I'm currently writing a Ruby class that provides a menu of base lambdas that can be mixed-and-matched to create a new set of lambdas. (it's an evolutionary algorithm that requires a lot of customizing of the fitness function depending on the dataset)
The configuration fire where this happens it full of stuff like this
function_from_modifier.(base_function, either.(modifier_from.(case),->(x){x}) )
The identity function ->(x){x} pops up several times in the configuration file, and it looks ugly, so I was wondering if there is a more elegant way of doing this. Is something like Elixir's &(&1) possible in Ruby?
tl;dr summary: there is no identity function in the Ruby core or standard libraries. In fact, there are no functions (in the sense of pre-defined Proc instances) at all anywhere in the core or standard libraries.
First-class functions in Ruby are kind-of second-class (if that makes sense).
When Yukihiro "matz" Matsumoto first designed Ruby, he surveyed the standard libraries of other languages for uses of first-class and higher-order functions, and he found that the vast majority of uses were:
a single function argument
that is not stored, passed, or returned
that is only immediately invoked one or more times
A significant portion of higher-order functions where this is not true are control structures (e.g. if which takes a condition and two consequences), which however he wanted to model as built-in language constructs, not library functions.
Therefore, he decided to optimize Ruby for the common case that he identified, and created blocks.
Blocks are not first-class functions:
they aren't objects
you can't send messages to them
they can't be stored in variables
they can't be returned
they can't be freely passed as arguments, you can only pass at most one and only at a special place in the argument list
As a result, real (in the sense that they are actual objects) first-class functions (Procs) are in some sense second-class language features compared to blocks:
they are more expensive in memory
calling them is slower
they are more syntactically cumbersome to create
So, in essence, it is not surprising that you are running into limitations when trying to use Ruby the way you do: that's not what Ruby was designed for.
In the past, I used to carry around a helper library with constants such like this:
class Proc
Id = -> x { x }
end
But I stopped doing that. If I want to use Ruby, I use Ruby as an OO language, if I want to do fancy FP, I use Haskell or Scala or Clojure or Racket or …
There is no anonymous functions capture in ruby, because in OOP there are objects having methods defined on them, not functions.
The most similar call would be Object#itself, and while one might do method(:itself) instead of ->(x) { x }, it would not be exactly same for many reasons.
Why would not you just assign the anonymous function to the variable and use it instead, like λ = ->(x) { x } and then use λ everywhere?
Sidenote: using a bare function instead of the block in call to either looks like a bad design to me. Blocks are faster, and everywhere in the core lib ruby uses blocks in such a case.
How do you do "inline functions" in C#? I don't think I understand the concept. Are they like anonymous methods? Like lambda functions?
Note: The answers almost entirely deal with the ability to inline functions, i.e. "a manual or compiler optimization that replaces a function call site with the body of the callee." If you are interested in anonymous (a.k.a. lambda) functions, see #jalf's answer or What is this 'Lambda' everyone keeps speaking of?.
Finally in .NET 4.5, the CLR allows one to hint/suggest1 method inlining using MethodImplOptions.AggressiveInlining value. It is also available in the Mono's trunk (committed today).
// The full attribute usage is in mscorlib.dll,
// so should not need to include extra references
using System.Runtime.CompilerServices;
...
[MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.AggressiveInlining)]
void MyMethod(...)
1. Previously "force" was used here. I'll try to clarify the term. As in the comments and the documentation, The method should be inlined if possible. Especially considering Mono (which is open), there are some mono-specific technical limitations considering inlining or more general one (like virtual functions). Overall, yes, this is a hint to compiler, but I guess that is what was asked for.
Inline methods are simply a compiler optimization where the code of a function is rolled into the caller.
There's no mechanism by which to do this in C#, and they're to be used sparingly in languages where they are supported -- if you don't know why they should be used somewhere, they shouldn't be.
Edit: To clarify, there are two major reasons they need to be used sparingly:
It's easy to make massive binaries by using inline in cases where it's not necessary
The compiler tends to know better than you do when something should, from a performance standpoint, be inlined
It's best to leave things alone and let the compiler do its work, then profile and figure out if inline is the best solution for you. Of course, some things just make sense to be inlined (mathematical operators particularly), but letting the compiler handle it is typically the best practice.
Update: Per konrad.kruczynski's answer, the following is true for versions of .NET up to and including 4.0.
You can use the MethodImplAttribute class to prevent a method from being inlined...
[MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.NoInlining)]
void SomeMethod()
{
// ...
}
...but there is no way to do the opposite and force it to be inlined.
You're mixing up two separate concepts. Function inlining is a compiler optimization which has no impact on the semantics. A function behaves the same whether it's inlined or not.
On the other hand, lambda functions are purely a semantic concept. There is no requirement on how they should be implemented or executed, as long as they follow the behavior set out in the language spec. They can be inlined if the JIT compiler feels like it, or not if it doesn't.
There is no inline keyword in C#, because it's an optimization that can usually be left to the compiler, especially in JIT'ed languages. The JIT compiler has access to runtime statistics which enables it to decide what to inline much more efficiently than you can when writing the code. A function will be inlined if the compiler decides to, and there's nothing you can do about it either way. :)
Cody has it right, but I want to provide an example of what an inline function is.
Let's say you have this code:
private void OutputItem(string x)
{
Console.WriteLine(x);
//maybe encapsulate additional logic to decide
// whether to also write the message to Trace or a log file
}
public IList<string> BuildListAndOutput(IEnumerable<string> x)
{ // let's pretend IEnumerable<T>.ToList() doesn't exist for the moment
IList<string> result = new List<string>();
foreach(string y in x)
{
result.Add(y);
OutputItem(y);
}
return result;
}
The compilerJust-In-Time optimizer could choose to alter the code to avoid repeatedly placing a call to OutputItem() on the stack, so that it would be as if you had written the code like this instead:
public IList<string> BuildListAndOutput(IEnumerable<string> x)
{
IList<string> result = new List<string>();
foreach(string y in x)
{
result.Add(y);
// full OutputItem() implementation is placed here
Console.WriteLine(y);
}
return result;
}
In this case, we would say the OutputItem() function was inlined. Note that it might do this even if the OutputItem() is called from other places as well.
Edited to show a scenario more-likely to be inlined.
Do you mean inline functions in the C++ sense? In which the contents of a normal function are automatically copied inline into the callsite? The end effect being that no function call actually happens when calling a function.
Example:
inline int Add(int left, int right) { return left + right; }
If so then no, there is no C# equivalent to this.
Or Do you mean functions that are declared within another function? If so then yes, C# supports this via anonymous methods or lambda expressions.
Example:
static void Example() {
Func<int,int,int> add = (x,y) => x + y;
var result = add(4,6); // 10
}
Yes Exactly, the only distinction is the fact it returns a value.
Simplification (not using expressions):
List<T>.ForEach Takes an action, it doesn't expect a return result.
So an Action<T> delegate would suffice.. say:
List<T>.ForEach(param => Console.WriteLine(param));
is the same as saying:
List<T>.ForEach(delegate(T param) { Console.WriteLine(param); });
the difference is that the param type and delegate decleration are inferred by usage and the braces aren't required on a simple inline method.
Where as
List<T>.Where Takes a function, expecting a result.
So an Function<T, bool> would be expected:
List<T>.Where(param => param.Value == SomeExpectedComparison);
which is the same as:
List<T>.Where(delegate(T param) { return param.Value == SomeExpectedComparison; });
You can also declare these methods inline and asign them to variables IE:
Action myAction = () => Console.WriteLine("I'm doing something Nifty!");
myAction();
or
Function<object, string> myFunction = theObject => theObject.ToString();
string myString = myFunction(someObject);
I hope this helps.
The statement "its best to leave these things alone and let the compiler do the work.." (Cody Brocious) is complete rubish. I have been programming high performance game code for 20 years, and I have yet to come across a compiler that is 'smart enough' to know which code should be inlined (functions) or not. It would be useful to have a "inline" statement in c#, truth is that the compiler just doesnt have all the information it needs to determine which function should be always inlined or not without the "inline" hint. Sure if the function is small (accessor) then it might be automatically inlined, but what if it is a few lines of code? Nonesense, the compiler has no way of knowing, you cant just leave that up to the compiler for optimized code (beyond algorithims).
There are occasions where I do wish to force code to be in-lined.
For example if I have a complex routine where there are a large number of decisions made within a highly iterative block and those decisions result in similar but slightly differing actions to be carried out. Consider for example, a complex (non DB driven) sort comparer where the sorting algorythm sorts the elements according to a number of different unrelated criteria such as one might do if they were sorting words according to gramatical as well as semantic criteria for a fast language recognition system. I would tend to write helper functions to handle those actions in order to maintain the readability and modularity of the source code.
I know that those helper functions should be in-lined because that is the way that the code would be written if it never had to be understood by a human. I would certainly want to ensure in this case that there were no function calling overhead.
I know this question is about C#. However, you can write inline functions in .NET with F#. see: Use of `inline` in F#
No, there is no such construct in C#, but the .NET JIT compiler could decide to do inline function calls on JIT time. But i actually don't know if it is really doing such optimizations.
(I think it should :-))
In case your assemblies will be ngen-ed, you might want to take a look at TargetedPatchingOptOut. This will help ngen decide whether to inline methods. MSDN reference
It is still only a declarative hint to optimize though, not an imperative command.
Lambda expressions are inline functions! I think, that C# doesn`t have a extra attribute like inline or something like that!
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 11 years ago.
Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
I've read some of the recent language vs. language questions with interest... Perl vs. Python, Python vs. Java, Can one language be better than another?
One thing I've noticed is that a lot of us have very superficial reasons for disliking languages. We notice these things at first glance and they turn us off. We shun what are probably perfectly good languages as a result of features that we'd probably learn to love or ignore in 2 seconds if we bothered.
Well, I'm as guilty as the next guy, if not more. Here goes:
Ruby: All the Ruby example code I see uses the puts command, and that's a sort of childish Yiddish anatomical term. So as a result, I can't take Ruby code seriously even though I should.
Python: The first time I saw it, I smirked at the whole significant whitespace thing. I avoided it for the next several years. Now I hardly use anything else.
Java: I don't like identifiersThatLookLikeThis. I'm not sure why exactly.
Lisp: I have trouble with all the parentheses. Things of different importance and purpose (function declarations, variable assignments, etc.) are not syntactically differentiated and I'm too lazy to learn what's what.
Fortran: uppercase everything hurts my eyes. I know modern code doesn't have to be written like that, but most example code is...
Visual Basic: it bugs me that Dim is used to declare variables, since I remember the good ol' days of GW-BASIC when it was only used to dimension arrays.
What languages did look right to me at first glance? Perl, C, QBasic, JavaScript, assembly language, BASH shell, FORTH.
Okay, now that I've aired my dirty laundry... I want to hear yours. What are your language hangups? What superficial features bother you? How have you gotten over them?
I hate Hate HATE "End Function" and "End IF" and "If... Then" parts of VB. I would much rather see a curly bracket instead.
PHP's function name inconsistencies.
// common parameters back-to-front
in_array(needle, haystack);
strpos(haystack, needle);
// _ to separate words, or not?
filesize();
file_exists;
// super globals prefix?
$GLOBALS;
$_POST;
I never really liked the keywords spelled backwards in some scripting shells
if-then-fi is bad enough, but case-in-esac is just getting silly
I just thought of another... I hate the mostly-meaningless URLs used in XML to define namespaces, e.g. xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
Pascal's Begin and End. Too verbose, not subject to bracket matching, and worse, there isn't a Begin for every End, eg.
Type foo = Record
// ...
end;
Although I'm mainly a PHP developer, I dislike languages that don't let me do enough things inline. E.g.:
$x = returnsArray();
$x[1];
instead of
returnsArray()[1];
or
function sort($a, $b) {
return $a < $b;
}
usort($array, 'sort');
instead of
usort($array, function($a, $b) { return $a < $b; });
I like object-oriented style. So it bugs me in Python to see len(str) to get the length of a string, or splitting strings like split(str, "|") in another language. That is fine in C; it doesn't have objects. But Python, D, etc. do have objects and use obj.method() other places. (I still think Python is a great language.)
Inconsistency is another big one for me. I do not like inconsistent naming in the same library: length(), size(), getLength(), getlength(), toUTFindex() (why not toUtfIndex?), Constant, CONSTANT, etc.
The long names in .NET bother me sometimes. Can't they shorten DataGridViewCellContextMenuStripNeededEventArgs somehow? What about ListViewVirtualItemsSelectionRangeChangedEventArgs?
And I hate deep directory trees. If a library/project has a 5 level deep directory tree, I'm going to have trouble with it.
C and C++'s syntax is a bit quirky. They reuse operators for different things. You're probably so used to it that you don't think about it (nor do I), but consider how many meanings parentheses have:
int main() // function declaration / definition
printf("hello") // function call
(int)x // type cast
2*(7+8) // override precedence
int (*)(int) // function pointer
int x(3) // initializer
if (condition) // special part of syntax of if, while, for, switch
And if in C++ you saw
foo<bar>(baz(),baaz)
you couldn't know the meaning without the definition of foo and bar.
the < and > might be a template instantiation, or might be less-than and greater-than (unusual but legal)
the () might be a function call, or might be just surrounding the comma operator (ie. perform baz() for size-effects, then return baaz).
The silly thing is that other languages have copied some of these characteristics!
Java, and its checked exceptions. I left Java for a while, dwelling in the .NET world, then recently came back.
It feels like, sometimes, my throws clause is more voluminous than my method content.
There's nothing in the world I hate more than php.
Variables with $, that's one extra odd character for every variable.
Members are accessed with -> for no apparent reason, one extra character for every member access.
A freakshow of language really.
No namespaces.
Strings are concatenated with ..
A freakshow of language.
All the []s and #s in Objective C. Their use is so different from the underlying C's native syntax that the first time I saw them it gave the impression that all the object-orientation had been clumsily bolted on as an afterthought.
I abhor the boiler plate verbosity of Java.
writing getters and setters for properties
checked exception handling and all the verbiage that implies
long lists of imports
Those, in connection with the Java convention of using veryLongVariableNames, sometimes have me thinking I'm back in the 80's, writing IDENTIFICATION DIVISION. at the top of my programs.
Hint: If you can automate the generation of part of your code in your IDE, that's a good hint that you're producing boilerplate code. With automated tools, it's not a problem to write, but it's a hindrance every time someone has to read that code - which is more often.
While I think it goes a bit overboard on type bureaucracy, Scala has successfully addressed some of these concerns.
Coding Style inconsistencies in team projects.
I'm working on a large team project where some contributors have used 4 spaces instead of the tab character.
Working with their code can be very annoying - I like to keep my code clean and with a consistent style.
It's bad enough when you use different standards for different languages, but in a web project with HTML, CSS, Javascript, PHP and MySQL, that's 5 languages, 5 different styles, and multiplied by the number of people working on the project.
I'd love to re-format my co-workers code when I need to fix something, but then the repository would think I changed every line of their code.
It irritates me sometimes how people expect there to be one language for all jobs. Depending on the task you are doing, each language has its advantages and disadvantages. I like the C-based syntax languages because it's what I'm most used to and I like the flexibility they tend to bestow on the developer. Of course, with great power comes great responsibility, and having the power to write 150 line LINQ statements doesn't mean you should.
I love the inline XML in the latest version of VB.NET although I don't like working with VB mainly because I find the IDE less helpful than the IDE for C#.
If Microsoft had to invent yet another C++-like language in C# why didn't they correct Java's mistake and implement support for RAII?
Case sensitivity.
What kinda hangover do you need to think that differentiating two identifiers solely by caSE is a great idea?
I hate semi-colons. I find they add a lot of noise and you rarely need to put two statements on a line. I prefer the style of Python and other languages... end of line is end of a statement.
Any language that can't fully decide if Arrays/Loop/string character indexes are zero based or one based.
I personally prefer zero based, but any language that mixes the two, or lets you "configure" which is used can drive you bonkers. (Apache Velocity - I'm looking in your direction!)
snip from the VTL reference (default is 1, but you can set it to 0):
# Default starting value of the loop
# counter variable reference.
directive.foreach.counter.initial.value = 1
(try merging 2 projects that used different counter schemes - ugh!)
In no particular order...
OCaml
Tuples definitions use * to separate items rather than ,. So, ("Juliet", 23, true) has the type (string * int * bool).
For being such an awesome language, the documentation has this haunting comment on threads: "The threads library is implemented by time-sharing on a single processor. It will not take advantage of multi-processor machines. Using this library will therefore never make programs run faster." JoCaml doesn't fix this problem.
^^^ I've heard the Jane Street guys were working to add concurrent GC and multi-core threads to OCaml, but I don't know how successful they've been. I can't imagine a language without multi-core threads and GC surviving very long.
No easy way to explore modules in the toplevel. Sure, you can write module q = List;; and the toplevel will happily print out the module definition, but that just seems hacky.
C#
Lousy type inference. Beyond the most trivial expressions, I have to give types to generic functions.
All the LINQ code I ever read uses method syntax, x.Where(item => ...).OrderBy(item => ...). No one ever uses expression syntax, from item in x where ... orderby ... select. Between you and me, I think expression syntax is silly, if for no other reason than that it looks "foreign" against the backdrop of all other C# and VB.NET code.
LINQ
Every other language uses the industry standard names are Map, Fold/Reduce/Inject, and Filter. LINQ has to be different and uses Select, Aggregate, and Where.
Functional Programming
Monads are mystifying. Having seen the Parser monad, Maybe monad, State, and List monads, I can understand perfectly how the code works; however, as a general design pattern, I can't seem to look at problems and say "hey, I bet a monad would fit perfect here".
Ruby
GRRRRAAAAAAAH!!!!! I mean... seriously.
VB
Module Hangups
Dim _juliet as String = "Too Wordy!"
Public Property Juliet() as String
Get
Return _juliet
End Get
Set (ByVal value as String)
_juliet = value
End Set
End Property
End Module
And setter declarations are the bane of my existence. Alright, so I change the data type of my property -- now I need to change the data type in my setter too? Why doesn't VB borrow from C# and simply incorporate an implicit variable called value?
.NET Framework
I personally like Java casing convention: classes are PascalCase, methods and properties are camelCase.
In C/C++, it annoys me how there are different ways of writing the same code.
e.g.
if (condition)
{
callSomeConditionalMethod();
}
callSomeOtherMethod();
vs.
if (condition)
callSomeConditionalMethod();
callSomeOtherMethod();
equate to the same thing, but different people have different styles. I wish the original standard was more strict about making a decision about this, so we wouldn't have this ambiguity. It leads to arguments and disagreements in code reviews!
I found Perl's use of "defined" and "undefined" values to be so useful that I have trouble using scripting languages without it.
Perl:
($lastname, $firstname, $rest) = split(' ', $fullname);
This statement performs well no matter how many words are in $fullname. Try it in Python, and it explodes if $fullname doesn't contain exactly three words.
SQL, they say you should not use cursors and when you do, you really understand why...
its so heavy going!
DECLARE mycurse CURSOR LOCAL FAST_FORWARD READ_ONLY
FOR
SELECT field1, field2, fieldN FROM atable
OPEN mycurse
FETCH NEXT FROM mycurse INTO #Var1, #Var2, #VarN
WHILE ##fetch_status = 0
BEGIN
-- do something really clever...
FETCH NEXT FROM mycurse INTO #Var1, #Var2, #VarN
END
CLOSE mycurse
DEALLOCATE mycurse
Although I program primarily in python, It irks me endlessly that lambda body's must be expressions.
I'm still wrapping my brain around JavaScript, and as a whole, Its mostly acceptable. Why is it so hard to create a namespace. In TCL they're just ugly, but in JavaScript, it's actually a rigmarole AND completely unreadable.
In SQL how come everything is just one, huge freekin SELECT statement.
In Ruby, I very strongly dislike how methods do not require self. to be called on current instance, but properties do (otherwise they will clash with locals); i.e.:
def foo()
123
end
def foo=(x)
end
def bar()
x = foo() # okay, same as self.foo()
x = foo # not okay, reads unassigned local variable foo
foo = 123 # not okay, assigns local variable foo
end
To my mind, it's very inconsistent. I'd rather prefer to either always require self. in all cases, or to have a sigil for locals.
Java's packages. I find them complex, more so because I am not a corporation.
I vastly prefer namespaces. I'll get over it, of course - I'm playing with the Android SDK, and Eclipse removes a lot of the pain. I've never had a machine that could run it interactively before, and now I do I'm very impressed.
Prolog's if-then-else syntax.
x -> y ; z
The problem is that ";" is the "or" operator, so the above looks like "x implies y or z".
Java
Generics (Java version of templates) are limited. I can not call methods of the class and I can not create instances of the class. Generics are used by containers, but I can use containers of instances of Object.
No multiple inheritance. If a multiple inheritance use does not lead to diamond problem, it should be allowed. It should allow to write a default implementation of interface methods, a example of problem: the interface MouseListener has 5 methods, one for each event. If I want to handle just one of them, I have to implement the 4 other methods as an empty method.
It does not allow to choose to manually manage memory of some objects.
Java API uses complex combination of classes to do simple tasks. Example, if I want to read from a file, I have to use many classes (FileReader, FileInputStream).
Python
Indentation is part of syntax, I prefer to use the word "end" to indicate end of block and the word "pass" would not be needed.
In classes, the word "self" should not be needed as argument of functions.
C++
Headers are the worst problem. I have to list the functions in a header file and implement them in a cpp file. It can not hide dependencies of a class. If a class A uses the class B privately as a field, if I include the header of A, the header of B will be included too.
Strings and arrays came from C, they do not provide a length field. It is difficult to control if std::string and std::vector will use stack or heap. I have to use pointers with std::string and std::vector if I want to use assignment, pass as argument to a function or return it, because its "=" operator will copy entire structure.
I can not control the constructor and destructor. It is difficult to create an array of objects without a default constructor or choose what constructor to use with if and switch statements.
In most languages, file access. VB.NET is the only language so far where file access makes any sense to me. I do not understand why if I want to check if a file exists, I should use File.exists("") or something similar instead of creating a file object (actually FileInfo in VB.NET) and asking if it exists. And then if I want to open it, I ask it to open: (assuming a FileInfo object called fi) fi.OpenRead, for example. Returns a stream. Nice. Exactly what I wanted. If I want to move a file, fi.MoveTo. I can also do fi.CopyTo. What is this nonsense about not making files full-fledged objects in most languages? Also, if I want to iterate through the files in a directory, I can just create the directory object and call .GetFiles. Or I can do .GetDirectories, and I get a whole new set of DirectoryInfo objects to play with.
Admittedly, Java has some of this file stuff, but this nonsense of having to have a whole object to tell it how to list files is just silly.
Also, I hate ::, ->, => and all other multi-character operators except for <= and >= (and maybe -- and ++).
[Disclaimer: i only have a passing familiarity with VB, so take my comments with a grain of salt]
I Hate How Every Keyword In VB Is Capitalized Like This. I saw a blog post the other week (month?) about someone who tried writing VB code without any capital letters (they did something to a compiler that would let them compile VB code like that), and the language looked much nicer!
My big hangup is MATLAB's syntax. I use it, and there are things I like about it, but it has so many annoying quirks. Let's see.
Matrices are indexed with parentheses. So if you see something like Image(350,260), you have no clue from that whether we're getting an element from the Image matrix, or if we're calling some function called Image and passing arguments to it.
Scope is insane. I seem to recall that for loop index variables stay in scope after the loop ends.
If you forget to stick a semicolon after an assignment, the value will be dumped to standard output.
You may have one function per file. This proves to be very annoying for organizing one's work.
I'm sure I could come up with more if I thought about it.