Develop Reference

Is overloading wrong to use in this case?

I have a method that list the elements of an ArrayList, typically it prints the components of a global variable ArrayList, but in one specific instance I need it to print the components of a local variable.
So I have this
public static void listPlayers(ArrayList<Player> characters, boolean beingRolled) {
//print character components (beingRolled specifies which parts of each players to print
}
and I use that when I'm using the local variable ArrayList,
when I want to use the global i call this version
public static void listPlayers(boolean beingRolled) {
listPlayers(players, abitraryBoolean);
}
where players is the global variable
Another thing I was thinking about is anywhere I want to use the global I could pass a null reference for characters and write this method
public static void listPlayers(ArrayList<Player> characters, boolean beingRolled) {
if (characters == null) characters = players;
//print components
}
Which is the more professional/recommended version?

In general, stay away from null; the overloaded method signature is a better approach.
That said, one thing you said is scary -- You have a static method operating on a global variable. In general, that is a bad idea. You should consider refactoring to use Object/class scoped state, rather than global, static scoped state.
I would even go so far as to say that you should only use the overload that takes the ArrayList as a parameter, and pass it the global variable every time. Then, even if you must use a global variable, at least you're using it in one fewer place.
Edit: One of my professors back in college wrote a book on refactoring that is very readable and has a lot of good content (though the typography is a bit odd). It's called Principle-Based Refactoring: Learning Software Design Principles by Applying Refactoring Rules, by Steve Halladay. I highly suggest reading the first half (second half is essentially a reference).

The first version is better because it is easier for someone else to understand. When a function's arguments are all listed, the caller can more easily predict what the function will do. If the function relies on variables which are not visible, say if this is available in a library without the source, the caller will not understand why the function acts in an unexpected way. This would be impossible to understand without good documentation.

Is it inefficient to reference a hashmap in another class multiple times?

Class A
Class A {
public HashMap <Integer,Double> myHashMap;
public A(){
myHashMap = new HashMap()
}
}
class B
Class B {
private A anInstanceOfA;
public B(A a) {
this.anInstanceOfA = a;
}
aMethod(){
anInstanceOfA.myHashMap.get(1); <--getting hashmap value for key = 1
//proceed to use this value, but instead of storing it to a variable
// I use anInstanceOfA.myHashMap.get(1) each time I need that value.
}
In aMethod() I use anInstanceOfA.myHashMap.get(1) to get the value for key = 1. I do that multiple times in aMethod() and I'm wondering if there is any difference in efficiency between using anInstanceOfA.myHashMap.get(1) multiple times or just assigning it to a variable and using the assigned variable multiple times.
I.E
aMethod(){
theValue = anInstanceOfA.myHashMap.get(1);
//proceed to use theValue in my calculations. Is there a difference in efficiency?
}

In theory the JVM can optimise away the difference to be very small (compared to what the rest of the program is doing). However I prefer to make it a local variable as I believe it makes the code clearer (as I can give it a meaningful name)
I suggest you do what you believe is simpler and clearer, unless you have measured a performance difference.

The question seems to be that you want to know if it is more expensive to call get(l) multiple times instead of just once.
The answer to this is yes. The question is if it is enough to matter. The definitive answer is to ask the JVM by profiling. You can, however, guess by looking at the get method in your chosen implementation and consider if you want to do all that work every time.
Note, that there is another reason that you might want to put the value in a variable, namely that you can give it a telling name, making your program easier to maintain in the future.

This seems like a micro-optimization, that really doesn't make much difference in the scheme of things.
As #peter already suggested, 'optimizing' for style/readability is a better rationale for choosing the second option over the first one. Optimizing for speed only starts making sense if you really do a lot of calls, or if the call is very expensive -- both are probably not the case in your current example.

Put it in a local variable, for multiple reasons:
It will be much faster. Reading a local variable is definitely cheaper than a HashMap lookup, probably by a factor of 10-100x.
You can give the local variable a good, meaningful name
Your code will probably be shorter / simpler overall, particularly if you use the local variable many times.
You may get bugs during future maintenance if someone modifies one of the get calls but forgets to change the others. This is a problem whenever you are duplicating code. Using a local variable minimises this risk.
In concurrent situations, the value could theoretically change if the HashMap is modified by some other code. You normally want to get the value once and work with the same value. Although if you are running into problems of this nature you should probably be looking at other solutions first (locking, concurrent collections etc.)

Is there anything inherently wrong with long variable/method names in Java? [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
When is a Java method name too long?
I know this is probably is a question of personal opinion, but I want to know what's standard practice and what would be frowned upon.
One of my profs in university always seems to make his variable and method names as short as possible (getAmt() instead of getAmount) for instance.
I have no objection to this, but personally, I prefer to have mine a little longer if it adds descriptiveness so the person reading it won't have to check or refer to documentation.
For instance, we made a method that given a list of players, returns the player who scored the most goals. I made the method getPlayerWithMostGoals(), is this wrong? I toiled over choosing a way to make it shorter for awhile, but then I thought "why?". It gets the point across clearly and Eclipse makes it easy to autocomplete it when I type.
I'm just wondering if the short variable names are a piece of the past due to needing everything to be as small as possible to be efficient. Is this still a requirement?

Nothing inherently wrong, it's better to make it descriptive than cryptic. However, it's often code-smell for a method that is trying to do too much or could be refactored
Bad: getActInfPstWeek
OK: getAccountInformationForPastWeek()
Better getAccountInformation(DateRange range)

I prefer to have long variable/method names that describe what's going on. In your case, I think getPlayerWithMostGoals() is appropriate. It bothers me when I see a short variable name like "amt" and I have to transpose that in my head (into "amount").

Something like getAmt() is looks like C++ code style... In java usually are used more descriptive names.
Your professor made a good understandable method. But it's very popular word. It's not a general case. Use your "longWordStyle" style it's more java.

As per standards, longer descriptive names are advised to make it more readable and maintainable on longer term. If you use very short naming e.g. a variable as a, you will forget yourself, what that variable is meant for after sometime. This becomes more problematic in bigger programs. Though I don't see an issue in using getAmt() in place of getAmount(), but definitely getPlayerWithMostGoals() is preferable over something like getPlayer().

Long names, short names, it all depends. There are a lot of approaches and discussions but in fact a method's name should reflect its intention. This helps you to further understand the code. Take this example.
public void print(String s)
Nifty name, short, concise... isn't it? Well, actually no if there's no documentation to tell you what do you mean by "Printing". I say System.our.println is a way of printing a string but you can define printing as saving the string in a file or showing it in a dialog.
public void printInConsole(String s)
Now there are no misunderstandings. Most people can tell you that you can read the method's JavaDoc to understand it but... are you going to read a full paragraph to decide if the method you're going to use does what you need?.
IMO, methods should describe at least an action and an entity (if they're related to one). "Long" is also a perception... but really long names make the code hard to structure. It's a matter of getting the proper balance.
As a rule of thumb, I'd void abreviations and use JavaDoc to further describe a method's intention. Descriptive names can be long but the reward is both readability and a self-explainatory code.

Java enumerations vs. static constants

I'm looking at some Java code that are maintained by other parts of the company, incidentally some former C and C++ devs. One thing that is ubiquitous is the use of static integer constants, such as
class Engine {
private static int ENGINE_IDLE = 0;
private static int ENGINE_COLLECTING = 1;
...
}
Besides a lacking 'final' qualifier, I'm a bit bothered by this kind of code. What I would have liked to see, being trained primarily in Java from school, would be something more like
class Engine {
private enum State { Idle, Collecting };
...
}
However, the arguments fail me. Why, if at all, is the latter better than the former?

Why, if at all, is the latter better
than the former?
It is much better because it gives you type safety and is self-documenting. With integer constants, you have to look at the API doc to find out what values are valid, and nothing prevents you from using invalid values (or, perhaps worse, integer constants that are completely unrelated). With Enums, the method signature tells you directly what values are valid (IDE autocompletion will work) and it's impossible to use an invalid value.
The "integer constant enums" pattern is unfortunately very common, even in the Java Standard API (and widely copied from there) because Java did not have Enums prior to Java 5.

An excerpt from the official docs, http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/guide/language/enums.html:
This pattern has many problems, such as:
Not typesafe - Since a season is just an int you can pass in any other int value where a season is required, or add two seasons together (which makes no sense).
No namespace - You must prefix constants of an int enum with a string (in this case SEASON_) to avoid collisions with other int enum types.
Brittleness - Because int enums are compile-time constants, they are compiled into clients that use them. If a new constant is added between two existing constants or the order is changed, clients must be recompiled. If they are not, they will still run, but their behavior will be undefined.
Printed values are uninformative - Because they are just ints, if you print one out all you get is a number, which tells you nothing about what it represents, or even what type it is.
And this just about covers it. A one word argument would be that enums are just more readable and informative.
One more thing is that enums, like classes. can have fields and methods. This gives you the option to encompass some additional information about each type of state in the enum itself.

Because enums provide type safety. In the first case, you can pass any integer and if you use enum you are restricted to Idle and Collecting.
FYI : http://www.javapractices.com/topic/TopicAction.do?Id=1.

By using an int to refer to a constant, you're not forcing someone to actually use that constant. So, for example, you might have a method which takes an engine state, to which someone might happy invoke with:
engine.updateState(1);
Using an enum forces the user to stick with the explanatory label, so it is more legible.

There is one situation when static constance is preferred (rather that the code is legacy with tonne of dependency) and that is when the member of that value are not/may later not be finite.
Imagine if you may later add new state like Collected. The only way to do it with enum is to edit the original code which can be problem if the modification is done when there are already a lot of code manipulating it. Other than this, I personally see no reason why enum is not used.
Just my thought.

Readabiliy - When you use enums and do State.Idle, the reader immediately knows that you are talking about an idle state. Compare this with 4 or 5.
Type Safety - When use enum, even by mistake the user cannot pass a wrong value, as compiler will force him to use one of the pre-declared values in the enum. In case of simple integers, he could even pass -3274.
Maintainability - If you wanted to add a new state Waiting, then it would be very easy to add new state by adding a constant Waiting in your enum State without casuing any confusion.

The reasons from the spec, which Lajcik quotes, are explained in more detail in Josh Bloch's Effective Java, Item 30. If you have access to that book, I'd recommend perusing it. Java Enums are full-fledged classes which is why you get compile-time type safety. You can also give them behavior, giving you better encapsulation.

The former is common in code that started pre-1.5. Actually, another common idiom was to define your constants in an interface, because they didn't have any code.

Enums also give you a great deal of flexibility. Since Enums are essentially classes, you can augment them with useful methods (such as providing an internationalized resource string corresponding to a certain value in the enumeration, converting back and forth between instances of the enum type and other representations that may be required, etc.)

Naming convention for a variable that works like a constant

I have a variable that I'm using like a constant (it will never change). I can't declare it as a constant because the value gets added at runtime.
Would you capitalize the variable name to help yourself understand that data's meaning?
Or would you not because this defies convention and make things more confusing?
The larger question:
Do you follow conventions even if the scenario isn't typical of the convention, but close enough that it might help you, personally, to understand things?

If it will aid you (and everybody else) in understanding your code six months down the line, do it. If it won't, don't. It's really that simple.
Personally, I would capitalise it. This is the convention in Java, where constants are always allocated at runtime due to its object-oriented nature. I'd be much more comfortable knowing that if I accidentally assigned to it, I'd definitely notice the next time I scanned through that chunk of code.

I don't consider my personals need to be paramount here -- if I've written the code, I'm already better placed to retrace it in the future if and when that's needed, than anybody else; so it's the "anybody else" I put first and foremost -- a present or future teammate that will need to understand the code (ideally) as thoroughly as I do.
Besides, with mandatory code reviews as a prereq to committing ANYthing to the codebase (an excellent practice, and the unfailing rule at my present employer), I'm likely to be called up on it should I ever let my attention slip (it does happen -- which is why I LOVE those mandatory code reviews, as applied to myself as well as everybody else!-).
A "variable set only once at startup" is a special-enough case that may be worth adding to your team's guidelines -- treating it as "closer to a constant than a variable" may make a lot of sense, but that only helps if the same rule/guideline is used consistently across the codebase. If the rule is not there I would check if there's consensus about adding it; otherwise, I would NOT break the guidelines for the sake of my personal tastes... that's the root of "egoless programming" and "team ownership of the codebase", two principles I serve with burning ardor.
BTW, were I on a single-person team in terms of coding guidelines (it happens, though it's not an optimal situation;), I think I'd have no trouble gaining unanimous consensus by myself that treating "set-once at startup" variables as constants in terms of naming conventions!-). But with a larger team, that's more work, and it could go either way.

Encapsulate it.
#include <iostream>
class ParamFoo
{
public:
static void initializeAtStartup(double x);
static double getFoo();
private:
static double foo_;
};
double ParamFoo::foo_;
void ParamFoo::initializeAtStartup(double x)
{
foo_ = x;
}
double ParamFoo::getFoo()
{
return foo_;
}
int main(void)
{
ParamFoo::initializeAtStartup(0.4);
std::cout << ParamFoo::getFoo() << std::endl;
}
This should make it pretty clear that you shouldn't be setting this value anywhere else but at the startup of the application. If you want added protection, you can add some private guard boolean variable to throw an exception if initializeAtStartup is called more than once.

I would name it as a variable, I prefer to keep my naming very consistent.
As Rob already suggested, what about readonly (available in C# at least).
Or a property with no setter.

My immediate impression is that something that you "set at runtime, then never change" is a constant, only so far as the business rules are constant. Also, you should be using mutators/accessors, since using ALL CAPS can hardly guarantee "constness".
public class BadClass
{
public static final double PI = 3.1;
// PI is very constant. Not according to the business roles modeled by my
// application, but by nature. I don't have a problem making this publicly
// accessible--except that [Math] already does, with much better precision)
public static /*final*/ int FOO = null;
// FOO is constant only by convention. I cannot even enforce its "constness".
// Making it public means that my enemies (overtime, for example) can change
// the value (late night programming), without telling me.
}
Instead,
public class BetterClass
{
public static final double PI = 3.1;
private /*final*/ Integer foo = null;
public int getFoo() {
return this.foo.intValue();
}
public void setFoo(int value) {
// The business rules say that foo can be set only once.
// If the business rules change, we can remove this condition
// without breaking old code.
if ( null == this.foo ) {
this.foo = value;
} else {
throw new IllegalStateException("Foo can be set only once.");
}
}
}
If you always use the mutator to set the value, even within [BetterClass] itself, you know that the foo's "constness" will not be violated. Of course, if someone is going to set the value of foo directly (I need to quit working before 2:00 am!), there are still no guarantees. But something like that should be pointed out at code review.
So my recommendation is to treat foo as a normal member variable--there doesn't need to be a special naming convention for something that is almost const.
However, use mutators/accessors, even on private variables. These are typically very fast, and you can enforce business rules inside of them. This should be you convention.
(If you are writing code for embedded medical devices, pretend that you never saw this posting).

is it possible to mark it as readonly? Then conventions are not as important.

Do you follow conventions even if the
scenario isn't typical of the
convention, but close enough that it
might help you, personally, to
understand things?
Following a convention when the scenario is atypical might confuse or slow down others (or even you, after a while.) I would avoid giving a variable the guise of something that it isn't.
Also, the fact that you have this atypical scenario could be an indication that perhaps some other, more typical paradigm could be followed. Though, I don't have any immediate suggestions for a alternative.

I would make it capitalized (since it's more constant than variable from a design perspective) and add a comment around it stating its uniqueness to the application.

FWIW my own convention is to use all caps for #defines and for enums. For const variables I either use no particular convention, or when I do it's to prefix the name with a 'k' (for 'konstant' - not 'c' which is already over used for things like 'count' or 'char').
I'm finding that I like the 'k' convention and will probably use it more often, and may even use it for enums, reserving the screaming, all-caps identifiers for the dreaded preprocessor macros.

Conventions are just that, conventions. They are there to help the code understandable. They usually do if they are not too badly chosen and if they are applied consistently. The last point is probably the most important thing about them: they should be applied consistently.
One thing which prevent some conventions to make code more readable even when they are applied consistently -- at least for new comers and people switching between code base -- is when they are conflicting with other conventions. In C and C++, I'm aware of two common conventions about the use of names in ALL_CAPS:
reserve them for the preprocessor; that one has my preference as the preprocessor identifier are special: they don't obey usual scoping rule and preventing clashes with them is important
use them for constant (macro and enumerators).
Two problems comes in addition to the unfamiliarity if you use them for logically constant things which are in fact variable:
they aren't usable in places (like array size) where the language expect constant expression
my experience teach me that maintenance will tend to make them even less constant that they are now.

Create a wrapper class with a single private static field. Create an initField(..) and a getField(..) static method. initField throws/asserts/otherwise errors if the static field is not null. (For primitives, you may have to use a primitive and a boolean to track initialization.)
In java, I prefer to pass these types of variables in as system properties. A static class can then do something like:
public final int MY_INT = Integer.getInteger("a.property.name");
You could also use a property file (see java.util.Properties) instead of using -D to specify it. Then you get:
public class Foo {
public static final int MY_INT;
static {
Properties p = new Properties();
try{
p.load( new FileInputStream("app.props"):
} catch(IOException e) {
//SWALLOW or RETHROW AS ERROR
}
MY_INT=Integer.parseInt( p.getProperty("my.int","17") ); //17 is default if you swallo IOException
}
...
}

First of all, follow your project's coding standards. You should be coding for other people reading the code, not yourself. Your personal preferences should not take precedence over project-wide rules and conventions, etc.
In the absence of a project coding standard you should follow "best practice" for the language you are dealing with.
In Java, best practice is that you should declare a pseudo-constant with a camel case identifier. That's what the Sun Java coding standard says, and that is what the vast majority of professional Java developers use.
In C and C++ the (classical) convention is that all-caps is used for constants defined as preprocessor symbols. So since this is not a preprocessor symbol, you should use whatever your coding standard says is appropriate for a variable.
The fact that the pseudo-constant is not supposed to change won't stop someone from modifying the code so that it actually changes, accidentally or deliberately. If you use / abuse a coding convention that makes the identifier look like a real constaint, you will be part of the problem:
Someone trying to read / debug your code will first assume the identifier is a real constant and not investigate the possibility thatit is not.
Then when they do lookat the declaration, there will be alot of shouting and threats of
defenestration.
Actually, a better way to deal with a pseudo-constant is to encapsulate it. In Java, you would declare it as private member and provide a getter and setter. The setter should do something to prevent the pseudo-constant from being changed after it has been set the first time. Any decent Java JIT compiler will inline a simple getter, so this should not affect runtime performance.

Giving wrong information is generally not best practise.
Implicitly claiming something is a constant, when it is merely currently not changed, is giving out wrong information.

I'm not sure if this is legal in your language of choice, but in C++, this would work for your purpose:
#include <iostream>
int main()
{
int i = 0;
std::cin >> i;
const int CONST = i;
std::cout << CONST; //displays i
system("PAUSE");
return 0;
}
I'm not sure if this is a moral thing to do, but this does solve your problem (unless you really need your memory).

Just like anything else - scope and context are required to know in what way something is constant. So - there's no way to to satisfy everyone.
Follow the style used in your language of choice - 80% of the time, that will be clear enough. The alternative is a highly over-though nameing system that sacrifices productivity for ideal technical correctness (which few people will even really appreaciate if you can ever achieve it.)

one question would be: what kind of variable?
in the case of static variables, that don't change after what i'd call "boot-time" for the lack of a better term, i use ALL_CAPS ... same thing for global variables (if the language supports them at all) ...
communicating semantics is actually the point of naming conventions, and seeing an ALL_CAPS clearly states, that a) i will not write to it b) i can cache it (to a local variable for example, or in AS3 even an instance variable makes sense, since static access is very slow) ...
whether it's a "real constant" or not does not really matter ... that's more of an implementation detail, that should be hidden away (reliably! information hiding is good, and important, but it is crucial, that the information that is shared, can be trusted!) ... it can really be exchanged ... for example, i often start building apps vs. some hardcoded config, containing some static constants ... later, i decide that i don't want this to be hardcoded, but rather coming from some config file, so i load it, and during boot process, i init all the pseudo-constants ... the actuall app still treats them as constants, because after booting, that is what these values are ... this seems perfectly valid to me ...
at instance level, i am not 100% sure, if i ever ran into a case, where i could be very certain, that some field would never change ... usually, this makes the class unflexible ...
other than that, you can usually declare readonly properties, to have compile time errors, which is also a good thing to have ...