The open/closed principle states that a class should be open for extension but closed for modification.
I thought that the modification part referred strictly to altering the source code of the base class. But I had an argument with someone saying that this also involves overriding methods from the base class.
It this interpretation correct?
Virtual methods allow replacing behavior of a base class in a derived class, without having to alter the base class and this means you adhere to the Open/Closed principle since you can extend the system without having to modify existing code.
Base classes (that are not purely abstract) however, tend to violate the Dependency Inversion Principle, since the derived class takes a dependency on the base class, which is a concrete component instead of being an abstraction. Remember, the DIP states that:
High-level modules should [...] depend on abstractions.
Besides this, base classes tend to violate the Interface Segregation Principle as well in case they define multiple public (or protected) methods that are not all used by the derived type. This is a violation of the ISP because:
no client should be forced to depend on methods it does not use
"I thought that the modification part referred strictly to altering the source code of the base class."
You thought right.
There is a plethora of ways to make a class extensible and allowing one to inherit from it is one of them. The keyword extend is even used in a few languages to enable inheritance which makes it quite obvious that we aren't modifying, we are extending...
Whether inheritance is the right solution to extensibility or not is another concern, but usually it is not though. Composition should be the preferred way to make classes extensible (e.g. Strategy, Observer, Decorator, Pipes and Filters, etc...)
An override is a lot like a callback that anyone can register. It's like:
if (IsOverridden) CallCallback();
else DefaultImplementation(); //possibly empty
In that sense there is no modification. You are just reconfiguring the object to call the callback instead of doing the default behavior.
It's just like the click event of a button. You wouldn't consider subscribing to an event a modification. It's extension.
Form "Adaptive Code via C#" book, virtual methods is a instrument to achieve OCP.
Related
After reading about SOLID in a few places, I was having trouble mapping between explanations with different vocabularies and code. To generalize a bit, I created the diagrams below, and I was hoping that people could point out any 'bugs' in my understanding.
Of course, feel free to reuse/remix/redistribute as you'd like!
I think your diagrams look quite nice, but I'm afraid that I couldn't understand them (particularly the interface one), so I'll comment on the text.
It's not really clear to me what you mean by layer, in the Open/closed I thought you might mean interface, but the interface and dependency items suggest you don't mean that.
Open/closed : actually your text from the Liskov item is closer to describing open/closed. If the code is open for extension, we can make use of it (by extending it) to implement new requirements, but by not modifying the existing code (it's closed for modification) we know we wont break any existing code that made use of it.
"Only depend on outer layer" - if this means only depend on an interface not the implementation, then yes, that's an important principle for SOLID code even though it doesn't map directly to any of the 5 letters.
Dependency inversion uses that but goes beyond it. A piece of code can make use of another via its interface and this is has great maintainability benefits over relying on the implementation, but if the calling code still has the responsibility for creating the object (and therefore choosing the class) that implements the interface then it still has a dependency. If we create the concrete object outside the class or method and pass it in as an interface, then the called code no longer depends on the concrete class, just the interface
void SomeFunction()
{
IThing myIthing* = new ConcreteThing();
// code below can use the interface but this function depends on the Concrete class
}
void SomeFunctionDependencyInjectedVersion(IThing myIthing*)
{
// this version should be able to work with any class that implements the IThing interface,
// whether it really can might depend on some of the other SOLID principles
}
Single responsibility : this isn't about classes intersecting, this is about not giving a code more than one responsibility. If you have a function where you can't think of a better name than doSomethingAndSomethingElse this might be a sign its got more than one responsibility and could be better if it was split (the point I'm making is about the "and" in the name even when the "somethings" are better named).
You should try to define that responsibility so that the class can perform it entirely, (although it make may use of other classes that perform sub-responsibilities for it) but at each level of responsibility that a class is defined it should have one clear reason to exist. When it has more than one it can make code harder to understand, and changes to code related to one responsibility can have unwanted side-effects on other responsibilities.
Iterface segregation: Consider a class implementing a collection. The class will implement code to add to the collection or to read from it. We could put all this in one interface, but if we separate it then when we have consuming code that only needs to read and doesn't need to add to the collection then it can use the interface made of the reading methods. This can make the code clearer in that it shows quickly that the code only needs those methods, and, if we've injected the collection by interface we could also use that code with a different source of items that doesn't have the ability to add items
(consider IEnumerable vs ICollection vs IList)
Liskov substitution is all about making sure that objects that inherit from an interface/base class behave in the way that the interface/base class promised to behave. In the strictest interpretation of the original definition they'd need to behave exactly the same, but that's not all that useful. More generally its about behaving in a consistent and expected way, the derived classes may add functionality, but they should be able to do the job of the base objects (they can be substituted for them)
It's good practice for a class' implementation to be defined by interfaces. If a class has any public methods that aren't covered by any interfaces then they have the potential to leak their implementation.
E.g. if class Foo has methods bar() and baz() but only bar() is covered by an interface then any use of baz() doesn't use an interface.
It feels like to get cleaner code it would make sense to either:
create extra interfaces if the class has to have those methods (eg a separate interface to cover the behavior of baz() above)
or ideally refactor (eg using more composition) so the class doesn't need to have so many methods (put baz() in another class)
Having methods not covered by an interface feels like a code smell. Or am I being unrealistic?
I consider it as "overusing" the interface.
Interface can give you access only to limited functionality, therefore it is good for gathering more classes with similar functionality into one List<Interface> and using them, for example.
Or if you want to keep loose coupling principle, you rather give another component some interface than the whole class(es).
Also some classes should have restricted access to another classes, which can be done with interfaces too.
However high cohesion principle (which is usually connected to loose coupling) does not prevent you from using class itself, if two classes are and should be "strong" connected to each other.
I don't think that's the purpose of interfaces. If you actually talk about the 'is-a' and 'has-a' relationship between classes, not necessarily a class needs to cover all public methods in interfaces. That's like taking the concept too far.
A class can have methods which describe it's behavior but then, there are some methods that do not exactly describe the classes' behavior but rather describe what else the class can do.
In case if a question arises about SRP regarding the 'can-do' behaviors, it is possible that the class can use a component to execute those behaviors rather than implementing within itself.
For e.g., I have a class DataGrid, why would I need to have an interface called IDataGrid which exposes all the public methods. But may be there is an additional functionality that the DataGrid can do, which is export the data. In that case I can have it implement IExportData, and implement the ExportData method, which in turn does not export the data but uses a component, say DataExportHelper, that actually does the job.
The DataGrid only passes the data to the component.
I don't think SRP will be violated in the above example.
EDIT:
I am a .Net developer, so would like to give you and example from MS library classes. For e.g., the class System.Windows.Window does not implemnt any interface that has Close() method. And I don't see why it should be a part of any presenter.
Also, it is possible that something might look seem like a code smell but not necessarily it might be wrong. Code smell itself does not mean there is a problem but that there is a possibility of problem.
I have never come across any principle or guideline in software design which mentions that all the public members of a class need to be exposed in some or the other interface. May be doing that just for the sake of it might be a bad design.
No, I would definitely not consider methods not covered by an interface a code smell.
It seems like this might be dependent on the object infrastructure you are building in, but in the infrastructures I'm familiar with, the real point of interfaces is to provide a manageable form of multiple inheritance. I consider the overuse of multiple inheritance a notable smell.
In .NET at least, abstract classes are explicitly the preferred construct for exposing abstraction (not interfaces). The .NET design guidelines say: Do favor defining classes over interfaces., with rationale described here http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/vstudio/ms229013(v=vs.100).aspx.
Even in COM (where any externally visible functionality had to be defined in an interface) there are perfectly good reasons to have non-exposed functions: limiting the visibility of implementation details. COM was originally defined in C (not C++) which lacked the richer set of access modifiers that newer languages have, but the concepts were there: published interface members were public, everything else was internal.
I've searched in here and other forums and couldn't find a good answer..
I kind of know that Extending classes isn't the best of practices. And that I should use Interfaces more. my problem is that usually I start creating Interfaces and then move to Abstract classes because there's always some functionality that I want implemented on a super class so that I don't have to replicate it in every child classes.
For instance, I have a Vehicle class and the Car and Bike child classes. a lot of functionality could be implemented on the Vehicle class, such as Move() and Stop(), so what would be the best practice to keep the architecture clean, avoid code repetition and use Interfaces instead of Inheritance?
Thanks a lot!
(if you have no idea why I'm asking this you may read this interesting article: http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-08-2003/jw-0801-toolbox.html)
Inheritance ('extending classes') imposes significant limitations on class design and I'm not sure the use of interfaces as a replacement for inheritance is the best idea since it fails the DRY test.
These days, Composition is favored over Inheritance, so you might consider this post: Prefer composition over inheritance?
Interesting question. Everyone has different approaches. But it all based on personal experience and choice.
Usually, i start with an interface, then let an abstract class inherit that interface. And implement common actions there, and let others to be implemented by who ever inherits this class.
This give few advantageous based on by experience,
1.During function calls you can pass the elements as interface type or abstract class type.
2.Common variables such as ID, Names etc can be put on abstract class.
3.Easy for maintenance. For example, if you want to implement a new interface, then just implement in the abstract quickly.
If you keep in mind fundamental difference between interfaces and classes it will make it easier to decide which one to use. The difference is that interfaces represent just a protocol (usually behavioral) between objects involved, while abstract classes represent some unfinished constructions that involve some parts (data). In car example, interface is essentially a blueprint for the generic car. And abstract class would be like prefabricated specific model car body that needs to be filled with remaining parts to get final product. Interfaces don't even have to be in Java - it will not change anything - still blueprint.
Typically you would use abstract class within your specific implementation framework to provide its consumers with some basic functionality. If you just state that you never use abstract class in favor of interface - it's plain wrong from practical standpoint. What if you need 10 implementations of the same interface with 90% of the same code. Replicate code 10 times? Ok, may be you would use abstract class here but put interface on top of it. But why would you do that if you never intend to offer your class hierarchy to external consumers?
I am using word external in very wide sense - it can be just different package in your project or remote consumer.
Ultimately, many of those things are preferences and personal experiences, but I disagree with most blanket statements like extends is evil. I also prefer not to use extra classes (interfaces or abstract) unless it is required by specific parts of the design.
Just my two cents.
Inheritance allows code reuse and substitutability, but restricts polymorphism. Composition allows code reuse but not substitutability. Interfaces allow substitutability but not code reuse.
The decision of whether to use inheritance, composition, or interfaces, boils down to a few simple principles:
If one needs both code reuse and substitutability, and the restrictions imposed on polymorphism aren't too bad, use inheritance.
If one needs code reuse, but not substitutability, use composition.
If one needs substitutability, but not code reuse, or if the restrictions inheritance would impose upon polymorphism would be worse than duplicated code, use interfaces.
If one needs substitutability and code reuse, but the restrictions imposed by polymorphism would be unacceptable, use interfaces to wrap encapsulated objects.
If one needs substitutability and code reuse, and the restrictions imposed by polymorphism would not pose any immediate problem but might be problematic for future substitutable classes, derive a model base class which implements an interface, and have those classes that can derive from it do so. Avoid using variables and parameters of the class type, though--use the interface instead. If you do that, and there is a need for a substitutable class which cannot very well derive from the model base class, the new class can implement the interface without having to inherit from the base; if desired, it may implement the interface by wrapping an encapsulated instance of a derivative of the model type.
Judgment may be required in deciding whether future substitutable classes may have difficulty deriving from a base class. I tend to think approach #5 often offers the best of all worlds, though, when substitutability is required. It's often cheaper than using interfaces alone, and not much more expensive than using inheritance alone. If there is a need for future classes which are substitutable but cannot be derived from the base, it may be necessary to convert the code to use approach #5. Using approach #5 from the get-go would avoid having to refactor the code later. (Of course, if it's never necessary to substitute a class that can't derive from the base, the extra cost--slight as it may be--may end up being unnecessary).
Agree with tofutim - in your current example, move and stop on Vehicle is reasonable.
Having read the article - I think it's using powerful language to push a point... remember - inheritance is a tool to help get a job done.
But if we go with the assumption that for whatever reasons you can't / won't use the tool in this case, you can start by breaking it down into small interfaces with helper objects and/or visitors...
For example -
Vehicle types include submarine, boat, plane, car and bike. You could break it down into interfaces...
IMoveable
+ Forward()
+ Backward()
+ Left()
+ Right()
IFloatable
+ Dock()
ISink()
+ BlowAir()
IFly()
+ Takeoff()
+ Land()
And then your classes can aggregate the plethora of interfaces you've just defined.
The problem is though that you may end up duplicating some code in the car / bike class for IMoveable.Left() and IMoveable.Right(). You could factor this into a helper method and aggregate the helper... but if you follow it to its logical conclusion, you would still end up refactoring many things back into base classes.
Inheritance and Aggregation are tools... neither of which are "evil".
Hope that helps.
Do you want an answer for your specific case, or in general? In the case you described, there is nothing wrong with using an Abstract class. It doesn't make sense use an interface when all of the clients would need to implement the exact same code for Move() and Stop().
Don't believe all you read
Many times, inheritance is not bad, in fact, for data-hiding, it may be a good idea.
Basically, only use the policy of "interfaces only" when you're making a very small tree of classes, otherwise, I promise it will be a pain. Suppose you have a Person "class" (has eat() and sleep), and there are two subclasses, Mathematician (has doProblem() ) and Engineer ( buildSomething() ), then go with interfaces. If you need something like a Car class and then 56 bazillion types of cars, then go with inheritance.
IMHO.
I think, that Interfaces sometime also evil. They could be as avoidance of multiple inheritance.
But if we compare interface with abstract class, then abstract class is always more than interface. Interface is always some aspect of the class -- some viewpoint, and not whole as a class.
So I don't think you should avoid inheritance and use iterfaces everywhere -- there should be balance.
It's quoted from a report by Bjarne:
Encapsulation – the ability to provide
guarantees that an abstraction is used
only according to its specification –
is crucial to defend abstractions
against corruption.
Can someone explain this?
Thanks
Let's say you have a class with public methods that you must use to perform some action. The specification of the class say that, in order to do this action, you must configure the class in a specific way (call this method, set this property, etc).
The problem with situations like this is that it might not be clear what needs to happen or in what order. So the API for the class is hard to use and confusing for the majority of developers.
With encapsulation, you can "encapsulate" not just the class but the algorithms to use it within a second class. This second class sets up the original one, configures it, and manages its lifetime. It allows you to access the API without needing to know how to use it correctly, as the encapsulating class takes care of that. This is sometimes called the Facade pattern.
Your quote also says "is crucial to defend abstractions against corruption." What this means is that when you abstract some process into a class, different implementations of that process should not require the abstraction to be handled differently.
For example, you might have two implementations of a report writer class. You should be able to treat each of them exactly the same without ever knowing how they are implemented (the meaning of abstraction). However, if one cannot be run in a multithreaded apartment state (MTA), you have to "know", before you use it, that it is time to transition to an STA thread. This magical "knowing" is required by the implementation of the class. This is a "leaky abstraction."
With encapsulation, you could prevent this "leak" by, within the encapsulating class, making the transition to an STA thread within the encapsulation, preventing the abstraction from leaking details of its implementation.
It means that the object grant premission only to certain things it needs to expose, and deny you from using data it doen't want you to use.
The most classic example is properties:
Yout fields will be private (or protected).
If you would like to expose them for read or write, you'll add a getter\setter, accordingly.
What can be reasons to prevent a class from being inherited? (e.g. using sealed on a c# class)
Right now I can't think of any.
Because writing classes to be substitutably extended is damn hard and requires you to make accurate predictions of how future users will want to extend what you've written.
Sealing your class forces them to use composition, which is much more robust.
How about if you are not sure about the interface yet and don't want any other code depending on the present interface? [That's off the top of my head, but I'd be interested in other reasons as well!]
Edit:
A bit of googling gave the following:
http://codebetter.com/blogs/patricksmacchia/archive/2008/01/05/rambling-on-the-sealed-keyword.aspx
Quoting:
There are three reasons why a sealed class is better than an unsealed class:
Versioning: When a class is originally sealed, it can change to unsealed in the future without breaking compatibility. (…)
Performance: (…) if the JIT compiler sees a call to a virtual method using a sealed types, the JIT compiler can produce more efficient code by calling the method non-virtually.(…)
Security and Predictability: A class must protect its own state and not allow itself to ever become corrupted. When a class is unsealed, a derived class can access and manipulate the base class’s state if any data fields or methods that internally manipulate fields are accessible and not private.(…)
I want to give you this message from "Code Complete":
Inheritance - subclasses - tends to
work against the primary technical
imperative you have as a programmer,
which is to manage complexity.For the sake of controlling complexity, you should maintain a heavy bias against inheritance.
The only legitimate use of inheritance is to define a particular case of a base class like, for example, when inherit from Shape to derive Circle. To check this look at the relation in opposite direction: is a Shape a generalization of Circle? If the answer is yes then it is ok to use inheritance.
So if you have a class for which there can not be any particular cases that specialize its behavior it should be sealed.
Also due to LSP (Liskov Substitution Principle) one can use derived class where base class is expected and this is actually imposes the greatest impact from use of inheritance: code using base class may be given an inherited class and it still has to work as expected. In order to protect external code when there is no obvious need for subclasses you seal the class and its clients can rely that its behavior will not be changed. Otherwise external code needs to be explicitly designed to expect possible changes in behavior in subclasses.
A more concrete example would be Singleton pattern. You need to seal singleton to ensure one can not break the "singletonness".
This may not apply to your code, but a lot of classes within the .NET framework are sealed purposely so that no one tries to create a sub-class.
There are certain situations where the internals are complex and require certain things to be controlled very specifically so the designer decided no one should inherit the class so that no one accidentally breaks functionality by using something in the wrong way.
#jjnguy
Another user may want to re-use your code by sub-classing your class. I don't see a reason to stop this.
If they want to use the functionality of my class they can achieve that with containment, and they will have much less brittle code as a result.
Composition seems to be often overlooked; all too often people want to jump on the inheritance bandwagon. They should not! Substitutability is difficult. Default to composition; you'll thank me in the long run.
I am in agreement with jjnguy... I think the reasons to seal a class are few and far between. Quite the contrary, I have been in the situation more than once where I want to extend a class, but couldn't because it was sealed.
As a perfect example, I was recently creating a small package (Java, not C#, but same principles) to wrap functionality around the memcached tool. I wanted an interface so in tests I could mock away the memcached client API I was using, and also so we could switch clients if the need arose (there are 2 clients listed on the memcached homepage). Additionally, I wanted to have the opportunity to replace the functionality altogether if the need or desire arose (such as if the memcached servers are down for some reason, we could potentially hot swap with a local cache implementation instead).
I exposed a minimal interface to interact with the client API, and it would have been awesome to extend the client API class and then just add an implements clause with my new interface. The methods that I had in the interface that matched the actual interface would then need no further details and so I wouldn't have to explicitly implement them. However, the class was sealed, so I had to instead proxy calls to an internal reference to this class. The result: more work and a lot more code for no real good reason.
That said, I think there are potential times when you might want to make a class sealed... and the best thing I can think of is an API that you will invoke directly, but allow clients to implement. For example, a game where you can program against the game... if your classes were not sealed, then the players who are adding features could potentially exploit the API to their advantage. This is a very narrow case though, and I think any time you have full control over the codebase, there really is little if any reason to make a class sealed.
This is one reason I really like the Ruby programming language... even the core classes are open, not just to extend but to ADD AND CHANGE functionality dynamically, TO THE CLASS ITSELF! It's called monkeypatching and can be a nightmare if abused, but it's damn fun to play with!
From an object-oriented perspective, sealing a class clearly documents the author's intent without the need for comments. When I seal a class I am trying to say that this class was designed to encapsulate some specific piece of knowledge or some specific service. It was not meant to be enhanced or subclassed further.
This goes well with the Template Method design pattern. I have an interface that says "I perform this service." I then have a class that implements that interface. But, what if performing that service relies on context that the base class doesn't know about (and shouldn't know about)? What happens is that the base class provides virtual methods, which are either protected or private, and these virtual methods are the hooks for subclasses to provide the piece of information or action that the base class does not know and cannot know. Meanwhile, the base class can contain code that is common for all the child classes. These subclasses would be sealed because they are meant to accomplish that one and only one concrete implementation of the service.
Can you make the argument that these subclasses should be further subclassed to enhance them? I would say no because if that subclass couldn't get the job done in the first place then it should never have derived from the base class. If you don't like it then you have the original interface, go write your own implementation class.
Sealing these subclasses also discourages deep levels of inheritence, which works well for GUI frameworks but works poorly for business logic layers.
Because you always want to be handed a reference to the class and not to a derived one for various reasons:
i. invariants that you have in some other part of your code
ii. security
etc
Also, because it's a safe bet with regards to backward compatibility - you'll never be able to close that class for inheritance if it's release unsealed.
Or maybe you didn't have enough time to test the interface that the class exposes to be sure that you can allow others to inherit from it.
Or maybe there's no point (that you see now) in having a subclass.
Or you don't want bug reports when people try to subclass and don't manage to get all the nitty-gritty details - cut support costs.
Sometimes your class interface just isn't meant to be inheirited. The public interface just isn't virtual and while someone could override the functionality that's in place it would just be wrong. Yes in general they shouldn't override the public interface, but you can insure that they don't by making the class non-inheritable.
The example I can think of right now are customized contained classes with deep clones in .Net. If you inherit from them you lose the deep clone ability.[I'm kind of fuzzy on this example, it's been a while since I worked with IClonable] If you have a true singelton class, you probably don't want inherited forms of it around, and a data persistence layer is not normally place you want a lot of inheritance.
Not everything that's important in a class is asserted easily in code. There can be semantics and relationships present that are easily broken by inheriting and overriding methods. Overriding one method at a time is an easy way to do this. You design a class/object as a single meaningful entity and then someone comes along and thinks if a method or two were 'better' it would do no harm. That may or may not be true. Maybe you can correctly separate all methods between private and not private or virtual and not virtual but that still may not be enough. Demanding inheritance of all classes also puts a huge additional burden on the original developer to foresee all the ways an inheriting class could screw things up.
I don't know of a perfect solution. I'm sympathetic to preventing inheritance but that's also a problem because it hinders unit testing.
I exposed a minimal interface to interact with the client API, and it would have been awesome to extend the client API class and then just add an implements clause with my new interface. The methods that I had in the interface that matched the actual interface would then need no further details and so I wouldn't have to explicitly implement them. However, the class was sealed, so I had to instead proxy calls to an internal reference to this class. The result: more work and a lot more code for no real good reason.
Well, there is a reason: your code is now somewhat insulated from changes to the memcached interface.
Performance: (…) if the JIT compiler sees a call to a virtual method using a sealed types, the JIT compiler can produce more efficient code by calling the method non-virtually.(…)
That's a great reason indeed. Thus, for performance-critical classes, sealed and friends make sense.
All the other reasons I've seen mentioned so far boil down to "nobody touches my class!". If you're worried someone might misunderstand its internals, you did a poor job documenting it. You can't possibly know that there's nothing useful to add to your class, or that you already know every imaginable use case for it. Even if you're right and the other developer shouldn't have used your class to solve their problem, using a keyword isn't a great way of preventing such a mistake. Documentation is. If they ignore the documentation, their loss.
Most of answers (when abstracted) state that sealed/finalized classes are tool to protect other programmers against potential mistakes. There is a blurry line between meaningful protection and pointless restriction. But as long as programmer is the one who is expected to understand the program, I see no hardly any reasons to restrict him from reusing parts of a class. Most of you talk about classes. But it's all about objects!
In his first post, DrPizza claims that designing inheritable class means anticipating possible extensions. Do I get it right that you think that class should be inheritable only if it's likely to be extended well? Looks as if you were used to design software from the most abstract classes. Allow me a brief explanation of how do I think when designing:
Starting from the very concrete objects, I find characteristics and [thus] functionality that they have in common and I abstract it to superclass of those particular objects. This is a way to reduce code duplicity.
Unless developing some specific product such as a framework, I should care about my code, not others (virtual) code. The fact that others might find it useful to reuse my code is a nice bonus, not my primary goal. If they decide to do so, it's their responsibility to ensure validity of extensions. This applies team-wide. Up-front design is crucial to productivity.
Getting back to my idea: Your objects should primarily serve your purposes, not some possible shoulda/woulda/coulda functionality of their subtypes. Your goal is to solve given problem. Object oriented languages uses fact that many problems (or more likely their subproblems) are similar and therefore existing code can be used to accelerate further development.
Sealing a class forces people who could possibly take advantage of existing code WITHOUT ACTUALLY MODIFYING YOUR PRODUCT to reinvent the wheel. (This is a crucial idea of my thesis: Inheriting a class doesn't modify it! Which seems quite pedestrian and obvious, but it's being commonly ignored).
People are often scared that their "open" classes will be twisted to something that can not substitute its ascendants. So what? Why should you care? No tool can prevent bad programmer from creating bad software!
I'm not trying to denote inheritable classes as the ultimately correct way of designing, consider this more like an explanation of my inclination to inheritable classes. That's the beauty of programming - virtually infinite set of correct solutions, each with its own cons and pros. Your comments and arguments are welcome.
And finally, my answer to the original question: I'd finalize a class to let others know that I consider the class a leaf of the hierarchical class tree and I see absolutely no possibility that it could become a parent node. (And if anyone thinks that it actually could, then either I was wrong or they don't get me).