Basically, I want to be able to generate class definitions, compile the system, and save it for reuse. Would that involve a code walker, or is there a simpler option?
(save-lisp-and-die "isn't going to work for me")
Expanding to explain. I'm generating systems based on OpenAPI definitions, so a system roughly corresponds to an API client.
There will be dozens, if not hundreds of these.
The idea is to NOT keep them all in the image, but load at run time as required.
I see two possible routes here, and to some extent, I suspect they mainly differ in "the last mile" (as it were).
The route you seem to have settled on, run-time definition of classes and functions.
A route whereby you generate your function/class forms, but don't go the full way to get them "Live" in the image and instead emit the form(s) to a file.
I suspect that it would be possible to have most of the generating code shared between the two and for the first route have a wrapping macro that effectively returns a PROGN, and in the second calls a function to pretty-print what the macro would have returned on a stream.
Saying that, building a tailored environment and saving it to a "core" file is a pretty good way of getting excellent startup times.
I am currently working with python and Qt which is kind of new for me coming from the C++ version and I realised that in the oficial documentation it says that an UI file can be loaded both from .ui or creating a python class and transforming the file into .py file.
I get the benefits of using .ui it is dynamically loaded so no need to transform it into python file with every change but what are the benefits of doing that?, Do you get any improvements in run time? Is it something else?
Thanks
Well, this question is dangerously near to the "Opinion-based" flag, but it's also a common one and I believe it deserves at least a partial answer.
Conceptually, both using the pyuic approach and the uic.loadUi() method are the same and behave in very similar ways, but with some slight differencies.
To better explain all this, I'll use the documentation about using Designer as a reference.
pyuic approach, or the "python object" method
This is probably the most popular method, especially amongst beginners. What it does is to create a python object that is used to create the ui and, if used following the "single inheritance" approach, it also behaves as an "interface" to the ui itself, since the ui object its instance creates has all widgets available as its attributes: if you create a push button, it will be available as ui.pushButton, the first label will be ui.label and so on.
In the first example of the documentation linked above, that ui object is stand-alone; that's a very basic example (I believe it was given just to demonstrate its usage, since it wouldn't provide a lot of interaction besides the connections created within Designer) and is not very useful, but it's very similar to the single inheritance method: the button would be self.ui.pushButton, etc.
IF the "multiple inheritance" method is used, the ui object will coincide with the widget subclass. In that case, the button will be self.pushButton, the label self.label, etc.
This is very important from the python point of view, because it means that those attribute names will overwrite any other instance attribute that will use the same name: if you have a function named "saveFile" and you name the button "saveFile", you won't have any [direct] access to that instance method any more as soon as setupUi is returned. In this case, using the single inheritance method might be helpful - but, in reality, you could just be more careful about function and object names.
Finally, if you don't know what the pyuic generated file does and what's it for, you might be inclined to use it to create your program. That is wrong for a lot of reasons, but, most importantly, because you might certainly realize at some point that you have to edit your ui, and merging the new changes with your modified code is clearly a PITA you don't want to face.
I recently answered a related question, trying to explain what happens when setupUi() is called in much more depth.
Using uic.loadUi
I'd say that this is a more "modular" approach, mostly because it's much more direct: as already pointed out in the question, you don't have to constantly regenerate the ui files each time they're modified.
But, there's a catch.
First of all: obviously the loading, parsing and building of an UI from an XML file is not as fast as creating the ui directly from code (which is exactly what the pyuic file does within setupUi()).
Then, there is at least one relatively small bug about layout contents margins: when using loadUi, the default system/form margins might be completely ignored and set to 0 if not explicitly set. There is a workaround about that, explained in Size of verticalLayout is different in Qt Designer and PyQt program (thanks to eyllanesc).
A comparison
pyuic approach
Pros:
it's faster; in a very simple test with a hundred buttons and a tablewidget with more than 1200 items I measured the following bests:
pyuic loading: 33.2ms
loadUi loading: 51.8ms
this ratio is obviously not linear for a multitude of reasons, but you can get the idea
if used with the single inheritance method, it can prevent accidental instance attribute overwritings, and it also means a more "contained" object structure
using python imports ensures a more coherent project structure, especially in the deployment process (having non-python files is a common source of problems)
the contents of those files are actually instructive, especially for beginners
Cons:
you always must remember to regenerate the python files everytime you update an ui; we all know how easy is to forget an apparently meaningless step like this might be, expecially after hours of coding: I've seen plenty of situations for which people was banging heads on desks (hopefully both theirs) for hours because of untraceable issues, before realizing that they just forgot to run pyuic or didn't run it on the right files; my own forehead still hurts ;-)
file tracking: you have to count two files for each ui, and you might forget one of them along the way when migrating/forking/etc, and if you forgot an ui file it possibly means that you have to recreate it completely from scratch
n00b alert: beginners are commonly led to think that the generated python file is the one to be used to create their programs, which is obviously wrong; unfortunately, the # WARNING! message is not clear enough (I've been almost begging the head PyQt developer about this); while this is obviously not an actual problem of this approach, right now it results in being so
some of the contents of a pyuic generated files are usually unnecessary (most importantly, the object name, which is used only for specific cases), and that's pretty obvious, since it's automatically generated ("you might need that, so better safe than sorry"); also, related to the issue above, people might be led to think that everything pyuic creates is actually needed for a GUI, resulting in unnecessary code that decreases its readability
loadUi method
Pros:
it's direct and immediate: you edit your ui on Designer, you save it (or, at least, you remember to do it...), and when you run your code it's already there; no fuss, no muss, and desks/foreheads are safe(r)
file tracking and deployment: it's just one file per ui, you can put all those ui files in a separate folder, you don't have to do anything else and you don't risk to forget something on the way
direct access to widgets (but this can be achieved using the multiple inheritance approach also)
Cons:
the layout issue mentioned above
possible instance attribute overwriting and no "ui" object "containment"
slightly slower loading
path and deployment: loading is done using os relative paths and system separators, so if you put the ui in a directory different from the py file that loads that .ui you'll have to consider that; also, some package managers use to compress everything, resulting in access errors unless paths are correctly managed
In my opinion, all considering, the loadUi method is usually the better choice. It doesn't distract me, it allows better conceptual compartmentation (which is usually good and also follows a pattern similar to MVC much more closely, conceptually speaking) and I strongly believe it as being far less prone to programmer errors, for a multitude of reasons.
But that's clearly a matter of choice.
We should also and always remember that, like every other choice we do, using ui files is an option.
There is people who completely avoids them (as there is people who uses them literally for anything), but, like everything, it all and always depends on the context.
A big benefit of using pyuic is that code autocompletion will work.
This can make programming much easier and faster.
Then there's the fact that everything loads faster.
pyuic6-Tool can be used to automate the call of pyuic6 when the application is run and only convert .ui files when they change.
It's a little bit longer to set up than just using uic.loadUi but the autocompletion is well worth it if you use something like PyCharm.
I found many languages provides some way to change code runtime. Many people ask queries regarding how to change code in this or that language runtime. Here I mean by change code is that rewrite code itself at runtime by using reflection or something else.
I have around 6 year of experience in Java application development. I never come again any problem where I have to change code at time.
Can anyone explain why we require to change code at runtime?
I have experienced three huge benefits of changing code at runtime:
Fixing bugs in a production environment without shutting down the application server. This allowed us to fix bugs on just some part of the application without interrupting the whole system.
Possibility of changing the business rule without having to deploy a new version of the application. A quicker deploy of features.
Writing unit test is easier. For example, you can mock dependencies, add some desired behaviour to some objects and etc. Spock Framework does well this.
Of course, we had this benefits because we have a very well defined development process on how to proceed on this situations.
At times you may need to call a method based on the input, that was received earlier in the program.
It could be used for dynamic calculation of value based on the key index, where every key is calculated in a different way or calculation requires fetching required data from different sources. Instead of using switch statement you can invoke a method dynamically using methodName+indexOfTheKey.
We can write our Shiny code in two separate files, "ui.R" and "server.R", alternatively we can write both the modules in a single file "app.R" and call the function shinyApp()
Is there any benefit regarding performance with either of the two approaches or we should choose one based on whether we want concise code or differentiated one?
They achieve the same thing. I usually like to write my real apps, that have lots of code and are complex, as two separate files to separate the logic and make it more maintainable. But when dealing with tiny apps for demo purposes or when posting an app to Stack Overflow or anywhere else, I find it's more reproducible and easier to have one statement (the app.R) approach.
Personal preference, really.
I think that app.R is better, but it's better to include your source files as the UI and server respectively, with source("file.R", local=TRUE). This way, you can separate the app into more than just 2 files while having an "overall" view of the app through the main file, like a main.cpp file in C++.
I'm working in a tool that is supposed to generate some Java Code to accelerate part of the development based in a swing input dialog...there is no need to get any further with it so I'm going to my problem...
I need to retrieve all the attributes from a class to check whenever it is necessary to add a new one. I tried to use reflection but things started getting complicated. In order to use reflection I need to compile the class I want to get the attributes as it does not work directly from .java file, .class is required for it.
The problem is that many of the classes has a lot of dependencies! Due to some design flaws some classes are a high coupled, so if I am supposed to dynamic use a class loader to compile a class A I would have to retrieve and compile all its dependencies! And then retrieve all the possible dependencies from the class A dependency classes!
I made a test running an existing ant file to compile to whole project instead of the above approach but it takes about 9 minutes to finish! From the final user perspective waiting 9 minutes every run is not accetable!
Does any one here knows a better solution???
If you want to avoid working with reflection and bytecode, it means that you will have to parse the .java files yourself with a grammar and, well, a parser based on this grammar. It is possible (especially if you do not implement the whole grammar, because many java features might be useless in your project perimeter), but I reckon this is no easy task.
There is an Apache commons Sandbox package called ClassScan. It is capable of doing the kind of source parsing you appear to require. http://commons.apache.org/sandbox/commons-classscan/. Note that it is in the Sandbox, so not part of the Commons Proper.