Is using mixins a better practice than using static methods?
For example:
we can create a Utils class, put static methods in it and then use them like Utils.print().
or we can create a UtilsMixin class, access it using "with" keyword and just call print().
How do these two methods compare to each other? Which one is the way to go?
Mixins vs Static member is like Black vs White. They do the opposite.
Members of a mixin are linked to one specific instance of an object. But static members are common to all objects
If it made sense to implement something like a static function, then it likely means that a mixin is not what you want. It'll just make the object bloated and slower to instantiate.
Related
Is lib a special keyword for Frogatto Formula Language (FFL)? That seems to be the way of invoking class methods. For example:
where frog = lib.citadel.create_creature('Giant Frog')
Also, I am interested to know where can I find a list of all the available lib.**** library objects and how to list of all their available functions.
I wouldn't call it a keyword as such, more a symbol that appears in the standard namespace. As such it is functionally fairly close to a keyword.
When you create a class by adding a file e.g. data/classes/blah.cfg then a singleton instance of this class will be available using lib.blah. This is a convenient way of effectively creating your own namespace of functions -- create a class, add functions to it, then your functions can be accessed using lib.classname.functionname()
Let's say in Java, I have class CryptoFormat, which has a static method named getLegacyFormat(). When I want to use the method, I just need to call CryptoFormat.getLegacyFormat(). This is clear because I know where the method comes from.
In Go, there is no static method. I don't really want to just make a file called crypto_format.go and define the method there. The reason is that whenever I need the method, I just call GetLegacyFormat(), which doesn't contain the context where the method comes from.
I could think of two ways to solve the problem:
Make a separate package named cryptoformat, and define the method as a global function in the package. This way, I need to make a new package for just few methods. Also, whenever I need static methods like this, I have to define new packages.
Define a struct named cryptoFormat containing method GetLegacyFormat(). Also, define a global public variable named CryptoFormat, which points to an instance of struct cryptoFormat. This way, I can call CryptoFormat.GetLegacyFormat() when I need the method.
I am not sure which one is better, or whether there is better way.
I would say option 1 you mention is the more idiomatic way to define such functions, if they don't need any state that would warrant to tie them to an underlying struct.
If there is some state you'd like to have as context for the function, then option 2 would be the way to go.
Note that in Go, functions are "first class citizens", so you don't have Java's constraints of needing to define a class for static methods.
And yes, if you want a separate namespace you'd need to define separate packages (just as in Java you'd need to define separate classes and/or packages).
If you want your implementation to be idiomatic, I'd suggest you take a look at Go's standard libraries (pick a few packages and explore how they implement their functions) to get a better feeling of the usual ways to structure this.
whenever I need the method, I just call GetLegacyFormat(), which doesn't contain the context where the method comes from.
So add context to the function name.
GetLegacyCryptoFormat()
I wanted to make some methods static because I didn't want thousands of copies of them, but when I did the sizeof() on my instantiated objects the extra methods in the class didn't seem to make a difference in size, only the variables did. So are the non-static methods instantiated each time? If not, why would you use static? Because I thought that static things don't get instantiated but non-static do.
I'd like to know when is the best time to use mixins vs calling a method directly.
For example, consider HTTParty. On one of its examples https://github.com/jnunemaker/httparty/blob/master/examples/basic.rb
you can use HTTParty.get('http://twitter.com/statuses/public_timeline.json') or you can create a class that includes HTTParty and then use it as you would calling HTTParty itself.
What's the difference with me just creating something like this:
class Partay
#base_uri = 'http://localhost:3000'
def self.post(endpoint, options)
HTTParty.post(#base_uri + endpoint, options)
end
end
versus the given example:
class Partay
include HTTParty
base_uri 'http://localhost:3000'
end
True that in such a trivial example perhaps using the include would save more characters, but I'd imagine on a much more complicated class it doesn't really make a difference.
A few clarificatory questions:
Would this be related to a composition vs aggregation argument? Is there any design or architecture best practice regarding this? Should I treat mixins as some sort of inheritance and use them as such (inheritance if it's an is-a relationship, composition if it's a has-a relationship, etc.)? Should I only mixin a module if it was intended to be done so (because docs say it expects certain methods from you, like Enumerable) or is it just good practice to do so? Would using a mixin mean a tighter coupling between the module and my class (and is it relatively good or bad in general)?
In the given example, there is not much difference, other than the syntax is much more friendly with the mixin, and could potentially become a DSL that you can use later.
More generally, mixins allow you to use these same functions in different classes without repeating yourself, and without extending another class (mixins are, for example, a way of working around the fact that ruby does not allow multiple inheritance). This favours reuse and goes towards the DRY philosophy dear to the ruby users. As ruby is duck-typed, mixins allows you to take full advantage of polymorphism without inheritance.
Another great advantage of mixins is that they can be added at runtime, so this means you can add behaviour to a class "dynamically".
Update: I personally prefer using modules as mixins, rather than calling methods on it as the methods then become part of your class, which means that they can access the other members of the class. I’m however reluctant to call it a is-a relationship, even though that’s what it is in practice. As the “Well-Grounded Rubyist” says, classes model entities or things (class names tend to be nouns), modules encapsulate properties or characteristics (module names tend to be adjectives).
I have found that there is generally a singe type or namespace that takes in any particular enum as a parameter and as a result I have always defined those enums there. Recently though, I had a co-worker make a big deal about how that was a stupid thing to do, and you should always have an enum namespace at the root of your project where you define everyone of your enum types.
Where is the best place to locate enum types?
Why treat enums differently to other types? Keep them in the same namespace as they're likely to be used - and assuming they're going to be used by other classes, make them top-level types in their own files.
The only type of type which I do commonly clump together is delegates - I sometimes have a Delegates.cs file with a bunch of delegates in. Less so with .NET 3.5 and Func/Action, mind you.
Also, namespaces are for separation of things that belong together logically. Not all classes belong in the same namespace just because they are classes. Likewise, not all enums belong in the same namespace just because they are enums. Put them with the code they logically belong in.
I generally try to put all my different types (classes, interfaces and enums) in their own files, regardless of how small they are. It just makes it much easier to find and manage the file they're in, especially if you don't happen to be in Visual Studio and have the "go to definition" feature available. I've found that nearly every time I've put a "simple" type like that in another class, I end up either adding on to it later on, or reusing it in a way that it no longer makes sense for it to not have its own file.
As far as which namespace, it really depends on the design of whatever you're developing. In general, I try to mimic the .NET framework's convention.
I try to put everything associated with a class in the class. That includes not just enums, but also constants. I don't want to go searching elsewhere for the file or class containing the enums. In a large app with lots of classes and folders, it wouldn't always be obvious where to put the enum file so it would be easy to find.
If the enum if used in several closely-related classes, you could create a base class so that the common types like enums are shared there.
Of course, if an enum is really generic and widely used, you may want to create a separate class for them, along with other generic utilities.
I think you put Enums and Constants in the class that consumes them or that uses them to control code decisions the most and you use code completion to find them. That way you don't have to remember where they are, they are associated with the class. So for example if I have a ColoredBox class then I don't have to think about where they are at. They would be part of ColoredBox. ColoredBox.Colors.Red, ColoredBox.Colors.Blue etc. I
I think of the enum and constant as a property or description of that class.
If it used by multiple classes and no one class reigns supreme then it is appropriate to have an enum class or constants class.
This follows rules of encapsulation. Isolating properties from dissimilar classes. What if you decide to change the RGB of Red in Cirle objects but
you don't want to change the red for ColoredBox objects? Encapsulating their properties enables this.
I use nested namespaces for this. I like them better than putting the enum within a class because outside of the class you have to use the full MyClass::MyEnum usage even if MyEnum is not going to clash with anything else in scope.
By using a nested namespace you can use the "using" syntax. Also I will put enums that relate to a given subsystem in their own file so you don't get dependency problems of having to include the world to use them.
So in the enum header file you get:
// MyEnumHeader.h
// Consolidated enum header file for this dll,lib,subsystem whatever.
namespace MyApp
{
namespace MyEnums
{
enum SomeEnum { EnumVal0, EnumVal1, EnumVal2 };
};
};
And then in the class header file you get:
// MyInterfaceHeader.h
// Class interfaces for the subsystem with all the expected dependencies.
#include "MyEnumHeader.h"
namespace MyApp
{
class MyInterface
{
public:
virtual void DoSomethingWithEnumParam (MyEnums::SomeEnum enumParam) = 0;
};
};
Or use as many enum header files as makes sense. I like to keep them separate from the class headers so the enums can be params elsewhere in the system without needing the class headers. Then if you want to use them elsewhere you don't have to have the encapsulating class defs as you would if the enums were declared within the classes.
And as mentioned before, in the outer code you can use the following:
using namespace MyApp::MyEnums;
What environment?
In .NET I usually create an empty class file, rename it to MyEnum or whatever to indicate it holds my enum and just declare it in there.
If my enumeration has any chance of ever being used outside the class I intend to use it, I create a separate source file for the enum. Otherwise I will place it inside the class I intend to use it.
Usually I find that the enum is centered around a single class -- as a MyClassOptions type of thing.
In that case, I place the enum in the same file as MyClass, but inside the namespace but outside the class.
namespace mynamespace
{
public partial class MyClass
{
}
enum MyClassOptions
{
}
}
I tend to define them, where their use is evident in the evident. If I have a typedef for a struct that makes use of it for some reason...
typedef enum {
HI,
GOODBYE
} msg_type;
typdef struct {
msg_type type;
union {
int hivar;
float goodbyevar;
}
} msg;