Related
I haven't found any clear articles on this, but I was wondering about why polymorphism is the recommended design pattern over exhaustive switch case / pattern matching. I ask this because I've gotten a lot of heat from experienced developers for not using polymorphic classes, and it's been troubling me. I've personally had a terrible time with polymorphism and a wonderful time with switch cases, the reduction in abstractions and indirection makes readability of the code so much easier in my opinion. This is in direct contrast with books like "clean code" which are typically seen as industry standards.
Note: I use TypeScript, so the following examples may not apply in other languages, but I think the principle generally applies as long as you have exhaustive pattern matching / switch cases.
List the options
If you want to know what the possible values of an action, with an enum, switch case, this is trivial. For classes this requires some reflection magic
// definitely two actions here, I could even loop over them programmatically with basic primitives
enum Action {
A = 'a',
B = 'b',
}
Following the code
Dependency injection and abstract classes mean that jump to definition will never go where you want
function doLetterThing(myEnum: Action) {
switch (myEnum) {
case Action.A:
return;
case Action.B;
return;
default:
exhaustiveCheck(myEnum);
}
}
versus
function doLetterThing(action: BaseAction) {
action.doAction();
}
If I jump to definition for BaseAction or doAction I will end up on the abstract class, which doesn't help me debug the function or the implementation. If you have a dependency injection pattern with only a single class, this means that you can "guess" by going to the main class / function and looking for how "BaseAction" is instantiated and following that type to the place and scrolling to find the implementation. This seems generally like a bad UX for a developer though.
(small note about whether dependency injection is good, traits seem to do a good enough job in cases where they are necessary (though either done prematurely as a rule rather than as a necessity seems to lead to more difficult to follow code))
Write less code
This depends, but if have to define an extra abstract class for your base type, plus override all the function types, how is that less code than single line switch cases? With good types here if you add an option to the enum, your type checker will flag all the places you need to handle this which will usually involve adding 1 line each for the case and 1+ line for implementation. Compare this with polymorphic classes which you need to define a new class, which needs the new function syntax with the correct params and the opening and closing parens. In most cases, switch cases have less code and less lines.
Colocation
Everything for a type is in one place which is nice, but generally whenever I implement a function like this is I look for a similarly implemented function. With a switch case, it's extremely adjacent, with a derived class I would need to find and locate in another file or directory.
If I implemented a feature change such as trimming spaces off the ends of a string for one type, I would need to open all the class files to make sure if they implement something similar that it is implemented correctly in all of them. And if I forget, I might have different behaviour for different types without knowing. With a switch the co location makes this extremely obvious (though not foolproof)
Conclusion
Am I missing something? It doesn't make sense that we have these clear design principles that I basically can only find affirmative articles about but don't see any clear benefits, and serious downsides compared to some basic pattern matching style development
Consider the solid-principles, in particular OCP and DI.
To extend a switch case or enum and add new functionality in the future, you must modify the existing code. Modifying legacy code is risky and expensive. Risky because you may inadvertently introduce regression. Expensive because you have to learn (or re-learn) implementation details, and then re-test the legacy code (which presumably was working before you modified it).
Dependency on concrete implementations creates tight coupling and inhibits modularity. This makes code rigid and fragile, because a change in one place affects many dependents.
In addition, consider scalability. An abstraction supports any number of implementations, many of which are potentially unknown at the time the abstraction is created. A developer needn't understand or care about additional implementations. How many cases can a developer juggle in one switch, 10? 100?
Note this does not mean polymorphism (or OOP) is suitable for every class or application. For example, there are counterpoints in, Should every class implement an interface? When considering extensibility and scalability, there is an assumption that a code base will grow over time. If you're working with a few thousand lines of code, "enterprise-level" standards are going to feel very heavy. Likewise, coupling a few classes together when you only have a few classes won't be very noticeable.
Benefits of good design are realized years down the road when code is able to evolve in new directions.
I think you are missing the point. The main purpose of having a clean code is not to make your life easier while implementing the current feature, rather it makes your life easier in future when you are extending or maintaining the code.
In your example, you may feel implementing your two actions using switch case. But what happens if you need to add more actions in future? Using the abstract class, you can easily create a new action type and the caller doesn't need to be modified. But if you keep using switch case it will be lot more messier, especially for complex cases.
Also, following a better design pattern (DI in this case) will make the code easier to test. When you consider only easy cases, you may not find the usefulness of using proper design patterns. But if you think broader aspect, it really pays off.
"Base class" is against the Clean Code. There should not be a "Base class", not just for bad naming, also for composition over inheritance rule. So from now on, I will assume it is an interface in which other classes implement it, not extend (which is important for my example). First of all, I would like to see your concerns:
Answer for Concerns
This depends, but if have to define an extra abstract class for your
base type, plus override all the function types, how is that less code
than single line switch cases
I think "write less code" should not be character count. Then Ruby or GoLang or even Python beats the Java, obviously does not it? So I would not count the lines, parenthesis etc. instead code that you should test/maintain.
Everything for a type is in one place which is nice, but generally
whenever I implement a function like this is I look for a similarly
implemented function.
If "look for a similarly" means, having implementation together makes copy some parts from the similar function then we also have some clue here for refactoring. Having Implementation class differently has its own reason; their implementation is completely different. They may follow some pattern, lets see from Communication perspective; If we have Letter and Phone implementations, we should not need to look their implementation to implement one of them. So your assumption is wrong here, if you look to their code to implement new feature then your interface does not guide you for the new feature. Let's be more specific;
interface Communication {
sendMessage()
}
Letter implements Communication {
sendMessage() {
// get receiver
// get sender
// set message
// send message
}
}
Now we need Phone, so if we go to Letter implementation to get and idea to how to implement Phone then our interface does not enough for us to guide our implementation. Technically Phone and Letter is different to send a message. Then we need a Design pattern here, maybe Template Pattern? Let's see;
interface Communication {
default sendMessage() {
getMessageFactory().sendMessage(getSender(), getReceiver(), getBody())
}
getSender()
getReceiver()
getBody()
}
Letter implements Communication {
getSender() { returns sender }
getReceiver() {returns receiver }
getBody() {returns body}
getMessageFactory {returns LetterMessageFactory}
}
Now when we need to implement Phone we don't need to look the details of other implementations. We exactly now what we need to return and also our Communication interface's default method handles how to send the message.
If I implemented a feature change such as trimming spaces off the ends
of a string for one type, I would need to open all the class files to
make sure if they implement something similar that it is implemented
correctly in all of them...
So if there is a "feature change" it should be only its implemented class, not in all classes. You should not change all of the implementations. Or if it is same implementation in all of them, then why each implements it differently? It should be kept as the default method in their interface. Then if feature change required, only default method is changed and you should update your implementation and test in one place.
These are the main points that I wanted to answer your concerns. But I think the main point is you don't get the benefit. I was also struggling before I work on a big project that other teams need to extend my features. I will divide benefits to topics with extreme examples which may be more helpful to understand:
Easy to read
Normally when you see a function, you should not feel to go its implementation to understand what is happening there. It should be self-explanatory. Based on this fact; action.doAction(); -> or lets say communication.sendMessage() if they implement Communicate interface. I don't need to go for its base class, search for implementations etc. for debugging. Even implementing class is "Letter" or "Phone" I know that they send message, I don't need their implementation details. So I don't want to see all implemented classes like in your example "switch Letter; Phone.." etc. In your example doLetterThing responsible for one thing (doAction), since all of them do same thing, then why you are showing your developer all these cases?. They are just making the code harder to read.
Easy to extend
Imagine that you are extending a big project where you don't have an access to their source(I want to give extreme example to show its benefit easier). In the java world, I can say you are implementing SPI (Service Provider Interface). I can show you 2 example for this, https://github.com/apereo/cas and https://github.com/keycloak/keycloak where you can see that interface and implementations are separated and you just implement new behavior when it is required, no need to touch the original source. Why this is important? Imagine the following scenario again;
Let's suppose that Keycloak calls communication.sendMessage(). They don't know implementations in build time. If you extend Keycloak in this case, you can have your own class that implements Communication interface, let's say "Computer". Know if you have your SPI in the classpath, Keycloak reads it and calls your computer.sendMessage(). We did not touch the source code but extended the capabilities of Message Handler class. We can't achieve this if we coded against switch cases without touching the source.
I've always been taught that if you are doing something to an object, that should be an external thing, so one would Save(Class) rather than having the object save itself: Class.Save().
I've noticed that in the .Net libraries, it is common to have a class modify itself as with String.Format() or sort itself as with List.Sort().
My question is, in strict OOP is it appropriate to have a class which performs functions on itself when called to do so, or should such functions be external and called on an object of the class' type?
Great question. I have just recently reflected on a very similar issue and was eventually going to ask much the same thing here on SO.
In OOP textbooks, you sometimes see examples such as Dog.Bark(), or Person.SayHello(). I have come to the conclusion that those are bad examples. When you call those methods, you make a dog bark, or a person say hello. However, in the real world, you couldn't do this; a dog decides himself when it's going to bark. A person decides itself when it will say hello to someone. Therefore, these methods would more appropriately be modelled as events (where supported by the programming language).
You would e.g. have a function Attack(Dog), PlayWith(Dog), or Greet(Person) which would trigger the appropriate events.
Attack(dog) // triggers the Dog.Bark event
Greet(johnDoe) // triggers the Person.SaysHello event
As soon as you have more than one parameter, it won't be so easy deciding how to best write the code. Let's say I want to store a new item, say an integer, into a collection. There's many ways to formulate this; for example:
StoreInto(1, collection) // the "classic" procedural approach
1.StoreInto(collection) // possible in .NET with extension methods
Store(1).Into(collection) // possible by using state-keeping temporary objects
According to the thinking laid out above, the last variant would be the preferred one, because it doesn't force an object (the 1) to do something to itself. However, if you follow that programming style, it will soon become clear that this fluent interface-like code is quite verbose, and while it's easy to read, it can be tiring to write or even hard to remember the exact syntax.
P.S.: Concerning global functions: In the case of .NET (which you mentioned in your question), you don't have much choice, since the .NET languages do not provide for global functions. I think these would be technically possible with the CLI, but the languages disallow that feature. F# has global functions, but they can only be used from C# or VB.NET when they are packed into a module. I believe Java also doesn't have global functions.
I have come across scenarios where this lack is a pity (e.g. with fluent interface implementations). But generally, we're probably better off without global functions, as some developers might always fall back into old habits, and leave a procedural codebase for an OOP developer to maintain. Yikes.
Btw., in VB.NET, however, you can mimick global functions by using modules. Example:
Globals.vb:
Module Globals
Public Sub Save(ByVal obj As SomeClass)
...
End Sub
End Module
Demo.vb:
Imports Globals
...
Dim obj As SomeClass = ...
Save(obj)
I guess the answer is "It Depends"... for Persistence of an object I would side with having that behavior defined within a separate repository object. So with your Save() example I might have this:
repository.Save(class)
However with an Airplane object you may want the class to know how to fly with a method like so:
airplane.Fly()
This is one of the examples I've seen from Fowler about an aenemic data model. I don't think in this case you would want to have a separate service like this:
new airplaneService().Fly(airplane)
With static methods and extension methods it makes a ton of sense like in your List.Sort() example. So it depends on your usage pattens. You wouldn't want to have to new up an instance of a ListSorter class just to be able to sort a list like this:
new listSorter().Sort(list)
In strict OOP (Smalltalk or Ruby), all methods belong to an instance object or a class object. In "real" OOP (like C++ or C#), you will have static methods that essentially stand completely on their own.
Going back to strict OOP, I'm more familiar with Ruby, and Ruby has several "pairs" of methods that either return a modified copy or return the object in place -- a method ending with a ! indicates that the message modifies its receiver. For instance:
>> s = 'hello'
=> "hello"
>> s.reverse
=> "olleh"
>> s
=> "hello"
>> s.reverse!
=> "olleh"
>> s
=> "olleh"
The key is to find some middle ground between pure OOP and pure procedural that works for what you need to do. A Class should do only one thing (and do it well). Most of the time, that won't include saving itself to disk, but that doesn't mean Class shouldn't know how to serialize itself to a stream, for instance.
I'm not sure what distinction you seem to be drawing when you say "doing something to an object". In many if not most cases, the class itself is the best place to define its operations, as under "strict OOP" it is the only code that has access to internal state on which those operations depend (information hiding, encapsulation, ...).
That said, if you have an operation which applies to several otherwise unrelated types, then it might make sense for each type to expose an interface which lets the operation do most of the work in a more or less standard way. To tie it in to your example, several classes might implement an interface ISaveable which exposes a Save method on each. Individual Save methods take advantage of their access to internal class state, but given a collection of ISaveable instances, some external code could define an operation for saving them to a custom store of some kind without having to know the messy details.
It depends on what information is needed to do the work. If the work is unrelated to the class (mostly equivalently, can be made to work on virtually any class with a common interface), for example, std::sort, then make it a free function. If it must know the internals, make it a member function.
Edit: Another important consideration is performance. In-place sorting, for example, can be miles faster than returning a new, sorted, copy. This is why quicksort is faster than merge sort in the vast majority of cases, even though merge sort is theoretically faster, which is because quicksort can be performed in-place, whereas I've never heard of an in-place merge-sort. Just because it's technically possible to perform an operation within the class's public interface, doesn't mean that you actually should.
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
I understand the differences between them (at least in C#). I know the effects they have on the elements to which they are assigned. What I don't understand is why it is important to implement them - why not have everything Public?
The material I read on the subject usually goes on about how classes and methods shouldn't have unnecessary access to others, but I've yet to come across an example of why/how that would be a bad thing. It seems like a security thing, but I'm the programmer; I create the methods and define what they will (or will not) do. Why would I spend all the effort to write a function which tried to change a variable it shouldn't, or tried to read information in another class, if that would be bad?
I apologize if this is a dumb question. It's just something I ran into on the first articles I ever read on OOP, and I've never felt like it really clicked.
I'm the programmer is a correct assumption only if you're the only programmer.
In many cases, other programmers work with the first programmer's code. They use it in ways he didn't intend by fiddling with the values of fields they shouldn't, and they create a hack that works, but breaks when the producer of the original code changes it.
OOP is about creating libraries with well-defined contracts. If all your variables are public and accessible to others, then the "contract" theoretically includes every field in the object (and its sub-objects), so it becomes much harder to build a new, different implementation that still honors the original contract.
Also, the more "moving parts" of your object are exposed, the easier it is for a user of your class to manipulate it incorrectly.
You probably don't need this, but here's an example I consider amusing:
Say you sell a car with no hood over the engine compartment. Come nighttime, the driver turns on the lights. He gets to his destination, gets out of the car and then remembers he left the light on. He's too lazy to unlock the car's door, so he pulls the wire to the lights out from where it's attached to the battery. This works fine - the light is out. However, because he didn't use the intended mechanism, he finds himself with a problem next time he's driving in the dark.
Living in the USA (go ahead, downvote me!), he refuses to take responsibility for his incorrect use of the car's innards, and sues you, the manufacturer for creating a product that's unsafe to drive in the dark because the lights can't be reliably turned on after having been turned off.
This is why all cars have hoods over their engine compartments :)
A more serious example: You create a Fraction class, with a numerator and denominator field and a bunch of methods to manipulate fractions. Your constructor doesn't let its caller create a fraction with a 0 denominator, but since your fields are public, it's easy for a user to set the denominator of an existing (valid) fraction to 0, and hilarity ensues.
First, nothing in the language forces you to use access modifiers - you are free to make everything public in your class if you wish. However, there are some compelling reasons for using them. Here's my perspective.
Hiding the internals of how your class operates allows you to protect that class from unintended uses. While you may be the creator of the class, in many cases you will not be the only consumer - or even maintainer. Hiding internal state protects the class for people who may not understand its workings as well as you. Making everything public creates the temptation to "tweak" the internal state or internal behavior when the class isn't acting the way you may want - rather than actually correcting the public interface of internal implementation. This is the road to ruin.
Hiding internals helps to de-clutter the namespace, and allows tools like Intellisense to display only the relevant and meaningful methods/properties/fields. Don't discount tools like Intellisense - they are a powerful means for developers to quickly identify what they can do with your class.
Hiding internals allows you to structure an interface appropriate for the problem the class is solving. Exposing all of the internals (which often substantially outnumber the exposed interface) makes it hard to later understand what the class is trying to solve.
Hiding internals allows you to focus your testing on the appropriate portion - the public interface. When all methods/properties of a class are public, the number of permutations you must potentially test increases significantly - since any particular call path becomes possible.
Hiding internals helps you control (enforce) the call paths through your class. This makes it easier to ensure that your consumers understand what your class can be asked to do - and when. Typically, there are only a few paths through your code that are meaningful and useful. Allowing a consumer to take any path makes it more likely that they will not get meaningful results - and will interpret that as your code being buggy. Limiting how your consumers can use your class actually frees them to use it correctly.
Hiding the internal implementation frees you to change it with the knowledge that it will not adversely impact consumers of your class - so long as your public interface remains unchanged. If you decide to use a dictionary rather than a list internally - no one should care. But if you made all the internals of your class available, someone could write code that depends on the fact that your internally use a list. Imagine having to change all of the consumers when you want to change such choices about your implementation. The golden rule is: consumers of a class should not care how the class does what it does.
It is primarily a hiding and sharing thing. You may produce and use all your own code, but other people provide libraries, etc. to be used more widely.
Making things non-public allows you to explicitly define the external interface of your class. The non-public stuff is not part of the external interface, which means you can change anything you want internally without affecting anyone using the external interface,
You only want to expose the API and keep everything else hidden. Why?
Ok lets assume you want to make an awesome Matrix library so you make
class Matrix {
public Object[][] data //data your matrix storages
...
public Object[] getRow()
}
By default any other programmer that use your library will want to maximize the speed of his program by tapping into the underlying structure.
//Someone else's function
Object one() {data[0][0]}
Now, you discover that using list to emulate the matrix will increase performance so you change data from
Object[][] data => Object[] data
causes Object one() to break. In other words by changing your implementation you broke backward compatibility :-(
By encapsulating you divide internal implementation from external interface (achieved with a private modifier).
That way you can change implementation as much as possible without breaking backward compatibility :D Profit!!!
Of course if you are the only programmer that is ever going to modify or use that class you might as well as keep it public.
Note: There are other major benefits for encapsulating your stuff, this is just one of many. See Encapsulation for more details
I think the best reason for this is to provide layers of abstraction on your code.
As your application grows, you will need to have your objects interacting with other objects. Having publicly modifiable fields makes it harder to wrap your head around your entire application.
Limiting what you make public on your classes makes it easier to abstract your design so you can understand each layer of your code.
For some classes, it may seem ridiculous to have private members, with a bunch of methods that just set and get those values. The reason for it is that let's say you have a class where the members are public and directly accessible:
class A
{
public int i;
....
}
And now you go on using that in a bunch of code you wrote. Now after writing a bunch of code that directly accesses i and now you realize that i should have some constraints on it, like i should always be >= 0 and less than 100 (for argument's sake).
Now, you could go through all of your code where you used i and check for this constraint, but you could just add a public setI method that would do it for you:
class A
{
private int i;
public int I
{
get {return i;}
set
{
if (value >= 0 && value < 100)
i = value;
else
throw some exception...
}
}
}
This hides all of that error checking. While the example is trite, situations like these come up quite often.
It is not related to security at all.
Access modifers and scope are all about structure, layers, organization, and communication.
If you are the only programmer, it is probably fine until you have so much code even you can't remember. At that point, it's just like a team environment - the access modifiers and the structure of the code guide you to stay within the architecture.
I must confess I'm somewhat of an OOP skeptic. Bad pedagogical and laboral experiences with object orientation didn't help. So I converted into a fervent believer in Visual Basic (the classic one!).
Then one day I found out C++ had changed and now had the STL and templates. I really liked that! Made the language useful. Then another day MS decided to apply facial surgery to VB, and I really hated the end result for the gratuitous changes (using "end while" instead of "wend" will make me into a better developer? Why not drop "next" for "end for", too? Why force the getter alongside the setter? Etc.) plus so much Java features which I found useless (inheritance, for instance, and the concept of a hierarchical framework).
And now, several years afterwards, I find myself asking this philosophical question: Is inheritance really needed?
The gang-of-four say we should favor object composition over inheritance. And after thinking of it, I cannot find something you can do with inheritance you cannot do with object aggregation plus interfaces. So I'm wondering, why do we even have it in the first place?
Any ideas? I'd love to see an example of where inheritance would be definitely needed, or where using inheritance instead of composition+interfaces can lead to a simpler and easier to modify design. In former jobs I've found if you need to change the base class, you need to modify also almost all the derived classes for they depended on the behaviour of parent. And if you make the base class' methods virtual... then not much code sharing takes place :(
Else, when I finally create my own programming language (a long unfulfilled desire I've found most developers share), I'd see no point in adding inheritance to it...
Really really short answer: No. Inheritance is not needed because only byte code is truly needed. But obviously, byte code or assemble is not a practically way to write your program. OOP is not the only paradigm for programming. But, I digress.
I went to college for computer science in the early 2000s when inheritance (is a), compositions (has a), and interfaces (does a) were taught on an equal footing. Because of this, I use very little inheritance because it is often suited better by composition. This was stressed because many of the professors had seen bad code (along with what you have described) because of abuse of inheritance.
Regardless of creating a language with or without inheritances, can you create a programming language which prevents bad habits and bad design decisions?
I think asking for situations where inheritance is really needed is missing the point a bit. You can fake inheritance by using an interface and some composition. This doesnt mean inheritance is useless. You can do anything you did in VB6 in assembly code with some extra typing, that doesn't mean VB6 was useless.
I usually just start using an interface. Sometimes I notice I actually want to inherit behaviour. That usually means I need a base class. It's that simple.
Inheritance defines an "Is-A" relationship.
class Point( object ):
# some set of features: attributes, methods, etc.
class PointWithMass( Point ):
# An additional feature: mass.
Above, I've used inheritance to formally declare that PointWithMass is a Point.
There are several ways to handle object P1 being a PointWithMass as well as Point. Here are two.
Have a reference from PointWithMass object p1 to some Point object p1-friend. The p1-friend has the Point attributes. When p1 needs to engage in Point-like behavior, it needs to delegate the work to its friend.
Rely on language inheritance to assure that all features of Point are also applicable to my PointWithMass object, p1. When p1 needs to engage in Point-like behavior, it already is a Point object and can just do what needs to be done.
I'd rather not manage the extra objects floating around to assure that all superclass features are part of a subclass object. I'd rather have inheritance to be sure that each subclass is an instance of it's own class, plus is an instance of all superclasses, too.
Edit.
For statically-typed languages, there's a bonus. When I rely on the language to handle this, a PointWithMass can be used anywhere a Point was expected.
For really obscure abuse of inheritance, read about C++'s strange "composition through private inheritance" quagmire. See Any sensible examples of creating inheritance without creating subtyping relations? for some further discussion on this. It conflates inheritance and composition; it doesn't seem to add clarity or precision to the resulting code; it only applies to C++.
The GoF (and many others) recommend that you only favor composition over inheritance. If you have a class with a very large API, and you only want to add a very small number of methods to it, leaving the base implementation alone, I would find it inappropriate to use composition. You'd have to re-implement all of the public methods of the encapsulated class to just return their value. This is a waste of time (programmer and CPU) when you can just inherit all of this behavior, and spend your time concentrating on new methods.
So, to answer your question, no you don't absolutely need inheritance. There are, however, many situations where it's the right design choice.
The problem with inheritance is that it conflates the issue of sub-typing (asserting an is-a relationship) and code reuse (e.g., private inheritance is for reuse only).
So, no it's an overloaded word that we don't need. I'd prefer sub-typing (using the 'implements' keyword) and import (kinda like Ruby does it in class definitions)
Inheritance lets me push off a whole bunch of bookkeeping onto the compiler because it gives me polymorphic behavior for object hierarchies that I would otherwise have to create and maintain myself. Regardless of how good a silver bullet OOP is, there will always be instances where you want to employ a certain type of behavior because it just makes sense to do. And ultimately, that's the point of OOP: it makes a certain class of problems much easier to solve.
The downsides of composition is that it may disguise the relatedness of elements and it may be harder for others to understand. With,say, a 2D Point class and the desire to extend it to higher dimensions, you would presumably have to add (at least) Z getter/setter, modify getDistance(), and maybe add a getVolume() method. So you have the Objects 101 elements: related state and behavior.
A developer with a compositional mindset would presumably have defined a getDistance(x, y) -> double method and would now define a getDistance(x, y, z) -> double method. Or, thinking generally, they might define a getDistance(lambdaGeneratingACoordinateForEveryAxis()) -> double method. Then they would probably write createTwoDimensionalPoint() and createThreeDimensionalPoint() factory methods (or perhaps createNDimensionalPoint(n) ) that would stitch together the various state and behavior.
A developer with an OO mindset would use inheritance. Same amount of complexity in the implementation of domain characteristics, less complexity in terms of initializing the object (constructor takes care of it vs. a Factory method), but not as flexible in terms of what can be initialized.
Now think about it from a comprehensibility / readability standpoint. To understand the composition, one has a large number of functions that are composed programmatically inside another function. So there's little in terms of static code 'structure' (files and keywords and so forth) that makes the relatedness of Z and distance() jump out. In the OO world, you have a great big flashing red light telling you the hierarchy. Additionally, you have an essentially universal vocabulary to discuss structure, widely known graphical notations, a natural hierarchy (at least for single inheritance), etc.
Now, on the other hand, a well-named and constructed Factory method will often make explicit more of the sometimes-obscure relationships between state and behavior, since a compositional mindset facilitates functional code (that is, code that passes state via parameters, not via this ).
In a professional environment with experienced developers, the flexibility of composition generally trumps its more abstract nature. However, one should never discount the importance of comprehensibility, especially in teams that have varying degrees of experience and/or high levels of turnover.
Inheritance is an implementation decision. Interfaces almost always represent a better design, and should usually be used in an external API.
Why write a lot of boilerplate code forwarding method calls to a composed member object when the compiler will do it for you with inheritance?
This answer to another question summarises my thinking pretty well.
Does anyone else remember all of the OO-purists going ballistic over the COM implementation of "containment" instead of "inheritance?" It achieved essentially the same thing, but with a different kind of implementation. This reminds me of your question.
I strictly try to avoid religious wars in software development. ("vi" OR "emacs" ... when everybody knows its "vi"!) I think they are a sign of small minds. Comp Sci Professors can afford to sit around and debate these things. I'm working in the real world and could care less. All of this stuff are simply attempts at giving useful solutions to real problems. If they work, people will use them. The fact that OO languages and tools have been commercially available on a wide scale for going on 20 years is a pretty good bet that they are useful to a lot of people.
There are a lot of features in a programming language that are not really needed. But they are there for a variety of reasons that all basically boil down to reusability and maintainability.
All a business cares about is producing (quality of course) cheaply and quickly.
As a developer you help do this is by becoming more efficient and productive. So you need to make sure the code you write is easily reusable and maintainable.
And, among other things, this is what inheritance gives you - the ability to reuse without reinventing the wheel, as well as the ability to easily maintain your base object without having to perform maintenance on all similar objects.
There's lots of useful usages of inheritance, and probably just as many which are less useful. One of the useful ones is the stream class.
You have a method that should be able stream data. By using the stream base class as input to the method you ensure that your method can be used to write to many kinds of streams without change. To the file system, over the network, with compression, etc.
No.
for me, OOP is mostly about encapsulation of state and behavior and polymorphism.
and that is. but if you want static type checking, you'll need some way to group different types, so the compiler can check while still allowing you to use new types in place of another, related type. creating a hierarchy of types lets you use the same concept (classes) for types and for groups of types, so it's the most widely used form.
but there are other ways, i think the most general would be duck typing, and closely related, prototype-based OOP (which isn't inheritance in fact, but it's usually called prototype-based inheritance).
Depends on your definition of "needed". No, there is nothing that is impossible to do without inheritance, although the alternative may require more verbose code, or a major rewrite of your application.
But there are definitely cases where inheritance is useful. As you say, composition plus interfaces together cover almost all cases, but what if I want to supply a default behavior? An interface can't do that. A base class can. Sometimes, what you want to do is really just override individual methods. Not reimplement the class from scratch (as with an interface), but just change one aspect of it. or you may not want all members of the class to be overridable. Perhaps you have only one or two member methods you want the user to override, and the rest, which calls these (and performs validation and other important tasks before and after the user-overridden methods) are specified once and for all in the base class, and can not be overridden.
Inheritance is often used as a crutch by people who are too obsessed with Java's narrow definition of (and obsession with) OOP though, and in most cases I agree, it's the wrong solution, as if the deeper your class hierarchy, the better your software.
Inheritance is a good thing when the subclass really is the same kind of object as the superclass. E.g. if you're implementing the Active Record pattern, you're attempting to map a class to a table in the database, and instances of the class to a row in the database. Consequently, it is highly likely that your Active Record classes will share a common interface and implementation of methods like: what is the primary key, whether the current instance is persisted, saving the current instance, validating the current instance, executing callbacks upon validation and/or saving, deleting the current instance, running a SQL query, returning the name of the table that the class maps to, etc.
It also seems from how you phrase your question that you're assuming that inheritance is single but not multiple. If we need multiple inheritance, then we have to use interfaces plus composition to pull off the job. To put a fine point about it, Java assumes that implementation inheritance is singular and interface inheritance can be multiple. One need not go this route. E.g. C++ and Ruby permit multiple inheritance for your implementation and your interface. That said, one should use multiple inheritance with caution (i.e. keep your abstract classes virtual and/or stateless).
That said, as you note, there are too many real-life class hierarchies where the subclasses inherit from the superclass out of convenience rather than bearing a true is-a relationship. So it's unsurprising that a change in the superclass will have side-effects on the subclasses.
Not needed, but usefull.
Each language has got its own methods to write less code. OOP sometimes gets convoluted, but I think that is the responsability of the developers, the OOP platform is usefull and sharp when it is well used.
I agree with everyone else about the necessary/useful distinction.
The reason I like OOP is because it lets me write code that's cleaner and more logically organized. One of the biggest benefits comes from the ability to "factor-up" logic that's common to a number of classes. I could give you concrete examples where OOP has seriously reduced the complexity of my code, but that would be boring for you.
Suffice it to say, I heart OOP.
Absolutely needed? no,
But think of lamps. You can create a new lamp from scratch each time you make one, or you can take properties from the original lamp and make all sorts of new styles of lamp that have the same properties as the original, each with their own style.
Or you can make a new lamp from scratch or tell people to look at it a certain way to see the light, or , or, or
Not required, but nice :)
Thanks to all for your answers. I maintain my position that, strictly speaking, inheritance isn't needed, though I believe I found a new appreciation for this feature.
Something else: In my job experience, I have found inheritance leads to simpler, clearer designs when it's brought in late in the project, after it's noticed a lot of the classes have much commonality and you create a base class. In projects where a grand-schema was created from the very beginning, with a lot of classes in an inheritance hierarchy, refactoring is usually painful and dificult.
Seeing some answers mentioning something similar makes me wonder if this might not be exactly how inheritance's supposed to be used: ex post facto. Reminds me of Stepanov's quote: "you don't start with axioms, you end up with axioms after you have a bunch of related proofs". He's a mathematician, so he ought to know something.
The biggest problem with interfaces is that they cannot be changed. Make an interface public, then change it (add a new method to it) and break million applications all around the world, because they have implemented your interface, but not the new method. The app may not even start, a VM may refuse to load it.
Use a base class (not abstract) other programmers can inherit from (and override methods as needed); then add a method to it. Every app using your class will still work, this method just won't be overridden by anyone, but since you provide a base implementation, this one will be used and it may work just fine for all subclasses of your class... it may also cause strange behavior because sometimes overriding it would have been necessary, okay, might be the case, but at least all those million apps in the world will still start up!
I rather have my Java application still running after updating the JDK from 1.6 to 1.7 with some minor bugs (that can be fixed over time) than not having it running it at all (forcing an immediate fix or it will be useless to people).
//I found this QA very useful. Many have answered this right. But i wanted to add...
1: Ability to define abstract interface - E.g., for plugin developers. Of course, you can use function pointers, but this is better and simpler.
2: Inheritance helps model types very close to their actual relationships. Sometimes a lot of errors get caught at compile time, because you have the right type hierarchy. For instance, shape <-- triangle (lets say there is a lot of code to be reused). You might want to compose triangle with a shape object, but shape is an incomplete type. Inserting dummy implementations like double getArea() {return -1;} will do, but you are opening up room for error. That return -1 can get executed some day!
3: void func(B* b); ... func(new D()); Implicit type conversion gives a great notational convenience since Derived is Base. I remember having read Straustrup saying that he wanted to make classes first class citizens just like fundamental data types (hence overloading operators etc). Implicit conversion from Derived to Base, behaves just like an implicit conversion from a data type to broader compatible one (short to int).
Inheritance and Composition have their own pros and cons.
Refer to this related SE question on pros of inheritance and cons of composition.
Prefer composition over inheritance?
Have a look at the example in this documentation link:
The example shows different use cases of overriding by using inheritance as a mean to achieve polymorphism.
In the following, inheritance is used to present a particular property for all of several specific incarnations of the same type thing. In this case, the GeneralPresenation has a properties that are relevant to all "presentation" (the data passed to an MVC view). The Master Page is the only thing using it and expects a GeneralPresentation, though the specific views expect more info, tailored to their needs.
public abstract class GeneralPresentation
{
public GeneralPresentation()
{
MenuPages = new List<Page>();
}
public IEnumerable<Page> MenuPages { get; set; }
public string Title { get; set; }
}
public class IndexPresentation : GeneralPresentation
{
public IndexPresentation() { IndexPage = new Page(); }
public Page IndexPage { get; set; }
}
public class InsertPresentation : GeneralPresentation
{
public InsertPresentation() {
InsertPage = new Page();
ValidationInfo = new PageValidationInfo();
}
public PageValidationInfo ValidationInfo { get; set; }
public Page InsertPage { get; set; }
}