On Tue, 19 Oct 2010, Igor Stasenko wrote:
On 19 October 2010 02:51, Levente Uzonyi <leves@elte.hu> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010, Igor Stasenko wrote:
On 19 October 2010 00:25, Levente Uzonyi <leves@elte.hu> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Igor Stasenko wrote:
Stephane, i could say more: - i don't like how LinkedList implemented.
I don't see why it should mimic things like #at: #at:put: at all..
It's not mimicing those methods. A list usually support things like this, but the user should know the consequences.
The consequences of such approach is much more far-reaching: leads to bad design practices, crappy application performance, and then tons of bugs and workarounds.
Are programmers idiots? If not, then we shouldn't treat them like idiots.
No, of course not. And that's why as non-idiot (i hope), i was wondering, what things like #at: #at:put: doing in classes like Stack, or LikedList.
Okay, it's not nice if a Stack allows indexing, but most linked list implementations support it.
You know, its like you driving the car and along the road you see a beatiful park with pool and attractions for the kids to play to the right side, and a toxic waste dump to the left side of road.. And you keep driving, thinking about a diner and wife, which waits you at home, but at some moment your attention gets back to that place and you have a gut feeling that there was something wrong with a picture you just seen, and then you got it: they are close to each other, just across the road!
IMO this protocol should be pruned from it, to not provoke uses which completely do not fit for given data structure.
I'm not sure if it's okay to remove features, because users lacking really basic CS knowledge may use them the wrong way.
Imo, we should prohibit this from the beginning. Standard, core classes should not contain an API, which could lead to careless, abusive programming techniques.
So we should get rid of SortedCollection, remove #includes: #indexOf: from ArrayedCollections, get rid of OrderedCollection >> #remove:, etc. Am I right?
Roughly speaking, yes. But they are inherited.. this is a little another story. And should be handled in a way like Array>>add: does.
Array >> #add: is different, because Arrays are not resizable. You could say that one could use #become: to grow the array, but then I'd say that following your suggestions we have to remove #become: from the system, because it's slow and people may use it to write slow code.
IMO, a kernel APIs should serve not only as an implementation of basic system funcionality, it also must serve as guide, how to best use these facilities, so people will learn what is the right way to use it.
That's right, but there's no need to remove useful features to achieve this.
you should convince me first, that things like LinkedList>>at: is userful.
Ok. Here's an example: What happens if you remove OrderedCollection >> #remove: from the system? People will write code like this (or worse): gotIt := false. 1 to: o size do: [ :index | gotIt ifTrue: [ o at: index - 1 put: (o at: index) ] ifFalse: [ (o at: index) = myObject ifTrue: [ gotIt := true ] ]. gotIt ifTrue: [ o removeLast ]. This kind of code is a lot worse than using #remove:, because it's harder to understand, harder to debug, really easy to mess up. And it will be reimplemented several times. Levente
We should teach users to use right tools for things they need.
Removing/inserting into the middle of list is quite ineffective operation (O(n)),
As long as you don't give away the link objects, it's O(n), otherwise it can be O(1).
giving away link objects... oh, that's the worst thing, which could possibly happen :)
No. It's the user's responsibility to use it wisely. If you don't need to access a internal nodes, just adding/removing elements to/from the list, then you probably shouldn't use a list at all.
I prefer making own lists and own classes for list items, because implementation of LinkedList raising many questions starting from being optimal, and up to concerns i presented above.
while inserting at the begginning/end of list is O(1).
Lists are sequenceable.. but sequenceable ~~ indexable. Period.
Sequenceable is indexable, but good performance is not guaranteed.
Unless you representing an infinite collection(s). Streams are good example of sequenceable, however non-indexable containers.
Streams are more like external iterators, than containers IMHO. But you can get/set the position of most streams.
Levente
Levente
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project