i don't like object oriented programming

honey the codewitch

i know how to code OO. i just don't like OO because it requires a lot of code to do a little bit.

When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.

honey the codewitch

i looked at your code wrong, didn't notice until i tried writing one myself. that's not template specialization, but simply method overloading - and i'm doing it already class CharFA : FA { .. }

When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.

Super Lloyd

yeah but... it behave quite similarly...

A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!

honey the codewitch

not really. only in the specific scenario where all you need is method overloading. and even then it's not the same, because you have two separate classes in your code now instead of one.

When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.

honey the codewitch

here let me give you an example of where it's not the same ... FooBase DerivedMethod() { return BaseMethod() } ... FooBase BaseMethod() { return new FooBase(); } ... in a specialization there are no base methods, so above would always return the fully derived class

When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.

Super Lloyd

Yeah, I was wondering, isn't that good enough?! But then I realised one could accidentally instantiate new FA() instead of the desired new CharFA() But then what of this other syntax? While it's slightly more wordy, I bet the end compiled result is just as you desired

class A
{
    public void Do(T value)
    {
        if (value is int intV) Do(intV);
        else DoDefault(value);
    }
    void DoDefault(T value)
    {
        Console.WriteLine("Value: " + value);
    }
    void Do(int value)
    {
        Console.WriteLine("Int: " + value);
    }
}
class Program
{
    static void Main(string\[\] args)
    {
        A a = new A();
        a.Do(1);
    }
}

I mean personally I am happy to solve that using subclasses or interfaces, but since you really didn't want to....

A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!

honey the codewitch

Yeah I can't do that in this code because this code is inner loop critical and the "is" comparison is just a dog. I think "as" is faster, but still, it should be resolved at compile time. I know it seems a minor quibble but this code may be used as part of a lexer. The lexing itself needs to be balls quick to be feasible. also i'd be concerned about bugs this could introduce since i have to repeat a lot of code, but that's not a showstopper. it's just irritating

When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.

honey the codewitch

adding, my solution to the object creation was to have a method in the base class called CreateFA() that could be overloaded in order to force the base class to create the derived class. Unfortunately to get it to work I had to remove every static method that created objects from the base class =(

When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.

Super Lloyd

I think you probably underestimate the compiler here generic code are some sort of IL that is used to generate code on demand (when a concrete type is used) when, say A type is created the compiler will see that

void Do(int value) {
if (value is double d) { // dead end code prune by the compiler
}
if (value is int ii) Do (ii);
}

some path will never happen and it will removed them from the concrete implementation created when the concrete type is created. and the compiled code will become

void Do(int value) {
Do (value);
}

A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!

honey the codewitch

The reason I underestimate the compiler maybe is the last the time I really examined IL was in the .NET 2.0-3.0 days and the compiler didn't do hardly anything for program optimization. Microsoft's rationale seemed to be that JIT would take care of it, but JIT doesn't do whole program optimization. It can only do peephole optimization, so I don't know what they were thinking. My guess is it was an excuse due to deadlines. So I don't trust the compiler that much. Maybe my information is old. The compiler certainly has been revamped since then.

When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.

Super Lloyd

I mean it's such an obvious static type check optimisation.. I haven't explicitly checked for it, but I would wage $5 on it! ;P

void Do(int value) {
// I would wage $5 the compiler remove the if statement and execute the nested statement always
if (value is int ii) {
}
// I would wage 5 dollar this is removed by the compiler
if (value is double dd) {
}
}

A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!

honey the codewitch

based on my experience, I'd take that bet.

When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.

obermd

Take a look at F# or another functional language. State machines and functional languages are made for each other.

honey the codewitch

I've strongly considered it. I might eventually move, but I'm familiar with C#. Maybe if they had Haskell I would have moved already. Edit: Adding, one of the drawbacks of functional programming is lack of state, and some of these equations are so complicated that state is necessary for optimization and I wonder how a functional language will handle such a thing. Recomputing or doing lazy iteration over these algorithms is grossly impractical even if it's "correct"

When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.

TNCaver

Alan Kay, the father of OOP, says we're doing it all wrong and regrets using the word "object" as it emphasizes the secondary concern of OOP and ignores the primary concern of messaging. Lots of very smart computer scientists say modern OOP makes programming more complex and prone to error rather than simplifying it.

If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.

honey the codewitch

i like message/signal based systems but most runtimes don't include some basics that should be "primitives/intrinsics" or otherwise first class, like thread safe priority queues and circular buffers and such. At the very least they should be runtime libraries provided with the base framework. But I really think if Alan Kay had wanted a message based programming environment it should have been done somewhat differently than OOP. think something a bit more along lines of parallel programming style constructs and the like, except instead of dealing with iterations of loops you're dealing with signalling. honestly, it's easy enough to create a domain-specific set of "language extension" style headers in C++ to enable this. I love C++ for that. about 1/3 of the language is the headers and because of the way the preprocessor and template system works you can create your own pseudo language constructs. There's nothing else like it in major programming languages but I really wish their was.

When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.

Super Lloyd

well.. my assembly is a bit rusty (or almost non existent) I will let you judge... But here my test C# code

class A
{
    public void Do(T value)
    {
        if (value is int intV) Do(intV);
        else DoDefault(value);
    }
    void DoDefault(T value)
    {
        Console.WriteLine("Value: " + value);
    }
    void Do(int value)
    {
        Console.WriteLine("Int: " + value);
    }
}
class Program
{
    static void Main(string\[\] args)
    {
        A a = new A();
        a.Do(1);

        A b = new A();
        b.Do(1.0);
    }
}

here is the code for a.Do(1) and b.Do(1.0) using go to disassembly in visual studio

        a.Do(1);

00F70898 mov ecx,dword ptr [ebp-40h]
00F7089B mov edx,1
00F708A0 cmp dword ptr [ecx],ecx
00F708A2 call 00F70478
00F708A7 nop

        b.Do(1.0);

00F708C3 fld qword ptr ds:[0F708E8h]
00F708C9 sub esp,8
00F708CC fstp qword ptr [esp]
00F708CF mov ecx,dword ptr [ebp-44h]
00F708D2 cmp dword ptr [ecx],ecx
00F708D4 call 00F704A0
00F708D9 nop

I think there is no (assembly) if statement and direct execution of the relevant if (type) branch....

A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!

honey the codewitch

there's a call in there that looks suspicious. I'd need to see the IL, not the asm.

When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.

Super Lloyd

Oops forget my previous example, I was confused.. the debug assembly code does indeed look atrocious... Gotta try to check the release version

A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!

Super Lloyd

release code atrocious too...

A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!