Given a third party Java library with the call
public static Bar Foo()
Can I define a structural type to represent this? The following doesn't type match, as it doesn't capture the static nature.
val fooBar: { def Foo: Bar }
Of course, I can always wrap this call in something else & that's what I'll do if necessary. But, is there a syntax that will define a type for this method?
Scala doesn't have static so you can't define it. There are object that behave like static but they are not exactly the same.
You may keep trying but you will inevitably end up with Object is not a value error.
In an abstract class, I wish to define static methods, but I'm having problems.
In this simple example
abstract class Main {
static String get name;
bool use( Element el );
}
class Sub extends Main {
static String get name => 'testme';
bool use( Element el ) => (el is Element);
}
I receive the error:
function body expected for method 'get:name' static String get name;
Is there a typo in the declaration, or are static methods incompatible with abstract classes?
Dart doesn't inherit static methods to derived classes. So it makes no sense to create abstract static methods (without implementation).
If you want a static method in class Main you have to fully define it there and always call it like Main.name
== EDIT ==
I'm sure I read or heard some arguments from Gilad Bracha about it but can't find it now.
This behaviour is IMHO common mostly in statically typed languages (I don't know many dynamic languages). A static method is like a top level function where the class name just acts as a namespace. A static method has nothing to do with an instantiated object so inheritance is not applicable. In languages where static methods are 'inherited' this is just syntactic sugar. Dart likes to be more explicit here and to avoid confusion between instance methods and static methods (which actually are not methods but just functions because they don't act on an instance). This is not my primary domain, but hopefully may make some sense anyways ;-)
Looks like you are trying to 'override' a static method. I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve there. I'm not aware of any OO languages that support that (and not sure how they could).
A similar question in Java might help clarify Polymorphism and Static Methods
Note also that it is considered bad practice to refer to statics from an instance of the class in Java (and other OO languages). Interestingly I noticed Dart does not let you do this so is in effect removing this bad practice entirely.
So you couldn't even fool yourself into thinking it would behave polymorphically in Dart because you can't call the static from the instance.
I have been looking at examples online, and tutorials, and I cannot find anything that explains how this (inheritance) differs from java. Simple example:
class Shape {
String type;
Shape(String type) {
this.type = type;
}
...
}
class Square extends Shape {
Square(String name){
Super(name);
}
....
}
Whats confusing me is in the above example I need to call the super class in order to set the 'type' variable, as well as to access it to tell me the Box objects' type as well. In Scala, how can this be done? I know scala uses traits interfaces as well, but is the above example omitted completely from scala? Can anyone direct me to a good example or explain it. I really appreciate it.
You can write almost exactly the same thing in Scala, much more concisely:
class Shape(var `type`: String)
class Square(name: String) extends Shape(name)
In the first line, the fact that type is preceded by var makes the compiler add getters and setters (from "5.3 Class Definitions" in the specification):
If a formal parameter declaration x : T is preceded by a val or
var keyword, an accessor (getter) definition (§4.2) for this parameter is implicitly added to the class. The getter introduces a value member x of class c that is defined as an alias of the parameter. If the introducing keyword is var, a setter accessor x _= (§4.2) is also implicitly added to the class.
In the second line name is not preceded by val or var, and is therefore just a constructor parameter, which is this case we pass on to the superclass constructor in the extends clause. No getters or setters are added for name, so if we created an instance square of Square and called square.name, it wouldn't compile.
Note also that type is a keyword in Scala, so I've had to surround it by backticks in both the definition and the example above:
Example 1.1.2 Backquote-enclosed strings are a solution when one needs to access Java identifiers that are reserved words in Scala.
There are many, many resource that you can read for more information about inheritance in Scala. See for example Chapters 4 and 5 of Programming Scala.
In Programming in Scala: A Comprehensive Step-by-Step Guide, the author said:
One way in which Scala is more
object-oriented than Java is that
classes in Scala cannot have static
members. Instead, Scala has singleton
objects.
Why is a singleton object more object-oriented? What's the good of not using static members, but singleton objects?
Trying for the "big picture"; most of this has been covered in other answers, but there doesn't seem to be a single comprehensive reply that puts it all together and joins the dots. So here goes...
Static methods on a class are not methods on an object, this means that:
Static members can't be inherited from a parent class/trait
Static members can't be used to implement an interface
The static members of a class can't be passed as an argument to some function
(and because of the above points...)
Static members can't be overridden
Static members can't be polymorphic
The whole point of objects is that they can inherit from parent objects, implement interfaces, and be passed as arguments - static members have none of these properties, so they aren't truly object-oriented, they're little more than a namespace.
Singleton objects, on the other hand, are fully-fledged members of the object community.
Another very useful property of singletons is that they can easily be changed at some later point in time to not be singletons, this is a particularly painful refactoring if you start from static methods.
Imagine you designed a program for printing addresses and represented interactions with the printer via static methods on some class, then later you want to be able to add a second printer and allow the user to chose which one they'll use... It wouldn't be a fun experience!
Singleton objects behave like classes in that they can extend/implement other types.
Can't do that in Java with just static classes -- it's pretty sugar over the Java singleton pattern with a getInstance that allows (at least) nicer namespaces/stable identifiers and hides the distinction.
Hint: it's called object-oriented programming.
Seriously.
Maybe I am missing something fundamentally important, but I don't see what the fuss is all about: objects are more object-oriented than non-objects because they are objects. Does that really need an explanation?
Note: Although it sure sounds that way, I am really not trying to sound smug here. I have looked at all the other answers and I found them terribly confusing. To me, it's kind of obvious that objects and methods are more object-oriented than namespaces and procedures (which is what static "methods" really are) by the very definition of "object-oriented".
An alternative to having singleton objects would be to make classes themselves objects, as e.g. Ruby, Python, Smalltalk, Newspeak do.
For static members, there is no object. The class really just is a namespace.
In a singleton, there is always at least one object.
In all honesty, it's splitting hairs.
It's more object oriented in the sense that given a Scala class, every method call is a method call on that object. In Java, the static methods don't interact with the object state.
In fact, given an object a of a class A with the static method m(), it's considered bad practice to call a.m(). Instead it's recommended to call A.m() (I believe Eclipse will give you a warning). Java static methods can't be overridden, they can just be hidden by another method:
class A {
public static void m() {
System.out.println("m from A");
}
}
public class B extends A {
public static void m() {
System.out.println("m from B");
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
A a = new B();
a.m();
}
}
What will a.m() print?
In Scala, you would stick the static methods in companion objects A and B and the intent would be clearer as you would refer explicitly to the companion A or B.
Adding the same example in Scala:
class A
object A {
def m() = println("m from A")
}
class B extends A
object B {
def m() = println("m from B")
def main(args: Array[String]) {
val a = new B
A.m() // cannot call a.m()
}
}
There is some difference that may be important in some scenarios. In Java you
can't override static method so if you had class with static methods you would not be able to customize and override part of its behavior. If you used singleton object, you could just plug singleton created from subclass.
It's a marketing thing, really. Consider two examples:
class foo
static const int bar = 42;
end class
class superfoo
Integer bar = ConstInteger.new(42);
end class
Now, what are the observable differences here?
in a well-behaved language, the additional storage created is the same.
Foo.bar and Superfoo.bar have exactly the same signatures, access, and so on.
Superfoo.bar may be allocated differently but that's an implementation detail
It reminds me of the religious wars 20 years ago over whether C++ or Java were "really" Object Oriented, since after all both exposed primitive types that aren't "really" objects -- so, for example you can't inherit from int but can from Integer.
Can I specify interfaces when I declare a member?
After thinking about this question for a while, it occurred to me that a static-duck-typed language might actually work. Why can't predefined classes be bound to an interface at compile time? Example:
public interface IMyInterface
{
public void MyMethod();
}
public class MyClass //Does not explicitly implement IMyInterface
{
public void MyMethod() //But contains a compatible method definition
{
Console.WriteLine("Hello, world!");
}
}
...
public void CallMyMethod(IMyInterface m)
{
m.MyMethod();
}
...
MyClass obj = new MyClass();
CallMyMethod(obj); // Automatically recognize that MyClass "fits"
// MyInterface, and force a type-cast.
Do you know of any languages that support such a feature? Would it be helpful in Java or C#? Is it fundamentally flawed in some way? I understand you could subclass MyClass and implement the interface or use the Adapter design pattern to accomplish the same thing, but those approaches just seem like unnecessary boilerplate code.
A brand new answer to this question, Go has exactly this feature. I think it's really cool & clever (though I'll be interested to see how it plays out in real life) and kudos on thinking of it.
As documented in the official documentation (as part of the Tour of Go, with example code):
Interfaces are implemented implicitly
A type implements an interface by implementing its methods. There is
no explicit declaration of intent, no "implements" keyword.
Implicit interfaces decouple the definition of an interface from its
implementation, which could then appear in any package without
prearrangement.
How about using templates in C++?
class IMyInterface // Inheritance from this is optional
{
public:
virtual void MyMethod() = 0;
}
class MyClass // Does not explicitly implement IMyInterface
{
public:
void MyMethod() // But contains a compatible method definition
{
std::cout << "Hello, world!" "\n";
}
}
template<typename MyInterface>
void CallMyMethod(MyInterface& m)
{
m.MyMethod(); // instantiation succeeds iff MyInterface has MyMethod
}
MyClass obj;
CallMyMethod(obj); // Automatically generate code with MyClass as
// MyInterface
I haven't actually compiled this code, but I believe it's workable and a pretty trivial C++-ization of the original proposed (but nonworking) code.
Statically-typed languages, by definition, check types at compile time, not run time. One of the obvious problems with the system described above is that the compiler is going to check types when the program is compiled, not at run time.
Now, you could build more intelligence into the compiler so it could derive types, rather than having the programmer explicitly declare types; the compiler might be able to see that MyClass implements a MyMethod() method, and handle this case accordingly, without the need to explicitly declare interfaces (as you suggest). Such a compiler could utilize type inference, such as Hindley-Milner.
Of course, some statically typed languages like Haskell already do something similar to what you suggest; the Haskell compiler is able to infer types (most of the time) without the need to explicitly declare them. But obviously, Java/C# don't have this ability.
I don't see the point. Why not be explicit that the class implements the interface and have done with it? Implementing the interface is what tells other programmers that this class is supposed to behave in the way that interface defines. Simply having the same name and signature on a method conveys no guarantees that the intent of the designer was to perform similar actions with the method. That may be, but why leave it up for interpretation (and misuse)?
The reason you can "get away" with this successfully in dynamic languages has more to do with TDD than with the language itself. In my opinion, if the language offers the facility to give these sorts of guidance to others who use/view the code, you should use it. It actually improves clarity and is worth the few extra characters. In the case where you don't have access to do this, then an Adapter serves the same purpose of explicitly declaring how the interface relates to the other class.
F# supports static duck typing, though with a catch: you have to use member constraints. Details are available in this blog entry.
Example from the cited blog:
let inline speak (a: ^a) =
let x = (^a : (member speak: unit -> string) (a))
printfn "It said: %s" x
let y = (^a : (member talk: unit -> string) (a))
printfn "Then it said %s" y
type duck() =
member x.speak() = "quack"
member x.talk() = "quackity quack"
type dog() =
member x.speak() = "woof"
member x.talk() = "arrrr"
let x = new duck()
let y = new dog()
speak x
speak y
TypeScript!
Well, ok... So it's a javascript superset and maybe does not constitute a "language", but this kind of static duck-typing is vital in TypeScript.
Most of the languages in the ML family support structural types with inference and constrained type schemes, which is the geeky language-designer terminology that seems most likely what you mean by the phrase "static duck-typing" in the original question.
The more popular languages in this family that spring to mind include: Haskell, Objective Caml, F# and Scala. The one that most closely matches your example, of course, would be Objective Caml. Here's a translation of your example:
open Printf
class type iMyInterface = object
method myMethod: unit
end
class myClass = object
method myMethod = printf "Hello, world!"
end
let callMyMethod: #iMyInterface -> unit = fun m -> m#myMethod
let myClass = new myClass
callMyMethod myClass
Note: some of the names you used have to be changed to comply with OCaml's notion of identifier case semantics, but otherwise, this is a pretty straightforward translation.
Also, worth noting, neither the type annotation in the callMyMethod function nor the definition of the iMyInterface class type is strictly necessary. Objective Caml can infer everything in your example without any type declarations at all.
Crystal is a statically duck-typed language. Example:
def add(x, y)
x + y
end
add(true, false)
The call to add causes this compilation error:
Error in foo.cr:6: instantiating 'add(Bool, Bool)'
add(true, false)
^~~
in foo.cr:2: undefined method '+' for Bool
x + y
^
A pre-release design for Visual Basic 9 had support for static duck typing using dynamic interfaces but they cut the feature* in order to ship on time.
Boo definitely is a static duck-typed language: http://boo.codehaus.org/Duck+Typing
An excerpt:
Boo is a statically typed language,
like Java or C#. This means your boo
applications will run about as fast as
those coded in other statically typed
languages for .NET or Mono. But using
a statically typed language sometimes
constrains you to an inflexible and
verbose coding style, with the
sometimes necessary type declarations
(like "x as int", but this is not
often necessary due to boo's Type
Inference) and sometimes necessary
type casts (see Casting Types). Boo's
support for Type Inference and
eventually generics help here, but...
Sometimes it is appropriate to give up
the safety net provided by static
typing. Maybe you just want to explore
an API without worrying too much about
method signatures or maybe you're
creating code that talks to external
components such as COM objects. Either
way the choice should be yours not
mine.
Along with the normal types like
object, int, string...boo has a
special type called "duck". The term
is inspired by the ruby programming
language's duck typing feature ("If it
walks like a duck and quacks like a
duck, it must be a duck").
New versions of C++ move in the direction of static duck typing. You can some day (today?) write something like this:
auto plus(auto x, auto y){
return x+y;
}
and it would fail to compile if there's no matching function call for x+y.
As for your criticism:
A new "CallMyMethod" is created for each different type you pass to it, so it's not really type inference.
But it IS type inference (you can say foo(bar) where foo is a templated function), and has the same effect, except it's more time-efficient and takes more space in the compiled code.
Otherwise, you would have to look up the method during runtime. You'd have to find a name, then check that the name has a method with the right parameters.
Or you would have to store all that information about matching interfaces, and look into every class that matches an interface, then automatically add that interface.
In either case, that allows you to implicitly and accidentally break the class hierarchy, which is bad for a new feature because it goes against the habits of what programmers of C#/Java are used to. With C++ templates, you already know you're in a minefield (and they're also adding features ("concepts") to allow restrictions on template parameters).
Structural types in Scala does something like this.
See Statically Checked “Duck Typing” in Scala
D (http://dlang.org) is a statically compiled language and provides duck-typing via wrap() and unwrap() (http://dlang.org/phobos-prerelease/std_typecons.html#.unwrap).
Sounds like Mixins or Traits:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixin
http://www.iam.unibe.ch/~scg/Archive/Papers/Scha03aTraits.pdf
In the latest version of my programming language Heron it supports something similar through a structural-subtyping coercion operator called as. So instead of:
MyClass obj = new MyClass();
CallMyMethod(obj);
You would write:
MyClass obj = new MyClass();
CallMyMethod(obj as IMyInterface);
Just like in your example, in this case MyClass does not have to explicitly implement IMyInterface, but if it did the cast could happen implicitly and the as operator could be omitted.
I wrote a bit more about the technique which I call explicit structural sub-typing in this article.