DoSomethingLeet. So if we want to write the number subtracted from 69, do we have to make another method, DoSomethingCool? No, because that takes too damn much typing (and more importantly, it hinders our ability to alter interesting behavior by changing only one aspect of our program).
So we arrive at:
public long Radlicious(int doSomethingToMe, Func<int, long> doSomething)
{
long y = doSomething(doSomethingToMe);
Console.WriteLine(y);
}
We can call this method by writing this:
Radlicious(77, SquareOf);
Func<int, long> is a special kind of delegate. It stores behavior that accepts integers and spits out longs. We're not sure what the method it points to is going to do with any given integer we pass; all we know is that, whatever happens, we are going to get a long back.
We don't have to give any parameters to SquareOf because Func<int, long> describes behavior, not data. Calling Radlicious(77, SquareOf) just gives Radlicious the general behavior of SquareOf ("I take a number and return its square"), not what SquareOf will do to any specific integer.
Now if you have understood what I am saying, then you have already one-upped me, for I myself don't really get this stuff.
* END ANSWER, BEGIN WANDERING IDIOCY *
I mean, it seems like ints could be perceived as just really boring behavior:
static int Nine()
{
return 9;
}
That said, the line between what is data and behavior appears to blur, with what is normally perceived as data is simply boring-ass behavior.
Of course, one could imagine super "interesting" behavior, that takes all sorts of abstract parameters, but requires a ton of information to be able to call it. What if it required us to provide the source code that it would compile and run for us?
Well, then our abstraction seems to have gotten us all the way back to square one. We have behavior so abstract it requires the entire source code of our program to determine what it's going to do. This is fully indeterminate behavior: the function can do anything, but it has to be provided with everything to determine what it does. On the other hand, fully determinate behavior, such as Nine(), doesn't need any additional information, but can't do anything other than return 9.
So what? I don't know.
In the simplest possible terms, it's essentially a pointer to a method.
You can have a variable that holds a delegate type (just like you would have an int variable that can hold an int type). You can execute the method that the delegate points to by simply calling your variable like a function.
This allows you to have variable functions just like you might have variable data. Your object can accept delegates from other objects and call them, without having to define all the possible functions itself.
This comes in very handy when you want an object to do things based on user specified criteria. For example, filtering a list based on a user-defined true/false expression. You can let the user specify the delegate function to use as a filter to evaluate each list item against.
A delegate is a pointer to a method. You can then use your delegate as a parameter of other methods.
here is a link to a simple tutorial.
The question I had was 'So, why would I want to do that?' You won't really 'get it' until you solve a programming problem with them.
It's interesting that no-one has mentioned one of key benefits of delegation - it's preferable to sub-classing when you realise that inheritance is not a magic bullet and usually creates more problems than it solves. It is the basis of many design patterns, most notably the strategy pattern.
A delegate instance is a reference to a method. The reason they are useful is that you can create a delegate that is tied to a particular method on a particular instance of a type. The delegate instance allows you to invoke that method on that particular instance even if the object on which you will invoke the method has left your lexical scope.
The most common use for delegate instances like this is to support the concept of callbacks at the language level.
It simply references a method. They come in great use with working with cross threading.
Here is an example right out of my code.
//Start our advertisiment thread
rotator = new Thread(initRotate);
rotator.Priority = ThreadPriority.Lowest;
rotator.Start();
#region Ad Rotation
private delegate void ad();
private void initRotate()
{
ad ad = new ad(adHelper);
while (true)
{
this.Invoke(ad);
Thread.Sleep(30000);
}
}
private void adHelper()
{
List<string> tmp = Lobby.AdRotator.RotateAd();
picBanner.ImageLocation = #tmp[0].ToString();
picBanner.Tag = tmp[1].ToString();
}
#endregion
If you didnt use a delegate you wouldn't be able to crossthread and call the Lobby.AdRotator function.
Like others have said, a delegate is a reference to a function. One of the more beneficial uses(IMO) is events. When you register an event you register a function for the event to invoke, and delegates are perfect for this task.
In the most basic terms, a delegate is just a variable that contains (a reference to) a function. Delegates are useful because they allow you to pass a function around as a variable without any concern for "where" the function actually came from.
It's important to note, of course, that the function isn't being copied when it's being bundled up in a variable; it's just being bound by reference. For example:
class Foo
{
public string Bar
{
get;
set;
}
public void Baz()
{
Console.WriteLine(Bar);
}
}
Foo foo = new Foo();
Action someDelegate = foo.Baz;
// Produces "Hello, world".
foo.Bar = "Hello, world";
someDelegate();
In most simplest terms, the responsibility to execute a method is delegated to another object. Say the president of some nation dies and the president of USA is supposed to be present for the funeral with condolences message. If the president of USA is not able to go, he will delegate this responsibility to someone either the vice-president or the secretary of the state.
Same goes in code. A delegate is a type, it is an object which is capable of executing the method.
eg.
Class Person
{
public string GetPersonName(Person person)
{
return person.FirstName + person.LastName;
}
//Calling the method without the use of delegate
public void PrintName()
{
Console.WriteLine(GetPersonName(this));
}
//using delegate
//Declare delegate which matches the methods signature
public delegate string personNameDelegate(Person person);
public void PrintNameUsingDelegate()
{
//instantiate
personNameDelegate = new personNameDelegate(GetPersonName);
//invoke
personNameDelegate(this);
}
}
The GetPersonName method is called using the delegate object personNameDelegate.
Alternatively we can have the PrintNameUsingDelegate method to take a delegate as a parameter.
public void PrintNameUsingDelegate(personNameDelegate pnd, Person person)
{
pnd(person);
}
The advantage is if someone want to print the name as lastname_firstname, s/he just has to wrap that method in personNameDelegate and pass to this function. No further code change is required.
Delegates are specifically important in
Events
Asynchronous calls
LINQ (as lambda expressions)
If you were going to delegate a task to someone, the delegate would be the person who receives the work.
In programming, it's a reference to the block of code which actually knows how to do something. Often this is a pointer to the function or method which will handle some item.
In the absolute most simplest terms I can come up with is this: A delegate will force the burdens of work into the hands of a class that pretty much knows what to do. Think of it as a kid that doesn't want to grow up to be like his big brother completely but still needs his guidance and orders. Instead of inheriting all the methods from his brother (ie subclassing), he just makes his brother do the work or The little brother does something that requires actions to be taken by the big brother. When you fall into the lines of Protocols, the big brother defines what is absolutely required, or he might give you flexibility to choose what you want to make him do in certain events (ie informal and formal protocols as outlined in Objective-C).
The absolute benefit of this concept is that you do not need to create a subclass. If you want something to fall in line, follow orders when an event happens, the delegate allows a developed class to hold it's hand and give orders if necessary.