4 ms·

The `add1` method should be declared static

by varav 12y ago

chriswarbo 12y ago
`add1` isn't a method, it's a function. Besides, "static methods" are a hack: If it's a behaviour of the class rather than its instances, then make it a method of the class. You'd only need static methods for this if your language doesn't treat classes as objects (ie. it's not a particularly OO language). The example is in Python, where classes are objects, so no statics are needed. Alternatively, it may be a completely standalone piece of code, in which case it has no business being inside a class. Just make it a standalone function, and stick it in a module to avoid name clashes. You'd only need static methods for this if your language doesn't allow standalone functions, or doesn't have a module system. Since Python has both, there's no need to abuse classes like that.
- varav 12y ago
  Please read the article. I was referring to the method in the Java example. You cannot access `add1` from main since main is static
  - chriswarbo 12y ago
    Ah yes, I replied too soon :) Still, it's just a Java quirk that's irrelevant to the article.
- ninjaplease 12y ago
  Python's differentiation of class methods and static methods is very much a pythonism and seems (to my mind, not really a pythonista) mostly due to the strange semantics around passing self-reference via first argument; Java's static methods and Ruby's class methods (for example) are equivalent.
the_af 12y ago
The add1 method was declared non static on purpose, to illustrate static type checking.
- shawabawa3 12y ago
  No it wasn't. Even if the type checker passed the compilation would fail because it's trying to call a non static method from a static method
  - the_af 12y ago
    Oh, you're right, it's unintended. I didn't see the author tried to trigger a type-check error with an argument "a" of the wrong type. However, failing compilation because you're calling a non-static method from a static context is also a kind of static checking, so the author's example still works, just in unintented ways.

The `add1` method should be declared static

by varav 12y ago

The `add1` method should be declared static

`add1` isn't a method, it's a function. Besides, "static methods" are a hack: If it's a behaviour of the class rather than its instances, then make it a method of the class. You'd only need static methods for this if your language doesn't treat classes as objects (ie. it's not a particularly OO language). The example is in Python, where classes are objects, so no statics are needed. Alternatively, it may be a completely standalone piece of code, in which case it has no business being inside a class. Just make it a standalone function, and stick it in a module to avoid name clashes. You'd only need static methods for this if your language doesn't allow standalone functions, or doesn't have a module system. Since Python has both, there's no need to abuse classes like that.

varav 12y ago
Please read the article. I was referring to the method in the Java example. You cannot access `add1` from main since main is static
- chriswarbo 12y ago
  Ah yes, I replied too soon :) Still, it's just a Java quirk that's irrelevant to the article.
ninjaplease 12y ago
Python's differentiation of class methods and static methods is very much a pythonism and seems (to my mind, not really a pythonista) mostly due to the strange semantics around passing self-reference via first argument; Java's static methods and Ruby's class methods (for example) are equivalent.

the_af 12y ago

The add1 method was declared non static on purpose, to illustrate static type checking.

shawabawa3 12y ago
No it wasn't. Even if the type checker passed the compilation would fail because it's trying to call a non static method from a static method
- the_af 12y ago
  Oh, you're right, it's unintended. I didn't see the author tried to trigger a type-check error with an argument "a" of the wrong type. However, failing compilation because you're calling a non-static method from a static context is also a kind of static checking, so the author's example still works, just in unintented ways.