Related
what is the meaning of this interfaces? even if we implement an interface on a class, we have to declare it's functionality again and again each time we implement it on a different class, so what is the reason of interfaces exist on as3 or any other languages which has interface.
Thank you
I basically agree with the answers posted so far, just had a bit to add.
First to answer the easy part, yes other languages have interfaces. Java comes to mind immediately but I'm pretty sure all OOP languages (C++, C#, etc.) include some mechanism for creating interfaces.
As stated by Jake, you can write interfaces as "contracts" for what will be fulfilled in order to separate work. To take a hypothetical say I'm working on A and you're working on C, and bob is working on B. If we define B' as an interface for B, we can quickly and relatively easily define B' (relative to defining B, the implementation), and all go on our way. I can assume that from A I can code to B', you can assume from C you can code to B', and when bob gets done with B we can just plug it in.
This comes to Jugg1es point. The ability to swap out a whole functional piece is made easier by "dependency injection" (if you don't know this phrase, please google it). This is the exact thing described, you create an interface that defines generally what something will do, say a database connector. For all database connectors, you want it to be able to connect to database, and run queries, so you might define an interface that says the classes must have a "connect()" method and a "doQuery(stringQuery)." Now lets say Bob writes the implementation for MySQL databases, now your client says well we just paid 200,000 for new servers and they'll run Microsoft SQL so to take advantage of that with your software all you'd need to do is swap out the database connector.
In real life, I have a friend who runs a meat packing/distribution company in Chicago. The company that makes their software/hardware setup for scanning packages and weighing things as they come in and out (inventory) is telling them they have to upgrade to a newer OS/Server and newer hardware to keep with the software. The software is not written in a modular way that allows them to maintain backwards compatibility. I've been in this boat before plenty of times, telling someone xyz needs to be upgraded to get abc functionality that will make doing my job 90% easier. Anyhow guess point being in the real world people don't always make use of these things and it can bite you in the ass.
Interfaces are vital to OOP, particularly when developing large applications. One example is if you needed a data layer that returns data on, say, Users. What if you eventually change how the data is obtained, say you started with XML web services data, but then switched to a flat file or something. If you created an interface for your data layer, you could create another class that implements it and make all the changes to the data layer without ever having to change the code in your application layer. I don't know if you're using Flex or Flash, but when using Flex, interfaces are very useful.
Interfaces are a way of defining functionality of a class. it might not make a whole lot of sense when you are working alone (especially starting out), but when you start working in a team it helps people understand how your code works and how to use the classes you wrote (while keeping your code encapsulated). That's the best way to think of them at an intermediate level in my opinion.
While the existing answers are pretty good, I think they miss the chief advantage of using Interfaces in ActionScript, which is that you can avoid compiling the implementation of that Interface into the Main Document Class.
For example, if you have an ISpaceShip Interface, you now have a choice to do several things to populate a variable typed to that Interface. You could load an external swf whose main Document Class implements ISpaceShip. Once the Loader's contentLoaderInfo's COMPLETE event fires, you cast the contentto ISpaceShip, and the implementation of that (whatever it is) is never compiled into your loading swf. This allows you to put real content in front of your users while the load process happens.
By the same token, you could have a timeline instance declared in the parent AS Class of type ISpaceShip with "Export for Actionscript in Frame N *un*checked. This will compile on the frame where it is first used, so you no longer need to account for this in your preloading time. Do this with enough things and suddenly you don't even need a preloader.
Another advantage of coding to Interfaces is if you're doing unit tests on your code, which you should unless your code is completely trivial. This enables you to make sure that the code is succeeding or failing on its own merits, not based on the merits of the collaborator, or where the collaborator isn't appropriate for a test. For example, if you have a controller that is designed to control a specific type of View, you're not going to want to instantiate the full view for the test, but only the functionality that makes a difference for the test.
If you don't have support in your work situation for writing tests, coding to interfaces helps make sure that your code will be testable once you get to the point where you can write tests.
The above answers are all very good, the only thing I'd add - and it might not be immediately clear in a language like AS3, where there are several untyped collection classes (Array, Object and Dictionary) and Object/dynamic classes - is that it's a means of grouping otherwise disparate objects by type.
A quick example:
Image you had a space shooter, where the player has missiles which lock-on to various targets. Suppose, for this purpose, you wanted any type of object which could be locked onto to have internal functions for registering this (aka an interface):
function lockOn():void;//Tells the object something's locked onto it
function getLockData():Object;//Returns information, position, heat, whatever etc
These targets could be anything, a series of totally unrelated classes - enemy, friend, powerup, health.
One solution would be to have them all to inherit from a base class which contained these methods - but Enemies and Health Pickups wouldn't logically share a common ancestor (and if you find yourself making bizarre inheritance chains to accomodate your needs then you should rethink your design!), and your missile will also need a reference to the object its locked onto:
var myTarget:Enemy;//This isn't going to work for the Powerup class!
or
var myTarget:Powerup;//This isn't going to work for the Enemy class!
...but if all lockable classes implement the ILockable interface, you can set this as the type reference:
var myTarget:ILockable;//This can be set as Enemy, Powerup, any class which implements ILockable!
..and have the functions above as the interface itself.
They're also handy when using the Vector class (the name may mislead you, it's just a typed array) - they run much faster than arrays, but only allow a single type of element - and again, an interface can be specified as type:
var lockTargets:Vector.<Enemy> = new Vector.<Enemy>();//New array of lockable objects
lockTargets[0] = new HealthPickup();//Compiler won't like this!
but this...
var lockTargets:Vector.<ILockable> = new Vector.<ILockable>();
lockTargets[0] = new HealthPickup();
lockTargets[1] = new Enemy();
Will, provided Enemy and HealthPickup implement ILockable, work just fine!
I have a class: DatabaseService.as This class creates a local sqlite connection and creates tables if they do not exist. Connection link will be used by several other classes. Some classes will be called on startup others on user interaction.
"DatabaseService" class dispatches event when database connection is opened. Other classes initialise "DatabaseService" class and awaits for "DatabaseReadyEvent".
This works great but what can I do when I need to call a function/method from the same class several times?
Example:
I create an instance of "PrefService" class in mxml component. "PrefService" creates a new "DatabaseService" class in it's constructor. It then waits for "DatabaseReadyEvent" and executes sql query(this works fine). but then I also need to call "addDir" method (and few others) in "PrefService" class and the sqlConnection property is not set yet causing an error. How can I deal with this? I am new to OOP so I am probably missing something quite simple...
What I've tried / My ideas:
I could check if if sqlConnection exists in "PrefService" class but I think this would be poor practice and still require a delay mechanism of some sort.
I could also create a new instance of "DatabaseService" class for each method and add a new event listener but this would be very cumbersome with 2 functions for each method call not to mention events.
What is the best option in this scenario?
The hate for Singleton is well-deserved. I'd suggest not ever getting in the habit of using it, so you don't have to break that habit when you find how horrible it is to maintain.
Your biggest mistake is having your View creating and executing your service. Unfortunately, this is encouraged by how the FB service generation code works. What you want, instead, is something more like MVCS (Model-View-Control-Service) of the type encouraged by Frameworks like Robotlegs.
To walk through how to go from a tightly-coupled architecture to a loosely-coupled one, start with this example. Note that the Service is a static Class, which pretty much has all the issues as a Singleton as far as encouraging tight coupling. Even though there is only one Class using the Service, imagine what would happen if you have a large project where tens or hundreds of Classes are referencing it. Now imagine something needs to change. Ick.
Now look at the project, refactored so that the View is simply generating an Event that results in calling the service. The service is still static, but in this
case there is exactly one thing that knows about it (Mate), so if you want to make that not static or sometimes use a different service, you easily can, now.
In fact, you can change things around so easily that this is the project, refactored to use Robotlegs. You don't necessarily have to use a Framework, as I did--you can see that the basic structure involved in the core Classes doesn't care a bit about how the Event is being handled or how the data gets into the Views. If you're not comfortable using a Framework, handle it your own way. But Frameworks have been around a while, and they've worked out a lot of issues you haven't thought of yet.
It's tricky to advise without seeing any code, but it might be worth considering making the DatabaseService class a Singleton and initialising it (and the database connection) once as part of your start-up routine (ie. before the classes which use it are instantiated). This would ensure that the classes which use the DatabaseService all share a single connection link to the database, and that the link is available when they come to use it.
Singletons in ActionScript generate a fair bit of debate because in other languages the pattern relies on the ability to set the access modifier of the class constructor as private (which you cannot do in ActionScript 3.0). However, you could choose from a couple of approaches detailed here.
Also, Singletons in general generate a fair bit of debate which might be worth understanding before you use one in anger (since you state you are new to OOP I am assuming you have not done so before).
My question has to do with the WCF and typed factory facilities that is provided by Windsor. I am quite new to the IoC container concepts and especially facilities but started looking into it after evaluating a project we wrote a while back. The program is n-layered and not very unit testable because dependency injection is not implemented everywhere. The issue is that since it is n-layered, to do a proper DI would end up making the top layer responsible for creating an instance of something that will get used like 5 layers down; so I turned to IoC.
However, after reading many a SO article and other sites I am now stuck with a couple of issues. One of the main issues initially was to decouple a class from a physical implementation of a WCF service and I did it as follows:
service = ManagerService.IoC.Resolve<IGridSubmitWorkService>(new { binding = new BasicHttpBinding(), remoteAddress = new EndpointAddress(WorkerAddress) });
result = service.SubmitWorkUnit(out errorString, aWorkUnit);
ManagerService.IoC.Release(service);
However, I found multiple mentions as to how you should not be using IoC.Resolve<>() and should rather use factories and WCF facilities to remove the dependency on your IoC container and that it is a service locator pattern which some people consider to be an anti-pattern.
My issue is this: The above three lines of code solves almost all my problems but to follow the proper patterns I have to instead create a WCF facility, a typed factory (that will deal with providing me instances of the class where this code is used) and a new interface for the factory and this feels like over-engineering and adding unnecessary complication to the code just for the sake of pleasing a pattern.
Question 1: Is there something fundamental I am missing here?
Question 2: As you can see from the code, I am calling a non-empty constructor for the web service. Will this still be as simple if I implement a WCF facility?
Question 3: Can you point me to a decent tutorial on using WCF facilities since I found the explanations on the Windsor wiki to be very brief and not really useful?
Thanks
Q1. Yes I think there is something important being missed. In your three line example, all you have done is replaced one implementation dependency (your GridSubmitWorkService) with another one (ManagerService.IoC). To illustrate, why not make it even simpler with the following?
service = new GridSubmitWorkService(binding,remoteAddress);
result = service.SubmitWorkUnit();
This is even simpler again but it has the hardwired implementation dependency. The point is that constructor and property injection allow you to write clean components that do not have to understand how the plumbing is done. In both your code and my code that principle is violated - the components are managing their own plumbing and in a large application, that becomes very painful, very quickly. This is why ServiceLocator is considered by many to be an anti-pattern.
The name of your service locator itself gives the game away. It's called IoC - abbreviation for Inversion of Control. But when you look at the structure of these two bits of code you can clearly see that nothing has been inverted - the code is doing pretty much the same thing in both cases, but your example is just a little more abstract and convoluted.
Also no-one offering IoC is trying to force you to stick to a pattern. If you don't see the benefit or the benefits simply aren't there for your app, then please don't use the pattern.
Q2. Any decent DI container is based on constructor injection. Using the Windsor WCF facility is very straight-forward and it supports a variety of hosting methods so things like bindings and addresses are handled properly anyway.
Q3. There is plenty of information around ranging from forums to questions here on stackoverflow.com, in addition to the Windsor docs and wikis. I suggest putting a specific question if there is something you are unable to resolve.
After reading the nice answers in this question, I watched the screencasts by Justin Etheredge. It all seems very nice, with a minimum of setup you get DI right from your code.
Now the question that creeps up to me is: why would you want to use a DI framework that doesn't use configuration files? Isn't that the whole point of using a DI infrastructure so that you can alter the behaviour (the "strategy", so to speak) after building/releasing/whatever the code?
Can anyone give me a good use case that validates using a non-configured DI like Ninject?
I don't think you want a DI-framework without configuration. I think you want a DI-framework with the configuration you need.
I'll take spring as an example. Back in the "old days" we used to put everything in XML files to make everything configurable.
When switching to fully annotated regime you basically define which component roles yor application contains. So a given
service may for instance have one implementation which is for "regular runtime" where there is another implementation that belongs
in the "Stubbed" version of the application. Furthermore, when wiring for integration tests you may be using a third implementation.
When looking at the problem this way you quickly realize that most applications only contain a very limited set of component roles
in the runtime - these are the things that actually cause different versions of a component to be used. And usually a given implementation of a component is always bound to this role; it is really the reason-of-existence of that implementation.
So if you let the "configuration" simply specify which component roles you require, you can get away without much more configuration at all.
Of course, there's always going to be exceptions, but then you just handle the exceptions instead.
I'm on a path with krosenvold, here, only with less text: Within most applications, you have a exactly one implementation per required "service". We simply don't write applications where each object needs 10 or more implementations of each service. So it would make sense to have a simple way say "this is the default implementation, 99% of all objects using this service will be happy with it".
In tests, you usually use a specific mockup, so no need for any config there either (since you do the wiring manually).
This is what convention-over-configuration is all about. Most of the time, the configuration is simply a dump repeating of something that the DI framework should know already :)
In my apps, I use the class object as the key to look up implementations and the "key" happens to be the default implementation. If my DI framework can't find an override in the config, it will just try to instantiate the key. With over 1000 "services", I need four overrides. That would be a lot of useless XML to write.
With dependency injection unit tests become very simple to set up, because you can inject mocks instead of real objects in your object under test. You don't need configuration for that, just create and injects the mocks in the unit test code.
I received this comment on my blog, from Nate Kohari:
Glad you're considering using Ninject!
Ninject takes the stance that the
configuration of your DI framework is
actually part of your application, and
shouldn't be publicly configurable. If
you want certain bindings to be
configurable, you can easily make your
Ninject modules read your app.config.
Having your bindings in code saves you
from the verbosity of XML, and gives
you type-safety, refactorability, and
intellisense.
you don't even need to use a DI framework to apply the dependency injection pattern. you can simply make use of static factory methods for creating your objects, if you don't need configurability apart from recompiling code.
so it all depends on how configurable you want your application to be. if you want it to be configurable/pluggable without code recompilation, you'll want something you can configure via text or xml files.
I'll second the use of DI for testing. I only really consider using DI at the moment for testing, as our application doesn't require any configuration-based flexibility - it's also far too large to consider at the moment.
DI tends to lead to cleaner, more separated design - and that gives advantages all round.
If you want to change the behavior after a release build, then you will need a DI framework that supports external configurations, yes.
But I can think of other scenarios in which this configuration isn't necessary: for example control the injection of the components in your business logic. Or use a DI framework to make unit testing easier.
You should read about PRISM in .NET (it's best practices to do composite applications in .NET). In these best practices each module "Expose" their implementation type inside a shared container. This way each module has clear responsabilities over "who provide the implementation for this interface". I think it will be clear enough when you will understand how PRISM work.
When you use inversion of control you are helping to make your class do as little as possible. Let's say you have some windows service that waits for files and then performs a series of processes on the file. One of the processes is to convert it to ZIP it then Email it.
public class ZipProcessor : IFileProcessor
{
IZipService ZipService;
IEmailService EmailService;
public void Process(string fileName)
{
ZipService.Zip(fileName, Path.ChangeFileExtension(fileName, ".zip"));
EmailService.SendEmailTo(................);
}
}
Why would this class need to actually do the zipping and the emailing when you could have dedicated classes to do this for you? Obviously you wouldn't, but that's only a lead up to my point :-)
In addition to not implementing the Zip and email why should the class know which class implements the service? If you pass interfaces to the constructor of this processor then it never needs to create an instance of a specific class, it is given everything it needs to do the job.
Using a D.I.C. you can configure which classes implement certain interfaces and then just get it to create an instance for you, it will inject the dependencies into the class.
var processor = Container.Resolve<ZipProcessor>();
So now not only have you cleanly separated the class's functionality from shared functionality, but you have also prevented the consumer/provider from having any explicit knowledge of each other. This makes reading code easier to understand because there are less factors to consider at the same time.
Finally, when unit testing you can pass in mocked dependencies. When you test your ZipProcessor your mocked services will merely assert that the class attempted to send an email rather than it really trying to send one.
//Mock the ZIP
var mockZipService = MockRepository.GenerateMock<IZipService>();
mockZipService.Expect(x => x.Zip("Hello.xml", "Hello.zip"));
//Mock the email send
var mockEmailService = MockRepository.GenerateMock<IEmailService>();
mockEmailService.Expect(x => x.SendEmailTo(.................);
//Test the processor
var testSubject = new ZipProcessor(mockZipService, mockEmailService);
testSubject.Process("Hello.xml");
//Assert it used the services in the correct way
mockZipService.VerifyAlLExpectations();
mockEmailService.VerifyAllExceptions();
So in short. You would want to do it to
01: Prevent consumers from knowing explicitly which provider implements the services it needs, which means there's less to understand at once when you read code.
02: Make unit testing easier.
Pete
What are your opinions on developing for the command line first, then adding a GUI on after the fact by simply calling the command line methods?
eg.
W:\ todo AddTask "meeting with John, re: login peer review" "John's office" "2008-08-22" "14:00"
loads todo.exe and calls a function called AddTask that does some validation and throws the meeting in a database.
Eventually you add in a screen for this:
============================================================
Event: [meeting with John, re: login peer review]
Location: [John's office]
Date: [Fri. Aug. 22, 2008]
Time: [ 2:00 PM]
[Clear] [Submit]
============================================================
When you click submit, it calls the same AddTask function.
Is this considered:
a good way to code
just for the newbies
horrendous!.
Addendum:
I'm noticing a trend here for "shared library called by both the GUI and CLI executables." Is there some compelling reason why they would have to be separated, other than maybe the size of the binaries themselves?
Why not just call the same executable in different ways:
"todo /G" when you want the full-on graphical interface
"todo /I" for an interactive prompt within todo.exe (scripting, etc)
plain old "todo <function>" when you just want to do one thing and be done with it.
Addendum 2:
It was mentioned that "the way [I've] described things, you [would] need to spawn an executable every time the GUI needs to do something."
Again, this wasn't my intent. When I mentioned that the example GUI called "the same AddTask function," I didn't mean the GUI called the command line program each time. I agree that would be totally nasty. I had intended (see first addendum) that this all be held in a single executable, since it was a tiny example, but I don't think my phrasing necessarily precluded a shared library.
Also, I'd like to thank all of you for your input. This is something that keeps popping back in my mind and I appreciate the wisdom of your experience.
I would go with building a library with a command line application that links to it. Afterwards, you can create a GUI that links to the same library. Calling a command line from a GUI spawns external processes for each command and is more disruptive to the OS.
Also, with a library you can easily do unit tests for the functionality.
But even as long as your functional code is separate from your command line interpreter, then you can just re-use the source for a GUI without having the two kinds at once to perform an operation.
Put the shared functionality in a library, then write a command-line and a GUI front-end for it. That way your layer transition isn't tied to the command-line.
(Also, this way adds another security concern: shouldn't the GUI first have to make sure it's the RIGHT todo.exe that is being called?)
Joel wrote an article contrasting this ("unix-style") development to the GUI first ("Windows-style") method a few years back. He called it Biculturalism.
I think on Windows it will become normal (if it hasn't already) to wrap your logic into .NET assemblies, which you can then access from both a GUI and a PowerShell provider. That way you get the best of both worlds.
My technique for programming backend functionality first without having the need for an explicit UI (especially when the UI isn't my job yet, e.g., I'm desigining a web application that is still in the design phase) is to write unit tests.
That way I don't even need to write a console application to mock the output of my backend code -- it's all in the tests, and unlike your console app I don't have to throw the code for the tests away because they still are useful later.
I think it depends on what type of application you are developing. Designing for the command line puts you on the fast track to what Alan Cooper refers to as "Implementation Model" in The Inmates are Running the Asylum. The result is a user interface that is unintuitive and difficult to use.
37signals also advocates designing your user interface first in Getting Real. Remember, for all intents and purposes, in the majority of applications, the user interface is the program. The back end code is just there to support it.
It's probably better to start with a command line first to make sure you have the functionality correct. If your main users can't (or won't) use the command line then you can add a GUI on top of your work.
This will make your app better suited for scripting as well as limiting the amount of upfront Bikeshedding so you can get to the actual solution faster.
If you plan to keep your command-line version of your app then I don't see a problem with doing it this way - it's not time wasted. You'll still end up coding the main functionality of your app for the command-line and so you'll have a large chunk of the work done.
I don't see working this way as being a barrier to a nice UI - you've still got the time to add one and make is usable etc.
I guess this way of working would only really work if you intend for your finished app to have both command-line and GUI variants. It's easy enough to mock a UI and build your functionality into that and then beautify the UI later.
Agree with Stu: your base functionality should be in a library that is called from the command-line and GUI code. Calling the executable from the UI is unnecessary overhead at runtime.
#jcarrascal
I don't see why this has to make the GUI "bad?"
My thought would be that it would force you to think about what the "business" logic actually needs to accomplish, without worrying too much about things being pretty. Once you know what it should/can do, you can build your interface around that in whatever way makes the most sense.
Side note: Not to start a separate topic, but what is the preferred way to address answers to/comments on your questions? I considered both this, and editing the question itself.
I did exactly this on one tool I wrote, and it worked great. The end result is a scriptable tool that can also be used via a GUI.
I do agree with the sentiment that you should ensure the GUI is easy and intuitive to use, so it might be wise to even develop both at the same time... a little command line feature followed by a GUI wrapper to ensure you are doing things intuitively.
If you are true to implementing both equally, the result is an app that can be used in an automated manner, which I think is very powerful for power users.
I usually start with a class library and a separate, really crappy and basic GUI. As the Command Line involves parsing the Command Line, I feel like i'm adding a lot of unneccessary overhead.
As a Bonus, this gives an MVC-like approach, as all the "real" code is in a Class Library. Of course, at a later stage, Refactoring the library together with a real GUI into one EXE is also an option.
If you do your development right, then it should be relatively easy to switch to a GUI later on in the project. The problem is that it's kinda difficult to get it right.
Kinda depends on your goal for the program, but yeah i do this from time to time - it's quicker to code, easier to debug, and easier to write quick and dirty test cases for. And so long as i structure my code properly, i can go back and tack on a GUI later without too much work.
To those suggesting that this technique will result in horrible, unusable UIs: You're right. Writing a command-line utility is a terrible way to design a GUI. Take note, everyone out there thinking of writing a UI that isn't a CLUI - don't prototype it as a CLUI.
But, if you're writing new code that does not itself depend on a UI, then go for it.
A better approach might be to develop the logic as a lib with a well defined API and, at the dev stage, no interface (or a hard coded interface) then you can wright the CLI or GUI later
I would not do this for a couple of reasons.
Design:
A GUI and a CLI are two different interfaces used to access an underlying implementation. They are generally used for different purposes (GUI is for a live user, CLI is usually accessed by scripting) and can often have different requirements. Coupling the two together is not a wise choice and is bound to cause you trouble down the road.
Performance:
The way you've described things, you need to spawn an executable every time the GUI needs to d o something. This is just plain ugly.
The right way to do this is to put the implementation in a library that's called by both the CLI and the GUI.
John Gruber had a good post about the concept of adding a GUI to a program not designed for one: Ronco Spray-On Usability
Summary: It doesn't work. If usability isn't designed into an application from the beginning, adding it later is more work than anyone is willing to do.
#Maudite
The command-line app will check params up front and the GUI won't - but they'll still be checking the same params and inputting them into some generic worker functions.
Still the same goal. I don't see the command-line version affecting the quality of the GUI one.
Do a program that you expose as a web-service. then do the gui and command line to call the same web service. This approach also allows you to make a web-gui, and also to provide the functionality as SaaS to extranet partners, and/or to better secure the business logic.
This also allows your program to more easily participate in a SOA environement.
For the web-service, don't go overboard. do yaml or xml-rpc. Keep it simple.
In addition to what Stu said, having a shared library will allow you to use it from web applications as well. Or even from an IDE plugin.
There are several reasons why doing it this way is not a good idea. A lot of them have been mentioned, so I'll just stick with one specific point.
Command-line tools are usually not interactive at all, while GUI's are. This is a fundamental difference. This is for example painful for long-running tasks.
Your command-line tool will at best print out some kind of progress information - newlines, a textual progress bar, a bunch of output, ... Any kind of error it can only output to the console.
Now you want to slap a GUI on top of that, what do you do ? Parse the output of your long-running command line tool ? Scan for WARNING and ERROR in that output to throw up a dialog box ?
At best, most UI's built this way throw up a pulsating busy bar for as long as the command runs, then show you a success or failure dialog when the command exits. Sadly, this is how a lot of UNIX GUI programs are thrown together, making it a terrible user experience.
Most repliers here are correct in saying that you should probably abstract the actual functionality of your program into a library, then write a command-line interface and the GUI at the same time for it. All your business logic should be in your library, and either UI (yes, a command line is a UI) should only do whatever is necessary to interface between your business logic and your UI.
A command line is too poor a UI to make sure you develop your library good enough for GUI use later. You should start with both from the get-go, or start with the GUI programming. It's easy to add a command line interface to a library developed for a GUI, but it's a lot harder the other way around, precisely because of all the interactive features the GUI will need (reporting, progress, error dialogs, i18n, ...)
Command line tools generate less events then GUI apps and usually check all the params before starting. This will limit your gui because for a gui, it could make more sense to ask for the params as your program works or afterwards.
If you don't care about the GUI then don't worry about it. If the end result will be a gui, make the gui first, then do the command line version. Or you could work on both at the same time.
--Massive edit--
After spending some time on my current project, I feel as though I have come full circle from my previous answer. I think it is better to do the command line first and then wrap a gui on it. If you need to, I think you can make a great gui afterwards. By doing the command line first, you get all of the arguments down first so there is no surprises (until the requirements change) when you are doing the UI/UX.
That is exactly one of my most important realizations about coding and I wish more people would take such approach.
Just one minor clarification: The GUI should not be a wrapper around the command line. Instead one should be able to drive the core of the program from either a GUI or a command line. At least at the beginning and just basic operations.
When is this a great idea?
When you want to make sure that your domain implementation is independent of the GUI framework. You want to code around the framework not into the framework
When is this a bad idea?
When you are sure your framework will never die