We Keep Coding

implementation problem and code optimization

I'm studying CS and am still a Java / programming noob, we've got following code in class and have to explain the problems with the following method and are supposed to optimize it:
public static void printData(int[] list) {
int i = 0;
do {
System.out.println(list[i++]);
} while (i < list.length);
}
So, my first thought is that it's of course possible to use a do-while loop, but that I would have used a for loop such as:
public static void pd(int[] list) {
for (int i = 0; i < list.length; i++)
System.out.println(list[i]);
}
for optimization.
Now, the other method is also possible tho and I cannot figure out the problem with it, maybe that it's not too compatible because of the static declaration, but I'm starting to wrap my head around how to deal with calling non-staticmethods from main, if you have any other advice, I've got open ears.

I will not post code here because it sounds like it is a homework. Anyway I'll give you some hints to work on:
What happens in the method provided "printData" if the length of the input array is 0?
What if the list you're getting as input is null?
About the thing with non-static methods, they can only be called upon the instance on the class and not independently.
You can find more in this other question on StackOverflow
Best,

How to properly use the remove() method in java for an array [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
How do I remove objects from an array in Java?
(20 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
Is there any fast (and nice looking) way to remove an element from an array in Java?

You could use commons lang's ArrayUtils.
array = ArrayUtils.removeElement(array, element)
commons.apache.org library:Javadocs

Your question isn't very clear. From your own answer, I can tell better what you are trying to do:
public static String[] removeElements(String[] input, String deleteMe) {
List result = new LinkedList();
for(String item : input)
if(!deleteMe.equals(item))
result.add(item);
return result.toArray(input);
}
NB: This is untested. Error checking is left as an exercise to the reader (I'd throw IllegalArgumentException if either input or deleteMe is null; an empty list on null list input doesn't make sense. Removing null Strings from the array might make sense, but I'll leave that as an exercise too; currently, it will throw an NPE when it tries to call equals on deleteMe if deleteMe is null.)
Choices I made here:
I used a LinkedList. Iteration should be just as fast, and you avoid any resizes, or allocating too big of a list if you end up deleting lots of elements. You could use an ArrayList, and set the initial size to the length of input. It likely wouldn't make much of a difference.

The best choice would be to use a collection, but if that is out for some reason, use arraycopy. You can use it to copy from and to the same array at a slightly different offset.
For example:
public void removeElement(Object[] arr, int removedIdx) {
System.arraycopy(arr, removedIdx + 1, arr, removedIdx, arr.length - 1 - removedIdx);
}
Edit in response to comment:
It's not another good way, it's really the only acceptable way--any tools that allow this functionality (like Java.ArrayList or the apache utils) will use this method under the covers. Also, you REALLY should be using ArrayList (or linked list if you delete from the middle a lot) so this shouldn't even be an issue unless you are doing it as homework.
To allocate a collection (creates a new array), then delete an element (which the collection will do using arraycopy) then call toArray on it (creates a SECOND new array) for every delete brings us to the point where it's not an optimizing issue, it's criminally bad programming.
Suppose you had an array taking up, say, 100mb of ram. Now you want to iterate over it and delete 20 elements.
Give it a try...
I know you ASSUME that it's not going to be that big, or that if you were deleting that many at once you'd code it differently, but I've fixed an awful lot of code where someone made assumptions like that.

You can't remove an element from the basic Java array. Take a look at various Collections and ArrayList instead.

Nice looking solution would be to use a List instead of array in the first place.
List.remove(index)
If you have to use arrays, two calls to System.arraycopy will most likely be the fastest.
Foo[] result = new Foo[source.length - 1];
System.arraycopy(source, 0, result, 0, index);
if (source.length != index) {
System.arraycopy(source, index + 1, result, index, source.length - index - 1);
}
(Arrays.asList is also a good candidate for working with arrays, but it doesn't seem to support remove.)

I think the question was asking for a solution without the use of the Collections API. One uses arrays either for low level details, where performance matters, or for a loosely coupled SOA integration. In the later, it is OK to convert them to Collections and pass them to the business logic as that.
For the low level performance stuff, it is usually already obfuscated by the quick-and-dirty imperative state-mingling by for loops, etc. In that case converting back and forth between Collections and arrays is cumbersome, unreadable, and even resource intensive.
By the way, TopCoder, anyone? Always those array parameters! So be prepared to be able to handle them when in the Arena.
Below is my interpretation of the problem, and a solution. It is different in functionality from both of the one given by Bill K and jelovirt. Also, it handles gracefully the case when the element is not in the array.
Hope that helps!
public char[] remove(char[] symbols, char c)
{
for (int i = 0; i < symbols.length; i++)
{
if (symbols[i] == c)
{
char[] copy = new char[symbols.length-1];
System.arraycopy(symbols, 0, copy, 0, i);
System.arraycopy(symbols, i+1, copy, i, symbols.length-i-1);
return copy;
}
}
return symbols;
}

You could use the ArrayUtils API to remove it in a "nice looking way". It implements many operations (remove, find, add, contains,etc) on Arrays.
Take a look. It has made my life simpler.

okay, thx a lot
now i use sth like this:
public static String[] removeElements(String[] input, String deleteMe) {
if (input != null) {
List<String> list = new ArrayList<String>(Arrays.asList(input));
for (int i = 0; i < list.size(); i++) {
if (list.get(i).equals(deleteMe)) {
list.remove(i);
}
}
return list.toArray(new String[0]);
} else {
return new String[0];
}
}

Some more pre-conditions are needed for the ones written by Bill K and dadinn
Object[] newArray = new Object[src.length - 1];
if (i > 0){
System.arraycopy(src, 0, newArray, 0, i);
}
if (newArray.length > i){
System.arraycopy(src, i + 1, newArray, i, newArray.length - i);
}
return newArray;

You can not change the length of an array, but you can change the values the index holds by copying new values and store them to a existing index number.
1=mike , 2=jeff // 10 = george 11 goes to 1 overwriting mike .
Object[] array = new Object[10];
int count = -1;
public void myFunction(String string) {
count++;
if(count == array.length) {
count = 0; // overwrite first
}
array[count] = string;
}

Copy your original array into another array, without the element to be removed.
A simplier way to do that is to use a List, Set... and use the remove() method.

Swap the item to be removed with the last item, if resizing the array down is not an interest.

I hope you use the java collection / java commons collections!
With an java.util.ArrayList you can do things like the following:
yourArrayList.remove(someObject);
yourArrayList.add(someObject);

Use an ArrayList:
alist.remove(1); //removes the element at position 1

Sure, create another array :)

Returning an arraylist and iterating throught the returned list

Im trying to return an arraylist from the method getNumbers (which contains strings)
public ArrayList<String> getNumbers(){
return (numeros);
}
Then by using a searcher im trying to compare between a variable m (which contains the desired info to look for) and the returned list.
public class NumberSearcher {
Reader reader = new KeyboardReader();
public NumberSearcher(ArrayList<Contacto> contactos){
String m = reader.read();
for(int i = 0; i<contactos.size();i++){
if(contactos.get(i).getPhoneNumbers().contains(m)){
contactos.get(i).display();
}
}
}
}
I have succeded in creating a searcher using this very same style but only when using methods that return String alone.
The problem is its not working. If there there would be a match it should display the contact information but it seem it isnt "comparing" properly because nothing happens.

It's difficult to understand what you're asking here. Your getNumbers method doesn't get called from the second code block, so I don't see where that is relating to anything. It's also unclear what you mean the problem is. Can you try to give us a more detailed description of what is going wrong?
Anyways, I'll try to give you some general advice here, but without knowing the issue it's hard to say how much this will help.
Firstly, it is almost always recommended to have your method's return type as the List interface, rather than a specific implementation (ArrayList, etc). You can specify a return type from within the method but this way they client doesn't need to know what the underlying data structure is, and you are also flexible to future data structure changes.
public List<String> getNumbers(){
return (numeros);
}
Secondly, I would probably change the name 'getNumbers' to something slightly more precise - if I see a 'getNumbers' method I expect it to return some numeric entities, not a list of strings. If they are phone numbers then explicity call it 'getPhoneNumbers'.
Though I'm not entirely sure I understand what you asking, I think this may solve your issues:
for(int i = 0; i < contactos.size(); i++) {
Contacto next = contactos.get(i);
if(next.getEmails().contains(m)) {
next.display();
}
}
And as an afterthought, is there any specific reason you're only checking string containment? I would suggest that you check case-insensitive equality unless you really do want to find out if the string just contains the element.

Is this what you are looking for?
public class EmailSearcher {
Reader reader = new KeyboardReader();
public EmailSearcher(ArrayList<Contacto> contactos){
while(reader.read() != 'keyThatTerminates') {
String m = reader.read();
for(int i = 0; i<contactos.size();i++){
var row = contactos.get(i);
if(row.getEmails().contains(m)){
row.display();
}
}
}
}
}

Remove all 10s in a list and append a same number of 0s to the list at the end in JAVA

I've done most part of this. Anyone give me a small hint about how do I find the number of 10s in the list.
Eg. Input would be
[10,4,6,10,6,7]
Output must be
[4,6,6,7,0,0]
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
public class prob64 {
public static List output;
public static void getVal(List ll)
{
int count=0;
List ll1=new ArrayList();
for(int i=0;i<ll.size();i++)
{
if((int)ll.get(i)!=10)
{
ll1.add(ll.get(i));
}
if((int)ll.get(i)==10)
{
count++;
}
}
if(count>0)
{
ll1.add(8);
}
output=ll1;
System.out.println(output);
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
List<Integer> ll=new ArrayList();
ll.add(10);
ll.add(1);
ll.add(10);
ll.add(2);
prob64.getVal(ll);
}
}
The current output I'm getting is [1,2,0]. I'm supposed to get [1,2,0,0]

List.remove(Object) removes the first matching element. It also returns a boolean indicating if a removal was really done, so this should work :
while(ll.remove(10)) {
ll.add(0);
}
That is, as long as you find 10s to remove, add 0s. Note that List.add adds the element at the end of the list, which is your requirement (if I'm correct).
I suppose this is some kind of learning exercise, but I would advise you to find better names for your variable (ll & ll1 does not make your function easy to read).

You are adding only one zero at the end of the loop (in case 10s were found). You should count the number of 10s then add zeros as much as this number. Your program should look something like this:
int count=0;
List ll1=new ArrayList();
for(int i=0;i<ll.size();i++)
{
if((int)ll.get(i)!=10)
ll1.add(ll.get(i));
else
count++;
}
for(int j=0; j<count;j++)
ll1.add(0);

If count is number of 10's to add, use:
for(int j=0; j<count;j++){
ll1.add(8); // or ll1.add(0); ???
}

Few points to add to what others have mentioned above
I don't see any reason why you must define the output List to be static. When you define something(variables/functions) as static they are owned by the class rather that the objects and also it is a good programming practice not to change them using instance functions.What I mean is if you wish only to print there is no need of that output instance variable. You can directly print ll1.
Please use Generics in your code. When you know all you have in your list are integers specify it - Even in the function getVal(). I don't know how your code is compiling but you cannot cast Object to an int.
(int)ll.get(i)!=10
This code will fail. Try using Integer instead of int.
Your problem statement read replacing all 10's with 0's. So why are you adding 8 instead.It must be
ll1.add(0);
As other have specifies you need to add 0 as many time as your count is. So another loop is needed. Rest all look good.

Java: For loop and If algorithm

I've this question from an assignment to create a Store which rent out books, using a Store.java and Book.java. I've finished this assignment, but I'm curious for better algorithm to a specific part.
--
Book.java
public class Book {
private String name;
Book(String name)
this.name = name;
public String getName()
return name;
}
Store.java
Inside main();
Book bookObj[] = new Book[3]; //Create 3 Array of Object.
bookObj[0] = new Book("Game Over");
bookObj[1] = new Book("Shrek");
bookObj[2] = new Book("Ghost");
Scanner console = new Scanner(System.in)
input = console.nextLine();
Assuming, input = Devil.
Now, I need to do a simple search to check whether the specific book exist.
Example:
for(int i = 0; i < bookObj.length; i++) {
if(bookObj[i].getName().equals(input))
System.out.println("Book Found!");
}
Apparently, this is a for loop that cycles through the array of object and checks whether such Book exist. Now, the problem arise when I want to give an output that the Book was not found.
Example:
for(int i = 0; i < bookObj.length; i++) {
if(bookObj[i].getName().equals(input))
System.out.println("Book Found!");
else
System.out.println("Book not Found!");
}
The problem with the above code is that Book not Found would be printed thrice. My goal is to avoid such problem. I do have solutions to this, but I'm still in search for a better one to use that utilizes getName(), which in my opinion still has room to improve.
Usually, in structural programming, I would do the following,
for(int i = 0; i < bookObj.length; i++) {
if(bookObj[i].getName().equals(input))
System.out.println("Book Found!");
else if(i == bookObj.length - 1)
System.out.println("Book not Found!");
}
This is useful to tell whether it's the end of the loop, and the search has ended, but there was no successful result from the search.
How should I think of it in Object Oriented way?
All in all, my question is,
Is there a better way to write the above code rather than checking that it's the end of the line?
Is there a better way to utilize getName() method or to use other methods?

You should loop through the array and use an index / boolean flag to store whether or not the book is found. Then print the message in the end, based on the index / flag value.
int foundAtIndex = -1;
for(int i = 0; i < bookObj.length; i++) {
if(bookObj[i].getName().equals(input)) {
foundAtIndex = i; // store the actual index for later use
break; // no need to search further
}
}
if(foundAtIndex >= 0)
System.out.println("Book Found!");
else
System.out.println("Book not Found!");
Alternatively (unless your assignment specifically requires using an array) you should prefer a Set, which can do the search for you with a single call to contains().
How should I think of it in Object Oriented way?
When looking at a single method, there is not much difference between procedural and OO style. The differences start to appear at a higher level, when trying to organize a bunch of conceptually related data and methods that operate on these.
The OO paradigm is to tie the methods to the data they operate on, and encapsulate both into coherent objects and classes. These classes are preferably representations of important domain concepts. So for your book store, you may want to put all book related code into your Book class. However, the above search method (and the collection of books it operates on) is not related to any particular book instance, so you have different choices:
put both the collection of books and the search method into Store (probably as regular members), or
put them into Book as static members.
The first choice is more natural, so I normally would prefer that. However, under specific circumstances the second option might be preferable. In (OO) design, there are hardly ever clean "yes/no" answers - rather tradeoffs between different options, each having their own strengths and weaknesses.

You could introduce state and remember whether you have found the book or not.
If you're not using Java 1.4 or earlier, you could also use the foreach loop syntax:
boolean bookFound = false;
for(Book currentBook : bookObj) {
if(currentBook.getName().equals(input))
//TODO: see above
}
Also, I would suggest looking into the Collections library, and replace your array with a list or set:
Set<Book> books = new HashSet<Book>();
books.put(new Book("Game Over"));
books.put(new Book("Shrek"));
books.put(new Book("Ghost"));
And, while were at it, you could also think about when two books are equal and override equals() and hashCode() accordingly. If equal() would be changed to check the title, you could simply use books.contains(new Book(input)); and have the libraries do the work for you.

To solve the problem in a better way you must understand that the power of Java comes not from the language itself but from the Java Framework.
You should learn the usage of the Java Collection classes (never work with arrays anymore). Then you will be able to solve the search with just one line of code:
ArrayList<Book> listOfBooks;
// init your list here
listOfBooks.contains(new Book(input));
To make this work, you must also learn how to correctly implement the equals() method of your Book class.
Happy learning!

Here is a working solution :
import java.util.Scanner;
public class Store {
private static class Book {
private String name;
Book(String name) {
this.name = name;
}
public String getName() {
return name;
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
String input;
Book[] bookObj = new Book[3];
bookObj[0] = new Book("Game Over");
bookObj[1] = new Book("Shrek");
bookObj[2] = new Book("Ghost");
Scanner console = new Scanner(System.in);
input = console.nextLine();
boolean found = false;
int i = 0;
while(!found && i < bookObj.length) {
if(bookObj[i].getName().equals(input)) {
System.out.println("Book Found at position : " + i);
found = true;
} else {
i++;
}
}
if(!found) {
System.out.println("Book not Found!");
}
// Here i contains the indice of the element found in the array.
}
}

You've gotten some pretty good advice thus far. You asked if there was a more Object Oriented way of thinking about the problem so I thought I'd try and shed some light on it. As Peter already mentioned at this level of the design it's a single method implementation so the approach is going to be fairly similar as say a procedural approach. What's the advantage? In a word reuse. If you needed to find a book by name in lots of places then moving the code to it's own class will help.
So what you have is a single Book instance to encapsulate behavior around a single book, but you want to have behavior about multiple books, or a collection of books. You can keep the data (array of books), and the method that account on them separate as you outlined in your program. However, if we wanted to collect a place for doing behavior on a collection of books we can define a new class. Let's call it Library, and we might do something like the following:
public class Library {
private Book[] books;
private bookCount = 0;
public Library( int numberOfTotalBooks ) {
books = new Book[numberOfTotalBooks];
}
public boolean addBook( Book book ) {
if( bookCount < book.length ) {
books[bookCount++] = book;
return true;
}
return false;
}
public Book findByTitle( String title ) {
for( int i = 0; i < bookCount; i++ ) {
if( books[i].getTitle().equals( title ) ) {
return books[i];
}
}
// didn't find one
return null;
}
}
So a couple of things to note about doing things this way. One is that when we work with a Library we don't know there is an Array back there. We could use an array, a Set, a List, or a database (most common). The point being the code that calls these functions just works with the interface of Library (not a literal Java interface, but the method signature of Library). Also this is a higher level interface. We don't worry about iterating over the books, doing for loops, if statements, etc. We just call a method saying "Hey find this book title in the Library". How that's done we don't care. This is the basic tenant of Object Orientation called encapsulation, and it's deceptively powerful. It's really about how we delegate responsibility in our program, and give the details of a job to individual class or classes. If Library had only public members (i.e. books and bookCount), or getter/setters then the client wouldn't be getting any advantages because the client would still have to do all the heavy lifting. The trick to OO is figuring out what can be delegated out of an object, without creating problems. This takes practice, and experience.
The second thing here is we've separated the presentation from the act of finding a book. The method you wrote assumed the next step which was to print "Hey we found it." However, Library object simply returns the Book to you when it finds it, or null if it didn't. That makes it possible to print to the console, display in a GUI, or serialize it to a JSON stream in a server. The act of finding a book is separate from the visualization. This is another important aspect of programming in general, but some what related to object orientation and encapsulation. This is typically called separation of concerns. The console application has concerns about supporting the UI, and printing the console. While the Library just manages cataloging and managing the book collection. How those details are performed neither cares.
In the end Library is a reusable class. We can use it in a console application, desktop, web, or middleware server. More importantly is we can also reuse the calls to findByTitle or addBooks from multiple locations within a single program. Also by putting the methods with the data we create a barrier to where that function can be used. You can't do it anywhere in your program. You have to have a reference to Library. If you don't have reference to a Library instance then you shouldn't be calling it. This can be troublesome to new developers because they lack the experience to properly organize their programs to not get into trouble with this (then they start doing value objects, creating statics, singletons, etc and things turn into a big ball of mud). It's a double edged sword.
One more thing I'd like to point out is say we wanted to model two Libraries. We have a Library uptown and downtown, and we want to allow people to check out books from either Library. With OO that's really easy to represent:
Library uptown = new Library( 50 );
Library downtown = new Library( 100 );
Now we can check out books from one or the other. And I didn't use statics (i.e. global variables) so reusing that logic is really easy. These are the basics of OO so they are really deep topics. Strange how I can write so much on very simple topics. Anyway I hope this helped you understand your program a little deeper, and see how you can use OO to help you.

chubbsondubs came closest to giving a correct answer to this question
What he missed is that his algorithm is incorrect because it contains two tests, when only one is needed. The correct code requires only 3 statements and is as follows:
public boolean zLibaryContains( String title ) {
books[bookCount] = title;
int xBook = 0;
while( true )
if( books[xBook].getTitle().equals( title ) )
return xBook != bookCount;
else xBook++;
}
Noticeably smaller and faster than all other solutions. Simplify, simplify, simplify.
Object-oriented code is a crutch to support poor designs that would otherwise be too complex to understand. The goal is write code that is so easy to understand and maintain that OO is unnecessary and would make the program worse. When your program can be improved by adding OO, it means you are doing something wrong to begin with.