There are quite a few dynamically typed object oriented languages in which a class itself is an object. Smalltalk, and Python for example. Is there any statically typed language in which a class is an object?
EDIT:
By the term "object", I mean a first class entity. For example, classes in Python can be passed to other methods, can be returned from methods etc.
In a lot of statically typed languages, like JAVA, a class is an object with its own methods.
For example, in Java, the object that represents the "String" class is accessible as "String.class" and then you can invoke methods on this class as "String.class.getFields()", "getMethods()", getConstructor()", "cast(obj)", etc. You can see in the API documentation all the methods of the "Class" class.
Nevertheless, given that the language is statically typed, you cannot dynamically modify a class.
In other words, you are not going to find a method called "class.addField()" in the Class class. The more you can do is "extend" the class (if it is not final) by inheritance.
In yet other words, the a "Class" object is read-only.
By the term "object", I mean a first class entity. For example, classes in Python can be passed to other methods, can be returned from methods etc.
As any other object, you can pass them to methods and return them from methods (they are just regular objects, but that expose only "read" methods). Example (I omit generics for clearness):
public Class myMethod(Class someClassObject) {
System.out.println(someClassObject.getCanonicalName());
Class anotherClass = String.class;
return anotherClass ;
}
I don't fully agree with #edutesoy answer.
First-class means that an implicit constructs is reified as an explicit construct that can be passed around like any object. Classes in Java are not "first-class", they are mirrors where you can inspect some properties but are not the the object itself.
That you can not change the structure of the class at run-time is fine, e.g. add fields, change method body or signature, and that under this perspective it's partly "read-only" is ok.
But let's consider static fields. I guess everybody agrees that unless final static fields are mutable, just like instance fields. In Smalltalk, these are just fields defined on the class itself, rather than on instances of the class. Also, in Smalltalk, class-side methods are polymorphic just like any other method, and :
aClass field: aValue.
might resolve differently depending on the class that is passed. This is not possible in Java ; a static field or method must be referenced via its type. This also means that it does not allow overriding static methods (read the link for more details) as would be the case if they were truely first class.
The fact that reflection is possible in Java doesn't make classes "first-class"--you can only pass a representation of the class around. And to come back to the original question: I don't know of any statically typed language with first-class classes (but my knowledge is limited, maybe one exists).
EDIT
Actually, now I remember it exists StrongTalk (http://www.strongtalk.org/) which is Smalltalk with static typing. The typing issues are discussed in this paper: Strongtalk: Typechecking Smalltalk in a Production Environment
From Oleg Kiselyov and Ralph Lammel's "Haskell's overlooked object system" (emphasis mine),
Not only OOHaskell provides the conventional OO idioms; we have also
language-engineered several features that are either bleeding-edge or unattainable
in mainstream OO languages: for example, first-class classes and class closures; statically type-checked collection classes with bounded polymorphism of implicit collection arguments; multiple inheritance with user-controlled sharing; safe co-variant
argument subtyping.
Well, the benefits of that are reduced in an early-bound language. However, Java reflection objects for classes would basically be what you are asking for.
Why, incidentally, do you want this? Is it more than idle curiousity?
Take a look at the concept of homoiconicity which refers to the extant that a language can refer to its own structures. Also take a look at this post by Eric Lippert.
Related
Is it correct to define a type within an interface? And what about an attribute?
Some programming languages only allow method signatures for an interface, but in ABAP I was considering doing something like the code below, even adding more attributes, and I'm not sure if the approach is a correct OOdesign:
INTERFACE zif_notif_note.
TYPES: BEGIN OF ty_note_id,
notif_num TYPE qmnum,
activity_key TYPE aknum,
END OF ty_note_id.
DATA: id TYPE ty_note_id READ-ONLY.
METHODS get_id
RETURNING VALUE(r_id) TYPE ty_note_id.
ENDINTERFACE.
What if I need to use this type as an input parameter for another class? Should I better define DDIC structure then?
To your first question: nothing speaks against defining a type in an interface.
To your second question...
You can do many things in ABAP OO that you cannot do in other object oriented languages like Java or C++. For example you can define a FINAL ABSTRACT CLASS which is nonsense, you can define static methods (CLASS-METHODS) in an interface which is in my opinion a heresy towards the object oriented programming.
I have never defined attributes unless they were CONSTANTS within an interface, because there is no reason for doing it. They will be automatically marked as PUBLIC which breaks in fact the encapsulation principle.
So the answer would be: It is possible but think twice before going that way because it might be breaking the encapsulation of the classes that implement the interface.
I have read a definition of encapsulation which stated that "Encapsulation is the wrapping of data and functions into a single unit called class" .My question is that can we not use the term object instead of class in the definition because at last objects are created using the classes and objects only encapsulate data and functions inside them?
I don't have a problem with replacing "class" with "object" in the example sentence. It remains valid in class-based OOP languages while being more appropriate for prototype-based OOP languages. Classes are just a type system for OOP after all and not as fundamentally essential as encapsulation is.
I would, however, want to improve that sentence to make it clear that data and functions aren't "wrapped" in the same way. Data must be hidden and only be accessible to methods of an object.
The more important question to consider is why encapsulation is essential to true oop. Objects are to hide their attributes and inner workings, and present an interface for use by other objects. oop begins to break down when this encapsulation is broken. Code becomes harder to maintain if everyone has their hands on everyone else’s data. Consider setters and getters and all the ways we tend to break encapsulation. True object thinking is not primarily about classes and polymorphism. It is definitely about encapsulation and interfacing between objects.
Not every class has objects.
We can have static classes that have no objects.
If the definition were changed to use the word "object", these classes would not be covered. With "class", both static and non static classes are covered.
Even if a class is not static, it could have static data and functionality, again the term class is more appropriate.
Other classes may be abstract and therefore have no objects, they may still provide some encapsulation.
Template classes could also be though of as being capable of encapsulation even though there will be no objects of the template itself - only objects of "concrete" classes with specific types provided for the templates type parameters.
Also, the word "single" becomes a bit confusing if we apply it to objects since we can have multiple object of a class.
Cid's comment offers an additional reason for "class" over "object".
I assume you have a rough idea of what encapsulation is? So you are asking why couldn't the definition bee rephrased to
Encapsulation is the wrapping of data and functions into a single unit called an object.
Because encapsulation has nothing to do with objects at all. You can create some class called Car and it has some fields like engine, seats, steeringWheel and some methods applyBrakes, openWindow as well as some private members. Now you can say that the class encapsulates the inner workings of a car into a single unit - the Car class.
See? I didn't say anything about objects. Car objects are really just a bunch of references in memory pointing to other Engine, Seat and SteeringWheel objects.
In my opinion, "data" is the problematic term. Classes encapsulate attributes and methods that work on these attributes together. "data" suggests actual data and not meta data. That is probably why you thought of objects instead of classes.
Other than that, I would not replace class with object here, because it leaves out the important feature that all objects from one class have the same methods. With object, one could interpret that each object has its own set of functions.
Is class an object in object oriented language? How are Class methods accessed by just name of the class.method name? (internal working). Is this same as a object.method?
And If the Class is same as object (belong to object class which is super class of every thing in OO) and we instantiate it (make object of it), can we make instance of an instance of an class other than Object class.
(Mainly interested in the theoretical perspective even if practically not required ever)
Well, it depends on the language that you are using; in pure OO languages where everything is an object (e.g. Smalltalk) classes are no exception and are objects too. In other languages where classes are not considered as first class citizens they are just special language constructs or primitive types. From now on I'll use Smalltalk as a target language, due to its reflection support and homogeneous style.
How Class methods are accessed by just name of the class.method name?
(internal working). Is this same as as object.method?
Since classes are objects, they are in turn instances of a class (a metaclass). Thus, sending a message to the class is just sending a message to an object whose role is to represent how classes behave. There is a lot of literature out there, you can take a look for example here and here for some introduction.
And If the Class is same as object (belong to object class which is
super class of every thing in OO) and we instantiate it (make object
of it), can we make instance of an instance of an class other than
Object class.
I'm not sure I follow you here, but just for clarification it is not always the case that Object is the superclass of all the classes. The thing is that If you start following the relationships between classes and metaclasses, you may reach a sort of infinite loop. Different languages work this out in different ways and for example, in VisualWorks Smalltalk, Object is a subclass of nil. The thing is that nil is also an object (remember, everything is an object) and it actually represents "nothing". As you may expect, nil is an instance of a class (UndefinedObject) and it also implements some of the class protocol. As a result it can be used to represent a class form where nothing is inherited :).
Finally, I don't know if this answers your question, but yes, you can do many cool things with full reflective capabilities, like creating new classes on the fly or reshaping existing ones. I'll leave you here some documents that you may find interesting regarding this topic:
Metaclasses
Understanding Metaclasses
Debugging Objects
A class isn't an object, you can think of it as a 'blueprint' for an object. It describes the shape and behaviour of that object. Objects are instances of a class.
See here for more information.
Is class a object in object oriented language?
The notion of class is first and foremost theoretical. You can define a thing with "class" semantics even if your language does not support the formal notion of "class" (e.g. Javascript). A class is a template for an object, from which you create instances.
How Class methods are accessed by just name of the class.method name?
I'm not quite sure what you mean. Some languages support "static" or "class" methods, which are methods that are not invoked within the context of an instance of the class. So its not the same as "object.method" which is a normal method on the class where the 'this' (or equivalent) will be the instance on which the method is invoked.
Java (from comments)
For Java, there is a class called Object, and a class called Class. See this. These Java constructs are separate from the notion of Class and Object. The former are implementation details -- they are how the designers constructed the language, the latter are general concepts. So in Java, you can have an instance of an Object, where the instance is an object(the concept) of type Object(the Java construct).
A Basic notion of object means that has been allocated some memory. As devdigital said class is just a blueprint for an object which holds the bare-bone structure and determines how the object will behave when it's it will be instantiated.
Classes are just bodies(without soul) and objects are living bodies(having a soul) that interact with environment or in biological terms respond to external stimuli(public methods and properties) in an analogy to philosophy of life :)
Technically classes are just machine interpretable code residing in memory(not necessary main memory or registers). Objects are code loaded into executable memory(registers/main memory)
A friend of mine goes back and forth on what "interface" means in programming.
What is the best description of an "interface"?
To me, an interface is a blueprint of a class. Is this the best definition?
An interface is one of the more overloaded and confusing terms in development.
It is actually a concept of abstraction and encapsulation. For a given "box", it declares the "inputs" and "outputs" of that box. In the world of software, that usually means the operations that can be invoked on the box (along with arguments) and in some cases the return types of these operations.
What it does not do is define what the semantics of these operations are, although it is commonplace (and very good practice) to document them in proximity to the declaration (e.g., via comments), or to pick good naming conventions. Nevertheless, there are no guarantees that these intentions would be followed.
Here is an analogy: Take a look at your television when it is off. Its interface are the buttons it has, the various plugs, and the screen. Its semantics and behavior are that it takes inputs (e.g., cable programming) and has outputs (display on the screen, sound, etc.). However, when you look at a TV that is not plugged in, you are projecting your expected semantics into an interface. For all you know, the TV could just explode when you plug it in. However, based on its "interface" you can assume that it won't make any coffee since it doesn't have a water intake.
In object oriented programming, an interface generally defines the set of methods (or messages) that an instance of a class that has that interface could respond to.
What adds to the confusion is that in some languages, like Java, there is an actual interface with its language specific semantics. In Java, for example, it is a set of method declarations, with no implementation, but an interface also corresponds to a type and obeys various typing rules.
In other languages, like C++, you do not have interfaces. A class itself defines methods, but you could think of the interface of the class as the declarations of the non-private methods. Because of how C++ compiles, you get header files where you could have the "interface" of the class without actual implementation. You could also mimic Java interfaces with abstract classes with pure virtual functions, etc.
An interface is most certainly not a blueprint for a class. A blueprint, by one definition is a "detailed plan of action". An interface promises nothing about an action! The source of the confusion is that in most languages, if you have an interface type that defines a set of methods, the class that implements it "repeats" the same methods (but provides definition), so the interface looks like a skeleton or an outline of the class.
Consider the following situation:
You are in the middle of a large, empty room, when a zombie suddenly attacks you.
You have no weapon.
Luckily, a fellow living human is standing in the doorway of the room.
"Quick!" you shout at him. "Throw me something I can hit the zombie with!"
Now consider:
You didn't specify (nor do you care) exactly what your friend will choose to toss;
...But it doesn't matter, as long as:
It's something that can be tossed (He can't toss you the sofa)
It's something that you can grab hold of (Let's hope he didn't toss a shuriken)
It's something you can use to bash the zombie's brains out (That rules out pillows and such)
It doesn't matter whether you get a baseball bat or a hammer -
as long as it implements your three conditions, you're good.
To sum it up:
When you write an interface, you're basically saying: "I need something that..."
Interface is a contract you should comply to or given to, depending if you are implementer or a user.
I don't think "blueprint" is a good word to use. A blueprint tells you how to build something. An interface specifically avoids telling you how to build something.
An interface defines how you can interact with a class, i.e. what methods it supports.
In Programming, an interface defines what the behavior a an object will have, but it will not actually specify the behavior. It is a contract, that will guarantee, that a certain class can do something.
Consider this piece of C# code here:
using System;
public interface IGenerate
{
int Generate();
}
// Dependencies
public class KnownNumber : IGenerate
{
public int Generate()
{
return 5;
}
}
public class SecretNumber : IGenerate
{
public int Generate()
{
return new Random().Next(0, 10);
}
}
// What you care about
class Game
{
public Game(IGenerate generator)
{
Console.WriteLine(generator.Generate())
}
}
new Game(new SecretNumber());
new Game(new KnownNumber());
The Game class requires a secret number. For the sake of testing it, you would like to inject what will be used as a secret number (this principle is called Inversion of Control).
The game class wants to be "open minded" about what will actually create the random number, therefore it will ask in its constructor for "anything, that has a Generate method".
First, the interface specifies, what operations an object will provide. It just contains what it looks like, but no actual implementation is given. This is just the signature of the method. Conventionally, in C# interfaces are prefixed with an I.
The classes now implement the IGenerate Interface. This means that the compiler will make sure, that they both have a method, that returns an int and is called Generate.
The game now is being called two different object, each of which implementant the correct interface. Other classes would produce an error upon building the code.
Here I noticed the blueprint analogy you used:
A class is commonly seen as a blueprint for an object. An Interface specifies something that a class will need to do, so one could argue that it indeed is just a blueprint for a class, but since a class does not necessarily need an interface, I would argue that this metaphor is breaking. Think of an interface as a contract. The class that "signs it" will be legally required (enforced by the compiler police), to comply to the terms and conditions in the contract. This means that it will have to do, what is specified in the interface.
This is all due to the statically typed nature of some OO languages, as it is the case with Java or C#. In Python on the other hand, another mechanism is used:
import random
# Dependencies
class KnownNumber(object):
def generate(self):
return 5
class SecretNumber(object):
def generate(self):
return random.randint(0,10)
# What you care about
class SecretGame(object):
def __init__(self, number_generator):
number = number_generator.generate()
print number
Here, none of the classes implement an interface. Python does not care about that, because the SecretGame class will just try to call whatever object is passed in. If the object HAS a generate() method, everything is fine. If it doesn't: KAPUTT!
This mistake will not be seen at compile time, but at runtime, so possibly when your program is already deployed and running. C# would notify you way before you came close to that.
The reason this mechanism is used, naively stated, because in OO languages naturally functions aren't first class citizens. As you can see, KnownNumber and SecretNumber contain JUST the functions to generate a number. One does not really need the classes at all. In Python, therefore, one could just throw them away and pick the functions on their own:
# OO Approach
SecretGame(SecretNumber())
SecretGame(KnownNumber())
# Functional Approach
# Dependencies
class SecretGame(object):
def __init__(self, generate):
number = generate()
print number
SecretGame(lambda: random.randint(0,10))
SecretGame(lambda: 5)
A lambda is just a function, that was declared "in line, as you go".
A delegate is just the same in C#:
class Game
{
public Game(Func<int> generate)
{
Console.WriteLine(generate())
}
}
new Game(() => 5);
new Game(() => new Random().Next(0, 10));
Side note: The latter examples were not possible like this up to Java 7. There, Interfaces were your only way of specifying this behavior. However, Java 8 introduced lambda expressions so the C# example can be converted to Java very easily (Func<int> becomes java.util.function.IntSupplier and => becomes ->).
To me an interface is a blueprint of a class, is this the best definition?
No. A blueprint typically includes the internals. But a interface is purely about what is visible on the outside of a class ... or more accurately, a family of classes that implement the interface.
The interface consists of the signatures of methods and values of constants, and also a (typically informal) "behavioral contract" between classes that implement the interface and others that use it.
Technically, I would describe an interface as a set of ways (methods, properties, accessors... the vocabulary depends on the language you are using) to interact with an object. If an object supports/implements an interface, then you can use all of the ways specified in the interface to interact with this object.
Semantically, an interface could also contain conventions about what you may or may not do (e.g., the order in which you may call the methods) and about what, in return, you may assume about the state of the object given how you interacted so far.
Personally I see an interface like a template. If a interface contains the definition for the methods foo() and bar(), then you know every class which uses this interface has the methods foo() and bar().
Let us consider a Man(User or an Object) wants some work to be done. He will contact a middle man(Interface) who will be having a contract with the companies(real world objects created using implemented classes). Few types of works will be defined by him which companies will implement and give him results.
Each and every company will implement the work in its own way but the result will be same. Like this User will get its work done using an single interface.
I think Interface will act as visible part of the systems with few commands which will be defined internally by the implementing inner sub systems.
An interface separates out operations on a class from the implementation within. Thus, some implementations may provide for many interfaces.
People would usually describe it as a "contract" for what must be available in the methods of the class.
It is absolutely not a blueprint, since that would also determine implementation. A full class definition could be said to be a blueprint.
An interface defines what a class that inherits from it must implement. In this way, multiple classes can inherit from an interface, and because of that inherticance, you can
be sure that all members of the interface are implemented in the derived class (even if its just to throw an exception)
Abstract away the class itself from the caller (cast an instance of a class to the interface, and interact with it without needing to know what the actual derived class IS)
for more info, see this http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms173156.aspx
In my opinion, interface has a broader meaning than the one commonly associated with it in Java. I would define "interface" as a set of available operations with some common functionality, that allow controlling/monitoring a module.
In this definition I try to cover both programatic interfaces, where the client is some module, and human interfaces (GUI for example).
As others already said, an interface always has some contract behind it, in terms of inputs and outputs. The interface does not promise anything about the "how" of the operations; it only guarantees some properties of the outcome, given the current state, the selected operation and its parameters.
As above, synonyms of "contract" and "protocol" are appropriate.
The interface comprises the methods and properties you can expect to be exposed by a class.
So if a class Cheetos Bag implements the Chip Bag interface, you should expect a Cheetos Bag to behave exactly like any other Chip Bag. (That is, expose the .attemptToOpenWithoutSpillingEverywhere() method, etc.)
A boundary across which two systems communicate.
Interfaces are how some OO languages achieve ad hoc polymorphism. Ad hoc polymorphism is simply functions with the same names operating on different types.
Conventional Definition - An interface is a contract that specifies the methods which needs to be implemented by the class implementing it.
The Definition of Interface has changed over time. Do you think Interface just have method declarations only ? What about static final variables and what about default definitions after Java 5.
Interfaces were introduced to Java because of the Diamond problem with multiple Inheritance and that's what they actually intend to do.
Interfaces are the constructs that were created to get away with the multiple inheritance problem and can have abstract methods , default definitions and static final variables.
http://www.quora.com/Why-does-Java-allow-static-final-variables-in-interfaces-when-they-are-only-intended-to-be-contracts
In short, The basic problem an interface is trying to solve is to separate how we use something from how it is implemented. But you should consider interface is not a contract. Read more here.
A friend who is new to OO programming asked me the difference between a Member and Property, and I was ashamed to admit that I couldn't give him a good answer. Since properties can also be objects themselves, I was left with a general description and list of exceptions.
Can somebody please lay out a good definition of when to consider something a member vs. a property? Maybe I'm bastardizing the concept, or is it just that a member is just the internal name I use, and the property is what's exposed to other objects?
I don't think that not knowing the answer to this question has affected the quality of my programming, and it's just a semantics point, but it still bothers me that I can't explain it to him.
A property is one kind of member. Others might be constructors, methods, fields, nested types, conversions, indexers etc - depending on the language/platform, of course. A lot of the time the exact meaning of terminology depends on the context.
To give a C#-specific definition, from the C# 3.0 spec, section 1.6.1:
The following table provides an overview of the kinds of members a class can contain.
(Rows for...)
Constants
Fields
Methods
Properties
Indexers
Events
Operators
Constructors
Destructors
Types
Note that that's members of a class. Different "things" have different kinds of members - in C#, an interface can't have a field as a member, for example.
Neither of the two terms has any defined meaning whatsoever in Object-Oriented Programming or Object-Oriented Design. Nor do they have any defined meaning in the overwhelming majority of programming languages.
Only a very small number of programming languages have a concept called property or member, and even fewer have both.
Some examples of languages that have either one of the two are C++ (which has members), ECMAScript (which has properties) and C# (which has both). However, these terms don't necessarily denote the same concepts in different programming languages. For example, the term "member" means roughly the same thing in C++ and C#, but the term "property" means completely different things in ECMAScript and C#. In fact, the term "property" in ECMAScript denotes roughly the same concept (ie. means roughly the same thing) as the term "member" in C++ and C#.
All this is just to say that those two terms mean exactly what the relevant specification for the programming language says they mean, no more and no less. (Insert gratuitous Lewis Carroll quote here.)
Properties is one kind of members.
In C#, for example, a class can have the following members:
Constructors
Destructors
Constants
Fields
Methods
Properties
Indexers
Operators
Events
Delegates
Classes
Interfaces
Structs
MSDN: C#: class
Members are just objects or primitive types belonging to a class.
Properties give you more power than members. It's like a simplified way to create getters and setters letting you make, for instance, public getters and private setters; and put whatever logic you want in the way it will be read or written to. They can be used as a way to expose members, being possible to change the reading and writing policy later more easily.
This applies to C#. Not sure if this is true for the other languages though.
A member (variable) is just some part of the object. A property is (I'll qualify this with "usually" - I'm not sure that it's a technically clear word that has unambiguous meaning across multiple languages) is a publicly accessible aspect of the object, e.g. through getter and setter methods.
So while (almost always) a property is a reacheable member variable, you can have a property that's not really part of the object state (not that this is good design):
public class Foo {
public String getJunk()
{ return "Junk";}
public void setJunk(String ignore){;}
}
}
Both properties and methods are members of an object. A property describes some aspect of the object while a method accesses or uses the owning object.
An example in pseudo-code:
Object Ball
Property color(some Value)
Method bounce(subroutine describing the movement of the Ball)
Where the ball is defined and given a color(property) while the method bounce is a subroutine that describes the how the ball will react on hitting another object.
Not all languages have properties, i.e. Java only has fields that must be accessed by getters and setters.
Properties are a way to expose fields, where fields are the actual variables. For example (C#):
class Foo {
private int field;
public int Property {
get { return field; }
set { field = value; }
}
}
from PHP manual:
Class member variables are called "properties". You may also see them referred to using other terms such as "attributes" or "fields". They are defined by using one of the keywords public, protected, or private, followed by a normal variable declaration. This declaration may include an initialization.
Member is a generic term (likely originated in C++, but also defined in Java) used to denote a component of a class. Property is a broad concept used to denote a particular characteristic of a class which, once the class is instantiated, will help define the object's state.
The following passages, extracted from "Object-Oriented Analysis and Design" by Grady Booch help clarify the subject. Firstly, it's important to understand the concepts of state and behaviour:
The state of an object encompasses all of the (usually static) properties of the object plus the current (usually dynamic) values of each of these properties. By properties, we mean the totality of the object's attributes and relationships with other objects.
Behaviour is how an object acts and reacts, in terms of its state changes and message passing (methods); the outwardly visible and testable activity of an object.
So, the behaviour of an object depends on the available operations and its state (properties and their current values). Note that OOP is quite generic regarding certain nomenclature, as it varies wildly from language to language:
The terms field (Object Pascal), instance variable (Smalltalk), member object (C++), and slot (CLOS) are interchangeable, meaning a repository for part of the state of an object. Collectively, they constitute the object's structure.
An operation upon an object, defined as part of the declaration of a class. The terms message (Smalltalk), method (many OO languages), member function (C++), and operation are usually interchangeable.
But the notation introduced by the author is precise:
An attribute denotes a part of an aggregate object, and so is used during analysis as well as design to express a singular property of the class. Using the language-independent syntax, an attribute may have a name, a class, or both, and optionally a default expression: A:C=E.
An operation denotes some service provided by the class. Operations (...) are distinguished from attributes by appending parentheses or by providing the operation's complete signature, composed of return class, name, and formal arguments (if any): R N(Arguments)
In summary, you can think of members as everything that composes the class, and properties as the members (attributes) that collectively define the structure of the class, plus its relationships to other classes. When the class is instantiated, values are assigned to its properties in order to define the object's state.
Cheers