In the built_value lib I found the example how to make enums. So I'm a bit confused. Because I do not see right away what are the benefits of useing the built_value enums. Does some one know it? What do I overlook?
Serialization is one thing; the other major one is that they are proper classes: you can add code to them, and they can implement interfaces.
In this way they're much like Java's enums.
Mostly that they can easily be de/serialized from/to JSON.
Darts built-in enums are quite a bad fit where serialization is needed.
Related
How to get annotation of go language function?
Example:
// #annotation1
// #annotation2
func Tags() string {
return ""
}
How to get the "#annotation1" and "#annotation2"?
Short answer, there is no native support for annotations in Golang. What's being used if tags, which you can get from the reflect package.
So, you do not have annotations in Go, and to my knowledge there is no library which provides them. Depending of what you want to do, usually tags are more than enough, and you can use the language's power to achieve the desired results.
It should be possible to implement them as you can get the documentation strings, just like PHP does. However, in the big majority of cases it won't be necessary.
EDIT:
In Go, you have access to the documentation of structs, fields, methods, interfaces, functions (godoc isn't magical) through the ast package. However, it requires parsing the files, there is no function such as type.getDocComments() as in PHP.
So, an implementation is theoretically possible. However, the kind of annotations you're asking for are simply not part of Golang's philosophy. There are plenty of libraries that extensively use tags, but none use annotations.
I do not know of any native support for something that pulls specific tags from comments - however, the builtin functionality of godoc does pull from the comments directly adjacent to functions. If you are trying to build documentation, this may be useful.
In addition to godoc, I know that the golang plugin for IntelliJ pulls these comments as the help/documentation for inline completions and suggestions.
Hope this helps!
Does protobuf-net have any APIs to dump a protobuf into human readable form? I was hoping for something like TextFormat.
At the moment, no. I'm in two minds as to whether it is worthwhile adding; in my mind, this defeats most of the benefits of protocol buffers.
However, since Jon's version is a port of the java version you should find that it is feature compatible, so it should exist there.
there is one for java. the build.toString() method returns a string representation but you'll loose the serialization.
Pardon my ignorance, but What is a Metaobject protocol, and does Ruby have one? If not, is it possible to implement one for Ruby? What features might a Metaobject protocol possess if Ruby was to have one?
What is a Metaobject protocol?
The best description I've come across is from the Class::MOP documentation:
A meta object protocol is an API to an object system.
To be more specific, it abstracts the components of an object system (classes, object, methods, object attributes, etc.). These abstractions can then be used to inspect and manipulate the object system which they describe.
It can be said that there are two MOPs for any object system; the implicit MOP and the explicit MOP. The implicit MOP handles things like method dispatch or inheritance, which happen automatically as part of how the object system works. The explicit MOP typically handles the introspection/reflection features of the object system.
All object systems have implicit MOPs. Without one, they would not work. Explicit MOPs are much less common, and depending on the language can vary from restrictive (Reflection in Java or C#) to wide open (CLOS is a perfect example).
Does Ruby have one?
According to this thread on Reopening builtin classes, redefining builtin functions? Perlmonks article I think the answer is no (at least in the strictest sense of what a MOP is).
Clearly there is some wriggle room here so it might be worth posting a question in the Perl side of SO because the Class::MOP / Moose author does answer questions there.
If you look closer to the definition, youll see that Ruby does have a MOP. Is it like the one in CLOS? No, CLOS is a meta-circular MOP which is great (I'd even say genius), but it's not the one true way, take a look at Smalltalk. To implement a (let's say basic) MOP all you need is to provide functions that allow your runtime to:
Create or delete a new class
Create a new property or method
Cause a class to inherit from a different class ("change the class structure")
Generate or change the code defining the methods of a class.
And Ruby provides a way to do all that.
On a side note: The author of Class::MOP is right (IMHO) when it claims that some of the things you can do with a meta circular MOP can be hard to do in Ruby (DISCLAIMER: I have zero, zilch, nada Perl knowledge, so I'm thinking Smalltalk like MOP vs CLOS like MOP here) but most of them are very specific (I'm thinking about metaclass instantation here) and there are ways to make things work without them. I think it all depends on your point view, meta circular MOPs are cooler but more on the academic side and non meta circular MOPs are more practical and easier to implement.
I am developing a complex data structure in Clojure with multiple sub-structures.
I know that I will want to extend this structure over time, and may at times want to change the internal structure without breaking different users of the data structure (for example I may want to change a vector into a hashmap, add some kind of indexing structure for performance reasons, or incorporate a Java type)
My current thinking is:
Define a protocol for the overall structure with various accessor methods
Create a mini-library of functions that navigate the data structure e.g. (query-substructure-abc param1 param2)
Implement the data structure using defrecord or deftype, with the protocol methods defined to use the mini-library
I think this will work, though I'm worried it is starting to look like rather a lot of "glue" code. Also it probably also reflects my greater familiarity with object-oriented approaches.
What is the recommended way to do this in Clojure?
I think that deftype might be the way to go, however I'd take a pass on the accessor methods. Instead, look into clojure.lang.ILookup and clojure.lang.Associative; these are interfaces which, if you implement them for your type, will let you use get / get-in and assoc / assoc-in, making for a far more versatile solution (not only will you be able to change the underlying implementation, but perhaps also to use functions built on top of Clojure's standard collections library to manipulate your structures).
A couple of things to note:
You should probably start with defrecord, using get, assoc & Co. with the standard defrecord implementations of ILookup, Associative, IPersistentMap and java.util.Map. You might be able to go a pretty long way with it.
If/when these are no longer enough, have a look at the sources for emit-defrecord (a private function defined in core_deftype.clj in Clojure's sources). It's pretty complex, but it will give you an idea of what you may need to implement.
Neither deftype nor defrecord currently define any factory functions for you, but you should probably do it yourself. Sanity checking goes inside those functions (and/or the corresponding tests).
The more conceptually complex operations are of course a perfect fit for protocol functions built on the foundation of get & Co.
Oh, and have a look at gvec.clj in Clojure's sources for an example of what some serious data structure code written using deftype might look like. The complexity here is of a different kind from what you describe in the question, but still, it's one of the few examples of custom data structure programming in Clojure currently available for public consumption (and it is of course excellent quality code).
Of course this is just what my intuition tells me at this time. I'm not sure that there is much in the way of established idioms at this stage, what with deftype not actually having been released and all. :-)
What are the drawbacks of linq in general.
Can be hard to understand when you first start out with it
Deferred execution can separate errors from their causes (in terms of time)
Out-of-process LINQ (e.g. LINQ to SQL) will always be a somewhat leaky abstraction - you need to know what works and what doesn't, essentially
I still love LINQ massively though :)
EDIT: Having written this short list, I remembered that I've got an answer to a very similar question...
The biggest pain with LINQ is that (with database backends) you can't use it over a repository interface without it being a leaky abstraction.
LINQ is fantastic within a layer (especially the DAL etc), but since different providers support different things, you can't rely on Expression<Func<...>> or IQueryable<T> features working the same for different implementations.
As examples, between LINQ-to-SQL and Entity Framework:
EF doesn't support Single()
EF will error if you Skip/Take/First without an explicit OrderBy
EF doesn't support UDFs
etc. The LINQ provider for ADO.NET Data Services supports different combinations. This makes mocking and other abstractions unsafe.
But: for in-memory (LINQ-to-Objects), or in a single layer/implementation... fantastic.
Some more thoughts here: Pragmatic LINQ.
Like any abstraction in programming, it is vulnerable to a misunderstanding: "If I just understand this abstraction, I don't need to understand what's happening under the covers."
The truth is, if you do understand what's happening under the covers, you'll get much better value out of the abstraction, because you'll understand where it ceases to be applicable, so you'll be able to apply it with greater confidence of success where it is appropriate.
This is true of all abstractions, and applies to Linq in bucketfuls. To understand Linq to Objects, the best thing to do is to learn how to write Select, Where, Aggregate, etc. in C# with yield return. And then figure out how yield return replaces a lot of hand-written code by writing it all with classes. Then you'll be able to use it with an appreciation of the effort it is saving you, and it will no longer seem like magic, so you'll understand the limitations.
Same for the variants of Linq where the predicates are captured as expressions and transported off to another environment to be executed. You have to understand how it works in order to safely use it.
So the number 1 drawback of Linq is: the simple examples look deceptively short and simple. The problem is, how did the author of the sample know what to write? Because they knew how to write it all out in long form, and they knew how pieces of Linq could be used as abreviations, and so they arrived at the nice short version.
As I say, not really specific to Linq, but highly relevant to it anyway.
Anonymous types. Proper ORM should always return objects of 'your' type (partial class, with possiblity of adding my methods, overriding etc.). There are doezne of tutorials and examples of different complex queries using linq but non of them care to explain the advantage of returning a 'bag of properties' (return new { .........} ). How am I supposed to work with anonymous type, wrap it in another class again?
Actually I can´t think of any drawbacks. It makes programming life a lot simpler because a lot of things can be written in a more compact but still better readable way.
But having said this, I must also agree with Jon that you should have some idea what you´re doing (but that holds for all technological advances).
the only drawback which it has is its performance see this article