I'm new to Scala with Java background.
In java when we want to share any field among different objects of class. we declare that field static.
class Car {
static NO_Of_TYRES = 4;
// some implementation.
public int getCarNoOftyres(){
NO_Of_TYRES; // although it's not a good practice to use static without class name
//but we can directly access static member in same class .
}
}
But in Scala we cannot declare static fields in class, we need to use object(companion object) for that.
In scala we will do like this,
class Car {
println(NO_Of_TYRES); // scala doesn't let us do that. gives error
println(Car.NO_Of_TYRES);// this is correct way.
}
object Car {
val NO_Of_TYRES: Int = 4;
}
I'm just curious, how scala treat companion objects?
what different these two key-words (class and object) makes ?
why does scala not letting us access NO_Of_TYRES directly in class?
Companion objects are singleton class instances (and definitions), just to recall singleton in java is more or less:
class Foo {
private Foo() { }
/* boilerplate to prevent cloning */
private static Foo instance = new Foo();
public static Foo getInstance() { return instance; }
public int bar() { return 5; }
}
and then to call method bar of this object:
Foo.getInstance().bar();
Scala removed all this boilerplate and lets you create equivalent thing with just
object Foo {
def bar: Int = 5
}
and to call it you only need
Foo.bar
now what's the difference between 'object' and 'companion object'? It's actually quite simple - companion object (so the object defined in the same file as a class and having the same name) has access to it's related class private fields and methods, and that's probably why scala authors decided that it should reside in the same file - so that references to private fields are in the same file as their declarations (which I think is always the case both in Java and Scala, unless using reflection magic)
I'd like to reference another answer about the same subject: What are the advantages of Scala's companion objects vs static methods?
See also Section 4.3 of Odersky's book Programming in Scala - Chapter 4 - Classes and Objects
Scala treats everything as pure objects with their instances. In this view a java static member is not part of any instance, it lives a separate and different life.
With the tricks of the keyword object and some syntactic sugar, you can achieve the same result but maintaining the stated principle: a single instance of that object is instantiated and a global access point for the instance is provided.
Scala, as you pointed out, cannot have static variables or methods, as known in Java. Instead, there are singleton objects, which are declared with the keyword object. Calling a method in this objects is like calling a static method in Java, except you are calling the method on a singleton object instead.
If this object has the same name of a class or trait, it is called the companion object of the class/trait. A companion object must be defined inside the same source file as the class/trait. A companion object differs from other objects as it has access rights to the related class/trait that other objects do not. In particular it can access methods and fields that are private in the class/trait.
Companion objects provide us with a means to associate functionality with a class without associating it with any instance of that class. They are commonly used to provide additional constructors
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.
Is there a compiler meta for Class declaration, that prevents creating Class instance before extending it? In other words - some sort of opposite of #:final meta.
Like so (last line of code):
class A {
// ...
}
class B extends A {
// ...
}
// ...
var b = new B(); // OK
var a = new A(); // induce compiler-error
Simply don't declare a constructor at all for class A
Both the other answers are correct (no constructor or private constructor), but there are a few more details that you may interest you:
Here's an example of no constructor. Of note is that A simply doesn't have a constructor, and B simply doesn't call super(). Other than that, everything else works as you'd expect.
Here's an example of a private constructor. You still can't instantiate a new A(), but you do still need to call super() from B's constructor.
Technicalities:
Use of some features (like a default value on a member variable) will cause A to get an implicit constructor, automatically. Don't worry, this doesn't affect constructability or whether you need to call super(). But know that it is there, and if necessary an implicit super() call is prepended to B's constructor. See the JS output to verify this.
In any case, know that you can still instantiate an A at runtime with var a = Type.createInstance(A,[]); as compile-time type checks do not limit RTTI.
Related discussion:
Aside from private/no constructor, Haxe doesn't have a formal notion of abstract classes1 (base classes not expected to be instantiated) or abstract methods2 (functions on abstract base classes with no implementation that must be implemented by a derived class.) However, Andy Li wrote a macro for enforcing some of those concepts if you use them. Such a macro can detect violations of these rules and throw compile-time errors.
1. Not to be confused with Haxe abstracts types, which are an entirely different topic.
2. Not to be confused with virtual functions, which wikipedia describes as a function which can be overridden (though various docs for various languages describe this highly loaded term differently.)
One way of achieving this is to create private Class constructor:
class A {
private function new() {
// ...
}
}
// ...
var a = new A(); // Error: Cannot access private constructor
In Java, one of its most common usage is to define a Singleton class. However, since there are no "static" classes in Scala, what are some examples of usages of the Private Constructor?
You can access private constructors in the companion object of a class.
That allows you to create alternative ways of creating a new instance of your class without exposing the internal constructor.
I came up with a very quick example of how one might make use of this:
class Foo private(s: String)
object Foo {
def apply(list: Seq[String]): Foo = {
new Foo(list.mkString(","))
}
}
Now you can create new instances of Foo without the new keyword and without exposing the internal constructor, thereby encapsulating the internal implementation.
This can be especially important, as internal implementations might change in the future while the public facing API should remain backwards compatible
The use cases of the private constructors are mostly the same as in Java: sometimes you need a full control of how the instances of your classes are created. Consider scala.immutable.Vector. Its constructor is rather complicated:
final class Vector[+A] private(val startIndex: Int, val endIndex: Int, focus: Int)
This constructor is a complex implementation detail which is likely to be changed in the future and therefore should not be exposed to users. Instead, you provide simple factory methods which hide all that complexity of creating instances of vectors: Vector.apply(), Vector.tabulate(), Vector.fill(), ...
Suppose MyClass is a class defined in Java, and has many static as well as non-static members. I tried to alias this class (and associated companion object) in a Scala object MyObject as shown below:
object MyObject {
import javastuff._
type MyAlias = MyClass
val MyAlias = MyClass
}
Scalac complains:
error: object MyClass is not a value
val MyAlias = MyClass
How do I work around this? Thanks.
Although this works in pure Scala for a class + companion object, it's not possible with Java's static methods, as these don't belong to any interface.
Scala could, in theory, create an object containing delegates to all the static methods of some class, but it doesn't do this currently. It's also possible to write a compiler plugin for this if you feel comfortable writing plugins.
Failing that, you'll either have to create an object full of delegates yourself, or just cherry-pick a few methods and pass them around as functions.
it's not possible with Java's static methods, as these don't belong to any interface.
Update 5 years later: PR 5131 mentions:
We used to disable generation of static forwarders when a object had a
trait as a companion, as one could not add methods with bodies to an
interface in JVM 6.
The JVM lifted this restriction to support default methods in interfaces,
so we can lift the restriction on static forwarders, too.
Fixes scala-dev issue 59
See commit 41c9a17 by Jason Zaugg (retronym).
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.