Related
How can I tell if a method will never be used ?
I know that for dll files and libraries you can't really know if someone else (another project) will ever use the code.
In general I assume that anything public might be used somewhere else.
But what about private methods ? Is it safe to assume that if I don't see an explicit call to that method, it won't be used ?
I assume that for private methods it's easier to decide. But is it safe to decide it ONLY for private methods ?
Depends on the language, but commonly, a name that occurs once in the program and is not public/exported is not used. There are exceptions, such as constructors and destructors, operator overloads (in C++ and Python, where the name at the point of definition does not match the name at the call site) and various other methods.
For example, in Python, to allow indexing (foo[x]) to work, you define a method __getitem__ in the class to which foo belongs. But hardly ever would you call __getitem__ explicitly.
What you need to know is the (or all possible) entry point(s) to your code:
For a simple command line program, this is the "main" method or, in the most simple case, the top of your script.
For libraries, in fact, it is everything visible from outside.
The situation turns more complicated if methods can be referenced from outside by means of introspection. This is language specific and requires knowledge into details of the techniques used.
What you need to do is follow all references from all entry points recursively to mark up all used methods. Whatever remains unmarked can safely - and should - be removed.
Since this is a diligent but routine piece of work, there are tools available which do that for various programming languages. Examples include ReSharper for C# or ProGuard for Java.
I often seem to run into the discussion of whether or not to apply some sort of prefix/suffix convention to interface type names, typically adding "I" to the beginning of the name.
Personally I'm in the camp that advocates no prefix, but that's not what this question is about. Rather, it's about one of the arguments I often hear in that discussion:
You can no longer see at-a-glance
whether something is an interface or a
class.
The question that immediately pops up in my head is: apart from object creation, why should you ever have to care whether an object reference is a class or an interface?
I've tagged this question as language agnostic, but as has been pointed out it may not be. I contend that it is because while specific language implementation details may be interesting, I'd like to keep this on a conceptual level. In other words, I think that, conceptually, you'd never have to care whether an object reference is typed as a class or an interface but I'm not sure, hence the question.
This is not a discussion about IDEs and what they do or don't do when visualizing the different types; caring about the type of an object is certainly a necessity when browsing through code (packages/sources/whatever form). Nor is it a discussion about the pros or cons about either naming convention. I just can't seem to figure out in what scenario, other than object creation, you actually care about wether or not you're referencing a concrete type or an interface.
Most of the time, you probably don't care. But here are some instances that I can think of where you would. There are several, and it does vary a little bit by language. Some languages don't mind as much as others.
In the case of inversion of control (where someone PASSES you a parameter) you probably don't care if it's an interface or an object as far as calling its methods etc. But when dealing with types, it definitely can make a difference.
In managed languages such as .NET languages, interfaces can usually only inherit one interface, whereas a class can inherit one class but implement many interfaces. The order of classes vs interfaces may also matter in a class or interface declaration. So you need to know which is which when defining a new class or interface.
In Delphi / VCL, interfaces are reference counted and automatically collected, whereas classes must be explicitly freed, so lifecyle management on the whole is affected, not just the creation.
Interfaces may not be viable sources for class references.
Interfaces can be cast to compatible interfaces, but in many languages, they cannot be cast to compatible classes. Classes can be cast to either.
Interfaces may be passed to parameters of type IID, or IUnknown, whereas classes cannot (without a cast and a supporting interface).
An interface's implementation is unknown. Its input and output are defined, but the implementation which creates the output is abstracted. In general, ones attitude may be that when working with a class, one may know how the class works. But when working with an interface, no such assumption should be made. In a perfect world, it might make no difference. But in reality, this most certainly can have affect your design.
I agree with you (and thereby do not use an "I" prefix for interfaces). We shouldn't have to care whether it is an abstract class or an interface.
Worth noting that Java needs to have a notion of interface solely because it does not support multiple inheritance. Otherwise, "abstract class" concept would suffice (which may be "all" abstract, or partially abstract, or almost concrete and just 1 tiny bit abstract, whatever).
Things that concrete class can have and the interfaces can't:
Constructors
Instance fields
Static methods and static fields
So if you use the convention of starting all interface names with 'I' then it indicates to the user of your library that the particular type will not have any of the above mentioned things.
But personally I feel that this is not a reason enough to start all interface names with 'I'. The modern IDEs are powerful enough to indicate if some type is an interface. Also it hides the true meaning of an interface name: imagine if Runnable and List interfaces were named IRunnable and IList repectively.
When a class is used, I can make the assumption that I will get objects from a relatively small and almost well-defined range of subclasses. That's because subclassing is - or at least it should be
- a decision that isn't made too easily, especially in languages that don't support multiple inheritance. In contrast, interfaces can be implemented by any class, and the implementation can be added later to any class.
So the information is useful, especially when browsing through code, and trying to get a feeling what the code author intended to do - but I think it should be enough, if the IDE shows interfaces/classes as distinctive icons.
You want to see at a glance which are the "interfaces" and which are the "concrete classes" so that you can focus your attention to the abstractions in the design instead of the details.
Good designs are based on abstractions - if you know and understand them you understand the system without knowing any of the details. So you know you can skip the classes without the I prefix, and focus on the ones that do have it while you are understanding the code, and you also know to avoid building new code around non-interface classes without having to refer to some other design document.
I agree that the I* naming convention is just not appropriate for modern OO languages, but truth is this question isn't really language agnostic. There are legitimate cases where you have an interface not for any architectural reason but because you simply don't have an implementation or have access to an implementation. For these cases you can read I* as *Stub or similar, and, in these cases, it might make sense to have an IBlah and a Blah class
These days, though, you rarely come up against this, and in modern OO languages when you say Interface you actually mean Interface not just I don't have the code for this. So there is no need for the I*, and in fact it encourages really bad OO design as you won't get the natural naming conflicts that would tell you something's gone wrong in your architecture. Say you had a List and an IList... what's the difference? when would you use one over the other? if you wanted to implement IList would you be constrained (conceptually at least) by what List does? I'll tell you what... if I found both an IBlah and a Blah class in any of my codebases I would purge one at random and take away that person's commit privileges.
Interfaces don't have fields, hence when you use IDisposable (or whatever), you know you're only declaring what you can do. That seems to me the main point of it.
Distinguishing between interfaces and classes may be useful, anywhere the type is referenced, in the IDE or out, to determine:
Can I make a new implementation of this type?
Can I implement this interface in a language that does not support multiple inheritance of implementation classes (e.g., Java).
Can there be multiple implementations of this type?
Can I easily mock this interface in an arbitrary mocking framework?
It is worth noting that UML distinguishes between interfaces and implementation classes. In addition, the "I" prefix is used in the examples in "The Unified Modeling Language User Guide" by the three amigos Booch, Jacobson and Rumbaugh. (Incidentally, this also provides an example why IDE syntax coloring alone is not sufficient to distinguish in all contexts.)
You should care, because :
An interface with capital "I" enables one, namely you or your co-workers to use any implementation which implements the interface. If in the future you figure out a better way to do something, say a better list sorting algorithm, you will be stuck with having the change ALL of the invoking methods as well.
It helps in understanding code - e.g. you don't need to memorize all 10 implementations of say, I_SortableList , you just care that it sorts a list (or something like that). Your code becomes practically self-documenting here.
To complete the discussion, here is a pseudocode example illustrating the above:
//Pseudocode - define implementations of ISortableList
Class SortList1 : ISortableLIst, SortList2:IsortableList, SortList3:IsortableList
//PseudoCode - the interface way
void Populate(ISortableList list, int[] nums)
{
list.set(nums)
}
//PseudoCode - the "i dont care way"
void Populate2( SortList1 list, int[] nums )
{
list.set(nums)
}
...
//Pseudocode - create instances
SortList1 list1 = new SortList1();
SortList2 list2 = new SortList2();
SortList3 list3 = new SortList3();
//Invoke Populate() - The "interface way"
Populate(list1,nums);//OK, list1 is ISortableList implementation
Populate(list2,nums);//OK, list2 is ISortableList implementation
Populate(list3,nums);//OK, list3 is ISortableList implementation
//Invoke Populate2() - the "I don't care way"
Populate(list1,nums);//OK, list1 is an instance of SortList1
Populate(list2,nums);//Not OK, list2 is not of required argument type, won't compile
Populate(list3,nums);//the same as above
Hope this helps,
Jas.
what is the purpose of namespaces ?
and, more important, should they be used as objects in java (things that have data and functions and that try to achieve encapsulation) ? is this idea to far fetched ? :)
or should they be used as packages in java ?
or should they be used more generally as a module system or something ?
Given that you use the Clojure tag, I suppose that you'll be interested in a Clojure-specific answer:
what is the purpose of namespaces ?
Clojure namespaces, Java packages, Haskell / Python / whatever modules... At a very high level, they're all different names for the same basic mechanism whose primary purpose is to prevent name clashes in non-trivial codebases. Of course, each solution has its own little twists and quirks which make sense in the context of a given language and would not make sense outside of it. The rest of this answer will deal with the twists and quirks specific to Clojure.
A Clojure namespace groups Vars, which are containers holding functions (most often), macro functions (functions used by the compiler to generate macroexpansions of appropriate forms, normally defined with defmacro; actually they are just regular Clojure functions, although there is some magic to the way in which they are registered with the compiler) and occasionally various "global parameters" (say, clojure.core/*in* for standard input), Atoms / Refs etc. The protocol facility introduced in Clojure 1.2 has the nice property that protocols are backed by Vars, as are the individual protocol functions; this is key to the way in which protocols present a solution to the expression problem (which is however probably out of the scope of this answer!).
It stands to reason that namespaces should group Vars which are somehow related. In general, creating a namespace is a quick & cheap operation, so it is perfectly fine (and indeed usual) to use a single namespace in early stages of development, then as independent chunks of functionality emerge, factor those out into their own namespaces, rinse & repeat... Only the things which are part of the public API need to be distributed between namespaces up front (or rather: prior to a stable release), since the fact that function such-and-such resides in namespace so-and-so is of course a part of the API.
and, more important, should they be used as objects in java (things that have data and functions and that try to achieve encapsulation) ? is this idea to far fetched ? :)
Normally, the answer is no. You might get a picture not too far from the truth if you approach them as classes with lots of static methods, no instance methods, no public constructors and often no state (though occasionally there may be some "class data members" in the form of Vars holding Atoms / Refs); but arguably it may be more useful not to try to apply Java-ish metaphors to Clojure idioms and to approach a namespace as a group of functions etc. and not "a class holding a group of functions" or some such thing.
There is an important exception to this general rule: namespaces which include :gen-class in their ns form. These are meant precisely to implement a Java class which may later be instantiated, which might have instance methods and per-instance state etc. Note that :gen-class is an interop feature -- pure Clojure code should generally avoid it.
or should they be used as packages in java ?
They serve some of the same purposes packages were designed to serve (as already mentioned above); the analogy, although it's certainly there, is not that useful, however, just because the things which packages group together (Java classes) are not at all like the things which Clojure namespaces group together (Clojure Vars), the various "access levels" (private / package / public in Java, {:private true} or not in Clojure) work very differently etc.
That being said, one has to remember that there is a certain correspondence between namespaces and packages / classes residing in particular packages. A namespace called foo.bar, when compiled, produces a class called bar in the package foo; this means, in particular, that namespace names should contain at least one dot, as so-called single-segment names apparently lead to classes being put in the "default package", leading to all sorts of weirdness. (E.g. I find it impossible to have VisualVM's profiler notice any functions defined in single-segment namespaces.)
Also, deftype / defrecord-created types do not reside in namespaces. A (defrecord Foo [...] ...) form in the file where namespace foo.bar is defined creates a class called Foo in the package foo.bar. To use the type Foo from another namespace, one would have to :import the class Foo from the foo.bar package -- :use / :require would not work, since they pull in Vars from namespaces, which records / types are not.
So, in this particular case, there is a certain correspondence between namespaces and packages which Clojure programmers who wish to take advantage of some of the newer language features need to be aware of. Some find that this gives an "interop flavour" to features which are not otherwise considered to belong in the realm of interop (defrecord / deftype / defprotocol are a good abstraction mechanism even if we forget about their role in achieving platform speed on the JVM) and it is certainly possible that in some future version of Clojure this flavour might be done away with, so that the namespace name / package name correspondence for deftype & Co. can be treated as an implementation detail.
or should they be used more generally as a module system or something ?
They are a module system and this is indeed how they should be used.
A package in Java has its own namespace, which provides a logical grouping of classes. It also helps prevent naming collisions. For example in java you will find java.util.Date and java.sql.Date - two different classes with the same name differentiated by their namespace. If you try an import both into a java file, you will see that it wont compile. At least one version will need to use its explicit namespace.
From a language independant view, namespaces are a way to isolate things (i.e. encapsulate in a sens). It's a more general concept (see xml namespaces for example). You can "create" namespaces in several ways, depending on the language you use: packages, static classes, modules and so on. All of these provides namespaces to the objects/data/functions they contain. This allow to organize the code better, to isolate features, tends for better code reuse and adaptability (as encapsulation)
As stated in the "Zen of Python", "Namespaces are one honking great idea -- let's do more of those !".
Think of them as containers for your classes. As in if you had a helper class for building strings and you wanted it in your business layer you would use a namespace such as MyApp.Business.Helpers. This allows your classes to be contained in sensical locations so when you or some else referencing your code wants to cosume them they can be located easily. For another example if you wanted to consume a SQL connection helper class you would probably use something like:
MyApp.Data.SqlConnectionHelper sqlHelper = new MyApp.Data.SqlConnectionHelper();
In reality you would use a "using" statement so you wouldn't need to fully qualify the namespace just to declare the variable.
Paul
The template method pattern and the strategy pattern do roughly the same thing. I understand the basic differences between them (template method is inheritance based, strategy is composition based), but are there any decent guidelines on when to choose one over the other? It seems like they do basically the same thing.
Strategy allows for a reusable algorithm to be used in more than one place. If you have an algorithm that can be provided by your consumer and can be used in several places, this is a good spot for Strategy (sorting algorithms, predicates, comparers... are good examples of that).
Template method is specifically targeted at cases where you want people to be able to inherit from your class and want them to be able to override your implementation in a controlled manner (basically preventing them from replacing all your plumbing and offering them a specific extension point without risking a problem because they did not call the base method or called it at the wrong time).
They can be similar, and they can serve the same kind of purpose depending on what you are actually doing.
As with all design patterns, it is difficult to answer such a question because there is not really a definitive answer. It's actually easier to decide in context...
The two can actually be used together quite effectively.
Here's a video that details how
Don't think of patterns as recipes with specific code to implement them.
It's the design intent that is the key, and there can be many implementations. By mentioning a pattern name in your code somewhere, you're letting a reader in on your intent when you wrote that code. The implementation is secondary.
Template method gives you an "algorithm with replaceable steps". (The algorithm is normally defined in a non-overridable method (final or private for example) )
The GoF implementation of this concept uses inheritance and method overriding to replace those steps.
However, you're still using Template method if those steps are replaced by strategies.
For example, think about a class that wants to walk a binary tree inorder and "do something" at each node.
The intent is that the inorder() method is a template method - the structure of the walk is always the same.
The "hook" method, the part that "does something" can be implemented as a method in the same class (and overridden in subclasses to change behavior), or externally, in which case it's a strategy for "doing something".
I use Template method when the algorithm needs knowledge of the internals of the objects it runs on.
In all other cases (i.e. when the algorithm only needs to use the object's interface), I try to use Strategy.
Further, Strategy is only useful when there are actual algorithms to implement: If the only difference between classes is (for example) what simple value to return, use Template method.
Consider usage strategy when:
Your object behaviour needs to be changed in runtime.
You already have class hierarchy by other criteria.
You want to share strategy logic across different classes.
In other cases it should be enought to use template pattern.
I disagree with this statement (from this answer):
"Template method is specifically targeted at cases where you want
people to be able to inherit from your class and want them to be able
to override your implementation in a controlled manner."
If you WANT people to inherit from your class then you're WANTING a specific implementation, rather than wanting a particular behaviour. That smells bad to me.
A valid thing to WANT is the ability to override or provide implementations of individual steps of an algorithm. That goal can be achieved by both Template Methods (where we can selectively override protected methods) or the Strategy Pattern (where we inject implementations).
If you are building a class that implements an algorithm, and you want to allow steps in that algorithm to be altered by other developers, that's your requirement. Your only decision is whether to allow them to do that via inheritance or composition.
All other things being equal we should favour composition over inheritance, but we should only even get to the inheritance/composition decision by first figuring out what our goal is (we may need neither).
I would never start with "I want to allow them to inherit from this class". That's cart before the horse IMO.
You can create big inheritance tree just to change one of the N behavior. And you can create second big inheritance tree to change second of the N behavior.
But also you can unload your tree by creating small strategy trees.
So if you noticed that you add more and more classes just to add some changes in some behavior - it is time to supply your classes with strategies.
I would like to agree and second Scott's explanation.
Template pattern = cares about drawing the generic lines along which an operation will be carried on - templating - basically an "algorithm with replaceable steps" (very well coined) where the replaceable steps can be delegated using the Strategy pattern concept.
Strategy pattern = cares only about decoupling the client from the underlining implementation of an operation whose outcome needs to always abide by some predetermined rules (like sorting where the outcome is always a sorted list but you may deffer de actual sorting to bubble sort or to quick sort).
Cheers.
One of the central OO Design principles is "Favour Composition over Inheritance", so that suggests to favour the Strategy pattern. It obviously depends on what you are trying to accomplish in a particular scenario.
My summary: The Strategy Pattern is more loosely coupled than the Template Method pattern, which is generally a good thing.
Robert C. Martin in TEMPLATE METHOD & STRATEGY: Inheritance vs. Delegation
Thus, the STRATEGY pattern provides one extra benefit over the
TEMPLATE METHOD pattern. Whereas the TEMPLATE METHOD pattern allows a
generic algorithm to manipulate many possible detailed
implementations, by fully conforming to the DIP the STRATEGY pattern
additionally allows each detailed implementation to be manipulated by
many different generic algorithms.
DIP is the Dependency Inversion Principle:
A. High-level modules should not depend on low-level modules. Both should depend on abstractions.
B. Abstractions should not depend on details. Details should depend on abstractions.
I would almost always go for strategy for the very important reason that client code has no dependency on implementation whereas in template pattern part of implementation stays in the abstract class and any change in abstract class may need to change the client which very often result in rigid code and we end up developer telling that "this came out to be a bigger change than I expected".
But in cases when it is really helpful to get common code in an abstract class I would not hesitate to do it and also try to keep code related to client code away from it
I think the answer from #Lennaert is correct. I would like to add some details to it:
The Template pattern differs from the Strategy pattern in a sense that the Template Method uses inheritance and the Strategy pattern uses composition to achieve a common goal. The Strategy pattern is preferred in case the strategies/algorithms are ‘self-contained’ (e.g. more then just a difference in a ‘simple’ return) and must be shared amongst possible other clients/Contexts. The Template pattern is preferred in case the algorithms diverge in their fine details (e.g. just a difference in a ‘simple’ return) and/or access of the internal details of the concrete implementation is required by the base class.
This means:
from client reusability point of view, the Strategy pattern is
preferred over the Template method. Each Strategy can be reused
within a different Context (=client). A new Context solely depends
on the interface of the Strategy and not on the 'extensive'
interface of the full Context. (A compliment to the Interface
Segregation principle). In contrast, within the Template method the
base and concrete implementation are ‘glued’ together. This means
clients, whom would like to re-use the concrete template-method
implementation, are ‘automatically’ bounded to the base class
implementation as well. Even if they don’t want that! This could
violate Interface Segregation. Adhering to Interface Segregation
enables in this case: less recompilation, more confident of changing
an interface (less search hits) and the client is constraint
(‘role’ interface).
the Template pattern might be preferred in case the base algorithm
(=Context or Base Template) requires access to the internals of the
concrete algorithm (=Strategies or Concrete Template). In the
Template Method pattern, the base class can get access to the
concrete implementation via “the Hollywood principle”. This can be
done via a relative encapsulated approach, by making the members
protected. In contrast, the Strategy pattern does not provide this
encapsulated approach (in this particular use-case). Each Strategy
would need to expose its internals on its interface, making it
available to all clients. This might violate encapsulation,
resulting in possible unwanted coupling that is provoked by the
design.
I would prefer using a mix of both, dumping default implementation (from Template pattern) into Context class of strategy pattern. This way, I can enforce user to call method I want them to call so that the order of execution on algorithm's steps remains controlled.
/**
* enables replaceable steps in algorithm
*/
public interface HouseStrategy{
void buildWalls();
void buildPillars();
}
public class HouseContext{
//public API that enforces order of execution
public void build(HouseStrategy strategy){
buildFoundation();//default implementation
strategy.buildPillars();//delegated to concrete strategy
strategy.buildWalls();//delegated to concrete strategy
buildWindows();//default implementation
}
//default implementation
private void buildWindows() {
System.out.println("Building Glass Windows");
}
//default implementation
private void buildFoundation() {
System.out.println("Building foundation with cement,iron rods and sand");
}
}
public class WoodenHouse implements HouseStrategy {
#Override
public void buildWalls() {
System.out.println("Building Wooden Walls");
}
#Override
public void buildPillars() {
System.out.println("Building Pillars with Wood coating");
}
}
public class GlassHouse implements HouseStrategy {
#Override
public void buildWalls() {
System.out.println("Building Wooden Of glass");
}
#Override
public void buildPillars() {
System.out.println("Building Pillars with glass coating");
}
}
As we can see, concrete strategies are still open to extension. As in,
public class GlassHouse implements HouseStrategy,EarthquakeResistantHouseStrategy{......}
The usage
HouseContext context = new HouseContext();
WoodenHouse woodenHouseStrategy = new WoodenHouse();
context.build(woodenHouseStrategy);
GlassHouse glassHouseStrategy = new GlassHouse();
context.build(glassHouseStrategy);
One disadvantage I see here is that concrete strategies can only change the variant behavior of algorithm i.e. buildWalls() and buildPillars(). If we need to change invariant parts i.e. buildFoundation() and buildWindows(), we need to make another Context class implementing the new behavior.
Still, we get some code reusability which is not found in pure Strategy Pattern :-)
This is quite a controversial topic, and before you say "no", is it really, really needed?
I have been programming for about 10 years, and I can't honestly say that I can recall a time where inheritance solved a problem that couldn't be solved another way. On the other hand I can recall many times when I used inheritance, because I felt like I had to or because I though I was clever and ended up paying for it.
I can't really see any circumstances where, from an implementation stand point, aggregation or another technique could not be used instead of inheritance.
My only caveat to this is that we would still allow inheritance of interfaces.
(Update)
Let's give an example of why it's needed instead of saying, "sometimes it's just needed." That really isn't helpful at all. Where is your proof?
(Update 2 Code Example)
Here's the classic shape example, more powerful, and more explicit IMO, without inheritance. It is almost never the case in the real world that something really "Is a" of something else. Almost always "Is Implemented in Terms of" is more accurate.
public interface IShape
{
void Draw();
}
public class BasicShape : IShape
{
public void Draw()
{
// All shapes in this system have a dot in the middle except squares.
DrawDotInMiddle();
}
}
public class Circle : IShape
{
private BasicShape _basicShape;
public void Draw()
{
// Draw the circle part
DrawCircle();
_basicShape.Draw();
}
}
public class Square : IShape
{
private BasicShape _basicShape;
public void Draw()
{
// Draw the circle part
DrawSquare();
}
}
I blogged about this as a wacky idea a while ago.
I don't think it should be removed, but I think classes should be sealed by default to discourage inheritance when it's not appropriate. It's a powerful tool to have available, but it's like a chain-saw - you really don't want to use it unless it's the perfect tool for the job. Otherwise you might start losing limbs.
The are potential language features such as mix-ins which would make it easier to live without, IMO.
Inheritance can be rather useful in situations where your base class has a number of methods with the same implementation for each derived class, to save every single derived class from having to implement boiler-plate code. Take the .NET Stream class for example which defines the following methods:
public virtual int Read(byte[] buffer, int index, int count)
{
}
public int ReadByte()
{
// note: this is only an approximation to the real implementation
var buffer = new byte[1];
if (this.Read(buffer, 0, 1) == 1)
{
return buffer[0];
}
return -1;
}
Because inheritance is available the base class can implement the ReadByte method for all implementations without them having to worry about it. There are a number of other methods like this on the class which have default or fixed implementations. So in this type of situation it's a very valuable thing to have, compared with an interface where your options are either to make everyone re-implement everything, or to create a StreamUtil type class which they can call (yuk!).
To clarify, with inheritance all I need to write to create a DerivedStream class is something like:
public class DerivedStream : Stream
{
public override int Read(byte[] buffer, int index, int count)
{
// my read implementation
}
}
Whereas if we're using interfaces and a default implementation of the methods in StreamUtil I have to write a bunch more code:
public class DerivedStream : IStream
{
public int Read(byte[] buffer, int index, int count)
{
// my read implementation
}
public int ReadByte()
{
return StreamUtil.ReadByte(this);
}
}
}
So it's not a huge amount more code, but multiply this by a few more methods on the class and it's just unnecessary boiler plate stuff which the compiler could handle instead. Why make things more painful to implement than necessary? I don't think inheritance is the be-all and end-all, but it can be very useful when used correctly.
Of course you can write great programs happily without objects and inheritance; functional programmers do it all the time. But let us not be hasty. Anybody interested in this topic should check out the slides from Xavier Leroy's invited lecture about classes vs modules in Objective Caml. Xavier does a beautiful job laying out what inheritance does well and does not do well in the context of different kinds of software evolution.
All languages are Turing-complete, so of course inheritance isn't necessary. But as an argument for the value of inheritance, I present the Smalltalk blue book, especially the Collection hierarchy and the Number hierarchy. I'm very impressed that a skilled specialist can add an entirely new kind of number (or collection) without perturbing the existing system.
I will also remind questioner of the "killer app" for inheritance: the GUI toolkit. A well-designed toolkit (if you can find one) makes it very, very easy to add new kinds of graphical interaction widgets.
Having said all that, I think that inheritance has innate weaknesses (your program logic is smeared out over a large set of classes) and that it should be used rarely and only by skilled professionals. A person graduating with a bachelor's degree in computer science barely knows anything about inheritance---such persons should be permitted to inherit from other classes at need, but should never, ever write code from which other programmers inherit. That job should be reserved for master programmers who really know what they're doing. And they should do it reluctantly!
For an interesting take on solving similar problems using a completely different mechanism, people might want to check out Haskell type classes.
I wish languages would provide some mechanisms to make it easier to delegate to member variables. For example, suppose interface I has 10 methods, and class C1 implements this interface. Suppose I want to implement class C2 that is just like a C1 but with method m1() overridden. Without using inheritance, I would do this as follows (in Java):
public class C2 implements I {
private I c1;
public C2() {
c1 = new C1();
}
public void m1() {
// This is the method C2 is overriding.
}
public void m2() {
c1.m2();
}
public void m3() {
c1.m3();
}
...
public void m10() {
c1.m10();
}
}
In other words, I have to explicitly write code to delegate the behavior of methods m2..m10 to the member variable m1. That's a bit of a pain. It also clutters the code up so that it's harder to see the real logic in class C2. It also means that whenever new methods are added to interface I, I have to explicitly add more code to C1 just to delegate these new methods to C1.
I wish languages would allow me to say: C1 implements I, but if C1 is missing some method from I, automatically delegate to member variable c1. That would cut down the size of C1 to just
public class C2 implements I(delegate to c1) {
private I c1;
public C2() {
c1 = new C1();
}
public void m1() {
// This is the method C2 is overriding.
}
}
If languages allowed us to do this, it would be much easier to avoid use of inheritance.
Here's a blog article I wrote about automatic delegation.
Inheritance is one of those tools that can be used, and of course can be abused, but I think languages have to have more changes before class-based inheritance could be removed.
Let's take my world at the moment, which is mainly C# development.
For Microsoft to take away class-based inheritance, they would have to build in much stronger support for handling interfaces. Things like aggregation, where I need to add lots of boiler-plate code just to wire up an interface to an internal object. This really should be done anyway, but would be a requirement in such a case.
In other words, the following code:
public interface IPerson { ... }
public interface IEmployee : IPerson { ... }
public class Employee : IEmployee
{
private Person _Person;
...
public String FirstName
{
get { return _Person.FirstName; }
set { _Person.FirstName = value; }
}
}
This would basically have to be a lot shorter, otherwise I'd have lots of these properties just to make my class mimic a person good enough, something like this:
public class Employee : IEmployee
{
private Person _Person implements IPerson;
...
}
this could auto-create the code necessary, instead of me having to write it. Just returning the internal reference if I cast my object to an IPerson would do no good.
So things would have to be better supported before class-based inheritance could be taken off the table.
Also, you would remove things like visibility. An interface really just have two visibility settings: There, and not-there. In some cases you would be, or so I think, forced to expose more of your internal data just so that someone else can more easily use your class.
For class-based inheritance, you can usually expose some access points that a descendant can use, but outside code can't, and you would generally have to just remove those access points, or make them open to everyone. Not sure I like either alternative.
My biggest question would be what specifically the point of removing such functionality would be, even if the plan would be to, as an example, build D#, a new language, like C#, but without the class-based inheritance. In other words, even if you plan on building a whole new language, I still am not entirely sure what the ultimate goal would be.
Is the goal to remove something that can be abused if not in the right hands? If so, I have a list a mile long for various programming languages that I would really like to see addresses first.
At the top of that list: The with keyword in Delphi. That keyword is not just like shooting yourself in the foot, it's like the compiler buys the shotgun, comes to your house and takes aim for you.
Personally I like class-based inheritance. Sure, you can write yourself into a corner. But we can all do that. Remove class-based inheritance, I'll just find a new way of shooting myself in the foot with.
Now where did I put that shotgun...
Have fun implementing ISystemObject on all of your classes so that you have access to ToString() and GetHashcode().
Additionally, good luck with the ISystemWebUIPage interface.
If you don't like inheritance, my suggestion is to stop using .NET all together. There are way too many scenarios where it saves time (see DRY: don't repeat yourself).
If using inheritance is blowing up your code, then you need to take a step back and rethink your design.
I prefer interfaces, but they aren't a silver bullet.
For production code I almost never use inheritance. I go with using interfaces for everything (this helps with testing and improves readability i.e. you can just look at the interface to read the public methods and see what is going on because of well-named methods and class names). Pretty much the only time I would use inheritance would be because a third party library demands it. Using interfaces, I would get the same effect but I would mimic inheritance by using 'delegation'.
For me, not only is this more readable but it is much more testable and also makes refactoring a whole lot easier.
The only time I can think of that I would use inheritance in testing would be to create my own specific TestCases used to differentiate between types of tests I have in my system.
So I probably wouldn't get rid of it but I choose not to use it as much as possible for the reasons mentioned above.
No. Sometimes you need inheritance. And for those times where you don't -- don't use it. You can always "just" use interfaces (in languages that have them) and ADPs without data work like interfaces in those languages that don't have them. But I see no reason to remove what is sometimes a necessary feature just because you feel it isn't always needed.
No. Just because it's not often needed, doesn't mean it's never needed. Like any other tool in a toolkit, it can (and has been, and will be) misused. However, that doesn't mean it should never be used. In fact, in some languages (C++), there is no such thing as an 'interface' at the language level, so without a major change, you couldn't prohibit it.
No, it is not needed, but that does not mean it does not provide an overall benefit, which I think is more important than worrying about whether it is absolutely necessary.
In the end, almost all modern software language constructs amount to syntactic sugar - we could all be writing assembly code (or using punch cards, or working with vacuum tubes) if we really had to.
I find inheritance immensely useful those times that I truly want to express an "is-a" relationship. Inheritance seems to be the clearest means of expressing that intent. If I used delegation for all implementation re-use, I lose that expressiveness.
Does this allow for abuse? Of course it does. I often see questions asking how the developer can inherit from a class but hide a method because that method should not exist on the subclass. That person obviously misses the point of inheritance, and should be pointed toward delegation instead.
I don't use inheritance because it is needed, I use it because it is sometimes the best tool for the job.
I guess I have to play the devil's advocate. If we didn't have inheritance then we wouldn't be able to inherit abstract classes that uses the template method pattern. There are lots of examples where this is used in frameworks such as .NET and Java. Thread in Java is such an example:
// Alternative 1:
public class MyThread extends Thread {
// Abstract method to implement from Thread
// aka. "template method" (GoF design pattern)
public void run() {
// ...
}
}
// Usage:
MyThread t = new MyThread();
t.start();
The alternative is, in my meaning, verbose when you have to use it. Visual clutteer complexity goes up. This is because you need to create the Thread before you can actually use it.
// Alternative 2:
public class MyThread implements Runnable {
// Method to implement from Runnable:
public void run() {
// ...
}
}
// Usage:
MyThread m = new MyThread();
Thread t = new Thread(m);
t.start();
// …or if you have a curious perversion towards one-liners
Thread t = new Thread(new MyThread());
t.start();
Having my devil's advocate hat off I guess you could argue that the gain in the second implementation is dependency injection or seperation of concerns which helps designing testable classes. Depending on your definition of what an interface is (I've heard of at least three) an abstract class could be regarded as an interface.
Needed? No. You can write any program in C, for example, which doesn't have any sort of inheritance or objects. You could write it in assembly language, although it would be less portable. You could write it in a Turing machine and have it emulated. Somebody designed a computer language with exactly one instruction (something like subtract and branch if not zero), and you could write your program in that.
So, if you're going to ask if a given language feature is necessary (like inheritance, or objects, or recursion, or functions), the answer is no. (There are exceptions - you have to be able to loop and do things conditionally, although these need not be supported as explicit concepts in the language.)
Therefore, I find questions of this sort useless.
Questions like "When should we use inheritance" or "When shouldn't we" are a lot more useful.
a lot of the time I find myself choosing a base class over an interface just because I have some standard functionality. in C#, I can now use extension methods to achieve that, but it still doesn't achieve the same thing for several situations.
Is inheritance really needed? Depends what you mean by "really". You could go back to punch cards or flicking toggle switches in theory, but it's a terrible way to develop software.
In procedural languages, yes, class inheritance is a definite boon. It gives you a way to elegantly organise your code in certain circumstances. It should not be overused, as any other feature should not be overused.
For example, take the case of digiarnie in this thread. He/she uses interfaces for nearly everything, which is just as bad as (possibly worse than) using lots of inheritance.
Some of his points :
this helps with testing and improves readability
It doesn't do either thing. You never actually test an interface, you always test an object, that is, an instantiation of a class. And having to look at a completely different bit of code helps you understand the structure of a class? I don't think so.
Ditto for deep inheritance hierarchies though. You ideally want to look in one place only.
Using interfaces, I would get the same effect but I would mimic inheritance by using
'delegation'.
Delegation is a very good idea, and should often be used instead of inheritance (for example, the Strategy pattern is all about doing exactly this). But interfaces have zero to do with delegation, because you cannot specify any behaviour at all in an interface.
also makes refactoring a whole lot easier.
Early commitment to interfaces usually makes refactoring harder, not easier, because there are then more places to change. Overusing inheritance early is better (well, less bad) than overusing interfaces, as pulling out delegate classes is easier if the classes being modified do not implement any interfaces. And it's quite often from those delegates than you get useful interfaces.
So overuse of inheritance is a bad thing. Overuse of interfaces is a bad thing. And ideally, a class will neither inherit from anything (except maybe "object" or the language equivalent), nor implement any interfaces. But that doesn't mean either feature should be removed from a language.
If there is a framework class that does almost exactly what you want, but a particular function of its interface throws a NotSupported exception or for some other reason you only want to override one method to do something specific to your implementation, it's much easier to write a subclass and override that one method rather than write a brand new class and write pass-throughs for each of the other 27 methods in the class.
Similarly, What about Java, for example, where every object inherits from Object, and therefore automatically has implementations of equals, hashcode, etc. I don't have to re-implement them, and it "just works" when I want to use the object as a key in a hashtable. I don't have to write a default passthrough to a Hashtable.hashcode(Object o) method, which frankly seems like it's moving away from object orientation.
My initial thought was, You're crazy. But after thinking about it a while I kinda agree with you. I'm not saying remove Class Inheritance fully (abstract classes with partial implementation for example can be useful), but I have often inherited (pun intended) badly written OO code with multi level class inheritance that added nothing, other than bloat, to the code.
Note that inheritance means it is no longer possible to supply the base class functionality by dependency injection, in order to unit test a derived class in isolation of its parent.
So if you're deadly serious about dependency injection (which I'm not, but I do wonder whether I should be), you can't get much use out of inheritance anyway.
Here's a nice view at the topic:
IS-STRICTLY-EQUIVALENT-TO-A by Reg Braithwaite
I believe a better mechanism for code re-use which is sometimes achieved through inheritance are traits. Check this link (pdf) for a great discussion on this, including the distinction between traits and mixins, and why traits are favored.
There's some research that introduces traits into C# (pdf).
Perl has traits through Moose::Roles. Scala traits are like mixins, as in Ruby.
The question is, "Should inheritance (of non-interface types) be removed from programming languages?"
I say, "No", as it will break a hell of a lot of existing code.
That aside, should you use inheritance, other than inheritance of interfaces? I'm predominantly a C++ programmer and I follow a strict object model of multiple inheritance of interfaces followed by a chain of single inheritance of classes. The concrete classes are a "secret" of a component and it's friends, so what goes on there is nobodies business.
To help implement interfaces, I use template mixins. This allows the interface designer to provide snippets of code to help implement the interface for common scenarios. As a component developer I feel like I can go mixin shopping to get the reusable bits without being encumbered by how the interface designer thought I should build my class.
Having said that, the mixin paradigm is pretty much unique to C++. Without this, I expect that inheritance is very attractive to the pragmatic programmer.