I am confused about such concepts when I discussed with my friend.
My friend's opinions are
1) abstraction is about pure virtual function.
2) interface is not member functions, but interface is pure virtual functions.
I found that in C++ primer, interface are those operations the data type support, so member functions are interface.
My opinions are
1) abstraction is about speration of interface and implementation;
2) member functions are interfaces.
So could anybody clarify these concepts for me?
1) the difference among abstraction, abstract data type and abstract class.
2) the difference between interface and member functions.
3) the difference between abstraction and encapsulation.
I think your main problem is that you and your friend are using two different definitions of the word "interface", so you're both right in different ways.
You are using "interface" in the everyday sense of "a defined way to inter-operate with something", as in "the interface between my computer and my keyboard is USB" or "the interface between the vacuum and the wall power is an outlet." In that sense, yes, methods (even concrete ones) are interfaces, since they define a way to inter-operate with an object. That's not to say that this is not applicable to software -- it is the sense of "interface" used in the term Application Programming Interface (API).
Your friend is using "interface" in the more specific object oriented programming jargon sense of "a separately defined set of operations that a class can choose to guarantee that it will support". Here, the defining characteristic of an "interface" is that it has no implementation of its own. A class is supposed to support an interface by providing an implementation of the methods defined by the interface. Since C++ has no explicit concept of an interface in this sense, the equivalent construct is a class with only pure virtual functions (aka an Abstract Data Type).
"Abstraction", on the other hand, is about many things and again you are both right. Abstraction in a general sense means being able to focus on higher-level concepts rather than lower level details. Encapsulation is a type of abstraction because its purpose is to hide the implementation details of the methods of a class; the implementation can change without the class definition changing. Pure virtual functions ("interfaces" in the OO-jargon sense) are another type of abstraction because they can, if used properly, hide not only the implementation but also the true underlying object type; the type being used can change so long as both types implement the same interface.
The same terms can be used for different things, which is what is happening here.
"Abstract" in C++ means a method that doesn't have an implementation at all (you can't instantiate an object with Abstract members.)
"Abstraction" is simply the concept of "modeling". Modelling is making something complex look simpler by ignoring some details. In programming, you want to break operations and concepts up into components, and for each component, abstract away details about external components that don't affect the current component's operation.
A programming "Interface" is a way of implementing "Abstraction". Rather than have all the source code and internal operations of a component, you only see the operations that are relevent to how you're using the object. An "Interface" in C++ is implemented by marking all methods on a class as "abstract" (also called "pure virtual".) That's done by putting an '= 0' after the method declaration but before the semicolon. The method has to be marked 'virtual' for this to be legal.
In other words, an abstract C++ class is one that has at least one pure virtual method, and an interface is implemented in C++ by making all member functions pure virtual.
Encapsulation is a fuzzy term, but to me it means a technique of implementing abstraction. It means "information hiding". You're hiding the internal details of how an object performs its "contract". The Contract is expressed through interfaces, which to my mind is a more powerful form of abstraction. Any C++ class with protected or private members uses encapsulation, but a class implementing only pure virtual methods is describing a contract, promising to deliver certain services for which you need to know absolutely nothing about how they are implemented or about other services the same object may implement.
The same object may fill several contracts, and by exposing multiple, disjoint interfaces, it doesn't force clients to know about all of the auxilliary functions of the object. For example, an object may be able to tell you a bank account balance, and it also may be able to be serialized/deserialized to a database. You could just have one class with all of those operations exposed as member functions. I prefer to define two interfaces, 'IDatabaseSerializable' and 'IBankAccount', and put the appropriate operations in the appropriate interfaces and derive from both interfaces in my implementation class. Then clients that only care about bank balances see as little extra information as possible, and the database only sees the operations that it cares about.
Virtual member functions (not neccessarily pure) in combination with inheritance are one way to express the concept of interfaces in C++, i.e. interfaces and methods are orthogonal concepts.
Another approach to interfaces in C++ is with generic code (i.e. templates), where you often don't expect any concrete type - instead you expect the type to have certain member functions with a certain semantic - if it doesn't you will get a compile error.
Some people call this concepts and you talk of a type modelling a certain concept. Concepts are not formally supported in C++ though, but libraries like Boost.ConceptCheck do a pretty good job of providing a substitute.
Abstraction means that someone can use your code without knowing about implementation details. The thing that makes this complicated is that things that are implementation details in one context may not be in others. An abstract data type is a data type that cannot be instantiated and only describes attributes of its subtypes. An abstract class is just something that's an abstract data type and a class.
An interface can be implicitly defined by a set of member functions (though to be a useful abstraction these should at least be virtual so that there is more than one possible implementation of the interface). It can also be defined explicitly as a class with only pure virtual functions (in C++) or an interface (in Java, C# and D).
Abstraction is when you don't have to know about the implementation details of something. Encapsulation is when you can't know about them. For example, a class that is otherwise well-designed from an OO perspective, but doesn't bother setting its member variables to private can still be a useful abstraction, but it is not encapsulated.
Related
Is there any real reason not to make a member function virtual in C++? Of course, there's always the performance argument, but that doesn't seem to stick in most situations since the overhead of virtual functions is fairly low.
On the other hand, I've been bitten a couple of times with forgetting to make a function virtual that should be virtual. And that seems to be a bigger argument than the performance one. So is there any reason not to make member functions virtual by default?
One way to read your questions is "Why doesn't C++ make every function virtual by default, unless the programmer overrides that default." Without consulting my copy of "Design and Evolution of C++": this would add extra storage to every class unless every member function is made non-virtual. Seems to me this would have required more effort in the compiler implementation, and slowed down the adoption of C++ by providing fodder to the performance obsessed (I count myself in that group.)
Another way to read your questions is "Why do C++ programmers do not make every function virtual unless they have very good reasons not to?" The performance excuse is probably the reason. Depending on your application and domain, this might be a good reason or not. For example, part of my team works in market data ticker plants. At 100,000+ messages/second on a single stream, the virtual function overhead would be unacceptable. Other parts of my team work in complex trading infrastructure. Making most functions virtual is probably a good idea in that context, as the extra flexibility beats the micro-optimization.
Stroustrup, the designer of the language, says:
Because many classes are not designed to be used as base classes. For example, see class complex.
Also, objects of a class with a virtual function require space needed by the virtual function call mechanism - typically one word per object. This overhead can be significant, and can get in the way of layout compatibility with data from other languages (e.g. C and Fortran).
See The Design and Evolution of C++ for more design rationale.
There are several reasons.
First, performance: Yes, the overhead of a virtual function is relatively low seen in isolation. But it also prevents the compiler from inlining, and that is a huge source of optimization in C++. The C++ standard library performs as well as it does because it can inline the dozens and dozens of small one-liners it consists of. Additionally, a class with virtual methods is not a POD datatype, and so a lot of restrictions apply to it. It can't be copied just by memcpy'ing, it becomes more expensive to construct, and takes up more space. There are a lot of things that suddenly become illegal or less efficient once a non-POD type is involved.
And second, good OOP practice. The point in a class is that it makes some kind of abstraction, hides its internal details, and provides a guarantee that "this class will behave so and so, and will always maintain these invariants. It will never end up in an invalid state".
That is pretty hard to live up to if you allow others to override any member function. The member functions you defined in the class are there to ensure that the invariant is maintained. If we didn't care about that, we could just make the internal data members public, and let people manipulate them at will. But we want our class to be consistent. And that means we have to specify the behavior of its public interface. That may involve specific customizability points, by making individual functions virtual, but it almost always also involves making most methods non-virtual, so that they can do the job of ensuring that the invariant is maintained. The non-virtual interface idiom is a good example of this:
http://www.gotw.ca/publications/mill18.htm
Third, inheritance isn't often needed, especially not in C++. Templates and generic programming (static polymorphism) can in many cases do a better job than inheritance (runtime polymorphism). Yes, you sometimes still need virtual methods and inheritance, but it is certainly not the default. If it is, you're Doing It Wrong. Work with the language, rather than try to pretend it was something else. It's not Java, and unlike Java, in C++ inheritance is the exception, not the rule.
I'll ignore performance and memory cost, because I have no way to measure them for the "in general" case...
Classes with virtual member functions are non-POD. So if you want to use your class in low-level code which relies on it being POD, then (among other restrictions) any member functions must be non-virtual.
Examples of things you can portably do with an instance of a POD class:
copy it with memcpy (provided the target address has sufficient alignment).
access fields with offsetof()
in general, treat it as a sequence of char
... um
that's about it. I'm sure I've forgotten something.
Other things people have mentioned that I agree with:
Many classes are not designed for inheritance. Making their methods virtual would be misleading, since it implies child classes might want to override the method, and there shouldn't be any child classes.
Many methods are not designed to be overridden: same thing.
Also, even when things are intended to be subclassed / overridden, they aren't necessarily intended for run-time polymorphism. Very occasionally, despite what OO best practice says, what you want inheritance for is code reuse. For example if you're using CRTP for simulated dynamic binding. So again you don't want to imply your class will play nicely with runtime polymorphism by making its methods virtual, when they should never be called that way.
In summary, things which are intended to be overridden for runtime polymorphism should be marked virtual, and things which don't, shouldn't. If you find that almost all your member functions are intended to be virtual, then mark them virtual unless there's a reason not to. If you find that most of your member functions are not intended to be virtual, then don't mark them virtual unless there's a reason to do so.
It's a tricky issue when designing a public API, because flipping a method from one to the other is a breaking change, so you have to get it right first time. But you don't necessarily know before you have any users, whether your users are going to want to "polymorph" your classes. Ho hum. The STL container approach, of defining abstract interfaces and banning inheritance entirely, is safe but sometimes requires users to do more typing.
The following post is mostly opinion, but here goes:
Object oriented design is three things, and encapsulation (information hiding) is the first of these things. If a class design is not solid on this, then the rest doesn't really matter very much.
It has been said before that "inheritance breaks encapsulation" (Alan Snyder '86) A good discussion of this is present in the group of four design pattern book. A class should be designed to support inheritance in a very specific manner. Otherwise, you open the possibility of misuse by inheritors.
I would make the analogy that making all of your methods virtual is akin to making all your members public. A bit of a stretch, I know, but that's why I used the word 'analogy'
As you are designing your class hierarchy, it may make sense to write a function that should not be overridden. One example is if you are doing the "template method" pattern, where you have a public method that calls several private virtual methods. You would not want derived classes to override that; everyone should use the base definition.
There is no "final" keyword, so the best way to communicate to other developers that a method should not be overridden is to make it non-virtual. (other than easily ignored comments)
At the class level, making the destructor non-virtual communicates that the class should not be used as a base class, such as the STL containers.
Making a method non-virtual communicates how it should be used.
The Non-Virtual Interface idiom makes use of non-virtual methods. For more information please refer to Herb Sutter "Virtuality" article.
http://www.gotw.ca/publications/mill18.htm
And comments on the NVI idiom:
http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/strange-inheritance.html#faq-23.3
http://accu.org/index.php/journals/269 [See sub-section]
I'm getting confused by these two. What I learned is that Abstract data type is a mathematical model for data type, where it specifies the objects and the methods to manipulate these objects without specifying the details about the implementation of the objects and methods. Ex: an abstract stack model defines a stack with push and pop operations to insert and delete items to and from the stack. We can implement this in many ways, by using linked lists, arrays or classes.
Now, coming to the definition of abstract class, its a parent class which has one or more methods that doesn't have definition(implementation?) and cannot be instantiated (much like we can't implement an abstract stack as it is, without defining the stack's underlying mechanism through one of the concrete data structures). For ex: if we have an abstract class called Mammal which includes a function called eat(), we don't know how a mammal eats because a mammal is abstract. Although we can define eat() for a cow which is a derived class of mammal. Does this mean that mammal serves as an adt and cow class is an implementation of the mammal adt?
Correct me if I'm wrong in any way. Any kind of help would be really appreciated.
Abstract data type is a mathematical model for data type...
Now, coming to the definition of abstract class...
You need to distinguish between theoretical mathematical models and a practical implementation techniques.
Models are created by people in order to reason about problems easily, in some comprehensible, generalized way.
Meanwhile, the actual code is written in order to work and get the job done.
"Abstract data type" is a model. "Abstract class" is a programming technique which some programming languages (C++, C#, Java) support on the language level.
"Abstract data type" lets you think and talk about the solution of a problem, without overloading your brain with unnecessary (at this moment) implementation details. When you need a FIFO data structure, you say just "stack", but not "a doubly-linked list with the pointer to the head node and the ability to...".
"Abstract class" lets you write the code once and then reuse it later (because that is the point of OOP - code reuse). When you see that several types have a common interface and functionality - you may create "an abstract class" and put the intersection of their functionality in inside, while still being able to rely on yet unimplemented functions, which will be implemented by some concrete type later. This way, you write the code once and when you need to change it later - it's only one place to make the change in.
Note:
Although, in C++ ISO Standard (at least in the draft) there is a note:
Note: The abstract class mechanism supports the notion of a general concept,
such as a shape, of which only more concrete variants, such as circle
and square, can actually be used.
but it is just a note. The real definition is:
A class is abstract if it has at least one pure (aka unimplemented) virtual function.
which leads to the obvious constraint:
no objects of an abstract class can be created except as subobjects of
a class derived from it
Personally, I like that C++ (unlike C# and Java) doesn't have the keyword "abstract". It only has type inheritance and virtual functions (which may remain unimplemented). This helps you focus on a practical matter: inherit where needed, override where necessary.
In a nutshell, using OOP - be pragmatic.
The term "abstract data type" is not directly related to anything in C++. So abstract class is one of the potential implementation strategies to implement abstract data types in the given language. But there are a lot more techniques to do that.
So abstract base classes allow you to define a set of derived classes and give you the guarantee that all interfaces ( declarations ) have also an implementation, if not, the compiler throws an error, because you can't get an instance of your class because of the missing method definition.
But you also can use compile time polymorphism and related techniques like CRTP to have abstract data types.
So you have to decide which features you need and what price you want to pay for it. Runtime polymorphism comes with the extra cost of vtable and vtable dispatching but with the benefit of late binding. Compile time polymorphism comes with the benefit of much better optimizable code with faster execution and less code size. Both give you errors if an interface is not implemented, at minimum at the linker stage.
But abstract data types with polymorphism, independend of runtime or compile time, is not a 1:1 relation. Making things abstract can also be given by simply defining an interface which must be somewhere fulfilled.
In a short: Abstract data types is not a directly represented in c++ while abstract base class is a c++ technique.
Is Abstract class an example of Abstract data type?
Yes, but in C++, abstract classes have become an increasingly rare example of abstract data types, because generic programming is often a superior alternative.
Ex: an abstract stack model defines a stack with push and pop
operations to insert and delete items to and from the stack. We can
implement this in many ways, by using linked lists, arrays or classes.
The C++ std::stack class template more or less works like this. It has member functions push and pop, and it's implemented in terms of the Container type parameter, which defaults to std::deque.
For an implementation with a linked list, you'd type std::stack<int, std::list<int>>. However, arrays cannot be used to implement a stack, because a stack can grow and shrink, and arrays have a fixed size.
It's very important to understand that the std::stack has absolutely nothing to do with abstract classes or runtime polymorphism. There's not a single virtual function involved.
Now, coming to the definition of abstract class, its a parent class
which has one or more methods that doesn't have
definition(implementation?) and cannot be instantiated
Yes, that's precisely the definition of an abstract class in C++.
In theory, such a stack class could look like this:
template <class T>
class Stack
{
public:
virtual ~Stack() = 0;
virtual void push(T const& value) = 0;
virtual T pop() = 0;
};
In this example, the element type is still generic, but the implementation of the container is meant to be provided by a concrete derived class. Such container designs are idiomatic in other languages, but not in C++.
much like we can't implement an abstract stack as it is, without defining the stack's underlying mechanism through one of the concrete data structures
Yes, you couldn't use std::stack without providing a container type parameter (but that's impossible anyway, because there's the default std::deque parameter), and you cannot instantiate a Stack<int> my_stack; either.
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'm working on the graphics code for a game library in Java. I made package called com.engine.graphics. In this package, I have a lower-level class called VertexArrayObject. This class is used by "client-level" classes that clients will use; however, I do not want to give clients access to VertexArrayObject, since it would only serve to complicate their understanding of my library. Thus, I gave VertexArrayObject the default access specifier; that way, only classes within com.engine.graphicshave access to it, and also tells clients that they do not need to know what it is.
Just like there is this standard convention for Java, I figured there must be some standard convention for C++ for dealing with this; however, my internet searches have yielded no results.
So, my question is, what is the convention? And if there isn't one, what is the best approach?
C++ does not have a notion of 'package' thus no 'package-protection' is technically possible. (There is a proposition for modules, but it will not be included even in the upcoming C++17 standard).
There are many ways of hiding the class from external world or restricting access to it, on syntax level you can resort to:
nested classes which may be declared private (you should be familiar with them from Java, except they are "static" by default and cannot access non-static enclosing class members) link;
friend classes that can access any private members of the given class link;
friend functions if you want to restrict access to only certain functions, including member functions of another class;
private/protected inheritance where only the class members are aware of the inheritance link.
Having a lot of friend classes and functions is a mess, but there is a reason for requiring explicit listing of those: they break the encapsulation principle.
Finally, you can use either "private implementation" idiom (aka pimpl, aka opaque pointer) that consists in defining a visible class holding a pointer to the implementation class and forwarding all calls while the implementation class is defined in a separate cpp file or the façade design pattern.
Chose whatever seems appropriate for the given class relation. Standard library tends to prefer nested classes while Qt, a popular graphic library, relies on pimpl.
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.