Where does it end?
-
Sascha Lefévre wrote:
Can you elaborate?
Sure. Consider this :)
// Everything typed with IntelliSense support.
MyClass result = SomeFunction("Name", Queryable.OrderBy, q => q.Name); // string
comboBox.Items.Add(result);
comboBox.Items.Add(SomeFunction("Date", Queryable.OrderBy, q => q.Date)); // DateTime
comboBox.Items.Add(SomeFunction("Age", Queryable.OrderBy, q => q.Age)); // int// later...
object ordering = comboBox.SelectedItem;
// How to cast this?
MyClass result = (MyClass)ordering;// This works fine though!
dynamic ordering = comboBox.SelectedItem;
// Pseudo-code.
ordering.LinqFunction(ordering.Predicate);Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles at my CodeProject profile.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
Makes sense. But is there a specific reason why you didn't use a signature like this:
MyClass ordering = SomeFunction(string caption, Func, IQueryable> applyPredicate) { ... }
And then use it like this:
comboBox.Items.Add(SomeFunction("Date", source => source.OrderBy(q => q.Date)));
MyClass ordering = (MyClass)comboBox.SelectedItem;
// Pseudo-code:
ordering.ApplyPredicate(); -
Makes sense. But is there a specific reason why you didn't use a signature like this:
MyClass ordering = SomeFunction(string caption, Func, IQueryable> applyPredicate) { ... }
And then use it like this:
comboBox.Items.Add(SomeFunction("Date", source => source.OrderBy(q => q.Date)));
MyClass ordering = (MyClass)comboBox.SelectedItem;
// Pseudo-code:
ordering.ApplyPredicate();Yep, I need the
q => q.Datepart seperately :) Although you do make a good point. I'll see if I can change the code tomorrow so it would work as you propose. It would certainly make that easier.Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles at my CodeProject profile.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
The fact that you have to explain that is an indication of the readability.
Actually, I shouldn't have called it SomeFunction :)
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Which would you recommend, if not the DataGridView?
Definitely XtraGrid, all sorting and filtering capabilities you need right out of the box!. Sure, steep learning curve, but it's worth it :)
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
That's a factory-method, with a single argument.
But somewhere there's a class constructor for ProcessStartInfo that has all those parameters, right? ;)
Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles at my CodeProject profile.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
Sander Rossel wrote:
Actually, I shouldn't have called it SomeFunction :)
I admit I have used the prefix "some" in production code.
Sander Rossel wrote:
Definitely XtraGrid, all sorting and filtering capabilities you need right out of the box!. Sure, steep learning curve, but it's worth it :)
I keep hearing that, yet personally I keep preferring speed and simplicity.
Sander Rossel wrote:
But somewhere there's a class constructor for ProcessStartInfo that has all those parameters, right? ;)
Check for yourself[^]. You'd probably not need them ALL at once, so it would make no sense to provide an overload that lists them all as real arguments. I also do not see any benefit in the extra overload, only a higher LOC - you'd loose aforementioned benefits that bundlig the arguments has. If they are part of the method-signature, then it will be harder to log (instead of simply serializing the arguments-object), and the signature would change if a parameter needs to be added.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
-
Sander Rossel wrote:
Actually, I shouldn't have called it SomeFunction :)
I admit I have used the prefix "some" in production code.
Sander Rossel wrote:
Definitely XtraGrid, all sorting and filtering capabilities you need right out of the box!. Sure, steep learning curve, but it's worth it :)
I keep hearing that, yet personally I keep preferring speed and simplicity.
Sander Rossel wrote:
But somewhere there's a class constructor for ProcessStartInfo that has all those parameters, right? ;)
Check for yourself[^]. You'd probably not need them ALL at once, so it would make no sense to provide an overload that lists them all as real arguments. I also do not see any benefit in the extra overload, only a higher LOC - you'd loose aforementioned benefits that bundlig the arguments has. If they are part of the method-signature, then it will be harder to log (instead of simply serializing the arguments-object), and the signature would change if a parameter needs to be added.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
You'd probably not need them ALL at once
True for the ProcessStartInfo, but my method only has three and I always need all of them. I can see how such a class would make sense though (I probably don't use it far enough).
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
I admit I have used the prefix "some" in production code.
I'll pretend I didn't see that! :laugh:
Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles at my CodeProject profile.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
-
*** DISCLAIMER *** This isn't a programming question, because I've solved the programming problem myself. Rather, I'm interested in your opinion regarding the solution, clever or 'clever'? So today I had a nice little challenge. My application has a grid which can be sorted on various columns, asc and desc. Now the sorting isn't applied by clicking the column header, but by selecting a value from a drop down (Name, Name (descending), Title, Title (descending) etc.). I was thinking I could just have a switch statement where I check which ordering the user chose (which would make me extend the switch for each new ordering), or... I could abstract this away. Of course I went for the second option. Now to make this work (and it works nicely, adding a new ordering is a piece of cake) I had to write the following function:
SomeFunction(string caption, Func, Expression>, IQueryable> linqFunction, Expression> expression) { ... }
Since this is a WinForms application though, and WinForms and generics don't go well together I'm more or less forced to use a
dynamiclater on as it's quite impossible to get the values ofTElementandTKeyfromobject. I'm thinking this isn't ideal in terms of complexity and readability, but it is pretty neat because adding a new ordering is really simple (one line of simple code) and guaranteed to work on the first try (you'll never forget to change that switch statement again). And the solution is even re-usable for the filter functionality I need as well (which, of course, becomes a breeze as well)! So judging from that, clever or 'clever'? And where do you draw the line for cleverness vs. readability/simplicity?Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles at my CodeProject profile.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
"Maxthon has found dangerous code on this page. Click OK to stop loading the page, or Ignore if you're an idiot."
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
*** DISCLAIMER *** This isn't a programming question, because I've solved the programming problem myself. Rather, I'm interested in your opinion regarding the solution, clever or 'clever'? So today I had a nice little challenge. My application has a grid which can be sorted on various columns, asc and desc. Now the sorting isn't applied by clicking the column header, but by selecting a value from a drop down (Name, Name (descending), Title, Title (descending) etc.). I was thinking I could just have a switch statement where I check which ordering the user chose (which would make me extend the switch for each new ordering), or... I could abstract this away. Of course I went for the second option. Now to make this work (and it works nicely, adding a new ordering is a piece of cake) I had to write the following function:
SomeFunction(string caption, Func, Expression>, IQueryable> linqFunction, Expression> expression) { ... }
Since this is a WinForms application though, and WinForms and generics don't go well together I'm more or less forced to use a
dynamiclater on as it's quite impossible to get the values ofTElementandTKeyfromobject. I'm thinking this isn't ideal in terms of complexity and readability, but it is pretty neat because adding a new ordering is really simple (one line of simple code) and guaranteed to work on the first try (you'll never forget to change that switch statement again). And the solution is even re-usable for the filter functionality I need as well (which, of course, becomes a breeze as well)! So judging from that, clever or 'clever'? And where do you draw the line for cleverness vs. readability/simplicity?Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles at my CodeProject profile.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
Descending Given that I am not familiar with WHY your UI is the way it is, I am not qualified to recreate it. But I do prefer naturally adaptive code (reading the columns from the dataview). No need to remember anything... -
*** DISCLAIMER *** This isn't a programming question, because I've solved the programming problem myself. Rather, I'm interested in your opinion regarding the solution, clever or 'clever'? So today I had a nice little challenge. My application has a grid which can be sorted on various columns, asc and desc. Now the sorting isn't applied by clicking the column header, but by selecting a value from a drop down (Name, Name (descending), Title, Title (descending) etc.). I was thinking I could just have a switch statement where I check which ordering the user chose (which would make me extend the switch for each new ordering), or... I could abstract this away. Of course I went for the second option. Now to make this work (and it works nicely, adding a new ordering is a piece of cake) I had to write the following function:
SomeFunction(string caption, Func, Expression>, IQueryable> linqFunction, Expression> expression) { ... }
Since this is a WinForms application though, and WinForms and generics don't go well together I'm more or less forced to use a
dynamiclater on as it's quite impossible to get the values ofTElementandTKeyfromobject. I'm thinking this isn't ideal in terms of complexity and readability, but it is pretty neat because adding a new ordering is really simple (one line of simple code) and guaranteed to work on the first try (you'll never forget to change that switch statement again). And the solution is even re-usable for the filter functionality I need as well (which, of course, becomes a breeze as well)! So judging from that, clever or 'clever'? And where do you draw the line for cleverness vs. readability/simplicity?Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles at my CodeProject profile.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
Looking at your code my subconscious started hearing the song "Simply Irresistible," starting at the verse: "methods are inscrutable" :) cheers, Bill
«To kill an error's as good a service, sometimes better than, establishing new truth or fact.» Charles Darwin in "Prospero's Precepts"
-
*** DISCLAIMER *** This isn't a programming question, because I've solved the programming problem myself. Rather, I'm interested in your opinion regarding the solution, clever or 'clever'? So today I had a nice little challenge. My application has a grid which can be sorted on various columns, asc and desc. Now the sorting isn't applied by clicking the column header, but by selecting a value from a drop down (Name, Name (descending), Title, Title (descending) etc.). I was thinking I could just have a switch statement where I check which ordering the user chose (which would make me extend the switch for each new ordering), or... I could abstract this away. Of course I went for the second option. Now to make this work (and it works nicely, adding a new ordering is a piece of cake) I had to write the following function:
SomeFunction(string caption, Func, Expression>, IQueryable> linqFunction, Expression> expression) { ... }
Since this is a WinForms application though, and WinForms and generics don't go well together I'm more or less forced to use a
dynamiclater on as it's quite impossible to get the values ofTElementandTKeyfromobject. I'm thinking this isn't ideal in terms of complexity and readability, but it is pretty neat because adding a new ordering is really simple (one line of simple code) and guaranteed to work on the first try (you'll never forget to change that switch statement again). And the solution is even re-usable for the filter functionality I need as well (which, of course, becomes a breeze as well)! So judging from that, clever or 'clever'? And where do you draw the line for cleverness vs. readability/simplicity?Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles at my CodeProject profile.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
Seems like you are trying to rewrite Dynamic Linq which has been around since 2008. Just pass a field name and do a % 2 to figure out if you call OrderBy or OrderByDescending. http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/dynamic-linq-part-1-using-the-linq-dynamic-query-library
-
Seems like you are trying to rewrite Dynamic Linq which has been around since 2008. Just pass a field name and do a % 2 to figure out if you call OrderBy or OrderByDescending. http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/dynamic-linq-part-1-using-the-linq-dynamic-query-library
How's that the same? My solution is type safe and has design time error checking ;) I simplified it a bit by the way.
Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles at my CodeProject profile.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
-
How's that the same? My solution is type safe and has design time error checking ;) I simplified it a bit by the way.
Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles at my CodeProject profile.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
It is the same in that it accomplishes the desired functionality in the app. You were asking where to draw the line on readability and simplity. If you give a junior developer an API with .OrderBy(string) and then the one you posted, which will they understand immediately?
-
*** DISCLAIMER *** This isn't a programming question, because I've solved the programming problem myself. Rather, I'm interested in your opinion regarding the solution, clever or 'clever'? So today I had a nice little challenge. My application has a grid which can be sorted on various columns, asc and desc. Now the sorting isn't applied by clicking the column header, but by selecting a value from a drop down (Name, Name (descending), Title, Title (descending) etc.). I was thinking I could just have a switch statement where I check which ordering the user chose (which would make me extend the switch for each new ordering), or... I could abstract this away. Of course I went for the second option. Now to make this work (and it works nicely, adding a new ordering is a piece of cake) I had to write the following function:
SomeFunction(string caption, Func, Expression>, IQueryable> linqFunction, Expression> expression) { ... }
Since this is a WinForms application though, and WinForms and generics don't go well together I'm more or less forced to use a
dynamiclater on as it's quite impossible to get the values ofTElementandTKeyfromobject. I'm thinking this isn't ideal in terms of complexity and readability, but it is pretty neat because adding a new ordering is really simple (one line of simple code) and guaranteed to work on the first try (you'll never forget to change that switch statement again). And the solution is even re-usable for the filter functionality I need as well (which, of course, becomes a breeze as well)! So judging from that, clever or 'clever'? And where do you draw the line for cleverness vs. readability/simplicity?Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles at my CodeProject profile.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
-
:thumbsup: :laugh: Me too, me too... Already changed the code :)
Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles at my CodeProject profile.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
-
It is the same in that it accomplishes the desired functionality in the app. You were asking where to draw the line on readability and simplity. If you give a junior developer an API with .OrderBy(string) and then the one you posted, which will they understand immediately?
Put like that you make a good point. The question is are you willing to trade type safety for a simple API? OrderBy(string) may be a simple function, but there's no way in telling what string values are valid and when their validity expires.
Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles at my CodeProject profile.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
-
Makes sense. But is there a specific reason why you didn't use a signature like this:
MyClass ordering = SomeFunction(string caption, Func, IQueryable> applyPredicate) { ... }
And then use it like this:
comboBox.Items.Add(SomeFunction("Date", source => source.OrderBy(q => q.Date)));
MyClass ordering = (MyClass)comboBox.SelectedItem;
// Pseudo-code:
ordering.ApplyPredicate();Another part of my app got slightly more complex, but I was able to implement this solution and overall reduce complexity (I hope) :thumbsup:
Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles at my CodeProject profile.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
-
Another part of my app got slightly more complex, but I was able to implement this solution and overall reduce complexity (I hope) :thumbsup:
Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles at my CodeProject profile.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
That's great! Glad I could help a minuscule amount :-) You recommended the XtraGrid to Eddy Vluggen - may I ask why you don't use it in this project too? (I'm about to use it myself for the first time and I would be interested what reason there could be to not use it) /Sascha
-
That's great! Glad I could help a minuscule amount :-) You recommended the XtraGrid to Eddy Vluggen - may I ask why you don't use it in this project too? (I'm about to use it myself for the first time and I would be interested what reason there could be to not use it) /Sascha
Sascha Lefévre wrote:
That's great! Glad I could help a minuscule amount
I'm pretty sure you're helpful at bigger amounts than that (in fact this was more than minuscule already!) :)
Sascha Lefévre wrote:
You recommended the XtraGrid to Eddy Vluggen - may I ask why you don't use it in this project too?
I used the XtraGrid (and more XtraControls) at my previous job. I'm now at a new job, working for a customer who sticks to as much "vanilla .NET" as possible. If I could I'd get those XtraControls right in there, but it's not my call :) And the job initially involved just some bugfixes for a few weeks. In HTML and CSS. With AngularJS. But in reality I've been doing WinForms for over a month now :laugh:
Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles at my CodeProject profile.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
-
Sascha Lefévre wrote:
That's great! Glad I could help a minuscule amount
I'm pretty sure you're helpful at bigger amounts than that (in fact this was more than minuscule already!) :)
Sascha Lefévre wrote:
You recommended the XtraGrid to Eddy Vluggen - may I ask why you don't use it in this project too?
I used the XtraGrid (and more XtraControls) at my previous job. I'm now at a new job, working for a customer who sticks to as much "vanilla .NET" as possible. If I could I'd get those XtraControls right in there, but it's not my call :) And the job initially involved just some bugfixes for a few weeks. In HTML and CSS. With AngularJS. But in reality I've been doing WinForms for over a month now :laugh:
Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles at my CodeProject profile.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
Sander Rossel wrote:
But in reality I've been doing WinForms for over a month now
Probably they've realized there's someone who knows what he's doing in WinForms and need to capitalize on that before you leave :laugh:
-
Sander Rossel wrote:
But in reality I've been doing WinForms for over a month now
Probably they've realized there's someone who knows what he's doing in WinForms and need to capitalize on that before you leave :laugh:
Actually they didn't know. I quit my last job (three months ago) because I wanted to do something else than WinForms. The company I work for now doesn't do WinForms at all. They assured me I'd never do WinForms again! So then this customer called "We need a programmer for some quick bugfixes asap! We need a HTML and CSS expert!" A colleague and me would do the job. Then they called again "Actually, we need someone with AngularJS skills." I actually spend an entire day learning AngularJS, because I didn't know it yet (my colleague does know it). But the day before we'd get started they called again "Actually, do you have a WinForms programmer? We need it more than the web stuff!" And so here I am doing WinForms programming again. Not quite what I had in mind, but it's only for a few weeks :laugh:
Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles at my CodeProject profile.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
-
Actually they didn't know. I quit my last job (three months ago) because I wanted to do something else than WinForms. The company I work for now doesn't do WinForms at all. They assured me I'd never do WinForms again! So then this customer called "We need a programmer for some quick bugfixes asap! We need a HTML and CSS expert!" A colleague and me would do the job. Then they called again "Actually, we need someone with AngularJS skills." I actually spend an entire day learning AngularJS, because I didn't know it yet (my colleague does know it). But the day before we'd get started they called again "Actually, do you have a WinForms programmer? We need it more than the web stuff!" And so here I am doing WinForms programming again. Not quite what I had in mind, but it's only for a few weeks :laugh:
Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles at my CodeProject profile.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
Ah, I see - it's that client who exactly knows what he needs! :laugh: At least your time spent learning AngularJS won't have been wasted once you're done with this :) By the way, you said somewhere in this thread that n-order-sorting is being done with additional entries in that ComboBox. But at least now that you have this solution in place it would be easy to allow the user to flexibly chain sorting columns. Not that I want to lengthen your time with WinForms though ;)
-
*** DISCLAIMER *** This isn't a programming question, because I've solved the programming problem myself. Rather, I'm interested in your opinion regarding the solution, clever or 'clever'? So today I had a nice little challenge. My application has a grid which can be sorted on various columns, asc and desc. Now the sorting isn't applied by clicking the column header, but by selecting a value from a drop down (Name, Name (descending), Title, Title (descending) etc.). I was thinking I could just have a switch statement where I check which ordering the user chose (which would make me extend the switch for each new ordering), or... I could abstract this away. Of course I went for the second option. Now to make this work (and it works nicely, adding a new ordering is a piece of cake) I had to write the following function:
SomeFunction(string caption, Func, Expression>, IQueryable> linqFunction, Expression> expression) { ... }
Since this is a WinForms application though, and WinForms and generics don't go well together I'm more or less forced to use a
dynamiclater on as it's quite impossible to get the values ofTElementandTKeyfromobject. I'm thinking this isn't ideal in terms of complexity and readability, but it is pretty neat because adding a new ordering is really simple (one line of simple code) and guaranteed to work on the first try (you'll never forget to change that switch statement again). And the solution is even re-usable for the filter functionality I need as well (which, of course, becomes a breeze as well)! So judging from that, clever or 'clever'? And where do you draw the line for cleverness vs. readability/simplicity?Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles at my CodeProject profile.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
Sander: Yes, it's 'clever' code. I have many years with Winforms, and the DataGridView. Also with building software for users, using a team of developers. To my mind (based on your necessarily limited description) you are re-coding something that the DataGridView already does. It does it (a) more efficiently than your code, (b) with less potential for support issues (ie, bugs), and (c) in a more user-friendly manner. If you were on my team I would see two problems. They are very common problems, so fairly straightforward to deal with. The first problem is: Why on earth do you need to invoke the sort from a drop-down? Does the client really want to pay $10,000 to be able to sort clunky-fashion, instead of just click the damn header like every other right-thinking user? Go back to the user and enlighten them on what they really want to do here. The second problem is: You (the developer) have decided (as developers often do) to code your way out of a corner. You develop code that must be laboriously explained (although it is excitingly generic). Then you post the code on a geeky forum, looking for approval. I know why you've done that: because you know there are other guys on your team who will diss your 'clever' code. Pro tip: you are writing Winforms apps for end users. You have not yet been called to write cross-platform compilers for GoogIntelSoft. As your boss I would tell you: "Sander, when we deliver that software (next week BTW), our client will not pay us one red cent extra for the cleverness of your grid sorting code. Any bugs it generates in the approval period will cost me money."
