Use inheritance as vomposition with parent ?
If Inheritance is so bad, why does everyone use it?
271–280 of 389 posts
Re: If Inheritance is so bad, why does everyone use it?
#272Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Where I think inheritance works best is when the state in base classes is limited and the interface is quiet clear. Ideally where you are meant to override is also well defined. What benefit is inheritance providing here? What you described sounds mostly like a struct, at which point the only value the interface provides is possibly some computed fields.
When you scratch deep enough at programming, everything is structs and interfaces defining how you interact with them and how they interact with the world. The best example of this (IMO) is how `AbstractMap` works in Java. [1] In order to make a new object which implements the `Map` interface, you just have to inherit from the `AbstractMap` base class and implement 1 method, `entrySet`. This allows for you to have a…
> The best example of this (IMO) is how `AbstractMap` works in Java.
I think it is fair to say that this is idiomatic Java, and for that reason it is a great example within the context of Java.
But does it translate to the abstract? Given your hypothetical ideal language that allows you to do anything you can imagine as you can best imagine it, is this still a good example, or would you reach for something else (e.g. composition)? Why/why not?
Re: If Inheritance is so bad, why does everyone use it?
#273The key is "prefer composition to inheritance" and dates back to Gang of Four. The word "prefer" is critical to understand. It just means "usually choose A over B" not "B is never the right answer." Unfortunately, since we - as an industry - like hard and fast rules, we move towards that second explanation and act like inheritance never makes sense. Like any tool, there's a time and place where it is the best tool, o…
Any abstract advice that's like "do this instead of something else" looks to me like the person had a bad experience and is generalizing from it. This goes both ways, applying to both the original hype about OOP, and this sort of modern anti-OOP hype. It turns out bad code is possible regardless of which design pattern is used.
Re: If Inheritance is so bad, why does everyone use it?
#274Here is my take on it. At one point "Object Oriented" became "Blockchain" (or now Gen AI) of those times. You had to be "object oriented" in order to be taken seriously. This applied to everything. Even finished software products were called "built using object oriented". The esoteric concept of inheritance became popular after that. At some point it became so popular that people figured out that it is not really a g…
Pragmatists used inheritance because it gave a quick benefit now, and the longer-term costs were ignored. Some pragmatists became successful because they moved quickly, so the "Programmers from the Church of Purity" used inheritance because successful companies used inheritance. When inheritance was no longer the quickest way to move quickly, the pragmatists moved on. The Church of Purity now bangs on about Functiona…
Pendulum swings once it is this way then another way.
Re: If Inheritance is so bad, why does everyone use it?
#275A lot of it goes back to Java. Java has .class files, not .instance files.
Re: If Inheritance is so bad, why does everyone use it?
#276While I don't use the ecosystem, I like the way Go approaches it with interfaces by being minimal, expressive, and flexible. It something works like something else according to a minimal specification, it's the same. There's no sealing off things or top-down mandates that require changes to other people's code. Rust traits aren't exactly the same because they require changes to everyone's code to follow an exact model that cannot be retrofitted to existing code without additional work. One downside (it may not be the case today) with the Go model is requiring a type to fulfill one or more interfaces requires additional hoops such as no-op init() interface assertions.
Re: If Inheritance is so bad, why does everyone use it?
#277Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you scratch deep enough at programming, everything is structs and interfaces defining how you interact with them and how they interact with the world. The best example of this (IMO) is how `AbstractMap` works in Java. [1] In order to make a new object which implements the `Map` interface, you just have to inherit from the `AbstractMap` base class and implement 1 method, `entrySet`. This allows for you to have a…
>In order to make a new object which implements the `Map` interface, you just have to inherit from the `AbstractMap` base class and implement 1 method, `entrySet` Used to think that way, but I now prefer the alternative - passing function(s)/lambda(s) for the necessary functionality of the dependent class. This way is actually more flexible, as you can change behavior without modifying the override or having a bunch…
It is just a matter of how flexibility you want to expose through your API. Sometimes a rigid and stricter API is the right choice where you want the API itself as the guardrail against non-standard patterns.
Re: If Inheritance is so bad, why does everyone use it?
#278Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mainly because nobody is a "CSS Dev". If someone's entire job was developing CSS, you might expect that they would be willing to learn one new slightly different way of doing it. But in reality the pushback comes from full stack developers who already have a million other things to worry about, such that relearning all the basic CSS they already know, to achieve benefits that are rather minuscule in the grand scheme…
Inline styles don't work with a strict CSP. Have you ever had to work with such a restriction?
A CSP can be configured to disallow external stylesheets too. I don't see how that's particularly relevant. But obviously if for some reason a CSP was configured as such, and I had no power to change it, I'd work around it.
Re: If Inheritance is so bad, why does everyone use it?
#279Earlier quoted context omitted.
I actually just downloaded the VS Code extension earlier today as a result of this discussion, perhaps that will change my opinion. Because for me the two flows would be: 1. I find the element I need to style 2. I add/edit the inline style={{}} attribute I have for it by typing `sty {borrad ` 3. I add a value VS: 1. I find the element I need to style 2. I add/edit the className attribute 3. I pull up the tailwind doc…
You can also edit CSS in the browser and have it automatically sync to your source code without having to do any manual copying, look up "CSS mirror editing"
I'v never experienced that actually working, despite several attempts. Or when it does work, the overhead makes it not worth it.
Re: If Inheritance is so bad, why does everyone use it?
#280I feel people don't understand what inheritance and (object orientation in general) is useful for, misuse it, and then it gets a bad reputation. It's not about making nice hierarchies of Cars, Fruits, and Ovals. For me the main point is (runtime) polymorphism. E.g. you have a function that takes a general type, and you can pass multiple specific types and it will do the right thing. And if you want to avoid huge if-e…
This is why "interfaces" is a better word and and a better concept to describe this paradigm, not inheritance.