[webkit-dev] Terminology for giving up ownership: take, release, move

[Daniel Olegovich Lazarenko]

>> "Pure OOP style is always the right way"
Sorry, that's a typo, I meant "not always" of course. The examples clarify
that.

My point was that "release", "take" and "move" have well-established and
different meanings (with connotations that may or may not be logical
without the same background):
* release will free the memory if ref_count = 0 (Obj-C/CF on Mac/iOS)
* move just moves the ownership without freeing (C++)
* take removes and item from the collection and returns it (the ownership
is implicitly passed as well) (Java, C#, but not only). So map.take() means
that I still need that object most likely, and map.remove() means that :
feel free to throw the object to trash.
That are connotations I've seen in my practice.

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 6:14 PM, Alfonso Guerra <huperniketes at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Daniel Olegovich Lazarenko <
> danielo at opera.com> wrote:
>
> ..
>
>
>> * "take" - a typical name for collections like a blocking queue, heap and
>> some others (usually ordered). If it's a collection's method, it's
>> logically expected to return an item. The key distinction between
>> fred.takeCandy() and say bowl.takeCandy() is that bowl is passive.
>>
>
> That doesn't make sense to me. Why would the object "bowl" be passive, but
> not "fred"?
>
> We treat bowl as a passive bag of data, and expect others to take from it.
>>
>
> I see. Like an actual bowl in the real world?
>
>
>> It's pretty easy to understand and remember, it makes intention more
>> clear than say "bowl.removeCandy()".
>>
>
> Not to me. When I read or write object-oriented code, I think of it as
> sending messages of what I want done to the object. I see the object as
> being an intermediator performing actions on behalf of the caller.
> Containers and collections are classes that group a set of functions the
> caller needs done, so it's more convenient to view them as being a
> mediator, if you will, for the caller.
>
> I think trying to map real-world behaviors into object interfaces is
> trying too hard to mirror the real world. I see it as imposing additional
> cognitive load on comprehension by requiring me to remember if it's passive
> or not. In fact, if it's passive that would violate the OOP and real-world
> paradigms: why would I be sending it a message?
>
> Especially in this day and age of smart appliances and IoT I think it's
> more consistent to think of the bowl as a "smart" bowl that responds to my
> messages. "Give me all the green candy", "sort candy by size", etc.
>
>
>> Pure OOP style is always the right way when it comes to readability. A
>> good example mentioned by Stroustrup once that it should be sqrt(5), not
>> 5.sqrt().
>>
>
> Do you have a link for that? The closest thing I see to that example (
> https://isocpp.org/blog/2014/12/myths-2) is demonstrating the exact
> opposite, that a non-OOP solution provides better performance by
> eliminating the dereferencing of a pointer.
>
>
>> Naming is fun.
>>
>
> Learning how to communicate across cultures of all types is fun. ;-)
>
>
> --
> Alfonso Guerra
> Founder/CEO
> Apokalypse Software Corp.
> (626) 667-4285
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/attachments/20160909/d5e20baf/attachment.html>