First of all! Iam new to programming,
In a blog i saw this two definitions . but iam confused .
It says
Class is a instance of an object
and another says
Class is a collection of objecs
Which definition is correct? How?
If both definitions are true? How?
Thank you
Generally speaking, a class is the mold with which you can create an objet. With one class, you create many objects of the same type.
An object is thus an instance of a class (but not the other way around).
Hope it helps
An object is an instance of a class. An object can be instantiated in other classes. A class is definitely not a collection of objects. However, other objects can be created or instantiated inside of a class.
A class is a blueprint to build a specific type of object. Every object is built from a class.
An instance is a specific object built from a specific class. It is assigned to a reference variable that is used to access the instance's properties and methods. The process of making a new instance is called instantiation and is typically done using the new keyword.
A collection of objects is just that, a collection. There are many data structures designed to hold a collection of object, such as arrays, lists, etc.
Related
I have read how companion and singleton objects can be used to keep static methods, which makes sense. My question is how is this object made or instantiated it? I have read from some sources on how Objects are instances of the class if used as companion objects while others say they are not instances of the class. Then how are the objects existing or being made? Plus the Object would be same class data type I suppose?
My question is how is this object made or instantiated it?
[…]
Then how are the objects existing or being made?
You don't know, shouldn't know, and can't know.
The Scala Language Specification says that they exist. The Scala Language Specification does not say how they are instantiated. Every implementor is free to implement them however they want.
For example, ECMAScript has object literals, so for Scala.js, there is no need for them to be an instance of any class at all. Scala-native is not dependent on any platform, so it can do whatever it wants. Scala-JVM needs to comply with the restrictions of the JVM, where every object needs to be an instance of a class. In Scala-JVM, every singleton object Foo is an instance of a JVM class named Foo$.
Plus the Object would be same class data type I suppose?
The type of a singleton object Foo is the singleton type Foo.type. It's not a class.
I have read from some sources on how Objects are instances of the class if used as companion objects while others say they are not instances of the class.
Instead of reading "some sources", it's much better to just read the source: the Scala Language Specification, specifically section 5.3.2 Case Classes:
A case class definition of 𝑐[tps](ps1)…(ps𝑛) with type parameters tps and value parameters ps implies the definition of a companion object, which serves as an extractor object. It has the following shape:
object 𝑐 {
def apply[tps](ps1)…(ps𝑛): 𝑐[tps] = new 𝑐[Ts](xs1)…(xs𝑛)
def unapply[tps](𝑥: 𝑐[tps]) =
if (x eq null) scala.None
else scala.Some(𝑥.xs11,…,𝑥.xs1𝑘)
}
Each object has its own class, but you can't access the class directly. This class has a constructor without parameters which is called automatically when it's loaded and creates the only instance.
Objects are instances of the class if used as companion objects
Either you misunderstood or you really shouldn't trust these sources. It's possible for a companion object to extend the trait/class it's companion to, but not at all common.
Companion objects are not instances of the class they're companion of, think of them more like a collection of utility methods. If you're familiar with Java - all the method, that you made static in Java (hence they don't belong to a particular instance, but to class in general) would go to Companion object in Scala. Also, companion objects have access to classes private values.
Objects are lazily initialized for you, you don't need to know when and how exactly are they created, just if you call a function from an object - it will be created for you, and there will be only one instance of it.
I am having trouble understanding my professor's lecture notes because my brain seem to treat objects, attributes, variables and class instance as interchangeable. I really appreciate any help in distinguishing these 4 terms. Thank you!
this would be helpful for u Visit https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-instance-variable-and-class-variable
Class variables are declared with keyword static and Instance variables are declared without static keyword.
Class variables are common to all instances of a class. These variables are shared between the objects of a class. Instance variables are not shared between the objects of a class. Each instance will have their own copy of instance variables.
As class variables are common to all objects of a class, changes made to these variables through one object will reflect in another. As each object will have its own copy of instance variables, changes made to these variables through one object will not reflect in another object.
Class variables can be accessed using either class name or object reference. Instance variables can be accessed only through object reference.
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-c4b92e80a8500c11fe705c1bafc3ed26
You don't mention the programming language at question.
Usually a class is a model or template that declares
how a certain category of objects look like.
You give a class a name and you mention if it inherits
members from another class or not.
You define also the class members.
These can be variables that hold data (object state)
and methods (class defined functions) that define
the object behaviour.
When you instantiate a class using the declared model
, you get an object, that is a concrete class instance.
This is a concrete entity, think of it as a new variable in memory,
whose data type is the class (instead of for example
integer or string data types), whose value is its state
in a defined moment in time (the state being the
combination of all of its data member variables values
at that moment). This object has to have an identity,
because it exists in memory and it is a different entity
from the other objects you can instantiate from this or
any other class. The data member variables hold specific
values for each instance. These are not shared between
instances.
Now the member methods can be shared between instances
because they have no state, so they are equal for every object.
They are called with some arguments
and they do some action that changes the object state, or
is at least tightly related with the concrete object.
But they are common to every object. The methods usually
know what concrete object they act upon by means of a special
name like 'this' or 'self', that references to 'itself'.
Objects are usually assigned to variables upon creation,
storing a reference to its identity that allows the
remaining code to manipulate them.
You use these variables to refer to the concrete object
outside the code of the classes, and use 'this' or 'self'
to refer to it from inside the classes.
Frequently you access object members qualifying with the
object name. Like in 'player.run()', or 'player.total_score'.
That is if player is a variable to which you assigned a
class Player instance. This can look like player = new Player
or player = Player().
Attributes is just another name given to data members.
Sometimes attributes and also methods can be public or private,
meaning code outside the class can use them, or only
the class code can have access.
Sometimes you see data members or attributes referred as
properties. When you access an attribute, you are accessing
a property. In some languages like Python, property can mean
something a little different but close related anyway...
Now also depending on the language things can be like described
(C++, Java) or you can have everything being treated as objects,
including the class definitions (Python).
You should also search the internet or SO about
inheritance, overriding, class diagrams, and other things class
related.
This is all no more than the ability of defining your own data types
beoynd the language builtin types.
You can think of variables as names for boxes (memory containers in a certain address) holding values. But sometimes you want to manipulate
not the values but the addresses themselves. This time you say you have
references (to addresses). Sometimes variables are just names for those
references. References are also known as pointers. But you could do math with pointers (increment, decrement, add a fixed value to...) that you usually don't do with references.
i have learned class is a blueprint of structurally identical items, and the items created using class are called instances.
please let me know what are the difference between class, object, instance and attribute in object oriented programming concept. is the object, instance, attribute same?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_(computer_programming)
Typically they are used like so:
class - blueprint for creating object instances; defines properties and methods
object - synonymous with instance usually (sometimes improperly equated with class)
instance - an actual manifestation of a class; the class defines what properties and methods the instance has while the instance holds the values of the object attributes
attribute - typically synonymous with "property" (an object member whose value can be set), but in some dynamic languages this can also include "methods" (an object member which can be called)
Yes, you're definition of a class is correct. You can create multiple objects of the same class. Each object is an instance of the class. The term instance can not only mean the object is an instance of the class, but it can also relate to polymorphism. There is a keyword, in java it is called instanceof. With it, you can not only tell if an object is an instance of the class, but if the object is an instance of a superclass. So, instance, can also be more type-oriented. Attributes are members of the class, like its variables.
Is the following format wrong if I add a pointer to an object of a class, as data attribute of class in Class diagram in UML?
could not find anything about using objects in class diagram, is
underlining the object correct within the class attributes?
I think you may be mis-understanding classes, objects and attributes. Apologies if it's me doing the mis-understanding. So. Here's the short answer:
it's absolutely fine and normal for the type of an attribute to be a Class. In other words, you're not restricted to using primitive types like int, long, char etc.
The consequence is, as you say, that the values of those attributes at run time will themselves be objects. Specifically, instances of the classes Ability, Move and See.
More specifically, each instance of Agent (i.e. each Agent object) will hold references - or more precisely pointers - to 3 other objects: one instance each of Ability, Move and See.
So, assuming that's right, what you have is correct - except for the underlining.
Underlining an attribute or operation says it sits at the class level - not the instance level. It's the equivalent of static in java. Think of declaring constants in class scope, or constructors.
If I understand your model that's not what you want. You want each instance of Agent to hold (a pointer to) its own instances of Ability, Move and See. You don't want all the Agent objects to share the same 3 instances. Assuming so, you don't need the underline.
Hope I understood and that helps.
Why the mapper fields in Lift framework is defined as Objects inside the class? Why not them as vals? When I look at their Wiki page, it says that for some internal reasons of Scala, we are making them as Objects instead of val or var. What is the internal reason or hinderence in Scala?
From The Definitive Guide to Lift, p83:
... fields are defined as objects rather than instance members (vars) [because] MetaMapper needs access to fields for its validation and form functionality; it is more difficult to cleanly define these properties in the MetaMapper if it had to access member vars on each instance since a MetaMapper instance is itself an object.