I am working on a game environment which will feature a number of different entities. Each of this will have a few common functions (Draw, Update, etc) but sometimes the game must treat them differently based on their enemy type. So far, I have encoded the "type" of enemy in their instances' class. So, we have a situation like:
class MotionObject { ... };
class Entity : public MotionObject { ... };
class Coin : public Entity { ... };
class TextSign : public Entity { ... };
class ShapeEnemy : public Entity { ... };
class Attractor : public ShapeEnemy { ... };
class Bumper : public ShapeEnemy { ... };
So the classes Coin, TextSign, Attractor and Bumper are the types of entities instantiated in the game. Having different classes for different types of entities feels right, but I can't shake the feeling that some cumbersomeness might be avoided if I just had one entity class, which contained a switch statement that controlled its behaviour based on its "entity type", something stored in a variable. The player interacts with these entities in different ways depending on their type, and I use dynamic_cast and a null test each time to figure out which behaviour is applied. To be clear, these are for behaviours where I can't call a simple Update() on each entity; the player will respond in a specific way, or their will be inter-entity interaction, all based on the entities type. My code looks like this:
void Game::Update(float deltaT) {
for (int i =0; i < DrawChildren.size(); i++) {
//each entity has its Update called
DrawChildren[i].Update(deltaT);
//What follows is code that the Game class needs to run based on the entity type.
Coin * coin = dynamic_cast<Coin*>(DrawChildren[i]);
if (coin != nullptr) {
...
continue; //so no other type's code executes, in case I have inherited types.
}
TextSign * textSign = dynamic_cast<TextSign*>(DrawChildren[i]);
if (textSign != nullptr) {
...
continue; //so no other type's code executes, in case I have inherited types.
}
Attractor * attractor = dynamic_cast<Attractor*>(DrawChildren[i]);
if (attractor != nullptr) {
...
continue; //so no other type's code executes, in case I have inherited types.
}
Bumper * bumper = dynamic_cast<Bumper*>(DrawChildren[i]);
if (bumper != nullptr) {
...
continue; //so no other type's code executes, in case I have inherited types.
}
}
...
}
Is there a less cumbersome way to do this?
One alternative approach is to have a "shallow" class hierarchy and independent "behaviour" abstract classes that you can use to decorate your main hierarchy.
So you can have:
Entity
-> Character -> NPC ->....
-> Object -> Container -> ....
Renderable
Moveable
Killable
Equippable...
You'll use multiple inheritance to decorate the classes.
Having a single hierarchy forces you to move features up the tree when they are shared between different "subtrees", which means you add features to classes that might not use them, complicating the whole design; or otherwise, you end up having to repeat code (DRY principle?). In both cases, this becomes harder to maintain and expand.
In my opinion this problem is usually best resolved using interfaces. If an object is drawable, implement IDrawable. If it's movable, implement IMovable. If it can be updated, implement IUpdatable.
As you create objects, they can add them (IOC) or they can add themselves to various lists that ensure they will be allowed to move/update/draw/etc at the appropriate times.
The strategy is simple, flexible and leads to highly readable code. Resist the urge to use either switch statements or fragile class hierarchies.
Yes, I know this is C++ and not C# so you will need a bit more work in constructing the infrastructure. You can use abstract classes, multiple inheritance with no data members and dynamic_cast to get a similar effect. Some members of the old school prefer to use bit flags and static cast to avoid runtime overhead.
(This question seemed to get some attention recently, so I'll provide the solution I started using myself).
I switched to an Entity-Component System, and it has been GREAT. It was difficult initially to figure out what level of granularity to make Components, but after doing it for a few months I "got" it and can't imagine going back to class inheritance.
For my ECS, I'm using entityx. It's been slightly frustrating because it depends on C++11 and I want to build on Windows eventually, but of all the ECS engines I found, it had the syntax that seemed the most natural to me.
My current Component types are:
ParentComponent
Transformable
TranslateBounds
Drawable
Sprite
SpriteAnimation //gif-style
Velocity
Tags //a list of identifying strings
Animations
The choice of to subclass or not to subclass is a nuanced one. Is there only a small amount of entity specific code? Consider a plain old general entity class. It really depends on what you're doing elsewhere, and which pattern fits most comfortably.
In your case, if you need to have one class identify another polymorphic class, you could go for a
virtual EntityTypeEnum GetType();
method which returns an enum saying what it is. It's a little bit cleaner than attempting to typecast it many times and switches love enums. But it's essentially the same pattern.
Related
I have a class Group containing a vector of objects of another class Entry. Inside the Group I need to frequently access the elements of this vector(either consequently and in random order). The Entry class can represent a data of two different types with the same properties(size, content, creation time etc.). So all of the members and methods of the Entry class are the same for both data types, except for one method, that should behave differently depending on the type of the data. It looks like this:
class Entry
{
public:
// ...
void someMethod();
// ...
private:
TYPE type_;
// ...
};
class Group
{
private:
// ...
std::vector<Entry> entries_;
// ...
};
void Entry::someMethod()
{
if (type_ == certainType)
{
// Do some stuff
}
else if (type_ == anotherType)
{
// Do some different stuff
}
}
Given the abilities of C++ regarding OOP, this approach seems unnatural to me. I am thinking about creation of two distinct classes inherited from the Entry class and overriding only this someMethod() in those classes:
class Entry
{
// ...
virtual void someMethod() = 0;
// ...
};
class EntryType1 : public Entry
{
// override someMethod() here
};
class EntryType2 : public Entry
{
// override someMethod() here
};
But doing so means reducing the efficiency of cache usage, because now inside the Group class I have to replace the vector of Entry objects placed in a contiguous memory area with the vector of pointers to Entry base class objects scattered all over the memory address space.
The question is - is it worth it to make a class polymorphic just because of one only among many other of its methods is needed to behave differently depending on the data type? Is there any better approach?
is it worth it to make a class polymorphic just because of one only among many other of its method is needed to behave differently depending on the data type?
Runtime polymorphism starts to provide undeniable net value when the class hierarchy is deep, or may grow arbitrarily in future. So, if this code is just used in the private implementation of a small library you're writing, start with what's more efficient if you have real reason to care about efficiency (type_ and if), then it's not much work to change it later anyway. If lots of client code may start to depend your choices here though, making it difficult to change later, and there's some prospect of further versions of someMethod() being needed, it's probably better to start with the virtual dispatch approach.
Is there any better approach?
Again - what's "better" takes shape at scale and depends on how the code is depended upon, updated etc.. Other possible approaches include using a std::variant<EntryType1, EntryType2>, or even a std::any object, function pointers....
If you are absolutely sure that there are only two types of Entry, then using an if inside the function's implementation is, to me, a perfectly valid approach. In this case, I would advise you to use if constexpr to further indicate that this is a compile-time behavioral decision and not a runtime one. (As pointed out by Tony Delroy, if constexpr is not viable).
If, however, you are unsure if you are going to need more Entry types in the future, the if approach would only hurt you in the long run. If you need the scalability, I would advise you to make the Entry class hold a std::function internally for only that specific behavior that needs polymorphism: this way you're only paying for indirection when you actually need the functionality.
You could also make two factory functions make_Entry1 and make_Entry2 that construct an Entry passing it the specific std::function that yields the desired behavior.
Suppose, that I have an abstract base State class and at least two derived classes AnimalState and PlantState(also abstract). Also, I have many derived classes from AnimalState and PlantState.
class State{} // abstract
class AnimalState: public State{} // abstract
class PlantState: public State{} // abstract
//maybe few more of such classes here
class AnimalStateSpecific1: public AnimalState{}
class AnimalStateSpecific2: public AnimalState{}
... //many of them
class PlantStateSpecific1: public PlantState{}
class PlantStateSpecific2: public PlantState{}
... //many of them
Now suppose, that I use them in some kind of method that operates on base State pointers. Those pointers are replaced over time with other pointers to different class from the State hierarchy. It happens by some rule, specifically within the predefined state graph.
Now to the question part. In order to determine the next state, I need to know the previous one. But since I have only base State pointers, I can not efficiently tell what type of state I have, without doing dynamic_cast to every derived class in the hierarchy that is not good. I can have some enum with all kinds of states that I have, but I do not really like that because I do not want to mix information from two hierarchy branches, as it is really different. Also, I do not like different enums for every branch in the hierarchy such as AnimalStateEnum, PlantStateEnum etc.
What is the best solution for this problem? Maybe my design is not good from the start? I want to keep it as generic as possible and work only with base class objects, if possible.
Now to the question part. In order to determine the next state, I need to know the previous one.
Simplest solution based on limited information we have - object, which knows it's own state creates next state object:
class State{
public:
...
virtual std::unique_ptr<State> transform( some data ) = 0;
};
then you implement it in each derived from State class which can change it's state and knows where it can move to. What data you need to pass is not a simple question - it depends on your task and may have various options, but you need to define something that can be used by all derived classes, as signature is defined on the base class and shared on all derived ones.
What is the best solution for this problem? Maybe my design is not good from the start?
This question is not trivial and only can be answered having pretty deep knowledge on your task. If you are unsure - implement a prototype and check if solution fits your problem well. Unfortunately the only way to learn how to create a good design is your own experience (except trivial cases of course).
You could simply have a virtual method next() inside the state class hierarchy,
and then do something similar to the following example:
State *globalState = nullptr;
void foo(State *s)
{
globalState = s->next();
}
Where each derived class will implement next() to its own meaning:
PlantStateSpecific1 *AnimalStateSpecific1::next(){ return new PlantStateSpecific1; }
AnimalStateSpecific1 *PlantStateSpecific1::next(){ return new AnimalStateSpecific1; }
This is more OOP than having an enum / integer descriptor of the derived class.
What you can have is an integer inside the base state class that every class below it will set in its constructor. Then you can either use a sereis of constants, a list of possible states with the id corresponding to the state type index, or use an enumerator.
The id is more flexible as you can create state types with relative ease and add handling to them without too much difficulty, aswell as if you want to create a new state from the id type.
Just one of the ways iv done this before, but there are probably many others.
I'm building a component system where an abstract type Component is inherited from to make components. So far, I have drawable, physical, movable and other components. All seems to go well, and in the Game class I perform the following:
void Game::init()
{
pPlayer->addComponent(pMovable);
}
void Game::processEvents()
{
if (sf::Keyboard::isKeyPressed(sf::Keyboard::W))
pMovable->moveUp(2.f);
// etc..
pPlayer->setVelocity(pMovable->getVelocity());
}
void Game::update()
{
pPlayer->update(0);
}
void Game::play()
{
while (pWindow->isOpen())
{
// ...
processEvents();
}
}
So far, the component system is really basic and simple. The player is of type Object and whenever I call the player's update function, I also have the Object's update function also called. This should really be automated, but that will change in the future. What the real problem is this:
pPlayer can still access pMovable's velocity even if it has not added pMovable as a component. This is problematic because it means anyone can simply get the velocity from pMovable and then plug it into their object without having to add pMovable as part of their component. Now, what does tend to happen is that the movement becomes unmanaged since there is no movable component to regulate it. I term this unauthorised use of the component, and I want to develop a way by which a component can 'deny' usage of its functionality to an object it is not owned by. There are many solutions to this problem, and I need one which is efficient and practical for use. Here are mine:
Throw an exception if the client attempts to allocate a component function into its own without adding it;
Create a system by which objects and components are identified and the component keeps track of the objects it is owned by, and the objects keep track of the components it owns. Because this is a many-to-many relationship, an intermediate class that manages all this would have to be created; it also avoids a circular header inclusion.
Have a function NOT part of an object simply 'deactivated'. This would require the use of a boolean like 'componentAdded' and all functions would have to check whether the component was added or not, else the function won't do what it ought to be doing.
If you have other solutions to prevent the unauthorised use of components, please share them as I'm keen to learn from others as to how they implemented/or would implement a component system as I have done here.
You can't prevent specific classes from inheritance. It's an all or nothing proposition: any class inherits from the base or none.
The best you can hope for is to narrow the interface. For example, instead of allowing decendents of Object in a function, you may want to have a class Stationary_Object or Enemy_Object to refine the interface. This allows you to write functions that take any Enemy_Object and won't take a Stationary_Object (like a tree or wall).
Edit 1: Cheating with friends
You can allow member access by declaring the members as private and granting access to specific classes using the friend class. The problem is that the class with data will need to be modified whenever a new type of friend is created. I believe this use of friendship defeats the purpose of reusability.
Edit 2: detecting ownership
Let's say we have three classes:
class Engine;
class Car
{
Engine car_engine;
};
class Boat
{
Engine boat_engine;
};
And a function:
void Fix_Car_Engine(Engine& e)
{
}
There is no method in C++ for the Fix_Car_Engine to know that it is fixing a car engine or a boat engine. The function only knows that it has been given a generic engine to fix (or it only knows about the common Engine stuff of the variable).
This issue can be mitigated by refining or narrowing the interface:
class Car_Engine : public Engine;
class Boat_Engine : public Engine;
class Car
{
Car_Engine diesel_engine;
};
class Boat
{
Boat_Engine propellor_engine;
};
In the above example, the Engine class has two specializations: Car_Engine and Boat_Engine. The Car now has a Car_Engine member and the Boat has a Boat_Engine.
The functions can now be created to operate on special engines:
void fix_boat_engine(Boat_Engine& be);
void fix_car_engine(Car_Engine& ce);
The fix_car_engine will now only work with Car Engines. You could say that it works on any class that has-a Car Engine (as long as you pass the Car Engine member). Likewise, the fix_boat_engine function only operates on Boat Engines.
Given:
class Rocket_Engine : public Engine;
Also, this specialization prevents a Rocket_Engine from being passed to either function. The functions require specific engine types.
(Refer Update #1 for a concise version of the question.)
We have an (abstract) class named Games that has subclasses, say BasketBall and Hockey (and probably many more to come later).
Another class GameSchedule, must contain a collection GamesCollection of various Games objects. The issue is that we would, at times, like to iterate only through the BasketBall objects of GamesCollection and call functions that are specific to it (and not mentioned in the Games class).
That is, GameSchedule deals with a number of objects that broadly belong to Games class, in the sense that they do have common functions that are being accessed; at the same time, there is more granularity at which they are to be handled.
We would like to come up with a design that avoids unsafe downcasting, and is extensible in the sense that creating many subclasses under Games or any of its existing subclasses must not necessitate the addition of too much code to handle this requirement.
Examples:
A clumsy solution that I came up with, that doesn't do any downcasting at all, is to have dummy functions in the Game class for every subclass specific function that has to be called from GameSchedule. These dummy functions will have an overriding implementation in the appropriate subclasses which actually require its implementation.
We could explicitly maintain different containers for various subclasses of Games instead of a single container. But this would require a lot of extra code in GameSchedule, when the number of subclasses grow. Especially if we need to iterate through all the Games objects.
Is there a neat way of doing this?
Note: the code is written in C++
Update# 1: I realized that the question can be put in a much simpler way. Is it possible to have a container class for any object belonging to a hierarchy of classes? Moreover, this container class must have the ability to pick elements belonging to (or derive from) a particular class from the hierarchy and return an appropriate list.
In the context of the above problem, the container class must have functions like GetCricketGames, GetTestCricketGames, GetBaseballGame etc.,
This is exactly one of the problems that The "Tell, Don't Ask" principle was created for.
You're describing an object that holds onto references to other objects, and wants to ask them what type of object they are before telling them what they need to do. From the article linked above:
The problem is that, as the caller, you should not be making decisions based on the state of the called object that result in you then changing the state of the object. The logic you are implementing is probably the called object’s responsibility, not yours. For you to make decisions outside the object violates its encapsulation.
If you break the rules of encapsulation, you not only introduce the runtime risks incurred by rampant downcasts, but also make your system significantly less maintainable by making it easier for components to become tightly coupled.
Now that that's out there, let's look at how the "Tell, Don't Ask" could be applied to your design problem.
Let's go through your stated constraints (in no particular order):
GameSchedule needs to iterate over all games, performing general operations
GameSchedule needs to iterate over a subset of all games (e.g., Basketball), to perform type-specific operations
No downcasts
Must easily accommodate new Game subclasses
The first step to following the "Tell, Don't Ask" principle is identifying the actions that will take place in the system. This lets us take a step back and evaluate what the system should be doing, without getting bogged down into the details of how it should be doing it.
You made the following comment in #MarkB's answer:
If there's a TestCricket class inheriting from Cricket, and it has many specific attributes concerning the timings of the various innings of the match, and we would like to initialize the values of all TestCricket objects' timing attributes to some preset value, I need a loop that picks all TestCricket objects and calls some function like setInningTimings(int inning_index, Time_Object t)
In this case, the action is: "Initialize the inning timings of all TestCricket games to a preset value."
This is problematic, because the code that wants to perform this initialization is unable to differentiate between TestCricket games, and other games (e.g., Basketball). But maybe it doesn't need to...
Most games have some element of time: Basketball games have time-limited periods, while Baseball games have (basically) innings with basically unlimited time. Each type of game could have its own completely unique configuration. This is not something we want to offload onto a single class.
Instead of asking each game what type of Game it is, and then telling it how to initialize, consider how things would work if the GameSchedule simply told each Game object to initialize. This delegates the responsibility of the initialization to the subclass of Game - the class with literally the most knowledge of what type of game it is.
This can feel really weird at first, because the GameSchedule object is relinquishing control to another object. This is an example of the Hollywood Principle. It's a completely different way of solving problems than the approach most developers initially learn.
This approach deals with the constraints in the following ways:
GameSchedule can iterate over a list of Games without any problem
GameSchedule no longer needs to know the subtypes of its Games
No downcasting is necessary, because the subclasses themselves are handling the subclass-specific logic
When a new subclass is added, no logic needs to be changed anywhere - the subclass itself implements the necessary details (e.g., an InitializeTiming() method).
Edit: Here's an example, as a proof-of-concept.
struct Game
{
std::string m_name;
Game(std::string name)
: m_name(name)
{
}
virtual void Start() = 0;
virtual void InitializeTiming() = 0;
};
// A class to demonstrate a collaborating object
struct PeriodLengthProvider
{
int GetPeriodLength();
}
struct Basketball : Game
{
int m_period_length;
PeriodLengthProvider* m_period_length_provider;
Basketball(PeriodLengthProvider* period_length_provider)
: Game("Basketball")
, m_period_length_provider(period_length_provider)
{
}
void Start() override;
void InitializeTiming() override
{
m_period_length = m_time_provider->GetPeriodLength();
}
};
struct Baseball : Game
{
int m_number_of_innings;
Baseball() : Game("Baseball") { }
void Start() override;
void InitializeTiming() override
{
m_number_of_innings = 9;
}
}
struct GameSchedule
{
std::vector<Game*> m_games;
GameSchedule(std::vector<Game*> games)
: m_games(games)
{
}
void StartGames()
{
for(auto& game : m_games)
{
game->InitializeTiming();
game->Start();
}
}
};
You've already identified the first two options that came to my mind: Make the base class have the methods in question, or maintain separate containers for each game type.
The fact that you don't feel these are appropriate leads me to believe that the "abstract" interface you provide in the Game base class may be far too concrete. I suspect that what you need to do is step back and look at the base interface.
You haven't given any concrete example to help, so I'm going to make one up. Let's say your basketball class has a NextQuarter method and hockey has NextPeriod. Instead, add to the base class a NextGameSegment method, or something that abstracts away the game-specific details. All the game-specific implementation details should be hidden in the child class with only a game-general interface needed by the schedule class.
C# supports reflections and by using the "is" keyword or GetType() member function you could do these easily. If you are writing your code in unmanaged C++, I think the best way to do this is add a GetType() method in your base class (Games?). Which in its turn would return an enum, containing all the classes that derive from it (so you would have to create an enum too) for that. That way you can safely determine the type you are dealing with only through the base type. Below is an example:
enum class GameTypes { Game, Basketball, Football, Hockey };
class Game
{
public:
virtual GameTypes GetType() { return GameTypes::Game; }
}
class BasketBall : public Game
{
public:
GameTypes GetType() { return GameTypes::Basketball; }
}
and you do this for the remaining games (e.g. Football, Hockey). Then you keep a container of Game objects only. As you get the Game object, you call its GetType() method and effectively determine its type.
You're trying to have it all, and you can't do that. :) Either you need to do a downcast, or you'll need to utilize something like the visitor pattern that would then require you to do work every time you create a new implementation of Game. Or you can fundamentally redesign things to eliminate the need to pick the individual Basketballs out of a collection of Games.
And FWIW: downcasting may be ugly, but it's not unsafe as long as you use pointers and check for null:
for(Game* game : allGames)
{
Basketball* bball = dynamic_cast<Basketball*>(game);
if(bball != nullptr)
bball->SetupCourt();
}
I'd use the strategy pattern here.
Each game type has its own scheduling strategy which derives from the common strategy used by your game schedule class and decouples the dependency between the specific game and game schedule.
So I understand pretty much how it works, but I just can't grasp what makes it useful. You still have to define all the separate functions, you still have to create an instance of each object, so why not just call the function from that object vs creating the object, creating a pointer to the parent object and passing the derived objects reference, just to call a function? I don't understand the benefits of taking this extra step.
Why do this:
class Parent
{
virtual void function(){};
};
class Derived : public Parent
{
void function()
{
cout << "derived";
}
};
int main()
{
Derived foo;
Parent* bar = &foo;
bar->function();
return -3234324;
}
vs this:
class Parent
{
virtual void function(){};
};
class Derived : public Parent
{
void function()
{
cout << "derived";
}
};
int main()
{
Derived foo;
foo.function();
return -3234324;
}
They do exactly the same thing right? Only one uses more memory and more confusion as far as I can tell.
Both your examples do the same thing but in different ways.
The first example calls function() by using Static binding while the second calls it using Dynamic Binding.
In first case the compiler precisely knows which function to call at compilation time itself, while in second case the decision as to which function should be called is made at run-time depending on the type of object which is pointed by the Base class pointer.
What is the advantage?
The advantage is more generic and loosely coupled code.
Imagine a class hierarchy as follows:
The calling code which uses these classes, will be like:
Shape *basep[] = { &line_obj, &tri_obj,
&rect_obj, &cir_obj};
for (i = 0; i < NO_PICTURES; i++)
basep[i] -> Draw ();
Where, line_obj, tri_obj etc are objects of the concrete Shape classes Line, Triangle and so on, and they are stored in a array of pointers of the type of more generalized base class Shape.
This gives the additional flexibility and loose coupling that if you need to add another concrete shape class say Rhombus, the calling code does not have to change much, because it refers to all concrete shapes with a pointer to Base class Shape. You only have to make the Base class pointer point to the new concrete class.
At the sametime the calling code can call appropriate methods of those classes because the Draw() method would be virtual in these classes and the method to call will be decided at run-time depending on what object the base class pointer points to.
The above is an good example of applying Open Closed Principle of the famous SOLID design principles.
Say you want someone to show up for work. You don't know whether they need to take a car, take a bus, walk, or what. You just want them to show up for work. With polymorphism, you just tell them to show up for work and they do. Without polymorphism, you have to figure out how they need to get to work and direct them to that process.
Now say some people start taking a Segway to work. Without polymorphism, every piece of code that tells someone to come to work has to learn this new way to get to work and how to figure out who gets to work that way and how to tell them to do it. With polymorphism, you put that code in one place, in the implementation of the Segway-rider, and all the code that tells people to go to work tells Segway-riders to take their Segways, even though it has no idea that this is what it's doing.
There are many real-world programming analogies. Say you need to tell someone that there's a problem they need to investigate. Their preferred contact mechanism might be email, or it might be an instant message. Maybe it's an SMS message. With a polymorphic notification method, you can add a new notification mechanism without having to change every bit of code that might ever need to use it.
polymorphism is great if you have a list/array of object which share a common ancestor and you wich to do some common thing with them, or you have an overridden method. The example I learnt the concept from, use shapes as and overriding the draw method. They all do different things, but they're all a 'shape' and can all be drawn. Your example doesn't really do anything useful to warrant using polymorphism
A good example of useful polymorphism is the .NET Stream class. It has many implementations such as "FileStream", "MemoryStream", "GZipStream", etcetera. An algorithm that uses "Stream" instead of "FileStream" can be reused on any of the other stream types with little or no modification.
There are countless examples of nice uses of polymorphism. Consider as an example a class that represents GUI widgets. The most base classs would have something like:
class BaseWidget
{
...
virtual void draw() = 0;
...
};
That is a pure virtual function. It means that ALL the class that inherit the Base will need to implement it. And ofcourse all widgets in a GUI need to draw themselves, right? So that's why you would need a base class with all of the functions that are common for all GUI widgets to be defined as pure virtuals because then in any child you will do like that:
class ChildWidget
{
...
void draw()
{
//draw this widget using the knowledge provided by this child class
}
};
class ChildWidget2
{
...
void draw()
{
//draw this widget using the knowledge provided by this child class
}
};
Then in your code you need not care about checking what kind of widget it is that you are drawing. The responsibility of knowing how to draw itself lies with the widget (the object) and not with you. So you can do something like that in your main loop:
for(int i = 0; i < numberOfWidgets; i++)
{
widgetsArray[i].draw();
}
And the above would draw all the widgets no matter if they are of ChildWidget1, ChildWidget2, TextBox, Button type.
Hope that it helps to understand the benefits of polymorphism a bit.
Reuse, generalisation and extensibility.
I may have an abstract class hierarchy like this: Vehicle > Car. I can then simply derive from Car to implement concrete types SaloonCar, CoupeCar etc. I implement common code in the abstract base classes. I may have also built some other code that is coupled with Car. My SaloonCar and CoupeCar are both Cars so I can pass them to this client code without alteration.
Now consider that I may have an interface; IInternalCombustionEngine and a class coupled with with this, say Garage (contrived I know, stay with me). I can implement this interface on classes defined in separate class hierarchies. E.G.
public abstract class Vehicle {..}
public abstract class Bus : Vehicle, IPassengerVehicle, IHydrogenPowerSource, IElectricMotor {..}
public abstract class Car : Vehicle {..}
public class FordCortina : Car, IInternalCombustionEngine, IPassengerVehicle {..}
public class FormulaOneCar : Car, IInternalCombustionEngine {..}
public abstract class PowerTool {..}
public class ChainSaw : PowerTool, IInternalCombustionEngine {..}
public class DomesticDrill : PowerTool, IElectricMotor {..}
So, I can now state that an object instance of FordCortina is a Vehicle, it's a Car, it's an IInternalCombustionEngine (ok contrived again, but you get the point) and it's also a passenger vehicle. This is a powerful construct.
The poly in polymorphic means more than one. In other words, polymorphism is not relevant unless there is more than one derived function.
In this example, I have two derived functions. One of them is selected based on the mode variable. Notice that the agnostic_function() doesn't know which one was selected. Nevertheless, it calls the correct version of function().
So the point of polymorphism is that most of your code doesn't need to know which derived class is being used. The specific selection of which class to instantiate can be localized to a single point in the code. This makes the code much cleaner and easier to develop and maintain.
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class Parent
{
public:
virtual void function() const {};
};
class Derived1 : public Parent
{
void function() const { cout << "derived1"; }
};
class Derived2 : public Parent
{
void function() const { cout << "derived2"; }
};
void agnostic_function( Parent const & bar )
{
bar.function();
}
int main()
{
int mode = 1;
agnostic_function
(
(mode==1)
? static_cast<Parent const &>(Derived1())
: static_cast<Parent const &>(Derived2())
);
}
Polymorphism is One of the principles OOP. With polymorphism you can choose several behavior in runtime. In your sample, you have a implementation of Parent, if you have more implementation, you can choose one by parameters in runtime. polymorphism help for decoupling layers of application. in your sample of third part use this structers then it see Parent interface only and don't know implementation in runtime so third party independ of implementations of Parent interface. You can see Dependency Injection pattern also for better desing.
Just one more point to add. Polymorphism is required to implement run-time plug-ins. It is possible to add functionality to a program at run-time. In C++, the derived classes can be implemented as shared object libraries. The run time system can be programmed to look at a library directory, and if a new shared object appears, it links it in and can start to call it. This can also be done in Python.
Let's say that my School class has a educate() method. This method accepts only people who can learn. They have different styles of learning. Someone grasps, someone just mugs it up, etc.
Now lets say I have boys, girls, dogs, and cats around the School class. If School wants to educate them, I would have to write different methods for the different objects, under School.
Instead, the different people Objects (boys,girls , cats..) implement the Ilearnable interface. Then, the School class does not have to worry about what it has to educate.
School will just have to write a
public void Educate (ILearnable anyone)
method.
I have written cats and dogs because they might want to visit different type of school. As long as it is certain type of school (PetSchool : School) and they can Learn, they can be educated.
So it saves multiple methods that have the same implementation but different input types
The implementation matches the real life scenes and so it's easy for design purposes
We can concentrate on part of the class and ignore everything else.
Extension of the class (e.g. After years of education you come to know, hey, all those people around the School must go through GoGreen program where everyone must plant a tree in the same way. Here if you had a base class of all those people as abstract LivingBeings, we can add a method to call PlantTree and write code in PlantTree. Nobody needs to write code in their Class body as they inherit from the LivingBeings class, and just typecasting them to PlantTree will make sure they can plant trees).