Related
I have classes using the strategy pattern (each class has the same single method, but implements it very differently). I have another class which chooses the implementation to use based on runtime-accessible values. I have one final class which basically pulls the others together, calls the necessary methods of the implementing class and formats the output.
What could I name this controller class to make it at least semi-clear what it is for? Before someone asks, it is already a very small class (< 100 lines), not worth splitting - I'm confident that it's not because of multiple responsibilities that I'm having trouble naming it.
I want to say "controller" - but that's already a specific concept in MVC architecture (which our app is using). Any ideas? Is there an accepted name for the pattern I'm describing?
In OOP, classes should generally be named after what they are; class names should be nouns. You already know that.
The problem with class names like XyzManager or XyzController is that although technically they are nouns, they're really verbs disguised as nouns. Thus, such classes are named after what they do, instead of what they are. That makes them not objects, but services, or functions.
Now, naming is hard, and sometimes it can't be avoided with an XyzManager. Often, when it happens, it's because you've not yet realised what concept the class really should encapsulate. Still, you should strive to identify what the class is, instead of what it does, and name it after that.
FWIW, I often use a thesaurus (there are several excellent online services for that) to find a good name.
I would like to name it Service
Example: if you have a TaxStrategyGerman, TaxStrategyFrench that are chosen by TaxStrategyFactory and used by TaxCalculationService.
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.
Improve this question
Our company keeps a MiscUtilities class that consists solely of public static methods that do often unrelated tasks like converting dates from String to Calendar and writing ArrayLists to files. We refer to it in other classes and find it pretty convenient. However, I've seen that sort of Utilities class derided on TheDailyWTF. I'm just wondering if there's any actual downside to this sort of class, and what the alternatives are.
Rather than giving personal opinion, I will quote from an authoritative source in the Java community, and examples from 2 very reputable third party libraries.
A quote from Effective Java 2nd Edition, Item 4: Enforce noninstantiability with a private constructor:
Occasionally you'll want to write a class that is just a grouping of static methods and static fields. Such classes have acquired a bad reputation because some people abuse them to avoid thinking in terms of objects, but they do have valid uses. They can be used to group related methods on primitive values or arrays, in the manner of java.lang.Math or java.util.Arrays. They can also be used to group static methods, including factory methods, for objects that implements a particular interface, in the manner of java.util.Collections. Lastly, they can be used to group methods on a final class, instead of extending the class.
Java libraries has many examples of such utility classes.
Apache Commons Lang follows the TypeUtils naming convention
ArrayUtils, StringUtils, ObjectUtils, BooleanUtils, etc
Guava follows the Types naming convention
Objects, Strings, Throwables, Collections2, Iterators, Iterables, Lists, Maps, etc.
The package summary actually has a specific section on classes of static utility methods
Another entire package consists of nothing but utility classes for working with Java primitives, Ints, Floats, Booleans, etc.
Short summary
Prefer good OOP design, always
static utility classes have valid uses to group related methods on:
Primitives (since they're not objects)
Interfaces (since they can't have anything concrete of their own)
final classes (since they're not extensible)
Prefer good organization, always
Group utility methods for SomeType to SomeTypeUtils or SomeTypes
Avoid a single big utility class that contains various unrelated tasks on different types/concepts
Convenient, most likely.
Possible to grow into a scary, hard to maintain swiss-army-rocket-chainsaw-and-floor-polisher, also most likely.
I'd recommend separating the various tasks into separate classes, with some logical grouping besides "won't fit anywhere else".
The risk here is that the class becomes a tangled mess nobody fully comprehends and noone dares to touch - or replace. If you feel that is an acceptable risk and/or avoidable under your circumstances, nothing really prevents you from using it.
I've never been a fan of the MiscUtilities class. My biggest issue is that I never know what is in it. Anything filed under miscellaneous is not discoverable. Instead I prefer to use a common dll that I can import into my projects that contains well named, separated classes for different purposes. The difference is subtle, but I find that it makes my life a little easier.
For languages that support functions, this sort of class is undeniably bad form.
For languages that don't, this sort of class isn't, and is probably superior to extending other classes with random utility methods. The static utility methods, because they are in some other class, can only use the public interface of the objects they handle, which decreases the likelihood of certain kinds of bug. And this approach also avoids polluting public interfaces with a random grab bag of whatever people happened to find useful at the time.
There's a certain amount of personal style involved of course. I'm not a big believer in classes that provide everything under the sun (even C++'s std::string is a tad over-featured for my taste) and tend to prefer to have helper functionality as separate functions. Makes maintenance of the class easier, forces the public interface to be useful and efficient, and with duck-typing style mechanisms the external functions can be used across a wide range of types without having to duplicate source text or share base classes and so on. (The oft-derided algorithms in the C++ Standard Library are a good demonstration of this, imperfect and verbose as they are.)
That said, I've worked with many who complain about strings that don't know how to interpret themselves as filenames, or split themselves into words, or what have you, and so on. (I pick on strings because they seem to be the prime target for utility functions...) I happen to think there are unseen maintenance and reliability costs associated with having large classes like that, quite apart from the ugliness of having a nominally simple class that's actually a vast illogical mishmash of unrelated concerns whose grubby fingers end up poking themselves into every last corner -- because your self-tokenizing string needs some kind of container to put the tokens in, right?! -- but it's a balancing act, even if my wording suggests it's more clean-cut than that.
I'm not a big believer in the notion of "OO dogma", but perhaps the paranoid might see it at work here. There's no good reason that all functionality should be attached to a particular class, and many good reasons why it should not. But some languages still don't allow the creation of functions, which does nothing to remove the need for them and forces people to work around the restriction by creating classes that consist of nothing but static methods. This rather overloads the meaning of the class concept, to my mind, and not in any good way.
So that IS a good reason to rail against this practice, but it's pretty futile unless the language changes to accommodate what people need to do. And languages don't come without functions unless their designers have an axe to grind, or there are technical reasons for it, so I should think that change in either case is unlikely.
I suppose the executive summary is: no.
Well, bad utility classes are derided on TheDailyWTF :)
There's really nothing wrong with having a generic utilities class for miscellaneous static business functions. I mean, you could try to put it all into a more object oriented approach, but at what cost in time and effort to the business and for what trade-off of maintainability? If the latter outweighs the former, go for it.
One approach you may be able to take, depending on the language, etc., is to perhaps move some of the logic into extensions on existing objects. For example, extending the String class (thinking in C# here) with a method that tries to parse the string into a DateTime. An in-house library of extensions just enhances the language with your business' own little DSL(s).
The company I work for has a class like that in its repository. Personally I find it annoying because you have to be really intimate with the class in order to know what it's useful for. Consequently, I've found myself re-writing methods that this class already covers! Double annoying because I've now wasted my time.
I would prefer a more object oriented approach that would lead to expandability. Have a Utilities class for sure, but inside it put other classes that expand toward specific functionality. Like Utilities.XML, Utilities.DataFunctions, Utilities.WhateverYouWant. That way you can expand and eventually take your 20 function MiscUtilities class and turn it into a 500 function class library.
A Class Library like this could then be used by anyone, and added to by anyone (with privileges) in a logically organized way.
I think the wrong defect of such a class is that it break Separation of concerns principle. I usually create multiple "Helpers" class to contains widely used, public static methods, for example ArrayHelpers to writing ArrayLists to files, and DatesHelper to converting dates from String to Calendar.
Moreover, if the class does contain complicated methods, it's better to try to refactor them using more object-oriented tecnique.
You can always switch from your "Helpers" class to the use of various OO pattern, leaving your old static methods to function as a Facade.
Yuo'll find great benefits everytime you'll be able to do so.
I keep a separate misc class for each project, and copy/paste code from other projects as needed. Perhaps not the best approach, but I prefer to avoid cross-project dependencies.
Examples of things in my helper class:
hex2, hex4, and hex8 (accept integer parameters, except hex8 which has integer and uinteger variations; all versions ignore higher-order bits)
byt (convert 8 lsb's of argument into a byte)
getSI, getUI, getSL, getUL (each takes a byte array and an offset, and returns the little-endian signed word, unsigned word, signed 32-bit word, or unsigned 32-bit word at that offset
putSI, putUI, putSL, putUL (takes a byte array, offset, and a value to put there in little-endian format)
hexArr (converts a byte array or portion thereof into a hex string)
hexToArr (converts a hex string to a byte array)
Zap(of T as iDisposable) (takes a byref iDisposable; if not Nothing, disposes it and sets it to Nothing)
Many of those are only useful when fiddling with binary data, but none of them is really domain-specific. Maybe the first six could go in a BinaryHelpers module, but I'm not sure where Zap should go other than in a misc utilities class.
Utility classes aren't bad, in and of themselves. They can be (mis|ab|over)used at times, but they do have their place. If you have utility methods for types you own, consider moving the static methods to the appropriate types. Or creating extension methods.
Do try to avoid a monolithic utilities class - they may be static methods, but they will have poor cohesion. Break up a large set of unrelated functions into smaller groupings of related functionality, much like you would your "normal" classes. Name them *Helper or *Utils, or whatever your preference is. But be consistent, and group them together, perhaps in a folder within a project.
When utility classes are broken up as described, you can create methods for working with specific types - primitives or classes, such as arrays, strings, dates and times, and so on. Admittedly, these wouldn't belong anywhere else, so a utility class is the place to go.
Personally, I often find such a class handy - even if only in the short term. That said, I try not to share them between projects. I would not keep a global version, but write one specific to each project - otherwise you're incorporating dead-weight which may cause issues for security or architecture.
What I do for my personal projects is keep a misc library but rather than adding a reference in my projects, I paste the relevant bits of code in to the relevant places. It's technically duplicaintg it, but not within a single solution and thats the important thing. However I don't think this would work on a larger scale, too messy.
I generally don't have a problem with them, although, like all things, they can be abused:
They grow wildly large, so that most problems that use the class don't use 99% of the functions.
They grow wildly large, so that 90% of the functions aren't used by any program still in use.
Often they are a dumping ground for functions which are specific to one domain. They should be pared off to a similar class use just by program in that domain. Often, these function would be better off incorporated into proper classes.
I used to have, in every project, a module called MiscStuffAndJunk. It was a place to hold everything that didn't have a clear place to go, either because the functionality was a one-off, or because I didn't want to change my focus, so as to do a proper design for a function that was needed by but extraneous away from what I was currently concentrating on.
Still, it these modules are clearly in violation of OO design principles.
So nowadays, I name the module StuffIHaventRefactoredYet, and all is right with the world.
Depending on what your static utility functions actually do and return, it may be cause problems unit testing. I have come across a method in a class that calls a static function on a static class that return things I do not want in my unit test, rendering the whole method untestable...
Do you have any input on how to organize and name utility classes?
Whenever I run in to some code-duplication, could be just a couple of code lines, I move them to a utility class.
After a while, I tend to get a lot of small static classes, usually with only one method, which I usualy put in a utility namespace that gets bloated with classes.
Examples:
ParseCommaSeparatedIntegersFromString( string )
CreateCommaSeparatedStringFromIntegers( int[] )
CleanHtmlTags( string )
GetListOfIdsFromCollectionOfX( CollectionX )
CompressByteData( byte[] )
Usually, naming conventions tell you to name your class as a Noun. I often end up with a lot of classes like HtmlHelper, CompressHelper but they aren't very informative. I've also tried being really specific like HtmlTagCleaner, which usualy ends up with one class per utility method.
Have you any ideas on how to name and group these helper methods?
I believe there is a continuum of complexity, therefore corresponding organizations. Examples follow, choose depending of the complexity of your project and your utilities, and adapt to other constraints :
One class (called Helper), with a few methods
One package (called helper), with a few classes (called XXXHelper), each class with a few methods.
Alternatively, the classes may be split in several non-helper packages if they fit.
One project (called helper), with a few packages (called XXX), each package with ...
Alternatively, the packages can be split in several non-helper packages if they fit.
Several helper projects (split by tier, by library in use or otherwise)...
At each grouping level (package, class) :
the common part of the meaning is the name of the grouping name
inner codes don't need that meaning anymore (so their name is shorter, more focused, and doesn't need abbreviations, it uses full names).
For projects, I usually repeat the common meaning in a superpackage name. Although not my prefered choice in theory, I don't see in my IDE (Eclipse) from which project a class is imported, so I need the information repeated. The project is actually only used as :
a shipping unit : some deliverables or products will have the jar, those that don't need it won't),
to express dependencies : for example, a business project have no dependency on web tier helpers ; having expressed that in projects dependencies, we made an improvement in apparent complexity, good for us ; or finding such a dependency, we know something is wrong, and start to investigate... ; also, by reducing the dependencies, we may accelerate compilation and building ....
to categorize the code, to find it faster : only when it's huge, I'm talking about thousands of classes in the project
Please note that all the above applies to dynamic methods as well, not only static ones.
It's actually our good practices for all our code.
Now that I tried to answer your question (although in a broad way), let me add another thought
(I know you didn't ask for that).
Static methods (except those using static class members) work without context, all data have to be passed as parameters. We all know that, in OO code, this is not the preferred way. In theory, we should look for the object most relevant to the method, and move that method on that object. Remember that code sharing doesn't have to be static, it only has to be public (or otherwise visible).
Examples of where to move a static method :
If there is only one parameter, to that parameter.
If there are several parameters, choose between moving the method on :
the parameter that is used most : the one with several fields or methods used, or used by conditionals (ideally, some conditionnals would be removed by subclasses overriding) ...
one existing object that has already good access to several of the parameters.
build a new class for that need
Although this method moving may seem for OO-purist, we find this actually helps us in the long run (and it proves invaluable when we want to subclass it, to alter an algorithm). Eclipse moves a method in less than a minute (with all verifications), and we gain so much more than a minute when we look for some code, or when we don't code again a method that was coded already.
Limitations : some classes can't be extended, usually because they are out of control (JDK, libraries ...). I believe this is the real helper justification, when you need to put a method on a class that you can't change.
Our good practice then is to name the helper with the name of the class to extend, with Helper suffix. (StringHelper, DateHelper). This close matching between the class where we would like the code to be and the Helper helps us find those method in a few seconds, even without knowledge if someone else in our project wrote that method or not.
Helper suffix is a good convention, since it is used in other languages (at least in Java, IIRC rails use it).
The intent of your helper should be transported by the method name, and use the class only as placeholder. For example ParseCommaSeparatedIntegersFromString is a bad name for a couple of reasons:
too long, really
it is redundant, in a statically typed language you can remove FromString suffix since it is deduced from signature
What do you think about:
CSVHelper.parse(String)
CSVHelper.create(int[])
HTMLHelper.clean(String)
...
In the last year and a bit of working on my team's code base I have noticed a steady progression of naming conventions.
For example, there are a lot of classes that are named to express that they are a class that helps you do something.
Here's the ones I've spotted:
MyClassUtil
MyClassFactory
MyClassHelper
MyClassManager
MyClassService
It just seems to me that over time people come up with naming conventions for relatively the same thing and so instead of having everything named in a consistent manner you wind up with a code base that has a bit of every convention. All the new stuff is named based on the latest fad naming convention and so you can pretty much tell the age of a bit of code by what convention was in fashion at the time.
What is the best way to deal with this tendency? Is it really a problem? As these naming fads come into vogue, should one use the latest fad? Should one rename all existing items with the new naming convention? Or should one just accept the variety as something that is inescapable?
They don't seem like fads... all these names hint at the purpose of the class, and those purposes are different. With programming, it's all in the name, and they should be chosen very carefully. The variety doesn't need to be escaped. The names vary because the purposes of the classes vary.
MyClassUtil
-Some utilities for working with MyClass that it didn't come with. Maybe MyClass belongs to a library you're using, but you often use some higher level functions with it and you need somewhere to put them.
MyClassFactory
-Creates instances of MyClass in an abstracted way. This allows you to write code that needs MyClass instances. It can get those new instances from a MyClassFactory. This would allow the Factory to modified in future to serve up different specific implementations of MyClass. Maybe under unit testing, the Factory just serves up dummy/mock MyClasses. This means a class that uses the factory can be tested without needing to change it, just change the factory, and voilà you can isolate the class being tested.
MyClassHelper
-Ok, I may agree, perhaps this can be more specific. It does something to help with MyClass, but what. Maybe this is a bit similar to MyClassUtil. But, probably MyClassUtil is general functions that work with MyClass, whereas the helper is initialized with a specific instance of MyClass and then can do operations on that one instance. You need a new helper for each MyClass you want to help.
MyClassManager
-Maybe this deals with a pool of MyClass instances and stores or orchestrates them. Eg. in a CommunicationsManager, the class would handle wiring together classes that handle talking to a port or connection like ethernet or serial, and a class that deals with the comms protocol being sent over it so it can transport packets, and a class that deals with the messages in those packets.
MyClassService
-A service can do things for you, like given a postcode convert it into a grid-reference. Usually a service can resolve to many specific things. With the postcode example, this class might be have implementations that can talk to different web sites to do the conversion.
All of the names of classes you've given above indicate to me a striking departure from object-oriented principles. There's no way of telling what "MyClassUtil" or "MyClassService" does. It could be anything. Class naming should be specific, and should relay clearly the actual function of the class. None of these do. The best way to deal with this tendency is to brush up on object oriented programming skills and name the classes accordingly.
Now, it could be that these examples point out the function, within the application architecture, that these classes represent, and your use of "MyClass" is simply a placeholder for something more definitive at runtime, in which case, I wouldn't view these as naming fads, but rather as descriptive indicators of the function of the class itself, with a loose hint of the application's underlying architecture.
If this is pervasive, the team needs to spend some time studying OO design: reading the source code to well-respected OO frameworks, books on design patterns or books such as Evans "Domain Driven Design".
"Util" and "Manager" are often symptoms of poor design - "code smells". So is "Helper" outside of special contexts (Rails apps) where it's well entrenched.
"Factory" and "Service" have precise technical meanings, you can check the code to see if it conforms to those design patterns.
The general remedy is to sit down with the team, and have an explicit discussion about what benefits you're expecting from these naming schemes, what makes sense and what doesn't, and then over the next few months apply refactoring techniques to phase out the names you've all decided are code smells.
Naming is important. It shouldn't be taken lightly, nor is it a subjective matter. True, there is often more than one correct answer to a given naming issue. However, there are seldom many answers consistent with previous choices, which is key.
Renaming the names to better ones and refactoring the code so that each class has a clear responsibility, is recommended. To know what kind of names to use, read Tim Ottinger's article about Meaningful Names.
When a class does only one thing, then giving it a descriptive name is usually easy. Words such as "manager" are vague and may indicate that the class is responsible for doing so many unrelated things, that no simple name is able to describe what the class does. If you can know what the class does just by looking at the name of the class, then the class has a good name.
I don't really see how Factory or Service fit in to a particular fad...
Factory is a design pattern and if the class really is a factory then it's a perfectly appropriate name.
If a class is a Windows service what's wrong with calling it service?
There isn't a problem unless you find that performing all the rename refactors is too costly even though you really want to do them.
Why not use a static analysis tool to help enforce a set of style and consistency rule?
If you're in the .NET world Microsoft provides a tool called StyleCop
In the classname examples you give does "MyClass" stand for an actual class name, so that you are really seeing names like "PersonnelRecordUtil" or "GraphNodeFactory"? MyClassFactory is a really bad actual name for a class.
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; }
}