• PetDinosaurs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    24
    ·
    11 months ago

    Which language are we talking here? Cpp? Because typeof hasn’t ever seemed useful to me in how I use cpp or how I have ever really used a language. I also remember it being criticized in java class more than 20 years ago when OOP was solely preached, even for scientific people like me.

    • mozingo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      This sure looks like C#. I use typeof every once in a while when I want to check that the type of a reference is a specific type and not a parent or derived type. But yea, really not that often.

      • m_r_butts@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        It can’t be actual C#, but it does look like it.

        If you declare a class Pie<T>{} then attempt to call typeof(Pie<T>) or typeof(T) it won’t even build because you failed to specify what type T is. typeof(Pie<object>) would work but that just returns “Pie1[System.Object]”.

        • tonur@feddit.dk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          I have used typeof(T) inside the generic class, so fx a function inside the class Pie where T can be refered. But out of context, if you were to call typeof(T) inside Program.cs’s main function, it would not work.

          • m_r_butts@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            Yeah, but to do that you’d need an instantiated instance of the Pie class, which would answer in the context of the generic type parameter, not the whole Pie class.

            This is too funny. Everyone here, me included, is profoundly overthinking this, lol.

    • Konlanx@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      This is likely referring to TypeScript.

      TypeScript has all of these patterns, they are used very frequently and they are necessary because TypeScript tends to be interesting from time to time since its types only exist at compile time, because it compiles to JavaScript, which is a language without types.

      TypeScript also allows any as a keyword, which says “I don’t know which type this is and I don’t care”, which still produces valid JavaScript. To get back to typed variables it is necessary to use typeof (or similar constructs like a type guard).

      https://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/2/typeof-types.html

      • m_r_butts@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Given the callout as a mixin, you’re probably right. Other languages have them, but I’ve only heard something described in practice as a mixin working in Angular and Typescript. (Neither of which are my forte, so if I’m wrong, I’m wrong.)

    • m_r_butts@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      I’m not shy about using typeof for logging when it’s appropriate. Anything braver than that and you’re probably getting into reflection, which also means you’re probably not writing the code the way you should.

      • mordack550@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        11 months ago

        Your assumption that “using reflection means the code is wrong” seems a bit extreme, at least in .Net. Every time you interact with types, you use reflection. Xml and Json serialization/deserialization uses reflection, and also Entity Framework. If you use mocking in test you are using reflection.

        We have an excel export functionality on our sites that uses reflection because we can write 1 function and export any types we want, thanks to reflection.

        • m_r_butts@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          I said “probably”. I’m not out here blacklisting a useful tool. That would be ridiculous. If you found a situation where it was appropriate, great, more power to you. Those cases definitely exist.

          • A good sense of “code smell” is one of the most valuable programming skills. I think your “probably” is justified: if you’re doing X, you should look twice at how you’re doing it. Maybe it’s right, but usually it’s not, so it’s worth a pause and a thought.

            • dzervas@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              huh, you’re right! I’m trained on a different kind of code. In C# in particular, which I use mostly to do sneaky stuff (patch/inject runtime code to, um, “fix” it) and when I see a project that it’s too clean it smells

              I also see python code (I code regular stuff in it) that could be written much more cleanly using monkey-patching

      • _Z1useri@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        Hm, I’m currently working on a project with a ton of runtime-configurable plug-ins and dependencies between them. All of that is held together with a copious amount of black QMetaObject magic. I had the same thought about it, but I’m not sure how you’d get similar functionality without reflection and not making it even more convoluted and fragile…

        • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          Metaprogramming is extremely useful for long term code readability. What you’re doing is probably fine but we can’t really evaluate that without seeing the actual code.