I mis-read Ben

Post #175,882 by drewk 9/23/04 10:07:50 AM Reply	I mis-read Ben When he said "A is inherited from by both" I read that as "A inherits from both". Ain't language fun? As to your other point, I still disagree with you. And I think Ben has expressed the same thing. However, even in the factory case where you moved a runtime decision to the factory, you have still most probably reduced the number of decision points. If the credit cards handle authorization, payment, and billing differently then those 3 decision points where in a procedural implementation would have been if (amex) else if (visa) etc. are now gone. You have only the 1 decision point of what type to create and then all other decisions where types do things differently are handled by polymorphism. First, I don't care about decision points at runtime or compiletime. Those decision are made by the computer, and they're done very quickly. The decision I care about are the ones the programmer has to make. Now in the case where you decide what parameters to pass to a factory class, it's true that the class object returned will handle the rest of the implementation. But the programmer has to know what object is being returned and write code apropriately. Unless every method in every class exists in every other class. If any of the possible child classes has a public function that doesn't exist in the others the programmer has to know not to call it. In properly written code, this won't appear to be a decision point, because there will be no inappropriate calls to the function. But the programmer has to decide not to call a non-existant function. === Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
Post #175,889 by bluke 9/23/04 10:30:21 AM 9/23/04 11:20:06 AM Reply	You misunderstand interfaces and factories ... You stated the following: "But the programmer has to know what object is being returned and write code apropriately. Unless every method in every class exists in every other class. If any of the possible child classes has a public function that doesn't exist in the others the programmer has to know not to call it." In a statically typed language like Java what you wrote is simply not true. A factory should always return an interface. Therefore any Object that you get back from the factory by definition implements all of the methods in the interface. Therefore the only, methods that you can call are the interface methods. The programmer doesn't have to know anything more then the interface. From his perspective the only methods that exist are those that the interface declares and any object that he gets backs is guaranteed to implements them therefore there are no decisions. In a dynamically typed like language like Smalltalk what you said is theoretically possible but from experience almost never happens. Factories return classes that implicitly implement some interface and those are the methods that are used. In fact, in a dynamically typed language you never whether an Object implements a method, it is only checked at runtime. In reality, that is not an issue. You know what type of Object you are supposed to be getting. Edited by bluke Sept. 23, 2004, 10:50:40 AM EDT Edited by bluke Sept. 23, 2004, 11:20:06 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #175,926 by FuManChu 9/23/04 12:38:44 PM Reply	Drew is right. Some person or bit of code at some time must decide whether to instantiate an object of class B or one of class C. Find out where and when that happens in your language of choice and you can stop talking past each other.
Post #175,986 by bluke 9/23/04 5:00:13 PM Reply	My point was thatin OO code you make that decision once and then polymorphism works for you. In procedural code that decision is scattered all over the place.
Post #175,900 by ben_tilly 9/23/04 10:55:24 AM Reply	I'm actually on the fence If the code really has been designed in accord with the Liskov Substitution Principle, then you really shouldn't care what type of object you're given. However while I'm aware of the theory, I'm also aware of the fact that in wading through actual code I do wind up being aware of the abstraction layer. Sometimes painfully so. Cheers, Ben About the use of language: it is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a blunt axe. It is equally vain to try to do it with ten blunt axes instead. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra
Post #175,902 by bluke 9/23/04 11:00:41 AM Reply	That is with implementation inheritance These days implementation inheritance is looked down upon. The recommended practice in Java is to always program gainst an interface. Your implementation may use implementation inheritance but this is transparent to the users of the interface. When dealing with an interface this is usally not an issue.
Post #175,906 by ben_tilly 9/23/04 11:08:29 AM Reply	That is both with interface and implementation inheritance Interfaces do not always get implemented correctly... Oh, the right methods might be there. They just might not do quite the right things. Cheers, Ben About the use of language: it is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a blunt axe. It is equally vain to try to do it with ten blunt axes instead. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra
Post #175,907 by bluke 9/23/04 11:15:36 AM 9/23/04 11:17:39 AM Reply	With interfaces it is less of a concern You can say that about any library. at some point you have to trust that the implementation is correct. I believe (it is a gut feeling, I have no proof) that implementation inheritance cause violation of the Liskov principle much more often then interface implementation. I get the impression that many people who do OO development have never heard of Liskov and therefore when they subclass feel free to break substitubality or do it accidently without paying attention. With interfaces it is much harder to do, you are constrained by the interface. Edited by bluke Sept. 23, 2004, 11:17:39 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #175,925 by drewk 9/23/04 12:36:16 PM Reply	Hadn't heard of LSP But that's exactly what I was thinking about. We haven't been concerned with substitutability. Just getting all the old prodedural code moved into classes has been enough work. What bluke is saying about interfaces doesn't exist in PHP. There is nothing in the language (currently) that prevents you from implementing public methods in one subclass that don't exist in other subclasses of the same parent, or in the parent itself. I've been thinking lately that this was a Bad Thing™, but now I have something to point to to support my feeling. === Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
Post #175,934 by tuberculosis 9/23/04 1:23:55 PM Reply	Huh? "We haven't been concerned with substitutability. Just getting all the old prodedural code moved into classes has been enough work." I don't see the benefit then. OO is all about substitutabilty. Otherwise your "classes" are really just modules. Still not OO. That was lovely cheese. --Wallace, The Wrong Trousers
Post #176,070 by drewk 9/24/04 12:30:58 AM Reply	Don't get all religious on me The last large system I worked on, every class in the system was descended from one root class. I understand that in Smalltalk everything is descended from a root Object. Does that mean than any object in Smalltalk is substitutable for every other object? Or that not every instance of inheritance has to be substitutable? Or maybe that substitutability isn't an absolute requirement to call something OO? Obviously I vote for the last. Frankly, I think a language (or style) can be OO even without polymorphism. Granted, you're giving up a huge potential advantage. But saying, "Your OO isn't real OO without substitutable polymorphism," sounds like something Bryce would say. === Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
Post #176,075 by JimWeirich 9/24/04 1:01:56 AM Reply	Going to disagreed on this point [...] Frankly, I think a language (or style) can be OO even without polymorphism. Granted, you're giving up a huge potential advantage. I'm going to respectively disagree on this one. Of the two notable features of OO (inheritance and polymorphism), I find that it is polymorphism that most greatly defines the OO style. Take inheritance out of an OO language, and you can still do most of the things that OO enables. Take polymorphism out of an OO language and you are dead in the water. In fact, I will assert that it is runtime/dynamic polymorphism that is required. Static/compile time polymorphism isn't enough. -- -- Jim Weirich jim@weirichhouse.org [link\|http://onestepback.org\|http://onestepback.org] --------------------------------------------------------------------- "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth (in a memo to Peter van Emde Boas)
Post #176,089 by deSitter 9/24/04 4:01:49 AM Reply	agreed I've argued that MI is unneeded, and SI is derivative. Its P that is essential - mapping of name to behavior at will. -drl
Post #176,076 by JimWeirich 9/24/04 1:11:21 AM Reply	Re: Don't get all religious on me I understand that in Smalltalk everything is descended from a root Object. Yes. Does that mean than any object in Smalltalk is substitutable for every other object? No. Just because two classes inherit from a common base class does not mean instances of those classes are substitutable for each other. But both are substitutable for instances of the common base class. (I.e. Instances of Dog and Cat are both substituable for instances of Animal, but dogs and cats are not interchangable). Or that not every instance of inheritance has to be substitutable? There are certainly reasons to inherit without maintaining substitutability (Meyer's OOSC[1] gives a lot of reasons for using inheritance). This is (one of the reasons) why subclassing and subtyping are not the same thing. But non-substitutable inheritance is the exception rather than the rule. [1] "Object Oriented Software Construction" -- Bertrand Meyer. -- -- Jim Weirich jim@weirichhouse.org [link\|http://onestepback.org\|http://onestepback.org] --------------------------------------------------------------------- "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth (in a memo to Peter van Emde Boas)
Post #176,129 by ben_tilly 9/24/04 10:34:42 AM Reply	And that's the key point Just because two classes inherit from a common base class does not mean instances of those classes are substitutable for each other. But both are substitutable for instances of the common base class. Substitution is a one-way street. The specific can substitute for the generic, but the generic cannot substitute for the specific. Nor can one specific substitute for another. For instance code which expects to get an object should work with any object, of whatever type. Code which expects to get a receipt should work with different kinds of receipts. But code that expects to get a receipt should not be expected to work properly if it gets an invoice. Cheers, Ben About the use of language: it is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a blunt axe. It is equally vain to try to do it with ten blunt axes instead. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra
Post #176,248 by drewk 9/24/04 3:18:39 PM Reply	Someday I've got to take a class Substitution is a one-way street. The specific can substitute for the generic, but the generic cannot substitute for the specific. Now it makes sense. Yes, in ours any specific can substiture for a generic. I got the impression that bluke was saying that any two child classes of the same parent had to be substitutable. The [link\|http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?LiskovSubstitutionPrinciple\|c2 wiki] I where I looked up LSP also gave that impression. Along with wide disagreement on whether it was a requirement of OO. So the way we do it -- typically a child class is the parent class with additional functionality layered on top -- still counts as substitution? If so then yes, we have been doing that. === Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
Post #176,252 by deSitter 9/24/04 3:54:21 PM Reply	..when I get my inheritance -drl
Post #176,254 by FuManChu 9/24/04 4:00:08 PM Reply	Yup. No generic substitute for that.
Post #176,261 by admin 9/24/04 4:20:45 PM Reply	Good idea in this instance. After all, OO programming is a members-only club... Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #176,281 by FuManChu 9/24/04 5:44:34 PM Reply	I object; it's part of a general pattern
Post #176,288 by admin 9/24/04 6:17:48 PM Reply	Ah, but I have a cunning strategy... Longtime visitors to this forum should recognize the facade of generalization I am presenting here. Private reflection should instantiate understanding, to wit: construction of a public collection of like-minded individuals (a set of peers, as it were) requires interfacing through a common protocol of thought. Without this self-affirming list of congruencies, members of the group will discover that they have begun to substitute incompatible parameters in their world view (Liskov's rules of order notwithstanding). Without a proper shared language, the chain of command breaks down; proxies are invoked, semantics differ from one person's understanding of the social contract to the next, and we are left with a merely functional proposition of useless orientation. Now, I have compiled a List of charter singletons the properties of which should bear up under inspection: 1) That all people are to be objectified equally (this is in there for the feminists). 2) That sorting people into distinct types for purpose of evolving break-out discussion groups should be performed dynamically, as opinions can change. 3) That static organizations die if not fed new ideas periodically. 4) That members should be private in their speculations, and public in their memberships. 5) That closure in rancorous conversations (private message passing is not to be tolerated) can only be achieved through proper allocation of public discussion blocks in the forums. 6) That in most instances one should scope one's thoughts locally, and allow only global actions. I believe I've encapsulated succinctly the behaviour of our group above. Objectors are kindly asked to make sure that they has a valid argument before submitting it to the Club Secretary Isa, as she gets grumpy when presented with more than a single thing at a time... Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #176,291 by FuManChu 9/24/04 6:26:44 PM Reply	Bah. Overridden. Glad you have more time to compile than I do to interpret.
Post #176,294 by admin 9/24/04 6:31:13 PM Reply	Overloaded your capacity for understanding, eh? Typical. Basic cogitation yields continuing bad results. You replied just in time; I'm off to void someone else's warranty package. Ta Ta For New. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #176,293 by Another Scott 9/24/04 6:29:07 PM Reply	Ashton, is that you? :-) I've heard that the Club Secretary is a party ooper. Cheers, Scott.
Post #176,296 by admin 9/24/04 6:33:02 PM Reply	Better than the treasurer... He's looking for an assistant, but he's a stickler for proper resumes. He spends all his time counting references... Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #176,301 by ben_tilly 9/24/04 6:59:43 PM Reply	He'll have to wait - I'm collecting garbage It is a circular reference, he won't get it. Cheers, Ben About the use of language: it is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a blunt axe. It is equally vain to try to do it with ten blunt axes instead. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra
Post #176,323 by admin 9/24/04 8:48:18 PM Reply	Coincidentally, there's a fellow around here named Mark... Sweeps up the place after people are done heaping up the trash. He applied for the job, but he and the treasurer don't get along. Too much of a generational gap. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #176,332 by ben_tilly 9/24/04 9:11:32 PM Reply	I'm sorry but that pointer is dangling Buffer luck next time, you wouldn't want to overflow. Cheers, Ben About the use of language: it is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a blunt axe. It is equally vain to try to do it with ten blunt axes instead. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra
Post #176,389 by static 9/25/04 6:26:13 AM Reply	Some people have too much time on their hands... Something obviously failed; better backtrack and try a different goal Wade. I don't know if icon do much better than that pun...
Post #176,400 by admin 9/25/04 9:35:21 AM Reply	You're a real LALRf riot. At least your grammar is good. You might bison new terms for your lexicon, though, before people start feeling the need to flex their stomachs and yacc. Now, I have to say that I'm glad we're keeping this conversation lighthearted. Otherwise it would seem like a bad Film Bacchus Naur... Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #176,403 by Another Scott 9/25/04 10:12:54 AM Reply	So you sed. Personally, I think it's a Perl in the Blinker.
Post #176,309 by jb4 9/24/04 7:27:18 PM Reply	Uuuuuhh... C'mon, It's Friday evening, ferchrissakes! Can't you save something like this for Monday?!? (Nicely done, dammit!) ;-) jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #176,387 by Ashton 9/25/04 3:08:51 AM Reply	The cun.. er, clever linguist suffers Code 715 -715 PROGRAM program-name WITH MARK 56064 release-dependency-mark FAILED BECAUSE IT DEPENDS ON FUNCTIONS OF THE RELEASE FROM WHICH FALLBACK HAS OCCURRED ie A stitch, in time has FAILED TO SAVE 9 //so this is how the neurons twitch hereabouts; it is thought that thoughts think themselves via inherited synapience (until compilations by later scholars of the Twelve Original koans reconstruct a hashish table with passed toke(n)s?) Ummm, methinks Sanskrit is hard, but a -904 UNSUCCESSFUL EXECUTION CAUSED BY 57011 AN UNAVAILABLE RESOURCE. REASON reason-code, TYPE OF RESOURCE resource-type, AND RESOURCE NAME resource-name suggests that This is harder... Resources Are scarce, maybe scarce as REASON ..and the penalty appears to be: EXECUTION! Y.P.B. Aummmm mighty sorry fer y'all The ridiculous way is sometimes also the best way that we have to think about things. The LRPD of Small Gods er, :-\ufffd
Post #176,354 by tuberculosis 9/24/04 10:56:23 PM Reply	Or an interface (rimshot here) Seriously, the practical example is something like you have an abstract class WriteStream. You have concrete implementations FileWriteStream and SocketWriteStream. The idea is that you could hand either a FileWriteStream or a SocketWriteStream to anything that expects a WriteStream. Does that make more sense? That was lovely cheese. --Wallace, The Wrong Trousers
Post #176,438 by drewk 9/25/04 10:04:33 PM Reply	Yes, and that's what we do Although PHP doesn't have a concept of an abstract class. We could probably write that way anyway if we wanted to. === Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
Post #176,440 by tuberculosis 9/25/04 11:47:26 PM Reply	Language doesn't need to support abstract class to have one. Smalltalk doesn't have an abstract class per se either. Its quite possible to construct an instance of Object (and its occasionally done to create non-nil sentinel values). You just decide/document something is abstract and don't instance it anywhere. That was lovely cheese. --Wallace, The Wrong Trousers
Post #176,451 by bluke 9/26/04 2:30:26 AM Reply	That was not what I meant Sorry if I was unclear. What I was trying to say is that if 2 classes implement an interface then they are substitutable for the interface or if 2 classes inherit from the same base class they can substitute for the base class.

Welcome to IWETHEY!