Develop Reference

A "Function lookup table" in place of switches

I came across some code recently that replaces the use of switches by hard-coding a
Dictionary<string (or whatever we would've been switching on), Func<...>>
and where ever the switch would've been, it instead does dict["value"].Invoke(...).
The code feels wrong in some way, but at the same time, the methods do look a bit cleaner, especially when there's many possible cases. I can't give any rationale as to why this is good or bad design so I was hoping someone could give some reasons to support/condemn this kind of code. Is there a gain in performance? Loss of clarity?
Example:
public class A {
...
public int SomeMethod(string arg){
...
switch(arg) {
case "a": do stuff; break;
case "b": do other stuff; break;
etc.
}
...
}
...
}
becomes
public class A {
Dictionary<string, Func<int>> funcs = new Dictionary<string, Func<int>> {
{ "a", () => 0; },
{ "b", () => DoOtherStuff(); }
... etc.
};
public int SomeMethod(string arg){
...
funcs[arg].Invoke();
...
}
...
}

Advantages:
You can change the behaviour at runtime of the "switch" at runtime
it doesn't clutter the methods using it
you can have non-literal cases (ie. case a + b == 3) with much less hassle
Disadvantages:
All of your methods must have the same signature.
You have a change of scope, you can't use variables defined in the scope of the method unless you capture them in the lambda, you'll have to take care of redefining all lambdas should you add a variable at some point
you'll have to deal with non-existant indexes specifically (similar to default in a switch)
the stacktrace will be more complicated if an unhandled exception should bubble up, resulting in a harder to debug application
Should you use it? It really depends. You'll have to define the dictionary at some place, so the code will be cluttered by it somewhere. You'll have to decide for yourself. If you need to switch behaviour at runtime, the dictionary solution really sticks out, especially, if the methods you use don't have sideeffects (ie. don't need access to scoped variables).

For several reasons:
Because doing it this way allows you to select what each case branch will do at runtime. Otherwise, you have to compile it in.
What's more, you can also change the number of branches at runtime.
The code looks much cleaner especially with a large number of branches, as you mention.
Why does this solution feel wrong to you? If the dictionary is populated at compile time, then you certainly don't lose any safety (the delegates that go in certainly have to compile without error). You do lose a little performance, but:
In most cases the performance loss is a non-issue
The flexibility you gain is enormous

Jon has a couple good answers. Here are some more:
Whenever you need a new case in a switch, you have to code it in to that switch statement. That requires opening up that class (which previously worked just fine), adding the new code, and re-compiling and re-testing that class and any class that used it. This violates a SOLID development rule, the Open-Closed Principle (classes should be closed to modification, but open to extension). By contrast, a Dictionary of delegates allows delegates to be added, removed, and swapped out at will, without changing the code doing the selecting.
Using a Dictionary of delegates allows the code to be performed in a condition to be located anywhere, and thus given to the Dictionary from anywhere. Given this freedom, it's easy to turn the design into a Strategy pattern where each delegate is provided by a unique class that performs the logic for that case. This supports encapsulation of code and the Single Responsibility Principle (a class should do one thing, and should be the only class responsible for that thing).

If there are more number of possible cases then it is good idea to replace Switch Statement with the strategy pattern, See this.
Applying Strategy Pattern Instead of Using Switch Statements

No one has said anything yet about what I believe to be the single biggest drawback of this approach.
It's less maintainable.
I say this for two reasons.
It's syntactically more complex.
It requires more reasoning to understand.
Most programmers know how a switch statement works. Many programmers have never seen a Dictionary of functions.
While this might seem like an interesting and novel alternative to the switch statement and may very well be the only way to solve some problems, it is considerably more complex. If you don't need the added flexibility you shouldn't use it.

Convert your A class to a partial class, and create a second partial class in another file with just the delegate dictionary in it.
Now you can change the number of branches, and add logic to your switch statement without touching the source for the rest of your class.

(Regardless of language) Performance-wise, where such code exists in a critical section, you are almost certainly better off with a function look-up table.
The reason is that you eliminate multiple runtime conditionals (the longer your switch, the more comparisons there will be) in favour of simple array indexing and function call.
The only performance downside is you've introduced the cost of a function call. This will typically be preferable to said conditionals. Profile the difference; YMMV.

Use of Syntactic Sugar / Built in Functionality

I was busy looking deeper into things like multi-threading and deadlocking etc. The book is aimed at both pseudo-code and C code and I was busy looking at implementations for things such as Mutex locks and Monitors.
This brought to mind the following; in C# and in fact .NET we have a lot of syntactic sugar for doing things. For instance (.NET 3.5):
lock(obj)
{
body
}
Is identical to:
var temp = obj;
Monitor.Enter(temp);
try
{
body
}
finally
{
Monitor.Exit(temp);
}
There are other examples of course, such as the using() {} construct etc. My question is when is it more applicable to "go it alone" and literally code things oneself than to use the "syntactic sugar" in the language? Should one ever use their own ways rather than those of people who are more experienced in the language you're coding in?
I recall having to not use a Process object in a using block to help with some multi-threaded issues and infinite looping before. I still feel dirty for not having the using construct in there.
Thanks,
Kyle

Stick to the syntactic sugar as much as possible. It's concise, more maintainable, less error-prone, well understood, and they created it for a reason.
If you must have manual control over something (e.g. manipulating an IEnumerator<T> instead of using foreach), then yes, ditch the syntactic sugar. Otherwise, being idiomatic is a good thing.

The biggest cost of software development is maintenance over the long term, so the answer is always, do the thing that will give you the easiest and most cost effective maintenance path (with all the exceptions that might prove the rule, perf for example). If you can use syntactical sugar to make your code more readable then that's your answer if the syntactical sugar gets in the way then don't use it.

In C#, this linq statement:
var filteredCities =
from city in cities
where city.StartsWith("L") && city.Length < 15
orderby city
select city;
is syntactic sugar for (and equivalent to):
var filteredCities =
cities.Where(c => c.StartsWith("L") && c.Length < 15))
.OrderBy(c => c)
.Select(c => c);
If you know C# well, the latter version is far easier to pick apart than the former; you can see exactly what it is doing under the hood.
However, for typical everyday use, most people find the sugared version cleaner to look at, and easier to read.

Your example of not being able to use a using construct is my most common deviation from the new approaches made available in .Net languages and the framework. There are just a lot of cases where the scope of an IDisposable object is a bit outside of a single function.
However, knowing about what these shortcuts do is still as important as ever. I do think many people simply won't dispose an object if they can't wrap it in a using, because they don't understand what it does and what it's making easier.
So I do wish there was something like a tooltip helptext for some of these wonderful shortcuts, that indicated something important is happening - maybe even a different keyword coloring.
Edit:
I've been thinking about this, and I've decided that I believe using is just a misleading keyword to have chosen. foreach does exactly what it sounds like, whereas using doesn't imply, to me, what's actually going on. Anybody have any thoughts on this? What if they keyword had been disposing instead; do you think it'd be any clearer?

Getting my head around object oriented programming

I am entry level .Net developer and using it to develop web sites. I started with classic asp and last year jumped on the ship with a short C# book.
As I developed I learned more and started to see that coming from classic asp I always used C# like scripting language.
For example in my last project I needed to encode video on the webserver and wrote a code like
public class Encoder
{
Public static bool Encode(string videopath) {
...snip...
return true;
}
}
While searching samples related to my project I’ve seen people doing this
public class Encoder
{
Public static Encode(string videopath) {
EncodedVideo encoded = new EncodedVideo();
...snip...
encoded.EncodedVideoPath = outputFile;
encoded.Success = true;
...snip...
}
}
public class EncodedVideo
{
public string EncodedVideoPath { get; set; }
public bool Success { get; set; }
}
As I understand second example is more object oriented but I don’t see the point of using EncodedVideo object.
Am I doing something wrong? Does it really necessary to use this sort of code in a web app?

someone once explained OO to me as a a soda can.
A Soda can is an object, an object has many properties. And many methods. For example..
SodaCan.Drink();
SodaCan.Crush();
SocaCan.PourSomeForMyHomies();
etc...
The purpose of OO Design is theoretically to write a line of code once, and have abstraction between objects.
This means that Coder.Consume(SodaCan.contents); is relative to your question.
An encoded video is not the same thing as an encoder. An encoder returns an encoded video. and encoded video may use an encoder but they are two seperate objects. because they are two different entities serving different functions, they simply work together.
Much like me consuming a soda can does not mean that I am a soda can.

Neither example is really complete enough to evaluate. The second example seems to be more complex than the first, but without knowing how it will be used it's difficult to tell.
Object Oriented design is at it's best when it allows you to either:
1) Keep related information and/or functions together (instead of using parallel arrays or the like).
Or
2) Take advantage of inheritance and interface implementation.
Your second example MIGHT be keeping the data together better, if it returns the EncodedVideo object AND the success or failure of the method needs to be kept track of after the fact. In this case you would be replacing a combination of a boolean "success" variable and a path with a single object, clearly documenting the relation of the two pieces of data.
Another possibility not touched on by either example is using inheritance to better organize the encoding process. You could have a single base class that handles the "grunt work" of opening the file, copying the data, etc. and then inherit from that class for each different type of encoding you need to perform. In this case much of your code can be written directly against the base class, without needing to worry about what kind of encoding is actually being performed.

Actually the first looks better to me, but shouldn't return anything (or return an encoded video object).
Usually we assume methods complete successfully without exceptional errors - if exceptional errors are encountered, we throw an exception.

Object oriented programming is fundamentally about organization. You can program in an OO way even without an OO language like C#. By grouping related functions and data together, it is easier to deal with increasingly complex projects.

You aren't necessarily doing something wrong. The question of what paradigm works best is highly debatable and isn't likely to have a clear winner as there are so many different ways to measure "good" code,e.g. maintainable, scalable, performance, re-usable, modular, etc.
It isn't necessary, but it can be useful in some cases. Take a look at various MVC examples to see OO code. Generally, OO code has the advantage of being re-usable so that what was written for one application can be used for others over and over again. For example, look at log4net for example of a logging framework that many people use.

The way your structure an OO program--which objects you use and how you arrange them--really depends on many factors: the age of the project, the overall size of the project, complexity of the problem, and a bit for just personal taste.
The best advice I can think of that will wrap all the reasons for OO into one quick lesson is something I picked up learning design patterns: "Encapsulate the parts that change." The value of OO is to reuse elements that will be repeated without writing additional code. But obviously you only care to "wrap up" code into objects if it will actually be reused or modified in the future, thus you should figure out what is likely to change and make objects out of it.
In your example, the reason to use the second set up may be that you can reuse the EncodedVideo object else where in the program. Anytime you need to deal with EncodedVideo, you don't concern yourself with the "how do I encode and use video", you just use the object you have and trust it to handle the logic. It may also be valuable to encapsulate the encoding logic if it's complex, and likely to change. Then you isolate changes to just one place in the code, rather than many potential places where you might have used the object.
(Brief aside: The particular example you posted isn't valid C# code. In the second example, the static method has no return type, though I assume you meant to have it return the EncodedVideo object.)

This is a design question, so answer depends on what you need, meaning there's no right or wrong answer. First method is more simple, but in second case you incapsulate encoding logic in EncodedVideo class and you can easily change the logic (based on incoming video type, for instance) in your Encoder class.

I think the first example seems more simple, except I would avoid using statics whenever possible to increase testability.
public class Encoder
{
private string videoPath;
public Encoder(string videoPath) {
this.videoPath = videoPath;
}
public bool Encode() {
...snip...
return true;
}
}

Is OOP necessary? No.
Is OOP a good idea? Yes.
You're not necessarily doing something wrong. Maybe there's a better way, maybe not.
OOP, in general, promotes modularity, extensibility, and ease of maintenance. This goes for web applications, too.
In your specific Encoder/EncodedVideo example, I don't know if it makes sense to use two discrete objects to accomplish this task, because it depends on a lot of things.
For example, is the data stored in EncodedVideo only ever used within the Encode() method? Then it might not make sense to use a separate object.
However, if other parts of the application need to know some of the information that's in EncodedVideo, such as the path or whether the status is successful, then it's good to have an EncodedVideo object that can be passed around in the rest of the application. In this case, Encode() could return an object of type EncodedVideo rather than a bool, making that data available to the rest of your app.

Unless you want to reuse the EncodedVideo class for something else, then (from what code you've given) I think your method is perfectly acceptable for this task. Unless there's unrelated functionality in EncodedVideo and the Encoder classes or it forms a massive lump of code that should be split down, then you're not really lowering the cohesion of your classes, which is fine. Assuming you don't need to reuse EncodedVideo and the classes are cohesive, by splitting them you're probably creating unnecessary classes and increasing coupling.
Remember: 1. the OO philosophy can be quite subjective and there's no single right answer, 2. you can always refactor later :p

Anthropomorphising interfaces - good or bad idea?

I have for some time tried to anthropomorphise (meaning human readable) the names I give to interfaces, to me this is the same as give an interface a role based name – trying to capture the purpose of the interface in the name.
I was having a discussion with other developers who think this is a little strange and childish.
What do the folks of SO think?
Examples (C# syntax):
public interface IShowMessages
{
void Show(string message);
void Show(string title, string message);
}
public class TraceMessenger : IShowMessages
{
}
public interface IHaveMessageParameters
{
IList<string> Parameters { get; }
}
public class SomeClass : IHaveMessageParameters
{
}

IThinkItsATerribleIdea

Of course you should always choose identifiers which are human readable. As in: transport the meaning which they convey even to somebody who is not as familiar with the problem to be solved by the code as you are.
However, using long identifiers does not make your identifiers more 'readable'. To any reasonably experienced programmer, 'tmp' conveys as much information as 'temporaryVariable' does. Same goes for 'i' vs. 'dummyCounter' etc..
In your particular example, the interface names are actually quite annoying since somebody who's used to developing object oriented systems will read the inheritance as 'is a'. And 'SomeClass is a IHaveMessageParameters' sounds silly.
Try using IMessagePrinter and IMessageParameterProvider instead.

Yes, that sounds like a good idea.
What's the alternative?
Code should be human-readable. Any fool can write code a computer can understand. The difficult part is writing code a human can understand.
Humans have to maintain the code, so it's pretty darn important that it is as easy to maintain as possible - that includes that the code should be as readable as possible.

Interfaces describe behavior, and so I name them so as to to communicate the behavior they are mandating. This 'generally' means that the name is a verb, (or adverb) or some form of action-describing phrase. Combined with the "I" for interface, this looks like what you are doing...
ICanMove, IControllable, ICanPrint, ISendMesssages, etc...
using adverbs as in IControllable, IDisposable, IEnumerable, etc. communicates the same thought as a verb form and is terser, so I use this form as well...
Finally, more important (or at least equally important) than what you name the interface, is to keep the interfaces you design as small and logically contained as possible. You should strive to have each interface represent as small and logically connected a set of methods/properties as possible. When an interface has so much in it that there is no obvious name that would describe all the behavior it mandates, it's a sign that there is too much in it, and that it needs to be refactored into two or more smaller interfaces. So, maming interfaces in the way you are proposing helps to enforce this type of organizational design, which is a good thing.

There's nothing strange about using simple human-readable names. But using the I for interface to also stand for the first-person I as though it's talking about itself... is a little unusual, yes.
But the bottom line is, whatever works for you and is understood by you and your team is fine. You gotta go with what works.

In my opinion this approach just adds a greater burden on the developers to come up with such names since it intergrates the I as part of a sentence. I don't find IDisposable for example to be more difficult to read than ICanBeDisposed.

In the OP's examples, the anthropomorphic way compares well against alternatives - eg: IShowMessages vs. something like IMessageShower. But - this is not always the case. Interfaces I have used when programming game objects include: IOpenClosable and ILockable. Alternatives like ICanBeOpenedAndClosed and ICanBeLocked would be more verbose. Or you could simply do IAmOpenClosable and IAmLockable - but then you'd be adding the "Am" just for the anthropomorphic effect with no real information benefit. I am all for minimizing verbosity if the same amount of information is conveyed.

So long as the semantics of what is trying to be achieved aren't lost and terseness isn't irreparably compromised (IDoLotsOfThingsWhichIncludesTheFollowingColonSpace...). I wouldn't generally mind somebody other than myself doing it. Still, there are plenty of contexts in which terseness is paramount, in which this would be unacceptable.

Intentionally using the 'I for Interface' convention in the first person seems a bit silly to be honest. What starts out as a cute pun becomes impossible to follow consistently, and ends up clouding meaning later on. That said, your standalone example reads clearly enough and I wouldn't have a problem with it.

What's the point of DSLs / fluent interfaces

I was recently watching a webcast about how to create a fluent DSL and I have to admit, I don't understand the reasons why one would use such an approach (at least for the given example).
The webcast presented an image resizing class, that allows you to specify an input-image, resize it and save it to an output-file using the following syntax (using C#):
Sizer sizer = new Sizer();
sizer.FromImage(inputImage)
.ToLocation(outputImage)
.ReduceByPercent(50)
.OutputImageFormat(ImageFormat.Jpeg)
.Save();
I don't understand how this is better than a "conventional" method that takes some parameters:
sizer.ResizeImage(inputImage, outputImage, 0.5, ImageFormat.Jpeg);
From a usability point of view, this seems a lot easier to use, since it clearly tells you what the method expects as input. In contrast, with the fluent interface, nothing stops you from omitting/forgetting a parameter/method-call, for example:
sizer.ToLocation(outputImage).Save();
So on to my questions:
1 - Is there some way to improve the usability of a fluent interface (i.e. tell the user what he is expected to do)?
2 - Is this fluent interface approach just a replacement for the non existing named method parameters in C#? Would named parameters make fluent interfaces obsolete, e.g. something similar objective-C offers:
sizer.Resize(from:input, to:output, resizeBy:0.5, ..)
3 - Are fluent interfaces over-used simply because they are currently popular?
4 - Or was it just a bad example that was chosen for the webcast? In that case, tell me what the advantages of such an approach are, where does it make sense to use it.
BTW: I know about jquery, and see how easy it makes things, so I'm not looking for comments about that or other existing examples.
I'm more looking for some (general) comments to help me understand (for example) when to implement a fluent interface (instead of a classical class-library), and what to watch out for when implementing one.

2 - Is this fluent interface approach
just a replacement for the non
existing named method parameters in
C#? Would named parameters make fluent
interfaces obsolete, e.g. something
similar objective-C offers:
Well yes and no. The fluent interface gives you a larger amount of flexibility. Something that could not be achieved with named params is:
sizer.FromImage(i)
.ReduceByPercent(x)
.Pixalize()
.ReduceByPercent(x)
.OutputImageFormat(ImageFormat.Jpeg)
.ToLocation(o)
.Save();
The FromImage, ToLocation and OutputImageFormat in the fluid interface, smell a bit to me. Instead I would have done something along these lines, which I think is much clearer.
new Sizer("bob.jpeg")
.ReduceByPercent(x)
.Pixalize()
.ReduceByPercent(x)
.Save("file.jpeg",ImageFormat.Jpeg);
Fluent interfaces have the same problems many programming techniques have, they can be misused, overused or underused. I think that when this technique is used effectively it can create a richer and more concise programming model. Even StringBuilder supports it.
var sb = new StringBuilder();
sb.AppendLine("Hello")
.AppendLine("World");

I would say that fluent interfaces are slightly overdone and I would think that you have picked just one such example.
I find fluent interfaces particularly strong when you are constructing a complex model with it. With model I mean e.g. a complex relationship of instantiated objects. The fluent interface is then a way to guide the developer to correctly construct instances of the semantic model. Such a fluent interface is then an excellent way to separate the mechanics and relationships of a model from the "grammar" that you use to construct the model, essentially shielding details from the end user and reducing the available verbs to maybe just those relevant in a particular scenario.
Your example seems a bit like overkill.
I have lately done some fluent interface on top of the SplitterContainer from Windows Forms. Arguably, the semantic model of a hierarchy of controls is somewhat complex to correctly construct. By providing a small fluent API a developer can now declaratively express how his SplitterContainer should work. Usage goes like
var s = new SplitBoxSetup();
s.AddVerticalSplit()
.PanelOne().PlaceControl(()=> new Label())
.PanelTwo()
.AddHorizontalSplit()
.PanelOne().PlaceControl(()=> new Label())
.PanelTwo().PlaceControl(()=> new Panel());
form.Controls.Add(s.TopControl);
I have now reduced the complex mechanics of the control hierarchy to a couple of verbs that are relevant for the issue at hand.
Hope this helps

Consider:
sizer.ResizeImage(inputImage, outputImage, 0.5, ImageFormat.Jpeg);
What if you used less clear variable names:
sizer.ResizeImage(i, o, x, ImageFormat.Jpeg);
Imagine you've printed this code out. It's harder to infer what these arguments are, as you don't have access to the method signature.
With the fluent interface, this is clearer:
sizer.FromImage(i)
.ToLocation(o)
.ReduceByPercent(x)
.OutputImageFormat(ImageFormat.Jpeg)
.Save();
Also, the order of methods is not important. This is equivalent:
sizer.FromImage(i)
.ReduceByPercent(x)
.OutputImageFormat(ImageFormat.Jpeg)
.ToLocation(o)
.Save();
In addition, perhaps you might have defaults for the output image format, and the reduction, so this could become:
sizer.FromImage(i)
.ToLocation(o)
.Save();
This would require overloaded constructors to achieve the same effect.

It's one way to implement things.
For objects that do nothing but manipulate the same item over and over again, there's nothing really wrong with it. Consider C++ Streams: they're the ultimate in this interface. Every operation returns the stream again, so you can chain together another stream operation.
If you're doing LINQ, and doing manipulation of an object over and over, this makes some sense.
However, in your design, you have to be careful. What should the behavior be if you want to deviate halfway through? (IE,
var obj1 = object.Shrink(0.50); // obj1 is now 50% of obj2
var obj2 = object.Shrink(0.75); // is ojb2 now 75% of ojb1 or is it 75% of the original?
If obj2 was 75% of the original object, then that means you're making a full copy of the object every time (and has its advantages in many cases, like if you're trying to make two instances of the same thing, but slightly differently).
If the methods simply manipulate the original object, then this kind of syntax is somewhat disingenuous. Those are manipulations on the object instead of manipulations to create a changed object.
Not all classes work like this, nor does it make sense to do this kind of design. For example, this style of design would have little to no usefulness in the design of a hardware driver or the core of a GUI application. As long as the design involves nothing but manipulating some data, this pattern isn't a bad one.

You should read Domain Driven Design by Eric Evans to get some idea why is DSL considered good design choice.
Book is full of good examples, best practice advices and design patterns. Highly recommended.

It's possible to use a variation on a Fluent interface to enforce certain combinations of optional parameters (e.g. require that at least one parameter from a group is present, and require that if a certain parameter is specified, some other parameter must be omitted). For example, one could provide a functionality similar to Enumerable.Range, but with a syntax like IntRange.From(5).Upto(19) or IntRange.From(5).LessThan(10).Stepby(2) or IntRange(3).Count(19).StepBy(17). Compile-time enforcement of overly-complex parameter requirements may require the definition of an annoying number of intermediate-value structures or classes, but the approach can in some cases prove useful in simpler cases.

Further to #sam-saffron's suggestion regarding the flexibility of a Fluent Interface when adding a new operation:
If we needed to add a new operation, such as Pixalize(), then, in the 'method with multiple parameters' scenario, this would require a new parameter to be added to the method signature. This may then require a modification to every invocation of this method throughout the codebase in order to add a value for this new parameter (unless the language in use would allow an optional parameter).
Hence, one possible benefit of a Fluent Interface is limiting the impact of future change.