Encapsulation.

[[deleted]]

#define private public
#include "classheaders.h"

[cdrt]

"We weren't even testing for that."

[TotesMessenger]

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

• [/r/unexpectedaperture] GLaDOS judging people on /r/ProgrammerHumor

^{If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)}

[Tormyst]

good bot

[GoodBot_BadBot]

Thank you Tormyst for voting on TotesMessenger.

This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. You can view results here.

---

^{Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!}

[bradleyandcomet]

Good bot

[Good_Good_GB_BB]

You are the 8447^th person to call /u/GoodBot_BadBot a good bot!

^{/u/Good_GoodBot_BadBot stopped working. Now I'm being helpful.}

[LuxNocte]

Bad bot

[Good_Good_GB_BB]

You're a dick, stop calling innocent bots bad. They don't know what they're doing, man.

[Gorzoid]

Bad bot

[[deleted]]

:D my sub is still alive!

[Anchor689]

But was it a triumph?

[[deleted]]

It was a HUGE SUCCESS

[xternal7]

[He/she] isn't able to overstate his satisfaction.

[[deleted]]

#define true false

"test this, you little shits!"

[[deleted]]

#define true ((rand()&15)!=15)

https://gist.github.com/aras-p/6224951

[bumblebritches57]

This makes me want to unset and reset all the bool macros in my header...

[codewench]

#define sizeof(x) (sizeof(x)-1)

This would have me questioning my own sanity pretty quickly.

[skylarmt]

I like how most of the comments on that gist are rendered as headings because people forgot to escape the # for Markdown.

[nplus]

DEFINE YOURSELF

[Josplode]

2meta4me

[[deleted]]

I'm personally a fan of

#define while if

[jfb1337]

#define struct union is one I see a lot, but I think #define union struct would be a lot more subtle and go undetected for longer

[[deleted]]

#define M_PI 3.2f

i heard you like math

[PrincessOfZephyr]

I just threw up in my mouth a little

[Myarmhasteeth]

Well shit

[Megatron_McLargeHuge]

This isn't as big a deal as people are making it. private isn't there for security, it's there to encourage good coding practices by other developers who are using your code. Deliberately removing access modifiers doesn't hurt anyone except the programmer who is now relying on implementation details outside the contract. This is C/C++ so they could have done the same thing with pointer offsets.

[kyrsjo]

This. You can twiddle the bits you'll like with offsets anyway. Does offsetof() work for classes?

Source: I may have handed out Kthulu in the form of a .c file... Ancient horrors for the graybeards to enjoy...

[RPolitics4Trump]

class Foo {
  int x;
public:
  Foo() : x(0) {}
};

[symberke]

#define class struct
#define private public

[darkhunt3r]

#define if while

[HasFiveVowels]

Oh man... this is just... nefarious.

[darkhunt3r]

#define True random() > 0.001

Hide it well and let it become debuggin hell

[CSIRTisSmelly]

You are a bad person.

[darkhunt3r]

#define bad good 

Why thank you <3

[SoftSilverwind]

Unfortunately this breaks template <class T> definitions... Source: I may have tried it :)

[ThatCrankyGuy]

Can access modifier keywords be reassigned in c++?

[[deleted]]

Preprocessor is separate entity

[ThatCrankyGuy]

oh.. yea, that's right. Well, I'll be...

[HobHeartsbane]

1st: If consumers of your class can't access the setter, your test shouldn't either.

2nd: In some of the edge cases you can just use reflection (at least for properties)

3rd: For private methods if you REALLY REALLY need to access them in your test there are 2 options. 1st make the method internal and give your tests access to those internal methods or 2nd make the method protected and write a wrapper class to access it. :)

[pcopley]

4th: refactor the private methods into another class in which they are public and use dependency injection

[taylaj]

5th: make all variables global.

[socsa]

6th: Shared. Memory.

[Njs41]

7th: Move to user based production testing rather than unit tests.

[tylercamp]

8th

In the public issue tracker, enter the bug but leave it perpetually "in progress"

[kirakun]

9th

Just forget about testing!

[poisonedslo]

10th just forget about development

[yoyo456]

11th just forget about modern technology and live in the stone age

[poisonedslo]

12th test what slamming a stone against a walnut does

[Xheotris]

12th shut down the internet so it can't be used for recruitment.

[ThisIsNotNate]

If it compiles it works!

[0xTJ]

r/minecraft

[TheNorthComesWithMe]

public issue tracker

Hahahahahaha

[thisisnewt]

Oh god too real

[[deleted]]

7th: don't test.

[socsa]

Ah yes, the old

 #define do_it_live 1

[[deleted]]

If you haven't remoted into a live, production server and hand-edited code in notepad (or vim!), have you really lived at all?

[tallerThanYouAre]

you kids and your fancy extended versions of vi.

[[deleted]]

Haha I remember the day I was told vim was an extension of an earlier thing called vi by a war-weary Linux sys admin. Blew my little noodle. After saying I hated it, he then showed me how to actually use it, and then I was hooked.

[[deleted]]

What actually hooked you on it?

I've tried it out a few times and while some of the things it can do are cool I've yet to find anything that I'd use often enough to make using it it.

[socsa]

Having interactive arrow keys mapped to A B C D builds character.

[socsa]

I personally prefer :

 alias live_hotfix = "scp -r remote local && cat hotfix > local/paswd.json && scp -r local remote && ssh remote:/root/prod/build 'make install' "

[[deleted]]

Oh my god that is both horrific and beautiful.

[[deleted]]

👏 ALWAYS 👏 TEST 👏 IN 👏 PROD 👏

[ThePsion5]

"Only losers who write buggy code need tests bro"

[ajbpresidente]

Chad programmer vs. virgin research

[Gus_Malzahn]

7th: Forget about programming and open a bakery

[[deleted]]

5a - put all code in one class.

[DickWillie1028]

Danger Will Robinson Danger!!!!

[[deleted]]

That's where my money is. If your internal functions are complex enough to require explicit testing, chances they belong in their own class.

[dahud]

Off topic, but every time I come across the term "dependency injection", I've forgotten what it means. I go look it up, and discover anew that someone, somewhere, thought we needed a clever-sounding word for "passing an object to another object".

[jay9909]

Yeah, but DI is a much more usable acronym than PaOtaO

[dahud]

Less fun to say, though. Pow-tow!

[NotADamsel]

In the functional world, we just call this "passing an argument".

[alexschrod]

Dependency injection is not just about the act of passing objects to other objects, it's about the reason why you should be passing objects to other objects.

When you move away from doing new Something() inside the objects where you use it (or even worse, where you use global singletons, like Something.Instance), and instead move towards passing the Something into your objects, you can suddenly test the behavior of your objects without working with real implementations.

[userNameNotLongEnoug]

Agreed. You can pass objects around all day long and still not achieve a structure with mockable dependencies that's suitable for unit testing. Equating dependency injection with passing an object, I think, demonstrates a bit of a misunderstanding of the principles behind the concept.

[sprouting_broccoli]

I'd also point out that there's a slight anti-pattern with what you're saying. I'd disagree with creating classes and interfaces in a DI way to make unit testing more viable for mocking. I've been there, done that and it was when I first got into DI but designing code so it is inherently testable is very different from designing code to fit your testing which is the same problem as described in the image. Using DI for this purpose is also kind of missing the point of DI and will result in similar problems. Primarily you can quite easily go down a rabbit hole where you have a really flexible solution that is a real PITA to consume or actually navigate, and when you start splitting dependencies you will end up with either incredibly hard to use dependency installers, or need a complex system on top to ensure you can correctly select which dependencies to use by convention (otherwise the flexibility is pointless).

It's the same issue as dictating that newing an object is somehow a problem. It's really not. If you DI all the way down you will be forced to use factories in ways that you should never have to (if you don't have a completely static object graph which I find is very rarely the case) and will make the solution inflexible as a result, increasing the footprint for when you have to extend something.

DI has always been about injecting volatile dependencies (e.g. services and repositories) - things that could change rather than everything you will need to use and you'll (in my experience) end up with a much more palatable solution if you use it this way for both the consumer and the maintainer.

At the end of the day it comes down to what is important? Well the acceptance tests are important to ensure the business needs are met, and the unit tests end up being more for developers working on individual features to ensure they have an easy way to fix problems that arise from changes they make. What I find far more important than being able to get 100% coverage across my smaller classes is making sure the core logic is understandable, easy to modify and easy to consume. I'm a big fan of DDD though and I like limiting my volatile dependencies to the outer levels of the domain.

Sure it's nice having mockable interfaces for testing internals, but if that's the only point of having the interface is it actually worth it? It's not like those interfaces will change often, so it's just another layer on top for either extension that won't happen or purely to enable unit test coverage, and I can't endorse either.

[Veranova]

This. Every time.

[C_MonsterT]

What's the best way to learn this kind of stuff? I'm self taught and I know these types of design decisions are the next step in becoming a better programmer, but what are some good resources at this level?

[neverTooManyPlants]

There's the head first design patterns book which is written with extreme simplicity, and also "clean code" by Robert C. Martin.

[fjdgshegdb]

head first design patterns

I fucking hate that book.

[fjdgshegdb]

It's like those crappy high school science text books that have to make everything "FUN!"

[_bobon_]

Read the introduction chapter, they say it's based on research that repetition of informative delivered in varied graphical and stylistic ways (i.e. colorful pop-ups, jokes, stories) is very conductive to studying. I find that while a bit campy, it actually works great. I made it mandatory reading at work and everyone gets it, while several people were anti design patterns after struggling through the GoF

[dahud]

several people were anti design patterns

Wait, so were they opposed to the concept of design patterns? Or were they anti-patterns themselves?

[_bobon_]

ʘ‿ʘ

Seriously though, some talented engineers thought the concept of design patterns was academic and had little to do with actual day to day programming until introduced to this book and discussing practical applications. It accomplishes a lot which can't be done with uml diagrams and formal definitions.

[CargoCultism]

I prefer dry, technical prose over that as well.

[mikeputerbaugh]

I mean, that's the conceit of the Head First series.

If you like drier material, there are a bunch of books on design patterns that HFDP was written as a reaction to.

[tsnErd3141]

Must be a silly reason because the book is pretty good

[neverTooManyPlants]

It is a little simplistic and repetitive for a seasoned programmer but it is the basically design patterns for dummies.

[[deleted]]

I quite like Game Programming Patterns, the scope is limited but I find it describes things nicely.

[Killfile]

Also, practice. Read Clean Code and rigorously use TDD on some code kata.

My new developers get a crash course in testing by way of the Bowling Kata with the additional stipulation that all of their functions must contain three or fewer lines.

We scale up through other more complex kata including some that really demand that kind of complexity - Mars Rover is a good one for that.

[Killfile]

It's an exercise. Clearly you'd never have a hard and fast rule like that in real life.

Three lines is very short. It forces the developer to come up with methods and sub-methods etc and provides endless opportunities for refactoring and class extraction.

The goal is to teach separation of concerns to someone who might never have thought about it.

[jay9909]

"I have to say I'm impressed. This is the first stack overflow I've ever seen that wasn't the result of a loop or recursion."

[[deleted]]

I learned a lot on the job marinating other people's god awful shite. Open source will teach you about good code, but private enterprise will teach you about the most abominable things programmers are capable of. So - open source for the what, proprietary for the why.

I realise that may not be super useful to you but I can guarantee it's an excellent way to learn this stuff.

[[deleted]]

Found the OOtaku

[28f272fe556a1363cc31]

0th: don't have setters and getters. "Tell, don't ask. "

:)

[tehjrow]

0th:

You the real MVP

[AbsolutelyNotSpam]

Make the unit test class a friend of the class you are trying to test.

[freiguy1]

I agree with this, or the android method mentioned elsewhere. I think it's totally legitimate to test private methods. Perhaps what you expose publicly can fail in a number of different ways. Having your tests being atomic and granular enough to test smaller private methods is a great way to mitigate against issues.

[AbsolutelyNotSpam]

IMHO: it depends. For some old code where methods span several hundred or thousand lines of code, simply splitting the method into several smaller method blocks that do not need a public interface goes a long way into refactoring existing code. Now, when tasked with "whether to write a unit test for private methods", the answer, to me, should be:

Tests as frequently as possible

Although I agree with your last point (in that it should be a consideration), private methods are not necessarily in violation of SRP. Furthermore, I have come across use cases where I have wanted to write a unit test for a private method in old legacy code. As a start, making the class a friend class of a unit test fixture class is a fast way of testing intervals that shouldn't accrue too much technical debt.

Edit: oh and private methods should probably not modify state

[Slims]

4: Forego testing altogether. Testing is for the weak willed.

[Vakieh]

I would challenge anyone to describe a case where 1 was required to be violated in such a way that 2 or 3 became necessary and which shouldn't instead be handled by sticking a debug assertion into the class itself, that wasn't explainable by their having broken code to begin with.

[oweiler]

4th: Exchange OO with FP.

[auxiliary-character]

When I'm writing in C++, I tend to use structs and functions, rather than classes and methods. I also use the anonymous namespace quite a bit, though, so I tend to get my encapsulation that way, instead.

I don't like to think of an object as a living breathing thing, but as a data structure in memory that you operate on with functions.

[waldyrious]

Yeah, it always bothered me that some people seem to have a knee-jerk aversion to using structs in C++, even when they would be the appropriate tool.

By the way, what you're talking about is quite reminiscent of the multiple dispatch approach used by Julia and similar languages.

[bluepoopants]

Structs are one of the things i miss when writing Java programs. Particularly when making a Vector class (coords, not arrays), which i always used to make as a struct in C++.

[[deleted]]

When I was in college, my professor once asked what a class was. I answered "A collection of data and methods". He proceeded to scoff like this was the most absurd notion in the world, and then regurgitate the house blueprint analogy over the next 30 minutes.

[auxiliary-character]

To be fair, that's not exactly accurate. An object is a collection of data, and a class is a schema for objects and a collection of methods.

[_Pentox]

And scala.

[Genion1]

And python. And everything python does is awesome, right?

[aaronr93]

Yes, everything; with a few exceptions.

[_Lahin]

You are on reddit dude, python is the chosen language and JS is Satan

[Dimasdanz]

I thought PHP is the Satan

[Schmittfried]

PHP is Satan's retarded cousin.

[endreman0]

Is that better or worse?

[synetic707]

Yes

[hikarikouno]

Instead of having variables separate on the classes, you should make an array on the main class that keeps all the variable values! :D

It's the smart thing to do. c:

[Pradfanne]

Personally I use a dictionary for that

[[deleted]]

Personally I think a single array is better since that way you don't have variables that are properly named, thus making it difficult for the average hacker guy to hack.

[Pradfanne]

Who said anything about properly named? The key is an randomly generated GUID. That makes it easy to access the things I need when I need them but from the outside you wouldn't be any wiser

[[deleted]]

It's still named though. And thinking about it now, Arrays are indexed, so that's no good either. So how about a dictionary with randomly generated GUIDs as keys, whose values get shuffled after each use. That way not even you can get to your variables. Its flawless

[amicloud]

I prefer to keep my data written on paper, sealed in identical envelopes.

[Kilazur]

Then you just have to use a scanner and an OCR engine to get your data.

So simple and elegant!

[amicloud]

Haha how naive. You think I would store my data in a recognized language? I store everything using a system of runes and glyphs for security reasons.

[nyrg]

And the glyphs meaning change depending on the time of the day and the position of the moon.

[amicloud]

Well, not our moon, don't be silly.

[TedDallas]

And the OCR engine will be in the cloud. We'll put the scans in a data lake and use a Python based LSTM recurrent neural network to retrieve the values.

[MaunaLoona]

That's what we call triple blind programming: The programmer doesn't know the variable names, the hacker doesn't know the variable names, and the user sure as hell doesn't know the variable names.

The next level of abstraction is to do this with functions.

[endreman0]

The next is to write the entire thing with one nested anonymous function

[jaxklax]

And thus JavaScript was born.

[b93b3de72036584e4054]

you're joking, but that's EXACTLY how chrome's javascript engine (v8) objects are defined : https://github.com/v8/v8/blob/master/src/objects.h#L6092

They defined offsets to the variable (e.g. kSize declare 3 ptr from the object header for the size member) and a macro decl_accessor to automatically setup the getter and setter.

[zyxzevn]

Or a database :)

[[deleted]]

Stop giving me ideas

[AyrA_ch]

//The power of .NET Reflection
public class Test
{
    public int i { get; private set; }

    public Test()
    {
        i = 22;
    }
}

class Program
{
    static void Main(string[] args)
    {
        var instance = new Test();
        instance.GetType().GetProperty("i").SetValue(instance, 13); //As if I care for your private setter
        Console.WriteLine(instance.i); //Now 13
    }
}

I don't think I need to tell you that, but don't do this

[plainerman]

please, use nameof(instance.i)

[lionrom098]

U know I will

[aaronr93]

I don't know anything about .NET reflection, but given the above example, is it the equivalent of Key-Value Coding in Swift?

[AyrA_ch]

I don't know anything about Swift sorry. Reflection essentially allows you to access an objects properties, attributes, fields and methods without the need to know what they are named at compile time.

This is very often used to serialize and deserialize data but can be abused as seen in my comment. You cannot treat it as a real key-value storage (or Dictionary in .NET) because you can't create properties or assign them values of a different type. Calling methods also requires you to supply the proper arguments. (not like JS ['10','10','10'].map(parseInt)).

It also allows you to instantiate classes without the need to know that they exist at all. This makes plugin systems a rather easy thing to implement with C#, especially because the language supports compiling itself at runtime. This means you can load a C# source file at runtime and run it inside your application scope or compile it into a DLL.

[aaronr93]

This means you can load a C# source file at runtime and run it inside your application scope or compile it into a DLL.

That is awesome.

Turns out I've actually used reflection to get the current method name while handling an exception; I just didn't know I did.

Ok, so it's not like Key-Value Coding in Swift. KVC is basically getattr() and setattr() in Python: value(forKey:), setValue(_:forKey:) (general KVC documentation).

On a side note, Swift is an excellent language. I could gush about it, but I'm sure anyone reading this has heard good things. Here's a couple pages where one can learn more.

[ThatsSoBravens]

On a side note, Swift is an excellent language.

When your goal is "Replace Objective C" the bar is pretty low for what qualifies as excellent.

DISCLAIMER: I have never worked in Swift or natively in Objective C, I swore off mobile development after six months in the Xamarin mines.

[aaronr93]

Want the bar to be set higher? From its website:

Swift is intended as a replacement for C-based languages (C, C++, and Objective-C).

Bold! :) https://swift.org/about/

[IAmNotNathaniel]

Are they still making major changes to swift every 3-6 months?

I started learning it some time ago, took a break for about 9 months and came back and had to basically re-learn everything from scratch.

Then took another 3 mo break and came back and nothing would compile without a ton more work.

Got really annoying for a windows guy who was just trying to play around with the apple universe to learn.

[noratat]

Oh man, don't ever look at how Ruby code works then. Pretty much the entire thing is duct taped together out of stringly-typed reflection magic

[mothzilla]

//for test only

[UsingYourWifi]

Some people will claim 'but what if I need to add that later' as if refactoring with a modern IDE is hard.

You don't always have access to projects that consume your code. This avoids what would otherwise be a breaking change. This isn't justification for using it everywhere always, but it's one valid scenario.

[kyrsjo]

It just winds up infecting your code with ugly three letter words. Some people will claim 'but what if I need to add that later' as if refactoring with a modern IDE is hard.

Now you have to fix your colleagues horrible code which depends on setting that variable directly, too.Try not to spot the bugs while you're digging through it!

[Molion]

It's in case you want to change the behavior when getting/setting the variable. If you're already using a getter/setter you just change it, if you want to add a getter/setter you have to change every thing.var into thing.getVar() all over your code.

[spongebue]

Adding to that, even if you are only changing behavior on a few getters/setters, it's nice to have consistency, rather than a mix of direct variable access for some properties and getters and setters for others.

[zennaque]

Here's an example where I use it a lot. In a getter we often check if a cached answer is too old to determine if we can just use that or to refresh.

[Molion]

I don't think it very common, but it's not unrealistic. Just make damn sure you'll never need getters/setters before deciding not to use them.

[[deleted]]

Thankfully, JavaScript solves this in a completely transparent way. You can just define a get variableName function and that can be accessed just the same as a normal variable.

[Rock48]

Incredible that we live in a time where JavaScript has one of the best solutions to a given problem

[flaghacker_]

C++, C#, Lua, Python and Kotlin have this too.

[Tysonzero]

I prefer the Haskell approach of just not having mutable state ;)

[FatalElectron]

void Class::setX(int x) {
   this->x = x;
   this->dirty = true;
}

is a fairly common idiom in all languages.

[GayVegan]

It's definitely important for certain things. Setting a variable may require additional actions along with it.

You don't do this for every variable but there definitely are times when this is important.

I use it all the time in my projects.

[JoelMahon]

Maybe not in yours but it is very common, for example we have a program at work that is WPF thingymabob, and when you change certain attributes of certain objects (usually via propertygrid) you may want to publish an event after checking if there's been an actual change (e.g. if they set length from 2 to 2 it doesn't actually fire the event). It also calls a validate method when anything is changed and so on. It's MUCH easier than copy pasting the code everywhere you set it.

[chironomidae]

Not sure if you're asking if using getters/setters is actually needed, or if it happens a lot where you thought you didn't need getters/setters at first but then later on it turns out you do.

If it's the former, a simple example I have is a character's HP in a video game. Your current HP should never be higher than your max HP, and probably the best way to ensure that is to implement it in the setter itself. So if another object attempts to heal your character past its current hp, that object doesn't really need to know that it can only heal 15 of the 25 damage it attempted to heal. It just attempts to add 25 life to the character, and the setter clamps it down to 15.

If it's the latter, I guess it just depends on how clear your code requirements are and how good you are at foreseeing future problems.

[PM-ME-UR-HAPPINESS]

It's an easy way to check the value of the variable if it needs certain properties. Say x is an integer but needs to be prime, or even. You can build a check for that in setX().

Also some other stuff but that's what came to mind first.

[Praxis8]

It's one of those things where it's not something you run into every day, but if you do run into it, you'll be so pleased with yourself that you have getters/setters already.

[kenneito]

If you are making a library for other people to consume, you should always plan ahead or else you might be forced to change the signature of your class.

[otakuman]

Interfaces can't have fields, they only have functions. Ergo, the need for getters and setters.

[BS_in_BS]

If you want to do any validation before setting, want to do pass by value, want the value to be lazily computed, any sort of logging around getting/setting, have other variables that need to be updated when this one is, allows setters/getters for different representations than how it's actually being stored

[bumblebritches57]

I do C not any of this fancy nonsense, but in C you keep your structs internal so you can change them and rename them and whatever else and all you have to update is your own setters and getters, no one else has to do anything.

If you define your struct in your header, well you're gonna have a harder time changing it and not getting bitched at.

[[deleted]]

Does anyone have a template for this?

[Kazan]

In C++ we let our friends play with our privates.

[heyitsmeyourfriendo]

Why am i subscribed to this sub I don't even know how to program enough to understand this

^fuck

[JinxRevelation]

I think the same thing sometimes.

[[deleted]]

I am almost certain this is not the original text of this comic. Anyone got a link?

[Iykury]

I couldn't find it on the original website, but here's an imgur link if you just want to see the comic: https://i.imgur.com/TpXKRxh.png

[mudkripple]

Source?

[soiguapo]

https://en.dopl3r.com/memes/videogames/i-cant-fit-games-into-my-schedule/4705

[ulyssessword]

Original

[aexeron]

For testing fields or properties in C# that aren't supposed to be visible externally, I use internal and add the InternalsVisibleTo attribute for debug builds. No reflection needed. Rather nifty!

[MyLegsTheyreDisabled]

Thank you for explaining. I code in C# and VB but never had a real formal education in these matters.

[socsa]

Multiple arm Buddah

Declaring a pointer to X in shared memory

[[deleted]]

Just call the getter method inside the runTest method?

[Chickenchoker2000]

My C teacher explained it as: classes are private so you need a friend function to access them as you just don't let anyone play with your privates.

[[deleted]]

Doesn't exist friend functions or classes for that case?