Not sure if this is the right place to bring up this kind of discussion but, Im reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflective_programming and feel I need a bit further clarification for where the line between "reflective" & non-reflective programming really goes. Theres a series of examples of reflective v non-reflective code towards the end of the wikipedia page where all the "reflective" examples seem to access data with string identifiers - but what would actually differentiate this from say putting a bunch of objects in a collection/array of some sort and accessing them by an index - say compared to accessing them by an array of string identifiers that you can use to fetch the desired object?
In some languages you can clearly see the difference & benefit, like in Python & JS they have the eval method that lets them insert all sorts of code at runtime that can be pretty much endlessly complex and completely change the code flow of an application - and no longer limited to accessing mere special type objects. But in the examples listed on the wiki page you can also find examples where the "reflection" seems limited only to accessing specially declared objects by there name (at which point Im questioning if you can really argue that the program really can be considered to be "modifying" itself at all, at least on a high level in conceptual point of view).
Does the way that the underlying machinery producd by the compiler (or the way that the interpreter reads your code) affect whats considered to be reflective?
Is the ability of redefining the contents of existing objects or declaring new objects without a "base class"/preexisting structure created at compile time that differentiates reflective & non-reflective code? If so, how would this play with the examples at the wikipedia page that doesnt seem to showcase this ability?
Can the meaning of "reflective programming" vary slightly depending on the scenario?
Any thoughts appreciated <3
Related
I would like to know Why we need to compile the program of progress 4GL? Really what is happening behind there? Why we are getting .r file after compiled the program? When we check the syntax if its correct then we will get one message box 'Syntax is correct' how its finding the errors and showing the messages.Any explanations welcome and appreciated.
Benefits of compiled r-code include:
Syntax checking
Faster execution (r-code executes faster)
Security (r-code is not "human readable" and tampering with it will likely be noticed)
Licensing (r-code runtime licenses are much less expensive)
For "how its finding the errors and showing the messages" -- at a high level it is like any compiler. It evaluates the provided source against a syntax tree and lets you know when you violate the rules. Compiler design and construction is a fairly advanced topic that probably isn't going to fit into a simple SO question -- but if you had something more specific that could stand on its own as a question someone might be able to help.
The short answer is that when you compile, you're translating your program to a language the machine understands. You're asking two different questions here, so let me give you a simple answer to the first: you don't NEED to compile if you're the only one using the program, for example. But in order to have your program optimized (since it's already at the machine language level) and guarantee no one is messing with your logic, we compile the code and usually don't allow regular users to access the source code.
The second question, how does the syntax checker work, I believe it would be better for you to Google and choose some articles to read about compilers. They're complex, but in a nutshell what they do is take what Progress expects as full, operational commands, and compare to what you do. For example, if you do a
Find first customer where customer.active = yes no-error.
Progress will check if customer is a table, if customer.active is a field in that table, if it's the logical type, since you are filtering if it is yes, and if your whole conditions can be translated to one single true or false Boolean value. It goes on to check if you specified a lock (and default to shared if you haven't, like in my example, which is a no-no, by the way), what happens if there are multiple records (since I said first, then get just the first one) and finally what happens if it fails. If you check the find statement, there are more options to customize it, and the compiler will simply compare your use of the statement to what Progress can have for it. And collect all errors if it can't. That's why sometimes compilers will give you generic messages. Since they don't know what you're trying to do, all they can do is tell you what's basically wrong with what you wrote.
Hope this helps you understand.
Supposed I wanted to take advantage of Common Lisp's ability to read and execute Common Lisp code so that my program can execute external code written in Lisp, but I don't trust that code so I don't want it to have access the full power of Common Lisp. Is it possible for me to restricts its environment so that it can only see the packages/symbols to which I explicitly give it access, effectively creating a DSL?
To read the code, start by disabling *read-eval* (that stops people injecting execution during parsing, using something like #.(do-evil-stuff). You probably want to do the reading using a custom read-table that disables most (if not all) read-macros. You probably want to do the reading with a custom, one-off, package, importing only symbols you allow.
Once you've read the user-provided code, you still need to validate that there's no unexpected function/macro references in the code. If you have used a custom package, you should be able to confirm that each symbol falls in either of the two classes "belongs to the custom one-off package" (this is user-supplied stuff) or "explicitly allowed from elsewhere" (you would need this list to construct the custom package).
Once that's been done, you can then evaluate it.
However, doing this correctly would take a fair bit of care and you really should have someone else have a look at the code and actively try to break out of the sandbox.
Take a look at the section 'Reader security' in chapter 4 of Let over lambda which discusses this topic in some depth. In particular, you probably want to set *read-eval* to nil. To address your question regarding restricting access to the environment, this is generally difficult in Common Lisp, as it is designed to allow access to most pieces of the system in the first place. Maybe you can use elaborate the ideas of Let over lambda in the direction of white listing symbols (in comparison to the blacklisting of macro characters in the linked chapter). I don't think there are any ready-made solutions.
See title. That's all I have to ask. The net doesn't have many succinct answers to this question. Please keep in mind stack vs heap. Explain as you would to a complete beginner. Just looking for the "why" not the "how".
edit
Are pointers a way to get large objects out of the stack?
When passing a huge object from one piece of your program to another to be worked on like an entire class for example or something with a large amount of data like an image or video passing every single bit of data would be very inefficient. Instead you can just pass a tiny little memory address (pointer) that the receiving part of your program can then use to get to the object to be worked on.
Aside from that huge aspect, they offer a lot of flexibility but I need more than a paragraph for that.
When you get into managed code like C# or Java EVERYTHING is done with pointers/references but it's all behind the scenes and you don't have to deal with them like you would in C++ or another similar language. But it's still crucial to understand how they work.
Edit in response to:
"why would I pass a large object around if I don't need to work on
it?"
You wouldn't. However; Correct me if I'm straying from what your asking but what you'll learn if you continue into Computer Science is that a piece of your program should be as simple as possible it should only do 1 thing. Commonly known as the Single Responsibility Principle this dictates that you will have many seemingly tiny parts of your program that will all work together to accomplish the over arching goal. That means that a lot of those tiny pieces are going to need to work on the same objects, the same data and use the same tools to get the job done. Lets look at a hypothetical.
You're coding a simple image editing application.You're going to need a cropping tool, a paint brush tool, a selection tool, and a re-size tool. Each of these tools are going to need their own place in your program (a class or more likely many classes that work together) and that class will have many smaller pieces (methods/functions and other things) that work together to accomplish the goal of that class. Every single one of these classes and methods is most likely going to need to look at or modify the image data. With a pointer you can provide them with a memory address instead of making an entire copy of the image. That way when one of the classes or methods makes a change to it you don't need to worry about managing all these copies and making sure they all get the same change.
It allows you to do pass-by-reference/shared data structures, which has two big features: it saves memory and CPU overhead by not making copies, and it provides for complex communication patterns by making changes to shared data.
The other day i stumbled onto a rather old usenet post by Linus Torwalds. It is the infamous "You are full of bull****" post when he defends his choice of using plain C for Git over something more modern.
In particular this post made me think about the enormous amount of abstraction layers that accumulate one over the other where I work. Mine is a Windows .Net environment. I must say that I like C# and the .Net environment, it really makes most things easy.
Now, I come from a very different background made of Unix technologies like C and a plethora or scripting languages; to me, also, OOP is just one, and not always the best, programming paradigm.. I often struggle (in a working kind of way, of course!) with my colleagues (one in particular), because they appear to be of the "any problem can be solved with an additional level of abstraction" church, while I'm more of the "keeping it simple" school. I think that there is a very different mental approach to the problems that maybe comes from the exposure to different cultures.
As a very simple example, for the first project I did here I needed some configuration for an application. I made a 10 rows class to load and parse a txt file to be located in the program's root dir containing colon separated key / value pairs, one per row. It worked.
In the end, to standardize the approach to the configuration problem, we now have a library to be located on every machine running each configured program that calls a service that, at startup, loads up an xml that contains the references to other xmls, one per application, that contain the configurations themselves.
Now, it is extensible and made up of fancy reusable abstractions, providers and all, but I still think that, if we one day really happen to reuse part of it, with the time taken to make it up, we can make the needed code from start or copy / past the old code and modify it.
What are your thoughts about it? Can you point out some interesting reference dealing with the problem?
Thanks
Abstraction makes it easier to construct software and understand how it is put together, but it complicates fully understanding certain issues around performance and security, because the abstraction layers introduce certain kinds of complexity.
Torvalds' position is not absurd, but he is an extremist.
Simple answer: programming languages provide data structures and ways to combine them. Use these directly at first, do not abstract. If you find you have representation invariants to maintain that are at a high risk of being broken due to a large number of usage sites possibly outside your control, then consider abstraction.
To implement this, first provide functions and convert the call sites to use them without hiding the representation. Hide the data representation only when you're satisfied your functional representation is sufficient. Make sure at this time to document the invariant being protected.
An "extreme programming" version of this: do not abstract until you have test cases that break your program. If you think the invariant can be breached, write the case that breaks it first.
Here's a similar question: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1992279/abstraction-in-todays-languages-excited-or-sad.
I agree with #Steve Emmerson - 'Coders at Work' would give you some excellent perspective on this issue.
I try to externalize all strings (and other constants) used in any application I write, for many reasons that are probably second-nature to most stack-overflowers, but one thing I would like to have is the ability to automate spell checking of any user-visible strings. This poses a couple problems:
Not all strings are user-visible, and it's non-trivial to spearate them, and keep that separation in place (but it is possible)
Most, if not all, string externalization methods I've used involve significant text that will not pass a spell checker such as aspell/ispell (eg: theStrName="some string." and comments)
Many spellcheckers (once again, aspell/ispell) don't handle many words out of the box (generally technical terms, proper nouns, or just 'new' terminology, like metadata).
How do you incorporate something like this into your build procedures/test suites? It is not feasible to have someone manually spell check all the strings in an application each time they are changed -- and there is no chance that they will all be spelled correctly the first time.
We do it manually, if errors aren't picked up during testing then they're picked up by the QA team, or during localization by the translators, or during localization QA. Then we lodge a bug.
Most of our developers are not native English speakers, so it's not an uncommon problem for us. The number that slip through the cracks is so small that this is a satisfactory solution for us.
Nothing over a few hundred lines is ever 100% bug-free (well... maybe the odd piece of embedded code), just think of spelling mistakes as bugs and don't waste too much time on it.
As soon as your application matures, over 90% of strings won't change between releases and it would be a reasonably trivial exercise to compare two versions of your resources, figure out what'ts new (check them first), what's changed/updated (check next) and what hasn't changed (no need to check these)
So think of it more like I need to check ALL of these manually the first time, and I'm only going to have to check 10% of them next time. Now ask yourself if you still really need to automate spell checking.
I can think of two ways to approach this semi-automatically:
Have the compiler help you differentiate between strings used in the UI and strings used elsewhere. Overload different variants of the string datatype depending on it's purpose, and overload the output methods to only accept that type - that way you can create a fake UI that just outputs the UI strings, and do the spell checking on that.
If this is doable of course depends on the platform and the overall architecture of the application.
Another approach could be to simply update the spell checkers database with all the strings that appear in the code - comments, xpaths, table names, you name it - and regard them as perfectly cromulent. This will of course reduce the precision of the spell checking.
First thing, regarding string externalization - GNU GetText (if used properly) creates string files that are contain almost no text other then the actual content of the strings (there are some headers but its easy to cause a spell checker to ignore them).
Second thing, what I would do is to run the spell checker in a continuous integration environment and have the errors fed externally, probably through a web interface but email will also work. Developers can then review the errors and either fix them in the code or use some easy interface to let the spell check know that a misspelling should be ignored (a web interface can integrate both the error view and the spell checker interface).
If you're using java and are storing your localized strings in resource bundles then you could check the Bundle.properties files and validate the bundle strings. You could also add a special comment annotation that your processor could use to determine if an entry should be skipped.
This method will allow you to give a hint as to the locale and provide a way of checking multiple languages within the one build process.
I can't answer how you would perform the actual spell checking itself, though I think what I've presented will guid you as for the method of performing the spell checking.
Use aspell. It's a programme, it's available for unixoids and cygwin, it can be run over lots of kinds of source code. Use it.
First point, please don't put it into you build process. I would be a vengeful coder if I (meaning my computer) had to spell check all the content on the site every time I tried to debug or build a new feature. I don't even think this kind of operation belongs as a unit test (you're testing a human interface, not a computerised one).
Second point, don't write a script. You're going to have so many false positives fall through the cracks that people will stop reading the reports and you are no better off than when you started.
Third point, this is probably most easily solved by having humans do it: QA team, copy writers, beta testers, translators, etc. All the big sites with internationalised content that I've built had the same process: we took the copy from the copy writers, sent it to the translating service/agency, put it into the persistence layer, and deployed it. Testers (QA, developers, PMs, designers, etc.) would find spelling or grammatical mistakes and lodge bug reports. There is just too much red tape and pairs of eyes for that many spelling/grammar errors to slip through.
Fourth point, there will always be spelling and grammar mistakes on your page. Even major newspaper web sites haven't gotten around this and they have whole office buildings filled with editors.