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.
Related
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.
I was interviewed by a financial company and was asked this question:
"List the case(s) when you prefer virtual functions over templates?"
It sounds weird for me, because usually we are aiming the opposite right?
All the books, articles, talks are there encouraging us to use static polymorphism instead of dynamic.
Are there any known cases I was not aware of when you should use virtual functions and avoid templates?
GUI / visualization widget toolkits are an obvious case. Re-implementing a draw method, for example, is certainly less cumbersome with virtual methods and dynamic dispatch. And since modern C++ tends to discourage raw pointer management, std::unique_ptr can manage the resource for you.
I'm sure there are plenty of other hierarchical examples you can come up with... a base enemy class for a game, with virtual methods handling the behaviour of various baddies:)
The whole 'overhead' argument for dynamic dispatch is completely without merit today. I'd argue that the vtable indirection implementation hasn't been a significant overhead for serious workloads in decades. There's the more interesting question that if C++ was designed today, would polymorphism be part of the language? But that's neither here nor there now.
I don't like the chances of this question remaining open, as it's not a direct programming problem and is probably too subject to opinions. It might be a better question for software engineering.
When the type of the object is not known at compile time, use virtual methods.
e.g.
void Accept (Fruit* pFruit) // supplied from external factors at runtime
{
pFruit->eat(); // `Fruit` can be anyone among `Apple/Blackberry/Chickoo/`...
}
Based on what user enters, a fruit will be supplied to the function. Hence, there is no way we can figure out that what is going to be eat(). So it's a candidate for runtime polymorphism:
class Fruit
{
public: virtual void eat () = 0;
}
In all the other cases, always prefer static polymorphism (includes templates). It's more deterministic and easy to maintain.
Interview question seems to asking for preference (& your reasoing).
I would prefer interfaces (virtual methods) for ease of creating mocks for unit testing. We can use template for these, but it is cumbersome (consumer has to be templated). If profiling shows no speed degradation with vtable lookups, prefer that over mocking/testing non-virtual methods.
Also, type erasure. I don't think it can be implemented at all using templates. Type erasure can be roughly thought of as void ptr and function pointers, which can be implemented easily using interfaces + virtual methods.
Templates need code implementation to be made available. I believe virtual methods of an interface can be invoked on a child ptr with just its binary (object) file.
Not sure if code bloat with template is an issue with modern compilers, but if executable size increases significantly, that could be an issue in embedded systems with limited memory and these would not prefer to use templates.
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 a chess variants engine that plays suicide chess and losers chess along with normal chess. I might, over time, add more variants to my engine. The engine is implemented completely in C++ with proper usage of OOP. My question is related to design of such a variant engine.
Initially the project started as a suicide-only engine while over time I added other flavors. For adding new variants, I experimented using polymorphism in C++ first. For instance, a MoveGenerator abstract class had two subclasses SuicideMoveGenerator and NormalMoveGenerator and depending on the type of game chosen by user, a factory would instantiate the right subclass. But I found this to be much slower - obviously because instantiating classes containing virtual functions and calling virtual functions in tight loops are both quite inefficient.
But then it occurred to me to use C++ templates with template specialization for separating logic for different variants with maximum reuse of code. This also seemed very logical because dynamic linking is not really necessary in the context as once you choose the type of game, you basically stick with it until the end of the game. C++ template specialization provides exactly this - static polymorphism. The template parameter is either SUICIDE or LOSERS or NORMAL.
enum GameType { LOSERS, NORMAL, SUICIDE };
So once user selects a game type, appropriate game object is instantiated and everything called from there will be appropriately templatized. For instance if user selects suicide chess, lets say:
ComputerPlayer<SUICIDE>
object is instantiated and that instantiation basically is linked to the whole control flow statically. Functions in ComputerPlayer<SUICIDE> would work with MoveGenerator<SUICIDE>, Board<SUICIDE> and so on while corresponding NORMAL one will appropriately work.
On a whole, this lets me instantiate the right templatize specialized class at the beginning and without any other if conditions anywhere, the whole thing works perfectly. The best thing is there is no performance penalty at all!
The main downside with this approach however is that using templates makes your code a bit harder to read. Also template specialization if not appropriately handled can lead to major bugs.
I wonder what do other variant engine authors normally do for separation of logic (with good reuse of code)?? I found C++ template programming quite suitable but if there's anything better out there, I would be glad to embrace. In particular, I checked Fairymax engine by Dr. H G Muller but that uses config files for defining game rules. I don't want to do that because many of my variants have different extensions and by making it generic to the level of config-files the engine might not grow strong. Another popular engine Sjeng is littered with if conditions everywhere and I personally feel thats not a good design.
Any new design insights would be very useful.
"Calling virtual functions in tight loops are inefficient"
I would be pretty surprised actually if this caused any real bloat, if all the variables of the loop have the same dynamic type, then I would expect the compiler to fetch the corresponding instruction from its L1 cache and thus not suffer much.
However there is one part that worries me:
"obviously because instantiating classes containing virtual functions [is] quite inefficient"
Now... I am really surprised.
The cost of instantiating a class with virtual functions is near undistinguishable from the cost of instantiating a class without any virtual functions: it's one more pointer, and that's all (on popular compilers, which corresponds to the _vptr).
I surmise that your problem lies elsewhere. So I am going to take a wild guess:
do you, by any chance, have a lot of dynamic instantiation going on ? (calling new)
If that is the case, you would gain much by removing them.
There is a Design Pattern called Strategy which would be eminently suitable for your precise situation. The idea of this pattern is akin, in fact, to the use of virtual functions, but it actually externalize those functions.
Here is a simple example:
class StrategyInterface
{
public:
Move GenerateMove(Player const& player) const;
private:
virtual Move GenerateMoveImpl(Player const& player) const = 0;
};
class SuicideChessStrategy: public StrategyInterface
{
virtual Move GenerateMoveImpl(Player const& player) const = 0;
};
// Others
Once implemented, you need a function to get the right strategy:
StrategyInterface& GetStrategy(GameType gt)
{
static std::array<StrategyInterface*,3> strategies
= { new SuicideChessStrategy(), .... };
return *(strategies[gt]);
}
And finally, you can delegate the work without using inheritance for the other structures:
class Player
{
public:
Move GenerateMove() const { return GetStrategy(gt).GenerateMove(*this); }
private:
GameType gt;
};
The cost is pretty much similar to using virtual functions, however you do not need dynamically allocated memory for the basic objects of your game any longer, and stack allocation is a LOT faster.
I'm not quite sure if this is a fit but you may be able to achieve static polymorphism via the CRTP with some slight modifications to your original design.
How do Concepts (ie those recently dropped from the C++0x standard) differ from Interfaces in languages such as Java?
Concepts are for compile-time polymorphism, That means parametric generic code. Interfaces are for run-time polymorphism.
You have to implement an interface as you implement a Concept. The difference is that you don't have to explicitly say that you are implementing a Concept. If the required interface is matched then no problems. In the case of interfaces, even if you implemented all the required functions, you have to excitability say that you are implementing it!
I will try to clarify my answer :)
Imagine that you are designing a container that accepts any type that has the size member function. We formalize the Concept and call it HasSize, of course we should define it elsewhere but this is an example no more.
template <class HasSize>
class Container
{
HasSize[10]; // just an example don't take it seriously :)
// elements MUST have size member function!
};
Then, Imagine we are creating an instance of our Container and we call it myShapes, Shape is a base class and it defines the size member function. Square and Circle are just children of it. If Shape didn't define size then an error should be produced.
Container<Shape> myShapes;
if(/* some condition*/)
myShapes.add(Square());
else
myShapes.add(Circle());
I hope you see that Shape can be checked against HasSize at compile time, there is no reason to do the checking at run-time. Unlike the elements of myShapes, we could define a function that manipulates them :
void doSomething(Shape* shape)
{
if(/* shape is a Circle*/)
// cast then do something with the circle.
else if( /* shape is a Square */)
// cast then do something with the square.
}
In this function, you can't know what will be passed till run-time a Circle or a Square!
They are two tools for a similar job, though Interface-or whatever you call them- can do almost the same job of Concepts at run-time but you lose all benefits of compile-time checking and optimization!
Concepts are likes types (classes) for templates: it's for the generic programming side of the language only.
In that way, it's not meant to replace the interface classes (assuming you mean abstract classes or other C++ equivalent implementation of C# or Java Interfaces) as it's only meant to check types used in template parameters to match specific requirements.
The type check is only done at compile time like all the template code generation and whereas interface classes have an impact on runtime execution.
Concepts are implicit interfaces. In C# or Java a class must explicitly implement an interface, whereas in C++ a class is part of a concept merely as long as it meets the concept's constraints.
The reason you will see concepts in C++ and not in Java or C# is because C++ doesn't really have "interfaces". Instead, you can simulate an interface by using multiple inheritance and abstract, memberless base classes. These are somewhat of a hack and can be a headache to work with (e.g. virtual inheritance and The Diamond Problem). Interfaces play a critical role in OOP and polymorphism, and that role has not been adequately fulfilled in C++ so far. Concepts are the answer to this problem.
It's more or less a difference in the point of view. While an interface (as in C#) is specified similar to a base class, a concept can also be matched automatically (similar to duck-typing in Python). It is still unclear to which level C++ is going to support automatic concept matching, which is one of the reasons why they dropped it.
To keep it simple, as per my understanding.
Concept is a constraint on the template parameter of a Type (i.e., class or struct) or a Method
Interfaces is a contract that Type (i.e., class Or struct) has to implement.