Skip to main content

Loops vs Functional Programming Styles

The following examples are four of the most common functional programming patterns that appear in mainstream languages though they may be known under different names.

Being a fan of CQS and CQRS, queries work great when coding using the functional style. While this is completely subjective in terms of style there is another benefit - composition. In other words the functional styles below can all be joined together with minimal changes. A traditional loop would require additional modifications. The benefit composition provides is similar to the pipes and filter architecture - it is very easy to change the behaviour of the pipeline by simply adding or removing statements.

Composition and concise code aside, traditional loops should not be avoided fully. Each scenario will have different solutions. Sometimes you really just want a standard loop.

The benefit of learning the key concepts behind Map, Filter, ForEach and Reduce is the ability to translate these styles and idioms into other languages that may have the same functionality just behind a different interface.

Map

Also known as Projection. Convert the array into a new array based on the callback provided.

Filter

Filter the array based on the callback if the result is true. In the same manner as Map, the non functional version of this code is an extremely common pattern so the functional version really shines here.

ForEach

Invokes the callback for each member of the array. This is another very common pattern that really benefits from the functional form.

Reduce

Converts the array into a single value by taking the current index and the next index as parameters to be applied.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Constant Object Anti Pattern

Most constants are used to remove magic numbers or variables that lack context. A classic example would be code littered with the number 7. What does this refer to exactly? If this was replaced with DaysInWeek or similar, much clarity is provided. You can determine that code performing offsets would be adding days, rather than a mysterious number seven.Sadly a common pattern which uses constants is the use of a single constant file or object. The beauty of constants is clarity, and the obvious fact such variables are fixed. When a constant container is used, constants are simply lumped together. These can grow in size and often become a dumping ground for all values within the application.A disadvantage of this pattern is the actual value is hidden. While a friendly variable name is great, there will come a time where you will want to know the actual value. This forces you to navigate, if only to peek at the value within the constant object. A solution is to simple perform a refactor …

Three Steps to Code Quality via TDD

Common complaints and problems that I've both encountered and hear other developers raise when it comes to the practice of Test Driven Development are: Impossible to refactor without all the tests breakingMinor changes require hours of changes to test codeTest setup is huge, slow to write and difficult to understandThe use of test doubles (mocks, stubs and fakes is confusing)Over the next three posts I will demonstrate three easy steps that can resolve the problems above. In turn this will allow developers to gain one of the benefits that TDD promises - the ability to refactor your code mercifully in order to improve code quality.StepsStop Making Everything PublicLimit the Amount of Dependencies you Use A Unit is Not Always a Method or ClassCode quality is a tricky subject and highly subjective, however if you follow the three guidelines above you should have the ability to radically change implementation details and therefore improve code quality when needed.

DRY vs DAMP in Tests

In the previous post I mentioned that duplication in tests is not always bad. Sometimes duplication becomes a problem. Tests can become large or virtually identically excluding a few lines. Changes to these tests can take a while and increase the maintenance overhead. At this point, DRY violations need to be resolved.SolutionsTest HelpersA common solution is to extract common functionality into setup methods or other helper utilities. While this will remove and reduce duplication this can make tests a bit harder to read as the test is now split amongst unrelated components. There is a limit to how useful such extractions can help as each test may need to do something slightly differently.DAMP - Descriptive and Meaningful PhrasesDescriptive and Meaningful Phrases is the alter ego of DRY. DAMP tests often use the builder pattern to construct the System Under Test. This allows calls to be chained in a fluent API style, similar to the Page Object Pattern. Internally the implementation wil…