For fun I have been working on my own programming language that compiles down to C++. While most things are fairly straightforward to print, I have been having trouble compiling my golang style interfaces to c++. In golang you don't need to explicitly declare that a particular struct implements an interface, it happens automatically if the struct has all the functions declared in the interface. Originally I was going to compile the interfaces down to a class with all virtual methods like so
class MyInterface {
public:
void DoSomthing() = 0;
}
and all implementing structures would simply extend from the interface like you normally would in c++
class MyClass: public MyInterface {
// ...
}
However this would mean that my compiler would have to loop over every interface defined in the source code (and all dependencies) as well as every struct defined in the source and check if the struct implements the interface using an operation that would take O(N*M) time where N is the number of structs and M is the number of interfaces. I did some searching and stumbled upon some c++ code here: http://wall.org/~lewis/2012/07/23/go-style-interfaces-in-cpp.html that makes golang style interfaces in c++ a reality in which case I could just compile my interfaces to code similar to that (albeit not exactly since I am hesitant to use raw pointers over smart pointers) and not have to worry about explicitly implementing them. However the author states that It should not be done for production code which worries me a little.
This is kinda a loaded question that may be a little subjective, but could anyone with more C++ knowledge tell me if doing it the way suggested in the article is a really bad idea or is it actually not that bad and could be done, or if there is a better way to write c++ code that would allow me to achieve the behavior I want without resorting to the O(N*M) loop?
My initial thought is to make use of the fact that C++ supports multiple inheritance. Decompose your golang interface into single-function interfaces. Hash all interfaces by their unique signature. It now becomes an O(N) operation to find the set of C++ abstract interfaces for your concrete classes.
Similarly, when you consume an object, you find all the consumed interfaces. This is now O(M) by the same logic. The total compiler complexity then becomes O(N)+O(M) instead of O(N*M).
The slight downside is that you're going to have O(N) vtables in C++. Some of those might be merged if certain interfaces are always groupd together.
Related
After reading and watching much about SOLID principles I was very keen to use these principles in my work (mostly C++ development) since I do think they are good principles and that they indeed will bring much benefit to the quality of my code, readability, testability, reuse and maintainability.
But I have real hard time with the 'D' (Dependency inversion).
This principal states that:
A. High-level modules should not depend on low-level modules. Both should depend on abstractions.
B. Abstractions should not depend on details. Details should depend on abstractions.
Let me explain by example:
Lets say I am writing the following interface:
class SOLIDInterface {
//usual stuff with constructor, destructor, don't copy etc
public:
virtual void setSomeString(const std::string &someString) = 0;
};
(for the sake of simplicity please ignore the other things needed for a "correct interface" such as non virutal publics, private virtuals etc, its not part of the problem.)
notice, that setSomeString() is taking an std::string.
But that breaks the above principal since std::string is an implementation.
Java and C# don't have that problem since the language offers interfaces to all the complex common types such as string and containers.
C++ does not offer that.
Now, C++ does offer the possibility to write this interface in such a way that I could write an 'IString' interface that would take any implementation that will support an std::string interface using type erasure
(Very good article: http://www.artima.com/cppsource/type_erasure.html)
So the implementation could use STL (std::string) or Qt (QString), or my own string implementation or something else.
Like it should be.
But this means, that if I (and not only I but all C++ developers) want to write C++ API which obeys SOLID design principles ('D' included), I will have to implement a LOT of code to accommodate all the common non natural types.
Beyond being not realistic in terms of effort, this solution has other problems such as - what if STL changes?(for this example)
And its not really a solution since STL is not implementing IString, rather IString is abstracting STL, so even if I were to create such an interface the principal problem remains.
(I am not even getting into issues such as this adds polymorphic overhead, which for some systems, depending on size and HW requirements may not be acceptable)
So may question is:
Am I missing something here (which I guess the true answer, but what?), is there a way to use Dependency inversion in C++ without writing a whole new interface layer for the common types in a realistic way - or are we doomed to write API which is always dependent on some implementation?
Thanks for your time!
From the first few comments I received so far I think a clarification is needed:
The selection of std::string was just an example.
It could be QString for that matter - I just took STL since it is the standard.
Its not even important that its a string type, it could be any common type.
I have selected the answer by Corristo not because he explicitly answered my question but because the extensive post (coupled with the other answers) allowed me to extract my answer from it implicitly, realizing that the discussion tends to drift from the actual question which is:
Can you implement Dependency inversion in C++ when you use basic complex types like strings and containers and basically any of the STL with an effort that makes sense. (and the last part is a very important element of the question).
Maybe I should have explicitly noted that I am after run-time polymorphism not compile time.
The clear answer is NO, its not possible.
It might have been possible if STL would have exposed abstract interfaces to their implementations (if there are indeed reasons that prevent the STL implementations to derive from these interfaces (say, performance)) then it still could have simply maintained these abstract interfaces to match the implementations).
For types that I have full control over, yes, there is no technical problem implementing the DIP.
But most likely any such interface (of my own) will still use a string or a container, forcing it to use either the STL implementation or another.
All the suggested solutions below are either not polymorphic in runtime, or/and are forcing quiet a some coding around the interface - when you think you have to do this for all these common types the practicality is simply not there.
If you think you know better, and you say it is possible to have what I described above then simply post the code proving it.
I dare you! :-)
Note that C++ is not an object-oriented programming language, but rather lets the programmer choose between many different paradigms. One of the key principles of C++ is that of zero-cost abstractions, which in particular entails to build abstractions in such a way that users don't pay for what they don't use.
The C#/Java style of defining interfaces with virtual methods that are then implemented by derived classes don't fall into that category though, because even if you don't need the polymorphic behavior, were std::string implementing a virtual interface, every call of one of its methods would incur a vtable lookup. This is unacceptable for classes in the C++ standard library supposed to be used in all kinds of settings.
Defining interfaces without inheriting from an abstract interface class
Another problem with the C#/Java approach is that in most cases you don't actually care that something inherits from a particular abstract interface class and only need that the type you pass to a function supports the operations you use. Restricting accepted parameters to those inheriting from a particular interface class thus actually hinders reuse of existing components, and you often end up writing wrappers to make classes of one library conform to the interfaces of another - even when they already have the exact same member functions.
Together with the fact that inheritance-based polymorphism typically also entails heap allocations and reference semantics with all its problems regarding lifetime management, it is best to avoid inheriting from an abstract interface class in C++.
Generic templates for implicit interfaces
In C++ you can get compile-time polymorphism through templates.
In its simplest form, the interface that an object used in a templated function or class need to conform to is not actually specified in C++ code, but implied by what functions are called on them.
This is the approach used in the STL, and it is really flexible. Take std::vector for example. There the requirements on the value type T of objects you store in it are dependent on what operations you perform on the vector. This allows e.g. to store move-only types as long as you don't use any of the operations that need to make a copy. In such a case, defining an interface that the value types needs to conform to would greatly reduce the usefulness of std::vector, because you'd either need to remove methods that require copies or you'd need to exclude move-only types from being stored in it.
That doesn't mean you can't use dependency inversion, though: The common Button-Lamp example for dependency inversion implemented with templates would look like this:
class Lamp {
public:
void activate();
void deactivate();
};
template <typename T>
class Button {
Button(T& switchable)
: _switchable(&switchable) {
}
void toggle() {
if (_buttonIsInOnPosition) {
_switchable->deactivate();
_buttonIsInOnPosition = false;
} else {
_switchable->activate();
_buttonIsInOnPosition = true;
}
}
private:
bool _buttonIsInOnPosition{false};
T* _switchable;
}
int main() {
Lamp l;
Button<Lamp> b(l)
b.toggle();
}
Here Button<T>::toggle implicitly relies on a Switchable interface, requiring T to have member functions T::activate and T::deactivate. Since Lamp happens to implement that interface it can be used with the Button class. Of course, in real code you would also state these requirements on T in the documentation of the Button class so that users don't need to look up the implementation.
Similarly, you could also declare your setSomeString method as
template <typename String>
void setSomeString(String const& string);
and then this will work with all types that implement all the methods you used in the implementation of setSomeString, hence only relying on an abstract - although implicit - interface.
As always, there are some downsides to consider:
In the string example, assuming you only make use of .begin() and .end() member functions returning iterators that return a char when dereferenced (e.g. to copy it into the classes' local, concrete string data member), you can also accidentally pass a std::vector<char> to it, even though it isn't technically a string. If you consider this a problem is arguable, in a way this can also be seen as the epitome of relying only on abstractions.
If you pass an object of a type that doesn't have the required (member) functions, then you can end up with horrible compiler error messages that make it very hard to find the source of the error.
Only in very limited cases it is possible to separate the interface of a templated class or function from its implementation, as is typically done with separate .h and .cpp files. This can thus lead to longer compile times.
Defining interfaces with the Concepts TS
if you really care about types used in templated functions and classes to conform to a fixed interface, regardless of what you actually use, there are ways to restrict the template parameters only to types conforming to a certain interface with std::enable_if, but these are very verbose and unreadable. In order to make this kind of generic programming easier, the Concepts TS allows to actually define interfaces that are checked by the compiler and thus greatly improves diagnostics. With the Concepts TS, the Button-Lamp example from above translates to
template <typename T>
concept bool Switchable = requires(T t) {
t.activate();
t.deactivate();
};
// Lamp as before
template <Switchable T>
class Button {
public:
Button(T&); // implementation as before
void toggle(); // implementation as before
private:
T* _switchable;
bool _buttonIsInOnPosition{false};
};
If you can't use the Concepts TS (it is only implemented in GCC right now), the closest you can get is the Boost.ConceptCheck library.
Type erasure for runtime polymorphism
There is one case where compile-time polymorphism doesn't suffice, and that is when the types you pass to or get from a particular function aren't fully determined at compile-time but depend on runtime parameters (e.g. from a config file, command-line arguments passed to the executable or even the value of a parameter passed to the function itself).
If you need to store objects (even in a variable) of a type dependent on runtime parameters, the traditional approach is to store pointers to a common base class instead and to use dynamic dispatch via virtual member functions to get the behavior you need. But this still suffers from the problem described before: You can't use types that effectively do what you need but were defined in an external library, and thus don't inherit from the base class you defined. So you have to write a wrapper class.
Or you do what you described in your question and create a type-erasure class.
An example from the standard library is std::function. You declare only the interface of the function and it can store arbitrary function pointers and callables that have that interface. In general, writing a type erasure class can be quite tedious, so I refrain from giving an example of a type-erasing Switchable here, but I can highly recommend Sean Parent's talk Inheritance is the base class of evil, where he demonstrates the technique for "Drawable" objects and explores what you can build on top of it in just over 20 minutes.
There are libraries that help writing type-erasure classes though, e.g. Louis Dionne's experimental dyno, where you define the interface via what he calls "concept maps" directly in C++ code, or Zach Laine's emtypen which uses a python tool to create the type erasure classes from a C++ header file you provide. The latter also comes with a CppCon talk describing the features as well as the general idea and how to use it.
Conclusion
Inheriting from a common base class just to define interfaces, while easy, leads to many problems that can be avoided using different approaches:
(Constrained) templates allow for compile-time polymorphism, which is sufficient for the majority of cases, but can lead to hard-to-understand compiler errors when used with types that don't conform to the interface.
If you need runtime polymorphism (which actually is rather rare in my experience), you can use type-erasure classes.
So even though the classes in the STL and other C++ libraries rarely derive from an abstract interface, you can still apply dependency inversion with one of the two methods described above if you really want to.
But as always, use good judgment on a case-by-case basis whether you really need the abstraction or if it is better to simply use a concrete type. The string example you brought up is one where I'd go with concrete types, simply because the different string classes don't share a common interface (e.g. std::string has .find(), but QStrings version of the same function is called .contains()). It might be just as much effort to write wrapper classes for both as it is to write a conversion function and to use that at well-defined boundaries within the project.
Ahh, but C++ lets you write code that is independent of a particular implementation without actually using inheritance.
std::string itself is a good example... it's actually a typedef for std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char>>. Which allows you to create strings using other allocators if you choose (or mock the allocator object in order to measure number of calls, if you like). There just isn't any explicit interface like an IAllocator, because C++ templates use duck-typing.
A future version of C++ will support explicit description of the interface a template parameter must adhere to -- this feature is called concepts -- but just using duck-typing enables decoupling without requiring redundant interface definitions.
And because C++ performs optimization after instantiation of templates, there's no polymorphic overhead.
Now, when you do have virtual functions, you'll need to commit to a particular type, because the virtual-table layout doesn't accommodate use of templates each of which generates an arbitrary number of instances each of which require separate dispatch. But when using templates, you'll won't need virtual functions nearly as much as e.g. Java does, so in practice this isn't a big problem.
I have been analysing the problem of API design in C++ and how to work around a big hole in the language when it comes to separating interfaces from implementations.
I am a purist and strongly believe in neatly separating the public interface of a system from any information about its implementation. I work daily on a huge codebase that is not only really slow to build, mainly because of header files pulling a large number of other header files, but also extremely hard to dig as a client what something does, as the interface contains all sorts of functions for public, internal, and private use.
My library is split into several layers, each using some others. It's a design choice to expose to the client every level so that they can extend what the high level entities can do by using lower level entities without having to fork my repository.
And now it comes the problem. After thinking for a long while on how to do this, I have come to the conclusion that there is literally no way in C++ to separate the public interface from the details for a class in such a way that satisfies all of the following requirements:
It does not require any code duplication/redundancy. Reason: it is not scalable, and whilst it's OK for a few types it quickly becomes a lot more code for realistic codebases. Every single line in a codebase has a maintenance cost I would much prefer to spend on meaningful lines of code.
It has zero overhead. Reason: I do not want to pay any performance for something that is (or at least should!) be well known at compile time.
It is not a hack. Reason: readability, maintainability, and because it's just plain ugly.
As far as I know, and this is where my question lies, in C++ there are three ways to fully hide the implementation of a class from its public interface.
Virtual interface: violates requirements 1 (code duplication) and 2 (overhead).
Pimpl: violates requirements 1 and 2.
Reinterpret casting the this pointer to the actual class in the .cpp. Zero overhead but introduces some code duplication and violates (3).
C wins here. Defining an opaque handle to your entity and a bunch of function that take that handle as the first argument beautifully satisfies all requirements, but it is not idiomatic C++. I know one could say "just use C-style while writing C++" but it does not answer the question, as we are speaking about an idiomatic C++ solution for this.
Defining an opaque handle to your entity and a bunch of function that take that handle as the first argument beautifully satisfies all requirements, but it is not idiomatic C++.
You can still encapsulate this in a class. The opaque handle would be the sole private data member of the class, its implementation not publically exposed in any way. Implementation-wise, it would just be a pointer to a private data structure, dereferenced by the member functions of the class. This is still a minor improvement over the C solution because all of the related data and functions would be encapsulated in a single class and it makes it unnecessary for the client to keep track of a handle and pass it to every function.
Yes, I suppose dereferencing a pointer introduces some trivial amount of overhead, but the C solution would have the same problem.
No code duplication is required, and although it could arguably be considered a hack (or at least, inelegant C++ design), it certainly is no more of a hack than the same approach implemented in C. The only difference is C programmers have a lower threshold for what a "hack" is because their language has less ways of expressing a design.
A rough sketch of the design I'm thinking of (basically the same as PIMPL, but with only the data members made opaque):
// In a header file:
class DrawingPen
{
public:
DrawingPen(...); // ctor
~DrawingPen(); // dtor
void SetThickness(int thickness);
// ...and other member functions
private:
void *pPen; // opaque handle to private data
};
// In an implementation file:
namespace {
struct DrawingPenData
{
int thickness;
int red;
int green;
int blue;
// ... whatever else you need to describe the object or track its state
};
}
// Definitions of the ctor, dtor, member functions, etc.
// For instance:
void DrawingPen::SetThickness(int thickness)
{
// Get the object data through the handle.
DrawingPenData *pData = reinterpret_cast<DrawingPenData*>(this->pPen);
// Update the thickness.
pData->thickness = thickness;
}
If you need private functions that work on a DrawingPen, but that you do not want to expose in the DrawingPen header, you would just place them in the same anonymous namespace in the implementation file, accepting a reference to the class object.
I'm using SWIG to generate my JNI layer for a large set of C APIs and I was wondering what is the best practices for the below situations. The below not only pertain to SWIG but JNI in general.
When C functions return pointers to Structures, should the SWIG interface file (JNI logic) be heavily used or should C wrapper functions be created to return the data in pieces (i.e. a char array that contains the various data elements)?
When C Functions return void* should the C APIs be modified to return the actual data type, whether it be primitive or structure types?
I'm unsure if I want to add a mass amount of logic and create a middle layer (SWIG interface file/JNI logic). Thoughts?
My approach to this in the past has been to write as little code as possible to make it work. When I have to write code to make it work I write it in this order of preference:
Write as C or C++ in the original library - everyone can use this code, you don't have to write anything Java or SWIG specific (e.g. add more overloads in C++, add more versions of functions in C, use return types that SWIG knows about in them)
Write more of the target language - supply "glue" to bring some bits of the library together. In this case that would be Java.
It doesn't really matter if this is "pure" Java, outside of SWIG altogether, or as part of the SWIG interface file from my perspective. Users of the Java interface shouldn't be able to distinguish the two. You can use SWIG to help avoid repetition in a number of cases though.
Write some JNI through SWIG typemaps. This is ugly, error prone if you're not familiar with writing it, harder to maintain (arguably) and only useful to SWIG+Java. Using SWIG typemaps does at least mean you only write it once for every type you wrap.
The times I'd favour this over 2. is one or more of:
When it comes up a lot (saves repetitious coding)
I don't know the target language at all, in which case using the language's C API probably is easier than writing something in that language
The users will expect this
Or it just isn't possible to use the previous styles.
Basically these guidelines I suggested are trying to deliver functionality to as many users of the library as possible whilst minimising the amount of extra, target language specific code you have to write and reducing the complexity of it when you do have to write it.
For a specific case of sockaddr_in*:
Approach 1
The first thing I'd try and do is avoid wrapping anything more than a pointer to it. This is what swig does by default with the SWIGTYPE_p_sockaddr_in thing. You can use this "unknown" type in Java quite happily if all you do is pass it from one thing to another, store in containers/as a member etc., e.g.
public static void main(String[] argv) {
Module.takes_a_sockaddr(Module.returns_a_sockaddr());
}
If that doesn't do the job you could do something like write another function, in C:
const char * sockaddr2host(struct sockaddr_in *in); // Some code to get the host as a string
unsigned short sockaddr2port(struct sockaddr_in *in); // Some code to get the port
This isn't great in this case though - you've got some complexity to handle there with address families that I'd guess you'd rather avoid (that's why you're using sockaddr_in in the first place), but it's not Java specific, it's not obscure syntax and it all happens automatically for you besides that.
Approach 2
If that still isn't good enough then I'd start to think about writing a little bit of Java - you could expose a nicer interface by hiding the SWIGTYPE_p_sockaddr_in type as a private member of your own Java type, and wrapping the call to the function that returns it in some Java that constructs your type for you, e.g.
public class MyExtension {
private MyExtension() { }
private SWIGTYPE_p_sockaddr_in detail;
public static MyExtension native_call() {
MyExtension e = new MyExtension();
e.detail = Module.real_native_call();
return e;
}
public void some_call_that_takes_a_sockaddr() {
Module.real_call(detail);
}
}
No extra SWIG to write, no JNI to write. You could do this through SWIG using %pragma(modulecode) to make it all overloads on the actual Module SWIG generates - this feels more natural to the Java users probably (it doesn't look like a special case) and isn't really any more complex. The hardwork is being done by SWIG still, this just provides some polish that avoids repetitious coding on the Java side.
Approach 3
This would basically be the second part of my previous answer. It's nice because it looks and feels native to the Java users and the C library doesn't have to be modified either. In essence the typemap provides a clean-ish syntax for encapsulating the JNI calls for converting from what Java users expect to what C works with and neither side knows about the other side's outlook.
The downside though is that it is harder to maintain and really hard to debug. My experience has been that SWIG has a steep learning curve for things like this, but once you reach a point where it doesn't take too much effort to write typemaps like that the power they give you through re-use and encapsulation of the C type->Java type mapping is very useful and powerful.
If you're part of a team, but the only person who really understands the SWIG interface then that puts a big "what if you get hit by a bus?" factor on the project as a whole. (Probably quite good for making you unfirable though!)
I need to Understand that whether really Inheritance & virtual functions not necessary in C++ and one can achieve everything using Generic programming. This came from Alexander Stepanov and Lecture I was watching is Alexander Stepanov: STL and Its Design Principles
I always like to think of templates and inheritance as two orthogonal concepts, in the very literal sense: To me, inheritance goes "vertically", starting with a base class at the top and going "down" to more and more derived classes. Every (publically) derived class is a base class in terms of its interface: A poodle is a dog is an animal.
On the other hand, templates go "horizontal": Each instance of a template has the same formal code content, but two distinct instances are entirely separate, unrelated pieces that run in "parallel" and don't see each other. Sorting an array of integers is formally the same as sorting an array of floats, but an array of integers is not at all related to an array of floats.
Since these two concepts are entirely orthogonal, their application is, too. Sure, you can contrive situations in which you could replace one by another, but when done idiomatically, both template (generic) programming and inheritance (polymorphic) programming are independent techniques that both have their place.
Inheritance is about making an abstract concept more and more concrete by adding details. Generic programming is essentially code generation.
As my favourite example, let me mention how the two technologies come together beautifully in a popular implementation of type erasure: A single handler class holds a private polymorphic pointer-to-base of an abstract container class, and the concrete, derived container class is determined a templated type-deducing constructor. We use template code generation to create an arbitrary family of derived classes:
// internal helper base
class TEBase { /* ... */ };
// internal helper derived TEMPLATE class (unbounded family!)
template <typename T> class TEImpl : public TEBase { /* ... */ }
// single public interface class
class TE
{
TEBase * impl;
public:
// "infinitely many" constructors:
template <typename T> TE(const T & x) : impl(new TEImpl<T>(x)) { }
// ...
};
They serve different purpose. Generic programming (at least in C++) is about compile time polymorphisim, and virtual functions about run-time polymorphisim.
If the choice of the concrete type depends on user's input, you really need runtime polymorphisim - templates won't help you.
Polymorphism (i.e. dynamic binding) is crucial for decisions that are based on runtime data. Generic data structures are great but they are limited.
Example: Consider an event handler for a discrete event simulator: It is very cheap (in terms of programming effort) to implement this with a pure virtual function, but is verbose and quite inflexible if done purely with templated classes.
As rule of thumb: If you find yourself switching (or if-else-ing) on the value of some input object, and performing different actions depending on its value, there might exist a better (in the sense of maintainability) solution with dynamic binding.
Some time ago I thought about a similar question and I can only dream about giving you such a great answer I received. Perhaps this is helpful: interface paradigm performance (dynamic binding vs. generic programming)
It seems like a very academic question, like with most things in life there are lots of ways to do things and in the case of C++ you have a number of ways to solve things. There is no need to have an XOR attitude to things.
In the ideal world, you would use templates for static polymorphism to give you the best possible performance in instances where the type is not determined by user input.
The reality is that templates force most of your code into headers and this has the consequence of exploding your compile times.
I have done some heavy generic programming leveraging static polymorphism to implement a generic RPC library (https://github.com/bytemaster/mace (rpc_static_poly branch) ). In this instance the protocol (JSON-RPC, the transport (TCP/UDP/Stream/etc), and the types) are all known at compile time so there is no reason to do a vtable dispatch... or is there?
When I run the code through the pre-processor for a single.cpp it results in 250,000 lines and takes 30+ seconds to compile a single object file. I implemented 'identical' functionality in Java and C# and it compiles in about a second.
Almost every stl or boost header you include adds thousands or 10's of thousands of lines of code that must be processed per-object-file, most of it redundant.
Do compile times matter? In most cases they have a more significant impact on the final product than 'maximally optimized vtable elimination'. The reason being that every 'bug' requires a 'try fix, compile, test' cycle and if each cycle takes 30+ seconds development slows to a crawl (note motivation for Google's go language).
After spending a few days with java and C# I decided that I needed to 're-think' my approach to C++. There is no reason a C++ program should compile much slower than the underlying C that would implement the same function.
I now opt for runtime polymorphism unless profiling shows that the bottleneck is in vtable dispatches. I now use templates to provide 'just-in-time' polymorphism and type-safe interface on top of the underlying object which deals with 'void*' or an abstract base class. In this way users need not derive from my 'interfaces' and still have the 'feel' of generic programming, but they get the benefit of fast compile times. If performance becomes an issue then the generic code can be replaced with static polymorphism.
The results are dramatic, compile times have fallen from 30+ seconds to about a second. The post-preprocessor source code is now a couple thousand lines instead of 250,000 lines.
On the other side of the discussion, I was developing a library of 'drivers' for a set of similar but slightly different embedded devices. In this instance the embedded device had little room for 'extra code' and no use for 'vtable' dispatch. With C our only option was 'separate object files' or runtime 'polymorphism' via function pointers. Using generic programming and static polymorphism we were able to create maintainable software that ran faster than anything we could produce in C.
A big reason why I use OOP is to create code that is easily reusable. For that purpose Java style interfaces are perfect. However, when dealing with C++ I really can't achieve any sort of functionality like interfaces... at least not with ease.
I know about pure virtual base classes, but what really ticks me off is that they force me into really awkward code with pointers. E.g. map<int, Node*> nodes; (where Node is the virtual base class).
This is sometimes ok, but sometimes pointers to base classes are just not a possible solution. E.g. if you want to return an object packaged as an interface you would have to return a base-class-casted pointer to the object.. but that object is on the stack and won't be there after the pointer is returned. Of course you could start using the heap extensively to avoid this but that's adding so much more work than there should be (avoiding memory leaks).
Is there any way to achieve interface-like functionality in C++ without have to awkwardly deal with pointers and the heap?? (Honestly for all that trouble and awkardness id rather just stick with C.)
You can use boost::shared_ptr<T> to avoid the raw pointers. As a side note, the reason why you don't see a pointer in the Java syntax has nothing to do with how C++ implements interfaces vs. how Java implements interfaces, but rather it is the result of the fact that all objects in Java are implicit pointers (the * is hidden).
Template MetaProgramming is a pretty cool thing. The basic idea? "Compile time polymorphism and implicit interfaces", Effective C++. Basically you can get the interfaces you want via templated classes. A VERY simple example:
template <class T>
bool foo( const T& _object )
{
if ( _object != _someStupidObject && _object > 0 )
return true;
return false;
}
So in the above code what can we say about the object T? Well it must be compatible with '_someStupidObject' OR it must be convertible to a type which is compatible. It must be comparable with an integral value, or again convertible to a type which is. So we have now defined an interface for the class T. The book "Effective C++" offers a much better and more detailed explanation. Hopefully the above code gives you some idea of the "interface" capability of templates. Also have a look at pretty much any of the boost libraries they are almost all chalk full of templatization.
Considering C++ doesn't require generic parameter constraints like C#, then if you can get away with it you can use boost::concept_check. Of course, this only works in limited situations, but if you can use it as your solution then you'll certainly have faster code with smaller objects (less vtable overhead).
Dynamic dispatch that uses vtables (for example, pure virtual bases) will make your objects grow in size as they implement more interfaces. Managed languages do not suffer from this problem (this is a .NET link, but Java is similar).
I think the answer to your question is no - there is no easier way. If you want pure interfaces (well, as pure as you can get in C++), you're going to have to put up with all the heap management (or try using a garbage collector. There are other questions on that topic, but my opinion on the subject is that if you want a garbage collector, use a language designed with one. Like Java).
One big way to ease your heap management pain somewhat is auto pointers. Boost has a nice automatic pointer that does a lot of heap management work for you. The std::auto_ptr works, but it's quite quirky in my opinion.
You might also evaluate whether you really need those pure interfaces or not. Sometimes you do, but sometimes (like some of the code I work with), the pure interfaces are only ever instantiated by one class, and thus just become extra work, with no benefit to the end product.
While auto_ptr has some weird rules of use that you must know*, it exists to make this kind of thing work easily.
auto_ptr<Base> getMeAThing() {
return new Derived();
}
void something() {
auto_ptr<Base> myThing = getMeAThing();
myThing->foo(); // Calls Derived::foo, if virtual
// The Derived object will be deleted on exit to this function.
}
*Never put auto_ptrs in containers, for one. Understand what they do on assignment is another.
This is actually one of the cases in which C++ shines. The fact that C++ provides templates and functions that are not bound to a class makes reuse much easier than in pure object oriented languages. The reality though is that you will have to adjust they manner in which you write your code in order to make use of these benefits. People that come from pure OO languages often have difficulty with this, but in C++ an objects interface includes not member functions. In fact it is considered to be good practice in C++ to use non-member functions to implement an objects interface whenever possible. Once you get the hang of using template nonmember functions to implement interfaces, well it is a somewhat life changing experience. \