In "A systematic literature review on the detection of smells and their evolution in object‐oriented and service‐oriented systems" research paper, procedure class is identified as a smell. But there is not definition given and the reference also do not contain any description or information about it.
So can anybody tell why procedure class is a smell and how it can be refactored?
I was also unable to find any mention of the phrase "procedure class" or anything similar in either of the references cited by this paper. It seems problematic that the paper cites two sources yet neither source actually uses that phrase. I would be very suspicious of a paper's results when its sources are in question.
Without direct references, my assumption is the phrase "procedure class" is an alternative form of utility class. It can be considered an OO anti-pattern as in these posts.
https://www.vojtechruzicka.com/avoid-utility-classes/
https://ralin.io/blog/oop-anti-patterns-utility-or-helper-classes.html
https://www.yegor256.com/2014/05/05/oop-alternative-to-utility-classes.html
Utility classes are evil?
Related
I have been thinking about making my own diagram to better put my head around how all the classes and modules in Ruby inherit from each other. How it all ties together visually. I am sure there is a good one out there. I Googled it but was not satisfied with the results. Any suggestions?
I am also a visual learner and ended up drawing my own "homemade" diagram:
Hope this helps.
One of the best explanations and diagrammatic explanation of the ruby object model can be found in this book: Metaprogramming Ruby I tried googling the relevant pages but came up empty
For a good understanding on how the Ruby Object Model and Metaprogramming work, I would highly recommend these ScreenCasts by Pragmatic Programmer's Dave Thomas:
http://pragprog.com/screencasts/v-dtrubyom/the-ruby-object-model-and-metaprogramming
Dave Thomas is awesome at explaining the concepts, and the screencasts have nice graphics in them visualizing how things relate to each other.. those ScreenCasts are straight to the point, without distractions - and are worth every penny, err cent!
There is also a book "Metaprogramming Ruby" http://pragprog.com/book/ppmetr/metaprogramming-ruby
but although it covers a lot of concepts, the book is badly written, and through it's writing style makes it really hard to memorize the concepts / or use the book as a reference to look up things later..
A diagram showing superclass and eigenclass links between Ruby objects (but not the module inclusion links) is available at www.atalon.cz.
Since 11 January 2012 there is a diagram containing module inclusion links.
Perhaps I am limited by my experience with dynamic languages (Ruby on Netbeans and Groovy on Eclipse), but it seems to me that the nature of dynamic languages makes it impossible to refactor (renaming methods, classes, pushing-up, pulling-down, etc.) automatically.
Is it possible to refactor AUTOMATICALLY in any dynamic language (with any IDE/tool)? I am especially interested in Ruby, Python and Groovy, and how the refactoring compares to the 100% automatic refactoring available in all Java IDEs.
Given that automatic refactoring was invented in a dynamic language (Smalltalk), I would have to say "Yes".
In particular, John Brant, Don Roberts and Ralph Johnson developed the Refactoring Browser which is one of the core tools in, for instance, Squeak.
My Google-fu is weak today, but you could try find this paper: Don Roberts, John Brant, and Ralph Johnson, A Refactoring Tool for Smalltalk, "The Theory and Practice of Object Systems", (3) 4, 1997.
Smalltalk does not declare any types. The Refactoring Browser has successfully performed correct refactorings in commercial code since 1995 and is incorporated in nearly all current Smalltalk IDE's. - Don Roberts
Automatic Refactoring was invented in Smalltalk, a highly dynamic language.
And it works like a charm ever since.
You can try yourself in a free Smalltalk version (for instance http://pharo-project.org)
In a dynamic language you can also script refactorings yourself or query the
system. Simple example to get the number of Test classes:
TestCase allSubclasses size
I have wondered the same thing. I'm not a compiler/interpreter writer, but I think the answer will be that it is impossible to get it perfect. However, you can get it correct in most cases.
First, I'm going to change the name "dynamic" language to "interpreted" language which is what I think of with Ruby, Javascript, etc. Interpreted languages tend to take advantage of run-time capabilities.
For instance, most scripting languages allow the following
-- pseudo-code but you get the idea
eval("echo(a)");
I just "ran" a string! You would have to refactor that string also. And will a be a variable or does this language allow you to print the character a without quotes if there is no variable a?
I want to believe this kind of coding is probably the exception and that you will get good refactoring almost all of the time. Unfortunately it seems that when I look through libraries for scripting languages, they get into such exceptions normally and maybe even base their architecture on them.
Or to up the ante a bit:
def functionThatAssumesInputWillCreateX(input)
eval(input)
echo(x)
def functionWithUnknownParms( ... )
eval(argv[1]);
At least when you refactor Java, and change a variable from int to string, you get errors in all the places that were expecting the int still:
String wasInt;
out = 3 + wasInt;
With interpreted languages you will probably not see this until run-time.
Ditto the points about the Refactoring Browser...it is highly effective in Smalltalk. However, I imagine there are certain types of refactoring that would be impossible without type information (whether obtain by explicit type annotation in the language or through some form of type inferencing in a dynamic language is irrelevant). One example: when renaming a method in Smalltalk, it will rename all implementors and senders of that method, which most often is just fine, but is sometimes undesirable. If you had type information on variables, you could scope the rename to just the implementors in the current class hierarchy and all senders when the message is being sent to a variable declared to be of a type in that hierarchy (however, I could imagine scenarios where even with type declaration, that would break down and produce undesirable results).
This doesn't have to be Java, but it's what I'm dealing with. Also, not so much concerned with the methods and details of those, I'm wondering about the overall class file.
What are some of the things I really need to have in my comments for a given class file? At my corporation, the only things I really can come up with:
Copyright/License
A description of what the class does
A last modified date?
Is there anything else which should be provided?
One logical thing I've heard is to keep authors out of the header because it's redundant with the information already being provided via source control.
Update:
JavaDoc can be assumed here, but I'm really more concerned about the details of what's good to include content-wise, whether it's definitive meta-data that can be mined, or the more loose, WHY etc...
One logical thing I've heard is to keep authors out of the header because it's redundant
with the information already being provided via source control.
also last modified date is redundant
I use a small set of documentation patterns:
always documenting about thread-safety
always documenting immutability
javadoc with examples
#Deprecation with WHY and HOW to replace the annotated element
keeping comments at minimum
No to the "last modified date" - that belongs in source control too.
The other two are fine. Basically concentrate on the useful text - what the class does, any caveats around thread safety, expected usage etc.
Implementation comments should usually be about why you're doing something non-obvious - and should therefore be rare. (For instance, it could be because some API behaves in an unusual way, or because there's a useful shortcut you can use but which isn't immediately obvious.)
For the sanity of yourself and future developers, you really ought to be writing Javadocs.
When you feel the need to write comments to explain what some code does, improve the readability of the code, so that comments are not needed. You can do that by renaming methods/fields/classes to have more meaningful names, and by splitting larger methods into smaller methods using the composed method pattern.
If even after all your efforts the code is not self-explanatory, for example the reason why some unobvious code had to be written is not clear from the code, then apologize by writing comments. (Sometimes you can document the reasons by writing a test which will fail, if somebody changes the unobvious-but-correct code to do the obvious-but-wrong thing. But having a comment in addition to that is also useful. I prefix such comments often with "// HACK:" or "// XXX:".)
An overall description of the purpose of the class, a description for each field and a contract for each method. Javadoc format works well.
If you assign ownership of components to particular developers or teams, owners should be recorded in the component source or VCS metadata.
I have read the formal definition of a "concrete domain", but I still don't quite get it.
Could someone explain it to me in simpler terms, preferably with some examples?
The definition is available in
Reasoning in Description Logics with a Concrete Domain in the Framework of Resolution by Ullrich Hustadt, Boris Motik, Ulrike Sattler. Page 1, Definition 1.
I'm not very good with the predicate logic myself but became intrigued by your question so I read up and got a fairly good overview of the concept of concrete domains from the part 6.2.1 in "The Description Logic Handbook", it had some examples also.
I'm a new user and can't post links but you will find the book by searching for "concrete domains" on Google (look for books.google.com).
I hope it helps, I found the formal definition hard to get as well! The beginning of part 6.2.1 is good for introduction in the book.
Good luck!
What is the difference in meaning between 'semantics' and 'syntax'? What are they?
Also, what's the difference between things like "semantic website vs. normal website", "semantic social networking vs. normal social networking" etc.
Syntax is the grammar. It describes the way to construct a correct sentence. For example, this water is triangular is syntactically correct.
Semantics relates to the meaning. this water is triangular does not mean anything, though the grammar is ok.
Talking about the semantic web has become trendy recently. The idea is to enhance the markup (structural with HTML) with additional data so computer could make sense of the web pages more easily.
Syntax is the grammar of a language - the rules by which to form sentences or expressions.
Semantics is the meaning you are trying to express with your code.
A program that is syntactically correct will compile and run.
A program that is semantically correct will actually do what you as the programmer intended it to do. i.e. it doesn't have any bugs in it.
Two programs written to perform the same task in different languages will use different syntaxes, but they would be the same semantically.
If you are talking about web (rather than programming languages):
The syntax of the language is whatever the browser (or processing program) can legally recognize and handle, and render to you. For example, your browser can render HTML, while your API can parse XML trees.
Semantics involve what is actually being represented. There's a lot of buzz now about semantic webs and all that stuff, but it essentially means that each entity is also associated with some human-readable information or metadata, so that a certain tag would have a supposed meaning and refer you to it.
Social networks are the same story. You put knowledge in the links
"An ant ate an aunt." has a correct syntax, but will not make sense semantically. A syntax is a set of rules that can be combined to produce infinite number of gramatically valid sentences, but few, very few of which has a semantics.
Syntax is the word order of a sentence. In English it would be the subject-verb-object form.
Semantic is the meaning behind words. E.g: she ate a saw. The word saw doesn't match according to the meaning of the sentence. but it is grammatically correct. so its syntax is correct. =)
Specifically, semantic social networking means embedding the actual social relationships within the page markup. The standard format for doing this as defined by microformats is XFN, XHTML Friends Network. In regards to the semantic web in general, microformats should be the go-to guide for defining embedded semantic content.
Semantic web sites use the concept of the semantic web, which aims to bring meaning to web content by using special annotations to identify certain concepts in a page. This makes possible the automatic (by a computer, not a human) reasoning about the content, which improves its aggregation, extraction, indexing and searching.
Explanations above are vague on the semantics side, semantics could mean the different elements at disposition to build arguments of value(these being comprehensible, to end-user man and digestible to the machine).
Of course this puts semantics and the programmer-editor-writer-communicator in the middle: he decides on the semantics that should be ideally defined to his public, comprehended by his public, general convention by his public and digestible to the machine-computer. Semantics should be agreed upon, are conceptual, must be implementable to both sides.
Say footnotes, inline and block-quotes, titles and on and on to end up into a well-defined and finite list. Mediawiki, wikitext as an example fails in that perspective, defining syntax for elements of semantic meaning left undefined, no finite list agreed upon. "meaning by form" as additional of what a title as an example again carries as textual content. Example "This is a title" becomes only semantics integrated by the supposition within agreed upon semantics, and there can be more then one set of say "This is important and will be detailed"
Asciidoc and pandoc markup is quite different in it's semantics, regardless of how each translates this by convention of syntax to output formats.
Programming, output formats as html, pdf, epub can have consequentially meaning by form, by semantics, the syntax having disappeared as a temporary tool of translation, and as one more consequence thus the output can be scanned robotically for meaning, the champ of algorithms of 'grep': Google. Looking for the meaning of "what" in "What is it that is looked for" based upon whether a title or a footnote, or a link is considered.
Semantics, and there can be more then one layer, even the textual message carries (Chomsky) semantics thus could be translated as meaning by form, creating functional differences to anything else in the output chain, including a human being, the reader.
As a conclusion, programmers and academics should be integrated, no academic should be without knowledge of his tools, as any bread and butter carpenter. Programmers should be academics in the sense that the other end of the bridging they accomplish is the end user, the bridge... much so: semantics.
m.