I am sure that this has been asked, but I can't find it through my rudimentary searches.
Is it discouraged to perform operations within string initializations?
> increment = 4
=> 4
> "Incremented from #{increment} to #{increment += 1}"
=> "Incremented from 4 to 5"
I sure wouldn't, because that's not where you look for things-that-change-things when reading code.
It obfuscates intent, it obscures meaning.
Compare:
url = "#{BASE_URL}/#{++request_sequence}"
with:
request_sequence += 1
url = "#{BASE_URL}/#{request_sequence}"
If you're looking to see where the sequence number is coming from, which is more obvious?
I can almost live with the first version, but I'd be likely to opt for the latter. I might also do this instead:
url = build_url(++request_sequence)
In your particular case, it might be okay, but the problem is that the position where the operation on the variable should happen must be the last instance of the same variable in the string, and you cannot always be sure about that. For example, suppose (for some stylistic reason), you want to write
"Incremented to #{...} from #{...}"
Then, all of a sudden, you cannot do what you did. So doing operation during interpolation is highly dependent on the particular phrasing in the string, and that decreases maintainability of the code.
Related
I have a method that builds a laptop's attributes, but only if the attributes are present within a row that is given to the method:
def build_laptop_attributes desk_id, row, laptop
attributes = {}
attributes[:desk_number] = room_id if laptop && desk_id
attributes[:status] = row[:state].downcase if row[:state]
attributes[:ip_address] = row[:ip_address] if row[:ip_address]
attributes[:model] = row[:model] if row[:model]
attributes
end
Currently, RuboCop is saying that the Metric/AbcSize is too high, and I was wondering if there is an obvious and clean way to assign these attributes?
Style Guides Provide "Best Practices"; Evaluate and Tune When Needed
First of all, RuboCop is advisory. Just because RuboCop complains about something doesn't mean it's wrong in some absolute sense; it just means you ought to expend a little more skull sweat (as you're doing) to see if what you're doing makes sense.
Secondly, you haven't provided a self-contained, executable example. That makes it impossible for SO readers to reliably refactor it, since it can't currently be tested without sample inputs and expected outputs not provided in your original post. You'll need those things yourself to evaluate and refactor your own code, too.
Finally, the ABC Metric looks at assignments, branches, and conditionals. You have five assignments, four conditionals, and what looks liks a method call. Is that a lot? If you haven't tuned Rubocop, the answer is "RuboCop thinks so." Whether or not you agree is up to you and your team.
If you want to try feeding Rubocop, you can do a couple of things that might help reduce the metric:
Refactor the volume and complexity of your assignments. Some possible examples include:
Replace your postfix if-statements with safe navigators (&.) to guard against calling methods on nil.
Extract some of your branching logic and conditionals to methods that "do the right thing", potentially reducing your current method to a single assignment with four method calls. For example:
attributes = { desk_number: location, status: laptop_status, ... }
Replace all your multiple assignments with a deconstructing assignment (although Rubocop often complains about those, too).
Revisit whether you have the right data structure in the first place. Maybe you really just want an OpenStruct, or some other data object.
Your current code seems readable, so is the juice really worth the squeeze? If you decide that RuboCop is misguided in this particular case, and your code works and passes muster in your internal code reviews, then you can tune the metric's sensitivity in your project's .rubocop.yml or disable that particular metric for just that section of your source code.
After reading #Todd A. Jacobs answer, you may want (or not) to write something like this:
def build_laptop_attributes desk_id, row, laptop
desk_number = room_id if laptop && desk_id
{
desk_number: desk_number,
status: row[:state]&.downcase,
ip_address: = row[:ip_address],
model: row[:model]
}.compact
end
This reduces has the advantage of reducing the number of calls to []=, as well as factorizing many ifs in a single compact.
In my opinion, it is more readable because it is more concise and because the emphasis is completely on the correspondence between your keys and values.
Alternative version to reduce the amount of conditionals (assuming you are checking for nil / initialized values):
def build_laptop_attributes desk_id, row, laptop
attributes = {}
attributes[:desk_number] = room_id if laptop && desk_id
attributes[:status] = row[:state]&.downcase
attributes[:ip_address] = row[:ip_address]
attributes[:model] = row[:model]
attributes.compact
end
There is an additional .compact as a cost of removing assignments checks.
If the following is not the best style, what is for the equivalent expression?
if (some_really_long_expression__________ && \
some_other_really_long_expression)
The line continuation feels ugly. But I'm having a hard time finding a better alternative.
The parser doesn't need the backslashes in cases where the continuation is unambiguous. For example, using Ruby 2.0:
if true &&
true &&
true
puts true
end
#=> true
The following are some more-or-less random thoughts about the question of line length from someone who just plays with Ruby. Nor have I had any training as a software engineer, so consider yourself forewarned.
I find the problem of long lines is often more the number of characters than the number of operations. The former can be reduced by (drum-roll) shortening variable names and method names. The question, of course, is whether the application of a verbosity filter (aka babbling, prattling or jabbering filter) will make the code harder to comprehend. How often have you seen something fairly close to the following (without \)?
total_cuteness_rating = cats_dogs_and_pigs.map {|animal| \
cuteness_calculation(animal)}.reduce {|cuteness_accumulator, \
cuteness_per_animal| cuteness_accumulator + cuteness_per_animal}
Compare that with:
tot_cuteness = pets.map {|a| cuteness(a)}.reduce(&:+)
Firstly, I see no benefit of long names for local variables within a block (and rarely for local variables in a method). Here, isn't it perfectly obvious what a refers to in the calculation of tot_cuteness? How good a memory do you need to remember what a is when it is confined to a single line of code?
Secondly, whenever possible use the short form for enumerables followed by a block (e.g, reduce(&:+)). This allows us to comprehend what's going on in microseconds, here as soon as our eyes latch onto the +. Same, for .to_i, _s or _f. True, reduce {|tot, e| tot + e} isn't much longer, but we're forcing the reader's brain to decode two variables as well as the operator, when + is really all it needs.
Another way to shorten lines is to avoid long chains of operations. That comes at a cost, however. As far as I'm concerned, the longer the chain, the better. It reduces the need for temporary variables, reduces the number of lines of code and--possibly of greatest importance--allows us to read across a line, as most humans are accustomed, rather than down the page. The above line of code reads, "To calculate total cuteness, calculate each pet's cuteness rating, then sum those ratings". How could it be more clear?
When chains are particularly long, they can be written over multiple lines without using the line-continuaton character \:
array.each {|e| blah, blah, ..., blah
.map {|a| blah, blah, ..., blah
.reduce {|i| blah, blah, ..., blah }
}
}
That's no less clear than separate statements. I think this is frequently done in Rails.
What about the use of abbreviations? Which of the following names is most clear?
number_of_dogs
number_dogs
nbr_dogs
n_dogs
I would argue the first three are equally clear, and the last no less clear if the writer consistently prefixes variable names with n_ when that means "number of". Same for tot_, and so on. Enough.
One approach is to encapsulate those expressions inside meaningful methods. And you might be able to break it into multiple methods that you can later reuse.
Other then that is hard to suggest anything with the little information you gave. You might be able to get rid of the if statement using command objects or something like that but I can't tell if it makes sense on your code because you didn't show it.
Ismael answer works really well in Ruby (there may be other languages too) for 2 reasons:
Ruby has very low overhead to creating methods due to lack of type
definition
It allows you to decouple such logic for reuse or future adaptability and testing
Another option I'll toss out is create logic equations and store the result in a variable e.g.
# this are short logic equations testing x but you can apply same for longer expressions
number_gt_5 = x > 5
number_lt_20 = x < 20
number_eq_11 = x == 11
if (number_gt_5 && number_lt_20 && !number_eq_11)
# do some stuff
end
I'm writing an algorithm that detects clones in source code. E.g. if there is a block like:
for(int i = o; i <5; i++){
doSomething(abc);
}
...and if this block is repeated somewhere else in the source code it will be detected as a clone. The method I am using at the moment is to create hashes for lines/blocks and compare them with hashes of other lines/blocks in the same source to see if there are any matches.
Now, if the same block as above was to be repeated somewhere with only the argument of doSomething different, it would not be detected as a clone even though it would appear very much like a clone to you and me. My algorithm detects exact matches but doesn't detect matching blocks where only the argument is different.
Could anyone suggest any ways of getting around this issue? Thanks!
Here's a super-simple way, which might go too far in erasing information (i.e., might produce too many false positives): replace every identifier that isn't a keyword with some fixed name. So you'd get
for (int DUMMY = DUMMY; DUMMY<5; DUMMY++) {
DUMMY(DUMMY);
}
(assuming you really meant o rather than 0 in the initialization part of the for-loop).
If you get a huge number of false positives with this, you could then post-process them by, for instance, looking to see what fraction of the DUMMYs actually correspond to the same identifier in both halves of the match, or at least to identifiers that are consistent between the two.
To do much better you'll probably need to parse the code to some extent. That would be a lot more work.
Well if you're going todo something else then you're going to have to parse to code at least a bit. For example you could detect methods and then ignore the method arguments in your hash. Anyway I think it's always true that you need your program to understand the code better than 'just text blocks', and that might get awefuly complicated.
Which (if any) of the following will give the smallest performance hit? Or is the difference so small that I should use the most readable?
In the same page I've noted 3 styles used by previous maintainers:
Method 1:
If (strRqMethod = "Forum" or strRqMethod = "URL" or strRqMethod = "EditURL" or strRqMethod = "EditForum") Then
...
End If
Method 2:
Select Case strRqMethod
Case "Reply", "ReplyQuote", "TopicQuote"
'This is the only case in this statement...'
...
End Select
Method 3:
If InArray("Edit,EditTopic,Reply,ReplyQuote,Topic,TopicQuote",strRqMethod) Then
...
End If
.
.
.
'Elsewhere in the code'
function InArray(strArray,strValue)
if strArray <> "" and strArray <> "0" then
if (instr("," & strArray & "," ,"," & strValue & ",") > 0) then
InArray = True
else
InArray = False
end if
else
InArray = False
end if
end function
Moving away from Classic ASP/VBScript is not an option, so those comments need not bother to post.
You can benchmark this yourself to get the best results, as some performance will differ depending on the size of the input string.
However, I will say from a maintenance perspective, the second one is a bit easier to read/understand.
Well Method 3 is clearly going to perform worse than the other two.
Between Method 1 and Method 2 the difference is going to be marginal. Its worth remembering that VBScript doesn't do boolean expression short cutting hence in Method 1 strRqMethod will be compared with all strings even if it matches the first one. The Case statement in Method 2 at least has the option not to do that and likely will stop comparing when the first match is found in the set.
Utimately I would choose Method 2 not because I think it might be faster but because it expresses the intent of the code in the clearest way.
Educated guess:
Performance-wise, first two approaches are roughly equivalent; third method is very likely slower, even if it gets inlined.
Furthermore the differential between the first two are likely in the micro-seconds range, so you can safely consider this to be a bone fide case of premature optimization...
Since we're on the topic of OR-ed boolean evaluation, a few things to know:
Most compilers/interpreters will evaluate boolean expressions with "short circuit optimization", which means that at the first true condition found, the subsequent OR-ed conditions are NOT evaluated (since they wouldn't change the outcome). It is therefore a good idea to list the condition in [rough] decreasing order of probability, i.e. listing all the common cases first. (Also note that short circuit evaluation is also used with AND-ed expressions, but of course in the reverse, i.e. at the first false condition, the evalation stops, hence suggesting to write the expression with the most likely conditions to fail first).
Comparing strings is such a common task that most languages have this done in a very optimized fashion, at a very low level of the language. Most any trick we can think to improve this particular task is typically less efficient than the native operator.
As long as this is not done 100.000 (in other words: a lof of) times in a loop, it makes no difference. Although it is parsed code, we may still assume that the parsing is done swift and quickly enough not to make a difference.
I found severe performance problems only when you are concatenating a lot of strings - like I once found out when running a page, adding debug code to a global string to be able to dispay the debug only at the bottom of the page. The longer the page was, the more code it ran, the more debug code I added, and the longer the time it took to display the page. Since this page was doing some database access, I presumed it was somewhere in that code that the delay occured, only to found out that it was just the debug statements (to be honest, I had a log of debug string concatenated).
Is it cool?
IMO one-liners reduces the readability and makes debugging/understanding more difficult.
Maximize understandability of the code.
Sometimes that means putting (simple, easily understood) expressions on one line in order to get more code in a given amount of screen real-estate (i.e. the source code editor).
Other times that means taking small steps to make it obvious what the code means.
One-liners should be a side-effect, not a goal (nor something to be avoided).
If there is a simple way of expressing something in a single line of code, that's great. If it's just a case of stuffing in lots of expressions into a single line, that's not so good.
To explain what I mean - LINQ allows you to express quite complicated transformations in relative simplicity. That's great - but I wouldn't try to fit a huge LINQ expression onto a single line. For instance:
var query = from person in employees
where person.Salary > 10000m
orderby person.Name
select new { person.Name, person.Deparment };
is more readable than:
var query = from person in employees where person.Salary > 10000m orderby person.Name select new { person.Name, person.Deparment };
It's also more readabe than doing all the filtering, ordering and projection manually. It's a nice sweet-spot.
Trying to be "clever" is rarely a good idea - but if you can express something simply and concisely, that's good.
One-liners, when used properly, transmit your intent clearly and make the structure of your code easier to grasp.
A python example is list comprehensions:
new_lst = [i for i in lst if some_condition]
instead of:
new_lst = []
for i in lst:
if some_condition:
new_lst.append(i)
This is a commonly used idiom that makes your code much more readable and compact. So, the best of both worlds can be achieved in certain cases.
This is by definition subjective, and due to the vagueness of the question, you'll likely get answers all over the map. Are you referring to a single physical line or logical line? EG, are you talking about:
int x = BigHonkinClassName.GetInstance().MyObjectProperty.PropertyX.IntValue.This.That.TheOther;
or
int x = BigHonkinClassName.GetInstance().
MyObjectProperty.PropertyX.IntValue.
This.That.TheOther;
One-liners, to me, are a matter of "what feels right." In the case above, I'd probably break that into both physical and logic lines, getting the instance of BigHonkinClassName, then pulling the full path to .TheOther. But that's just me. Other people will disagree. (And there's room for that. Like I said, subjective.)
Regarding readability, bear in mind that, for many languages, even "one-liners" can be broken out into multiple lines. If you have a long set of conditions for the conditional ternary operator (? :), for example, it might behoove you to break it into multiple physical lines for readability:
int x = (/* some long condition */) ?
/* some long method/property name returning an int */ :
/* some long method/property name returning an int */ ;
At the end of the day, the answer is always: "It depends." Some frameworks (such as many DAL generators, EG SubSonic) almost require obscenely long one-liners to get any real work done. Othertimes, breaking that into multiple lines is quite preferable.
Given concrete examples, the community can provide better, more practical advice.
In general, I definitely don't think you should ever "squeeze" a bunch of code onto a single physical line. That doesn't just hurt legibility, it smacks of someone who has outright disdain for the maintenance programmer. As I used to teach my students: always code for the maintenance programmer, because it will often be you.
:)
Oneliners can be useful in some situations
int value = bool ? 1 : 0;
But for the most part they make the code harder to follow. I think you only should put things on one line when it is easy to follow, the intent is clear, and it won't affect debugging.
One-liners should be treated on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes it can really hurt readability and a more verbose (read: easy-to-follow) version should be used.
There are times, however when a one-liner seems more natural. Take the following:
int Total = (Something ? 1 : 2)
+ (SomethingElse ? (AnotherThing ? x : y) : z);
Or the equivalent (slightly less readable?):
int Total = Something ? 1 : 2;
Total += SomethingElse ? (AnotherThing ? x : y) : z;
IMHO, I would prefer either of the above to the following:
int Total;
if (Something)
Total = 1;
else
Total = 2;
if (SomethingElse)
if (AnotherThing)
Total += x;
else
Total += y;
else
Total += z
With the nested if-statements, I have a harder time figuring out the final result without tracing through it. The one-liner feels more like the math formula it was intended to be, and consequently easier to follow.
As far as the cool factor, there is a certain feeling of accomplishment / show-off factor in "Look Ma, I wrote a whole program in one line!". But I wouldn't use it in any context other than playing around; I certainly wouldn't want to have to go back and debug it!
Ultimately, with real (production) projects, whatever makes it easiest to understand is best. Because there will come a time that you or someone else will be looking at the code again. What they say is true: time is precious.
That's true in most cases, but in some cases where one-liners are common idioms, then it's acceptable. ? : might be an example. Closure might be another one.
No, it is annoying.
One liners can be more readable and they can be less readable. You'll have to judge from case to case.
And, of course, on the prompt one-liners rule.
VASTLY more important is developing and sticking to a consistent style.
You'll find bugs MUCH faster, be better able to share code with others, and even code faster if you merely develop and stick to a pattern.
One aspect of this is to make a decision on one-liners. Here's one example from my shop (I run a small coding department) - how we handle IFs:
Ifs shall never be all on one line if they overflow the visible line length, including any indentation.
Thou shalt never have else clauses on the same line as the if even if it comports with the line-length rule.
Develop your own style and STICK WITH IT (or, refactor all code in the same project if you change style).
.
The main drawback of "one liners" in my opinion is that it makes it hard to break on the code and debug. For example, pretend you have the following code:
a().b().c(d() + e())
If this isn't working, its hard to inspect the intermediate values. However, it's trivial to break with gdb (or whatever other tool you may be using) in the following, and check each individual variable and see precisely what is failing:
A = a();
B = A.b();
D = d();
E = e(); // here i can query A B D and E
B.C(d + e);
One rule of thumb is if you can express the concept of the one line in plain language in a very short sentence. "If it's true, set it to this, otherwise set it to that"
For a code construct where the ultimate objective of the entire structure is to decide what value to set a single variable, With appropriate formatting, it is almost always clearer to put multiple conditonals into a single statement. With multiple nested if end if elses, the overall objective, to set the variable...
" variableName = "
must be repeated in every nested clause, and the eye must read all of them to see this.. with a singlr statement, it is much clearer, and with the appropriate formatting, the complexity is more easily managed as well...
decimal cost =
usePriority? PriorityRate * weight:
useAirFreight? AirRate * weight:
crossMultRegions? MultRegionRate:
SingleRegionRate;
The prose is an easily understood one liner that works.
The cons is the concatenation of obfuscated gibberish on one line.
Generally, I'd call it a bad idea (although I do it myself on occasion) -- it strikes me as something that's done more to impress on how clever someone is than it is to make good code. "Clever tricks" of that sort are generally very bad.
That said, I personally aim to have one "idea" per line of code; if this burst of logic is easily encapsulated in a single thought, then go ahead. If you have to stop and puzzle it out a bit, best to break it up.