Disclaimer: yes I know that this is not "supposed to be done" and "use interface composition and delegation" and "the authors of the language know better". However, I am confronted with a choice of either copy-pasting from the standard library and creating my own packages, or doing what I am asking. So please do not reply with "What you want to do is wrong, you are a bad dev and you should feel bad."
So, in Go we have the http stdlib package. This package has a number of functions for dealing with HTTP Range headers and responses (parsers, a struct for "offset+size" and so forth). For various reasons I want to use something that is very similar to ServeContent but works a bit differently (long story short - the amount of plumbing needed to do the ReaderAt gymnastics is suboptimal for what I want to accomplish) so I want to parse the HTTP Range header myself, using the utility functions/structs from the http stdlib package and then deal with them manually. Basically, I want a changed version of ServeContent :-)
Is there a way for me to "reopen" the http stdlib package to use it's unexported identifiers? ABI is not a concern for me as the source is mine, the program gets compiled from scratch every time etc. etc. and it does not need binary compatibility with older/other Go versions. I.e. I am able to ensure that the build is going to be done on a specific Go version and there are tests to check that an unexported identifier disappeared. So...
If there is a package called foo in the Go standard library, but it only exposes a MagicMegamethod that does the thing I do not need, and uses usefulFunc and usefulStruct that I want to get access to, is there a way for me to get access to those identifiers? Either by reopening the package, or using some other way... that does not involve copy-pasting dozens of lines from stdlib without tests etc.
There exist (rather gruesome) ways of accessing unexported symbols, but it requires nontrivial amounts of tricky code, so there's unlikely to be a net win.
Since you've outruled the "don't do this" direction, it seems that the answer is either NO or use the methods described in the post I linked to (and this repo).
FWIW I'd personally just copy the code I need from the standard library and tweak it to my needs. This would likely take less time than the time it took you to write this SO question :-)
Related
The ComplexExpr and ComplexFunc classes in the links below seem very convenient to work with complex numbers. Is there a plan to include them into the official Halide API? Or is there a reason why they are not included?
https://github.com/halide/Halide/blob/master/apps/fft/complex.h
https://github.com/halide/Halide/blob/be1269b15f4ba8b83df5fa0ef1ae507017fe1a69/apps/fft/funct.h
Speaking as a Halide developer...
Or is there a reason why they are not included?
We haven't included these historically since we didn't want to bless a particular representation for complex numbers. There are a few valid ways of dealing with them and the headers in question are just one.
Is there a plan to include them into the official Halide API?
We've started talking about packaging some of this type of code into a set of header-only "Halide tools" libraries, so named to avoid the normative implication of calling it something like "stdlib". So as of right now, there is no concrete plan, but the odds are nonzero.
In the meantime, the code is MIT licensed, so you should feel free to use those files, regardless.
I know this might be controversial or not very broad but I'm going to try to be very specific and relate to other questions.
Ok so when I make a Go program what things should I be thinking in terms of how I should organize my project? (E.g. should I think ok I'm going to have controllers of some sort so I should have a controller subdirectory that's going to do this so I should have that)
How should I structure a package?
For example the current program I'm working on I'm trying to make a SteamBot using this package
But while I'm writing it I don't know if I should export certain methods into their own own files, e.g. I'd have something like
func (t *tradeBot) acceptTrade() {}
func (t *tradeBot) declineTrade() {}
func (t *tradeBot) monitorTrade() {}
func (t *tradeBot) sendTrade() {}
each method is going to have quite a bit of code so should I export each method into its own file or just have 1 file with 3000 lines of code in it?
Also using global variables so that I can set one variable and then leave it and be able to use it in multiple functions, or is this bad and I should pass the variables as arguments?
Also should I order my files like:
package
imports
constants
variables
functions
methods
Or do I just put things where I need them?
The first place to look for inspiration is the Go standard library. The Go standard library is a pretty good guide of what "good" Go code should look like. A library isn't quite the same as an application, but it's definitely a good introduction.
In general, you would not break up every method into its own file. Go tends to prefer larger files that cover a topic. 3000 lines seems quite large, though. Even the net/http server.go is only 2200 lines, and it's pretty big.
Global mutable variables are just as bad in Go as in any language. Since Go relies so heavily on concurrent programming, global mutable variables are quite horrible. Don't do that. One common exception is sync structures like sync.Pool or sync.Once, which sometimes are package global, but are also designed to be accessed concurrently. There are also sometimes "Default" versions of structures, like http.DefaultClient, but you can still pass explicit ones to functions. Again, look through the Go standard library and see what is common and what is rare.
Just a few tips that you hopefully find useful:
Organize code into multiple files and packages by features, not by layers. This becomes more important the bigger your application becomes. package controllers with one or two controllers is probably ok, but putting hundreds of unrelated controllers in the same package doesn't make any sense. The following article explains it very well: http://www.javapractices.com/topic/TopicAction.do?Id=205
Global variables sometimes make code easier to write however they should be used with care. I think unexported global variables for things like logger, debug flags, etc are ok.
I am starting to work on a project and for one of the tasks I need to analyze the source code in order to gather information about the classes and their methods. More specifically, for each method I need to know which internal attributes and external objects (references) it uses throughout the entire method body.
I discussed it with my supervisors and they think that Bytecode manipulation libraries is the way to go. I already looked at BCEL, ASM and Javassist but I'm not sure which one I need to use. Do they all provide access to the method body where I can see all the instructions and get the information I need?
Any advice would be appreciate it. Thank you!
If you really “need to analyze the source code”, then libraries which allow to inspect the bytecode are not the way to go.
Otherwise, you really need to define your task precisely. Either, you are about to analyze classes, regardless of whether you will look at their source code or byte code, or you want to analyze source code and consider doing it by compiling first, followed by analyzing the compiled result. In the latter case, you have to compare the effort of both steps with alternative solution, which may, e.g. incorporate direct source code analysis.
Parsing byte code is rather easy, easier than analyzing source code, which is the reason why bytecode is produced prior to the execution of Java programs. To answer your concrete question, yes, all three libraries offer you a way to analyze the instructions and associated information. Which one is the best to fit your needs, is a question that is beyond the scope of Stackoverflow.
Whether analyzing the byte code helps, depends on your exact requirements. When it comes to field and method access, you may precisely get most of them using that approach. Only inlined compile-time constants lack their origins. When it comes to type use, you have to consider that not every source code artifact has an existing counterpart in the byte code, e.g. widening casts produce no actual code and and local variables usually don’t have a declared type (debugging information aside), but only an implied type which depends on how they are actually used. They also have no information about Generics, unless debugging information has been included.
I am learning Ruby and I'm having a major conceptual problem concerning typing. Allow me to detail why I don't understand with paradigm.
Say I am method chaining for concise code as you do in Ruby. I have to precisely know what the return type of each method call in the chain, otherwise I can't know what methods are available on the next link. Do I have to check the method documentation every time?? I'm running into this constantly running tutorial exercises. It seems I'm stuck with a process of reference, infer, run, fail, fix, repeat to get code running rather then knowing precisely what I'm working with during coding. This flies in the face of Ruby's promise of intuitiveness.
Say I am using a third party library, once again I need to know what types are allow to pass on the parameters otherwise I get a failure. I can look at the code but there may or may not be any comments or declaration of what type the method is expecting. I understand you code based on methods are available on an object, not the type. But then I have to be sure whatever I pass as a parameter has all the methods the library is expect, so I still have to do type checking. Do I have to hope and pray everything is documented properly on an interface so I know if I'm expected to give a string, a hash, a class, etc.
If I look at the source of a method I can get a list of methods being called and infer the type expected, but I have to perform analysis.
Ruby and duck typing: design by contract impossible?
The discussions in the preceding stackoverflow question don't really answer anything other than "there are processes you have to follow" and those processes don't seem to be standard, everyone has a different opinion on what process to follow, and the language has zero enforcement. Method Validation? Test-Driven Design? Documented API? Strict Method Naming Conventions? What's the standard and who dictates it? What do I follow? Would these guidelines solve this concern https://stackoverflow.com/questions/616037/ruby-coding-style-guidelines? Is there editors that help?
Conceptually I don't get the advantage either. You need to know what methods are needed for any method called, so regardless you are typing when you code anything. You just aren't informing the language or anyone else explicitly, unless you decide to document it. Then you are stuck doing all type checking at runtime instead of during coding. I've done PHP and Python programming and I don't understand it there either.
What am I missing or not understanding? Please help me understand this paradigm.
This is not a Ruby specific problem, it's the same for all dynamically typed languages.
Usually there are no guidelines for how to document this either (and most of the time not really possible). See for instance map in the ruby documentation
map { |item| block } → new_ary
map → Enumerator
What is item, block and new_ary here and how are they related? There's no way to tell unless you know the implementation or can infer it from the name of the function somehow. Specifying the type is also hard since new_ary depends on what block returns, which in turn depends on the type of item, which could be different for each element in the Array.
A lot of times you also stumble across documentation that says that an argument is of type Object, Which again tells you nothing since everything is an Object.
OCaml has a solution for this, it supports structural typing so a function that needs an object with a property foo that's a String will be inferred to be { foo : String } instead of a concrete type. But OCaml is still statically typed.
Worth noting is that this can be a problem in statically typed lanugages too. Scala has very generic methods on collections which leads to type signatures like ++[B >: A, That](that: GenTraversableOnce[B])(implicit bf: CanBuildFrom[Array[T], B, That]): That for appending two collections.
So most of the time, you will just have to learn this by heart in dynamically typed languages, and perhaps help improve the documentation of libraries you are using.
And this is why I prefer static typing ;)
Edit One thing that might make sense is to do what Scala also does. It doesn't actually show you that type signature for ++ by default, instead it shows ++[B](that: GenTraversableOnce[B]): Array[B] which is not as generic, but probably covers most of the use cases. So for Ruby's map it could have a monomorphic type signature like Array<a> -> (a -> b) -> Array<b>. It's only correct for the cases where the list only contains values of one type and the block only returns elements of one other type, but it's much easier to understand and gives a good overview of what the function does.
Yes, you seem to misunderstand the concept. It's not a replacement for static type checking. It's just different. For example, if you convert objects to json (for rendering them to client), you don't care about actual type of the object, as long as it has #to_json method. In Java, you'd have to create IJsonable interface. In ruby no overhead is needed.
As for knowing what to pass where and what returns what: memorize this or consult docs each time. We all do that.
Just another day, I've seen rails programmer with 6+ years of experience complain on twitter that he can't memorize order of parameters to alias_method: does new name go first or last?
This flies in the face of Ruby's promise of intuitiveness.
Not really. Maybe it's just badly written library. In core ruby everything is quite intuitive, I dare say.
Statically typed languages with their powerful IDEs have a small advantage here, because they can show you documentation right here, very quickly. This is still accessing documentation, though. Only quicker.
Consider that the design choices of strongly typed languages (C++,Java,C#,et al) enforce strict declarations of type passed to methods, and type returned by methods. This is because these languages were designed to validate that arguments are correct (and since these languages are compiled, this work can be done at compile time). But some questions can only be answered at run time, and C++ for example has the RTTI (Run Time Type Interpreter) to examine and enforce type guarantees. But as the developer, you are guided by syntax, semantics and the compiler to produce code that follows these type constraints.
Ruby gives you flexibility to take dynamic argument types, and return dynamic types. This freedom enables you to write more generic code (read Stepanov on the STL and generic programming), and gives you a rich set of introspection methods (is_a?, instance_of?, respond_to?, kind_of?, is_array?, et al) which you can use dynamically. Ruby enables you to write generic methods, but you can also explicity enforce design by contract, and process failure of contract by means chosen.
Yes, you will need to use care when chaining methods together, but learning Ruby is not just a few new keywords. Ruby supports multiple paradigms; you can write procedural, object oriend, generic, and functional programs. The cycle you are in right now will improve quickly as you learn about Ruby.
Perhaps your concern stems from a bias towards strongly typed languages (C++, Java, C#, et al). Duck typing is a different approach. You think differently. Duck typing means that if an object looks like a , behaves like a , then it is a . Everything (almost) is an Object in Ruby, so everything is polymorphic.
Consider templates (C++ has them, C# has them, Java is getting them, C has macros). You build an algorithm, and then have the compiler generate instances for your chosen types. You aren't doing design by contract with generics, but when you recognize their power, you write less code, and produce more.
Some of your other concerns,
third party libraries (gems) are not as hard to use as you fear
Documented API? See Rdoc and http://www.ruby-doc.org/
Rdoc documentation is (usually) provided for libraries
coding guidelines - look at the source for a couple of simple gems for starters
naming conventions - snake case and camel case are both popular
Suggestion - approach an online tutorial with an open mind, do the tutorial (http://rubymonk.com/learning/books/ is good), and you will have more focused questions.
In Go, public names start with an upper case letter and private names start with a lower case letter.
I'm writing a program that is not library and is a single package. Is there any Go idiom that stipulates whether my identifiers should be all public or all private? I do not plan on using this package as a library or as something that should be imported from another Go program.
I can't think of any reason why I'd want a mixture. It "feels" like going all private is the proper choice.
I don't think I got any concrete answer, but Nate was closest with telling me to think of "exporting vs non-exporting" instead of "public and private".
This leads me to believe that not exporting anything is the best approach. In the worst case scenario, if I end up importing code from my application in another package, I will have to rethink what should be exported and what shouldn't be. Which is a good thing IMO.
If you are attempting to adjust your mindset to be more Go idiomatic, you should stop thinking of variables, functions, and methods as public or private. The more accurate term is exported or not exported. It definitely has a more C like feel to it.
As others have stated exporting really isn't needed for application program code. If for organizational reasons you decide to break your program up into packages, you could use sub-packages. At work we've decided to do just this. We have:
projectgopath/src/projectname
projectname/subcomponent1
projectname/subcomponent2
So far I am really liking this structure. It aids in separation of concerns, but does not go to the extent of making a package outside of the main project. The intent is clear. The sub-package's intended use is for this program only...
The new go build and go install commands seem to deal very well with it. We group components together in packages and expose only the necessary bits via exports.
In the described situation both approaches are equally valid, so it's more or less a matter of personal preferences. In my case I'm using camelCase identifiers for package main, mostly out of habit.
A lot of my go files started their life in isolated commands and were moved to packages as they could be reused by a few commands around the same topic.
I think you should make private all that couldn't possibly be called from elsewhere (supposing one day you make it an importable package) and make public the big functions that can be understood from elsewhere (if any) and structs fields when they are orthogonal (I mean when a change of the value of one field doesn't break the consistency of the struct value).