Related
In book 'Head First Design Patterns', one of the way mentioned to not violate 'Dependency Inversion' principle is as:
No class derive from a concrete class.
Is it possible to follow this rule thoroughly? In many commonly used frameworks and libraries its common to find classes not following this rule.
Inheritance is an important part of c#, ruling it out would be a waste.
Nevertheless, the book emphasizes the open for extension closed for change SOLID principle and this is actually a good thing.
Not to derive from concrete classes ( note, abstract classes and interfaces are not concrete ), helps you to adapt this paradigm. Inheritance is not typically suited for extension, and makes inversion harder ( because the latter relies on interfaces and concretes are not interfaces ).
So in practice, you'll see that base classes are often abstract. Not all, and not every framework adopts it. Sometimes there are good reasons to inherit from a concrete. But the book, is in it's way a easy read and to go into details on the exceptions would make it much harder to read.
So bottom line: no, one should not follow the rule at all cost but only do concrete inheritance if one of the following:
you know what you are doing (so you have a really really really good reason)
you know it doesn't matter ( because it's a simple project/object)
you know the concretes will be contained to the project itself (internals)
As problems in programming are very different, it's hard to tell. Sometimes you it's usefull to do it, sometimes it's not.
It's also possible to redesign the situations that you think you can't to actually achieve this. But in the new design you may end up with more classes that you don't really need and are only used to achieve this.
The question in this case is: Is having more stuff just to achieve some principle without having problems in your code a good design?
In my experience it is better to try and avoid inheriting from concrete classes. Try to design you code so that you don't inherit from concrete classes. This will make your code better to read and understand as it guides you to designing your abstractions better. But sometimes it's usefull to do just that.
As you mentioned frameworks do that. Especially GUI frameworks. You see a lot inheritance from concrete classes there. That's because it's usefull to add additional behavior to already existing controls.
For example a Button is fine on it's own, but sometimes you may need to add an additional behavior for your needs. Inheriting from Button and just adding the new things you need is just fine. Can you do it another way? Sure, but is it worth adding addtional classes and/or interfaces or coping code from Button just to avoid inheriting from a concrete class? Is is so bad? Where can it hust?
You do achieve extensibility this way, as the framework will still work just fine.
GUI frameworks also use composition a-lot too, so what you get is a combination of composition with inheritance from both concrete and abstract classes. Just use the right one where you need it.
Not all problems are like that with a hierarchical structure with a a-lot of related objects. Sometimes inheritance can hurt extensibility and using composition is a better choise.
After reading lots of blogs, forum entries and several Apple docs, I still don't know whether extensive subclassing in Objective-C is a wise thing to do or not.
Take for example the following case:
Say I'm developing a puzzle game which
has a lot of elements. All of those
elements share a certain amount of the
same behaviour. Then, within my
collection of elements, different
groups of elements share equal
behaviour, distinguishing groups from
groups, etc...
So, after determining what inherits
from what, I decided to subclass out
of oblivion. And why shouldn't I?
Considering the ease tweaking general
behaviour takes with this model, I
think I accomplished something OOP is
meant for.
But, - and this is the source of my question - Apple mentions using delegates, data source methods, and informal protocols in favour of subclassing. It really boggles my mind why?
There seem to be two camps. Those in favor of subclassing, those in fafor of not. It depends on personal taste apparently. I'm wondering what the pros and cons are of subclassing massively and not subclassing massively?
To wrap it up, my question is simple: Am I right? And why or why not?
Delegation is a means of using the composition technique to replace some aspects of coding you would otherwise subclass for. As such, it boils down to the age old question of the task at hand needing one large thing that knows how to do a lot, or if you have a loose network of specialized objects (a very UNIX sort of model of responsibility).
Using a combination of delegates and protocols (to define what the delegates are supposed to be able to do) provides a great deal of flexibility of behavior and ease of coding - going back to that Liskov substitution principle, when you subclass you have to be careful you don't do anything a user of the whole class would find unexpected. But if you are simply making a delegate object then you have much less to be responsible for, only that the delegate methods you implement do what that one protocol calls for, beyond that you don't care.
There are still many good reasons to use subclasses, if you truly have shared behavior and variables between a number of classes it may make a lot of sense to subclass. But if you can take advantage of the delegate concept you'll often make your classes easier to extend or use in ways you the designer may not have expected.
I tend to be more of a fan of formal protocols than informal ones, because not only do formal protocols make sure you have the methods a class treating you as a delegate expect, but also because the protocol definition is a natural place to document what you expect from a delegate that implements those methods.
Personally, I follow this rule: I can create a subclass if it respects the Liskov substitution principle.
Subclassing has it's benefits, but it also has some drawbacks. As a general rule, I try to avoid implementation inheritance and instead use interface inheritance and delegation.
One of the reasons I do this is because when you inherit implementation, you can wind up with problems if you override methods but don't adhere to their (sometimes undocumented contract). Additionally, I find walking class hierarchies with implementation inheritance difficult because methods can be overridden or implemented at any level. Finally, when subclassing you can only widen an interface, you can't narrow it. This leads to leaky abstractions. A good example of this is java.util.Stack which extends java.util.Vector. I shouldn't be able to treat a stack as a Vector. Doing so only allows the consumer to run around the interface.
Others have mentioned the Liskov Substitution Principle. I think that using that would have certainly cleared up the java.util.Stack problem but it can also lead to very deep class hierarchies in order to put ensure that classes get only the methods they are supposed to have.
Instead, with interface inheritance there is essentially no class hierarchy because interfaces rarely need to extend one another. The classes simply implement the interfaces that they need to and can therefore be treated in the correct way by the consumer. Additionally, because there is no implementation inheritance, consumers of these classes won't infer their behavior due to previous experience with a parent class.
In the end though, it doesn't really matter which way you go. Both are perfectly acceptable. It's really more a matter of what you're more comfortable with and what the frameworks that you're working with encourage. As the old saying goes: "When in Rome do as Romans do."
There's nothing wrong with using inheritance in Objective-C. Apple uses it quite a bit. For instance, in Cocoa-touch, the inheritance tree of UIButton is UIControl : UIView : UIResponder : NSObject.
I think Martin hit on an important point in mentioning the Liskov substitution principle. Also, proper use of inheritance requires that the implementer of the subclass has a deep knowledge of the super class. If you've ever struggled to extend a non-trivial class in a complex framework, you know that there's always a learning curve. In addition, implementation details of the super class often "leak through" to the subclass, which is a big pain in the #$& for framework builders.
Apple chose to use delegation in many instances to address these problems; non-trivial classes like UIApplication expose common extension points through a delegate object so most developers have both an easier learning curve and a more loosely coupled way to add application specific behavior -- extending UIApplication directly is rarely necessary.
In your case, for your application specific code, use which ever techniques you're comfortable with and work best for your design. Inheritance is a great tool when used appropriately.
I frequently see application programmers draw lessons from framework designs and trying to apply them to their application code (this is common in Java, C++ and Python worlds as well as Objective-C). While it's good to think about and understand the choices framework designers made, those lessons don't always apply to application code.
In general you should avoid subclassing API classes if there exist delegates, etc that accomplish what you want to do. In your own code subclassing is often nicer, but it really does depend on your goals, eg. if you're providing an API you should provide a delegate based API rather than assuming subclassing.
When dealing with APIs subclassing has more potential bugs -- eg. if any class in the class hierarchy gets a new method that has the same name as your addition you make break stuff. And also, if you're providing a useful/helper type function there's a chance that in the future something similar will be added to the actual class you were subclassing, and that might be more efficient, etc but your override will hide it.
Please read the Apple documentation "Adding behavior to a Cocoa program"!. Under "Inheriting from a Cocoa class" section, see the 2nd paragraph. Apple clearly mentions that Subclassing is the primary way of adding application specific behavior to the framework (please note, FRAMEWORK).
MVC pattern does not completely disallow the use of subclasses or subtypes. Atleast I have not seen this recommendation from either Apple or others (if I have missed please feel free to point me to the right source of information about this). If you are subclassing api classes only within your application, please go ahead, no one's stopping you but do take care that it does not break the behavior of the class/api as a whole. Subclassing is great way of extending the framework api's functionality. We see a lot of subclassing within the Apple IOS framework APIs too.
As a developer one has to take care the implementation is well documented and not duplicated accidentally by another developer. Its another ball game altogether if your application is a set of API classes that you plan to distribute as reusable component.
IMHO, rather than asking around what the best practice is, first read the related documentation thoroughly, implement and test it. Make your own judgement. You know best about what you're up to.
It's easy for others (like me and so many others) to just read stuff from different sources on the Net and throw around terms. Be your own judge, it has worked for me so far.
I really think it depends on what you're trying to do. If the puzzle game you describe in the example really does have a set of unique elements that share common attributes, and there's no provided classes - say, for example, "NSPuzzlePiece" - that fit your needs, then I don't see a problem with subclassing extensively.
In my experience, delegates, data source methods, and informal protocols are much more useful when Apple has provided a class that already does something close to what you want it to do.
For example, say you're building an app that uses a table. There is (and I speak here of the iPhone SDK, since that's where I have experience) a class UITableView that does all the little niceties of creating a table for interaction with the user, and it's much more efficient to define a data source for an instance of UITableView than it is to completely subclass UITableView and redefine or extend its methods to customize its behavior.
Similar concepts go for delegates and protocols. If you can fit your ideas into Apple's classes, then it's usually easier (and will work more smoothly) to do so and use data source, delegates, and protocols than it is to create your own subclasses. It helps you avoid extra work and wasting time, and is usually less error-prone. Apple's classes have taken care of the business of making functions efficient and debugging; the more you can work with them, the fewer mistakes your program will have in the long run.
my impression of ADC's emphasis 'against' subclassing has more to do with the legacy of how the operating system has evolved... back in the day (Mac Classic aka os9) when c++ was the primary interface to most of the mac toolbox, subclassing was the de-facto standard in order for a programmer to modify the behaviour of commonplace OS features (and this was indeed sometimes a pain in the neck and meant that one had to be very careful that any and all modifications behaved predictably and didn't break any standard behaviour).
this being said, MY IMPRESSION of ADC's emphasis against subclassing is not putting forth a case for designing an application's class hierarchy without inheritance, BUT INSTEAD to point out that in the new way of doing things (ie OSX) there are in most cases more appropriate means to go about customizing standard behavior without needing to subclass.
So, by all means, design your puzzle program's architecture as robustly as you can, leveraging inheritance as you see fit!
looking forward to seeing your cool new puzzle application!
|K<
Apple indeed appears to passively discourage subclassing with Objective-C.
It is an axiom of OOP design to Favor composition over implementation.
This article describes an approach to OOP I find interesting:
What if objects exist as
encapsulations, and the communicate
via messages? What if code re-use has
nothing to do with inheritance, but
uses composition, delegation, even
old-fashioned helper objects or any
technique the programmer deems fit?
The ontology does not go away, but it
is decoupled from the implementation.
The idea of reuse without inheritance or dependence to a class hierarchy is what I found most astounding, but how feasible is this?
Examples were given but I can't quite see how I can change my current code to adapt this approach.
So how feasible is this approach? Or is there really not a need for changing code but rather a scenario-based approach where "use only when needed or optimal"?
EDIT: oops, I forgot the link: here it is link
I'm sure you've heard of "always prefer composition over inheritance".
The basic idea of this premise is multiple objects with different functionalities are put together to create one fully-featured object. This should be preferred over inheriting functionality from disparate objects that have nothing to do with each other.
The main argument regarding this is contained in the definition of the Liskov Substitution Principle and playfully illustrated by this poster:
If you had a ToyDuck object, which object should you inherit from, from a purely inheritance standpoint? Should you inherit from Duck? No -- most likely you should inherit from Toy.
Bottomline is you should be using the correct method of abstraction -- whether inheritance or composition -- for your code.
For your current objects, consider if there are objects that ought to be removed from the inheritance tree and included merely as a property that you can call and invoke.
Inheritance is not well suited for code reuse. Inheriting for code reuse usually leads to:
Classes with inherited methods that must not be called on them (violating the Liskov substitution principle), which confuses programmers and leads to bugs.
Deep hierarchies where it takes inordinate amount of time to find the method you need when it can be declared anywhere in dozen or more classes.
Generally the inheritance tree should not get more than two or three levels deep and usually you should only inherit interfaces and abstract base classes.
There is however no point in rewriting existing code just for sake of it. However when you need to modify, try to switch to composition where possible. That will usually allow you to modify the code in smaller pieces, since there will be less coupling between the classes.
I just skimmed the text over, but it seems to say what OO design was always about: Inheritance is not meant as a code reuse tool and loose coupling is good. This has been written dozens times before, see the linked references on the article bottom. This does not mean you should skip inheritance entirely, you just have to use it conciously and only when it makes sense. The article also states this.
As for the duck typing, I find the examples and thoughts questionable. Like this one:
function good (foo) {
if ( !foo.baz || !foo.quux ) {
throw new TypeError("We need foo to have baz and quux methods.");
}
return foo.baz(foo.quux(10));
}
What’s the point in adding three new lines just to report an error that would be reported by the runtime automatically?
Inheritance is fundamental
no inheritance, no OOP.
prototyping and delegation can be used to effect inheritance (like in JavaScript), which is fine, and is functionally equivalent to inheritance
objects, messages, and composition but no inheritance is object-based, not object-oriented. VB5, not Java. Yes it can be done; plan on writing a lot of boilerplate code to expose interfaces and forward operations.
Those that insist inheritance is unnecessary, or that it is 'bad' are creating strawmen: it is easy to imagine scenarios where inheritance is used badly; this is not a reflection on the tool, but on the tool-user.
After reading lots of blogs, forum entries and several Apple docs, I still don't know whether extensive subclassing in Objective-C is a wise thing to do or not.
Take for example the following case:
Say I'm developing a puzzle game which
has a lot of elements. All of those
elements share a certain amount of the
same behaviour. Then, within my
collection of elements, different
groups of elements share equal
behaviour, distinguishing groups from
groups, etc...
So, after determining what inherits
from what, I decided to subclass out
of oblivion. And why shouldn't I?
Considering the ease tweaking general
behaviour takes with this model, I
think I accomplished something OOP is
meant for.
But, - and this is the source of my question - Apple mentions using delegates, data source methods, and informal protocols in favour of subclassing. It really boggles my mind why?
There seem to be two camps. Those in favor of subclassing, those in fafor of not. It depends on personal taste apparently. I'm wondering what the pros and cons are of subclassing massively and not subclassing massively?
To wrap it up, my question is simple: Am I right? And why or why not?
Delegation is a means of using the composition technique to replace some aspects of coding you would otherwise subclass for. As such, it boils down to the age old question of the task at hand needing one large thing that knows how to do a lot, or if you have a loose network of specialized objects (a very UNIX sort of model of responsibility).
Using a combination of delegates and protocols (to define what the delegates are supposed to be able to do) provides a great deal of flexibility of behavior and ease of coding - going back to that Liskov substitution principle, when you subclass you have to be careful you don't do anything a user of the whole class would find unexpected. But if you are simply making a delegate object then you have much less to be responsible for, only that the delegate methods you implement do what that one protocol calls for, beyond that you don't care.
There are still many good reasons to use subclasses, if you truly have shared behavior and variables between a number of classes it may make a lot of sense to subclass. But if you can take advantage of the delegate concept you'll often make your classes easier to extend or use in ways you the designer may not have expected.
I tend to be more of a fan of formal protocols than informal ones, because not only do formal protocols make sure you have the methods a class treating you as a delegate expect, but also because the protocol definition is a natural place to document what you expect from a delegate that implements those methods.
Personally, I follow this rule: I can create a subclass if it respects the Liskov substitution principle.
Subclassing has it's benefits, but it also has some drawbacks. As a general rule, I try to avoid implementation inheritance and instead use interface inheritance and delegation.
One of the reasons I do this is because when you inherit implementation, you can wind up with problems if you override methods but don't adhere to their (sometimes undocumented contract). Additionally, I find walking class hierarchies with implementation inheritance difficult because methods can be overridden or implemented at any level. Finally, when subclassing you can only widen an interface, you can't narrow it. This leads to leaky abstractions. A good example of this is java.util.Stack which extends java.util.Vector. I shouldn't be able to treat a stack as a Vector. Doing so only allows the consumer to run around the interface.
Others have mentioned the Liskov Substitution Principle. I think that using that would have certainly cleared up the java.util.Stack problem but it can also lead to very deep class hierarchies in order to put ensure that classes get only the methods they are supposed to have.
Instead, with interface inheritance there is essentially no class hierarchy because interfaces rarely need to extend one another. The classes simply implement the interfaces that they need to and can therefore be treated in the correct way by the consumer. Additionally, because there is no implementation inheritance, consumers of these classes won't infer their behavior due to previous experience with a parent class.
In the end though, it doesn't really matter which way you go. Both are perfectly acceptable. It's really more a matter of what you're more comfortable with and what the frameworks that you're working with encourage. As the old saying goes: "When in Rome do as Romans do."
There's nothing wrong with using inheritance in Objective-C. Apple uses it quite a bit. For instance, in Cocoa-touch, the inheritance tree of UIButton is UIControl : UIView : UIResponder : NSObject.
I think Martin hit on an important point in mentioning the Liskov substitution principle. Also, proper use of inheritance requires that the implementer of the subclass has a deep knowledge of the super class. If you've ever struggled to extend a non-trivial class in a complex framework, you know that there's always a learning curve. In addition, implementation details of the super class often "leak through" to the subclass, which is a big pain in the #$& for framework builders.
Apple chose to use delegation in many instances to address these problems; non-trivial classes like UIApplication expose common extension points through a delegate object so most developers have both an easier learning curve and a more loosely coupled way to add application specific behavior -- extending UIApplication directly is rarely necessary.
In your case, for your application specific code, use which ever techniques you're comfortable with and work best for your design. Inheritance is a great tool when used appropriately.
I frequently see application programmers draw lessons from framework designs and trying to apply them to their application code (this is common in Java, C++ and Python worlds as well as Objective-C). While it's good to think about and understand the choices framework designers made, those lessons don't always apply to application code.
In general you should avoid subclassing API classes if there exist delegates, etc that accomplish what you want to do. In your own code subclassing is often nicer, but it really does depend on your goals, eg. if you're providing an API you should provide a delegate based API rather than assuming subclassing.
When dealing with APIs subclassing has more potential bugs -- eg. if any class in the class hierarchy gets a new method that has the same name as your addition you make break stuff. And also, if you're providing a useful/helper type function there's a chance that in the future something similar will be added to the actual class you were subclassing, and that might be more efficient, etc but your override will hide it.
Please read the Apple documentation "Adding behavior to a Cocoa program"!. Under "Inheriting from a Cocoa class" section, see the 2nd paragraph. Apple clearly mentions that Subclassing is the primary way of adding application specific behavior to the framework (please note, FRAMEWORK).
MVC pattern does not completely disallow the use of subclasses or subtypes. Atleast I have not seen this recommendation from either Apple or others (if I have missed please feel free to point me to the right source of information about this). If you are subclassing api classes only within your application, please go ahead, no one's stopping you but do take care that it does not break the behavior of the class/api as a whole. Subclassing is great way of extending the framework api's functionality. We see a lot of subclassing within the Apple IOS framework APIs too.
As a developer one has to take care the implementation is well documented and not duplicated accidentally by another developer. Its another ball game altogether if your application is a set of API classes that you plan to distribute as reusable component.
IMHO, rather than asking around what the best practice is, first read the related documentation thoroughly, implement and test it. Make your own judgement. You know best about what you're up to.
It's easy for others (like me and so many others) to just read stuff from different sources on the Net and throw around terms. Be your own judge, it has worked for me so far.
I really think it depends on what you're trying to do. If the puzzle game you describe in the example really does have a set of unique elements that share common attributes, and there's no provided classes - say, for example, "NSPuzzlePiece" - that fit your needs, then I don't see a problem with subclassing extensively.
In my experience, delegates, data source methods, and informal protocols are much more useful when Apple has provided a class that already does something close to what you want it to do.
For example, say you're building an app that uses a table. There is (and I speak here of the iPhone SDK, since that's where I have experience) a class UITableView that does all the little niceties of creating a table for interaction with the user, and it's much more efficient to define a data source for an instance of UITableView than it is to completely subclass UITableView and redefine or extend its methods to customize its behavior.
Similar concepts go for delegates and protocols. If you can fit your ideas into Apple's classes, then it's usually easier (and will work more smoothly) to do so and use data source, delegates, and protocols than it is to create your own subclasses. It helps you avoid extra work and wasting time, and is usually less error-prone. Apple's classes have taken care of the business of making functions efficient and debugging; the more you can work with them, the fewer mistakes your program will have in the long run.
my impression of ADC's emphasis 'against' subclassing has more to do with the legacy of how the operating system has evolved... back in the day (Mac Classic aka os9) when c++ was the primary interface to most of the mac toolbox, subclassing was the de-facto standard in order for a programmer to modify the behaviour of commonplace OS features (and this was indeed sometimes a pain in the neck and meant that one had to be very careful that any and all modifications behaved predictably and didn't break any standard behaviour).
this being said, MY IMPRESSION of ADC's emphasis against subclassing is not putting forth a case for designing an application's class hierarchy without inheritance, BUT INSTEAD to point out that in the new way of doing things (ie OSX) there are in most cases more appropriate means to go about customizing standard behavior without needing to subclass.
So, by all means, design your puzzle program's architecture as robustly as you can, leveraging inheritance as you see fit!
looking forward to seeing your cool new puzzle application!
|K<
Apple indeed appears to passively discourage subclassing with Objective-C.
It is an axiom of OOP design to Favor composition over implementation.
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; }
}