Being asked to describe what a virtual function is seems to be one of the most common questions in interviews assessing basic C++ knowledge. However, after several years programming C++, I still have the uncomfortable feeling that I don't really understand how best to define what they are.
If I consult wikipedia, I see the definition of virtual function is:
"In object-oriented programming, a virtual function or virtual method is a function or method whose behaviour can be overridden within an inheriting class by a function with the same signature"
This definition seems simple and elegant, and not C++ specific. But to me it doesn't seem to capture the concept of a virtual function in C++, since surely a non-virtual function can also be overridden within an inheriting class by a function with the same signature.
If I'm asked to describe what a virtual function is informally, I say something about pointers like "it's a method such that when you call it via a base class pointer, the version of it defined in the derived class is called instead, if the pointer actually points to an instance of a derived class". This doesn't seem like a very elegant description of the concept. I know that people say this is how "polymorphism" is achieved in C++ (polymorphism, as far as I understand, roughly being the whole idea of organizing objects into hierarchies), but I don't know of a fancier way to understand or explain the mechanism than to go through the example with the pointers.
I guess I'm confused about whether the "pointer" description of virtual functions is something fundamental to their definition, or just something incidental to their implementation in C++.
I've always thought that this quote captures the essence of virtual functions:
A virtual function is a way of defining a family of related behaviors that can be customized by the entities that actual have to do those behaviors.
If you ignore all the C++-isms of virtual functions - how having virtual functions enables dynamic_cast to work for objects of the class type, how they're only treated virtually if accessed through a pointer, how virtual destructors are completely different from virtual non-destructors, etc. - I think that the above statement gets at the heart of what virtual functions are all about.
The main reason I like this statement is that it describes virtual functions in a way that decouples them from programming. You could explain virtual functions to a non-technical person using this definition by giving some concrete analogies. For example, the idea of "turning on a light" could be thought of as a virtual function because the actual mechanics of what happens when you turn on a light depends entirely on the particular light you're using (incandescent? fluorescent? LED?), but the conceptual idea is the same in each case. Of course, it's not a perfect analogy, but I think it gets the point across well enough.
More generally, IMHO, if you're ever asked to describe something informally, try as much as possible to distance yourself from the particular programming language you're using and, if at all possible, from computers at all. Try to think of the most general setting in which the concept applies, and then describe it at that level. Then again, I teach introductory CS courses, and so I have a bit of a bias toward this domain, so I have no idea how applicable this is in a job interview setting. :-)
since surely a non-virtual function can also be overridden within an inheriting class by a function with the same signature.
No thats incorrect. The function only gets redefined not overriddden in that case.
Your informal definition is a good summary of what a virtual pointer does. It sounds like you're looking to also describe how it works, but since the C++ standard doesn't specify, any "how" description would be specific to a particular implementation and not the C++ language in general.
The C++ standard is all about behavior and says almost nothing about implementation. There's even the "as-if" rule, which allows any alternate implementation that provides the same visible behavior.
"I guess I'm confused about whether the "pointer" description of virtual functions is something fundamental to their definition, or just something incidental to their implementation in C++."
It is not incidental. The concept of virtual functions works only for pointers or references.
Virtual functions are needed when the derived class method bearing the same signature that of base class is overridden to different functionality.
class Polygon
{
public:
virtual float area()
{
std::cout << "\n No formula in general \n" ;
}
virtual ~Polygon();
};
class Square
{
public:
float area()
{
std::cout << "\n Side*Side \n" ;
}
~Square();
}
Polygon* obj = new Square ;
obj -> area() ; // Ok, Square::area() is called.
Square obj1;
Polygon& temp = obj1 ; // Ok, Square::area() is called
Square obj2;
Polygon temp1 = obj2 ; // Polygon::area() is called because of object slicing.
The difference lies in how the compiler decides which implementation to "bind" to the method call when it compiles the source code. For a virtual fumction, the implementation chosen is based on the actual concrete type of the object itself, not on the type of the variable. This means that when you cast an object to a base class or interface, the implementaion which will get executed is still the implementation defined on the derived class that the object actually is.
In puesdo code
// for a virtual function
public class Animal { public virtual void Move() { Print "An animal Moved." } }
public class Dog: Animal { public void Move() { Print "A Dog Moved." } }
Animal x = new Dog();
x.Move() // this will print "A Dog Moved."
For a non-virtual function, the implementation chosen will be based on the type of the variable, which means that when you cast an object to a base class, (i.e., change the type of the variable ) the method implementation defined in the base class will be chosen by the compiler and it will get executed, not the implementation in the derived class...
// for a non-virtual function
public class Animal { public void Move() { Print "An animal Moved." } }
public class Dog: Animal { public void Move() { Print "A Dog Moved." } }
Animal x = new Dog();
x.Move() // this will print "An animal Moved."
Let's say that Beta is a subclass of Alpha, and it can either create a new method area() or it can add a virtual one.
There isn't a difference if you are talking to a Beta pointer. But if you are talking to a Alpha* which points at a Beta object, you will get Alpha's method. Unless you declare the function as virtual.
The Beta subclass has its function dispatch table, which is a copy of Alpha's table but with extra Beta methods at the end. If Beta merely overrides a method, it will go in Beta's section of the dispatch table, so references to Alpha* will not see the new method. But, if the new method is virtual, it will go in the Alpha section of Beta's class table.
More to the point, let's say you have a Circle subclass of Shape. And let's say you have a pointer to a Shape object, x, which happens to be an instance of Circle. x->area() will only see the portion of the function table that relates to Shape. If Circle does a virtual area function, it will appear in the Shape section of the table. If Circle merely overrides area, then the area method will be placed in the Circle portion of the table and the Shape * x will not see the new function.
In C++ there is only one function table per class. This is a bit confusing for people who are used to scripting language where each object has it's own dispatch table. Scripting languages are extremely inefficient in that way. Imagine all the space taken up for each object.
If an interview is about your knowledge in C++ I think there is not a sin to refer to a pointer.
You can say simply that "virtual functions is a mechanism to allow an object to express it's class behavior, even if it's accessed through a base class pointer".
More than this (if you think about "pure virtual functions") it's also a mechanism to force a whole hierarchy of classes to provide a specific method, without defining a default method implementation in the base class.
A virtual function is one where the callee decides the behaviour. A non-virtual function is one where the caller decides the behaviour.
Is that concise enough?
Although pointers are necessary for using virtual functions in C++, I would argue that pointers are incidental to the idea, and explanations that don't depend on pointers are clearer. I think that templatetypedef and Charles_Bretana hit the main idea.
The reason that pointers seem to creep in to descriptions of virtual functions is that only pointers and references can have different run-time vs. compile-time types. A variable whose type is class Foo must contain a Foo at run-time, so it doesn't matter whether a virtual function is used. But a variable whose type is class Foo * can point to any subclass of Foo, so this is the situation where virtual functions and non-virtual functions behave differently.
The Idea
The basic difference between virtual and non virtual method is when you bind the name of the method to the actual method implementation. A virtual method is bound at runtime based on the type. A non virtual function is bound at compile time.
Slightly more formerly:
A virtual method is one that can be overridden in a derived type.
Such that when the virtual method is called (via pointer or reference) runtime binding is applied to select the version of the method that is defined in the most derived version; based on the type of the actual object (being pointed at or referenced).
C++ notes
Note: A method is virtual even if you do not use the virtual keyword if an ancestor declares a method with the same signature as virtual.
Compiler aided mechanism of achieving dynamic polymorphism.
Remember that C++ also supports static polymorphism via generic programming. And function pointers have always been there as the most primitive means of implementing dynamic polymorphism.
Related
Normally calling virtual functions from constructors is considered bad practice, because overridden functions in sub-objects will not be called as the objects have not been constructed yet.
But, Consider the following classes:
class base
{
public:
base() {}
~base() {}
private:
virtual void startFSM() = 0;
};
class derived final : public base
, public fsm_action_interface
{
public:
derived() : base{}
, theFSM_{}
{ startFSM(); }
/// FSM interface actions
private:
virtual void startFSM()
{ theFSM_.start(); }
private:
SomeFSMType theFSM_;
}
In this case class derived is marked as final so no o further sub-objects can exist. Ergo the virtual call will resolve correctly (to the most derived type).
Is it still considered bad practice?
This would still be considered bad practice as this sort of this almost always indicates bad design. You'd have to comment the heck out of the code to explain why this works in this one case.
T.C.'s comment above reinforces one of the reasons why this is considered bad practice.
What happens if, a year down the line, you decide that derived
shouldn't be final after all?
That said, in the example above, the pattern will work without issue. This is because the constructor of the most derived type is the one calling the virtual function. This problem manifests itself when a base class's constructor calls a virtual function that resolves to a subtype's implementation. In C++, such a function won't get called, because during base class construction, such calls will never go to a more derived class than that of the currently executing constructor or destructor. In essence, you end up with behavior you didn't expect.
Edit:
All (correct/non-buggy) C++ implementations have to call the version of the function defined at the level of the hierarchy in the current constructor and no further.
The C++ FAQ Lite covers this in section 23.7 in pretty good detail.
Scott Meyers also weighs in on the general issue of calling virtual functions from constructors and destructors in Effective C++ Item 9
Regarding
” Normally calling virtual functions from constructors is considered bad practice, because overridden functions in sub-objects will not be called as the objects have not been constructed yet.
That is not the case. Among competent C++ programmers it’s normally not regarded as bad practice to call virtual functions (except pure virtual ones) from constructors, because C++ is designed to handle that well. In contrast to languages like Java and C#, where it might result in a call to a method on an as yet uninitialized derived class sub-object.
Note that the dynamic adjustment of dynamic type has a runtime cost.
In a language oriented towards ultimate efficiency, with "you don't pay for what you don't use" as a main guiding principle, that means that it's an important and very much intentional feature, not an arbitrary choice. It's there for one purpose only. Namely to support those calls.
Regarding
” In this case class derived is marked as final so no o further sub-objects can exist. Ergo the virtual call will resolve correctly (to the most derived type).
The C++ standard guarantees that at the time of construction execution for a class T, the dynamic type is T.
Thus there was no problem about resolving to incorrect type, in the first place.
Regarding
” Is it still considered bad practice?
It is indeed bad practice to declare a member function virtual in a final class, because that’s meaningless. The “still” is not very meaningful either.
Sorry, I didn't see that the virtual member function was inherited as such.
Best practice for marking a member function as an override or implementation of pure virtual, is to use the keyword override, not to mark it as virtual.
Thus:
void startFSM() override
{ theFSM_.start(); }
This ensures a compilation error if it is not an override/implementation.
It can work, but why does startFSM() need to be virtual? In no case do you actually want to actually call anything but derived::startFSM(), so why have any dynamic binding at all? If you want to have it call the same thing as a dynamically binded method, make another non-virtual function called startFSM_impl() and have both the constructor and startFSM() call it instead.
Always prefer non-virtual to virtual if you can help it.
Let me start by telling that I understand how virtual methods work (polymorphism, late-binding, vtables).
My question is whether or not I should make my method virtual. I will exemplify my dilemma on a specific case, but any general guidelines will be welcomed too.
The context:
I am creating a library. In this library I have a class CallStack that captures a call stack and then offers vector-like access to the captured stack frames. The capture is done by a protected method CaptureStack. This method could be redefined in a derived class, if the users of the library wish to implement another way to capture the stack. Just to be clear, the discussion to make the method virtual applies only to some methods that I know can be redefined in a derived class (in this case CaptureStack and the destructor), not to all the class methods.
Throughout my library I use CallStack objects, but never exposed as pointers or reference parameters, thus making virtual not needed considering only the use of my library.
And I cannot think of a case when someone would want to use CallStack as pointer or reference to implement polymorphism. If someone wants to derive CallStack and redefine CaptureStack I think just using the derived class object will suffice.
Now just because I cannot think polymorphism will be needed, should I not use virtual methods, or should I use virtual regardless just because a method can be redefined.
Example how CallStack can be used outside my library:
if (error) {
CallStack call_stack; // the constructor calls CaptureStack
for (const auto &stack_frame : call_stack) {
cout << stack_frame << endl;
}
}
A derived class, that redefines CaptureStack could be use in the same manner, not needing polymorphism:
if (error) {
// since this is not a CallStack pointer / reference, virtual would not be needed.
DerivedCallStack d_call_stack;
for (const auto &stack_frame : d_call_stack) {
cout << stack_frame << endl;
}
}
If your library saves the call stack during the constructor then you cannot use virtual methods.
This is C++. One thing people often get wrong when coming to C++ from another language is using virtual methods in constructors. This never works as planned.
C++ sets the virtual function table during each constructor call. That means that functions are never virtual when called from the constructor. The virtual method always points to the current class being constructed.
So even if you did use a virtual method to capture the stack the constructor code would always call the base class method.
To make it work you'd need to take the call out of the constructor and use something like:
CallStack *stack = new DerivedStack;
stack.CaptureStack();
None of your code examples show a good reason to make CaptureStack virtual.
When deciding whether you need a virtual function or not, you need to see if deriving and overriding the function changes the expected behavior/functionality of other functions that you're implementing now or not.
If you are relying on the implementation of that particular function in your other processes of the same class, like another function of the same class, then you might want to have the function as virtual. But if you know what the function is supposed to do in your parent class, and you don't want anybody to change it as far as you're concerned, then it's not a virtual function.
Or as another example, imagine somebody derives a class from you implementation, overrides a function, and passes that object as casted to the parent class to one of your own implemented functions/classes. Would you prefer to have your original implementation of the function or you want them to have you use their own overriden implementation? If the latter is the case, then you should go for virtual, unless not.
It's not clear to me where CallStack is being called. From
your examples, it looks like you're using the template method
pattern, in which the basic functionality is implemented in the
base class, but customized by means of virtual functions
(normally private, not protected) which are provided by the
derived class. In this case (as Peter Bloomfield points out),
the functions must be virtual, since they will be called from
within a member function of the base class; thus, with a static
type of CallStack. However: if I understand your examples
correctly, the call to CallStack will be in the constructor.
This will not work, as during construction of CallStack, the
dynamic type of the object is CallStack, and not
DerivedCallStack, and virtual function calls will resolve to
CallStack.
In such a case, for the use cases you describe, a solution using
templates may be more appropriate. Or even... The name of the
class is clear. I can't think of any reasonable case where
different instances should have different means of capturing the
call stack in a single program. Which suggests that link time
resolution of the type might be appropriate. (I use the
compilation firewall idiom and link time resolution in my own
StackTrace class.)
My question is whether or not I should make my method virtual. I will exemplify my dilemma on a specific case, but any general guidelines will be welcomed too.
Some guidelines:
if you are unsure, you should not do it. Lots of people will tell you that your code should be easily extensible (and as such, virtual), but in practice, most extensible code is never extended, unless you make a library that will be used heavily (see YAGNI principle).
you can use encapsulation in place of inheritance and type polymorphism (templates) as an alternative to class hierarchies in many cases (e.g. std::string and std::wstring are not two concrete implementations of a base string class and they are not inheritable at all).
if (when you are designing your code/public interfaces) you realize you have more than one class that "is an" implementation of another classes' interface, then you should use virtual functions.
You should almost certainly declare the method as virtual.
The first reason is that anything in your base class which calls CaptureStack will be doing so through a base class pointer (i.e. the local this pointer). It will therefore call the base class version of the function, even though a derived class masks it.
Consider the following example:
class Parent
{
public:
void callFoo()
{
foo();
}
void foo()
{
std::cout << "Parent::foo()" << std::endl;
}
};
class Child : public Parent
{
public:
void foo()
{
std::cout << "Child::foo()" << std::endl;
}
};
int main()
{
Child obj;
obj.callFoo();
return 0;
}
The client code using the class is only ever using a derived object (not a base class pointer etc.). However, it's the base class version of foo() that actually gets called. The only way to resolve that is to make foo() virtual.
The second reason is simply one of correct design. If the purpose of the derived class function is to override rather than mask the original, then it should probably do so unless there is a specific reason otherwise (such as performance concerns). If you don't do that, you're inviting bugs and mistakes in future, because the class may not act as expected.
I recently came to know that in C++ pure virtual functions can optionally have a body.
What are the real-world use cases for such functions?
The classic is a pure virtual destructor:
class abstract {
public:
virtual ~abstract() = 0;
};
abstract::~abstract() {}
You make it pure because there's nothing else to make so, and you want the class to be abstract, but you have to provide an implementation nevertheless, because the derived classes' destructors call yours explicitly. Yeah, I know, a pretty silly textbook example, but as such it's a classic. It must have been in the first edition of The C++ Programming Language.
Anyway, I can't remember ever really needing the ability to implement a pure virtual function. To me it seems the only reason this feature is there is because it would have had to be explicitly disallowed and Stroustrup didn't see a reason for that.
If you ever feel you need this feature, you're probably on the wrong track with your design.
Pure virtual functions with or without a body simply mean that the derived types must provide their own implementation.
Pure virtual function bodies in the base class are useful if your derived classes wants to call your base class implementation.
One reason that an abstract base class (with a pure virtual function) might provide an implementation for a pure virtual function it declares is to let derived classes have an easy 'default' they can choose to use. There isn't a whole lot of advantage to this over a normal virtual function that can be optionally overridden - in fact, the only real difference is that you're forcing the derived class to be explicit about using the 'default' base class implementation:
class foo {
public:
virtual int interface();
};
int foo::interface()
{
printf( "default foo::interface() called\n");
return 0;
};
class pure_foo {
public:
virtual int interface() = 0;
};
int pure_foo::interface()
{
printf( "default pure_foo::interface() called\n");
return 42;
}
//------------------------------------
class foobar : public foo {
// no need to override to get default behavior
};
class foobar2 : public pure_foo {
public:
// need to be explicit about the override, even to get default behavior
virtual int interface();
};
int foobar2::interface()
{
// foobar is lazy; it'll just use pure_foo's default
return pure_foo::interface();
}
I'm not sure there's a whole lot of benefit - maybe in cases where a design started out with an abstract class, then over time found that a lot of the derived concrete classes were implementing the same behavior, so they decided to move that behavior into a base class implementation for the pure virtual function.
I suppose it might also be reasonable to put common behavior into the pure virtual function's base class implementation that the derived classes might be expected to modify/enhance/augment.
One use case is calling the pure virtual function from the constructor or the destructor of the class.
The almighty Herb Sutter, former chair of the C++ standard committee, did give 3 scenarios where you might consider providing implementations for pure virtual methods.
Gotta say that personally – I find none of them convincing, and generally consider this to be one of C++'s semantic warts. It seems C++ goes out of its way to build and tear apart abstract-parent vtables, then briefly exposes them only during child construction/destruction, and then the community experts unanimously recommend never to use them.
The only difference of virtual function with body and pure virtual function with body is that existence of second prevent instantiation. You can't mark class abstract in c++.
This question can really be confusing when learning OOD and C++. Personally, one thing constantly coming in my head was something like:
If I needed a Pure Virtual function to also have an implementation, so why make it "Pure" in first place ? Why not just leaving it only "Virtual" and have derivatives, both benefit and override the base implementation ?
The confusion comes to the fact that many developers consider the no body/implementation as the primary goal/benefit of defining a pure virtual function. This is not true!
The absence of body is in most cases a logical consequence of having a pure virtual function. The main benefit of having a pure virtual function is defining a contract: By defining a pure virtual function, you want to force every derivative to always provide their own implementation of the function. This "contract aspect" is very important especially if you are developing something like a public API. Making the function only virtual is not so sufficient because derivatives are no longer forced to provide their own implementation, therefore you may loose the contract aspect (which can be limiting in the case of a public API).
As commonly said :
"Virtual functions can be overrided, Pure Virtual functions must be overrided."
And in most cases, contracts are abstract concepts so it doesn't make sense for the corresponding pure virtual functions to have any implementation.
But sometimes, and because life is weird, you may want to establish a strong contract among derivatives and also want them to somehow benefit from some default implementation while specifying their own behavior for the contract. Even if most book authors recommend to avoid getting yourself into these situations, the language needed to provide a safety net to prevent the worst! A simple virtual function wouldn't be enough since there might be risk of escaping the contract. So the solution C++ provided was to allow pure virtual functions to also be able to provide a default implementation.
The Sutter article cited above gives interesting use cases of having Pure Virtual functions with body.
I have been reading an article about C++ interfaces (http://accu.org/index.php/journals/233) and I am completely lost at the part where it says all the virtual member functions should be made private (the section titled "Strengthening the Separation"). It just does not make sense to me at all.
According to the author, the code is like this:
class shape {
public:
virtual ~shape();
virtual void move_x(distance x) = 0;
virtual void move_y(distance y) = 0;
virtual void rotate(angle rotation) = 0;
//...
};
class line : public shape {
public:
line(point end_point_1, point end_point_2);
//...
private:
virtual ~line();
virtual void move_x(distance x);
virtual void move_y(distance y);
virtual void rotate(angle rotation);
//...
};
So we have a pure virtual function which is public, and its implementation (in the line class) which is private.
Could anybody explain how the move_x function can be called? Its access specifier is private, it will lead to an error if I try to do this:
line my_line(point(0,0), point(1,2));
my_line.move_x(-1); // does not compile
Similarly is it correct to say that the drawing interface (see earlier in the article)cannot access these functions either?
Thank you.
The idea is that you'd use those methods via a reference or pointer to shape.
shape &s = my_line;
s.move_x(-1);
This could be justified on the grounds of "reveal only what you need to", or as a form of self-documentation. It proves that the methods are only called in the intended way.
If you have in instance of the line object, you might be tempted to call it's methods. But if the only way you can get at them is by asking for it's shape interface, then the object looks to less like an object and more like a collection of interfaces.
This makes more sense if you imagine line implementing more than one interface.
This advice is applicable to homogeneous hierarchies only -- that is, hierarchies in which derived classes introduce no new functions (except constructors maybe) and just override base class functions. In this case you obviously don't need to work with line instance directly -- only via pointer/reference to shape.
When you have less homogeneous hierarchy, this advice hasn't much sense: how would anyone apply it to cases when derived class introduces new functions, or inherits them from another base class? In this case you sometimes want to work directly with objects of derived class directly, and this advice would lead to inconveniences only.
Further development of this idea -- less radical and usable in more contexts -- Non-Virtual Interface (NVI) by Herb Sutter.
I think that the article highlights the rationale well in this quote:
Now, the only thing users can do with
line is create instances of it. All
usage must be via its interface - i.e.
shape, thus enforcing a stronger
interface/implementation separation.
Before leaving this topic, it is
important to get something straight:
the point of enforcing the
interface/implementation separation is
not to tell users what to do. Rather,
the objective is to underpin the
logical separation - the code now
explains that the key abstraction is
shape, and that line serves to provide
an implementation of shape.
That is, line is not by itself interesting. It's just an implementation of the shape interface, and there may be other implementations. You're particularly interested in the shape interface. Hence, you should only access the implementation through this interface, and not as a standalone class.
I know it is not allowed in C++, but why? What if it was allowed, what would the problems be?
Judging by your other question, it seems you don't understand how classes operate. Classes are a collection of functions which operate on data.
Functions themselves contain no memory in a class. The following class:
struct dumb_class
{
void foo(){}
void bar(){}
void baz(){}
// .. for all eternity
int i;
};
Has a size of int. No matter how many functions you have ever, this class will only take up the space it takes to operate on an int. When you call a function in this class, the compiler will pass you a pointer to the place where the data in the class is stored; this is the this pointer.
So, the function lie in memory somewhere, loaded once at the beginning of your program, and wait to be called with data to operate on.
Virtual functions are different. The C++ standard does not mandate how the behavior of the virtual functions should go about, only what that behavior should be. Typically, implementations use what's called a virtual table, or vtable for short. A vtable is a table of function pointers, which like normal functions, only get allocated once.
Take this class, and assume our implementor uses vtables:
struct base { virtual void foo(void); };
struct derived { virtual void foo(void); };
The compiler will need to make two vtables, one for base and one for derived. They will look something like this:
typedef /* some generic function pointer type */ func_ptr;
func_ptr __baseTable[] = {&base::foo};
func_ptr __derivedTable[] = {&derived::foo};
How does it use this table? When you create an instance of a class above, the compiler slips in a hidden pointer, which will point to the correct vtable. So when you say:
derived d;
base* b = &d;
b->foo();
Upon executing the last line, it goes to the correct table (__derivedTable in this case), goes to the correct index (0 in this case), and calls that function. As you can see, that will end up calling derived::foo, which is exactly what should happen.
Note, for later, this is the same as doing derived::foo(b), passing b as the this pointer.
So, when virtual methods are present, the class of the size will increase by one pointer (the pointer to the vtable.) Multiple inheritance changes this a bit, but it's mostly the same. You can get more details at C++-FAQ.
Now, to your question. I have:
struct base { virtual void foo(void) = 0; }; // notice the = 0
struct derived { virtual void foo(void); };
and base::foo has no implementation. This makes base::foo a pure abstract function. So, if I were to call it, like above:
derived d;
base* b = &d;
base::foo(b);
What behavior should we expect? Being a pure virtual method, base::foo doesn't even exist. The above code is undefined behavior, and could do anything from nothing to crashing, with anything in between. (Or worse.)
Think about what a pure abstract function represents. Remember, functions take no data, they only describe how to manipulate data. A pure abstract function says: "I want to call this method and have my data be manipulated. How you do this is up to you."
So when you say, "Well, let's call an abstract method", you're replying to the above with: "Up to me? No, you do it." to which it will reply "##^##^". It simply doesn't make sense to tell someone who's saying "do this", "no."
To answer your question directly:
"why we cannot create an object for an abstract class?"
Hopefully you see now, abstract classes only define the functionality the concrete class should be able to do. The abstract class itself is only a blue-print; you don't live in blue-prints, you live in houses that implement the blue-prints.
The problem is simply this:
what should the program do when an abstract method is called?
and even worse: what should be returned for a non-void function?
The application whould proabably have to crash or thow a runtime exception and thus this would cause trouble. You can't dummy-implement every abstract function.
A class can simply be declared abstract where it has no abstract methods. I guess that could be instantiated in theory but the class designer doesn't want you to. It may have unintended consequences.
Usually however abstract classes have abstract methods. They can't be instantiated for the simple reason that they're missing those methods.
Because logically it does not make any sense.
An abstract class is a description that is incomplete.
It indicates what things need to be filled out to make it complete but without those bits its not complete.
My first example was a chess game:
The game has lots of pieces of different type (King,Queen,Pawn ... etc).
But there are no actual objects of type piece, but all objects are instances of objects derived from piece. How can you have an object of something that is not fully defined. There is not point in creating an object of piece as the game does not know how it moves (that is the abstract part). It knows it can move but not how it does it.
Abstract classes are non-instantiable by definition. They require that there be derived, concrete classes. What else would an abstract class be if it didn't have pure virtual (unimplemented) functions?
It's the same class of question as why can't I change the value of a const variable, why can't I access private class members from other classes or why can't I override final methods.
Because that's the purpose of these keywords, to prevent you from doing so. Because the author of the code deemed doing so dangerous, undesired or simply impossible due to some abstract reasons like lack of essential functions that need to be added by specific child classes. It isn't really that you can't instantiate because a class is virtual. It's that inability to instantiate a class defines it as virtual (and if a class that can't be instantiated isn't virtual, it's an error. Same goes the other way, if instance of given class makes sense, it shouldn't be marked as virtual)
Why we cant create an object of an abstract class?
simply abstract class contains abstract methods(means the functions which are without the body) and we cannot give functionality to the abstract methods. And if we try to give functionality to the abstract methods then there will be no difference between abstract class and virtual class. So lastly if we create an object Of an abstrast class then there is no fun to call the useless functions or abstract methods as they are without the functionality..so thats why any language doesnt allow us to create an object of an abstract class..
Abstract classes instantiated would be pretty useless, because you would be seeing a lot more of "pure virtual function called". :)
It's like: we all know that a car would have 3 pedals and a steering wheel and a gear stick. Now, if that would be it, and there'd be an instance of 3 pedals and gear stick and a wheel, I'm not buying it, I want a car, like with seats, doors, AC etc. with pedals actually doing something apart from being in existence and that's what abstract class doesn't promise me, the ones implementing it do.
Basically creation of object is responsible for allocation of memory for member variables and member functions. but here, in pure virtual function we have declaration and defination in derived class.so creation of object generates error.