|
Thread Rules
1. This is not a "do my homework for me" thread. If you have specific questions, ask, but don't post an assignment or homework problem and expect an exact solution.
2. No recruiting for your cockamamie projects (you won't replace facebook with 3 dudes you found on the internet and $20)
3. If you can't articulate why a language is bad, don't start slinging shit about it. Just remember that nothing is worse than making CSS IE6 compatible.
4. Use [code] tags to format code blocks. |
On November 28 2014 11:40 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 01:25 mostevil wrote:On November 27 2014 20:44 Morfildur wrote:I wouldn't give too much on that article. Apart from being fairly biased it's also extremely outdated with it's C# examples - which isn't surprising considering it's 8 years old and languages have developed a lot in that time. The feeling of wanting feature X of language Y when you are developing Z is normal, no matter which language you use. All languages have a lot of features that other languages miss, because all languages specialize in different areas. While a specific feature might be useful, usually using the full language isn't, often due to missing libraries or other missing language features. I do wish PHP had C# style lambda expressions and properties though 
String.Join("\n", array.ConvertAll(x => x.Description).Where(x => x != '').ToArray());
I really need to start using lambdas at some point. Legacy OS' of my customers have me trapped at older versions of .NET. They still don't look natural to me yet, it's a weird ass syntax in a world that mostly looks like c. I must say that I'm not a big fan of lambdas. Just like I'm not a big fan of chaining in PHP. It seems like trying to cram as much code as possible into one line which can make it less readable. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for using anonymous functions and recursion when declaring "variables" but apart from that I think you start introducing too much clutter in imperative languages.
Lambdas are a complicated topic. While you are right to some degree and lambdas can add clutter to the code, well used lambdas can change the way you think about programming completely and make a lot of things easier to write and easier to read. C# Lambdas probably had the biggest impact on my programming thought process since the time I finally understood object oriented programming.
Cramming them into one line is simply a style problem and can be avoided with proper formatting.
users.Where(x => x.LastName == 'Doe')
.Where(x => x.Purchases.Any(p => p.Merchant == 'Amazon'))
.ToArray()
.ForEach(x => MailService.SendChristmasMail(x.ID));
vs
foreach (var user in users)
{
if (user.LastName == 'Doe')
{
bool hasAmazonPurchase = false;
foreach (var purchase in user.Purchases)
{
if (purchase.Merchant == 'Amazon')
{
hasAmazonPurchase = true;
break;
}
}
if (hasAmazonPurchase)
{
MailService.SendChristmasMail(user.ID);
}
}
}
Might be a contrived example, but I've had plenty of instances where the use of LINQ and Lambdas turned a 30 line method into a easy to read 1-3 line method. You can do the same by introducing more helper methods, but then again, those do what the first example already does, except they are specialized and less reusable.
|
On November 28 2014 11:40 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 01:25 mostevil wrote:On November 27 2014 20:44 Morfildur wrote:I wouldn't give too much on that article. Apart from being fairly biased it's also extremely outdated with it's C# examples - which isn't surprising considering it's 8 years old and languages have developed a lot in that time. The feeling of wanting feature X of language Y when you are developing Z is normal, no matter which language you use. All languages have a lot of features that other languages miss, because all languages specialize in different areas. While a specific feature might be useful, usually using the full language isn't, often due to missing libraries or other missing language features. I do wish PHP had C# style lambda expressions and properties though
String.Join("\n", array.ConvertAll(x => x.Description).Where(x => x != '').ToArray());
I really need to start using lambdas at some point. Legacy OS' of my customers have me trapped at older versions of .NET. They still don't look natural to me yet, it's a weird ass syntax in a world that mostly looks like c. I must say that I'm not a big fan of lambdas. Just like I'm not a big fan of chaining in PHP. It seems like trying to cram as much code as possible into one line which can make it less readable. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for using anonymous functions and recursion when declaring "variables" but apart from that I think you start introducing too much clutter in imperative languages.
I get what you mean, but I like to do one "thing" per line.
The above C# code is a perfect example of this. I want to join the non-empty descriptions of the array, then it should be one line. I can understand the concept in one sentence so writing it in one line shouldn't be a problem.
Writing the equivalent code using a for-loop is what would clutter the code. Why should it take 6 lines?
var s = new StringBuilder();
foreach (var x in array)
{
if (x.Description != "")
s.AppendLine(x);
}
return s.ToString();
|
On November 28 2014 18:49 Prillan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 11:40 Manit0u wrote:On November 28 2014 01:25 mostevil wrote:On November 27 2014 20:44 Morfildur wrote:I wouldn't give too much on that article. Apart from being fairly biased it's also extremely outdated with it's C# examples - which isn't surprising considering it's 8 years old and languages have developed a lot in that time. The feeling of wanting feature X of language Y when you are developing Z is normal, no matter which language you use. All languages have a lot of features that other languages miss, because all languages specialize in different areas. While a specific feature might be useful, usually using the full language isn't, often due to missing libraries or other missing language features. I do wish PHP had C# style lambda expressions and properties though
String.Join("\n", array.ConvertAll(x => x.Description).Where(x => x != '').ToArray());
I really need to start using lambdas at some point. Legacy OS' of my customers have me trapped at older versions of .NET. They still don't look natural to me yet, it's a weird ass syntax in a world that mostly looks like c. I must say that I'm not a big fan of lambdas. Just like I'm not a big fan of chaining in PHP. It seems like trying to cram as much code as possible into one line which can make it less readable. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for using anonymous functions and recursion when declaring "variables" but apart from that I think you start introducing too much clutter in imperative languages. I get what you mean, but I like to do one "thing" per line. The above C# code is a perfect example of this. I want to join the non-empty descriptions of the array, then it should be one line. I can understand the concept in one sentence so writing it in one line shouldn't be a problem. Writing the equivalent code using a for-loop is what would clutter the code. Why should it take 6 lines?
var s = new StringBuilder();
foreach (var x in array)
{
if (x.Description != "")
s.AppendLine(x);
}
return s.ToString();
Well, one could argue that breaking it into smaller parts like that gives you more leeway for when you need to refactor the code (as in, add additional guards or checks if necessary) since you can then put those extra bits in one place without having to change the rest.
Your example in PHP could look something like that:
function filterDescriptions($obj) {
$desc = isset($obj->description) ? $obj->description : "";
if ($desc !== "") {
return $desc;
}
}
$strArr = array_map("filterDescriptions", $objArr);
$str = implode("\n", $strArr);
The thing here is that you're really doing it with just 2 lines of code (which could be further reduced to 1) that immediately tell you what's going on. You have to look at the filterDescriptions method only when you really need to know how the filtering is done. And if you ever need to change the filtering method you just change the filter function and don't have to touch the rest of the code.
I find it more readable because each line of code does exactly one thing. You still have recursion in there, you just don't cram it all into a single line.
Another thing to note if you're concerned with app performance, lambdas and stuff like array.ConvertAll add quite a lot of overhead when compared to a simple foreach.
|
On November 28 2014 20:02 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 18:49 Prillan wrote:On November 28 2014 11:40 Manit0u wrote:On November 28 2014 01:25 mostevil wrote:On November 27 2014 20:44 Morfildur wrote:I wouldn't give too much on that article. Apart from being fairly biased it's also extremely outdated with it's C# examples - which isn't surprising considering it's 8 years old and languages have developed a lot in that time. The feeling of wanting feature X of language Y when you are developing Z is normal, no matter which language you use. All languages have a lot of features that other languages miss, because all languages specialize in different areas. While a specific feature might be useful, usually using the full language isn't, often due to missing libraries or other missing language features. I do wish PHP had C# style lambda expressions and properties though
String.Join("\n", array.ConvertAll(x => x.Description).Where(x => x != '').ToArray());
I really need to start using lambdas at some point. Legacy OS' of my customers have me trapped at older versions of .NET. They still don't look natural to me yet, it's a weird ass syntax in a world that mostly looks like c. I must say that I'm not a big fan of lambdas. Just like I'm not a big fan of chaining in PHP. It seems like trying to cram as much code as possible into one line which can make it less readable. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for using anonymous functions and recursion when declaring "variables" but apart from that I think you start introducing too much clutter in imperative languages. I get what you mean, but I like to do one "thing" per line. The above C# code is a perfect example of this. I want to join the non-empty descriptions of the array, then it should be one line. I can understand the concept in one sentence so writing it in one line shouldn't be a problem. Writing the equivalent code using a for-loop is what would clutter the code. Why should it take 6 lines?
var s = new StringBuilder();
foreach (var x in array)
{
if (x.Description != "")
s.AppendLine(x);
}
return s.ToString();
Well, one could argue that breaking it into smaller parts like that gives you more leeway for when you need to refactor the code (as in, add additional guards or checks if necessary) since you can then put those extra bits in one place without having to change the rest. Your example in PHP could look something like that:
function filterDescriptions($obj) {
$desc = isset($obj->description) ? $obj->description : "";
if ($desc !== "") {
return $desc;
}
}
$strArr = array_map("filterDescriptions", $objArr);
$str = implode("\n", $strArr);
The thing here is that you're really doing it with just 2 lines of code (which could be further reduced to 1) that immediately tell you what's going on. You have to look at the filterDescriptions method only when you really need to know how the filtering is done. And if you ever need to change the filtering method you just change the filter function and don't have to touch the rest of the code. I find it more readable because each line of code does exactly one thing. You still have recursion in there, you just don't cram it all into a single line.Another thing to note if you're concerned with app performance, lambdas and stuff like array.ConvertAll add quite a lot of overhead when compared to a simple foreach.
Does it though? It took me some time to realize what $desc = isset($obj->description) ? $obj->description : ""; did. I could call that "doing more than one thing".
But I think that we are on the same page here. No one wants to have unreadable code that does too much in one step. I'm just a bit more tolerant to long lines 
Also, from what I can see there is no recursion anywhere in either the C# one or your example. What do you mean?
|
|
|
On November 28 2014 22:19 Nesserev wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 22:05 Prillan wrote:On November 28 2014 20:02 Manit0u wrote:On November 28 2014 18:49 Prillan wrote:On November 28 2014 11:40 Manit0u wrote:On November 28 2014 01:25 mostevil wrote:On November 27 2014 20:44 Morfildur wrote:I wouldn't give too much on that article. Apart from being fairly biased it's also extremely outdated with it's C# examples - which isn't surprising considering it's 8 years old and languages have developed a lot in that time. The feeling of wanting feature X of language Y when you are developing Z is normal, no matter which language you use. All languages have a lot of features that other languages miss, because all languages specialize in different areas. While a specific feature might be useful, usually using the full language isn't, often due to missing libraries or other missing language features. I do wish PHP had C# style lambda expressions and properties though
String.Join("\n", array.ConvertAll(x => x.Description).Where(x => x != '').ToArray());
I really need to start using lambdas at some point. Legacy OS' of my customers have me trapped at older versions of .NET. They still don't look natural to me yet, it's a weird ass syntax in a world that mostly looks like c. I must say that I'm not a big fan of lambdas. Just like I'm not a big fan of chaining in PHP. It seems like trying to cram as much code as possible into one line which can make it less readable. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for using anonymous functions and recursion when declaring "variables" but apart from that I think you start introducing too much clutter in imperative languages. I get what you mean, but I like to do one "thing" per line. The above C# code is a perfect example of this. I want to join the non-empty descriptions of the array, then it should be one line. I can understand the concept in one sentence so writing it in one line shouldn't be a problem. Writing the equivalent code using a for-loop is what would clutter the code. Why should it take 6 lines?
var s = new StringBuilder();
foreach (var x in array)
{
if (x.Description != "")
s.AppendLine(x);
}
return s.ToString();
Well, one could argue that breaking it into smaller parts like that gives you more leeway for when you need to refactor the code (as in, add additional guards or checks if necessary) since you can then put those extra bits in one place without having to change the rest. Your example in PHP could look something like that:
function filterDescriptions($obj) {
$desc = isset($obj->description) ? $obj->description : "";
if ($desc !== "") {
return $desc;
}
}
$strArr = array_map("filterDescriptions", $objArr);
$str = implode("\n", $strArr);
The thing here is that you're really doing it with just 2 lines of code (which could be further reduced to 1) that immediately tell you what's going on. You have to look at the filterDescriptions method only when you really need to know how the filtering is done. And if you ever need to change the filtering method you just change the filter function and don't have to touch the rest of the code. I find it more readable because each line of code does exactly one thing. You still have recursion in there, you just don't cram it all into a single line.Another thing to note if you're concerned with app performance, lambdas and stuff like array.ConvertAll add quite a lot of overhead when compared to a simple foreach. Does it though? It took me some time to realize what $desc = isset($obj->description) ? $obj->description : ""; did. I could call that "doing more than one thing". But I think that we are on the same page here. No one wants to have unreadable code that does too much in one step. I'm just a bit more tolerant to long lines Also, from what I can see there is no recursion anywhere in either the C# one or your example. What do you mean? I'm pretty sure he's referring to 'array_map'. 'map'-functions apply a function to every element in a list/array, and this is normally implemented in a recursive way where the function is applied to the head of the list, and the function is "mapped" to the rest of the list. Hence, you can treat array_map as recursive.
I'm well aware of the regular "description" of map. I can't say anything about how it's implemented but I doubt that it's recursive, especially in an imperative language. If you still want to describe it as recursive, then you could call any abstract function recursive, because it could be implemented recursively.
Anyway, enough of that useless discussion. What I wanted to point out with my question was that there is a difference between "functional" and "recursive", and that just because something is imported from a functional language doesn't mean that it shouldn't be used in an imperative one.
Edit: I'm a bit tired right now so I'm sorry if I sound, I don't know, not nice...
|
On November 28 2014 22:37 Prillan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 22:19 Nesserev wrote:On November 28 2014 22:05 Prillan wrote:On November 28 2014 20:02 Manit0u wrote:On November 28 2014 18:49 Prillan wrote:On November 28 2014 11:40 Manit0u wrote:On November 28 2014 01:25 mostevil wrote:On November 27 2014 20:44 Morfildur wrote:I wouldn't give too much on that article. Apart from being fairly biased it's also extremely outdated with it's C# examples - which isn't surprising considering it's 8 years old and languages have developed a lot in that time. The feeling of wanting feature X of language Y when you are developing Z is normal, no matter which language you use. All languages have a lot of features that other languages miss, because all languages specialize in different areas. While a specific feature might be useful, usually using the full language isn't, often due to missing libraries or other missing language features. I do wish PHP had C# style lambda expressions and properties though
String.Join("\n", array.ConvertAll(x => x.Description).Where(x => x != '').ToArray());
I really need to start using lambdas at some point. Legacy OS' of my customers have me trapped at older versions of .NET. They still don't look natural to me yet, it's a weird ass syntax in a world that mostly looks like c. I must say that I'm not a big fan of lambdas. Just like I'm not a big fan of chaining in PHP. It seems like trying to cram as much code as possible into one line which can make it less readable. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for using anonymous functions and recursion when declaring "variables" but apart from that I think you start introducing too much clutter in imperative languages. I get what you mean, but I like to do one "thing" per line. The above C# code is a perfect example of this. I want to join the non-empty descriptions of the array, then it should be one line. I can understand the concept in one sentence so writing it in one line shouldn't be a problem. Writing the equivalent code using a for-loop is what would clutter the code. Why should it take 6 lines?
var s = new StringBuilder();
foreach (var x in array)
{
if (x.Description != "")
s.AppendLine(x);
}
return s.ToString();
Well, one could argue that breaking it into smaller parts like that gives you more leeway for when you need to refactor the code (as in, add additional guards or checks if necessary) since you can then put those extra bits in one place without having to change the rest. Your example in PHP could look something like that:
function filterDescriptions($obj) {
$desc = isset($obj->description) ? $obj->description : "";
if ($desc !== "") {
return $desc;
}
}
$strArr = array_map("filterDescriptions", $objArr);
$str = implode("\n", $strArr);
The thing here is that you're really doing it with just 2 lines of code (which could be further reduced to 1) that immediately tell you what's going on. You have to look at the filterDescriptions method only when you really need to know how the filtering is done. And if you ever need to change the filtering method you just change the filter function and don't have to touch the rest of the code. I find it more readable because each line of code does exactly one thing. You still have recursion in there, you just don't cram it all into a single line.Another thing to note if you're concerned with app performance, lambdas and stuff like array.ConvertAll add quite a lot of overhead when compared to a simple foreach. Does it though? It took me some time to realize what $desc = isset($obj->description) ? $obj->description : ""; did. I could call that "doing more than one thing". But I think that we are on the same page here. No one wants to have unreadable code that does too much in one step. I'm just a bit more tolerant to long lines Also, from what I can see there is no recursion anywhere in either the C# one or your example. What do you mean? I'm pretty sure he's referring to 'array_map'. 'map'-functions apply a function to every element in a list/array, and this is normally implemented in a recursive way where the function is applied to the head of the list, and the function is "mapped" to the rest of the list. Hence, you can treat array_map as recursive. I'm well aware of the regular "description" of map. I can't say anything about how it's implemented but I doubt that it's recursive, especially in an imperative language. If you still want to describe it as recursive, then you could call any abstract function recursive, because it could be implemented recursively. Anyway, enough of that useless discussion. What I wanted to point out with my question was that there is a difference between "functional" and "recursive", and that just because something is imported from a functional language doesn't mean that it shouldn't be used in an imperative one. Edit: I'm a bit tired right now so I'm sorry if I sound, I don't know, not nice...
I believe everyone is confused by now
I confused you with my too long of a line of code that did more than one thing because my habits prevented me to simply assign a value from the object to a variable before previously checking if that value even exists with a ternary operator, which made the code confusing In all honesty, I should've first initialized variable to an empty string, then test if object has this attribute set and then make sure that it's assigned to the variable as a string and only then move on with the rest of the code. I would really like it if PHP wouldn't have this "smart" variables of mixed type everywhere...
Now a JavaScript question for you people. My brain does not want to function any more today...
I have a form with dropdown menus. It updates automatically whenever a new value is chosen from those dropdowns. The problem:
1. I select some values to filter the list of items. All cool and dandy.
2. I select one of those items, which brings me to its page.
3. I press 'back' button in the browser.
Now, FF brings me back to the filter select page, with filters selected and item list being filtered. WebKit browsers go back to this page, filters are selected but the list isn't filtered (reloading the page applies filters properly).
Edit: The funny thing is - after reloading the page in Chrome, selecting the product and going back everything works just fine like in FF.
Do you have any idea what could be causing that and how to fix it?
|
|
|
I tend to declare descriptively named variables after each LINQ statement rather than chaining them across multiple lines. I also tend to replace lambdas with method groups by turning the lambda into a single-line method.
The big thing with LINQ is that it shifts attention towards list manipulation and away from looking at single items in a list and applying a series of operations on each single item.
|
Ok, so, I need help again, but good news, it's not a segfault this time ! I can usually take care of those now, yay me...
Anyway, recoding some of the ls command right now, and I'm having trouble with the -R option.
Here's what I have :
t_list *ft_output_bigr(t_input *input)
{
t_list *dir_content;
DIR *dir_stream;
struct dirent *buf;
if (!input->files->content && !input->dir->content)
return (NULL);
if (input->files->content)
return (ft_lstcpy_and_del(input->files));
dir_stream = opendir(input->dir->content);
ft_lstfreeone(&input->dir, input->dir);
while ((buf = readdir(dir_stream)))
{
dir_content = ft_lstnew(buf->d_name, sizeof(buf->d_name));
ft_lstadd(&input->files, dir_content);
if ((ft_is_dir(buf->d_name)) && ft_strcmp(buf->d_name, ".") != 0
&& ft_strcmp(buf->d_name, "..") != 0)
{
ft_lstadd(&input->dir, dir_content);
}
}
closedir(dir_stream);
return (ft_lstcpy_and_del(input->files));
}
and the function that calls it :
int ft_process_input(t_input **input)
{
t_list *output;
while ((output = (ft_strchr((*input)->opt, 'R')) ? ft_output_bigr(*input)
: ft_output(*input)))
{
output = (ft_strchr((*input)->opt, 'a')) ? output
: ft_rem_hidden(&output);
output = (ft_strchr((*input)->opt, 't')) ? ft_t(&output)
: ft_parse(&output);
output = (ft_strchr((*input)->opt, 'r')) ? ft_lstrev(&output) : output;
output = (ft_strchr((*input)->opt, 'l')) ? ft_l(output) : output;
while (output)
{
ft_putendl(output->content);
ft_lstfreeone(&output, output);
}
}
return (1);
}
The idea is to check for files in the list as they are handled first with ls, then open a directory from the dir list, add its content to the now cleared files list, and add the sub-directories in the dir list. Considering how list works, it seemed a better alternative to recursivity to handle the -R option.
It's pretty much the exact same code as how I get my output without options, and it works in that case. But for -R, all I get in my output is the list of directories, no files. The code shouldn't do that. Why is it doing that ? I've checked what is added in the files list when a directory is read, and there is everything. Then I return a copy of it, and it's all directories. Waddafuck ?
Edit : I know that right now the function wouldn't work anyway because directory name != pathname, but I don't think that is the issue...
The issue also seems to only appear when my ls is used without argument other than options. In which case what I do is create a node for the dir list containing ".". Again, it works without the -R option...
|
Is anyone here using mongodb in production? Our db dumps are over 120gb and it has become a pretty long task to mongodump/zip/unzip/mongorestore. So i need to implement automatic incremental database backups on our server. I have found something named tayra. But i could use some help from someone with experience.
|
Is there any way I can trick the Notepad++ syntax highlighting to colour variables in a certain way?
I'd like "x=123" to work and would be even more happy if I could get it to work with variable space before and after the "=" (x should be coloured).
[edit] Yes I've checked http://udl20.weebly.com/ but that didn't help.
|
Got a simple homework question(Java):
I'm trying to set up a program where I can create users and contracts(and a bunch of other stuff, but this is what I'm stuck on). Every contract needs to have a number of users and each user tied to the contract owns a percentage of the contract. What I have so far is a contract class with an arraylist that takes users, but I am stuck trying to append a percentage to each one of them. Any tips?
|
you could just use a second array.
Im sure there are more clever java specific solutions where you can pair a pointer and a double that would look better, though.
You could for example make your own structure that holds a pointer to the user and a percentage value as double.
I think Java has no struct, so you would make it a class with public attributes maybe.
|
Thanks man, gonna try making it a class.
|
On December 01 2014 23:56 LaNague wrote:
you could just use a second array.
Im sure there are more clever java specific solutions where you can pair a pointer and a double that would look better, though.
You could for example make your own structure that holds a pointer to the user and a percentage value as double.
I think Java has no struct, so you would make it a class with public attributes maybe.
Holy shit.
1) Don't use a second array.
2) Java has no pointers.
3) Don't make the attributes public.
|
On December 01 2014 23:44 Animzor wrote:
Got a simple homework question(Java):
I'm trying to set up a program where I can create users and contracts(and a bunch of other stuff, but this is what I'm stuck on). Every contract needs to have a number of users and each user tied to the contract owns a percentage of the contract. What I have so far is a contract class with an arraylist that takes users, but I am stuck trying to append a percentage to each one of them. Any tips?
One way to model it, and correct me if I'm wrong in my assumptions, but to me it sounds like you have a many-to-many relationship between users and contracts?
So, what you could do, is as follows.
You make a new class, that has a User, a Contract and a Owner Percentage.
Then you can make an ArrayList of that class - and you've solved your exercise :-)
|
Fixed my issue, happens that you can't add a node to 2 lists and expect to have 2 separate lists as a result. Nope.
|
On December 02 2014 00:10 Khalum wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2014 23:56 LaNague wrote:
you could just use a second array.
Im sure there are more clever java specific solutions where you can pair a pointer and a double that would look better, though.
You could for example make your own structure that holds a pointer to the user and a percentage value as double.
I think Java has no struct, so you would make it a class with public attributes maybe. Holy shit. 1) Don't use a second array. 2) Java has no pointers. 3) Don't make the attributes public.
To Khalum,
1) A second array is pretty close to how most Maps are implemented, so it would be a fine way to accomplish this.
2) Java will pass by reference if the parameter is an Object. That's close enough to a pointer that you can do everything you could normally with pointers except change the pointer itself.
3) Make your attributes global and static iff you care about performance. This is like a struct. Make them public or public static in singletons if you need to use the struct itself as an Object. Make them private otherwise.
To answer the specific question about how to pair a User Object with a double value, look up the Map interface in the API. The HashMap Class is a widely used implementation of that interface. It allows you to pair up Objects, such as Users and Doubles. Instead of having an ArrayList of Users for the Contract, you use a HashMap<User,Double> to store the data.
|
On December 02 2014 03:42 RoyGBiv_13 wrote:
1) A second array is pretty close to how most Maps are implemented, so it would be a fine way to accomplish this.
There is a massive difference between using 2 arrays and using something that is implemented using 2 arrays. An array-based implementation of maps also would perform badly at the things maps are used for, so I highly doubt that's how "most maps are implemented". I'd rather bet on some hashtable of pairs plus maybe a linked list for iteration over all elements in the map.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
