Related
In my project so far, I use many traits to permit mocking/stubbing in unit tests for injected dependencies. However, one detail of what I'm doing so far seems so suspicious that I'm surprised it even compiles. I'm worried that something dangerous is going on that I don't see or understand. It's based on the difference between these two method signatures:
fn confirm<T>(subject: &MyTrait<T>) ...
fn confirm<T>(subject: impl MyTrait<T>) ...
I only just discovered the impl ... syntax in method arguments, and it seems like the only documented way to do this, but my tests pass using the other way already, which I came to by intuition based on how Go solves the same problem (size of method argument at compile time, when argument can be any implementer of an interface, and references can come to the rescue).
What is the difference between these two? And why are they both allowed? Do they both represent legitimate use cases, or is my reference syntax (&MyTrait<T>) strictly a worse idea?
The two are different, and serve different purposes. Both are useful, and depending on circumstances one or the other may be the best choice.
The first case, &MyTrait<T>, is preferably written &dyn MyTrait<T> in modern Rust. It is a so-called trait object. The reference points to any type implementing MyTrait<T>, and method calls are dispatched dynamically at runtime. To make this possible, the reference is actually a fat pointer; apart from a pointer to the object it also stores a pointer to the virtual method table of the type of the object, to allow dynamic dispatch. If the actual type of your object only becomes known at runtime, this is the only version you can use, since you need to use dynamic dispatch in that case. The downside of the approach is that there is a runtime cost, and that it only works for traits that are object-safe.
The second case, impl MyTrait<T>, denotes any type implementing MyTrait<T> again, but in this case the exact type needs to be known at compile time. The prototype
fn confirm<T>(subject: impl MyTrait<T>);
is equivalent to
fn confirm<M, T>(subject: M)
where
M: MyTrait<T>;
For each type M that is used in your code, the compiler creates a separate version of confim in the binary, and method calls are dispatched statically at compile time. This version is preferable if all types are known at compile time, since you don't need to pay the runtime cost of dynamically dispatching to the concrete types.
Another difference between the two prototypes is that the first version accepts subject by reference, while the second version consumes the argument that is passed in. This isn't a conceptual difference, though – while the first version cannot be written to consume the object, the second version can easily be written to accept subject by reference:
fn confirm<T>(subject: &impl MyTrait<T>);
Given that you introduced the traits to facilitate testing, it is likely that you should prefer &impl MyTrait<T>.
It is indeed different. The impl version is equivalent to the following:
fn confirm<T, M: MyTrait<T>>(subject: M) ...
so unlike the first version, subject is moved (passed by value) into confirm, rather than passed by reference. So in the impl version, confirm takes ownership of this value.
Context: i argue that saying pass_by_reference when it's really pass_by_sharing is misleading
Here is the excerpt from the book "Effective Ruby" I'm arguing against
"Most objects are passed around as references and not as actual values. When these types of objects are inserted into a container the collection class is actually storing a reference to the object and not the object itself. (The notable exception to the rule is the Fixnum class whose objects are always passed by value and not by reference.)
The same is true when objects are passed as method arguments. The method will receive a reference to the object and not a new copy. This is great for efficiency but has a startling implication.
"
The 'call by value' and 'call by object sharing' terminology matches Ruby's behavior, and
the terminology is consistent with other object orientated languages that have the same
semantics.
'Call by value' and 'call by object sharing' basically mean the same thing in object orientated languages, so which one is used doesn't really matter. Someone just thought it would clarify the confusion in the terminology to add more terminology.
If 'call by reference' was implemented in Ruby though, it would be something like:
def f(byref x)
x = "CHANGED"
end
x = ""
f(x)
# X is "CHANGED"
Here, the value of x is changed. The value being which object x refers to.
Using terms 'call by reference' just creates confusion though because they mean
different things to different people. It's unnecessary in
languages like Ruby because you don't have a choice. In languages with different
calling mechanisms like C++ and C# it makes more sense to teach these terms because
they have a real effect on programs and we can come up with non hypothetical examples
of them.
When explaining parameters in Ruby, you don't need to use any of these terms though.
They're meaningless to people that don't already know the language. Just
describe the behavior itself without that terminology and avoid the baggage.
I would say if you insist on using these terms, then use 'call by value' because it's usually considered more correct. The 'Programming Ruby' book calls it 'call by value', as well as plenty of Ruby programmers. Using the term with a different meaning than its technical one isn't helpful.
You are right. Ruby is pass-by-value only. The semantics of passing and assigning in Ruby are exactly identical to those in Java. And Java is universally described (on Stack Overflow and the rest of the Internet) as pass-by-value only. Terms about languages such as pass-by-value and pass-by-reference must be consistently used across languages to be meaningful.
The thing that is often misunderstood by people who say Java, Ruby, etc. "pass objects by reference" is that "objects" are not values in these languages, and thus cannot be "passed". The value of every variable and result of every expression is a "reference", which is a pointer to an object. The expression for creating an object returns an object pointer; when you access an attribute through the dot notation, the left side takes an object pointer; when you assign one variable to another, you copy the pointer resulting in two pointers to the same object. You always deal with pointers to objects, never objects themselves.
This is made explicit in Java as the only types in Java are primitive types and reference types -- there are no "object types". So every value in Java that is not a primitive is a reference (a pointer to an object). Ruby is dynamically-typed, so variables don't have explicit types. But you can imagine a dynamically-typed language as just a statically-typed language having exactly one type; and for languages like Python and Ruby, if this type were described, it be a pointer-to-object type.
The issue ultimately boils down to a problem of definitions. People argue over things because there is no precise definition, or they each have slightly different definitions. Rather then argue over vaguely-defined things like what is the "value" of a variable, or whether named values are "variables" or "names", etc., we need to use a definition for pass-by-value and pass-by-reference that is based purely on semantics of a language structure. #fgb's answer provides a clear semantic test for pass-by-reference. In "true pass-by-reference", e.g. with & in C++ and PHP, or with ref or out in C#, simple assignment (i.e. =) to a parameter variable has the same effect as simple assignment to the passed variable in the original scope. In pass-by-value, simple assignment (i.e. =) to a parameter variable has no effect in the original scope. This is what we see in Java, Python, Ruby, and many other languages.
I dislike people coming up with new names like "pass by object sharing", when they don't understand that the semantics are covered by an existing term, pass-by-value. Adding a new term only adds more to the confusion rather than reduce it, because it does not resolve the definitions of existing terms, only adding a new term that also needs to be defined.
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.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Is Ruby pass by reference or by value?
Working with Ruby, when passing an object to a method, how is the memory of this object handled?
Coming from a C background, I can think of several things which may be happening:
A copy of the memory associated with the according object and is made available to the method being called. In which case the modification of the object would only be reflected in the context of method being called, and not the calling method.
A reference to the memory of the object is passed the method being called (essentially a pointer). Hence any changes made by the object by the method being called or the calling method would be reflected in both contexts. As well, should this program be multithreaded, some kind of mechanism (mutex, semaphore, etc.) must be used to ensure mutually exclusive access to that memory performing write operations.
Something else I am unable to think of... maybe a memory model similar to that of Go... Pipes... MessagePassing...?
What is actually happening?
Ruby uses pass-by-value, or more precisely, a special case of pass-by-value where the value being passed is always a pointer. This special case is also sometimes known as call-by-sharing, call-by-object-sharing or call-by-object.
It's the same convention that is used by more or less every object-oriented language ever created.
Note: on all existing Ruby implementations Symbols, Fixnums and Floats are actually passed directly by value and not with an intermediary pointer. However, since those three are immutable, there is no observable behavioral difference between pass-by-value and call-by-object-sharing in this case, so you can greatly simplify your mental model by simply treating everything as call-by-object-sharing. Just interpret these three special cases as internal compiler optimizations that you don't need to worry about.
Here's a simple example you can run to determine the argument passing convention of Ruby (or any other language, after you translate it):
def is_ruby_pass_by_value?(foo)
foo.replace('More precisely, it is call-by-object-sharing!')
foo = 'No, Ruby is pass-by-reference.'
return nil
end
bar = 'Yes, of course, Ruby *is* pass-by-value!'
is_ruby_pass_by_value?(bar)
p bar
# 'More precisely, it is call-by-object-sharing!'
In short: it's your option 2.
Ruby uses your second option, passes the parameter by reference.
I guess that most factory-like methods start with create. But why are they called "create"? Why not "make", "produce", "build", "generate" or something else? Is it only a matter of taste? A convention? Or is there a special meaning in "create"?
createURI(...)
makeURI(...)
produceURI(...)
buildURI(...)
generateURI(...)
Which one would you choose in general and why?
Some random thoughts:
'Create' fits the feature better than most other words. The next best word I can think of off the top of my head is 'Construct'. In the past, 'Alloc' (allocate) might have been used in similar situations, reflecting the greater emphasis on blocks of data than objects in languages like C.
'Create' is a short, simple word that has a clear intuitive meaning. In most cases people probably just pick it as the first, most obvious word that comes to mind when they wish to create something. It's a common naming convention, and "object creation" is a common way of describing the process of... creating objects.
'Construct' is close, but it is usually used to describe a specific stage in the process of creating an object (allocate/new, construct, initialise...)
'Build' and 'Make' are common terms for processes relating to compiling code, so have different connotations to programmers, implying a process that comprises many steps and possibly a lot of disk activity. However, the idea of a Factory "building" something is a sensible idea - especially in cases where a complex data-structure is built, or many separate pieces of information are combined in some way.
'Generate' to me implies a calculation which is used to produce a value from an input, such as generating a hash code or a random number.
'Produce', 'Generate', 'Construct' are longer to type/read than 'Create'. Historically programmers have favoured short names to reduce typing/reading.
Joshua Bloch in "Effective Java" suggests the following naming conventions
valueOf — Returns an instance that has, loosely speaking, the same value
as its parameters. Such static factories are effectively
type-conversion methods.
of — A concise alternative to valueOf, popularized by EnumSet (Item 32).
getInstance — Returns an instance that is described by the parameters
but cannot be said to have the same value. In the case of a singleton,
getInstance takes no parameters and returns the sole instance.
newInstance — Like getInstance, except that newInstance guarantees that
each instance returned is distinct from all others.
getType — Like getInstance, but used when the factory method is in a
different class. Type indicates the type of object returned by the
factory method.
newType — Like newInstance, but used when the factory method is in a
different class. Type indicates the type of object returned by the
factory method.
Wanted to add a couple of points I don't see in other answers.
Although traditionally 'Factory' means 'creates objects', I like to think of it more broadly as 'returns me an object that behaves as I expect'. I shouldn't always have to know whether it's a brand new object, in fact I might not care. So in suitable cases you might avoid a 'Create...' name, even if that's how you're implementing it right now.
Guava is a good repository of factory naming ideas. It is popularising a nice DSL style. examples:
Lists.newArrayListWithCapacity(100);
ImmutableList.of("Hello", "World");
"Create" and "make" are short, reasonably evocative, and not tied to other patterns in naming that I can think of. I've also seen both quite frequently and suspect they may be "de facto standards". I'd choose one and use it consistently at least within a project. (Looking at my own current project, I seem to use "make". I hope I'm consistent...)
Avoid "build" because it fits better with the Builder pattern and avoid "produce" because it evokes Producer/Consumer.
To really continue the metaphor of the "Factory" name for the pattern, I'd be tempted by "manufacture", but that's too long a word.
I think it stems from “to create an object”. However, in English, the word “create” is associated with the notion “to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes,” and “to evolve from one's own thought or imagination, as a work of art or an invention.” So it seems as “create” is not the proper word to use. “Make,” on the other hand, means “to bring into existence by shaping or changing material, combining parts, etc.” For example, you don’t create a dress, you make a dress (object). So, in my opinion, “make” by meaning “to produce; cause to exist or happen; bring about” is a far better word for factory methods.
Partly convention, partly semantics.
Factory methods (signalled by the traditional create) should invoke appropriate constructors. If I saw buildURI, I would assume that it involved some computation, or assembly from parts (and I would not think there was a factory involved). The first thing that I thought when I saw generateURI is making something random, like a new personalized download link. They are not all the same, different words evoke different meanings; but most of them are not conventionalised.
I'd call it UriFactory.Create()
Where,
UriFactory is the name of the class type which is provides method(s) that create Uri instances.
and Create() method is overloaded for as many as variations you have in your specs.
public static class UriFactory
{
//Default Creator
public static UriType Create()
{
}
//An overload for Create()
public static UriType Create(someArgs)
{
}
}
I like new. To me
var foo = newFoo();
reads better than
var foo = createFoo();
Translated to english we have foo is a new foo or foo is create foo. While I'm not a grammer expert I'm pretty sure the latter is grammatically incorrect.
I'd point out that I've seen all of the verbs but produce in use in some library or other, so I wouldn't call create being an universal convention.
Now, create does sound better to me, evokes the precise meaning of the action.
So yes, it is a matter of (literary) taste.
Personally I like instantiate and instantiateWith, but that's just because of my Unity and Objective C experiences. Naming conventions inside the Unity engine seem to revolve around the word instantiate to create an instance via a factory method, and Objective C seems to like with to indicate what the parameter/s are. This only really works well if the method is in the class that is going to be instantiated though (and in languages that allow constructor overloading, this isn't so much of a 'thing').
Just plain old Objective C's initWith is also a good'un!