function pizza(boolean pepperoni, boolean bacon, boolean mushroom, boolean artichoke)
now becomes 16 distinct functions.
now becomes 16 distinct functions.
pizza_with_pepperoni_and_bacon_and_mushroom()
or any combination of the above: CreatePizza() .WithMussroom() .Build()
Even better, you can add new ingredients without changing any of the existing signatures: CreatePizza() .WithProsciuto() .WithTomatoSauce() .Build()
createPizza({bacon: true, artichoke: true});
This has the same benefit you describe of being able to add parameters without altering any old call sites
createPizza({prosiuto: true, tomatoSauce: true});
if Shrimp in Fillings then begin
Add(Shrimp);
Add(ShrimpOil); // So yummy together
Fillings.Remove(Jalapenos); // Don't go together
end;
if Jalapenos in Fillings then begin
Add(Jalapenos);
end;
In your case you would end up calling your function like this: DoToppings(true, false, true, true);
Whereas in my case you would call the builder directly with (only) the params you want different than the defaults.
You could use named arguments, but that doesn't solve the problem completely. You will still have a large method signature, hard to use, harder to refactor, harder to test, error prone.
It also causes a lot of redundant code: the called usually only cares about one or 2 arguments, it's rare that you *need* to pass more. The rest of the args are filled in by defaults in the implementation. There could be elegant ways to handle the defaults, like overloading methods or just passing in defaults in the method signature. Default value are pretty bad IMO, for all the reasons above. Btw, if you *need* to pass that many arguments to a function, that is another code smell worth it's own discussion.
Multiple overloaded methods could have about the same amount of code int he implementation like the builder pattern, but they have a huge drawback: the caller cannot mix and match which arguments they want to pass in. If you have 4 arguments, there would be quite a high combination of parameters (18 possibilities? - 18 functions); Using the builder pattern you have to implement 4 methods only, and you're covering all the possible combinations the client might want. You can also limit some combinations in elegant ways right in the IDE while the developer is writing the code.
Think of FluentAssertions https://fluentassertions.com/introduction They have literally hundreds of possible assertions that are represented by object instances. You can combine them in an almost infinite number of possibilities.
Sure, there is no black and white, and depends on the language, the builder pattern is a good tool to have in the toolbox.
No, I think you're misunderstanding. Weird... Aha: My fault, sorry.
> In your case you would end up calling your function like this: DoToppings(true, false, true, true);
What?!? Heck no, that wasn't what I meant, why would you think that? [Goes repeatedly clicking "parent"] Aha, I see: Sorry, the threads and sub-threads have branched so I got confused as to where we are.
No, that wasn't what I meant at all. I got this sub-thread mixed up with sibling ones, and was talking in the context of languages with native enums and sets (roughly, Pascal and its descendants), where you do:
type PizzaFilling: (tuna, shrimp, peperoni, ham, gorgonzola, jalapeno) ; // Etc, etc...
PizzaFillings: set of PizzaFilling ;
function MakePizza(PizzaFillings);
It's called not with a bunch of anonymous booleans like you wrote, but with a set of enumerated descriptively-named fillings as a parameter; say, a TakeOrder function builds this set by starting from an empty one (or perhaps tomato and cheese already in as defaults?) by the customer's specifications, and then calls
MakePizza(OrderedFillings);
Yeah, I was attempting to show how the problem you mentioned doesn't exist in languages with better / saner types. Again, sorry for getting the contexts mixed up; I though that was what you were talking about too, and just didn't get.
> the builder pattern is a good tool to have in the toolbox.
Urgh, yeah, I suppose so... At least in languages where you need it, because they lack other more basic (Heh!) amenities.
function MakePizza(Fillings: PizzaFillings);
- something is done to object when some props is set or validation, such as .withStuffedCrust("cheese"), it'll set the internal props as crust="stuffed" and stuffContent="cheese"
- it's branching. So rather than making user looking for the components or configuration themselves, library author can guide them with builder. Such as:
myVehicleBuilder.withSixTires().withTrailerAttachment().attach(container)
First of all, this
function pizza(boolean pepperoni, boolean bacon, boolean mushroom, boolean artichoke)
Secondly, you can optimize for the common case:
fn pizza() # -> default pizza e.g. margherita
fn pizza(list_of_ingredients) # -> your custom pizza
pizza |> add_ham |> add_mushroom |> well_done
In the image: pizza with potatoes, a typical roman recipe
https://i0.wp.com/www.puntarellarossa.it/wp/wp-content/uploa...
You might as well put some mashed potatoes in your rice and some pasta in a sandwich while you're at it.
It's like someone said "what type of carbs would you like with this meal" and the answer was "yes".
Sorry, but why should people care about what sounds terrible to you?
> put some mashed potatoes in your rice and some pasta in a sandwich while you're at it
If you weren't too obsessed with yourself, you'll know that that pasta actually exists, it's called "pasta e patate" and someone has put it in a sandwich for sure...
there is also a very popular variant made of pasta, potatoes and mussels.
> It's like someone said "what type of carbs would you like with this meal" and the answer was "yes".
It's like someone asked you "what are you first World problems" and your answer was "yes"
The recipe I'm talking about come from Italian rural tradition, when people were poor and carbs were the only thing they could afford to eat to keep being alive, not a privileged people's self inflicted fictional problem.
Sorry for the brutal honesty.
But you anglophones are not qualified to judge other culture's food. Your food is usually terrible.
I never asked you to care what sounds terrible to me.
Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one, most are full of shit, and I don't really care if you don't like mine.
If you supposedly don't care what I think, why bother trying to tell me my opinion is wrong? You can't have it both ways.
> you weren't too obsessed with yourself, you'll know that that pasta actually exists
Ok sure buddy. It's totally on me that a meal that may consist of entirely carbs is not common/popular outside of Italy. Totally my fault.
> It's like someone asked you "what are you first World problems" and your answer was "yes"
Eating a diet of just carbs is literally not a first world problem, it's a 3rd world problem because people can't afford (or can't adequately store) proteins, fresh vegetables etc.
> when people were poor and carbs were the only thing they could afford to eat to keep being alive, not a privileged people's self inflicted fictional problem.
People have eaten much worse sounding things than your double-carb special, no doubt. The difference is - you're bollocking on like it's a perfect meal, and the idea that it doesn't sound appealing is apparently insulting to you.
Who could have possibly ever foreseen that a dish made out of necessity because people literally had nothing more than two kinds of otherwise bland starchy carbohydrates, would not seem appealing when other options are available?
An opinion isn't brutal honesty bub. You have one, I have one. The difference is I am well aware that mine is an opinion.
Good job on the generalisations though. "the food of half a billion people is usually terrible, here come try some carbs on carbs.".
Simple. Because you started it.
> Ok sure buddy. It's totally on me that a meal that may consist of entirely carbs is not common/popular outside of Italy. Totally my fault
Exactly it's totally your fault for being ignorant.
Pasta/rice with potatoes it's common in many "not born yesterday" cultures in places like China, India, Africa, not exactly a small percentage of the World population.
> would not seem appealing when other options are available?
You're still talking out of ignorance.
There were a lot of other options. Meat, for example, was common back then and of higher quality than today, but meat was sold for money, because rich people loved it.
> , it's a 3rd world problem because people can't afford (or can't adequately store) proteins, fresh vegetables
complaining about carbs it's a fictional problem white privileged people invented to feel special.
So, yes, it's a first World problem.
Also: I've said poor, not 3rd World, which, BTW, has been changed to developing countries.
The fact that American pilgrims, that were poor, haven't developed a balanced diet and starved to death or due to nutritional deficiencies, says a lot about the terrible diet they had back home and nothing about other cultures that did, at the same time, being equally poor.
Don't try put words in my mouth, please.
> you're bollocking on like it's a perfect meal
See?
You can't handle the truth.
I've only said you don't know what you're talking about.
Never said anything about the quality.
I, for example, don't eat pasta with potatoes but I do eat pizza and potatoes.
And am not a "monster".
> The difference is I am well aware that mine is an opinion
But you aren't aware that your opinion is also wrong, so technically you are making a mistake, I told you it, but don't wanna learn.
Tell me you come from a British colony without telling me.
> "the food of half a billion people is usually terrible, here come try some carbs on carbs."
Yes, exactly.
It is so terrible that they usually eat other culture's food.
You don't regularly eat haggis, Which is, BTW, sheep inside sheep, or shepherd’s pies, fish and chips, bangers and mash ..., do you?
function getPizza(toppings: Iterable<Topping>): Pizza {
...
}