What is the difference between "Controls.Add(xyz)" and "this.Controls.Add(xyz)" in ASP.NET (C#)?
How/When does it matter if I am adding the same control onto a webpage but via two (different) aforementioned methods?
When one should be preferred over the other?
There is no difference; this refers to the current instance of the class you are in. Without specifying this, you will get the closest method within the current scope (which is this anyway).
In your case, this represents the current instance of the class. Hence, unless you are dealing with extension methods, you should be good to use either way as it is a matter of semantics.
What is the difference between "Controls.Add(xyz)" and "this.Controls.Add(xyz)" in ASP.NET (C#)?
None.
How/When does it matter if I am adding the same control onto a webpage but via two (different) aforementioned methods?
It does not matter.
When one should be preferred over the other?
Using this is usually preferred as it is more explicit and helps code readability. But it is a matter of preference.
Reference:
this (C# reference)
In this case, there is little difference.
Using this makes your code a bit more explicit that it refers to a member of the class.
Use whatever you and your team agreed on.
The difference is merely the text "this.". The two different statements perform the same tasks.
One should be preferred over the other based only on coding standards for your organization. (I like it best without the "this.")
The this pointer is explicitly pointing out the current instance.
No difference. It's a redundant qualifier but as Oded mentioned it's for code readability.
Related
Suppose I have QML item A like so:
Item A{
property real value
property real position: value*100
}
As you can see, I have two properties, one of which depends on the other. The same result can be achieved by using onPropertyChanged. For example:
Item A{
property real value
property real position
onValueChanged:{
position=value*100
}
}
Obviously the first approach reduces extra lines of code. But, there will be cases where the right hand side of the formula could get complicated. Based on the necessary actions required when onValueChanged is triggered, the first approach may or may not be viable.
What could be the performance difference between the two?
Both ways might be applicable in different situations.
The first way is the "QML Way". QML is meant to be a declarative language, which means that you basically just declare the relations between properties and objects. For this they introduced the property bindings.
The main reason for that is, to keep the files easily readable and understandable.
In some cases you will struggle with only bindings - let's say you have a property
property int lastPressedButtonId
This is hard to bind to something. You might succeed with arbitrarily crazy constructs. But here you would improve the readability when you have the buttons set that property imperatively using signal handlers and JavaScript.
The doc states that simple bindings can be optimized upon translation. So this would be strongly in favor of using the binding.
Another thing is the posibility of #folibis - you can bind it to a function. Here I can't tell you much about the performance difference. I guess it is little since you will likely use this method only when it can't be transformed into a QV4/Compiled Binding. And after all, all bindings are implicitly transformed into JS expressions anyway.
You can also bind to a C++ Q_INVOKABLE/slot. I think here you need to pass all properties whose changes shall trigger an update as parameters to the slot. I haven't tried that in a long time, since I usually prefer to instead publish a Q_PROPERTY from C++ with the complexly calculated value to QML.
Here you will find an interesting blog series, dealing with the internals of property bindings and their optimizations:
https://www.kdab.com/qml-engine-internals-part-2-bindings/
http://www.kdab.com/qml-engine-internals-part-3-binding-types/
To Summarize:
You should choose the most readable approach. In most cases, that are bindings.
You should strive to have dependencies between properties simple. Than the bindings can also be optimized
Use JS when using bindings would needlessly complicate it. E.g. when you are in fact react to an event or a signal that does not reflect a property change.
I was presented with this argument when fixing a bug related to implicit casting and speaking to the developer who told me:
If you use Closure, then you do not need absolute equality. Any value would be typed, therefor you don't need to worry about implicit casts.
My response was, that's dicey. You're making a lot of assumptions; Closure does not alter JavaScript, it's primarily a labyrinthine super layer (aside: probably a moot one, now that we have TypeScript).
Anyway, if one of these implicit things does slip by because the annotations don't resolve perfectly for some reason, you can end up with a tough bug (which is what happened; it got assigned to me because I guess the other dev didn't think it could be the problem).
I got responses of, "well if that dev had properly typed that object and this wasn't just an object and..."
Or...you could just protect against this sort of thing easily by using three equal signs instead of two. Use an assertion or console log to check the condition if necessary. Don't just leave it hanging out there.
Anyway what do you think; if you're using Closure, should you still observe the general best practice of using absolute equality in your JS code?
I know this leads to a wider conversation as well (e.g. Java 8's "optional" being "totally useless"), curious in the context of Closure though.
Question is a bit vague, code example would have helped. But yes, closure does not necessarily type every object and variable. I always use === unless there is a specific reason not to.
I've been using Object as a way to have a generic associative array (map/dictionary) since AS3/Flex seems to be very limited in this regard. But I really don't like it coming from a C++/Java/C# background. Is there a better way, some standard class I've not come across... is this even considered good/bad in AS3?
Yes, Actionscript uses Object as a generic associative container and is considered the standard way of doing this.
There is also a Dictionary class available, flash.utils.Dictionary.
The difference is that Dictionary can use any value as a key, including objects, while Object uses string keys. For most uses, Object is preferred as it is faster and covers the majority of use cases.
You can see the details on Object here: http://livedocs.adobe.com/flash/9.0/ActionScriptLangRefV3/Object.html
and Dictionary here: http://livedocs.adobe.com/flash/9.0/ActionScriptLangRefV3/flash/utils/Dictionary.html
and the differences between them here: http://livedocs.adobe.com/flex/3/html/help.html?content=10_Lists_of_data_4.html
I'm afraid there's no native alternative to Object or Dictionary for maps and other structures. As for standard, well, it depends on how one defines standard, but there are a couple of known libraries that you might like to check out if you look for Java style collections.
Like this one:
http://sibirjak.com/blog/collections/as3commons-collections/
Also, you could take a look at this question, that has links to a couple of ds libraries (including the above one).
Collections in Adobe Flex
I wouldn't say using Objects is either good or bad practice. In the general case they are faster than any Actionscript alternative (since they are native), but less featured. Sometimes the provided functionality is good enough. Sometimes, it's a bit bare-bones, so something more structured could help you getting rid of lower level details in your code and focusing in your "domain logic", so to speak.
In the end, all of these libraries implement their data structures through Objects, Dictionaries and Arrays (or Vectors). So, if the native objects are fine for your needs, I'd say go with them. On the other hand, if you find yourself basically re-writting, say, an ad-hoc Set, perhaps, using one of these libs would be a wise choice.
Generally speaking, creating a fluid API is something that makes all programmers happy; Both for the creators who write the interface, and the consumers who program against it. Looking beyond conventions, why is it that we prefix all our getters with the word "get". Omitting it usually results in a more fluid, easy to read set of instructions, which ultimately leads to happiness (however small or passive). Consider this very simple example. (pseudo code)
Conventional:
person = new Person("Joey")
person.getName().toLower().print()
Alternative:
person = new Person("Joey")
person.name().toLower().print()
Of course this only applies to languages where getters/setters are the norm, but is not directed at any specific language. Were these conventions developed around technical limitations (disambiguation), or simply through the pursuit of a more explicit, intentional feeling type of interface, or perhaps this is just a case of trickle a down norm. What are your thoughts? And how would simple changes to these conventions impact your happiness / daily attitudes towards your craft (however minimal).
Thanks.
Because, in languages without Properties, name() is a function. Without some more information though, it's not necessarily specific about what it's doing (or what it's going to return).
Functions/Methods are also supposed to be Verbs because they are performing some action. name() obviously doesn't fit the bill because it tells you nothing about what action it is performing.
getName() lets you know without a doubt that the method is going to return a name.
In languages with Properties, the fact that something is a Property expresses the same meaning as having get or set attached to it. It merely makes things look a little neater.
The best answer I have ever heard for using the get/set prefixes is as such:
If you didn't use them, both the accessor and mutator (getter and setter) would have the same name; thus, they would be overloaded. Generally, you should only overload a method when each implementation of the method performs a similar function (but with different inputs).
In this case, you would have two methods with the same name that peformed very different functions, and that could be confusing to users of the API.
I always appreciate consistent get/set prefixing when working with a new API and its documentation. The automatic grouping of getters and setters when all functions are listed in their alphabetical order greatly helps to distinguish between simple data access and advanced functinality.
The same is true when using intellisense/auto completion within the IDE.
What about the case where a property is named after an verb?
object.action()
Does this get the type of action to be performed, or execute the action... Adding get/set/do removes the ambiguity which is always a good thing...
object.getAction()
object.setAction(action)
object.doAction()
In school we were taught to use get to distinguish methods from data structures. I never understood why the parens wouldn't be a tipoff. I'm of the personal opinion that overuse of get/set methods can be a horrendous time waster, and it's a phase I see a lot of object oriented programmers go through soon after they start.
I may not write much Objective-C, but since I learned it I've really come to love it's conventions. The very thing you are asking about is addressed by the language.
Here's a Smalltalk answer which I like most. One has to know a few rules about Smalltalk BTW.
fields are only accessible in the they are defined.If you dont write "accessors" you won't be able to do anything with them.
The convention there is having a Variable (let's anme it instVar1.
then you write a function instVar1 which just returns instVar1 and instVar: which sets
the value.
I like this convention much more than anything else. If you see a : somewhere you can bet it's some "setter" in one or the other way.
Custom.
Plus, in C++, if you return a reference, that provides potential information leakage into the class itself.
When I try to refactor my functions, for new needs, I stumble from time to time about the crucial question:
Shall I add another variable with a default value? Or shall I use only one array, where I´m able to add an additional variable without breaking the API?
Unless you need to support a flexible number of variables, I think it's best to explicitly identify each parameter. In most cases you can add an overloaded method that has a different signature to support the extra parameter while still supporting the original method signature. If you use an array for passing variables it just makes it too confusing for users of your API. Obviously there are some inputs that lend themselves to an array (a list of points in a polygon, a list of account IDs you wish to perform an action on, etc.) but if it's not a variable that you would reasonably expect to be an array or list, you should pass it into the method as a separate parameter.
Just like many questions in programming, the right answer is "it depends".
To take Javascript/jQuery as an example, one good rule of thumb is whether the parameter will be required each time the function is called or whether it is optional. For example, the main jQuery function itself requires an expression to determine what element(s) the operation will affect:
jQuery(expresssion)
It makes no sense to try to pass this parameter as part of an array as it will be required every time this function is called.
On the other hand, many jQuery plugins require several miscellaneous parameters that may be optional. By convention, these are passed as parameters via an 'options' array. As you said, this provides a nice interface as new parameters can be added without affecting the existing API. This makes the API clean as well since the user can ignore those options that are not applicable.
In general, when several parameters are involved, passing them as an array is a nice convention as many of them are certainly going to be optional. This would have helped clean up many WIN32 API's, although it is more difficult to deal with arrays in C/C++ than in Javascript.
It depends on the programming language used.
If you have a run-of-the-mill OO language, you should use an object that you can easily extend, if you are really concerned about API consistency.
If that doesn't matter that much, there is the option of changing the method signature and overloading the method with more / different parameters.
If your language doesn't support either and you want the API to be binary stable, use an array.
There are several considerations that must be made.
Where is the function used? - Only in code you created? One place or hundreds of places? The amount of work that will need to be done to maintain existing code is important. Remember to include the amount of time it will take to communicate to other programmers that may currently be using your function.
How critical is the new parameter? - Do you want to require it to be used? If it has a default value, will that default value break existing use of the function in any subtle ways?
Ease of comprehension - How many parameters are already passed into the function? The larger the number, the more confusing and error prone it will be. Code Complete recommends that you restrict the number of parameters to 7 or less. If you need more than that, you should try to abstract some or all of the related parameters into one object.
Other special considerations - Do you want to optimize your efforts for any special conditions such as code speed or size? Are there any special considerations that must be taken into account for your execution environment? Keep in mind your goals for the project and make sure you aren't working against them with whatever design choice you make.
In his book Code Complete, Steve McConnell decrees that a function should never have more than 7 arguments, and rarely even that many. He presents compelling arguments - that I can't cite from memory, alas.
Clean Code, more recently, advocates even fewer arguments.
So unless the number of things to pass is really small, they should be passed in an enveloping structure. If they're homogenous, an array. If not, then a reasonably lightweight object should be built for the purpose.
You should do neither. Just add the parameter and change all callers to supply the proper default value. The reason is that parameters with default values can only be at the end, and will not be able to add any more required parameters anywhere in the parameters list, without having a risk of misinterpretation.
These are the critical steps to disaster:
1. add one or two parameters with defaults
2. some callers will supply it, and some will rely on defaults.
[half a year passed]
3. add a required parameter (before them)
4. change all callers to accept the required parameter
5. get a phone call, or other event which will make you forget to change one of the instances in part#2
6. now your program compiles perfectly, but is invalid.
Unfortunately, in function call semantics we usually don't have a chance to say, by name, which value goes where.
Array is also not a proper solution. Array should be used as a connection of similar objects, upon which there's a uniform activity performed. As they say here, if it's worth refactoring, it's worth refactoring now.