Related
I'm currently enjoying the transition from an object oriented language to a functional language. It's a breath of fresh air, and I'm finding myself much more productive than before.
However - there is one aspect of OOP that I've not yet seen a satisfactory answer for on the FP side, and that is polymorphism. i.e. I have a large collection of data items, which need to be processed in quite different ways when they are passed into certain functions. For the sake of argument, let's say that there are multiple factors driving polymorphic behaviour so potentially exponentially many different behaviour combinations.
In OOP that can be handled relatively well using polymorphism: either through composition+inheritance or a prototype-based approach.
In FP I'm a bit stuck between:
Writing or composing pure functions that effectively implement polymorphic behaviours by branching on the value of each data item - feels rather like assembling a huge conditional or even simulating a virtual method table!
Putting functions inside pure data structures in a prototype-like fashion - this seems like it works but doesn't it also violate the idea of defining pure functions separately from data?
What are the recommended functional approaches for this kind of situation? Are there other good alternatives?
Putting functions inside pure data structures in a prototype-like fashion - this seems like it works but doesn't it also violate the idea of defining pure functions separately from data?
If virtual method dispatch is the way you want to approach the problem, this is a perfectly reasonable approach. As for separating functions from data, that is a distinctly non-functional notion to begin with. I consider the fundamental principle of functional programming to be that functions ARE data. And as for your feeling that you're simulating a virtual function, I would argue that it's not a simulation at all. It IS a virtual function table, and that's perfectly OK.
Just because the language doesn't have OOP support built in doesn't mean it's not reasonable to apply the same design principles - it just means you'll have to write more of the machinery that other languages provide built-in, because you're fighting against the natural spirit of the language you're using. Modern typed functional languages do have very deep support for polymorphism, but it's a very different approach to polymorphism.
Polymorphism in OOP is a lot like "existential quantification" in logic - a polymorphic value has SOME run-time type but you don't know what it is. In many functional programming languages, polymorphism is more like "universal quantification" - a polymorphic value can be instantiated to ANY compatible type its user wants. They're two sides of the exact same coin (in particular, they swap places depending on whether you're looking at a function from the "inside" or the "outside"), but it turns out to be extremely hard when designing a language to "make the coin fair", especially in the presence of other language features such as subtyping or higher-kinded polymorphism (polymorphism over polymorphic types).
If it helps, you may want to think of polymorphism in functional languages as something very much like "generics" in C# or Java, because that's exactly the type of polymorphism that, e.g., ML and Haskell, favor.
Well, in Haskell you can always make a type-class to achieve a kind of polymorphism. Basically, it is defining functions that are processed for different types. Examples are the classes Eq and Show:
data Foo = Bar | Baz
instance Show Foo where
show Bar = 'bar'
show Baz = 'baz'
main = putStrLn $ show Bar
The function show :: (Show a) => a -> String is defined for every data type that instances the typeclass Show. The compiler finds the correct function for you, depending on the type.
This allows to define functions more generally, for example:
compare a b = a < b
will work with any type of the typeclass Ord. This is not exactly like OOP, but you even may inherit typeclasses like so:
class (Show a) => Combinator a where
combine :: a -> a -> String
It is up to the instance to define the actual function, you only define the type - similar to virtual functions.
This is not complete, and as far as I know, many FP languages do not feature type classes. OCaml does not, it pushes that over to its OOP part. And Scheme does not have any types. But in Haskell it is a powerful way to achieve a kind of polymorphism, within limits.
To go even further, newer extensions of the 2010 standard allow type families and suchlike.
Hope this helped you a bit.
Who said
defining pure functions separately from data
is best practice?
If you want polymorphic objects, you need objects. In a functional language, objects can be constructed by glueing together a set of "pure data" with a set of "pure functions" operating on that data. This works even without the concept of a class. In this sense, a class is nothing but a piece of code that constructs objects with the same set of associated "pure functions".
And polymorphic objects are constructed by replacing some of those functions of an object by different functions with the same signature.
If you want to learn more about how to implement objects in a functional language (like Scheme), have a look into this book:
Abelson / Sussman: "Structure and Interpration of Computer programs"
Mike, both your approaches are perfectly acceptable, and the pros and cons of each are discussed, as Doc Brown says, in Chapter 2 of SICP. The first suffers from having a big type table somewhere, which needs to be maintained. The second is just traditional single-dispatch polymorphism/virtual function tables.
The reason that scheme doesn't have a built-in system is that using the wrong object system for the problem leads to all sorts of trouble, so if you're the language designer, which to choose? Single despatch single inheritance won't deal well with 'multiple factors driving polymorphic behaviour so potentially exponentially many different behaviour combinations.'
To synopsize, there are many ways of constructing objects, and scheme, the language discussed in SICP, just gives you a basic toolkit from which you can construct the one you need.
In a real scheme program, you'd build your object system by hand and then hide the associated boilerplate with macros.
In clojure you actually have a prebuilt object/dispatch system built in with multimethods, and one of its advantages over the traditional approach is that it can dispatch on the types of all arguments. You can (apparently) also use the heirarchy system to give you inheritance-like features, although I've never used it, so you should take that cum grano salis.
But if you need something different from the object scheme chosen by the language designer, you can just make one (or several) that suits.
That's effectively what you're proposing above.
Build what you need, get it all working, hide the details with macros.
The argument between FP and OO is not about whether data abstraction is bad, it's about whether the data abstraction system is the place to stuff all the separate concerns of the program.
"I believe that a programming language should allow one to define new data types. I do not believe that a program should consist solely of definitions of new data types."
http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/OOP_vs_type_classes#Everything_is_an_object.3F nicely discusses some solutions.
This is not yet another question about the difference between abstract classes and interfaces, so please think twice before voting to close it.
I am aware that interfaces are essential in those OOP languages which don't support multiple inheritance - such as C# and Java. But what about those with multiple inheritance? Would be a concept of interface (as a specific language feature) redundant in a language with multiple inheritance? I guess that OOP "contract" between classes can be established using abstract classes.
Or, to put it a bit more explicitly, are interfaces in C# and Java just a consequence of the fact that they do not support multiple inheritance?
Not at all. Interfaces define contracts without specifying implementations.
So they are needed even if multiple inheritance is present - inheritance is about implementation.
Technically, you can use an abstract class in multiple inheritance to simulate an interface. But thus one can be inclined to write some implementation there, which will creates big messes.
Depends on the test for redundancy.
If the test is "can this task be achieved without the language feature" then classes themselves are redundant because there are Turing compete languages without classes. Or, from an engineering base, anything beyond machine code is redundant.
Realistically, the test is a more subtle combination of syntax and semantics. A thing is redundant if it doesn't improve either the syntax or the semantics of a language, for a reasonable number of uses.
In languages that make the distinction, supporting an interface declares that a class knows how to converse in a certain manner. Inheriting from another class imports (and, probably, extends or modifies) the functionality of another class.
Since the two tasks are not logically equivalent, I maintain that interfaces are not redundant. Distinguishing between the two improves the semantics for a large number of programs because it can more specifically indicate programmer intent.
... The lack of multiple inheritance
forced us to add the concept of
interfaces...
Krzysztof Cwalina, in The C# Programming Language (4th Ed.) (p. 56)
So yes, I believe interfaces are redundant given multiple inheritance. You could use pure abstract base classes in a language supporting multiple inheritance or mix-ins.
That said, I'm quite happy with single inheritance most of the time. Eric Lippert makes the point earlier in the same volume (p. 10) that the choice of single inheritance "... eliminates in one stroke many of the complicated corner cases..."
There are languages that support multiple inheritance that do not include a parallel concept to the Java interface. Eiffel is one of them. Bertrand Meyer did not see the need for them, since there was the ability to define a deferred class (which is something most folks call an abstract class) with a fleshed out contract.
The lack of multiple inheritance can lead to situations where a programmer needs to create a utility class or the like to prevent writing duplicated code in objects that implement the same interface.
It may be that the presence of the contract was a significant contribution to the absence of a completely implementation free concept of an interface.... Contracts are harder to write without some implementation details to test against.
So, technically interfaces are redundant in a language that supports MI.
But, as others have pointed out... multiple inheritance can be a very tricky thing to use correctly, all the time. I know I couldn't... and I worked for Meyer as he was drafting Object Oriented Software Construction, 2nd edition.
Are interfaces in C# and Java just a
consequence of the fact that they do
not support multiple inheritance?
Yes, they are. At least in Java. As a simple language, Java's creators wanted a language that most developers could grasp without extensive training. To that end, they worked to make the language as similar to C++ as possible (familiar) without carrying over C++'s unnecessary complexity (simple). Java's designers chose to allow multiple interface inheritance through the use of interfaces, an idea borrowed from Objective C's protocols.
See there for details
And, yes, I believe that like in C++ Interfaces are redundant, if you have multiple inheritance. If you have a more powerful feature, why to keep the less one?
Well, if you go this way, you could say that C and C++, C# and oll other high level languages are redundant because you can code anything you want using assembly. Sure you don't absolutely need these high level languages, however, they help ... a lot.
All these languages come with various utilities. For some of them, the interface concept is one of these utilities. So yes, in C++, you could avoid using interfaces an stick with abstract classes without implementation.
As a matter of fact, if you want to program Microsoft COM with C, although C doesn't know the interface concept, you can do it because all .h files define interfaces this way:
#if defined(__cplusplus) && !defined(CINTERFACE)
MIDL_INTERFACE("ABCDE000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000")
IMyInterface : public IUnknown
{
...
}
#else /* C style interface */
typedef struct IMyInterfaceVtbl
{
BEGIN_INTERFACE
HRESULT ( STDMETHODCALLTYPE *SomMethod )(... ...);
END_INTERFACE
} IMyInterfaceVtbl;
interface IMyInterface
{
CONST_VTBL struct IMyInterfaceVtbl *lpVtbl;
};
#endif
Some kind of another syntactic sugar...
And it's true to say that in C#, if I hadn't the interface concept, I don't know how I could really code :). In C#, we absolutely need interfaces.
Interfaces are preferable to multiple inheritance since inheritance violates encapsulation according to "Effective Java" Item 16, Favor composition over inheritance.
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; }
}
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
The community reviewed whether to reopen this question 1 year ago and left it closed:
Original close reason(s) were not resolved
Improve this question
When designing a new system or getting your head around someone else's code, what are some tell tale signs that something has gone wrong in the design phase? Are there clues to look for on class diagrams and inheritance hierarchies or even in the code itself that just scream for a design overhaul, particularly early in a project?
The things that mostly stick out for me are "code smells".
Mostly I'm sensitive to things that go against "good practice".
Things like:
Methods that do things other than what you'd think from the name (eg: FileExists() that silently deletes zero byte files)
A few extremely long methods (sign of an object wrapper around a procedure)
Repeated use of switch/case statements on the same enumerated member (sign of sub-classes needing extraction)
Lots of member variables that are used for processing, not to capture state (might indicate need to extract a method object)
A class that has lots of responsibilities (violation of Single Repsonsibility principle)
Long chains of member access (this.that is fine, this.that.theOther is fine, but my.very.long.chain.of.member.accesses.for.a.result is brittle)
Poor naming of classes
Use of too many design patterns in a small space
Working too hard (rewriting functions already present in the framework, or elsewhere in the same project)
Poor spelling (anywhere) and grammar (in comments), or comments that are simply misleading
I'd say the number one rule of poor OO design (and yes I've been guilty of it too many times!) is:
Classes that break the Single
Responsibility Principle (SRP) and
perform too many actions
Followed by:
Too much inheritance instead of
composition, i.e. Classes that
derive from a sub-type purely so
they get functionality for free.
Favour Composition over Inheritance.
Impossible to unit test properly.
Anti-patterns
Software design anti-patterns
Abstraction inversion : Not exposing implemented functionality required by users, so that they re-implement it using higher level functions
Ambiguous viewpoint: Presenting a model (usually OOAD) without specifying its viewpoint
Big ball of mud: A system with no recognizable structure
Blob: Generalization of God object from object-oriented design
Gas factory: An unnecessarily complex design
Input kludge: Failing to specify and implement handling of possibly invalid input
Interface bloat: Making an interface so powerful that it is extremely difficult to implement
Magic pushbutton: Coding implementation logic directly within interface code, without using abstraction.
Race hazard: Failing to see the consequence of different orders of events
Railroaded solution: A proposed solution that while poor, is the only one available due to poor foresight and inflexibility in other areas of the design
Re-coupling: Introducing unnecessary object dependency
Stovepipe system: A barely maintainable assemblage of ill-related components
Staralised schema: A database schema containing dual purpose tables for normalised and datamart use
Object-oriented design anti-patterns
Anemic Domain Model: The use of domain model without any business logic which is not OOP because each object should have both attributes and behaviors
BaseBean: Inheriting functionality from a utility class rather than delegating to it
Call super: Requiring subclasses to call a superclass's overridden method
Circle-ellipse problem: Subtyping variable-types on the basis of value-subtypes
Empty subclass failure: Creating a class that fails the "Empty Subclass Test" by behaving differently from a class derived from it without modifications
God object: Concentrating too many functions in a single part of the design (class)
Object cesspool: Reusing objects whose state does not conform to the (possibly implicit) contract for re-use
Object orgy: Failing to properly encapsulate objects permitting unrestricted access to their internals
Poltergeists: Objects whose sole purpose is to pass information to another object
Sequential coupling: A class that requires its methods to be called in a particular order
Singletonitis: The overuse of the singleton pattern
Yet Another Useless Layer: Adding unnecessary layers to a program, library or framework. This became popular after the first book on programming patterns.
Yo-yo problem: A structure (e.g., of inheritance) that is hard to understand due to excessive fragmentation
This question makes the assumption that object-oriented means good design. There are cases where another approach is much more appropriate.
One smell is objects having hard dependencies/references to other objects that aren't a part of their natural object hierarchy or domain related composition.
Example: Say you have a city simulation. If the a Person object has a NearestPostOffice property you are probably in trouble.
One thing I hate to see is a base class down-casting itself to a derived class. When you see this, you know you have problems.
Other examples might be:
Excessive use of switch statements
Derived classes that override everything
In my view, all OOP code degenerates to procedural code over a sufficiently long time span.
Granted, if you read my most recent question, you might understand why I am a little jaded.
The key problem with OOP is that it doesn't make it obvious that your object construction graph should be independent of your call graph.
Once you fix that problem, OOP actually starts to make sense. The problem is that very few teams are aware of this design pattern.
Here's a few:
Circular dependencies
You with property XYZ of a base class wasn't protected/private
You wish your language supported multiple inheritance
Within a long method, sections surrounded with #region / #endregion - in almost every case I've seen, that code could easily be extracted into a new method OR needed to be refactored in some way.
Overly-complicated inheritance trees, where the sub-classes do very different things and are only tangentially related to one another.
Violation of DRY - sub-classes that each override a base method in almost exactly the same way, with only a minor variation. An example: I recently worked on some code where the subclasses each overrode a base method and where the only difference was a type test ("x is ThisType" vs "x is ThatType"). I implemented a method in the base that took a generic type T, that it then used in the test. Each child could then call the base implementation, passing the type it wanted to test against. This trimmed about 30 lines of code from each of 8 different child classes.
Duplicate code = Code that does the same thing...I think in my experience this is the biggest mistake that can occur in OO design.
Objects are good create a gazillion of them is a bad OO design.
Having all you objects inherit some base utility class just so you can call your utility methods without having to type so much code.
Find a programmer who is experienced with the code base. Ask them to explain how something works.
If they say "this function calls that function", their code is procedural.
If they say "this class interacts with that class", their code is OO.
Following are most prominent features of a bad design:
Rigidity
Fragility
Immobility
Take a look at The Dependency Inversion Principle
When you don't just have a Money\Amount class but a TrainerPrice class, TablePrice class, AddTablePriceAction class and so on.
IDE Driven Development or Auto-Complete development. Combined with extreme strict typing is a perfect storm.
This is where you see what could be a lot of what could be variable values become class names and method names as well as the gratuitous use of classes in general. You'll also see things like all primitives becoming objects. All literals as classes. Function parameters as classes. Then conversion methods everywhere. You'll also see things like a class wrapping another delivering a subset of methods to another class inclusive of only the ones it needs at present.
This creates the possibility to generate an near infinite amount of code which is great if you have billable hours. When variables, contexts, properties and states get unrolled into hyper explicit and overly specific classes then this creates an exponential cataclysm as sooner or later those things multiply. Think of it like [a, b] x [x, y]. This can be further compounded by an attempt to create a full fluent interface as well as adhere to as many design patterns as possible.
OOP languages are not as polymorphic as some loosely typed languages. Loosely typed languages often offer runtime polymorphism in shallow syntax that static analysis can't handle.
In OOP you might see forms of repetition hard to automatically detect that could be turned into more dynamic code using maps. Although such languages are less dynamic you can achieve dynamic features with some extra-work.
The trade of here is that you save thousands (or millions) of lines of code while potentially loosing IDE features and static analysis. Performance can go either way. Run time polymorphism can often be converted to generated code. However in some cases the space is so huge that anything other than runtime polymorphism is impossible.
Problems are a lot more common with OOP languages lacking generics and when OOP programmers try to strictly type dynamic loosely typed language.
What happens without generics is where you should have A for X = [Q, W, E] and Y = [R, T, Y] you instead see [AQR, AQT, AQY, AWR, AWT, AWY, AER, AET, AEY]. This is often due to fear or using typeless or passing the type as a variable for loosing IDE support.
Traditionally loosely typed languages are made with a text editor rather than an IDE and the advantage lost through IDE support is often gained in other ways such as organising and structuring code such that it is navigable.
Often IDEs can be configured to understand your dynamic code (and link into it) but few properly support it in a convenient manner.
Hint: The context here is OOP gone horrifically wrong in PHP where people using simple OOP Java programming traditionally have tried to apply that to PHP which even with some OOP support is a fundamentally different type of language.
Designing against your platform to try to turn it into one your used to, designing to cater to an IDE or other tools, designing to cater to supporting Unit Tests, etc should all ring alarm bells because it's a significant deviation away from designing working software to solve a given category of problems or a given feature set.
This caught my attention last night.
On the latest ALT.NET Podcast Scott Bellware discusses how as opposed to Ruby, languages like C#, Java et al. are not truly object oriented rather opting for the phrase "class-oriented". They talk about this distinction in very vague terms without going into much detail or discussing the pros and cons much.
What is the real difference here and how much does it matter? What are other languages then are "object-oriented"? It sounded pretty interesting but I don't want to have to learn Ruby just to know what if anything I am missing.
Update
After reading some of the answers below it seems like people generally agree that the reference is to duck-typing. What I'm not sure I understand still though is the claim that this ultimately changes all that much. Especially if you are already doing proper TDD with loose coupling etc. Can someone show me an example of a specific thing I could do with Ruby that I cannot do with C# and that exemplifies this different OOP approach?
In an object-oriented language, objects are defined by defining objects rather than classes, although classes can provide some useful templates for specific, cookie-cutter definitions of a given abstraction. In a class-oriented language, like C# for example, objects must be defined by classes, and these templates are usually canned and packaged and made immutable before runtime. This arbitrary constraint that objects must be defined before runtime and that the definitions of objects are immutable is not an object-oriented concept; it's class oriented.
The duck typing comments here are more attributing to the fact that Ruby and Python are more dynamic than C#. It doesn't really have anything to do with it's OO Nature.
What (I think) Bellware meant by that is that in Ruby, everything is an object. Even a class. A class definition is an instance of an object. As such, you can add/change/remove behavior to it at runtime.
Another good example is that NULL is an object as well. In ruby, everything is LITERALLY an object. Having such deep OO in it's entire being allows for some fun meta-programming techniques such as method_missing.
IMO, it's really overly defining "object-oriented", but what they are referring to is that Ruby, unlike C#, C++, Java, et al, does not make use of defining a class -- you really only ever work directly with objects. Conversely, in C# for example, you define classes that you then must instantiate into object by way of the new keyword. The key point being you must declare a class in C# or describe it. Additionally, in Ruby, everything -- even numbers, for example -- is an object. In contrast, C# still retains the concept of an object type and a value type. This in fact, I think illustrates the point they make about C# and other similar languages -- object type and value type imply a type system, meaning you have an entire system of describing types as opposed to just working with objects.
Conceptually, I think OO design is what provides the abstraction for use to deal complexity in software systems these days. The language is a tool use to implement an OO design -- some make it more natural than others. I would still argue that from a more common and broader definition, C# and the others are still object-oriented languages.
There are three pillars of OOP
Encapsulation
Inheritance
Polymorphism
If a language can do those three things it is a OOP language.
I am pretty sure the argument of language X does OOP better than language A will go on forever.
OO is sometimes defined as message oriented. The idea is that a method call (or property access) is really a message sent to another object. How the recieveing object handles the message is completely encapsulated. Often the message corresponds to a method which is then executed, but that is just an implementation detail. You can for example create a catch-all handler which is executed regardless of the method name in the message.
Static OO like in C# does not have this kind of encapsulation. A massage has to correspond to an existing method or property, otherwise the compiler will complain. Dynamic languages like Smalltalk, Ruby or Python does however support "message-based" OO.
So in this sense C# and other statically typed OO languages are not true OO, sine thay lack "true" encapsulation.
Update: Its the new wave.. which suggest everything that we've been doing till now is passe.. Seems to be propping up quite a bit in podcasts and books.. Maybe this is what you heard.
Till now we've been concerned with static classes and not unleashed the power of object oriented development. We've been doing 'class based dev.' Classes are fixed/static templates to create objects. All objects of a class are created equal.
e.g. Just to illustrate what I've been babbling about... let me borrow a Ruby code snippet from PragProg screencast I just had the privilege of watching.
'Prototype based development' blurs the line between objects and classes.. there is no difference.
animal = Object.new # create a new instance of base Object
def animal.number_of_feet=(feet) # adding new methods to an Object instance. What?
#number_of_feet = feet
end
def animal.number_of_feet
#number_of_feet
end
cat = animal.clone #inherits 'number_of_feet' behavior from animal
cat.number_of_feet = 4
felix = cat.clone #inherits state of '4' and behavior from cat
puts felix.number_of_feet # outputs 4
The idea being its a more powerful way to inherit state and behavior than traditional class based inheritance. It gives you more flexibility and control in certain "special" scenarios (that I've yet to fathom). This allows things like Mix-ins (re using behavior without class inheritance)..
By challenging the basic primitives of how we think about problems, 'true OOP' is like 'the Matrix' in a way... You keep going WTF in a loop. Like this one.. where the base class of Container can be either an Array or a Hash based on which side of 0.5 the random number generated is.
class Container < (rand < 0.5 ? Array : Hash)
end
Ruby, javascript and the new brigade seem to be the ones pioneering this. I'm still out on this one... reading up and trying to make sense of this new phenomenon. Seems to be powerful.. too powerful.. Useful? I need my eyes opened a bit more. Interesting times.. these.
I've only listened to the first 6-7 minutes of the podcast that sparked your question. If their intent is to say that C# isn't a purely object-oriented language, that's actually correct. Everything in C# isn't an object (at least the primitives aren't, though boxing creates an object containing the same value). In Ruby, everything is an object. Daren and Ben seem to have covered all the bases in their discussion of "duck-typing", so I won't repeat it.
Whether or not this difference (everything an object versus everything not an object) is material/significant is a question I can't readily answer because I don't have sufficient depth in Ruby to compare it to C#. Those of you who on here who know Smalltalk (I don't, though I wish I did) have probably been looking at the Ruby movement with some amusement since it was the first pure OO language 30 years ago.
Maybe they are alluding to the difference between duck typing and class hierarchies?
if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, just pretend it's a duck and kick it.
In C#, Java etc. the compiler fusses a lot about: Are you allowed to do this operation on that object?
Object Oriented vs. Class Oriented could therefore mean: Does the language worry about objects or classes?
For instance: In Python, to implement an iterable object, you only need to supply a method __iter__() that returns an object that has a method named next(). That's all there is to it: No interface implementation (there is no such thing). No subclassing. Just talking like a duck / iterator.
EDIT: This post was upvoted while I rewrote everything. Sorry, won't ever do that again. The original content included advice to learn as many languages as possible and to nary worry about what the language doctors think / say about a language.
That was an abstract-podcast indeed!
But I see what they're getting at - they just dazzled by Ruby Sparkle. Ruby allows you to do things that C-based and Java programmers wouldn't even think of + combinations of those things let you achieve undreamt of possibilities.
Adding new methods to a built-in String class coz you feel like it, passing around unnamed blocks of code for others to execute, mixins... Conventional folks are not used to objects changing too far from the class template.
Its a whole new world out there for sure..
As for the C# guys not being OO enough... dont take it to heart.. Just take it as the stuff you speak when you are flabbergasted for words. Ruby does that to most people.
If I had to recommend one language for people to learn in the current decade.. it would be Ruby. I'm glad I did.. Although some people may claim Python. But its like my opinion.. man! :D
I don't think this is specifically about duck typing. For instance C# supports limited duck-typing already - an example would be that you can use foreach on any class that implements MoveNext and Current.
The concept of duck-typing is compatible with statically typed languages like Java and C#, it's basically an extension of reflection.
This is really the case of static vs dynamic typing. Both are proper-OO, in as much as there is such a thing. Outside of academia it's really not worth debating.
Rubbish code can be written in either. Great code can be written in either. There's absolutely nothing functional that one model can do that the other can't.
The real difference is in the nature of the coding done. Static types reduce freedom, but the advantage is that everyone knows what they're dealing with. The opportunity to change instances on the fly is very powerful, but the cost is that it becomes hard to know what you're deaing with.
For instance for Java or C# intellisense is easy - the IDE can quickly produce a drop list of possibilities. For Javascript or Ruby this becomes a lot harder.
For certain things, for instance producing an API that someone else will code with, there is a real advantage in static typing. For others, for instance rapidly producing prototypes, the advantage goes to dynamic.
It's worth having an understanding of both in your skills toolbox, but nowhere near as important as understanding the one you already use in real depth.
Object Oriented is a concept. This concept is based upon certain ideas. The technical names of these ideas (actually rather principles that evolved over the time and have not been there from the first hour) have already been given above, I'm not going to repeat them. I'm rather explaining this as simple and non-technical as I can.
The idea of OO programming is that there are objects. Objects are small independent entities. These entities may have embedded information or they may not. If they have such information, only the entity itself can access it or change it. The entities communicate with each other by sending messages between each other. Compare this to human beings. Human beings are independent entities, having internal data stored in their brain and the interact with each other by communicating (e.g. talking to each other). If you need knowledge from someone's else brain, you cannot directly access it, you must ask him a question and he may answer that to you, telling you what you wanted to know.
And that's basically it. This is real idea behind OO programming. Writing these entities, define the communication between them and have them interact together to form an application. This concept is not bound to any language. It's just a concept and if you write your code in C#, Java, or Ruby, that is not important. With some extra work this concept can even be done in pure C, even though it is a functional language but it offers everything you need for the concept.
Different languages have now adopted this concept of OO programming and of course the concepts are not always equal. Some languages allow what other languages forbid, for example. Now one of the concepts that involved is the concept of classes. Some languages have classes, some don't. A class is a blueprint how an object looks like. It defines the internal data storage of an object, it defines the messages an object can understand and if there is inheritance (which is not mandatory for OO programming!), classes also defines from which other class (or classes if multiple inheritance is allowed) this class inherits (and which properties if selective inheritance exists). Once you created such a blueprint you can now generate an unlimited amount of objects build according to this blueprint.
There are OO languages that have no classes, though. How are objects then build? Well, usually dynamically. E.g. you can create a new blank object and then dynamically add internal structure like instance variables or methods (messages) to it. Or you can duplicate an already existing object, with all its properties and then modify it. Or possibly merge two objects into a new one. Unlike class based languages these languages are very dynamic, as you can generate objects dynamically during runtime in ways not even you the developer has thought about when starting writing the code.
Usually this dynamic has a price: The more dynamic a language is the more memory (RAM) objects will waste and the slower everything gets as program flow is extremely dynamically as well and it's hard for a compiler to generate effective code if it has no chance to predict code or data flow. JIT compilers can optimize some parts of that during runtime, once they know the program flow, however as these languages are so dynamically, program flow can change at any time, forcing the JIT to throw away all compilation results and re-compile the same code over and over again.
But this is a tiny implementation detail - it has nothing to do with the basic OO principle. It is nowhere said that objects need to be dynamic or must be alterable during runtime. The Wikipedia says it pretty well:
Programming techniques may include
features such as information hiding,
data abstraction, encapsulation,
modularity, polymorphism, and
inheritance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming
They may or they may not. This is all not mandatory. Mandatory is only the presence of objects and that they must have ways to interact with each other (otherwise objects would be pretty useless if they cannot interact with each other).
You asked: "Can someone show me an example of a wonderous thing I could do with ruby that I cannot do with c# and that exemplifies this different oop approach?"
One good example is active record, the ORM built into rails. The model classes are dynamically built at runtime, based on the database schema.
This is really probably getting down to what these people see others doing in c# and java as opposed to c# and java supporting OOP. Most languages cane be used in different programming paradigms. For example, you can write procedural code in c# and scheme, and you can do functional-style programming in java. It is more about what you are trying to do and what the language supports.
I'll take a stab at this.
Python and Ruby are duck-typed. To generate any maintainable code in these languages, you pretty much have to use test driven development. As such, it is very important for a developer to easily inject dependencies into their code without having to create a giant supporting framework.
Successful dependency-injection depends upon on having a pretty good object model. The two are sort of two sides of the same coin. If you really understand how to use OOP, then you should by default create designs where dependencies can be easily injected.
Because dependency injection is easier in dynamically typed languages, the Ruby/Python developers feel like their language understands the lessons of OO much better than other statically typed counterparts.