Of course, I can use the whole Java standard library as long as I stay on the JVM, but quite often Kotlin offers equivalent classes, sometimes shadowing Java’s classes (and using them behind my back). As such, Kotlin offers an ArrayDeque to replace Java’s ArrayDeque.
Now, the good old java.util.ArrayDeque, being in line with the other collection classes, implements the interface java.util.Deque (it’s actually one of four such implementations in java.util. That is usually considered good practice, if you just care for a Deque you should not need to know whether it is implemented using an array or a list.
However, the new-fangled kotlin.collections.ArrayDeque (where actually the package name is redundant, since it is accessible without) has no interface it implements, apart from MutableList, which is too generic.
I don’t want to trigger opinion-based answers here, even if I can already imagine a few of them. Rather, I wonder if there may exist a hard technical reason to decide against using a strategy used in other places of the Kotlin standard library itself.
Related
I've been learning Kotlin and I've faced with Collections API. Before Kotlin I'd been learning Java and I know that in Java there's a lot of different types of Collections API. For example, instead of general List, Map, Queue, Set we use ArrayList, HashMap, LinkedList, LinkedMap and etc. Though in Kotlin we only use general types like Map, List, Set but also we can use HashMap and etc. So, what's going on there? Can you help me to figure out?
While Kotlin's original and primary target is the JVM, there is a huge push by JetBrains to make it multiplatform, and support JS and Native as well.
If you're using Kotlin on the JVM, the implementations of any collections you're using will still be the original JDK classes, e.g. java.util.ArrayList or java.util.HashSet. These are not reimplemented by the Kotlin standard library, which has some great benefits:
These are well-tested implementations, which are maintained anyway.
Using the exact same classes makes interop with Java a breeze, as you can pass them back and forth without having to perform conversions or mapping of any kind.
What Kotlin does do is introduce its own collection semantics over these existing implementations, in the form of the standard library interfaces such as List, Map, MutableList, MutableMap and so on. A small bit of compiler magic makes it so that these interfaces are implemented by the existing JDK classes as well.
If you don't need a specific implementation of a certain type of collection, you can use your collections via these interfaces plus the respective factory methods of the standard library (listOf, mapOf, mutableListOf, mutableMapOf, etc.). This keeps your code more generic, and independent of the concrete underlying implementations. You don't know what specific class the standard library mutableListOf function will create for you, only that it will be an object that satisfies the contract of the MutableList interface.
You should basically use these interfaces by default in your code, especially in public API:
In the case of function parameters, this lets clients provide the function with whatever implementation of the collection they wish to give you. If your function can operate on anything that's a List, you should ask for just that interface - no reason to require an ArrayList or LinkedList specifically.
If this is a return type, using these interfaces lets you change the specific implementation that you create internally in the future, without breaking client code. You can promise to just return a MutableList of things, and what implementation backs that list is not exposed to your clients.
If you look at all the collection handling functions of the Kotlin standard library, you'll see that on the surface, they almost exclusively operate on these interfaces. If you dig down deep enough, you'll find ArrayList instances being created, but this is not exposed to the client code, as it doesn't have to care about the concrete implementation most of the time.
Going back to the multiplatform point once more, if you write your code in a way such that it only relies on Kotlin standard library defined types, that code will be easily usable for non-JVM targets. If you reference kotlin.MutableList in your imports, that can immediately compile to JS code, because there's a Kotlin standard library implementation of that interface on each platform. Whether that maps to an existing class directly, wraps an existing class somehow, or is implemented for Kotlin from scratch, again, doesn't have to concern you. But if you refer to java.util.TreeSet in your code, that won't fly for the JS target, as the Java platform classes are not available there.
Can you still use classes such as java.util.ArrayList directly? Of course.
If you don't see your code going multiplatform at some point, using Java collections directly is perfectly okay.
If you need a specific implementation for a List or a Set for performance reasons, sometimes you'll have to use the Java classes directly.
Interestingly, in recent releases of Kotlin, these specific types of implementations (such as an array based list) are wrapped under standard library typealiases too, so that they're platform independent by default: see kotlin.collections.ArrayList or kotlin.collections.HashSet for examples of this. These Kotlin-defined types will usually show up first in IntelliJ completion, so you'll find yourself being pushed towards using them wherever possible. Same thing goes for most exceptions, e.g. IllegalArgumentException.
TL;DR: You can use either Kotlin collection types of Java types in Kotlin, but you should probably do the former whenever you can.
Run-time Polymorphism can be used to let the run-time to dynamically load the exact concrete class of an abstract class/interface. (You can take Animal/Dog, Vehicle/Car examples)
But when we know the exact concrete class #coding-time (compile-time), does it really need to forcefully apply polymorphism?
When I write OO code, I tend to use most-general type I can on the left-hand side of the assignment. This immediately means that my answer to your question is - no.
Here's the example:
Animal x = new Dog();
...
x.move();
The reason why I'm doing this is that I'm probably going to split beginning and end of the operation into two distinct operations. My methods are extremely short in practice.
Applied to the same example:
function moveDog() {
move(new Dog());
}
function move(Animal animal) {
animal.move();
}
As you can see, it would make no sense for the move function to know what kind of animal it is really moving.
Generally, it is compiler's duty to figure whether in a given code base any concrete call has been made with an overridden move() method. Some compilers can detect that no overridden method will be subjected to them and then they remove dynamic dispatch at compile time. With some luck, my code above would compile the same whether move function receives Animal or Dog.
Now, this is theory. In practice, there are two important things. First, compilers that are widely used have still not started using such aggressive optimization techniques as detecting static method calls, as opposed to calls that require dynamic dispatch. Second, the first thing doesn't matter too much with CPU power we have today.
I have been writing highly optimized code for fifteen years already and I have met the situation in which I had to factor polymorphic calls out. That is why I strongly recommend to apply polymorphism as much as possible. When the time comes to add some classes, to incorporate new features, polymorphic calls will likely be the tool to seamlessly add new classes to the existing design. If you used overly concrete types during development, it could easily happen that you cannot add new feature to the given code base.
But when we know the exact concrete class #coding-time (compile-time), does it really need to forcefully apply polymorphism?
Knowing the type at compile time is not necessarily a yes/no thing across all the code in an app and an object's entire lifetime, given techniques for type erasure. But, ignoring those classic uses of polymorphism, there are still other potential reasons such as...
(sorry - pretty obvious one this) to make it easier to change the implementation should another become available later
to make it easier to "mock" an implementation for testing (i.e. provide objects that pretend to provide some service or function, but have more scripted/controllable/observable behaviours to let tests put some dependent code through its paces)
hide aspects of the implementation that might otherwise have to be exposed (e.g. in C++, a class/struct definition must declare all the protected and private members)
this is sometimes for Intellectual Property protection; at other times, so more changes can be made to the implementation without having to make a change the "header" file that would typically trigger recompilation of a lot of dependent code
to aid in modelling and application design, using the "interfaces" to cleanly specify the intended APIs, which can then provide a more stable reference for comparison as the implementations are fleshed out
Objective-C’s objects are pretty flexible when compared to similar languages like C++ and can be extended at runtime via Categories or through runtime functions.
Any idea what this sentence means? I am relatively new to Objective-C
While technically true, it may be confusing to the reader to call category extension "at runtime." As Justin Meiners explains, categories allow you to add additional methods to an existing class without requiring access to the existing class's source code. The use of categories is fairly common in Objective-C, though there are some dangers. If two different categories add the same method to the same class, then the behavior is undefined. Since you cannot know whether some other part of the system (perhaps even a system library) adds a category method, you typically must add a prefix to prevent collisions (for example rather than swappedString, a better name would likely be something like rnc_swappedString if this were part of RNCryptor for instance.)
As I said, it is technically true that categories are added at runtime, but from the programmer's point of view, categories are written as though just part of the class, so most people think of them as being a compile-time choice. It is very rare to decide at runtime whether to add a category method or not.
As a beginner, you should be aware of categories, but slow to create new ones. Creating categories is a somewhat intermediate-level skill. It's not something to avoid, but not something you'll use every day. It's very easy to overuse them. See Justin's link for more information.
On the other hand, "runtime functions" really do add new functionality to existing classes or even specific objects at runtime, and are completely under the control of code. You can, at runtime, modify a class such that it responds to a method it didn't previously respond to. You can even generate entirely new classes at runtime that did not exist when the program was compiled, and you can change the class of existing objects. (This is exactly how Key-Value Observation is implemented.)
Modifying classes and objects using the runtime is an advanced skill. You should not even consider using these techniques in production code until you have significant experience. And when you have that experience, it will tell you that you very seldom what to do this anyway. You will know the runtime functions because they are C-based, with names like method_exchangeImplmentations. You won't mistake them for normal ObjC (and you generally have to import objc/runtime.h to get to them.)
There is a middle-ground that bleeds into runtime manipulation called message forwarding and dynamic message resolution. This is often used for proxy objects, and is implemented with -forwardingTargetForSelector, +resolveInstanceMethod, and some similar methods. These are tools that allow classes to modify themselves at runtime, and is much less dangerous than modifying other classes (i.e. "swizzling").
It's also important to consider how all of this translates to Swift. In general, Swift has discouraged and restricted the use of runtime class manipulation, but it embraces (and improves) category-like extensions. By the time you're experienced enough to dig into the runtime, you will likely find it an even more obscure skill than it is today. But you will use extensions (Swift's version of categories) in every program.
A category allows you to add functionality to an existing class that you do not have access to source code for (System frameworks, 3rd party APIs etc). This functionality is possible by adding methods to a class at runtime.
For example lets say I wanted to add a method to NSString that swapped uppercase and lowercase letters called -swappedString. In static languages (such as C++), extending classes like this is more difficult. I would have to create a subclass of NSString (or a helper function). While my own code could take advantage of my subclass, any instance created in a library would not use my subclass and would not have my method.
Using categories I can extend any class, such as adding a -swappedString method and use it on any instance of the class, such asNSString transparently [anyString swappedString];.
You can learn more details from Apple's Docs
I'm trying to understand whether the answer to the following question is the same in all major OOP languages; and if not, then how do those languages differ.
Suppose I have class A that defines methods act and jump; method act calls method jump. A's subclass B overrides method jump (i.e., the appropriate syntax is used to ensure that whenever jump is called, the implementation in class B is used).
I have object b of class B. I want it to behave exactly as if it was of class A. In other words, I want the jump to be performed using the implementation in A. What are my options in different languages?
For example, can I achieve this with some form of downcasting? Or perhaps by creating a proxy object that knows which methods to call?
I would want to avoid creating a brand new object of class A and carefully setting up the sharing of internal state between a and b because that's obviously not future-proof, and complicated. I would also want to avoid copying the state of b into a brand new object of class A because there might be a lot of data to copy.
UPDATE
I asked this question specifically about Python, but it seems this is impossible to achieve in Python and technically it can be done... kinda..
It appears that apart from technical feasibility, there's a strong argument against doing this from a design perspective. I'm asking about that in a separate question.
The comments reiterated: Prefer composition over inheritance.
Inheritance works well when your subclasses have well defined behavioural differences from their superclass, but you'll frequently hit a point where that model gets awkward or stops making sense. At that point, you need to reconsider your design.
Composition is usually the better solution. Delegating your object's varying behaviour to a different object (or objects) may reduce or eliminate your need for subclassing.
In your case, the behavioural differences between class A and class B could be encapsulated in the Strategy pattern. You could then change the behaviour of class A (and class B, if still required) at the instance level, simply by assigning a new strategy.
The Strategy pattern may require more code in the short run, but it's clean and maintainable. Method swizzling, monkey patching, and all those cool things that allow us to poke around in our specific language implementation are fun, but the potential for unexpected side effects is high and the code tends to be difficult to maintain.
What you are asking is completely unrelated/unsupported by OOP programming.
If you subclass an object A with class B and override its methods, when a concrete instance of B is created then all the overriden/new implementation of the base methods are associated with it (either we talk about Java or C++ with virtual tables etc).
You have instantiated object B.
Why would you expect that you could/would/should be able to call the method of the superclass if you have overriden that method?
You could call it explicitely of course e.g. by calling super inside the method, but you can not do it automatically, and casting will not help you do that either.
I can't imagine why you would want to do that.
If you need to use class A then use class A.
If you need to override its functionality then use its subclass B.
Most programming languages go to some trouble to support dynamic dispatch of virtual functions (the case of calling the overridden method jump in a subclass instead of the parent class's implementation) -- to the degree that working around it or avoiding it is difficult. In general, specialization/polymorphism is a desirable feature -- arguably a goal of OOP in the first place.
Take a look at the Wikipedia article on Virtual Functions, which gives a useful overview of the support for virtual functions in many programming languages. It will give you a place to start when considering a specific language, as well as the trade-offs to weigh when looking at a language where the programmer can control how dispatch behaves (see the section on C++, for example).
So loosely, the answer to your question is, "No, the behavior is not the same in all programming languages." Furthermore, there is no language independent solution. C++ may be your best bet if you need the behavior.
You can actually do this with Python (sort of), with some awful hacks. It requires that you implement something like the wrappers we were discussing in your first Python-specific question, but as a subclass of B. You then need to implement write-proxying as well (the wrapper object shouldn't contain any of the state normally associated with the class hierarchy, it should redirect all attribute access to the underlying instance of B.
But rather than redirecting method lookup to A and then calling the method with the wrapped instance, you'd call the method passing the wrapper object as self. This is legal because the wrapper class is a subclass of B, so the wrapper instance is an instance of the classes whose methods you're calling.
This would be very strange code, requiring you to dynamically generate classes using both IS-A and HAS-A relationships at the same time. It would probably also end up fairly fragile and have bizarre results in a lot of corner cases (you generally can't write 100% perfect wrapper classes in Python exactly because this sort of strange thing is possible).
I'm completely leaving aside weather this is a good idea or not.
When do you encourage programming against an interface and not directly to a concrete class?
A guideline that I follow is to create abstractions whenever code requires to cross a logical/physical boundary, most especially when infrastructure-related concerns are involved.
Another checkpoint would be if a dependency will likely change in the future, due to possible additional concerns code (such as caching, transactional awareness, invoking a webservice instead of in-process execution) or if such dependencies have direct references to infrastructure integration points.
If code depends on something that does not require control to cross a logical/physical boundary, I more or less don't create abstractions to interact with those.
Am I missing anything?
Also, use interfaces when
Multiple objects will need to be acted upon in a particular fashion, but are not fundamentally related. Perhaps many of your business objects access a particular utility object, and when they do they need to give a reference of themselves to that utility object so the utility object can call a particular method. Have that method in an interface and pass that interface to that utility object.
Passing around interfaces as parameters can be very helpful in unit testing. Even if you have just one type of object that sports a particular interface, and hence don't really need a defined interface, you might define/implement an interface solely to "fake" that object in unit tests.
related to the first 2 bullets, check out the Observer pattern and the Dependency Injection. I'm not saying to implement these patterns, but they illustrate types of places where interfaces are really helpful.
Another twist on this is for implementing a couple of the SOLID Principals, Open Closed principal and the Interface Segregation principle. Like the previous bullet, don't get stressed about strictly implementing these principals everywhere (right away at least), but use these concepts to help move your thinking away from just what objects go where to thinking more about contracts and dependency
In the end, let's not make it too complicated: we're in a strongly typed world in .NET. If you need to call a method or set a property but the object you're passing/using could be fundamentally different, use an interface.
I would add that if your code is not going to be referenced by another library (for a while at least), then the decision of whether to use an interface in a particular situation is one that you can responsibly put off. The "extract interface" refactoring is easy to do these days. In my current project, I've got an object being passed around that I'm thinking maybe I should switch to an interface; I'm not stressing about it.
Interfaces abstraction are convenient when doing unit test. It helps for mocking test objects. It very useful in TDD for developing without actually using data from your database.
If you don't need any features of the class that aren't found in the Interface...then why not always prefer the Interface implementation?
It will make your code easier to modify in the future and easier to test (mocking).
you have the right idea, already. i would only add a couple of notes to this...
first, abstraction does not mean 'interface'. for example, a "connection string" is an abstraction, even though it's just a string... it's not about the 'type' of the thing in question, it's about the intention of use for that thing.
and secondly, if you are doing test automation of any kind, look for the pain and friction that are exposed by writing the tests. if you find yourself having to set up too many external conditions for a test, it's a sign that you need a better abstraction between the thing your testing and the things it interacts with.
I think you've said it pretty well. Much of this will be a stylistic thing. There are open source projects I've looked at where everything has an interface and an implementation, and it's kind of frustrating, but it might make iterative development a little easier, since any objects implementation can break but dummies will still work. But honestly, I can dummy any class that doesn't overuse the final keyword by inheritance.
I would add to your list this: anything which can be thought of as a black box should be abstracted. This includes some of the things you've mentioned, but it also includes hairy algorithms, which are likely to have multiple useful implementations with different advantages for different situation.
Additionally, interfaces come in handy very often with composite objects. That's the only way something like java's swing library gets anything done, but it can also be useful for more mundane objects. (I personally like having an interface like ValidityChecker with ways to and-compose or or-compose subordinate ValidityCheckers.)
Most of the useful things that come with the Interface passing have been already said. However I would add:
implementing an interface to an object, or later multiple objects, FORCES all the implementers to follow an IDENTICAL pattern to implement contract with the object. This can be useful in case you have not so OOP-experienced-programmers actually writing the implementation code.
in some languages you can add attributes on the interface itself, which can be different from the actual object implementation attribute as sense and intent