Related
Okay, just about everywhere I read, I read that getters/setters are "evil".
Now, as a programmer who uses getters/setters often in PHP / C#, I do not see how they are alive. I have read that they break encapsulation, etc etc, however, here is a simple example.
class Armor{
int armorValue;
public:
Armor();
Armor(int); //int here represents armor value
int GetArmorValue();
void SetArmorValue(int);
};
Now, lets say getters and setters are "evil".
How are you supposed to change a member variable after initialization.
Example:
Armor arm=Armor(128); //armor with 128 armor value
//for some reason I would like to change this armor value
arm.SetArmorValue(55); //if i do not use getters / setters how is this possible?
Lets say the above is not okay, for whatever reason.
What if my game restricts armor values from 1 to 500. (No armor can have a piece that has more than 500 armor or less than 1 armor).
Now my implementation becomes
void Armor::SetArmor(int tArmValue){
if (tArmValue>=1 && tArmValue<=500)
armorValue=tArmValue;
else
armorValue=1;
}
So, how else would I impose this restriction without using getters/setters?
How else would I modify a property without using getters/setters?
Should armorValue just be a public member variable in case 1, and the getters/setters used in case 2?
Curious. THanks guys
You have misunderstood something. Not using getters/setters breaks encapsulation and exposes implementation details, and can be considered "evil" for some definition of evil.
I guess they can be considered evil in the sense, that without proper IDE/editor support, they are somewhat tediois to write in C++...
One pitfall of C++ is to create non-const reference getter, which allows also modification. That's same as returning a pointer to internal data, and will lock that part of internal implementation, and is really no better than making field public.
Edit: based on comments and other answers, what you heard probably refers to always creating non-private getter and setter for every field. But I would not call that evil either, just stupid ;-)
Being slightly contrarian: yes, getters and setters (aka accessors and mutators) are mostly evil.
The evil here is not, IMO, so much from "breaking encapsulation", as from simply defining a variable to be of one type (e.g., int) when it's really not that type at all. Looking at your example, you're calling Armor an int, but it's really not. While it's undoubtedly an integer, it's certainly not an int, which (among other things) defines a range. While your type is an integer, it's never intended to support the same range as an int at all. If you want Armor to be of a type integer from 1 to 500, define a type to represent that directly, and define Armor as an instance of that type. In this case, since the invariant you want to enforce is defined as part of the type itself, you don't need to tack a setter onto it to try to enforce it.
template <class T, class less=std::less<T> >
class bounded {
const T lower_, upper_;
T val_;
bool check(T const &value) {
return less()(value, lower_) || less()(upper_, value);
}
void assign(T const &value) {
if (check(value))
throw std::domain_error("Out of Range");
val_ = value;
}
public:
bounded(T const &lower, T const &upper)
: lower_(lower), upper_(upper) {}
bounded(bounded const &init)
: lower_(init.lower), upper_(init.upper), val_(init.val_)
{ }
bounded &operator=(T const &v) { assign(v); return *this; }
operator T() const { return val_; }
friend std::istream &operator>>(std::istream &is, bounded &b) {
T temp;
is >> temp;
if (b.check(temp))
is.setstate(std::ios::failbit);
else
b.val_ = temp;
return is;
}
};
With this in place, defining some armor with a range of 1..500 becomes utterly trivial:
bounded<int> armor(1, 500);
Depending on the situation, you might prefer to define (for example) a saturating type where attempting to assign an out of range value is fine, but the value that actually is assigned will simply be the nearest value that is within range.
saturating<int> armor(1, 500);
armor = 1000;
std::cout << armor; // prints "500"
Of course, what I've given above is also a bit bare-bones. For your armor type, it would probably be convenient to support -= (and possibly +=) so an attack would end up something like x.armor -= 10;.
Bottom line: the (or at least "one") major problem with getters and setters is that they usually point to your having defined a variable as being of one type when you really want some other type that happened to be sort of similar in a few ways.
Now, it's true that some languages (e.g., Java) fail to provide the programmer with the tools necessary to write code like that. Here I'm trusting your use of the C++ tag to indicate that you really do want to write C++ though. C++ does provide you with the necessary tools, and (at least IMO) your code will be better off for your making good use of the tools it provides so your type enforces the required semantic constraints while still using clean, natural, readable syntax.
In short: they aren't evil.
It's nothing wrong with them as long as they don't leak out the internal representation. I see no problems here.
A common criticism of get/set functions is that they can be abused by client code to perform operations that logically should be encapsulated in the class. For example, say a client wants to "polish" their armour, and decides the effect is to increase "value" by 20, so they do their little get and set thing and are happy. Then someone other client code elsewhere decides rusty armour should drop the value by 30, and they do their bit. Meanwhile, a dozen other places in client code are also allowing polishing and rusting effects on armour - as well as say "reinforcing" and "cracking", and implementing them directly. There's no central control of this... the maintainer of the armour class has no ability to do things like:
have the rust, polish, reinforce and crack effects apply at most once per piece of armour
tune the number added to or subtract from value for specific logical effects
decide that the new "leather" armour type can't rust, and ignore client attempts to make it do so
On the other hand, if the first client that wanted to make armour rusty couldn't do so through the interface, they'd go to the maintainer of the armour class and say "hey, give me a function to do this", then other people could start using the logical-level "rust" operation, and if it became useful later to do the kinds of things I describe above they could be implemented easily and centrally in the armour class (e.g. by having a separate boolean to say if the armour was rusty, or a separate variable recording the rust effect).
So, the thing with get/set functions is they frustrate the natural evolution of an API of logical functionality, instead distributing logic throughout client code, leading in extremis to an unmaintainable mess.
Your getter/setter looks ok.
The alternative to getter/setters is to make member variables public. To be more precise, group variables into structure without member functions. And operate on this structure within your class
Giving access to members reduces encapsulation, but sometimes it's necessary. And the best way to do it is by means of getters and setters. Some people implement them when no such access is necessary, just because they can and it's a habit.
Getters are evil whenever:
They access directly data members of the class
When you have to add new getter every time you add data to the class
The data behaviour is different in each getter
Good getters would thus do the following:
They forward the request to some other object or collect the data from several places
You can fetch large amounts of data using just one getter
All the data you fetch is handled the same way
Setters on the other hand are evil always.
how else would I impose this restriction without using getters/setters? How else would I modify a property without using getters/setters?
You can check what you read from the variable and if its value is out of range use a predefined value instead (if possible).
You can also resort to dirty hacks such as protecting the memory underneath the variable from writing, catching write attempts and disallowing/ignoring the ones with invalid values. This is going to be cumbersome to implement and expensive to execute. It may be useful for debugging, though.
I'm studying for an exam and am trying to figure this question out. The specific question is "Inheritance and object composition both promote code reuse. (T/F)", but I believe I understand the inheritance portion of the question.
I believe inheritance promotes code reuse because similar methods can be placed in an abstract base class such that the similar methods do not have to be identically implemented within multiple children classes. For example, if you have three kinds of shapes, and each shape's method "getName" simply returns a data member '_name', then why re-implement this method in each of the child classes when it can be implemented once in the abstract base class "shape".
However, my best understanding of object composition is the "has-a" relationship between objects/classes. For example, a student has a school, and a school has a number of students. This can be seen as object composition since they can't really exist without each other (a school without any students isn't exactly a school, is it? etc). But I see no way that these two objects "having" each other as a data member will promote code reuse.
Any help? Thanks!
Object composition can promote code reuse because you can delegate implementation to a different class, and include that class as a member.
Instead of putting all your code in your outermost classes' methods, you can create smaller classes with smaller scopes, and smaller methods, and reuse those classes/methods throughout your code.
class Inner
{
public:
void DoSomething();
};
class Outer1
{
public:
void DoSomethingBig()
{
// We delegate part of the call to inner, allowing us to reuse its code
inner.DoSomething();
// Todo: Do something else interesting here
}
private:
Inner inner;
};
class Outer2
{
public:
void DoSomethingElseThatIsBig()
{
// We used the implementation twice in different classes,
// without copying and pasting the code.
// This is the most basic possible case of reuse
inner.DoSomething();
// Todo: Do something else interesting here
}
private:
Inner inner;
};
As you mentioned in your question, this is one of the two most basic Object Oriented Programming principals, called a "has-a relationship". Inheritance is the other relationship, and is called an "is-a replationship".
You can also combine inheritance and composition in quite useful ways that will often multiply your code (and design) reuse potential. Any real world and well-architected application will constantly combine both of these concepts to gain as much reuse as possible. You'll find out about this when you learn about Design Patterns.
Edit:
Per Mike's request in the comments, a less abstract example:
// Assume the person class exists
#include<list>
class Bus
{
public:
void Board(Person newOccupant);
std::list<Person>& GetOccupants();
private:
std::list<Person> occupants;
};
In this example, instead of re-implementing a linked list structure, you've delegated it to a list class. Every time you use that list class, you're re-using the code that implements the list.
In fact, since list semantics are so common, the C++ standard library gave you std::list, and you just had to reuse it.
1) The student knows about a school, but this is not really a HAS-A relationship; while you would want to keep track of what school the student attends, it would not be logical to describe the school as being part of the student.
2) More people occupy the school than just students. That's where the reuse comes in. You don't have to re-define the things that make up a school each time you describe a new type of school-attendee.
I have to agree with #Karl Knechtel -- this is a pretty poor question. As he said, it's hard to explain why, but I'll give it a shot.
The first problem is that it uses a term without defining it -- and "code reuse" means a lot of different things to different people. To some people, cutting and pasting qualifies as code reuse. As little as I like it, I have to agree with them, to at least some degree. Other people define cod reuse in ways that rule out cutting and pasting as being code reuse (classing another copy of the same code as separate code, not reusing the same code). I can see that viewpoint too, though I tend to think their definition is intended more to serve a specific end than be really meaningful (i.e., "code reuse"->good, "cut-n-paste"->bad, therefore "cut-n-paste"!="code reuse"). Unfortunately, what we're looking at here is right on the border, where you need a very specific definition of what code reuse means before you can answer the question.
The definition used by your professor is likely to depend heavily upon the degree of enthusiasm he has for OOP -- especially during the '90s (or so) when OOP was just becoming mainstream, many people chose to define it in ways that only included the cool new OOP "stuff". To achieve the nirvana of code reuse, you had to not only sign up for their OOP religion, but really believe in it! Something as mundane as composition couldn't possibly qualify -- no matter how strangely they had to twist the language for that to be true.
As a second major point, after decades of use of OOP, a few people have done some fairly careful studies of what code got reused and what didn't. Most that I've seen have reached a fairly simple conclusion: it's quite difficult (i.e., essentially impossible) correlate coding style with reuse. Nearly any rule you attempt to make about what will or won't result in code reuse can and will be violated on a regular basis.
Third, and what I suspect tends to be foremost in many people's minds is the fact that asking the question at all makes it sound as if this is something that can/will affect a typical coder -- that you might want to choose between composition and inheritance (for example) based on which "promotes code reuse" more, or something on that order. The reality is that (just for example) you should choose between composition and inheritance primarily based upon which more accurately models the problem you're trying to solve and which does more to help you solve that problem.
Though I don't have any serious studies to support the contention, I would posit that the chances of that code being reused will depend heavily upon a couple of factors that are rarely even considered in most studies: 1) how similar of a problem somebody else needs to solve, and 2) whether they believe it will be easier to adapt your code to their problem than to write new code.
I should add that in some of the studies I've seen, there were factors found that seemed to affect code reuse. To the best of my recollection, the one that stuck out as being the most important/telling was not the code itself at all, but the documentation available for that code. Being able to use the code without basically reverse engineer it contributes a great deal toward its being reused. The second point was simply the quality of the code -- a number of the studies were done in places/situations where they were trying to promote code reuse. In a fair number of cases, people tried to reuse quite a bit more code than they really did, but had to give up on it simply because the code wasn't good enough -- everything from bugs to clumsy interfaces to poor portability prevented reuse.
Summary: I'll go on record as saying that code reuse has probably been the most overhyped, under-delivered promise in software engineering over at least the last couple of decades. Even at best, code reuse remains a fairly elusive goal. Trying to simplify it to the point of treating it as a true/false question based on two factors is oversimplifying the question to the point that it's not only meaningless, but utterly ridiculous. It appears to trivialize and demean nearly the entire practice of software engineering.
I have an object Car and an object Engine:
class Engine {
int horsepower;
}
class Car {
string make;
Engine cars_engine;
}
A Car has an Engine; this is composition. However, I don't need to redefine Engine to put an engine in a car -- I simply say that a Car has an Engine. Thus, composition does indeed promote code reuse.
Object composition does promote code re-use. Without object composition, if I understand your definition of it properly, every class could have only primitive data members, which would be beyond awful.
Consider the classes
class Vector3
{
double x, y, z;
double vectorNorm;
}
class Object
{
Vector3 position;
Vector3 velocity;
Vector3 acceleration;
}
Without object composition, you would be forced to have something like
class Object
{
double positionX, positionY, positionZ, positionVectorNorm;
double velocityX, velocityY, velocityZ, velocityVectorNorm;
double accelerationX, accelerationY, accelerationZ, accelerationVectorNorm;
}
This is just a very simple example, but I hope you can see how even the most basic object composition promotes code reuse. Now think about what would happen if Vector3 contained 30 data members. Does this answer your question?
I'm making a very simple class to represent positions in 3D space.
Currently, I'm just letting the user access and modify the individual X, Y and Z values directly. In other words, they're public member variables.
template <typename NumericType = double>
struct Position
{
NumericType X, Y, Z;
// Constructors, operators and stuff...
};
The reasoning behind this is that, because NumericType is a template parameter, I can't rely on there being a decent way to check values for sanity. (How do I know the user won't want a position to be represented with negative values?) Therefore, there's no point in adding getters or setters to complicate the interface, and direct access should be favored for its brevity.
Pos.X = Pos.Y + Pos.Z; // Versus...
Pos.SetX(Pos.GetY() + Pos.GetZ());
Is this an okay exception to good practice? Will a (hypothetical) future maintainer of my code hunt me down and punch me in the face?
The idea behind using getters and setters is to be able to perform other behavior than just setting a value. This practice is recommended because there are a multitude of things you might want to retrofit into your class.
Common reasons to use a setter (there are probably more):
Validation: not all values allowed by the type of the variable are valid for the member: validation is required before assignment.
Invariants: dependent fields might need to be adjusted (e.g. re-sizing an array might require re-allocation, not just storing the new size).
Hooks: there is extra work to perform before/after assignment, such as triggering notifications (e.g. observers/listeners are registered on the value).
Representation: the field is not stored in the format "published" as getters and setters. The field might not even stored in the object itself; the value might be forwarded to some other internal member or stored in separate components.
If you think your code will never, ever use or require any of the above, then writing getters and setters by principle is definitely not good practice. It just results in code bloat.
Edit: contrarily to popular belief, using getters and setters is unlikely to help you in changing the internal representation of the class unless these changes are minor. The presence of setters for individual members, in particular, makes this change very difficult.
Getters and setters are really only an important design choice if they get/set an abstract value that you may have implemented in any number of ways. But if your class is so straight-forward and the data members so fundamental that you need to expose them directly, then just make them public! You get a nice, cheap aggregate type without any frills and it's completely self-documenting.
If you really do want to make a data member private but still give full access to it, just make a single accessor function overloaded once as T & access() and once as const T & access() const.
Edit: In a recent project I simply used tuples for coordinates, with global accessor functions. Perhaps this could be useful:
template <typename T>
inline T cX(const std::tuple<T,T,T> & t) { return std::get<0>(t); }
typedef std::tuple<double, double, double> coords;
//template <typename T> using coords = std::tuple<T,T,T>; // if I had GCC 4.8
coords c{1.2, -3.4, 5.6};
// Now we can access cX(c), cY(c), cZ(c).
Took me a while, but I tracked this old Stroustrup interview down, where he discusses exposed-data structs versus encapsulated classes himself: http://www.artima.com/intv/goldilocks3.html
Getting more heavily into specifics, there's are dimensions to this that may be missing / understated in existing answers. The benefits of encapsulation increase with:
re-compilation/link dependency: low-level library code that is used by large numbers of applications, where those apps may be time-consuming and/or difficult to recompile and redeploy
it's usually easier if implementation was out-of-line (which may require pImpl idiom and performance compromises) so you only have to relink, and easier still if you can deploy new shared libraries and simply bounce the app
by way of contrast, there's massively less benefit from encapsulation if the object's only used in "non-extern" implementation of a specific translation unit
interface stability despite implementation volatility: code where the implementation is more experimental / volatile, but the API requirement is well understood
note that by being careful it may be possible to give direct access to member variables while using typedefs for their types, such that a proxy object can be substituted and support identical client-code usage while invoking different implementation
If you do some very easy stuff your solution could be just fine.
If you later realize that calculations in a spherical coordinate system are much easier or faster (and you need performance), you can count on that punch.
It is ok for such well known structure that :
Can have any possible values, like an int;
Should operate like a built-in type when manipulating it's value, for performance reasons.
However, if you need more than a type that "just is a 3D vector", then you should wrap it in another class, as private member, that would then expose x, y and z through member functions and additional features member functions.
The reasoning behind this is that, because NumericType is a template parameter, I can't rely on there being a decent way to check values for sanity. (How do I know the user won't want a position to be represented with negative values?)
The language and compilers support this case well (via specialization).
Therefore, there's no point in adding getters or setters to complicate the interface, and direct access should be favored for its brevity.
Moot argument -- see above.
Is this an okay exception to good practice?
I don't think it is. Your question implies validation should exist, but it's not worth implementing/supporting because you've chosen to use a template in your implementation, and not specialize appropriate for the language feature you've chosen. By that approach, the interface only appears to be partially supported -- those missing implementations will just pollute clients' implementations.
Sometimes when fixing a defect in an existing code base I might (often out of laziness) decide to change a method from:
void
MyClass::foo(uint32_t aBar)
{
// Do something with aBar...
}
to:
void
MyClass::foo(uint32_t aBar, bool aSomeCondition)
{
if (aSomeCondition)
{
// Do something with aBar...
}
}
During a code review a colleague mentioned that a better approach would be to sub-class MyClass to provide this specialized functionality.
However, I would argue that as long as aSomeCondition doesn't violate the purpose or cohesion of MyClass it is an acceptable pattern to use. Only if the code became infiltrated with flags and if statements would inheritance be a better option, otherwise we would be potentially be entering architecture astronaut territory.
What's the tipping point here?
Note: I just saw this related answer which suggests that an enum may be a better
choice than a bool, but I think my question still applies in this case.
There is not only one solution for this kind of problem.
Boolean has a very low semantic. If you want to add in the future a new condition you will have to add a new parameter...
After four years of maintenance your method may have half a dozen of parameters, if these parameters are all boolean it is very nice trap for maintainers.
Enum is a good choice if cases are exclusive.
Enums can be easily migrated to a bit-mask or a context object.
Bit mask : C++ includes C language, you can use some plain old practices. Sometime a bit mask on an unsigned int is a good choice (but you loose type checking) and you can pass by mistake an incorrect mask. It is a convenient way to move smoothly from a boolean or an enum argument to this kind of pattern.
Bit mask can be migrated with some effort to a context-object. You may have to implement some kind of bitwise arithmetics such as operator | and operator & if you have to keep a buildtime compatibility.
Inheritence is sometime a good choice if the split of behavior is big and this behavior IS RELATED to the lifecycle of the instance. Note that you also have to use polymorphism and this is may slow down the method if this method is heavily used.
And finally inheritence induce change in all your factory code... And what will you do if you have several methods to change in an exclusive fashion ? You will clutter your code of specific classes...
In fact, I think that this generally not a very good idea.
Method split : Another solution is sometime to split the method in several private and provide two or more public methods.
Context object : C++ and C lack of named parameter can be bypassed by adding a context parameter. I use this pattern very often, especially when I have to pass many data across level of a complex framework.
class Context{
public:
// usually not a good idea to add public data member but to my opinion this is an exception
bool setup:1;
bool foo:1;
bool bar:1;
...
Context() : setup(0), foo(0), bar(0) ... {}
};
...
Context ctx;
ctx.setup = true; ...
MyObj.foo(ctx);
Note:
That this is also useful to minimize access (or use) of static data or query to singleton object, TLS ...
Context object can contain a lot more of caching data related to an algorithm.
...
I let your imagination run free...
Anti patterns
I add here several anti pattern (to prevent some change of signature):
*NEVER DO THIS *
*NEVER DO THIS * use a static int/bool for argument passing (some people that do that, and this is a nightmare to remove this kind of stuff). Break at least multithreading...
*NEVER DO THIS * add a data member to pass parameter to method.
Unfortunately, I don't think there is a clear answer to the problem (and it's one I encounter quite frequently in my own code). With the boolean:
foo( x, true );
the call is hard to understand .
With an enum:
foo( x, UseHigherAccuracy );
it is easy to understand but you tend to end up with code like this:
foo( x, something == someval ? UseHigherAccuracy : UseLowerAccuracy );
which is hardly an improvement. And with multiple functions:
if ( something == someval ) {
AccurateFoo( x );
}
else {
InaccurateFoo( x );
}
you end up with a lot more code. But I guess this is the easiest to read, and what I'd tend to use, but I still don't completely like it :-(
One thing I definitely would NOT do however, is subclass. Inheritance should be the last tool you ever reach for.
The primary question is if the flag affects the behaviour of the class, or of that one function. Function-local changes should be parameters, not subclasses. Run-time inheritance should be one of the last tools reached for.
The general guideline I use is: if aSomeCondition changes the nature of the function in a major way, then I consider subclassing.
Subclassing is a relatively large effort compared to adding a flag that has only a minor effect.
Some examples:
if it's a flag that changes the direction in which a sorted collection is returned to the caller, that's a minor change in nature (flag).
if it's a one-shot flag (something that affects the current call rather than a persistent change to the object), it should probably not be a subclass (since going down that track is likely to lead to a massive number of classes).
if it's a enumeration that changes the underlying data structure of your class from array to linked list or balanced tree, that's a complex change (subclass).
Of course, that last one may be better handled by totally hiding the underlying data structure but I'm assuming here that you want to be able to select one of many, for reasons such as performance.
IMHO, aSomeCondition flag changes or depends on the state of current instance, therefore, under certain conditions this class should change its state and handle mentioned operation differently. In this case, I can suggest the usage of State Pattern. Hope it helps.
I would just change code:
void MyClass::foo(uint32_t aBar, bool aSomeCondition)
{
if (aSomeCondition)
{
// Do something with aBar...
}
}
to:
void MyClass::foo(uint32_t aBar)
{
if (this->aSomeCondition)
{
// Do something with aBar...
}
}
I always omit bool as function parameter and prefer to put into struct, even if I would have to call
myClass->enableCondition();
I'm wondering in regards to the guideline stating that classes should have around 7 variables +-2, are class variables (class constants) included in this?
Ex:
class Foo
{
static const int SOME_THING;
static const double SOME_OTHER;
static const int BLAH;
int m_ThisVariable;
double m_ThatVariable;
string m_SomeString;
public:
//....
};
Would you consider the above to count as 3 or 6 in regards to the 7 +- 2 rule?
Anyone who honestly thinks that you can arbitrarily define how many member variables a class should have has not written a lot of code or are extremely arrogant. I know it just a guideline, but honestly, if the class is well defined, conforms to the general OOP guidelines of single responsibility, and is easy to maintain, you should just spend your time solving real problems.
BTW, I realize that this is not an actual answer, so let the downvoting begin. I just had to vent :)
EDIT: Just did a little searching and found that this 'guideline' comes from the fact that humans have trouble remembering sequences of information with more than five or six discrete data points. Well, that's nice, and it is something to remember (especially when designing user interfaces), but in practice you cannot design your code this way. Do what makes sense and makes your life easier (maintenance considerations being part of that decision).
Aside from the fact that the number of variables shouldn't arbitrarily be set at a maximum number, I would argue that what is important is considering groups.
As such, I would consider static variables and non-static variables two separate groups (this is visually rendered in your code example as they are separated by a blank line). If they were all grouped together, then I'd think they count as one group.
I don't know however that this analysis has any value whatsoever, as I agree with Ed completely.
By the way, if you want a convenient means of grouping variables together in the IDE without having to actually put them into classes, MSVC supports the #pragma region directive. That just lumps some lines of code together into regions that can be collapsed or expanded by clicking the little "+" icon to the left — it has no effect on the compiled result, it's just markup for the code editor.
I'm pretty sure constants shouldn't be counted. Most classes won't have many (any?), anyway. If your class does have a large number of constants, you probably ought to move them out into their own class, but one or two here and there aren't going to make any difference.
I know everybody is jumping in on the "this is crazy" side of this argument, so I'll just mention that I think it's not a totally unreasonable rule-of-thumb. In that respect, it's like the "no function longer than a single screen-full in the editor". Violating the rule just means you ought to take a careful look at the code and make sure it's not getting more-complex than necessary.