Coding Horrors: You can gather all your technical debt into one easy framework!

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > The Cavern of COBOL > Coding Horrors: You can gather all your technical debt into one easy framework!

«‹›1501 »

Jonnty: Aug 2, 2007; The enemy has become a flaming star!

UberJumper posted:

code:

_CREATE_GP_DEFS = {
  '9.0' : (lambda x = (lambda : __import__('win32com.client')) :
    win32com.client.Dispatch("esriGeoprocessing.GpDispatch.1")),
  '9.1' : (lambda x = (lambda : __import__('win32com.client')) :
    win32com.client.Dispatch("esriGeoprocessing.GpDispatch.1")),
  '9.2' : (lambda x = (lambda : __import__('arcgisscripting')) :
    arcgisscripting.create()),
  '9.3' : (lambda x = (lambda : __import__('arcgisscripting')) :
    arcgisscripting.create(9.3))
}

Has he devised some sort of weird parallel of currying that only works in the imperative world?

# ? Jan 26, 2010 05:50

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 27, 2024 06:54

TOO SCSI FOR MY CAT: Oct 12, 2008; this is what happens when you take UI design away from engineers and give it to a bunch of hipster art student "designers"

UberJumper posted:

code:

_CREATE_GP_DEFS = {
  '9.0' : (lambda x = (lambda : __import__('win32com.client')) :
    win32com.client.Dispatch("esriGeoprocessing.GpDispatch.1")),
  '9.1' : (lambda x = (lambda : __import__('win32com.client')) :
    win32com.client.Dispatch("esriGeoprocessing.GpDispatch.1")),
  '9.2' : (lambda x = (lambda : __import__('arcgisscripting')) :
    arcgisscripting.create()),
  '9.3' : (lambda x = (lambda : __import__('arcgisscripting')) :
    arcgisscripting.create(9.3))
}

What does this even do? The lambda parameters aren't used anywhere, so the imports are pointless.

e:

Jonnty posted:

Has he devised some sort of weird parallel of currying that only works in the imperative world?

This looks like it's supposed to simulate lazy evaluation, not currying, unless there's something really weird going on elsewhere.

TOO SCSI FOR MY CAT fucked around with this message at 06:00 on Jan 26, 2010

# ? Jan 26, 2010 05:58

UberJumper: May 20, 2007; woop

Janin posted:

What does this even do? The lambda parameters aren't used anywhere, so the imports are pointless.

e:

This looks like it's supposed to simulate lazy evaluation, not currying, unless there's something really weird going on elsewhere.

Oops! I actually copied the broken one, here is the correct one that was checked in:

code:

_CREATE_GP_DEFS = {
  '9.0' : (lambda x = (lambda : __import__('win32com.client')) :
    (x()).Dispatch("esriGeoprocessing.GpDispatch.1")),
  '9.1' : (lambda x = (lambda : __import__('win32com.client')) :
    (x()).Dispatch("esriGeoprocessing.GpDispatch.1")),
  '9.2' : (lambda x = (lambda : __import__('arcgisscripting')) :
    (x()).create()),
  '9.3' : (lambda x = (lambda : __import__('arcgisscripting')) :
    (x()).create(9.3))
}

I only noticed this, because i am partially using some common modules, and saw that. His argument was "I dont want to create 2 line functions!"

It works.. i kinda like it but... :psyduck:

UberJumper fucked around with this message at 06:26 on Jan 26, 2010

# ? Jan 26, 2010 06:06

king_kilr: May 25, 2007

WTF does he create the parameter, how is __import__("poo poo").create() any worse than that disaster.

# ? Jan 26, 2010 06:21

Lonely Wolf: Jan 20, 2003; Will hawk false idols for heaps and heaps of dough.

He probably thinks it only gets evaluated once.

# ? Jan 26, 2010 06:24

Avenging Dentist: Oct 1, 2005; oh my god is that a circular saw that does not go in my mouth aaaaagh

UberJumper posted:

I only noticed this, because i am partially using some common modules, and saw that. His argument was "I dont want to create 2 line functions!"

I bet this guy's mind will be blown when he figures out how return values work.

# ? Jan 26, 2010 07:39

TOO SCSI FOR MY CAT: Oct 12, 2008; this is what happens when you take UI design away from engineers and give it to a bunch of hipster art student "designers"

UberJumper posted:

Oops! I actually copied the broken one, here is the correct one that was checked in:
code:
_CREATE_GP_DEFS = {
  '9.0' : (lambda x = (lambda : __import__('win32com.client')) :
    (x()).Dispatch("esriGeoprocessing.GpDispatch.1")),
  '9.1' : (lambda x = (lambda : __import__('win32com.client')) :
    (x()).Dispatch("esriGeoprocessing.GpDispatch.1")),
  '9.2' : (lambda x = (lambda : __import__('arcgisscripting')) :
    (x()).create()),
  '9.3' : (lambda x = (lambda : __import__('arcgisscripting')) :
    (x()).create(9.3))
}
I only noticed this, because i am partially using some common modules, and saw that. His argument was "I dont want to create 2 line functions!"

It works.. i kinda like it but...

There ought to be a competency test and license requirement for using lambda...

code:

with_mod = lambda name, f: lambda: f(__import__(name))

_CREATE_GP_DEFS = {
  '9.0': with_mod('win32com.client', lambda x: x.Dispatch("esriGeoprocessing.GpDispatch.1")),
  '9.2': with_mod('arcgisscripting', lambda x: x.create())
  # etc
}

# ? Jan 26, 2010 07:50

Avenging Dentist: Oct 1, 2005; oh my god is that a circular saw that does not go in my mouth aaaaagh

Janin posted:

There ought to be a competency test and license requirement for using lambda...

Pretty sure this is sufficient:

code:

_CREATE_GP_DEFS = {
  '9.0' : lambda: __import__('win32com.client').Dispatch("esriGeoprocessing.GpDispatch.1")),
  # ...
}

(EDIT: oops)

Avenging Dentist fucked around with this message at 08:09 on Jan 26, 2010

# ? Jan 26, 2010 08:06

Zombywuf: Mar 29, 2008

This is why Python can't have nice things.

# ? Jan 26, 2010 14:50

trex eaterofcadrs: Jun 17, 2005; My lack of understanding is only exceeded by my lack of concern.

Zombywuf posted:

This is why Python can't have nice things.

I think this code is essentially the argument people use against Java getting closures. It's pretty convincing, I have to admit.

# ? Jan 26, 2010 15:19

Mustach: Mar 2, 2003; In this long line, there's been some real strange genes. You've got 'em all, with some extras thrown in.

If someone being dumb is a convincing argument to you, then this thread is an argument against any language getting any feature.

# ? Jan 26, 2010 15:44

trex eaterofcadrs: Jun 17, 2005; My lack of understanding is only exceeded by my lack of concern.

Mustach posted:

If someone being dumb is a convincing argument to you, then this thread is an argument against any language getting any feature.

Eh, that's going a bit far. I definitely think the population of programmers that "write" Java for a living contains an abundant amount of people that would "[be] dumb" with closures. Looks like Python is getting there too. Popularity brings morons. In droves.

# ? Jan 26, 2010 18:40

Zombywuf: Mar 29, 2008

TRex EaterofCars posted:

Eh, that's going a bit far. I definitely think the population of programmers that "write" Java for a living contains an abundant amount of people that would "[be] dumb" with closures. Looks like Python is getting there too. Popularity brings morons. In droves.

Python was deliberately created for morons^Wbeginners.

# ? Jan 26, 2010 19:22

BattleMaster: Aug 14, 2000

The Python manual just says (or used to say, haven't checked in a while) that the lambda keyword is similar to the one used in functional languages. That's all. I took that to mean "if you don't know what this is you don't need to use it"

# ? Jan 26, 2010 19:51

Milotic: Mar 4, 2009; 9CL apologist; Slippery Tilde

The two features I dislike the most in .NET 3.5 are lambda expressions and the return of the dreaded var. Yes, I know the compiler can work it out. I'm not as smart as the compiler. If I'm looking at your code, there's a good chance there's something wrong with it. Please make my life a bit easier.

At least they gave us automatic properties to make up for it.

# ? Jan 27, 2010 00:07

POKEMAN SAM: Jul 8, 2004

Milotic posted:

The two features I dislike the most in .NET 3.5 are lambda expressions and the return of the dreaded var. Yes, I know the compiler can work it out. I'm not as smart as the compiler. If I'm looking at your code, there's a good chance there's something wrong with it. Please make my life a bit easier.

At least they gave us automatic properties to make up for it.

1. Lambda expressions are amazing, especially when dealing with dispatching stuff between worker threads and the UI thread.

2. I agree, var blows. It might not be a problem if you're the one writing the code, but when I'm trying to read it...

# ? Jan 27, 2010 05:30

Blotto Skorzany: Nov 7, 2008; He's a PSoC, loose and runnin'
came the whisper from each lip
And he's here to do some business with
the bad ADC on his chip
bad ADC on his chiiiiip

What would you consider to be the pathological case for type inference? The normal auto i = map_of_vectors_of_strings_or_whatever.begin(); and var foo = new Bar::Baz<Fred>(...); stuff seems pretty unobjectionable

# ? Jan 27, 2010 05:44

Avenging Dentist: Oct 1, 2005; oh my god is that a circular saw that does not go in my mouth aaaaagh

Ugg boots posted:

2. I agree, var blows. It might not be a problem if you're the one writing the code, but when I'm trying to read it...

Yes, I too hate things that make generic programming easier and less verbose.

# ? Jan 27, 2010 05:45

spiritual bypass: Feb 19, 2008; Grimey Drawer

Avenging Dentist posted:

Yes, I too hate things that make generic programming easier and less verbose.

PHP makes generic programming easier and less verbose...

# ? Jan 27, 2010 05:48

Blotto Skorzany: Nov 7, 2008; He's a PSoC, loose and runnin'
came the whisper from each lip
And he's here to do some business with
the bad ADC on his chip
bad ADC on his chiiiiip

PHP doesn't support generic programming at all...

# ? Jan 27, 2010 05:52

Avenging Dentist: Oct 1, 2005; oh my god is that a circular saw that does not go in my mouth aaaaagh

rt4 posted:

PHP makes generic programming easier and less verbose...

Ah yes, the fallacy of division. (And perhaps more importantly, equivocation.)

Avenging Dentist fucked around with this message at 06:01 on Jan 27, 2010

# ? Jan 27, 2010 05:56

Alex007: Jul 8, 2004

I know this is really minor ...

code:

  If DisplayWebToolbar then Begin
    WebViewSpeedBtn.Visible := True;
    WebAddSpeedBtn.Visible := True;
  End
  Else begin
    WebViewSpeedBtn.Visible := False;
    WebAddSpeedBtn.Visible  := False;
  end;

... but having to maintain someone else's code and finding little stupid things like these EVERYWHERE all the drat time is going to make me find the guy who wrote it and kill him. Seriously, shrink that back to two lines, and use the same case on your begin/end dammit.

# ? Jan 27, 2010 14:29

jarito: Aug 26, 2003; Biscuit Hider

Avenging Dentist posted:

Yes, I too hate things that make generic programming easier and less verbose.

Right, but that's not what we are complaining about. This is:

code:

void someFunc(var a, var b, var c) 
{
    var d = a.Object.DoSomething();
    d.execute();
}

Using var where the typing information is unneeded is fine, but it gives idiots a crutch to turn C# into a weakly typed language, which it is not.

# ? Jan 27, 2010 15:36

dwazegek: Feb 11, 2005; WE CAN USE THIS

jarito posted:

Right, but that's not what we are complaining about. This is:
code:
void someFunc(var a, var b, var c) 
{
    var d = a.Object.DoSomething();
    d.execute();
}
Using var where the typing information is unneeded is fine, but it gives idiots a crutch to turn C# into a weakly typed language, which it is not.

You can't use var in parameters in C#...

You could use dynamic in C# 4.0, but dynamic and var are two different concepts.

edit:
And var in C# has absolutely nothing to do with weak/strong typing.

# ? Jan 27, 2010 15:46

Mustach: Mar 2, 2003; In this long line, there's been some real strange genes. You've got 'em all, with some extras thrown in.

jarito posted:

Right, but that's not what we are complaining about. This is: <insert uncompilable code in an attempt to support a fabricated complaint>

And once again, the coding horrors thread folds back in on itself.

# ? Jan 27, 2010 16:00

shrughes: Oct 11, 2008; (call/cc call/cc)

Ok, listen up, folks.

var doesn't make C# weakly typed. Do you write your code like this:

code:

double distance = sqrt(square(x1 - x2) + square(y1-y2));

Or do you write it like this:

code:

double xDiff = x1 - x2;
double yDiff = y1 - y2;
double xSq = square(xDiff);
double ySq = square(yDiff);
double s = square(xSq + ySq);
double distance = sqrt(s);

Oh, let me guess: you'd write the latter.

P.S. Anybody who doesn't know their functions' return types is really a crabby dumb babby who sucks the teet of autocomplete.

# ? Jan 27, 2010 16:10

Athas: Aug 6, 2007; fuck that joker

jarito posted:

Right, but that's not what we are complaining about. This is:
code:
void someFunc(var a, var b, var c) 
{
    var d = a.Object.DoSomething();
    d.execute();
}
Using var where the typing information is unneeded is fine, but it gives idiots a crutch to turn C# into a weakly typed language, which it is not.

It is you. You are the horror who codes.

By your logic, the type inference in Haskell also makes it weakly typed.

# ? Jan 27, 2010 18:28

Seth Turtle: May 6, 2007; by Tiny Fistpump

jarito posted:

Using var where the typing information is unneeded is fine, but it gives idiots a crutch to turn C# into a weakly typed language, which it is not.

These guys disagree.

C# Reference posted:

Beginning in Visual C# 3.0, variables that are declared at method scope can have an implicit type var. An implicitly typed local variable is strongly typed just as if you had declared the type yourself, but the compiler determines the type.

# ? Jan 27, 2010 18:56

king_kilr: May 25, 2007

The real coding horror is not knowing the difference between strong/weak typing and static/dynamic typing.

# ? Jan 27, 2010 20:54

Milotic: Mar 4, 2009; 9CL apologist; Slippery Tilde

The problem I have with var is that it binds to the strictest return type of a method/constructor, which tends to discourage polymorphism and hence hinder refactoring.

I can appreciate lambda expressions and extension methods speed up the initial developer's output, but it stinks for other people who look at your code.

# ? Jan 27, 2010 21:37

Vanadium: Jan 8, 2005

king_kilr posted:

The real coding horror is not knowing the difference between strong/weak typing and static/dynamic typing.

var is neither weak nor dynamic. :colbert:

# ? Jan 27, 2010 22:37

mr_jim: Oct 30, 2006; OUT OF THE DARK

Type inferencing is magic.

# ? Jan 27, 2010 22:39

dwazegek: Feb 11, 2005; WE CAN USE THIS

Milotic posted:

The problem I have with var is that it binds to the strictest return type of a method/constructor, which tends to discourage polymorphism and hence hinder refactoring.

~~I can somewhat understand your point about it discouraging polymorphism (although I don't agree with it), but how does it hinder refactoring?~~

edit:
In what way does it do either of those two things?

dwazegek fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Jan 27, 2010

# ? Jan 27, 2010 22:52

Dijkstracula: Mar 18, 2003; You can't spell 'vector field' without me, Professor!

Milotic posted:

I can appreciate lambda expressions and extension methods speed up the initial developer's output, but it stinks for other people who look at your code.

I'm not even sure that this is the case - personally I find just inlining a lambda more beautiful and easier to understand than, say, the Java policy of passing in some reference to a Runnable object. :confused:

(I'm assuming we're making the definition of lambda elastic enough to include a Java-like "anonymous class" which I don't think closes over its containing block)

# ? Jan 27, 2010 22:59

Smugdog Millionaire: Sep 14, 2002; 8) Blame Icefrog

dwazegek posted:

~~I can somewhat understand your point about it discouraging polymorphism (although I don't agree with it), but how does it hinder refactoring?~~

edit:
In what way does it do either of those two things?

I'm assuming he's talking about a scenario where a function returns MySpecialListType<string> but the caller only really wants/needs an IEnumerable<string>. Since var only exists in local scope I don't imagine it's really any trouble to fix it.

# ? Jan 27, 2010 23:42

TOO SCSI FOR MY CAT: Oct 12, 2008; this is what happens when you take UI design away from engineers and give it to a bunch of hipster art student "designers"

Free Bees posted:

I'm assuming he's talking about a scenario where a function returns MySpecialListType<string> but the caller only really wants/needs an IEnumerable<string>. Since var only exists in local scope I don't imagine it's really any trouble to fix it.

Why does this matter? Presumably if the variable is later passed to a procedure that accepts IEnumerable, its type will be inferred to be IEnumerable, right?

# ? Jan 27, 2010 23:51

zombienietzsche: Dec 9, 2003

And even if it's inferred as MySpecialListType<string> this doesn't pose a problem unless MySpecialListType doesn't implement IEnumerable

# ? Jan 27, 2010 23:55

Milotic: Mar 4, 2009; 9CL apologist; Slippery Tilde

It's only an issue when you start writing procedures which accept that implicitly defined variable - many code completion tools and whatnot (I think resharper will, will have to try it tomorrow), will create a method that uses the specific type, rather than something more abstract. If you explicitly declare it as an IEnumerable, it won't.

It's a fairly weak argument, and depends on your coding style/whether you use code completion stuff.

Also, I guess var causes more headaches when it comes to arrays. An array of objects is not the supertype of an array of strings (say), so I think it's best to be explicit when declaring an array.

# ? Jan 28, 2010 01:21

rjmccall: Sep 7, 2007; no worries friend; Fun Shoe

If a variable's (or function's return value's) type is inferred as ArrayList instead of List, users of the variable/function can write code which only works with ArrayList; thus you get implicit dependencies on some type which was meant to be purely an internal implementation detail.

In practice I doubt this is a serious concern; I find it's very rarely useful to swap implementation types without making other structural/semantic changes that require client code to be updated anyway.

# ? Jan 28, 2010 01:30

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 27, 2024 06:54

Dr Monkeysee: Oct 11, 2002; just a fox like a hundred thousand others; Nap Ghost

Lambdas are awesome, I can't imagine why anyone would think otherwise. The alternative is the old 2.0 anonymous delegate syntax which was ugly as hell and hard to read. Unless you've been in bracket land your entire programming career, lambdas read very naturally.

var I can understand because it can make code harder to read at a glance. Yeah weakly-typed languages aren't inherently harder to read than strongly-typed languages but when you run into what looks like weak typing in the middle of strongly-typed code it forces you to put on the breaks.

Having said that its usage in limited areas (like foreach loops on some complicated enumeration or linq expression results) it does make the code more compact without sacrificing too much clarity.

dynamic scares me. Everyone who *thinks* var introduces weak-typing is gonna fuckin' love dynamic.

# ? Jan 28, 2010 06:27

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > The Cavern of COBOL > Coding Horrors: You can gather all your technical debt into one easy framework!

«‹›1501 »