It's interesting how much lambda, extension and anonymous methods I'm using nowadays
-
For example, here's a setter that updates the underlying field of a data row and fires a change event based on whether the field actually changed (UpdateField, an extension method, returns true) and whether the event has been wired (not null):
set {row.UpdateField(model, "TableOfContents", value).Then(() => TableOfContentsChanged.IfNotNull(e => e(this))); }
[edit] For example, the above would otherwise be written as:
bool changed = row.UpdateField(model, "TableOfContents", value);
if (changed)
{
if (TableOfContentsChanged != null)
{
TableOfContentsChanged(this);
}
}[/edit] Or, here's something that scans the nodes in a tree (Hierarchy being an extension method) and if it finds a match (not null) updates the title in the tree's caption:
TreeView.Hierarchy().FirstOrDefault(n => n.Tag == rec).IfNotNull(t=>t[0] = rec.GetTitle());
I'm also noticing how my programming is becoming much more "functional" - I often pass in Func or Action anonymous methods, etc. What about you? Is you C# imperative programming starting to look more and more like function programming? Marc
Latest Article: C# and Ruby Classes: A Deep Dive
My Blog -
(C++) I find the C++ syntax of Lambdas quite difficult and obscure (and, IMO, the C# syntax is not much better). Maybe, in time, when we install and use VS2012, I will learn to use them and love them, but for now, I don't see a use for them in our production code; and most examples do not convince me of their utility.
Nihil obstat
-
For example, here's a setter that updates the underlying field of a data row and fires a change event based on whether the field actually changed (UpdateField, an extension method, returns true) and whether the event has been wired (not null):
set {row.UpdateField(model, "TableOfContents", value).Then(() => TableOfContentsChanged.IfNotNull(e => e(this))); }
[edit] For example, the above would otherwise be written as:
bool changed = row.UpdateField(model, "TableOfContents", value);
if (changed)
{
if (TableOfContentsChanged != null)
{
TableOfContentsChanged(this);
}
}[/edit] Or, here's something that scans the nodes in a tree (Hierarchy being an extension method) and if it finds a match (not null) updates the title in the tree's caption:
TreeView.Hierarchy().FirstOrDefault(n => n.Tag == rec).IfNotNull(t=>t[0] = rec.GetTitle());
I'm also noticing how my programming is becoming much more "functional" - I often pass in Func or Action anonymous methods, etc. What about you? Is you C# imperative programming starting to look more and more like function programming? Marc
Latest Article: C# and Ruby Classes: A Deep Dive
My Blog -
For example, here's a setter that updates the underlying field of a data row and fires a change event based on whether the field actually changed (UpdateField, an extension method, returns true) and whether the event has been wired (not null):
set {row.UpdateField(model, "TableOfContents", value).Then(() => TableOfContentsChanged.IfNotNull(e => e(this))); }
[edit] For example, the above would otherwise be written as:
bool changed = row.UpdateField(model, "TableOfContents", value);
if (changed)
{
if (TableOfContentsChanged != null)
{
TableOfContentsChanged(this);
}
}[/edit] Or, here's something that scans the nodes in a tree (Hierarchy being an extension method) and if it finds a match (not null) updates the title in the tree's caption:
TreeView.Hierarchy().FirstOrDefault(n => n.Tag == rec).IfNotNull(t=>t[0] = rec.GetTitle());
I'm also noticing how my programming is becoming much more "functional" - I often pass in Func or Action anonymous methods, etc. What about you? Is you C# imperative programming starting to look more and more like function programming? Marc
Latest Article: C# and Ruby Classes: A Deep Dive
My BlogMaybe I'm getting old - but your first example fails my legibility and debugging test. It's all jolly clever, and all, but if I'm trying to debug that line of code, I have to stop and think FAR harder than I do with the long-winded example.
MVVM# - See how I did MVVM my way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
Maybe I'm getting old - but your first example fails my legibility and debugging test. It's all jolly clever, and all, but if I'm trying to debug that line of code, I have to stop and think FAR harder than I do with the long-winded example.
MVVM# - See how I did MVVM my way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
I concur. To me this is yet more code masturbation.
-
Maybe I'm getting old - but your first example fails my legibility and debugging test. It's all jolly clever, and all, but if I'm trying to debug that line of code, I have to stop and think FAR harder than I do with the long-winded example.
MVVM# - See how I did MVVM my way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
This fp style is going to require more code commenting. Not necessarily a bad thing, but sort of defeats the purpose of clean minimal code.
"It's true that hard work never killed anyone. But I figure, why take the chance." - Ronald Reagan That's what machines are for. Got a problem? Sleep on it.
-
For example, here's a setter that updates the underlying field of a data row and fires a change event based on whether the field actually changed (UpdateField, an extension method, returns true) and whether the event has been wired (not null):
set {row.UpdateField(model, "TableOfContents", value).Then(() => TableOfContentsChanged.IfNotNull(e => e(this))); }
[edit] For example, the above would otherwise be written as:
bool changed = row.UpdateField(model, "TableOfContents", value);
if (changed)
{
if (TableOfContentsChanged != null)
{
TableOfContentsChanged(this);
}
}[/edit] Or, here's something that scans the nodes in a tree (Hierarchy being an extension method) and if it finds a match (not null) updates the title in the tree's caption:
TreeView.Hierarchy().FirstOrDefault(n => n.Tag == rec).IfNotNull(t=>t[0] = rec.GetTitle());
I'm also noticing how my programming is becoming much more "functional" - I often pass in Func or Action anonymous methods, etc. What about you? Is you C# imperative programming starting to look more and more like function programming? Marc
Latest Article: C# and Ruby Classes: A Deep Dive
My BlogLess like programming and more like true magic. Express the will to produced a certain outcome, without being too particular, and release to Run.
-
For example, here's a setter that updates the underlying field of a data row and fires a change event based on whether the field actually changed (UpdateField, an extension method, returns true) and whether the event has been wired (not null):
set {row.UpdateField(model, "TableOfContents", value).Then(() => TableOfContentsChanged.IfNotNull(e => e(this))); }
[edit] For example, the above would otherwise be written as:
bool changed = row.UpdateField(model, "TableOfContents", value);
if (changed)
{
if (TableOfContentsChanged != null)
{
TableOfContentsChanged(this);
}
}[/edit] Or, here's something that scans the nodes in a tree (Hierarchy being an extension method) and if it finds a match (not null) updates the title in the tree's caption:
TreeView.Hierarchy().FirstOrDefault(n => n.Tag == rec).IfNotNull(t=>t[0] = rec.GetTitle());
I'm also noticing how my programming is becoming much more "functional" - I often pass in Func or Action anonymous methods, etc. What about you? Is you C# imperative programming starting to look more and more like function programming? Marc
Latest Article: C# and Ruby Classes: A Deep Dive
My BlogMarc Clifton wrote:
I'm also noticing how my programming is becoming much more "functional" - I often pass in Func or Action anonymous methods, etc. What about you? Is you C# imperative programming starting to look more and more like function programming?
Hi Marc, There is a genius, known as Marc Clifton, who used to publish many fascinating articles here on CP. I wonder if he can be extra-judicially rendered out of whatever zone he's in now, back into CP's orbit, and gently seduced into publication mode, and motivated to write an article on "C# as a Functional Language," or something like that. Clifton's previous articles were always fascinating, envelope-pushing, journeys, whether I understood them, or not. I bet Clifton could explain in:
TreeView.Hierarchy().FirstOrDefault(n => n.Tag == rec).IfNotNull(t=>t[0] = rec.GetTitle());
what the variable 't is used for. yours, Bill
"Good people can be induced, seduced, and initiated into behaving in evil ways. They can also be led to act in irrational, stupid, antisocial, mindless, and self-destructive, ways when they are immersed in 'total situations' that impact human nature in ways that challenge our sense of the stability and consistency of individual personality, of character, and of morality."
Dr. Philip G. Zimbardo, in "The Lucifer Effect" 2008: ISBN-10: 08129744
-
This fp style is going to require more code commenting. Not necessarily a bad thing, but sort of defeats the purpose of clean minimal code.
"It's true that hard work never killed anyone. But I figure, why take the chance." - Ronald Reagan That's what machines are for. Got a problem? Sleep on it.
dusty_dex wrote:
This fp style
To keep it KSS, isn't there a vowel missing between f and p? Cheers, Peter
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
-
dusty_dex wrote:
This fp style
To keep it KSS, isn't there a vowel missing between f and p? Cheers, Peter
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
F.P. (functional programming) On second thoughts about all this, perhaps we shouldn't use functional stuff in an imperative language. It's a brainfuck switching between the two styles, and the syntax isn't geared toward clarity.
"It's true that hard work never killed anyone. But I figure, why take the chance." - Ronald Reagan That's what machines are for. Got a problem? Sleep on it.
-
For example, here's a setter that updates the underlying field of a data row and fires a change event based on whether the field actually changed (UpdateField, an extension method, returns true) and whether the event has been wired (not null):
set {row.UpdateField(model, "TableOfContents", value).Then(() => TableOfContentsChanged.IfNotNull(e => e(this))); }
[edit] For example, the above would otherwise be written as:
bool changed = row.UpdateField(model, "TableOfContents", value);
if (changed)
{
if (TableOfContentsChanged != null)
{
TableOfContentsChanged(this);
}
}[/edit] Or, here's something that scans the nodes in a tree (Hierarchy being an extension method) and if it finds a match (not null) updates the title in the tree's caption:
TreeView.Hierarchy().FirstOrDefault(n => n.Tag == rec).IfNotNull(t=>t[0] = rec.GetTitle());
I'm also noticing how my programming is becoming much more "functional" - I often pass in Func or Action anonymous methods, etc. What about you? Is you C# imperative programming starting to look more and more like function programming? Marc
Latest Article: C# and Ruby Classes: A Deep Dive
My BlogI'm not convinced your first bit of code is better... It's certainly shorter, but much harder to read unless you're a super genius. I think that to be as professional as possible you have to write your code as if the next person to modify it is a useless coder but is a professional killer who knows where you live, and on that test I think your code fails. Can you justify that your code has better performance or some such by doing it this way? Or is it just clever? My prediction is that this will go the way of OO programming - it'll be hot for a while since nobody admits that they simply aren't smart enough to think about {delete as applicable: n levels of inheritance/lambda expressions}. Next step is for everybody to rebel and say that it makes a mess of the code and that you shouldn't ever use it at all, then we'll finally get to some consensus that there is an acceptable level of complexity that you can introduce which is somewhere in the middle of the two extremes.
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
I'm also noticing how my programming is becoming much more "functional" - I often pass in Func or Action anonymous methods, etc. What about you? Is you C# imperative programming starting to look more and more like function programming?
Hi Marc, There is a genius, known as Marc Clifton, who used to publish many fascinating articles here on CP. I wonder if he can be extra-judicially rendered out of whatever zone he's in now, back into CP's orbit, and gently seduced into publication mode, and motivated to write an article on "C# as a Functional Language," or something like that. Clifton's previous articles were always fascinating, envelope-pushing, journeys, whether I understood them, or not. I bet Clifton could explain in:
TreeView.Hierarchy().FirstOrDefault(n => n.Tag == rec).IfNotNull(t=>t[0] = rec.GetTitle());
what the variable 't is used for. yours, Bill
"Good people can be induced, seduced, and initiated into behaving in evil ways. They can also be led to act in irrational, stupid, antisocial, mindless, and self-destructive, ways when they are immersed in 'total situations' that impact human nature in ways that challenge our sense of the stability and consistency of individual personality, of character, and of morality."
Dr. Philip G. Zimbardo, in "The Lucifer Effect" 2008: ISBN-10: 08129744
BillWoodruff wrote:
and gently seduced into publication mode, and motivated to write an article on "C# as a Functional Language,"
Given the almost unanimous negative reaction I've received from this post (which was quite surprising) I think you're onto something there! Marc
Latest Article: C# and Ruby Classes: A Deep Dive
My Blog -
Maybe I'm getting old - but your first example fails my legibility and debugging test. It's all jolly clever, and all, but if I'm trying to debug that line of code, I have to stop and think FAR harder than I do with the long-winded example.
MVVM# - See how I did MVVM my way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
_Maxxx_ wrote:
but if I'm trying to debug that line of code, I have to stop and think FAR harder than I do with the long-winded example.
I might argue that the point is, that line of code would never need to be debugged, because it will always do exactly what it says it will do. If it fails, then there's a problem with the functions that it is calling, rather than at this level. That said, the other thing I notice when writing code in this form is that my functions / methods are much smaller - as with coding in F#, I notice that I break things down into much smaller units that are easier to test and can therefore be combined to create a richer expression of higher level behaviors. But I'm also surprised by the overall negative reaction to lambdas and anonymous methods that this post generated - this was very illuminating and, as Bill Woodruff suggested, might be worth an article or two. Marc
Latest Article: C# and Ruby Classes: A Deep Dive
My Blog